Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.

On the military side, have we over-categorized?[edit]

On the military side, I think we've over-categorized.

IMO, we should restrict it to Fighter, Ground attack, Strategic bomber and Support.

The support category would essentially include all military aircraft that are not included in the other categories. This would include transport, trainers, recon, electronic warefare etc. The Category Information Section (CIS) would detail which aircraft served which purpose.

The support category could include sub-categories if there are enough of that type of craft to merit one.

There would also be a higher level category for recon, trainers etc.. This would mean that many aircraft would have several categories (ex. NATION support aircraft (19xx-19xx), NATION recon aircraft, Recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)), but each of them would be substationally more filled out. The would obviously be negated if there are enough in NATION recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)

Ground attack would include tactical bombers and other light aircraft designed to take out specific land-based targets.

Fighter-bombers would be categorized under fighters (again, with the CIS pointing them out) and mentioned in the ground attack category if they were used heavily in that role. The CIS would also indicate which are night fighters, long range escort fighters etc.

We would use the primary role that the aircraft filled as it's basis of categorization, and, in the case of multi-role craft, list it on the CIS of the other categories (ie. The De_Havilland_Mosquito would be categorized as a Strategic bomber, but be mentioned under the Fighter and Support categories.) Oberiko 14:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:CfD discussion[edit]

Many of the 'US aircraft...' (and similar) categories have been put up on WP:CfD to be moved from 'US' to 'U.S.' (See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#US_vs_U.S.) Also, at least a few of us believe that many of these categories are too specific. Some categories only have a single article with little hope of adding more, and users are required to navigate through multiple layers of categories to find the articles. Using the Swiss military trainers as an example (because there are so few), I was able to reassign the 5 articles to two categories each and eliminate 10 categories from the structure without any loss of information. See the result at Category:Swiss military trainer aircraft. This is a much simpler structure with no loss of information. —Mike 06:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Additional Category(s) for Civil Aircraft[edit]

With the passage of the Sport Pilot rules in the US, there should be an additional category of Light Sport Aircraft as they are legally a new category of aircraft.

Also, there should be some kind of reconciliation of LSA in the US vs. Ultralight/Microlight in the rest of the world. Mcneight 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category Overhaul[edit]

