Wikidata talk:WikiProject Aviation

For the purposes of subclass of (P279), none of these should be subclasses of each other. Each are their own subclass of takeoff and landing (Q20046585).

• short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489) - aircraft which use a short runway for takeoff and landing (ex. Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (Q156894))
• vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) - aircraft which use no runway for takeoff and landing, doing so vertically (ex. Tiger (Q159601))
• vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453) - aircraft which can both use a short runway for takeoff and landing, as well as do so vertically if need be (ex. AV-8B Harrier II (Q635687))

Not all short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489) aircraft are capable of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) so the former cannot be a subclass of the later.

Not all vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) aircraft are capable of short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489) so the former cannot be a subclass of the later.

Since neither all vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) aircraft, nor all short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489) aircraft are capable of both, neither are a proper subclass of vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453).

There could be a case made that vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453) should be a subclass of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) and short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489), but the reverse should definitely not be true.

Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of Q1193453

• has the english Description "aircraft takeoff and landing using either a short runway or vertically";
• has the english alias "vertical and/or short take-off and landing", "VSTOL" and "vertical or short takeoff/vertical or short landing";
• has a Sitelink to w:en:V/STOL, which current version start by "A vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft is an airplane able to take-off or land vertically or on short runways. Vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft are a subset of V/STOL craft";
• has a Sitelink to w:fr:VSTOL, which current version start by "VSTOL est un acronyme de Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing, utilisée en jargon aéronautique pour désigner les aéronefs à décollage et atterrissage courts ou verticaux";

So vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453) is about aircraft that can do short or vertical takeoff and landing, not about aircraft that can do both.

So Q832489 and Q320599 must be subclass of Q1193453.

If you want an item about aircraft that can do short and vertical takeoff and landing, then you can create it.

Also, I am wondering if short takeoff and vertical landing (Q427062) should be a subclass of Q1193453. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: - I appreciate the confusion regarding the use of 'or' in the term, but a V/STOL must be able to do both to be considered as such. I realize the term may appear to the casual observer as if it covers STOL and VTOL by the nature of the words of the acronym. However, the term "V/STOL" is a very widely used and well understood concept in aviation, and as such, hijacking it for use as an umbrella term would be improper, as nearly all press use of the term is specific to aircraft which can operate both vertically as well as from short runways, and not aircraft solely capable of one method or the other. If we say that short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489) and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599) are subclasses of vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453), then Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (Q156894) and Tiger (Q159601) must be valid members of vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453) as well. This is a basic tenet of subclass of (P279) classification. Since neither are valid members of vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453), your claim "So Q832489 and Q320599 must be subclass of Q1193453" does not work. If we use your organization, then are we to not consider Fieseler Fi 156 Storch (Q156894) to be a STOL, or a helicopter to be a VTOL since neither are V/STOLs? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In looking into things a bit more, I may have spotted the heart of the disconnect. It seems that most of the wiki articles are about V/STOLs as commonly understood as I've noted. However, w:cs:V/STOL and w:fr:Vertical of Short Take Off and Landing are instead stub/dab pages that direct the reader to STOL and VTOL articles. These are two distinct and different terms, so they deserve their own items:

vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q20058496) subclasses:

- short takeoff and landing aircraft (Q832489)

- short takeoff and vertical landing (Q427062)

- vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Q320599)

- vertical and/or short take-off and landing (Q1193453)

Josh Baumgartner (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions on the above:

• What's the optimal label for this item? "N103US"? I hesitate between this and "Aircraft N103US".
• For US registered aircraft, do we use "country of origin"=Q30 or "country"=Q30? Or should this be simply a qualifier on P426?
• Is P31 a good way to specify the model?

I'm looking forward to your feedback. --- Jura 09:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here is how it looks when searching for "N103US" on itwiki, frwiki, commons:

• https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=N103US&title=Speciale%3ARicerca&fulltext=1
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=N103US&title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&go=Lire
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=N103US&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go

Currently there is no label in it/fr so the autodescription module just repeats "N103US". --- Jura 09:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added corresponding properties to the properties subpage. --- Jura 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When writing a comment at Wikidata:Property proposal/Event#Weather I noticed there is apparently no property to store METARs on Wikidata, but it seems like this could be a very useful thing to record on items about accidents and incidents (they regularly get included in Avherald reports for instance)? I don't really understand them well enough at this point to propose a new property for one (if one doesn't exist) but I would support someone else's proposal. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 18:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a property to represent the Annual Passenger Traffic which seems to be prevalent in airport articles? -- YaguraStation (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YaguraStation, yes, you might have a look at [1] Bouzinac (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Bouzinac and specifically thanks for Batch #26239! --YaguraStation (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sparql code redaction is to be thanked to Tagishsimon who helped much! Bouzinac (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidata:WikiProject Aviation/Aerodromes#Airport Traffic for information on modeling traffic data for airports. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at Wikidata:Property proposal/NOTAM. I didn't see a way to ping you, so I'm just leaving this note. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've started a small subpage to help people populating/correcting/updating airports' patronage (P3872). Don't hesitate to fill in other infos or tips. --Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 14:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac: This is interesting. I have set up a page for Aerodromes at Wikidata:WikiProject Aviation/Aerodromes for all airport/field/base-related information. I have started it with your traffic info. It would be good to have a header on that section that gave a simple overview of how we intend traffic data to be structured on aerodrome items, perhaps a short list of the relevant properties and their use. I will be also expanding some other areas on aerodromes in the future. Good work! Josh Baumgartner (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Q15056995#Vermischung/Conflation

