Wikidata talk:WikiProject Aviation/Properties

Material used

I open the discussion about aircraft properties. Should we include :

• made from material (P186)
  • Description: it would list the materials used for building the aircraft
  • Example: Airbus A380
  • Qualifiers:As a qualifier we would need a "pourcentage" to quantify how much of each material is used

Greenski (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Flight number

Do we need a property for flight number? For airline crashes it might be a good idea to store it: e.g. de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug_17 (Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (Q17374096)). Also: What do we use for origin and destination plus origin and destination airport? -Tobias1984 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner, Danrok: Tobias1984 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See this proposal for origin: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Event#journey_origin We'll also need something for destination, perhaps more than one? For intended destination, and the actual end point, where the journey wasn't completed. And, yes, I would have thought we need a flight number property. Danrok (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Danrok: I didn't see that proposal, but voted now. Can you ping me when the other proposals are finished (I am watching too many pages :) -Tobias1984 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tobias1984: Another proposal here: [1] Danrok (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Airport diagram

See Wikidata:Property proposal/airport diagram; I'm only aware of freely available runway diagrams for US airports, but it seemed to make sense to make things more generic. Grendelkhan (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus seems to have been to use image of design plans (P3311), I added it in the relevant section. Novarupta (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sailplane-type use, speed and weight

In September 2017 I had an inquiry of this subject at the project chat, suggesting the use of qualifiers to be able to set multiple weights and speeds. Is there was no objections to the suggestion, I'll integrate it in this page. Poul G (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Annual Passenger Traffic

Excuse the cross-post, I will update either side, but is there a property to represent the Annual Passenger Traffic which seems to be prevalent in airport articles? -- YaguraStation (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Flightradar24 ID Property

Has anyone previously proposed an authority control property associated with Flightradar24 - the popular flight-tracking website?
The site has a very comprehensive coverage of Airlines, Airports, Aircraft type. And, if we think it's notable - you could even track all the individual commercial route numbers and all the individual planes.
For example:

• Airport: Heathrow Airport (Q8691) (LHR) is https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/lhr (note - a clear, stable and human-readable url suffix for all of these examples).
• Airline: British Airways (Q8766) (BA) is https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airlines/ba-baw
• Aircraft type: Airbus A380 (Q5830) is https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a380
• Route number: [none currently in Wikidata AFAIK] British Airlines 1 (BA1) London-NYC is https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba1
• Individual plane: [none currently in Wikidata AFAIK] G-EUNA a British Airways A318 is https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-euna

Is it worthwhile proposing an ID property for Flightradar24 (or perhaps several, for each of these different subsections)? And, if so, is there someone willing and able to scrape the website to do the import? Wittylama (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

icao24

Given that on flight tracking DB's such as opensky-network.org the ICAO24 of an aircraft is listed, is their a way we can store that as a unique-identifier/authority-control for an aircraft in a wikidata entry? Back ache (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Labels

There have recently been some questions about how best to include manufacturer information for aircraft items, particularly those that are instances of aircraft family (Q15056993) or aircraft model (Q15056995) (thus not an item for an individual aircraft).

Instead, there are several accurate methods of making sure the manufacturer information is accurately included in an item:

1. Add a manufacturer (P176) claim with proper qualifiers and references. This is the primary method of including this information as both human and machine readable.
2. Include it in the description. This is actually quite valuable, and for aircraft, descriptions that have the basic info of year (first flown), function (primary design role) and manufacturer (initial designing/building entity) make it very easy for human users to quickly identify the correct entity when searching.
3. Include it in the aliases. This ensures searches which include the manufacturer name will discover the entity.
4. Add a official name (P1448) claim with correct qualifiers and references. This allows other projects and 3rd parties to pull the name with manufacturer included if that is their desired format.

One question is whether it should be included in the label. It is noted that Enwiki and other projects generally include the manufacturer in their article names as a matter of course.

Labels in WD have a very different purpose than article or category names, and in fact are not names at all. Take General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon (Q100026) for example. The name of this item is "Q100026". While exact details on how labels are implemented is still in development for Wikidata (see Help:Label), there are some things we have been implementing since the early days of the project.