I am currently working on a category overhaul. Redundant categories may be nominated for category deletion. The goal of this project is to make it fairly easy to categorise aircraft and be able to go to the WP:AIRCRAFT category page to find what categories are needed for a given article. Any help with this would be appreciated! Thanks. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're overdoing it a bit on the "Airplane Specific" (should be "Airplane-specific"?) categories. For "power sources", are people really interested in tracking — and maintaining — "Multiple engine aircraft" (should be "Multi-engine[d] aircraft"?) and "Single engine aircraft" (should be "Single-engine[d] aircraft"?)? On the other hand, I could see adding "Rocket aircraft" to this list and perhaps "Ramjet aircraft" or eventually "Hypersonic aircraft" should they employ novel propulsion technologies. Similarly, I see little likely interest in the "wing type" categories. If it is to be used, then "High-wing aircraft" and "Low-wing aircraft" need to be supplemented by "Mid-wing aircraft" and perhaps even "Canard-wing-coupled aircraft". If we have a category for "Biplane aircraft", shouldn't there also be one for "Monoplane aircraft" and "Triplane aircraft" — or perhaps the bipes and tripes combined into "Multi-wing aircraft"? I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say. Askari Mark | Talk 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl was working on a revamp at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update, but that seems to have become dormant for a few months. Myself, I think it should all be pared down to the basic: Multi/single engine, jet/prop/turboprop, military/commercial aircraft, and a few other basic divisions. The "by year" categories serve very limited roles and should be dropped. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Those are good points. I think there is a point when it gets to far. I.E, aircraft with 4 engines, aircraft with 6 engines. However, in categorization of airplanes, at least in my opninion and from what I know, there is a major difference between single and multiple engine aircraft. It is really 2 major categories of aircraft. Similar to that of high and low wing. I also would be interested to get others feedback on this. I had not seen much activity on this page recently so i started working on it. I am very willing for more feedback on this though before I continue this. I guess an important question to ask, is how far is too far? At what point is a category of aircraft not realy important enough or even large enough to have its own category. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, yea, the date thing is insane. I copied them to the page and then stepped back and looked at it and realized that it was insane. I think the many many date specific categories should go. When you look at an airplane, you may pay attention to the year but more imporant is the type(single engine, multi engine, high, low wing). If any of these assumotions are wrong, feel free to correct me! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "date" categories were intended to permit tracking and listing aircraft by "eras", based on the year of first flight (or service entry?). There is a huge page tracking these, with aircraft of a given era all listed vertically in the same column: List of aircraft by date and usage category. Askari Mark | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have finalised my proposal and typed up a summary of my proposed changes at Proposed update. Please leave comments. Karl Dickman talk 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how you are debating the restriction of types despite them being a historical reality. Are you proposing rewriting history? Part of the confusion is that most entries are missing explanation of performance specs for aircraft, so it is hard to say what they were. For example most early WW2 British fighters were build as interceptors so were not readily compatible with the US-built long range escort fighters. Also many Soviet tactical fighters were low-altitude dogfighters , but are often compared to high-altitude escorts. Same thing happens to bombers because entries do not explain why a particular aircraft was designated a fighter-bomber, usually because it had excellent short range tactical performance for the given payload. And that is another thing, Armament in the aerocraft specifications infobox means any armament included in the airframe, and not any ordnance carried by the aerocraft. The combat load is called payload and not 'bombs', and they are not a part of armament since the payload can vary significantly. I guess if anything I would like to see the classification expanded to include all the sub-classes of 'fighter' and 'bomber' but with an explanation included to give the reader an idea how the aerocraft was decided to be one. Many variants of the original were often later used or converted to alternative classifications anyway as their performance changed either due to change in requirements or capability of opposition.--Mrg3105 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that The Cape Town Treaty should add towards defining aircraft types since it expressly makes a statement of the calculation of payloads and passengers. Based on this, and the common 'light', 'medium' and 'large' arbitrary divisions, I found that performance very much affects how manufacturers designate their aerocraft in the general aviation, never mind military aviation. Below are some example to what lengths manufacturers go to describe their products just in the light category that is outside the Treaty: Unlimited competition aerobatic aircraft
Single-sit utility
Piston & turboprop powered agricultural aircraft
Biplane agricultural aircraft
Biplane utility transport
1 and two seat aerobatic and training light aircraft
1 and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
1 and two seat competition aerobatic biplanes
Light piston powered utility helicopters
Light turbine powered utility helicopter
Ag spraying and firefighter aircraft
2 and five seat light aircraft
2 and four seat light aircraft
2 or three seat light utility helicopter
2 seat aerobatic capable light aircraft
2 seat aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat agricultural aircraft
2 seat basic and aerobatic trainer
2 seat basic trainer
2 seat basic trainer and aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat biplane light aircraft
2 seat light aircraft
2 seat light aircraft and basic trainer
2 seat pilot training aircraft
2 seat piston engined light helicopter
2 seat primary and aerobatic capable trainer
2 seat sport, utility and agricultural biplane
2 seat trainer and high performance light aircraft
2 seat utility and aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat utility light aircraft
2, three and four place light aircraft
2/four place light helicopter
2/three seat basic trainer
Light twin turboshaft utility helicopter
Light twin engine utility and training helicopter
3 and five seat light helicopters
3 and four seat light aircraft
4 seat light twin
4-5 seat STOL capable light aircraft
Four or six place business, utility & advanced pilot training twin
Four or six place light business twin
Four place piston engined light helicopter
Four seat amphibious light aircraft
four seat High performance jet powered light aircraft
four seat High performance light aircraft
Four seat light aircraft
Four seat light utility aircraft
Four to six place light aircraft
Four to six seat high performance light aircraft
Four to six seat light piston twins
Four to six seat STOL utility light aircraft
Four to six seat utility light aircraft
four/five seat High performance light aircraft
Four/five seat light aircraft
Four/five seat light twin
Four/six place amphibious light aircraft
Five place light utility helicopter
Five place multi purpose light utility helicopter
Six place light twin
Six seat business twin
Six seat corporate and utility transport
Six seat corporate turboprop
Six seat high performance light aircraft
Six seat high performance light twin
Six seat light piston twin
Six seat light twin
Six seat utility light aircraft
six to eight seat pressurised cabin twins
Six to nine seat corporate/utility tiltrotor
Six/eight place cabin twin
Six/eight seat corporate transport and commuter airliner
Six/seven place light twin
Seven place light twin turbine utility helicopter
Seven place utility helicopter
Eight place light utility helicopter
Eight seat commuter airliner and executive transport
Eight seat utility amphibian
Eight seat utility light aircraft
Light twin helicopter
Light twin utility helicopter
Light utility amphibian
Light utility helicopter
Light utility transport
Twin engine light utility helicopters
Light corporate jet
Any attempt to describe any of the above as 'light' aerocraft would immediately misrepresent the manufacturer specification, the work of the design engineers, and the performance characteristics of the vehicle--Mrg3105 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missiles[edit]

Why missiles? How do missiles fall under the Aircraft Wikiproject? Understand my questioning-I am new to Wikiproject Aircraft. But I must know why cruise missiles is listed as a catagory.

