Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide

Please consider this a mini-RfC with respect to which airline name is used with the flight number.

I propose that this page be updated to designate that accident aircraft be referred to by their IATA airline name. For example, American Airlines Flight 5342. There has been an edit war on which airline name to use primarily. See Talk page for 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision

Dw31415 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As has been brought up in a recent discussion that the criteria for choosing an aircraft infobox image are not formally written down. I propose that we do so in the currently empty WP:AVIPIC section of this style guide. I propose the following wording:

Lead images for aircraft type articles should appropriately represent the topic. To help choose the best lead image, the following criteria are often used:

• The lead image should depict a physical example of the aircraft. 3D renderings or illustrations of aircraft should only be used in the lead if no image of the physical aircraft is available.
• The lead image should be of high quality and resolution. Good lighting is especially important.
• The image should depict the whole aircraft. An image that cuts off parts of the aircraft should be avoided.
• The image should depict the aircraft facing the lead text. This helps draw the reader's attention to the article.
• The image should depict the aircraft at roughly a front quarter view or side profile. Angles that obscure key details about its general configuration should be avoided.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a non-distracting livery. The livery should not obscure the aircraft's general configuration. This does not necessarily mean a plain, single-color livery, but a Pokémon Jet is generally not suitable for the lead.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a non-distracting background. This usually means a clear or uniformly cloudy sky, but any background that does not draw the attention away from the image will also be fine.
• The image should have a clear contrast between the aircraft and the background. Be mindful of MOS:COLOR. A blue aircraft against a blue sky may cause issues for users with vision impairments or color blindness.
• The image should depict an aircraft in a clean flight configuration. This includes, but is not limited to, landing gear being retracted, the flaps and slats raised, the doors/canopy closed, and external weapons/fuel tanks removed. Not all of the listed examples are applicable to all aircraft, and this criteria should not be preferred over general image quality.
• The image should depict a variant of the aircraft that falls within the scope of the article. If a variant has its own article, that variant should not be used as the lead image in the main article. This does not mean that such an image cannot appear elsewhere in the article.

These criteria are most often used for aircraft types with hundreds or thousands of images on Wikimedia Commons, but are also useful when choosing between as few as two photos. Often times there is not a free image that meets all the above criteria, so users should choose images that fit as many of them as reasonably possible. There may also be cases where an image meets more criteria than another, but the latter is favorable for a reason not listed above. These criteria are advice, and as such there is no requirement to follow them to the letter.

For aircraft with historical significance, it may be favorable to use images taken during its era over more recent images. Such images will generally be of lower quality due to more primitive camera technology, and should be judged based on the quality of contemporary photos.

I also propose a subsection for aviation accident and incident articles:

In addition to accident photos, it is common practice to show a pre-accident photo of the involved aircraft or an image of a similar aircraft in the lead. The following hierarchy is recommended for choosing such an image.

• An image of the accident/incident aircraft. This usually means a pre-accident/incident photo, but post-accident/incident photos may be used if the aircraft was undamaged or repaired.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same variant and operator.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same variant, different operator.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same type.

If multiple photos are available within the same level of the hierarchy, the general criteria for aircraft type images may be used to further narrow down the selection.

I'd like to know everyone else's opinions on this. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks nice. Now I understand what image is needed there, and this helps me be a better editor. Unrelated

Anyway, IDK anything else to add to it. As a new editor, IDK much. I think it's great. TheRealWoofwoof (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging 10mmsocket, Nimbus227, and TheRealWoofwoof from the most recent discussion. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you've covered most bases there! You could add to the 3D renderings/illustrations line the use of scale models. There are quite a few articles with images of models in the infobox, even a few that I have taken and uploaded myself. Some editors object to it but I believe it is perfectly fine if the model is fairly accurate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Nimbus227 What about this?

*The lead image should depict a physical example of the aircraft. 3D renderings, illustrations, or models of aircraft should only be used in the lead if no quality image of the physical aircraft is available.

