Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by GraemeLeggett in topic Child articles
Archive 1Archive 2

Standard naming convention

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Can we get one set of rules for naming articles. Right now if its American you have Designation then Name, if its British it Manufacture then name, if its Japanese its manufacture then designation, if its Russian, German or anything else its fair game.

As a new person on this list this is much too confusing.

Proposal

Primary Manufacture, Official Designation, common name as known in country of origin, (Alternative names).

Limiting alternative names to three

Examples

  • North American P-51 Mustang (Apache, Invader)
  • Mitsubishi A6M Reisen (Zero, Hap, Hamp)
  • Messerschmitt 8-109 (Bf109, Me109) source: WWII german aircraft designations
  • Messerschmitt Me262 (Schwalbe, Sturmvogel)
  • Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
  • Sukhoi Su-27 Sotka (Flanker)
  • McDonnel Douglas F-4 (F4H, Phantom II)
  • Cessna C-172 Skyhawk
  • Douglas DC-9 (McDonnell Douglas MD-80, Boeing 717)

Summary

While some names can be confusing, downright silly, or not used by the public / but are the official name, but in the context of historical accuracy (as well as being able to find it under the search engine) need to correctly identify the aircraft.


For Japanese & Chines languages (and other similar languages) using English version of these words.

References

Closing

If a majority of the aviation community is willing to accept this proposal, I am willing to work on this project.Davegnz 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the current proposal. The naming convetions are too confusing. Limiting to 3 alternate names? That is just too much information for a title here on this project. I think the current naming conventions work well personally. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree, the current naming convention is well though through. (In the above mentioned examples the German birds are also incorrect, there is a space between the prefix and the number) --MoRsE 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - The current standards aren't that confusing if one takes the time to simply study them for a brief period. The new proposed names would be much too long. In addtition, changing several Japanese aircraft articles to these standards BEFORE any consensus is reached is a complete disregard of existing Wiki policies and guidelines, and makes the reasons for your RFA against two WP:AIR editors seem laughable in comparison. Before filing arbitration against others, please be suure you follow the rules yourself. - BillCJ 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per BillCJ. MilborneOne 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Bill before you open you big mouth and belittle a new editor got a suggestion for you to try - type in the word warthog in the search engine - you not get any direction towards the A-10 (can suggest other aircraft as well) - Does this type of article title really help soneone that does not know the Warthog is either called the A-10 or thunderbolt II - As far as guidelines again I am new but I have been envolved in WWII aviation research restoration since 1975 - so I know how the Warbird industry / Historians thinks.Davegnz 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, you must not be looking very hard. I did as you suggested, and typed in Warthog. If you click "go" you get the article Warthog which has a dab statement at the top linking to the aircraft page. If you hit search, the aircraft is the 15th item down, still on the first page. So, a user using this search term can find the article. And lastly, please refrain from comments on Bill's mouth size. Only his dentist is allowed to do that. AKRadecki 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - The exisiting guideline is more than sufficient. Nothing is gained in usability by the proposal. Further, as far as I can see, Dave hasn't even attempted to provide a compelling reason for this, and to conform the thousands of existing articles to this new standard would be so much work, that without a really strong, compelling reason, it would be an utter waste of time that could better be used to write the numerous articles waiting to be created. And, as an aside, it is completely inappropriate for Dave to write "Bill before you open your big mouth"...that kind of attack helps nothing. And, I'm a bit tired of this "I'm a new editor" line, trying to invoke WP:BITE. You're not that new, you've had the policy and guidelines of both Wikipedia in general and the Aircraft Project in particular explained to you in detail. It's not that you're so new that you don't understand them, it's that you simply disagree with them, which is your priviledge to do, but don't hide behind your newness. AKRadecki 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree - current conventions are working well, are largely consistent and predictable, and the use of redirects catches any lingering problems. Besides of which, Wikipedia articles do not contain alternate names - that's what redirects are for. Finally, Davegnz has grossly misrepresented the current situation; he specifically cites Russian and German naming conventions as chaotic, when these are actually two of the neatest and most consistent naming schemes that we have. The general principle "Manufacturer, followed by either Number or Name whichever seems to be more common" is really not exactly rocket science... --Rlandmann 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer in subject names of US military craft

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following discussion at WT:Air, and consistent with conventions at WP:LS, a consensus emerged to include the manufacturer name in the subject name (thought still not the title) for articles on US military craft. Therefore, I am adding text reflecting such. ENeville (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to naming of US military aircraft

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion is here --Rlandmann (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce naming conflicts

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions#Proposal to reduce naming conflicts - avoid preemptive disambiguation which would have a direct impact on this guideline. --PBS (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention proposal 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago98 comments12 people in discussion

First draft

Following recent discussion at WP:AIRCRAFT and previous suggestions from Rlandmann and BilCat please find below a proposed set of words for consideration:

The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format manufacturer-designation-name for example Morane-Saulnier MS.755 Fleuret. In some cases the type may not have a designation or name or would not make sense to meet the common name criteria.