1. There is no need, and in fact it is counter-productive to try, to attempt to correlate labels with names used on other projects. Our name is "Q#". While it is perfectly logical for Wikipedia or Commons to include manufacturer names in aircraft article names in order to ensure unique article names, that is not an issue for WD labels, and so is not required.
2. Labels do not need to be unique. There can be 100 items with the same label on WD without any issue. For this reason, long labels with disambiguation elements are not desirable. Disambiguation is instead the role of the description. Thus it not required to have the manufacturer in the label of an aircraft item, but it is valuable to add it to the description as mentioned above.
3. Aliases are a unique system to WD and work very differently from redirects on other projects. Thus it is valuable to have an alias that matches various other project names for their aircraft articles, and doing that further removes the need to include the manufacturer in the label.

So this is why the manufacturer name is not required to be included in the label, but is there harm in retaining it in the label anyway even if it is not required? To answer this, one needs to go deeper into what aircraft items on WD really represent. For the most part aircraft items are for classes of aircraft. If every instance of that aircraft class was manufactured by the same manufacturer, than it would not necessarily be a problem to include the manufacturer in the label, as that would not be inaccurate for the set, even if not required, so not a particular problem. However, take the aforementioned example (General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon (Q100026)). This class includes instances manufactured by General Dynamics, SABCA, Lockheed Martin, and so on. Including any one of these in the label for the entire class would be not only not required, but would in fact be inaccurate as well for a great number of the instances of that class. Including all of them would lead to a pretty long and unwieldy label. However, the simple label "F-16 Fighting Falcon" accurately represents all instances regardless of manufacturer, and thus is appropriate for that class entity's label.

There are sets in which the manufacturer name should be included in the label. These are cases where the class is specifically defined as including all instances manufactured by that manufacturer. Take Cessna aircraft (Q63244919) for example. Sincle it is expressly a set designed to include all aircraft manufactured by Cessna, it is appropriate for the manufacturer name to be included. Likewise, were we to have a set exclusively for all F-16's manufactured by General Dynamics, then it would be perfectly correct to label that class entity "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" or "F-16 Fighting Falcon manufactured by General Dynamics".

Josh Baumgartner (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Josh, I don't have anything to add, basically just wanted you to know that I've read this (low traffic page and all that …). Thanks for writing it down, makes sense to me! --El Grafo (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This probably is better under he properties talk page, so moving it there from the main project talk page. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, my description above is not policy or guidelines, it is merely my observations on the issue dating back to the early days of Wikidata and updated to reflect conversations with multiple users over the years. That said, I welcome continued discussion and evolution of this matter. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

New section "Labels and descriptions"

Info to User:Esquilo, User:Tm

With an anonymous edit a whole new section "Labels and descriptions" was inserted by User Joshbaumgartner on 11 February 2021 01:48.

Labels invented by User Joshbaumgartner:

• Duke, Hurricane, Hyderabad, Taifun, Tutor, Ventura
• B.206, C-9, An-2, Be-6, G.91, R3D, Z 726 ... and hundreds more.

A "popular name" as label is definitely not sufficient and never "does the trick". It might only be used in the alias ("Also known as") column.

There has never been a discussion, let alone a consensus about that matter.

Therefore, the manufacturer names cannot be omitted but have to be a mandatory part of labels for aircraft. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment This all happens because Joshbaumgartner acted unilaterally, even when all the names are correct and the labels all correspond with the names of wikipedia article in each one of the languages. Then, when reverted, he, unilaterally again, added the whole new section "Labels and descriptions" to justify his actions. For this this whole new section , without discussion, should be deleted or completely rewritten. Tm (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I´ve deleted part of the unilateral text. Tm (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted most of Joshbaumgartners changes in swedish, finnish and portugese, but I have intentionally not changed the english title untill a discussion like this has established a consensus. /ℇsquilo 19:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@ User:Esquilo, User:Tm: There is no indication that the user concerned is interested in achieving a consensus. Instead, he continues unabatedly to delete manufacturer names in aircraft labels, see [2] here.

In the meantime I've checked many dozens of aircraft items. There has never been any other user who has deleted the manufacturer names in existing labels. This is a personal campaign of a "man on a mission" which is not being shared by any other editor.