I also specified "quality image of the physical aircraft", as I'm sure there are cases where an image of the actual aircraft exists but is of such low quality that a model or illustration would be better. - ZLEA ^TǀC

That works. There is another clause that could be added (don't want to load the guideline up too much) and that is that the sole image in an aircraft article should be placed in the infobox. I've encountered many articles with one image that was down the page somewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. I thought that was covered by an existing guideline, but I'm unable to find it. Lead images for aircraft type articles should appropriately represent the topic. In most cases, the lead image should be included in the infobox. To help choose the best lead image, the following criteria are often used: - ZLEA ^TǀC 22:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

It's good, but TBH I think it's much wider, i.e. not just aircraft as the same applies to {{Infobox airline}} 10mmsocket (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. How about another subsection for airlines:

Airline articles also commonly include an example of an aircraft flown by the airline in the infobox. The general criteria may be used to choose such a photo, though the following considerations apply:

• The image should depict a typical aircraft flown by the airline. This does not necessarily mean an example of the most numerous type, but aircraft flown only on special occasions or operated in limited numbers should be avoided.
• For current airlines, the image should depict an example of a type currently flown by the airline. The individual aircraft shown does not have to be currently operated by the airline, it just needs to represent a currently-operated type. For defunct airlines, the image should may depict an aircraft from any era.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a typical livery. For current airlines, this should be the latest standard livery currently in use by the airline. Special liveries should be avoided. In some cases, this will override the general livery criteria.

- ZLEA ^TǀC 22:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, the proposed section would look like this:

Lead images for aircraft type articles should appropriately represent the topic. In most cases, the lead image should be included in the infobox. To help choose the best lead image, the following general criteria are often used:

• The lead image should depict a physical example of the aircraft. 3D renderings, illustrations, or models of aircraft should only be used in the lead if no quality image of the physical aircraft is available.
• The image should be of high quality and resolution. Good lighting is especially important.
• The image should depict the whole aircraft. An image that cuts off parts of the aircraft should be avoided.
• The image should depict the aircraft facing the lead text. This helps draw the reader's attention to the article.
• The image should depict the aircraft at roughly a front quarter view or side profile. Angles that obscure key details about its general configuration should be avoided.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a non-distracting livery. The livery should not obscure the aircraft's general configuration. This does not necessarily mean a plain, single-color livery, but a Pokémon Jet is generally not suitable for the lead.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a non-distracting background. This usually means a clear or uniformly cloudy sky, but any background that does not draw the attention away from the aircraft will also be fine.
• The image should have a clear contrast between the aircraft and the background. Be mindful of MOS:COLOR. A blue aircraft against a blue sky may cause issues for readers with vision impairments or color blindness.
• The image should depict an aircraft in a clean flight configuration. This includes, but is not limited to, landing gear being retracted, the flaps and slats raised, the doors/canopy closed, and external weapons/fuel tanks removed. Not all of the listed examples are applicable to all aircraft, and this criteria should not be preferred over general image quality.
• The image should depict a variant of the aircraft that falls within the scope of the article. If a variant has its own article, that variant should not be used as the lead image in the main article. This does not mean that such an image cannot appear elsewhere in the article.

These criteria are most often used for aircraft types with hundreds or thousands of images on Wikimedia Commons, but are also useful when choosing between as few as two photos. Often times there is not a free image that meets all the above criteria, so users should choose images that fit as many of them as reasonably possible. There may also be cases where an image meets more criteria than another, but the latter is favorable for a reason not listed above. These criteria are advice, and as such there is no requirement to follow them to the letter.

For aircraft with historical significance, it may be favorable to use images taken during its era over more recent images. Such images will generally be of lower quality due to more primitive camera technology, and should be judged based on the quality of contemporary photos.