  • Manufacturer: This should be the main designer and manufacturer of the type. If the type has been produced by different companies or different company names then consensus should be reached on a case by case basis on which to use. Example include Supermarine Spitfire rather than Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire although either is correct the former is used by consensus. Be wary of using non-contempary names like Boeing DC-3 or British Aerospace Spitfire.
  • Designation: This should be either the manufacturers designation or the military designation if more common like Boeing E-3 Sentry. If an aircraft has multiple designations then use the most common or none if this would cause confusion.
  • Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 not Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed). If the type has multiple names then either use the most common or none if this would cause confusion.
  • Exceptions: Any guideline can have exceptions as some aircraft are so well known that it makes more sense to break the usual rules. In theory, the Anglo-French supersonic airliner should be the Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde, but it is so well known as just Concorde that it is better to use the common name.
  • Redirect: Whatever format is agreed or used for an article then consideration should be given to create redirects from other variation of the name.
  • Renaming: Consideration to these guideline should be taken when proposing renaming an article or the name of the article is disputed. Consideration should be given to renaming current articles when needed but With over 13000 aircraft articles they should not be renamed en masse without agreement from other editors.

Just a first draft but I would welcome any thoughts or comments or even agreement! MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

So F-104 Starfighter would become Lockheed F-104 Starfighter? This to me is how it should be. Will it cause problems moving over established redirects? I think that is an admin job. Would we apply this to British aircraft, de Havilland Tiger Moth to de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth (with a dot!)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As there is an earlier Tiger Moth, perhaps the question should be - do we use Avro Type 698 Vulcan? I do hope not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Which is currently (correctly?) titled de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth showing that there is inconsistency in the de Havilland aircraft naming at least. I agree that the Vulcan should not have the type number, that would be covered by Milb's fourth point on exceptions. These two examples (which are different in format, one with a type number and one without) would be sticking to the wiki-wide most common name principal. The problem comes when editors can't agree what the common name is, even supporting very uncommon names on occasion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Category:De Havilland aircraft we can see that many are not using the DH number, I think the Pipers are similar, some with manufacturer and name and some with manufacturer and type number and possibly some with manufacturer, type number and name! Once the naming consensus has been agreed then it might be useful to add a 'manufacturer's naming guideline' somewhere, not sure where exactly though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I Support this proposal. As for the devilish details...regarding type numbers, some companies (Vickers, Supermarine, Avro, etc.) don't have their numbers in common useage when there's also a name attached to a type. However, companies such as de Havilland, Cessna, and Piper tend to have the numbers in common useage, either independantly ("Piper PA-28") or with the name ("PA-28 Cherokee"). The fly would be if multiple model numbers are attached to the same common name. In the case of Air Force designations at least, the 'principle one' would likely apply (i.e., Lockheed F-5 Lightning would redirect to Lockheed P-38 Lightning), but with manufacturers attaching multiple model numbers to the same "name", that would likely need a case-by-case consideration. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The Pipers often have several names for the same model number, and sometimes several model numbers for the same name. In a few cses, both! As BR suggests, take thes on a case by case basis; in most cases, those articles are problably already at the best titles. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support!!! - Thanks Michael for putting this together; I'm still suffering from bronchitis, so I wans't able to spend time on it yet.
I think we should focus on the US military aircraft (and applicable Canadian Forces aircraft) in the sshort term. Many of the other aricraft are already at their best titles, so we don't need to focus on them in the near term. (I concur that in Most cases the Britishaircraft don't need their Type modle numbers if there is a name already.) Many of the newer non-US mil aircraft articles already use the Manufacturer/designation/name (m-d-n) format anyway, which is good. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not intent that the guideline to be used to move common name articles like Avro Vulcan to Avro Type 698 Vulcan but agree that we have to use a bit of common sense. It is not designed to be a bulldozer to the current articles hence the en masse comment, but as bill has said we can agree areas that need to be looked at first like us mil and it would be easy to apply the guideline to new articles and when we have move discussions. I also like nimbus idea that we may need to have a manufacturers naming convention added to the guideline as we move forward for example some of the French companies use both m-d-n and m-n styles in the same numbering sequence and then use different designation styles like D.H.99 DH.99 DH-99 etc. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Concur on all points. As to the Tiger Moth specifically, de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth (dot issue aside) is probably the best location, as the designation is fairly common. Focusing on the US/Can military aircraft would be the best step.
If accepted, and there's been no real objections so far in this round, I'd recomend making a master list of all US and Canadian mil aircraft using the d-n format, with a suggested m-d-n title. We give it a week or two, and if someone object to the suggested name, they just add "object" to the line. At the end of the week, we move all the enrties without objections, and mark them as "moved". Those that have to be moved by an admin can be marked as such; depending on how many that is, we could use {{db-move}} tags to help relieve the load of our lone active admin :) (We do have some others available from Milhist who may help out.) The entries marked as "object" would be dealt with on each article's talk page, though if there are some with similar issues, such as manufacturer name choices (Chance Vought vs. Vought vs. LTV, for example), they can be dealt with together. It wil obvioulsy take awhile to do all the US/CF mil titles, but that's fine. I think we just emphasise that the new convention is being grandfathered in. Any other thoughts on implemetation issues we might want to mention now? - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I support this proposal as well (did not make it quite clear earlier). There will be many redirects in articles that link to a changed name type, not a problem as they can be fixed over time (or fixed at the time of move). We could try a trial using only one manufacturer initially to see if there are any glitches. On workload we could share out manufacturers to editors who volunteer to perform the moves. Might also be useful to have a new project page dedicated to this fairly major change or we can carry on using this one. As it is potentially a fairly major change it should be publicised to allow editors to object, perhaps using the 'Aviation announcements' template, then go for it!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added a link to this discussion in the announcement template, the nearest thing we have to a newsletter. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've also dropped a note on the Military Aviation Task Force's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I support' this proposal! I've been quiet again here as work has been very busy, but a big thanks to BilCat for alerting me to it. This proposal ends years of "one rule for US military aircraft, one rule for everything else" insanity! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I support this as well. Time to get rid of the US Military exemption! -SidewinderX (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RL! It was your previous efforts that helped me decide it was time to try again. The rest of us are just ready to support it now. I wouldn't go so far as to call the seperate styles for the US mil types "insanity"; it's just that WPAIR chose to present only 2 components in the titles. Per the Common name guidelines, d-n worked best for US mil aircraft, while m-d or m-n worked best for most other types. We're just technically able and volitionally ready to use 3 components in the title now, and in fact already do in many article. M-d-n is also what most publications use.

I think Gary's idea of a separate page can be combined with mine for having a "master list" of US mil aircraft. Some of the "List of US Military aircraft articles can probably be copied and combined to produce the main list.

We're at the point that a formal proposal can be considered now. I think we're all happy with most of the points above, so we can restate them below with any changes, and solicit a formal consensus. We should post a notice on WPAVIATION now, and also consider posting at MILHIST and WPSHIPS to gain a broader consensus. However, many of the editors at those last 2 projects may not be aware of our current guidelines, and might want to go off in different directions. (See Talk:A6M Zero#Rename for an example of what I mean.) Hopefully, there won't be any major issues, and we can go forward with this soon! - BilCat (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I am in favour of using m-d-n for US miltary aircraft (it has always struck me as odd that WP does not use this format), but there will be a couple of cans of worms that will be opened IMO - for instance I will never think of the F/A-18 as being a Boeing product in any of its guises, nor do I think of the F-16 as a Lockheed Martin aircraft. The Pipers have already been mentioned, e.g. PA-30/-39 Twin Comanche, PA-23 Apache and Aztec. There will be lots of exceptions to any 'rules' that are decided on; be that as it may, consensus will rule the day ;-). At least it should provide a clear-cut reason to undo such things as the move of Schweizer 300 to Sikorsky S-300. YSSYguy (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In most cases, copying the manufacturer already used in the Lead's title line will be the one we use in the article title. The F/A-18 Hornet' Lead setnece is "The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet is a...". Yhat is best because the bulk of production occured under McDD, not Boeing. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was mainly produced under Boeing, and that is what is in the title line. Gor the F-16 Fighting Falcon, it states "The Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon is a...",and I also agree with this choice. WHile the F-16 was designed and initially produced beginning in the mid-1970s, is has been produced by Lockeed since 1994 (LM from 1995). Also, Lockheed purchased DD's Fort WOrth Division, which made the F-16, while GD itself continues to exist. WHile a minor point, I do think it lends some wright to the LM argument. As to the S-300, the existing guidelines generally give preference to the main company under which production occured and/or the most well-known one. I don't think wel change that, though it could be made clear. ANyway, the best thing to do is propose a move back to Schweizer 300, and if it passes, we'll have the consensus to keep it there. - BilCat (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the Hornet: The F/A-18 (as in, A through D), should probably be McDonnell Douglas, while the Super Bug and Growler would be titled Boeing. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought Northrop did most of the design work / initial flight testing on the F-17 - F/A-18 with the understanding that they would get the Air Force contract (as the F-17) and the McDonnell Douglas would get the USN / USMC contract (as thee F/A-18), only to get screwed by the government and everyone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.6.230 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

While we have a clear consensus among the editors who have particlipated, it is still only a small group of editors who have participated. Therefore, I'd like to implement the suggestion that we do a trial run using a few maunufacturers. This would give some publicity to the proposed changes, and allow us to see if there are any major objecotrs out there.