Consulting "Help:Label", one reads: "Because the aim is to use the name that an item would be known by to the most readers, labels should reflect common usage."

A label like his own "C-1" definitely does not reflect common usage, but their previous "Kawasaki C-1" or "Douglas C-1" did, until he has changed them (see here and here).

Same section: "To figure out the most common name, it is good practice to consult the corresponding Wikimedia project page (for example, the title of a Wikipedia article). In many cases, the best label for an item will either be the title of the corresponding page on a Wikimedia project or a variation of that title."

For all these reasons, there is no need to wait any longer with restoring the labels concerned to their original and correct form, including the manufacturer names. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For all the last cases you, Uli Elch, pointed i´ve made the proper edits\total reverts, to correct those edits by Joshbaumgartner. Tm (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed in the past. Claiming that it has not is false. So is claiming without evidence that a user does not seek consensus while intentionally only notifying those users friendly to your perspective while specifically avoiding notifying that very user you are spreading lies about. There was nothing anonymous about my edits as you falsely claimed and I have never been unwilling to seek consensus. Can you point me to the item on my talk page where you have asked why I have made an edit? Perhaps the talk page where you pinged me on a matter of concern about an edit of mine? Can you explain why you intentionally used an unlinked format of my name in this post and comments that would avoid raising any alert to me that this discussion was even happening? This attempt to fabricate a case against a user using gang tactics is disgusting and makes it difficult at best to carry on an objective discussion, though I suspect that is indeed your objective. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You claim that others are "claiming without evidence that a user [you] does not seek consensus"

Well, here are the evidences

1- Keeping changing unilaterally several labels, even when those labels correspond with the wikipedia articles

2- Of adding some text to an "policy" to try to justify your actions ex post facto.

3- After adding this same text, reverting the removal of the problematic as per this discussion, claiming that that it should be "discuss before deleting this section", i.e. you can try to add your unilateral text, but others have to discuss before removing your unilateral actions? An excelent exemple of double standard.

And you claim that this discussion was made by sthealth is clearly false, as you were notified when i reverted your action, pointing to this same discussion.

Per all above said, you do not seek discussion, but impose your vision, even when others either ask on your talkpage or revert your actions. Tm (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Info to Esquilo:

1) "seeking consensus": see these edits, today.

2) In his revert of Tm's edit he writes: "Discuss before deleting this section". However, he did not bother to discuss his whole new section before putting it secretly and anonymously into the project page.

3) "Lies": This whole new section has been inserted by Joshbaumgartner anonymously, so who is lying? Anonymous editing concerning a basic subject is, quote him "gang tactics".

4) "avoid raising any alert to me": If one makes a major change and/or installs an entirely new section it is just common senese to have it on the own watchlist.

5) see rules in "Help:Label", already quoted above.

6) "personal campaign": The fact remains that Joshbaumgartner is the only user deleting again and again the manufacturer names in aircraft labels which had been inserted by hundreds of other editors. Nobody shares his very individual opinion. --Uli Elch (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You two seem really invested in this attack, and are seemingly far more interesting in making your case against me than actually discussing the issue at hand. Fair be it, in the interest of engaging in discussion, re: Tm's comments,

1. "changing unilaterally several labels" - you don't say what you mean exactly by 'unilateral' but if you mean doing them without agreement of others, then this is a false claim, as there are users who agreed with them. If you mean doing it without consensus, then we are all guilty, as there is no consensus on this question.
2. "even when those labels correspond with the wikipedia articles" - irrelevant, there is no need for labels to match any given project's article name, and to expect this is a failure to understand the function of labels on Wikidata.
3. "Of adding some text to an "policy" to try to justify your actions ex post facto." - The page is not policy or guideline, and merely an attempt to document evolving practices, and when clearly Tm was confused by this, I added a tag to make things more clear. No attempt here to make it seem like more than it is, so this criticism sparks of projection.
4. "you can try to add your unilateral text, but others have to discuss before removing your unilateral actions?" - Not at all. I actually had no issue with the more reasonable edits Tm made on their second try. I only reverted the shotgun deletion of a whole section en masse as it affected more than the portion under discussion. Tm's second attempt was a fair evolution of the section limited only to the contested matter. I also would have no problem had Tm instead added an additional bit to detail their alternate proposal. Trying to voice an idea and trying to suppress that voice are NOT equivalent.
5. "you were notified when i reverted your action, pointing to this same discussion" - Yes, Tm, you did, but you were not the original poster (that would be Uli), and my comment was in regards to the original post. Apologies if you took sympathetic offense.
6. "you do not seek discussion, but impose your vision, even when others either ask on your talkpage" - Strange, you have commented exactly zero times on my talk page. On the other hand, I commented on your talk page and you deleted it. You did leave an edit summary, but it still can hardly been seen as the action of one seeking discussion. I on the other hand do not delete comments on my talk page, and every single post (besides automated/broadcast) sections, I have responded to. But I suppose that means I hate discussion, as opposed to you who welcome it?

