70
edits
FlightGear wiki:Village pump: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Aircraft Page Organization
(→Aircraft Page Organization: I think it would be better to have wiki quality discussions on the wiki) |
|||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
: —[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 08:07, 5 May 2015 (EDT) | : —[[User:Johan G|Johan G]] ([[User_talk:Johan_G|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Johan_G|contribs]]) 08:07, 5 May 2015 (EDT) | ||
Alright, so here goes: | |||
By the nature of FlightGear, multiple people might work on different projects covering the same areas. For instance, there are 2 different projects covering the Boeing 787. This makes overview and indexing very difficult. Wikipedia is designed to only really have one article on a topic (i.e. aircraft) that can be extended. | |||
For instance: | |||
{{Airbus}} | |||
It is dreadfully unclear on the overview of aircraft. In my opinion, it would make more sense to get an disambiguation page on the various 'packages' that contain the A319 for instance. The multiple entries greatly diminishes the value of the list. | |||
Here are a few ideas: | |||
* '''Give aircraft a codeword or project name.''' For instance, the Boeing 787 (Dream Project) or Boeing 787 (GPL Project) to distinguish between them. Then list them like that in the index as well. When you both have a --aircraft= A319 and A319-131, what are you going to do when the next person comes around and wants to design an A319? It would make more sense to migrate to a structure of say B787-8-Dream and B787-8-GPL. If you make a piece of software, you're not going to go calling your software 'Conference Manager', with the next person making the similar stuff calling it 'Conference Manager 2', but rather ConferenceTime and and ConferenceMaster. It's easier to do with aircraft but it gets bloody confusing. | |||
* I imagine that perhaps as a bit of a continuation of the above, '''people try to distinguish between their models by giving them very specific names, such as Boeing 707-338'''. I realize that people want to work on it themselves, but from a broader perspective, how much technical difference is there really between these? The A319 should also work with the corresponding changes as a A320- it is an identical cockpit and much the same fuselage. IMHO, it should have been filed as an A320 instead with only one model, an A319. As for the Boeing, give it a codeword, such as Boeing 707 (Qantas Project). It even makes it more marketable. | |||
* '''Clearly distinguish between current and past development in the template''', i.e. add a new index on the left that contains both categories. I find that not doing any work on the model in five years qualifies for past development. | |||
The ability to grow is proportional to the ability to handle the increase in information. While this perhaps happens mostly on aircraft articles, what happens if somebody wants a fresh start on that airport scenery? How does he name the page and organize it in relation to the current one? It would have been easier to name both after some town landmark so one the second one came around, you could easily categorise them. | |||