This 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
I am seeing many aircraft 'See also' sections having nationalities appended to aircraft types by use of templates, an example
here. Pinging
User:Hohum as the adding editor. Nationality is not a relevant defining feature of these aircraft, the links are there because they are similar types. These template links are unnecessary as clicking on any blue link gives the nationality in the lead section or infobox, if
navigation popups are enabled nationality is revealed just by hovering over the links. They clutter the section and complicate the addition of links, especially by new users. I have not seen any discussion to gain
consensus on this linking style. I oppose these links and propose that they are restored to their plain versions. I am further concerned that this link style might be applied to other aircraft type lists in articles such as the applications sections of engine articles.
Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nationality Country of origin is definitely a defining feature of aircraft (especially military ones). Relying on features that may not be enabled is not "accessible", most wiki users don't have accounts. It doesn't cause any meaningful clutter - i.e. it adds relevant information without making the list any more difficult to read (imo). Novice editors can still use regular plain links if they don't understand the extremely simple syntax of {{lwc}}. Consensus is not required before making changes to articles. We are going through the normal process of
WP:BRD.
{{Annotated link}} is often used in "See also" sections to provide context for links, but does typically clutter presentation, and tends to vary in its information format. {{lwc}} is intended to provide consistently formatted context without confusing the presentation of the link.
For aircraft articles, I typically haven't used the template for "Related development" entries unless it's by a different nation.
What other defining features can be linked, what is the guideline and where does it stop? There is plenty of edit warring over country names and nationalities already without introducing new opportunities.
Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:Seealso allows annotation only to clarify the relevance of the entry to the list. Something like {{annotated link}} might add the nationality in passing, but that is not to say it should be done for its own sake. Unless country of origin is especially relevant to the article topic, it should be ignored. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure a "thin end of the wedge" argument is valid. We aren't edit warring, we're talking. It starts and ends with consensus, as always.
The nearest guideline is probably
MOS:SEEALSO "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I'm taking "meaning of the term may not be generally known" somewhat broadly perhaps, but I think knowing the country of origin of an aircraft link is useful contextual information. The guideline even provides {{Annotated link}} as an option - which, as I have already noted, is problematic.
I'm trying to put myself in the place of wiki users who aren't already familiar with the country of origin of various aircraft and/or their manufacturers, and even though I'm pretty familiar, even I am still surprised to sometimes see a "similar aircraft is from a lesser known country. (And it sparks my interest to click through.) (
Hohum@)
13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Steelpillow, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting {{Annotated link}} would be ok, with the country of origin included within it "in passing", yet most of it's contents will be reduntant - about aircraft type - which will be the same as the article we're linking from, because it's in a list of similar aircraft. Yet including only that difference via {{lwc}} would be bad? (
Hohum@)
13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, personally I think the
WP:Seealso guideline is somewhat conflicted. {{Annotated link}} will usually throw up more than the relevant aspect, so is not a good example. But we are stuck with it. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
We get to choose to use it, or alternatives. Isn't that what we're talking about here? What's best for articles? What helps wiki users find the information they are looking for efficiently. (and what's easily maintainable.)
Folks here might like to weigh in on
this AfD. If it does go, I'll be sad: I certainly learned something about a Van's design that I didn't know about before! Maybe someone here with more knowledge of this designer could dig out another source or two? --
Rlandmann (
talk)
00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have the same concern and I was already contemplating CfD'ing it. There are numerous past CfD's about various other non-defining aircraft characteristics and how this can lead to absurd category bloat (e.g., Category:Aircraft with red stripes).
Carguychris (
talk)
20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I was thinking of that one too. And then there are oddballs like two-seat Spitfire conversions, or the prone Meteor, where even if the category applies, it is only to individual aircraft. And is a glazed nose a pilot sits in a canopy? Depending on your answer, a He 111Z either has two canopies, or none at all...
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm abivalent but lean towards "no" as a not particularly useful or unambiguous characteristic. Aside: our "characteristic" categories are probably due for an overhaul for consistency! —-
Rlandmann (
talk)
00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It'd be a little better changing it to "Category:Multiple canopy aircraft" or some other general wording. However, the number involved should still be limited.
-Fnlayson (
talk)
01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply