Category talk:Aircraft by type

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Aircraft by type name

I don't think it's clear how Category:Aircraft by type name is different from Category:Aircraft by type and Category:Aircraft by function. Category:Aircraft by type by facing‎ includes mostly subcategories by model. Category:Aircraft by type by manufacturer‎ and Category:Aircraft formation flight by type‎ include subcategories "by type" that seem to actually be "by model". Should we have Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model or something like that? Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Type" is the correct ICAO (and Wikipedia) term, not "model".

See Admin on this discussion: "And "type" is the official ICAO designation for what may otherwise be called an aircraft model. Using "model" for general aircraft categories is problematic though, because it should only be used for categories of scale models. Hence the "by type" wording of the subcategories that was rightfully introduced by Uli Elch. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)"

See also Category:Models of aircraft. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: Thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure what you mean by "and wikipedia" because en:Category:Aircraft by type is not including things that I might call models. I can, on the contrary, find lots of examples of real full-size aircraft that use "model" in their names. I can't imagine how anyone seeing Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model would think the category was for scale models. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please type in aircraft model in the English Wikipedia - and see what happens. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Like this ? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You were talking about English Wikipedia, not Google, weren't you? So please start over again. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I agree fully that that scale models are in no way a confusing element here. That sliver of the Category:Aircraft tree can easily be identified and a 'cat see also' applied to solve the rare misdirection. It pales in comparison to the confusion inherant to using the word 'type': "helicopter" could be an aircraft type, "civil aircraft" could be an aircraft type, "twin-engine biplane" could be an aircraft type, "F-15 Eagle" could be an aircraft type...and so on. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment @Uli Elch: The link you gave references a discussion about a completely different topic than the model/type/whatever one (it is about registration categories and their structure). It certainly didn't reach any consensus on the matter of this discussion. Cherry-picked comments add nothing to this discussion. Far better to let people comment on their own behalf. Maybe they would say the same thing, maybe after reading the discussion they would say something different, or maybe they wouldn't see fit to add any comment at all. I can't presume what their opinion on this discussion is. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: I don't understand your point. Typing "aircraft by model" into English wikipedia does not result in any hits for "model aircraft". By contrast, en:Category:Aircraft by type yields sub-categories like "Airships‎" and "Glider tugs‎" not specific models. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do you always tamper with what I'm asking you for? I did not say "aircraft by model" but "aircraft model". --Uli Elch (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But no one is suggesting a category called "aircraft model" but "X aircraft by model" -- that's my whole point: no one is going to confuse "aircraft by model" with "model aircraft". See up at the top where I said "I can't imagine how anyone seeing Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model would think the category was for scale models." - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we simply use Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by type ?

ICAO is the worldwide authority concerning aviation regulations. More than 190 states have agreed to and signed those rules. ICAO nowhere uses "model" in this context. Please read: en:Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone: "... should be written in a formal tone." and "Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach" and "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon ..."

Wikipedia is not here to override official, internationally recognized and standardized terms and replace them by slang, vernacular language or ambiguity. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: Your premise is flat out false. It is NOT standardized or internationally recognized to use only "type" and not "model". ICAO itself uses both terms, as I show below. The world's largest national aviation authority also uses both terms, but both agencies do agree in that they explicitly list "737-400" as the "model" of the aircraft, not the "type". See the n-number lookup for a Boeing 737-400 here [1] to see for yourself. So while there is not a true standard in place, both "the worldwide authority concerning aviation regulations" (ICAO) and the largest national aviation authority (FAA) consider "737-400" to be the "Model", so I guess using your logic going against "model" would be a violation of en:Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone. Josh (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The assertion that ICAO does not recognize "model" as being the term for the given name of an aircraft is patently untrue, as they distinctly consider "737-400" to be the "Model", and the "B734" to be the "Type Designator". See their site here [2]: they identify the "MANUFACTURER", "MODEL", and "TYPE DESIGNATOR" for each aircraft. For example (type in 737 under model and search to see for yourself), the Boeing 737-400 has "Boeing" listed under "Manufacturer", "737-400" listed under "Model", and "B734" under "Type Designator". The Commons category is Category:Boeing 737-400, combining what ICAO recognizes as the "manufacturer" and "model", but not including the ICAO "type designator", similar to most of our aircraft model/type categories. The idea that ICAO does not recognize "model" is false, and therefore is not a valid rationale for forcing the word "type" on us. Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Thank you for raising this discussion. Uli Elch (talk · contribs) has converted many of the category names you listed without discussion, just changing the name to his liking and continually copying the same flawed assertion that it is an ICAO standard to use the word "type" and not use the word "model". I am not wedded to either model or type, though "model" is consistent with the majority of Commons when it comes to products: Category:Products by type is to categorize by general classification, not by specific defined models. Tying the word "type" to the ICAO "type designator" is even more problematic. We almost never use the "type designator" in our category names, so no reason to have an index by that criteria. Should sub cats be limited to those that cover a specified ICAO type designator? "Boeing 737" is not and ICAO 'type' but instead there are several "type designators" assigned to different variants of the family, not necessarily congruant to Commons category breakdown of the family, so how are these to be handled? I have found that the better way to handle it is instead of picking an amorphous catch-all, sort by what it actually is: For the Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, "F-15" is the Tri-service designation, so add to Category:Aircraft by United States Tri-Service designation (sort key "F015"), and "Eagle" is the popular name so add to Category:Aircraft by popular name (sort key "Eagle"). Josh (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Great points. Not to mention, we are not beholden to the ICAO's use of terms. We use what fits our structure the best. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Josh: Where do you show "ICAO itself uses both terms, as I show below."?

