Talk:List of United States bomber aircraft

Untitled

Just because a US aircraft has been dropping bombs, it doesn't entitle it to be called a "bomber". The A-10 and A-4 are attack aircraft, the P-47, F-4 etc. are fighter aircraft, and the P-3 is a maritime patrol aircraft. This list should focus on full-blooded bombers; light bombers, medium bombers, heavy bombers, dive bombers... but not aircraft who has more suitable items in the Template:United States military aircraft. Nice with the annual sections anyway. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing aircraft

Is there a reason the B-17 is not in the list? 88.130.55.168 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering the EXACT same thing?! I was sure that I was missing it somehow, or that is was listed under some name I was not familiar with, but as far as I can tell it is completely missing. Being that it should be one of the most significant bombers on this list, I am totally perplexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.176.161 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Added. - ^theWOLFchild 19:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent image removals

Today, entire columns of images were removed from all 3 lists on this page. The removal was supported by the edit summary "per WP:AVIMOS" This editor was likely referring to the "Use of images" subsection.

The lead of this page states that it is a "style guide" and makes it clear that these are "recommendations". There is mention of exemptions and the suggestion of discussion before major changes. There was no attempt at a discussion before this mass removal of image content, nor was there even an attempt to create a gallery for them instead, as the section noted sugggests.

However this giude came to be, when or whereever the discussion was that led to any consensus in support of these "recommendations", I fail to see how this version (without images) is in any way an improvement over this version (with images).

Surely if there were to be an exemption, this would qualify? I think the images should be reatored. I would like to see opinions from other editors here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The same editor abruptly removed images from List of World War II jet aircraft, while I had it at wp:milhist ACR. I agree that this is a rather...too strict suggestion, and probably a very old one from the days of untabled lists where including all the images would make a list very ugly indeed, but with a table it adds to the value of the list significantly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a useful discussion on the WP:AVILIST style guide's talk page here, which summarises key points and links to the original consensus discussion. Essentially, if you want a gallery of images then WP:COMMONS is the place to go, not here. The national flags are also inappropriate, as they are not key to the aircraft identities in the way that they are key to say international airlines. If you want to change the guideline, then that talk page is the place to build consensus. As for a local exception, I see nothing exceptional in these lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at that original discussion...honestly I see a couple of problems with it. To wit:

1. The main point in the discussion seems to be "lists are not galleries". Yes, this is true, but there is a difference between "a gallery masquerading as a list" and "a list that includes images", something that seems to have been...not mentioned at all, really. Images can be very informative in a list.
2. There seems to be a heavy emphasis on "just because some lists have images doesn't mean they all should" and, at the same time, "look at these other prominent lists that don't have images". Having WP:OTHERSTUFF cake =/= eating it too.
3. The biggest single issue I see here, and it's a doozy: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The style guide for WP:MILHIST has no such prohibition, for instance. I picked out eight WP:MILHIST Featured Lists, for instance (while being careful not to select "related" lists and thus skew the sample), and six of those had images. If a list crosses over two projects, the expectation at the other project is for images to be in its A-class lists or featured lists, and the aircraft project's editors are rigidly enforcing WP:AVILIST, one or the other has to give. Should we be crippling aviation project editors in attempting to get lists to A or FL class because "lists are not galleries"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Project page offers recommendations, not hard-and-fast rules. This list decidedly enhanced by the presence of the images and my preference is to keep them in the article. DonFB (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who removed them, there were more reasons than just the style guide - although that was the primary reason. The following statement at WP:AVLIST, agreed upon by the Project, is quite clear on the matter:

"No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for."

Additionally, these thumbnails do not follow Wikipedia rules for thumbnails. At 100 pixels, they are less than 1/4 of the size dictated for default by Wikipedia's image standards (220 pixels) and contain too much detail to be viewed at this tiny size. There is an exception to be 3/4 the size of the default, if there is minimal detail. These are just too small to be useful. Increasing the size to the default increases the scrolling requirements on mobile devices, and the amount of viewable list within the user's viewport. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's our stated goals for accessibility

No list articles contains enough caption detail to satisfy Wikipedia's Accessibility guidelines for images, found on WP:ACCIM.

Removing these images is not a Bold edit. It is merely enforcing Wikipedia and Project standards across multiple manuals of style. There is widespread consensus across multiple projects which have defined multiple standards, and this consensus is too great for any local consensus to override. Scr★pIron^IV 14:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I also have some quotes from AVIMOS;

The Aviation WikiProject's style guide is intended to apply to all articles within the project's scope—in other words, to all articles related to aviation. While the recommendations presented here are well-suited for the vast majority of such articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. These exceptions are often the result of protracted negotiation; if something seems unusual or out-of-place, it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change it, as there might be reasons for the oddity that are not immediately obvious! (bolding is from there)

That is from the lead section. It is followed by;::;General Priciples

This project should endeavor to remain consistent, firstly by abiding by the guidelines set out in the Manual of Style. Wherever necessary, this page and its subpages will set out more specific guidelines.

Style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.

This is a guideline, and while some if its suggestions may indeed work toward improving some other articles, that is not the case here. One thing it makes clear is that there are exceptions, to which this article is arguably one, which basically negates the local consensus vs. project-wide consensus argument. Another thing that it states is "it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change", which ScrapIronIV did not do. And not only did he not ask, but he reverted the images out twice, as oppose to following BRD and only stopped once an admin got involved. Thus far, it appears that ScrapIronIV is the only person wanting to have the images removed.