I also agree with many members above. In my opinion, the sub categories should be organized in a chronological fashion-beginning from the earliest flying machine available to modern aircraft. ChockStock 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my proposed update to the scheme, I have moved Cruise missiles to Category:Rockets and missiles. In short, this issue will be rectified. Karl Dickman talk 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation equipment category?[edit]

I came across an orphaned aviation-related article, Aviation ground support equipment. Do we need to add a category for such equipment? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triplane aircraft[edit]

Would someone more au fait with creating categories please have a look at "Category:Triplane aircraft"? I'm afraid I just jumped in and (tried to?) create this category, without (a) checking whether this had already been proposed and rejected and (b) asking for help! In its present state is shows the Felixstowe Fury, for which I created it, and one other - so it seems to 'work' - but it still shows up red. Before any more aircraft are added to this category it needs to be right. Help! And thanks in advance. --TraceyR (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually need to go to the new category and save it which I have done for you, whether we need it or not is a different point! It can do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious aircraft[edit]

I suggest that it would be useful to create, under "Seaplanes and flying boats", the subcategory "Amphibious aircraft". There are several amphibious aircraft, some of which are mentioned in the article of the same name, but there is no easy way of finding them and others. A category would provide this route. Pros and cons? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further refinement of the categorization guidelines[edit]

Please join the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Glider_category, which turned into a rather generic issue. - Altenmann >t 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Prop section for Business aircraft[edit]

A Turboprop section should be added tot he business aircraft as the king air, pilatus, piaggio and other notable aircraft are not included as business aircraft and do not sit in the correct categories. any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickh20 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why the Business aircraft categories can not be used for non-jets in fact a quick look at Category:Business aircraft shows a few non-jet aircraft already for example the Grumman Gulfstream I. The reason why it not appropriate for aircraft like the King Air is nothing to do with not being a jet but more to do with the purpose of the original design so it sits in the civil utility category. Very few aircraft are designed as business aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States agricultural aircraft and subcategories[edit]

I was reviewing Category:United States agricultural aircraft and its five subcategories (each one being a decade's worth of aircraft). I all of the subcategories, there are only a total of twenty (20) aircraft listing. I suggest that it would make more sense to delete the subcategories and put those 20 articles in the main category. Feedback? --rogerd (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There probably just aren't enough different types of US ag planes to make having each decade a separate category. Plus most were designed in the 1950s or 1960s alone. I think it was done this way to match the other larger categories. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-categories are all the same for these aircraft categories and are designed to be looked at across decades. One solution would be to have a new Category:Agricultural aircraft category as a global role category and then also put them all in the Category:Foo civil utility aircraft 1950-1959 type cats to retain the decades. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Category:Agricultural aircraft already exists and is also sparsely populated. There just aren't enough ag aircraft to fill up multiple categories. --rogerd (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example is incorrect or out of date[edit]

The "Primary categorisation" section of this article uses "Category:British fighter aircraft 1930-1939" as an example, but the tree shown in the example doesn't match the actual tree as it currently exists. For example the category is (redundantly) under "Category:British aircraft 1930-1939". The example says "Fighter aircraft (as above)", but it's not shown above. Could someone with more knowledge of categories than me take a look at it ? DexDor (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. DexDor (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed/Cancelled/Abandoned[edit]

We appear to projects and unflown aircraft slightly differently the current guideline says Aircraft projects that were cancelled without ever flying are categorised by the year the project was terminated or abandoned (ie, the closest that they got to a first flight.) these are also put in a cancelled or abandoned (not sure of the difference!) categories sometimes. Currently new aircraft that have not flown are being put in a Proposed aircraft of foo cat and are not moved into a dated role cat until they have flown. Should older abandoned/cancelled aircraft be treated the same, that is if they were only programmes or ideas that didnt fly they should not really be in the decade role cats, would it be better to organise the abandoned/cancelled categories better perhaps by decade. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting problem. Do you think we are over categorizing? - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we are getting confused the recent addition of helicopter cats by decade goes against the normal practice which is only the role based cats are decade based. I think we should have a rethink about the whole scheme, something like:
Boeing 747
Dassault Mirage
Sopwith Camel
Boeing 2707