Lockheed would be a good choice, because they have produced a variaty of aircraft types and roles over a long period of time. In addition, the only major name change occured in 1995 with the Martin merger. There are only a few aircraft produced in that period, so it would give us a few test cases on which manufacturer should be listed, but not too many! Also, we already use the m-d-n style for the Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior and its relatives, so in a sense they were already a test case.

Any other suggestions for manufacturers to use for a trial run? - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How about North American and Rockwell? I don't think there are any clear cases of "either/or" with the name change, so it would make sense. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a good one. There may be some minor projects in the late 60s/early 70s that camme in the "North American Rockwell" transition period, but I'm not certian. The B-1 did begin under NAR, but by the time it first flew, c. 1974, the company was "Rockwell International". Rockwell B-1 Lancer should be fine. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Believe that's correct. The production B-1Bs were done under Rockwell for sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
North American may be a good start as they are mainly mil. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hopefully we won't have anyone trying to move the them to "United States", such as United States P-51 Mustang! (It has happened in the title line before, which is why I sometiems use "North AMerican AViation", but that's too long for the article name. So we agree on Lockheed and North American/Rockwell to start? Bell Aircraft and Bell Helicopter should be fairly straightforward too, as long as we agree on simply using "Bell" in the title. While Bell and Lockeed have many civilian types, they both have a large amount of mil types, which is the focus of our initial efforts here. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Trial runs

Looks a lot better, should we move the child articles as well, like P-51 variants to North American P-51 variants? MilborneOne (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably, assuming we keep that article, which I'm not certain that we should. It's quite putrid-looking as it is, and really doesn't have that much info, thought it certinly could be expanded along the lines of some of the other Variant articles.
Do we want to wait a few days before trying to move the Lockheed pages? Or do we want to finish the major redirects for North American first, to see if there are any problems yet to be encountered? In general, as long as the redirects work, they can be changed anytime; the only place it really matters is in the navboxes, so the links will be blacked/bolded when thaey are on that page. - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree it is the navboxes that are important although it is keeping the double re-direct bots busy. Not heard any screams of anguish yet from the community, still like to adopt the proposal officially and change the naming convention page before we move to far. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree it needs to be official before we go too far, but the trials are intended to catch the anguish early, if it will happen. :) After we do Lockheed and Bell, we could Douglas/McDonnell/McDonnell Douglas (and Boing in the case of the F-18E/F/Gs); that should provide enough opportunity for some discussions on where to move some of the titles, esp, the F-4 and A-4. That should gives a a good idea if there will be any objections to the proposed guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it is going well. It involves more work but is it worth adding a 'by name' group in all the navboxes while we are are at it, similar to {{Republic aircraft}}? I guess that some of the US types are better known by their names than number designations. There is only one name in the North American navbox at the moment, the Sabreliner. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That is if they have a name of course. I tried 'Bronco' in the WP search box, it found it but it was the 18th hit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(shuffle left) Seems reasonable to add names to company boxes. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) On the variants question I think that the title should be matched to the related main article for consistency as a principle to be applied to all variant articles, so the one mentioned above should be North American P-51 Mustang variants (no matter what problems an individual article might have, they can be fixed or even deleted in time if they are very poor quality). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Lockheed/Lockheed Martin - I'm now starting on the Lockheed and LM aircraft articles, though I pronbly won't finish them tonight (Sat./early Sun.) I did the F-22 and F-35 first, and that may well get the new proposals some attention! I've used Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor tather than Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor - even though Boeing is a full partner on the project, leaving it out keeps the name shorter, and LM is generally the only manuf listed in most source, at least in passing. I'm leaving the F-16 out for now, as it could got to either GD, LM, or GD/LM (my preference is GD, as GD/LM is too long, when spelled out.) - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I like GD for the F-16 IMO... I "grew up" with the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon... just my 2 cents. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Michael, thanks for continuing the Lockheed series moves. I had computer problems last night, so I wasn't able to do that many. On Canadian aircraft using d-n style titles, yes, I'd move them to m-d-m also. The d-m style for CF aircraft wasn't always accepted anyway, so using m-d-n where possible shouldn't be a problems. As to the US missile series, such as the ADM-60, I wouldn't move them for now - it's a bit unclear who actually has "jusrisdiction" over the missile titles, WPAIR, WPROCKET, or MILHIST, and overall, missile article titles are somewaht inconsistent. "Name (missile)" is used on many US misslies. Most of the US missiles in the 1962 series (AIM-9, AGM-114, etc.) just use d-n. I think we should leave them for a later discussion.
On the F-16, we should probably hols a formal page move discussion on its talk page, either now, or after the proposals are accepted. WHatever name is chosen for the F-16, it needs to have a clear concensus if possible. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of missiles, U.S. missiles should all be at d-n page names, although you're right, that is another can o' worms. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
On moving pages to existing redirects: I've been able to move these as long as there is only one entry in the history. It should work for most other users also. Those with multiple entries will still need an admin. I can tag these with {{db-move}} headers if Michael is unable to do them if he is busy or offline, as he's are only current WPAIR admin right now (thought there are several in MILHIST that are available when needed for other issues.) - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed

Following have not yet been moved (please remove when done or mark if you have any objection to the proposed name: MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have moved some, concur that the F-16 should be General Dynamics, the original manufacturer and I would say the most common name for it. I did notice some variants of the P-2 and P-3 in the Lockheed navbox that do not have their own articles, probably should trim them out especially if we are going to add a 'by name' group which will make the box larger. No problems with the moves that I could see. I have amended the navbox links of the articles that I moved so that they highlight correctly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The C-130 range look like they should all be 'Lockheed' except the C130J which has been moved already to LM. A dedicated navbox for the C-130 would not go amiss as there are something like 10 related variant articles on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems like a good idea for a C-130 navbox, should we change the HC/LC/MC to add the name Hercules on the end (as above) so they are all the same format. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Th MC-130 series actually has several assigned names, such as MC-130E Combat Talon I, MC-130H Combat Talon II, MC-130W Combat Spear, and MC-130P Combat Shadow. I'd keep it as is. Btw, the Lockheed MC-130 is an organizational mess. I had tride to keep an eye on the article, but a user bent on doing it his own way finally wore me out, and I gave up. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont think they are real names just codewords assigned to each project officially they are all Hercules. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard ECs and MCs called "Hercules", they're always the 'code' names. AC-130s could go either way but usally seem to be called by the the Spooky/Spectre naming convention - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC)I did wonder about the C-130 range, I thought the L-100 was just called that (not Hercules) and that US use was C-130 and Brit use was Hercules, too many stones to turn there for the moment!! Best move on. One fairly important thing I noticed is category piping, we are changing the names and not necessarily the category sort key. There are a lot of 'L's in Category:Lockheed aircraft!! We need to decide on the sort key (designation or name) for consistency, maybe the designation is best for this problem (designation for mil types, name for civil types?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Normally for company cats the company name is not used and the designation or name is piped, as you say otherwise they all end up at "L"! Dont see a problem with the designation in the sort key. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will whip through some now and fix the sort keys, it makes sense to use the designator instead of the name for the military types as they will get categorised together, C for Cargo etc. This trial is very useful for discovering this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the category looks more organised now. I just checked the Starfighter interwiki link to make sure it is ok, interesting that the Germans have it at 'Lockheed F-104' where we had it at 'F-104 Starfighter', I wonder if the other language wiki editors will notice what we are doing?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the other language F-104 links a fair percentage (maybe 40%) are already at manufacturer, designation, name. They must have 'seen the light' before we did! Going well so far I think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I was bold and added a little note to the Lockheed category [1], hope it's not too draconian! If this works we can use it for the other manufacturers, must be getting near to the end of the Lockheeds (apart from the C-130s!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created Template:Lockheed Hercules per nimbus suggestion and agree we should probably leave the DC/LC articles as is. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What next?

To this point, we've had no objections to the new proposals or the moving of articles, which is more than I had hoped for. I'm unclear as to what more needs to happen the proposed guideliens official. Do we have enough of a consensus to just change the change guidelines now? Or should we keep on moving the article one manufacturer at a time? I honestly don't know waht were supposed to do next. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rewrite the guidelines in a sandbox somewhere (or even do it on this page), fixing anything else that might need changing while we are at it (de Havilland numbers and dots?!!). We have no guideline on missiles as mentioned above, our aircraft article defines a missile as a craft not being supported by air which is logical. The two Lockheed types that I moved and you reverted are strictly both aircraft, one reconnaissance drone and one target drone, I was following the apparent convention set by the Lockheed D-21 reconnaissance drone when I moved them. We could say that 'conventional' missiles are not in our remit but winged cruise missiles, drones and UAVs are and should be treated the same as other aircraft. I would support the AIM-7 Sparrow becoming the Raytheon AIM-7 Sparrow but the missileers might have other thoughts on why their naming convention should be different to the aircraft project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Gary, my apologies on reverting the missile-designation moves without talking to you first about it, but I felt you would understand. - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As we have had no objections I have updated the guideline as per the proposal, we can discuss what other notes are needed (like DH) on this page. We need to think about missiles but that doesnt change the guideline only if it does or does not cover missiles. Next step:
  • Propose a new manufacturer to review on this page
  • If we are happy to do that company we can proceed and the easy ones can be moved
  • List anything (as per Lockheed) that would be a problem or needs further discussion or is likely to be forgot, some may need article talk page discussion.
  • Update relevant nav boxes, we dont need to worry about links straight away as they will be redirected and the double redirect bots will help.
  • Suggest another company to do!