An argument about accessibility has been made. To date, there has not been a single complaint posted to this talk page about accessibility issues. I can confirm that there are no accessibility issues with this page as is. It even works perfectly fine on smartphone screens. There is no shifting of content and the images are not forced above or below the content of the table.

There is no need to remove these images. They are consistent through-out the article, as the guideline requests. They are an improvement to the article and therefore a valid exception, allowed by the guideline. They have been there since the article was created almost 4 years ago, without issue. And finally, as noted above, there doesn't appear to be any desire to see them removed. - ^theWOLFchild 16:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

These arguments are sterile, they miss the point. If local consensus wishes to agree an exception to the style guide then the exceptional nature of the article needs to be agreed (an example of this is the List of X-planes). Failing that, the style guide would need to be revisited. @Thewolfchild: you are doing neither of these things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? Well, I am the one the initially challenged the removal of the images, and subsequently started this discussion. I have, as only one editor can do, lent my support to the consensus in favor of having this article recognized as an exception. So how am I "not doing that"...? As for "revisiting" the style guide, are we there yet? If and when that happens, let me know, and I will be happy to again contribute to the discussion, building of consensus and formulating changes that may need to be made. Anything is better than just gutting this page of significant content for, well... 'just because'. - ^theWOLFchild 20:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Starting this discussion was the right thing to do if you want to establish why this article is a special case compared to all the others, but you have done no more than say what you want and have not attempted to argue a special case. If you have no such special case to offer then you will instead need to revisit the style guide, and it is no good waiting for Godot, it is up to you to open that dialogue yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. Doing either of these might at least get you better mileage in the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, first off... my argument is simple, the article is better off with the images than without. But, I am not alone in this. You have seen the argument made by Bushranger above. How much more do I need to expand on that? (and why just me?) Others have argued in favor of retaining the images as well. Now that said, I have not seen any well-supported argument as to why this list shouldn't be an exception. But, the discussion is still relatively new. We should allow others an opportunity to contribute. Let's settle the exception issue before deciding whether to visit the style guide itself. - ^theWOLFchild 21:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. I say that "United States bomber aircraft" is a typical aircraft topic and a "List of United States bomber aircraft" is a typical aircraft list. There is nothing exceptional about it at all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup... you've been pretty clear about that. Your opinion is noted, just like the rest of ours. - ^theWOLFchild 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on those who wish to show that it is an exception. Just wanting it to be is no argument at all. It would be more constructive to see somebody's - anybody's - views on why it should be treated differently from say the List of active Russian military aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

OK well, Bushranger has so far put forth the best and most persuasive argument, out of both sides. I'll put my support behind him, and continue to watch for any other more comments. From other people. - ^theWOLFchild 20:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On image size: the images were very clear. There is no magic number at which an image becomes illegible, and - in the case of the other list in question - I specifically chose them to be clear and legible. Also, every single image had alt text, hence the accessibility question is moot. And finally, I notice you declined to address the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS point - if (for instance) a WP:MILHIST review says 'place/restore the images', and WP:AIR is "NO IMAGES IN LISTS EVER", are we supposed to go "welp, no A-class list for you"? If you can please point to an encyclopedia-wide "no images in lists" mandate, your position will be much stronger here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility is not about those readers and editors who can see tiny images, and believe they are clear. It is about content being accessible to those who have physical limitations. Putting images less than 1/4 of the recommended thumb size fails to take into account those individuals with vision problems. Failing to include captions with images fails to take into account those of our readers who rely on audio assistance to access Wikipedia's content. There is nothing special or exceptional about either of these pages that says our various Manuals of Style should not be followed, and I especially do not see anything so special about these pages that Wikipedia should make an exception that would allow only certain readers be able to access this content. I would expect Wikipedia to be more inclusive of individuals with disabilities than this. Feel free to look into Web Accessibility Initiative, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the International Association of Accessibility Professionals and the relevant Wikipedia project Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. Additionally it should be noted that in 2006, the Wikimedia foundation passed the Nondescrimination Resolution which explicitly includes people with disabilities. Manuals and style guides were written for a reason. Exceptions should be exceptional; neither of these lists is anything other than a run-of-the-mill aircraft list article. Scr★pIron^IV 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, Failing to include captions with images fails to take into account those of our readers who rely on audio assistance to access Wikipedia's content. is what ALT= text is for. And I have yet to see a Manual of Style linked that says "don't put images in lists"? Finally: putting images in the article - apoligies, but I feel there needs to be very strong emphasis here - does not make it so "only certain readers [can] be able to access th[e] content". The rest of the content is still there. Adding images, in addition to the text, not in place of, is a supplement that does not affect the content of the article being accessible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(reply to scrapiron) But can't people with a vision problem that makes it difficult to see these images as they are, simply click on the image to expand it to it's full size? Wouldn't people who rely on readers, have their readers read the image's caption info from the Commons page? And lastly, do these policies on accessibility really say that if there are some that can't see these images readily and clearly, then there should be no images at all? I'm all for making WP content more accessible for everyone, especially anyone with a disability, but I fail to see how removing these images outright accomplishes that goal. - ^theWOLFchild 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)