And re: Uli Elch's comments:

1. ""seeking consensus": see these edits, today." - Am I supposed to respond with a list of similar edits by you and Tm, or do your edits go by a different rule book? The edit that you selected for exposition however, is a bit special. I undid a mass revert by Tm as it affected more than just the labels that were supposedly at issue.
2. "putting it secretly and anonymously into the project page" - If it was so 'secret and anonymous', how did you know it was me? Wait, it was neither secret, nor anonymous, and is available for all to see it was me, so are you just using those words to defame or what?
3. "so who is lying?" - Well, you are Uli. Claiming the edit was 'anonymous' as if I did it under some IP and not under my same user account I've had for 15 years, clear as day, is 100% false. Since you are not a rookie editor and know this, it seems implausible that you are not fully aware of the dishonesty in your statement, hence my carefully considered application of the word, not something I throw around lightly. You claim falsely that "There has never been a discussion, let alone a consensus about that matter." What exactly constitutes a 'consensus' could be debated, so maybe not to your standard, but there have been multiple discussions with consensus achieved at times over several years. I'll give you a pass on saying no consensus as a matter of your opinion, but there were discussions, so on that you are wrong. However, maybe you just weren't aware of them, so in this case, I would not say you are lying, just wrong. If you continue to repeat it now, then maybe a different story.
4. "If one makes a major change and/or installs an entirely new section it is just common senese to have it on the own watchlist." - What, is that supposed to be some kind of weak excuse for not pinging someone when you start a discussion that revolves around their activity? Sorry, that is the weakest of the weak sauce. I have better things to do than sit there watching my watchlist and also have no desire to succumb to Watchlistitis.
5. "see rules in "Help:Label", already quoted above." - Help:Label states right at the top: "The following is a proposed Wikidata policy or guideline. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption." Now, I know you would never think of using anything on that page until the appropriate consensus has been gathered, right? I mean the way you go on about how evil it is to do anything without consensus, I can at least count on that, right? To be fair, Tm should probably go over there right now and delete the whole page since it hasn't been properly agreed to, right?
6. "personal campaign" - I have made almost a third of a million edits on WD, and only a small fraction are aircraft labels. Yet I have not edited the majority of such labels. If this was of such personal importance to me, I'd have spent more of my effort on the area, but I haven't. I edit labels as I happen to come across them in accordance with practices coming out of several discussions, many dating to the early years of WD, not out of any personal feelings. If you get past your red mist a bit and actually pay attention to the substantive portion of my post below, it will become clear that I find little value in labels being fit to any top-down policy.
7. "aircraft labels which had been inserted by hundreds of other editors" - Where in the world do you base that statistic off of, or did you just make it up? Nearly all the labels were originally inserted by bots back when we were originally populating the database years ago. It was understood that a lot of them would be wrong, or at least not completely right, but that it was better than waiting for human editors to add them all. The idea was that the original bot-added label would be a placeholder which human editors could change later when they got to it. I know you didn't contribute many edits (no knock, most people didn't) back in the early years, so you may be unaware of the fact there is nothing sacred about those initial bot-added labels. Look, the fact is there really isn't anything sacred about labels at all, they are one of the least consequential parts of entity. The interwiki links and actual claims are far more critical as they are the real data and are appropriately cited (or should be). Labels/descriptions/aliases are just a handy system to help human users find items quickly (not unimportant, just not hyper-critical). That said, I have noticed a large number of errors in the actual claims you have been adding to items and in particular a lack of citations. I commented on this on your talk, but I notice you don't respond to anyone on your talk page; you are clearly super-committed to engaging in discussion, I can tell.