Any suggestions of what to look at next? (or think we could do it differently) MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines look good to me, I just applied some minor grammar tweaks. Perhaps McDonnell and McDonnell Douglas would be another useful group to go through. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far. We'll need to add the Douglases in soon, as some were also produced by McDD, and well have to decide on those too. The main one will be the A-4 Skyhawk. I'd go with Douglas for that one. I'm current;y working on an article for the A-4M Skyhawk II variants, which include the A-N, KU, and BRs. These will be under McDD. We can also look for other examples where a major variant/derivitive was produced under a different name, and consider splitting those off if warranted. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After McDonnell Douglas, I'd recommend trying the Canadian companies Avro Canada and Canadair. I believe we've agree the m-d-n format should apply to the CF designated aircraft, and in somcases they already are, or were. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas

OK see what we have:

Moved (without the bat!) MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the XF-85 did not get moved? I don't want to get reverted again!! I notice on Commons that we have a McDonnell Douglas category but not McDonnell, I think that there should be one. Perhaps we should all spend a day (week?) on Commons sorting the aircraft categories out!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because I wanted to double-check if the name "Goblin" was official. I looked in the book I mentioned above, which is based on extensive research in USAF archives, and it is listed as the official name. Thanks for the reminder! - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Aha! A good name for it. No worries. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
McDonnell at the time sure liked their spooooooooky names, didn't they? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Break

I just found the McDonnell 119, I can't put it in any current navbox as one is for military aircraft and the other is for McDD airliners (not McDonnell). Would it make sense to simply separate these boxes into McD and McDD aircraft? I know this is straying from what we are doing here but it doesn't hurt to rationalise while we are going through the articles. Category piping is the same as Lockheed BTW. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article states it was originally designed for the USAF's UTX/UCX (Utility-Trainer Experimental/Utility-Cargo Experimental) competition, so I think that would qualify it for the mil box under transports. Also, there is a Template:Douglas aircraft navbox that covers only the Dougls mil aircraft. I think putting the airliners in one box is the best way to go, since they are generally associated together. So I also see no problem sticking it into the McDD airliner box. However, Gary, your suggestion is not a bad one, and if the consensus here supports it, I'd have no problem with it. - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just seems a bit of extra complication to separate military and civil types, it's the first time that I've noticed it. I don't think that there are any British or European manufacturers separated like this. The majority of our navboxes are titled 'Foo aircraft' or 'Aircraft produced by Foo' implying that you will find all aircraft made or designed by Foo in this box. They don't even have a 'see also' link to the other box, how is my 13 year old son supposed to find it!! While I am having a mini-rant on navboxes surely any aircraft type designated 'XF' etc is 'X'perimental and should be in the Experimental group and not under 'Fighters'? Most of them didn't get to having any guns fitted. Anyway, where are we?!! Have not seen any complaints at all so far on the renaming, I suggest that it is safe to continue (trial over?) and work alphabetically through the remainder of the US manufacturers, perhaps using Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the United States and its sub-categories. Any problem aircraft or uncertainty can be brought here for discussion/help otherwise I would hope that the experienced editors here can be trusted to use their best judgement, if all else fails the renaming can be reverted but it's best to avoid that if possible. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Category:United States military aircraft might be a better one to go through because that is where all the article named designation, name should be with any luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we are going to need a lot of assistance with this looking at the number of articles involved. If and when we are happy (I think that we are) we should publicise the effort at WT:AIR and possibly the aviation project general talk page. It might run the risk of some mistakes being made but if only a handful of editors are doing this then it will take a very long time, not that there is a deadline but there is other stuff to do. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Another suggestion, we could use a shortened version of this list created in a project sub-page and add   Done ticks next to each entry as we go through. A master list was suggested earlier. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Somebody has been busy, thanks guys. I think the idea of the master list is a good one and we can see how we are progressing. Not against publicity as the guideline is now live but I am concerned that if we dont take care with the moves we might make mistakes. Most of the moves should not be an issue but I am concerned that being bold with some of the problem articles may ruffle some feathers if we dont discuss it first, I think we just need to make it clear that if in doubt dont move but discuss. May be worth marking any problems on the master list. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside on the comment about XF/YF in navboxes, again it is just a pecularity in our system that we named articles XF or YF if they did not end up using just the F designation. The X and and Y are still only role-modifiers so we should be able just to list them with all the others Fs, no need to have a seperate section as they are not true experimental as far as the designation system is concerned. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If in doubt don't move but discuss, exactly. I will create the master list then, we could use the talk page to discuss the uncertain ones instead of this page as the actual naming convention guidelines seem to be settled now. On the XFs etc many of them were purely experimental, only two Lockheed XF-104 aircraft were built for example and they were quite different to the production 104 (the 'YF-104' was not), only one had a gun fitted and it was only used for trials. Take your point that there were other 'XF' types that were not much different to the production versions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)/2010 article renaming checklist and its associated talkpage, I don't know if it might be worth copying posts from this page into there. I removed some images, not needed, nor are the cites really. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Great work by many! That list is actually quite a mess with lots of duplication, one of the lists that we don't visit very often I suspect. I started using the talk page there to centralise the 'nitty-gritty' of the process. I saw one question from a user on Bill's talk page on the renaming which was replied to and explained very well but otherwise nobody has noticed, was it really due to a software limitation?!!
I suggested at the check list talk page that we remove any green ticked articles (a second independent set of eyes should do this). We should also remove any duplicated entries, all in the aim of shortening the list (which is currently at 94 kb) to see what is left to do. I am struggling to edit the tabled articles (a sea of code!), are they duplicated? I assume that we will apply the new guidelines to the early aircraft, probably not so important but we should for consistency. It took us about 18 months to go from 'sequence' in the 'See also' sections to navboxes, a great improvement, this to me is another 'giant leap for mankind' (sorry Neil!!). Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The tables aren't duplicated. That's my project actually on the original list - I'm trying to get the entire List of military aircraft of the United States into table format. I got derailed partway though by working on getting the Pulqui II article to GA though and haven't gotten my mojo back to resume the work on that list. I really should though. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, List of military aircraft of the United States (naval) has a bunch of types that will need converting too - those that were redesignated in '62 to the MDS system (thank you, Strange) will already be in the to-do list, but as for the rest... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Progress