There's currently an on-going discussion with User:Uli Elch about their edits – especially them setting German descriptions which describe model aircraft (Q60055387) – that contradict the item's statements and descriptions in all other languages. Opinions are much appreciated. --Nw520 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

aircraft model (Q15056995) and aircraft type (Q45296117) seem to have very much the same content, and probably should be merged. Elsewhere in WD, _type tends to refer to the functional groups of a subject, as in ship type (Q2235308), which for aircraft seems to be covered by aircraft functional class (Q20027953). I note there was a heated discussion of this at Talk:Q15056995, but other than deciding it wasn't a scale model of an aircraft, there was no resolution.

To me Spitfire V (Q18536804) is a aircraft model (Q15056995), Spitfire (Q29190) is a aircraft family (Q15056993), land-based fighter monoplane (Q69129709) is a aircraft functional class (Q20027953), and the latter should be given an alias aircraft_type once the aircraft type (Q45296117) have been folded into aircraft model (Q15056995)

My interest in this area comes from the use of aircraft as weapons of war, where I'm using weapon model (Q15142894) and weapon family (Q15142889) and weapon functional class (Q124078422) with alias weapon_type Vicarage (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/rules-and-regulations/aircraft-categories-and-classes and https://www.thinkaviation.net/category-class-type/ talk about category, class and type, but not model, so there might be an argument for the reverse, folding aircraft model (Q15056995) into aircraft type (Q45296117) and using an aircraft_model alias. But their aircraft types sound broader, more like our aircraft family (Q15056993) Vicarage (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done here. I just noticed that aircraft family (Q15056993) is a fourth-order class, which is incorrect, particularly as it is a subclass of aircraft type (Q45296117), which is a second-order class. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weapon family (Q15142889) is third-order, vehicle family (Q22999537) is second-order (but is a subclass of (P279) of the third-order model series (Q811701)). combat vehicle family (Q100709275) is third order. ship class (Q559026) is second-order but is a subclass of (P279) of the second order ship type (Q2235308), so its a right mess.

I'd have type as second order, family (and ship class) as third-order, model as fourth-order, and have combat vehicle family (Q100709275) at the same level as vehicle family (Q22999537). I think its only us two who care. Vicarage (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

military vehicle (Q1184840) states they are, as does the enwiki article, but military aircraft (Q216916) claims it as a subclass, as does sealift vessel (Q106070369) via military transport vehicle (Q106070381)

vehicle (Q42889) is explicitly multi-modal, would we be better renaming military vehicle (Q1184840) to be military_land_vehicle, with an alias of military_vehicle, its land-based common usage.

also asked at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Are_military_vehicles_land_only

Vicarage (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've written my thoughts about the split between a "design_class" and "functional class" at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ships#watercraft_class%2C_boat_class%2C_submarine_class_or_ship_class_muddle%2C_why_not_use_design_class_and_functional_class. It would apply equally well to the aircraft here, so we'd have a uniform approach across land/sea/air vehicles. Vicarage (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Aviation

Wikidata:WikiProject_Aviation/Properties#Engines appears to be saying that items for aircraft engine models, like Peugeot 8Aa (Q124608037), should be subclasses of aircraft engine (Q743004). This is supported by aircraft engine (Q743004) being a subclass of physical object (Q223557). But many aircraft engine models, including Peugeot 8Aa (Q124608037), are instead instances of aircraft engine (Q743004).

Is it the intent of this project that aircraft engine models should be subclasses of aircraft engine (Q743004)? If so, I'll make the necessary changes, and also add being an instance of engine model (Q15057021) where needed and appropriate.

There may be other aircraft-related classes that have the same problem. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context at Wikidata:Project_chat#aircraft_engine_(Q743004)_and_models_(also_many_classes_similar_to_aircraft_engine_(Q743004)), and see my suggestion just above this for a design_class/functional_class split we discussed before but got little interest in from others. Perhaps we need to write a RFC. Vicarage (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peugeot 8Aa (Q124608037) should not be a subclass, not instance, of aircraft engine (Q743004), even if we never have any items for instances of that engine model. It is correct that not only engines but aircraft also have a lot of cases where models (classes) have been incorrectly given 'instance of engine/aircraft' statements and these should be changed to subclass statements. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Did you mean "should be a subclass"? If so, I agree. I have already fixed up some of the examples where the fix was obvious even without any discussion. I have a QuickStatements file to move 250 aircraft engine models to subclasses of aircraft engine and instances of engine model. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter F. Patel-Schneider Yes, thank you for that catch! Josh Baumgartner (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicarage Yes, an RfC or something similar seems indicated to handle manufactured items, not just aircraft engines. What is the best way to initiate the process - there is supposed to be substantial discussion before an RfC is initiated, I think. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter F. Patel-Schneider and I have been in discussion over how we distinguish for manufactured items a physical object, its design, and the function it performs. We propose a series of constraints on their instance and subclass properties, and a simplification of the parochial set of something_type, something_model and something_family classes. We have used military items as exemplars, but the approach would have much wider application. We would appreciate your views at Wikidata:Requests for comment/object vs design class vs functional class for manufactured objects. Vicarage (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]