Okay, those out of the way, as for the actual substance of the Great Label Debate, to whit, should manufacturer names be included in the label as a matter or policy on Wikidata, as proposed by Uli in the OP? First some of the issues in favor of forcing inclusion.

1. A lot of the argument in favor seems to boil down to 'Josh is bad, so we must do the opposite of him.' This is of course no real argument, so I'll leave it at that.
2. "A "popular name" as label is definitely not sufficient and never "does the trick"." - This is the closest thing I can find to a substantive support statement in the original post by Uli. However, it doesn't say much. What is it not 'sufficient' at accomplishing? In what way is it not sufficient? What trick does it fail to accomplish that Uli's proposal would succeed at? Perhaps they can shed more light on this, but as written you could substitute anything for 'popular name' and still have the same lack of substance. That said, 'popular names' have their issues and are not perfect, but they may be the only constant across a range of aircraft that fall within a class, and thus may be appropriate for use as a label for that class.
3. Citing the proposal at Help:Label which has failed to get consensus to adopt as an actual guideline, Uli adds: "Because the aim is to use the name that an item would be known by to the most readers, labels should reflect common usage." Now that may not be adopted policy, but still I don't see a big problem with the statement itself. "Reflecting common usage" is all well and good, the trick is determining common usage, and we all know the old adage about common sense, I'm sure, so same applies here.
4. To bolster the above support, Uli provides the example of "C-1" not being common usage. That's interesting, since I quickly grabbed a book and read through the section on the C-1. It uses the name "C-1" eight times, "C-1Kai" two times, and "Kawasaki C-1", "XC-1", and "C-X" once each. Side note, when referring to another aircraft in the prose, it merely refers to it as "YS-11" not feeling the need to add "NAMC" even though it was the only reference to the aircraft present. I don't necessarily hold that word counting is a fair way to arbitrarily determine 'common usage', but it certainly does provide a useful pointer to ways that are commonly used. Of course the reality is that for a given item, there often is not a singular 'common usage', but instead usually several options that could be construed to qualify. Thus while common usage is a valuable qualifier for label possibilities, it is not so good for clearly picking which is best.
5. Further citing the un-adopted Help:Label, Uli gives us the text from the section titled "Wikimedia page title may give orientation", basically saying that it may be good to check out the Wikipedia page and use the article name of some variation on it. Sure, why not? But this is hardly any sort of dictate, particularly using the word "may" and being part of a document that hasn't gotten consensus in several years of proposal. It is also particularly instructive that it is precisely the Wikipedia-centric portions of Help:Label that have garnered a good bit of criticism of the proposed guidelines and part of why it has not gained consensus.

As of the moment, there has not been enough presented to warrant adopting such a strict policy, and further questions would have to be answered to even evaluate it objectively. In addition to things covered above, some of these include at least:

1. Since Wikidata has not adopted any specific policies or guidelines for labels, how would we position and determine scope for such a thing on this subset?
2. Given that there is no need for labels to be unique and disambiguation is not desired in a label, what specific need is there to require inclusion of a manufacturer name that can simply be in the description along with other disambiguating details?
3. For aircraft with multiple manufacturers, which manufacturer is to be included and which excluded from the label? ("General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon", "Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon", or "General Dynamics/Fokker/SABCA/Lockheed/TUSAS/Lockheed Martin/Samsung F-16 Fighting Falcon"?)
4. Will claims for the above be documented and cited? How?
5. Why are existing methods such as manufacturer (P176) and the description insufficient for conveying manufacturer information?