@Uli Elch: You clearly did not read my  Comment (now above actually): "The assertion that ICAO does not recognize "model" as being the term for the given name of an aircraft is patently untrue..." It has a link to ICAO and everything so you can see for yourself what terms ICAO uses. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"The world's largest national aviation authority ..." (FAA) is just one of over 150 such authorities, and every state has just 1 (one) vote in ICAO, regardless of size. And I really don't understand why you come up (again and again) with the subject of using ICAO "type designators" (as used in ATC flight plans) - at least I have always objected against using them in Wikipedia.

The fact remains that both ICAO and the FAA call it "model". It doesn't matter how many 'votes' they have, all of those authorities are welcome to comment here, but their ICAO votes are completely irrelevant to this discussion. "Type Designator" is ICAO's term, and I feel if we are going to consider ICAO terminology in the discussion, we ought to cite it accurately. If you would instead prefer that ICAO's terminology not be considered and are willing to say that ICAO's terms have no bearing on our discussion, then we can stop worrying about what their terminology is. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that it was me who "has converted many of the category names you listed without discussion, just changing the name to his liking". The opposite is true - it was Josh who started converting dozens of categories from "type" to "model". Examples: Landings in aviation, Category:Aircraft by operator by model, Aircraft by registration by type, Aircraft take offs by type and so on.

I did indeed change a few names, but I only did so until an objection was raised and I will await consensus before taking more action (note all of the changes you cited were more than a year ago). You however continue to act as if your assertion that "type" is the absolute rule regardless of the lack of any consensus to that effect and the numerous comments to the opposite that indeed, many of us do not agree with your claims. See your recent change, done without discussion, but after you have been told that such changes are controversial, simply adding your false assertions in the summary: ""Type" is the official ICAO and Wikipedia term, not "model"". You ignore not only comments but clear evidence that "type" is not in any way a standard or universal common usage, certainly not by ICAO and Wikipedia as you claim. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Using "en:Alternative facts", as it appears to have become fashionable in the US, in our discussions is absolutely unacceptable.

Accusing me, or anyone else here, of being intentionally dishonest comes with a high burden of proof, which I would say you have not come close to meeting. I do not know who you are accusing of using alternative facts, but certainly what country you are from is completely irrelevant here, and to make such accusations is harmful to honest discussion. Making disparaging remarks about peoples' countries is also not in the least constructive. I encourage you to withdraw your disparaging remark and refrain from such in the future, for the sake of continuing a civil discussion on the topic at hand. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Huntster: "We use what fits our structure the best."? ... even if it contradicts the basic Wikipedia rules (see above) like

"Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon ..." --Uli Elch (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Enforcing the use of the word "type" on users of the category system because it is a term derived from certain authorities' published regulations would indeed seem to be the definition of 'legalese', or because it is a word used by those 'in the know' as opposed to the word used by the general population would make it 'jargon'. While Themightyquill (talk · contribs) is correct that your quote is not a Commons rule or guideline and therefore not automatically applicable, I don't think it is a bad idea, and is further weight against using the term 'type' in this role and for the more generally understood word 'model' to be used instead. Josh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: In answer to your question, Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by type would naturally take up the "types" listed in Category:Aircraft by type (e.g. Category:Manufacturer X seaplanes or Category:Manufacturer X supersonic aircraft‎. As for the guideline you quoted, it's from wikipedia, not commons, so it doesn't apply. If it DID apply, it would support my argument - in common usage (not slang), people would definitely say model. Using type becase it's ICAO standard is an example of industry "jargon", specifically opposed by the guideline you quoted. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Double meta cats are a bit tricky (which criteria goes first?). Thinking about this, it would seem that the structure would be something like this, what are your thoughts? Josh (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I'm not sure we need Category:Aircraft by model, as it has no obvious parent category tree to join and I can't imagine what would go in it aside from Category:Aircraft by manufacturer by model without overcategorization. I'm not qualified to say if Category:Aircraft by type by model would be useful. I suppose you could have subcategories like Category:Helicopters by model. Is that effectively what Category:Helicopters by type and by name is? For the legitimate concerns that Uli Elch has raised, we should be careful to avoid creating any category tree that might accidentally lead to Category:Aircraft models/Category:Models of aircraft. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I actually agree with that, as I've mentioned earlier, why have a catch-all at all? No need for either 'model' or 'type'. Sort in indices by the actual item being sorted by. If it is a designation, sort by designation, if it is a name, sort by name, if it is a manufacturer, sort by manufacturer. The problem I was trying to show is that if you have Category:Aircraft by model by manufacturer that would naturally lead to it being a metacat sub of Category:Aircraft by model. It's constituents would be things like Category:Boeing aircraft by model, Category:Consolidated aircraft by model, etc. I don't really see what value that would add since those categories don't generally exist right now, nor is there really a need for them. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Uli Elch notified me of this discussion. I did a fair bit of googling and the only authoritative sources I could find for using "aircraft types" as a technical designator, as in fixed-wing vs rotary, blimps and balloons vs "heavy" aircraft, jet vs propellers, etc, were Encyclopedia Britannica and the Delta Airline Museum. On the other hand, there are many more reliable sources that associate "aircraft type" with one manufacturer's specific build, namely Airbus A320, Boeing 777, and so on: Skybrary (by ICAO, The Flight Safety Foundation, The UK Flight Safety Committee and The European Strategic Safety Initiative), Planespotters, CNBC, KLM, AvPlanEFB app, FlightAware, Air Charter Guide, Academy Aviation. So it seems that "type" is far more often used in connection with the actual manufacturer's brand name for a plane like Antonov AN-22 and the like than in association with generic distinctions. Commons should reflect this.

Moreover, the renaming of Category:Aircraft by model name was somewhat justified because that name could have been mistaken for branded scale models (cf. 'Frog Pengun'). A better solution would have been though to put all its subcategories into "Category:Aircraft by type". De728631 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: Firstly, I would say that Encyclopedia Britannica is a far better representation on common usage than the UK Fligth Safety Committee, which could fairly be described as technical usage. The CNBC article you linked to uses "model" and "type" interchangeably, and they're talking about commercial flights the variety of types (in a broader sense) isn't relevant. I'd appreciate your references to "type" in the narrowest sense if they also discussed "type" (but using a different word) in the broadest sense. Second, how would your commend we categorize the contents currently in Category:Aircraft by type ? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: You can point to FSF, CNBC and ESSI and I can point to ICAO and Wiki and the FAA all we want, but the only conclusion is that neither is a clear solution, so the real question is: Does Category:Aircraft by type name even need to exist. It has three sub-cats, all of which according to their name should be (and are) actually under Category:Aircraft by type. Do that and you have an empty category which serves no purpose and can be deleted. No need to argue over the name of an empty category, I warrant. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion (feel free to carry on the discussion above), what actual action should be taken?

 Delete Category:Aircraft by type name. All contents already are correctly under Category:Aircraft by type. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Keep Category:Aircraft by type by manufacturer and Category:Aircraft formation flight by type. No consensus is going to be reached on the 'type' v. 'model' question, so leave them as is. Josh (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

---

More than a month since final comments. There does not appear to be a consensus on changing 'type' to 'model', so no change of category names. Category:Aircraft by type name is unnecessary and can be deleted/merged into Category:Aircraft by type. Josh (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)