Just like to thank everybody involved in this change, I know we still have a way to go but working as a team we have moved a fair number already in a couple of days. Just shows what can be done with some good support. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of articles now have redirects from this mass renaming efforts, which I have set to show up as green links. Some articles have a forest of green links now! Does anyone think there is merit in asking Wikipedia:Bot requests to send a bot to comb through the list and fix mainspace redirects? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Including the manufacturer name is often ridiculous

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

"Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21". MiG Stands for Mikoyan-Gurevich, so now this plane is titled the "Mikoyan Gurevich Mikoyan Gurevich 21". Russian military planes using a designation like this should not have the manufacturer's name in the title. We wouldn't call the Spitfire the "Supermarine Supermarine Spitfire" after all. I actually disagree with the whole proposal to include manufacturer's name in the title per WP:COMMONNAME, but as there's consensus I won't object for now. But Russian fighter names in particular are now ridiculous.--Patton123 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MiG, Su, Tu, Il, MD, etc are just part of the aircraft designation or model number. No need to overanalyze it. The recent change was to use manufacturer-designation-name system for US mil aircraft. Soviet/Russian and other nations' have used this system for some time. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The firearms wikiproject wanted to do something similar to this, for example "Benelli M4 Super 90". They also wanted to do with the Dragunov sniper rifle, which is called the SVD. SVD stands for Dragunov sniper rifle in Russian, so what they were calling it was "Dragunov Dragunov sniper rifle". Of coruse they were sensible enough to just translate it into English to avoid any repitition. That's exactly what's happening here, except this is even mroe obvious because no translation is required.--Patton123 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont think that the recent change in the guideline has any effect on soviet/russian military article they have been in the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 format for a long time. As far as i am aware the MiG-21 is the military designation of the type so Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 is correct as manufacturer-designation. I dont think it is or has ever been refered to as the Mikoyan-Gurevich Model 21 or Mikoyan-Gurevich Type 21 or Mikoyan-Gurevich 21 in English. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
de Havilland DH.88 is a long accepted name, though equally tautological. And the de Havilland DH 108 among others. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep the long name with a re-direct from the shortened designation. Triage685 10:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Titles for aircraft which have changed manufacturer names

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

There is currently a long discussion at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle#Rename to Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle regarding the maunufacturer listed in the aricle's title. WHile we have no guideliens for which manufactuer should be listed first in cases where another company has taken over production, we generally give prefernce to the manufacturer that designed the aircraft and produced a sizeable amount of the production run, even if it's not the majortiy produced. Do we need to craft some specific guidelines for this isssue? It seems to be an issue especially for aircraft in current production, such as the F-15E and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, currently being produced by Lockheed Martin.