I  Oppose requiring or prohibiting manufacturer information in aircraft labels until the requirements for such a policy and the details of its implementation are better clarified and reasoned. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment You claim that you are oppose "requiring or prohibiting manufacturer information in aircraft labels [etc]" and yet, after just 5 hours, you continue you your unilataral removal of proper information. So goes any good faith in discussion. Tm (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tm: - So says the user who has been currently making many more such edits than I can count. So don't play that card. You were apparently in such a great rush to do it in volume that you made a lot of mistakes along the way which I noted to you. Nonetheless, for the next couple of weeks, I will not edit any labels for the purpose of adding or removing manufacturers vs. whatever their current state is as of the time of this post. I may restore some to their current state if they are subsequently vandalized or otherwise inappropriately changed in the next few weeks, but that should put your concern to bed. Simply, however they are now, they will stay until this discussion has had a chance to be concluded. I have no desire to escalate into an all out edit war. The reality is there are many thousands of items and the few we have been touching lately are a drop in the bucket that can be rapidly and easily brought into line with any consensus that is reached here. I do oppose adopting any arbitrary policy without being very careful to flesh it out and make sure all ramifications are understood and provided for. I do not oppose a well thought out plan to improve the handling of labels which have admittedly been given very little cohesive thought by the community (through policies, guidelines, or much discussion at all). Josh Baumgartner (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Josh Baumgartner, you refer to US DOD aircraft designations when you change the title, but DOD designations should not be used as title. military designation (P798) should be used for that. Title should be the name used in the majority of the sources, and that includes the name of the manufacturer. What manufacturer you ask when there is more than one. That is not so simple to decide, but at svwp we have choosen to use the first manufacturer that actual built the aircraft. /ℇsquilo 09:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Esquilo: I actually completely agree with you that military designation (P798) should be used to list the military designations for an aircraft. However, IF we use a designation in the label, we should use it accurately or not use it. Using a bastardized version of an official name is a problem because it is misleading and can cause some readers to think the bastardized version is actually the correct one. By the way, I would apply this to all such nomenclature, including manufacturer, regulator, and operator nomenclature. We should certainly not feel compelled to use any given nomenclature, but if we do use it, we should reflect it accurately. If we don't want to use a particular nomenclature accurately in the label.

You mention the call that has been made at svwp. Is there an analog discussion on Wikidata specific to Swedish-language guidelines? A link would be great if you have one, because my search came up empty. WP guidelines for article names are not really relevant to Wikidata labels as they perform very different functions. The WP article name function is fulfilled by the QID which is always unique and unchanging (well 99.9% of the time anyway). In what discussions do take place about labels, most of the strife comes from users importing Wikipedia thinking to unique Wikidata constructs such as the label. It is not a title or a name; 'label' it is its own unique concept.

Common usage in the majority of sources sounds good, but the usage most commonly used in the majority of sources generally will be sans manufacturer name. See the C-1 example from above. Just picking a random book off the shelf that would cover that aircraft that another user brought up, I flipped to that page and found it used the correct official designation "C-1" something like 8 times, and only once did it append the manufacturer name. Looking at other aircraft entries in other books (at least those with actual prose), I found the same thing to be widely true across the board. Wikipedia has very good reasons for requiring the extended full name with manufacturer included to be used as their article names. They can't well have two "C-1" articles for obvious reasons, instead they need a C-1 dab page with all of the C-1 articles (more than planes I wager) having unique names that they also don't have to change all the time. This means they have to compromise and come up with a system for picking something, even if it means not being technically accurate or complete. We don't have those issues. On the other hand labels do have a job to do that article names don't have to do, and that is represent a class. It doesn't matter much whether Wiki names its F-16 article using General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin. Either could be argued for as a title just fine. But as a class label, they are both equally wrong. 'General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon' is a sub-class of 'all F-16 Fighting Falcons' as many were not built by GD. Same with LM or any of the many other manufacturers of that aircraft. This an ontological issue not shared by articles and further reason why article naming conventions are not really relevant to class label conventions.

I guess in short, what I would really like to know is: What great value do we get out of forcing manufacturer names into the label that can't be gained better elsewhere, and is that value so immense that it outweighs the cost of the ontological inconsistencies and potential for misrepresentation and disinformation that it entails? Why exactly does "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" serve better as a label than simply "F-16 Fighting Falcon"? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply because that is how we label almost all other products as well. It is "Volvo P1800", not "P1800". It is "Commodore Amiga", not "Amiga". It is "Browning M1919", not "M1919", it is "Napier Lion", not "Lion". That is based on a much wider consensus than just WikiProject Aviation.

And when it comes to the convention on svwp I can not find the discussion now, but I'd like to point out the Buccaneer as a typical example. The title is "Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer" because it was Hawker Siddeley that put the aircraft into production. It is not "Blackburn Buccaneer" because even though Blackburn designed the aircraft they never put it in production. It is not "BAC Buccaneer" either because even though BAC produced the aircraft they was not first. I recall it was discussed whether the title of the swedish article should be "Scottish Aviation Bulldog" or "Beagle Bulldog" too but, like I said, I can not find the discussion (for some resaon it was not discussed on the article discussion page). /ℇsquilo 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Josh Baumgartner, you again tried to add [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:WikiProject_Aviation/Properties&diff=1363845603&oldid=1362782095 more unilateral and undiscussed text that suits your interests to the "policy". And about the use of "", learn"" for what they are used for if you dont know. Also please stop trying to claim added the label of {{proposed}} because "clearly Tm was confused by this, I added a tag to make things more clear" is clearly false. You added your unilateral text on February 11 to try to try to justify your actions ex post facto, and only added the tag {{proposed}} only on February 16, i.e. 5 after, claiming that i should had deleted the text before deleting it and yet you added it without any attempt to an previous discussion.

In resume 1- you added the unilateral text, without any previous attempt discussion, to try to justify your actions, after you got contested 2- you added the tag of proposed 5 after claim that you wanted 3- You keep adding more undiscussed text to suit your actions and bias, again without any discussion 4- You keep reverting hundreds of edit that goes against any of your bias, even when you claim that you want any discussion 5- So goes any good faith by the way of the window. Tm (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tm (talk • contribs • logs) Do you have anything to say about the actual issue here? Or do you just want to keep posting ad hominem about another user? The former would be welcome, but the latter has no place. Look back through your posts to this discussion. There is not one substantive point in them about how we should handle aircraft item labels that I can find...maybe I missed one hidden amongst the calls to revert all my edits? Even your objection to this supposedly self-serving text I added is bewildering. Here is the text that you apparently find so offensive: "Currently, there is no policy or guideline which dictates any exact standard for aircraft entity labels. Inclusion or exclusion of manufacturer information, for example, is under discussion. For cases where a reference is available to source the name of an aircraft family or model, a claim using name (P2561), official name (P1448), native label (P1705), where the reference for the name can be properly cited." Well, there is no specific policy or guideline, and that is what we are trying to resolve here. My note to that effect helps those looking at that page realize that state of affairs and know that the issue is under discussion. It also lists useful properties that can be used to allow cited contributions. None of this is controversial, and calling attention to the discussion is a way to foster discussion, participation, and consensus building. It is hardly the tactic of someone trying to push some 'unilateral vision', unless that 'unilateral vision' is of a process where as many people as possible contribute ideas and build the best solutions possible through discussion, in which case guilty as charged. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

>Me and others already said enough about why the manufacturer names should be on the labels, so i´am not going to reiterate the same arguments ad nauseam. Your claim that you added the new text as to point to this discussion, this claim is either wrong or misleading, as the template {{proposed}} clearly says "It is proposed that this informational page become a policy or guideline. Please see the discussion on its talk page or the project chat. The following is a proposed Wikidata policy or guideline. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.". Again, in shorter version "Please see the discussion on its talk page or the project chat. The following is a proposed Wikidata policy or guideline. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption, so your text is not necessary and merelly serves as an wecking ammendment to slip the intent of your original text. Tm (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tm: So if, as you say, you have nothing to add on the subject of this discussion, what is the point of your continuing to post after noting your support for a position? Is there a point other than to hammer home that I am a bad faith actor and that all of my contributions should be discredited, discounted, and or erased? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshbaumgartner's excessively long litany of 06:52, 18 February 2021 was spiced with personal attacks on both me and User:Tm, like "you are lying Uli.", "dishonesty", "vandalized" or "shotgun deletion".

Putting in a major new section of "rules" and then complaining not to be personally informed about any step in a discussion about that section by saying "I have better things to do than sit there watching my watchlist" is the perfect "fire-and-forget" method. Just drop a bomb somewhere and look what happens, if anything at all.

You were the first one to link to "(see Help:Label)" in this one of your edits which you later played down as "rules in the un-adopted "Help:Label" when it suddenly did not suit your interests any more.