All the hard work would be in the parent cats rather than the articles and it would restrict the many cats in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we can easily use the tool to find out how much use category pages are getting from readers and that the answer is "not much", perhaps we need to greatly simplify the whole aircraft cats that we have. I guess the other thing that the low number of hits tells us is that it may not be a worthwhile use of time to spend a lot of effort on. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed perhaps we should just make sure what we use is accurate, although I still think aircraft that have not flown should not be in the decade categories. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I personally think the more specific the categories the better (and not just becasue I've worked on a lot of them! ;) ), even if they aren't getting much use it's better to be more precise than not precise enough, I'd think. The scheme above does make sense, I'll agree, but some of the "configuration" categories could get a bit silly, while the "type" categories could get huge. In addition, as far as spending time - well, my "writing" muse is still by and large "off", so it's not like it's detracting from anything else, at least in my case...
I will, however, completely agree on the idea that cancelled projects shouldn't be in the by-year type categories.
As for helicopters by decade - I disagree on it going against practice. Basically it mirrors "aircraft" by decade (always done) with (more or less) "rotorcraft" by decade.
My suggestion would be something like this, using, say, an English Electric Lightning as an example:
Using the CH-47 Chinook as an example of a helicopter:
And finally, the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender:
(Note, I'm reluctant to use "Tractor" as part of a category for engine configuration, as it's kinda "default" and might make some people think of a John Deere instead of an airplane!)
Delta wings and such would go under 'Tail/Special' instead of 'Engine and Wing' to avoid strange-sounding category names like the one suggested for the Boeing 2707 up there - just basic "biplane/monoplane" in the 'E/W' section (and no high- or low-wing monoplane please, as the existiance of mid-wing types, and when does a high-wing become a mid-wing become a low-wing could make that rather confusing indeed!). - The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although after re-reading I see I slightly misunderstood Ahunt's last comment, sorry! I agree that it's probably not too much to pull hair out over given the low hits - provided it's accurate - and I'd agree completely on getting non-operational types out of the per-decade categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I made a right hash of the above (and bearing in mind AHunt's comment), perhaps letting sleeping bears lie is the way to go (and to mix metaphors), but if there's no objection I'll go ahead and start removing "Fooian foofighters 1492-1776" categories from aircraft that didn't fly. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections Bushranger - I also do not disagree with some of your observations but perhaps we should just look at them in slow time. As I am the normally the only one who uses the tractor cat then per your comments they can be removed. Perhaps single engine etc should come under tractor aircraft parent and those under pusher should be single engine pusher etc. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled aircraft - by decade ?[edit]

WP:AIR/C#Era currently says "Aircraft projects that were cancelled without ever flying are categorised by the year the project was terminated or abandoned (ie, the closest that they got to a first flight.)". The discussion above and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Role_cats (July 2013) indicate that some editors think this should be changed (perhaps replaced by a reference to Category:Cancelled aircraft projects). On the other hand, it would make for a somewhat simpler category system if we instead deleted (listified?) the cancelled/abandoned categories and kept #Era as it has been since 2004. Also the current cancelled/abandoned categories blur the line between articles about aircraft types and articles about projects/programs (e.g. the articles under Category:Military aircraft procurement programs). DexDor (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft procurement programs cat should be for projects like FSTA (British Tanker aircraft) or JPATS (American trainer) not for the actually aircraft. Have you an example of what you think the cancelled/abandoned category system would look like ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to delete the whole Category:Cancelled aircraft projects tree - having ensured that each article currently in it is categorized under either a normal country-type-decade cat (for articles such as BAC TSR-2), a procurement programs cat (for articles such as Amerika Bomber) or both. I.e. cut down from 3 category trees (projects/aircraft/programs) to 2 category trees (aircraft/programs). Alternatively, WP:AIR/C#Secondary_categorisation should be changed to refer to Category:Cancelled aircraft projects. DexDor (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK that might work, but I dont think we should use the Foo aircraft 19XX-19XX decade categories for aircraft that didnt actually fly. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it makes sense to categorize a type like AD Scout alongside similar aircraft (i.e. in Category:British fighter aircraft 1910–1919). From my sampling it looks like most abandoned types are already in such a category. However, if the consensus is not to categorize like that then WP:AIR/C#Era should be changed (and the cancelled/abandoned categories kept). DexDor (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military aircraft of World War II[edit]

There's a discussion at Category_talk:Military_aircraft_of_World_War_II#Proposal_to_tighten_up_inclusion_criteria. DexDor (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at CFD about categorization by role[edit]

Several categories containing articles about aircraft types (categories not currently mentioned in WP:AIR/C) are under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories&oldid=1139695348"