A solution used in some proint sources is to list the aircraft under the current manufactuer, with the previous company in parentheses/brackets. Aexamples would be Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F-15E Strike Eagle, Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics) F-16 Fighting Falcon, etc. This would make the article titles quite long in many cases. Is this a solution we want to at least consider? (Note: I don't know if there is a limit on title length for WP articles.) - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I originally raised this issue on the F-15E page. I believe that the name used should be the name of the current manufacturer, so Boeing (which has manufactured the F-15E since 1 August 1997) and Lockheed Martin (which has manufactured the F-16 since 1993/1995) would appear in the respective titles with redirects from the original designer-manufacturer. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The standard here does give some useful guidance in that its says "Manufacturer: This should be the main designer and manufacturer of the type. If the type has been produced by different companies or different company names then consensus should be reached on a case by case basis on which to use. Example include Supermarine Spitfire rather than Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire although either is correct the former is used by consensus. Be wary of using non-contemporary names like Boeing DC-3 or British Aerospace Spitfire.". The policy is at WP:COMMONNAME which says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." It looks to me like you have to gain consensus on the article talk page based on these factors. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I have read that thanks. The situation of a merger is rather different from one where an aircraft was manufactured by various different manufacturers in wartime as was the case for the Spitfire and other aircraft. All reputable sources post the Boeing-McDD merger refer to the aircraft that remained in production as Boeing products [2]. A newbie reading a news article like this one [3] will expect to see the Boeing F-15E page and not the McDD F-15E page. Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Minor point with regard to Spitfire - Supermarine to Vickers Supermarine then eventually BAe are successor companies created by merger and acquisition so no different then McDonnell - McDonnell-Douglas - Boeing. Nothing to do with manufacturer by other companies. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that all former McDD products should be relabelled as Boeing, so no Boeing Phantom II etc, just that those aircraft that have continued in production post merger should be renamed. In relation to the Spitfire its totally different from McDD. Supermarine was part of Vicker-Armstrong since 1928, but Vickers continued to use the Supermarine brand up until the Scimitar in 1956/57. Since the Boeing-McDD merger/takeover, all former McDD aircraft still in production were rebranded as Boeing products.Mztourist (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this is really an issue for the specific article talk page as it really has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. There isn't much that could be added to this standard beyond what is here now that would help, although it certainly should be quoted on the article talk page as a basis for the consensus there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
BilCat brought the issue here from the Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle#Rename to Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle page to try to see if the naming convention could be used to resolve this issue. Mztourist (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I would support not changing the guideline, the few types where a choice is not clear should be left to article consensus to deal with within the spirit of this document. We have had problems with guidelines in the past trying to detail every permutation possible and in the end a local agreement is best. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I just brought up the issue here to see if we wanted to make any changes to the conventions to help resolve such issues, not to solve the F-15E issue directly. Consensus does change over time, as we saw with adding the manufacturer's name to US military aircraft titles, so it does help to bring up the issue every year or so to gauge consensus. As long as were content to leave the guidelines as they are, then that's good. For now, there's no consensus to rename the F-15E page to Boeing. It's probably a good thing to keep it under McDD for now, as further new orders/production will most likely be of the Silent Eagle variant, which is definitely a Boeing product. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I had the same desire to have Boeing AH-64 Apache moved to McDonnell Douglas AH-64 Apache, Being take MD had completed the final years of the chopper's development, produced the entire first generation, spent several years devising the AH-64D, brought that into service and initially produced, and pretty much all Boeing have done for the aircraft is left the production lever on and slapped their name on the side. Consensus did not generate support for the movement. Although we both feel that the shift is justified, and have our reasons and preferences, the community's word speaks louder than the individual. I see the article devision between McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as pretty much perfect, but such fortunant situations do not exist everywhere. I certainly wouldn't recommend a split in the F-15E's coverage, but I personally feel the original manufacturer's name is quite suitable, as the aircraft is fairly well known by that name in official sources. MDD may fade, or it may stay as alive as Avro or Supermarine. Kyteto (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, the Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle article already exists, so if that version is ordered, that's where the new production would be covered. There are significant differences between the F-15E and the F-15SE that justify having a separate article for new production. Also, until quite recently, McDD continued to exist within Boeing as a subsidiary, though I'm not certain what they procuced. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is F-15s up to the E, should be McDD, the Slam Eagle and Silent Eagle should be Boeing. F-16s should be GD through the D, with L-M being the title company if the E/F (Block 60+) aircraft get their own articles. AH-64 should be McDD, but... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Child articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

After getting into this discussion on the issue of what a child article split off a main aircraft type article should be called, I am wondering if we shouldn't add something on that subject to this page? The only previous dicussion of the issue I am aware of is in this split discussion where MB1 said, "...if sub-articles are created can they match the parent like Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II sub-article name", which is what I have been going on as very sensible. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That works with Hawker Hurricane variants though sometimes you should heed other guidelines and hence List of Hawker Hurricane operators rather than Hawker Hurricane operators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree about lists, but for sub-articles that are not lists I believe it should be Foo sub-article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I can agree to that! Should we put it into this page? - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have a consensus on this, so I have added a section on it, please do review my wording. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it needs to include a bit about "List of..."GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, see what you think now! - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that shows it nicely. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(aircraft)/Archive_2&oldid=1222182836"