As Tm pointed out already, you moved the section "Labels" on 16 February 2021 to this discussion here, placing it above the already ongoing discussion in order to pretend that it had been here before this discussion had been started on 12 February 2021 and thus deceive other readers. I fully agree with Tm that this was a really miserable trick.

"I do oppose adopting any arbitrary policy without being very careful to flesh it out", but still you have published such a policy on 19 January.

You write "... "C-1" something like 8 times, and only once did it append the manufacturer name." Quite clear, when the manufacturer name is mentioned in the section or paragraph title/heading line, there is no need to repeat everything in full many times on the same page - it's just logical, but no proof at all.

"... the potential for misrepresentation and disinformation" is instead inherent when we have exactly the same "C-1" label many times for quite different subjects, and the contrary is true when omitting or (even worse) deleting the manufacturer names.

As "Help:Label" states: "Labels should reflect common usage" and "the most common name". This is what Esquilo pointed aout with his examples of "Volvo P1800", not "P1800" or "Commodore Amiga", not "Amiga".

It still is your very own "personal campaign". You are the only one of the four editors taking part in this discussion insisting on the strange position that labels like "C-1" represent "the most common name" and do not need any addition of the manufacturer names.

Just one example: The Piper PA-18 Super Cub. The Piper name had been in place since creation of the item in 2012. It remained there unchallenged, the item being edited by 13 different users (excluding bots) for almost 6 years until Joshbaumgartner came along and started to delete the manufacturer name in 2018.

Simply show us any other user who systematically makes mass deletions of the manufacturers names, again and again. --Uli Elch (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Uli, I have no desire to entertain your strawman arguments or ad hominems which compose most of your post, but you do speak to a couple of substantive items, so those I can address:

1) As to "Quite clear, when the manufacturer is mentioned in the section or paragraph title/heading line", you presume this is the case, but you apparently ignored the mention of aircraft being referred to, without manufacturer included, when NOT under such a section title/heading. That said, can you justify why Wikidata should be bound by certain book editors' choices as to the style of their paragraph/section headings? Labels are not section headings for for printed media, so why would we be forced to replicate it?

2) As to "when we have exactly the same "C-1" label many times for quite different subjects", can you explain why this would be an issue? Wikidata labels have no need to be unique, and the description provides any clarification necessary to avoid confusion. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Esquilo:, items such as the Volvo P1800 are fine examples of using the manufacturer's name for a label, and in those case I would agree that including the manufacturer's name in those cases is a valid way to label a set. Thus I would be fine with using a label such as "Boeing 737" or "Sikorsky S-58", when using the manufacturer's name or designation for the aircraft (though I cannot find where the Wikidata community has chosen this as a consensus instead of merely a result of bot-labelling). As for the Buccaneer, it is more of a problem, in that as you lay out there are several companies involved (though to be fair, you chose an example where the alternatives are really on the fringe of the issue, and the aircraft really was manufactured basically under one manufacturer, not an example of an aircraft where there really are several true manufacturers of it). While the rationale you use to determine which is chosen sounds fine, it seems a perfect matter to be discussed on a case-by-case basis (I trust you it was had for that one, no need to look it up). I have no issue with how svwiki, or enwiki, have determined article naming conventions, but we are not talking about naming articles here, so they are not necessarily relevant. However, whichever rationale is used for Wikidata to select a manufacturer, it seems an effort to solve a problem that does not exist and begs the question what is the value-added purpose to including it in the first place? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes consensus is not discussed. It everyone does the same thing in the same way spontaneously without discussing it first it is also consensus. The same thing when editors look at prior work and do things in the same way because it makes sense. In those cases consensus does not need to be discussed until the consensus is challenged, and there is where we are now. /ℇsquilo 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Esquilo: I get that, though 'the way it is X because X is consensus, and consensus is X because X is the way it is' sounds like circular logic. Either way, it still doesn't answer the question posed. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Looking at the original post of this thread, the OP was opposed to some text I added to the Wikidata talk:WikiProject Aviation/Properties page. As there is clearly no consensus to keep my additions, I withdraw my submission and this should close this matter. If anyone wants to discuss specifics about labels or properties, I look forward to discussing those in their own thread. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)