"Airline articles" subsection:

Airline articles also commonly include an example of an aircraft flown by the airline in the infobox. The general criteria may be used to choose such a photo, though the following considerations apply:

• The image should depict a typical aircraft flown by the airline. This does not necessarily mean an example of the most numerous type, but aircraft flown only on special occasions or operated in limited numbers should be avoided.
• For current airlines, the image should depict an example of a type currently flown by the airline. The individual aircraft shown does not have to be currently operated by the airline, it just needs to represent a currently-operated type. For defunct airlines, the image should may depict an aircraft from any era.
• The image should depict an aircraft with a typical livery. For current airlines, this should be the latest standard livery currently in use by the airline. Special liveries should be avoided. In some cases, this will override the general livery criteria.

"Accident/incident articles" subsection:

In addition to accident photos, it is common practice to show a pre-accident photo of the involved aircraft or an image of a similar aircraft in the lead. The following hierarchy is recommended for choosing such an image.

• An image of the accident/incident aircraft. This usually means a pre-accident/incident photo, but post-accident/incident photos may be used if the aircraft was undamaged or repaired.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same variant and operator.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same variant, different operator.
• An image of a similar aircraft of the same type.

If multiple photos are available within the same level of the hierarchy, the general criteria for aircraft type images may be used to further narrow down the selection.

I did make a few minor changes for clarity. I'll post a notice to WT:AVIATION to get more eyes on this. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It all seems pretty reasonable to me, apart from the point The image should depict the aircraft facing the lead text. This helps draw the reader's attention to the article. The reason given is nonsensical, verging on patronising, as if the reader could fail to notice that there is an article next to the image. I'll never get why this convention apparently matters so much to people; I believe the true reason is purely aesthetical.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with aircraft facing the text, but the rule should be moved down 5~6 points not to give it undue weight. Surely having an image of an aircraft at front quarter or side view, with non-distracting liveries and background, in a clean, clear configuration should matter a lot more than which way the nose is pointing. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe any reasonable reader would consider this patronizing. The exact same rationale is already used for portraits of people and animals in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, so there is precedent. The general criteria also aren't currently listed in any specific order, but if you believe they should be ordered by importance, we could do that. - ZLEA ^TǀC 23:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This comment by Acroterion explains it better than I could:

A cardinal rule of print is that images should face or lead into the text (usually enforced by peevish layout editors with scathing commentary), or at least into the valley, It’s just as valid online, and it’s stood the test of time. Since most images on WP are on the right, left-facing is almost always the better choice. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Good graphic design policy isn't "patronizing." It's a professional rule of layout - don't have portraits or things in motion looking off the page. In print photography we tried to get shots with the subject looking or moving in both directions so the layout editor would have options. I realize that layout is not one of Wikipedia's strong points, but we ought to at least try to do it right. It should not be an absolute rule, but it's a best practice. Airplanes aren't special cases. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we just state the guideline without trying to explain it with dubious rationales, such as to draw the reader's attention to what they are already staring at? For example:

• The image should depict the aircraft facing the lead text, in line with established graphic design conventions.

Because that's what it is, a mere convention or custom (which I don't have a problem with).

And yes, this rule should go as the last-but-one point. That is, once we have two good-quality pictures of the whole aircraft, both side views, in clean configuration, with non-distracting liveries and clear background, then we pick the one with the aircraft that faces the lead. Even the mentioned MOS:PORTRAIT says that such image would simply be preferable. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

This seems reasonable and I would support it.

I would try to weaken the language around the clean configuration (perhaps using "preferred" rather than "should", as this is overall a fairly weak preference (and one that is not followed for most airliner photos). 4300streetcar (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a fair request. The image should preferably depict an aircraft in a clean flight configuration. To be fair, such a photo is very hard to capture by the average plane spotter, so in many cases it's impossible to follow with the selection of photos available on Commons. Airliners specifically usually don't fly low enough in a clean configuration to be photographed in high quality at a reasonable angle. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Could we also add that an exception to a sky background image will be if the wing is covering most or some of the livery like the airline name? An example is the image for EgyptAir. Also for aircraft accident and incident articles, the image should be one with a non distracting background whether in the sky or on the ground and not have a image with the wing covering most of the livery unless it is the only image of the aircraft in that livery on Wikimedia or the wing is only covering up the Cheat lines and pinstripes. Zaptain United (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I support such a change for airline articles, but I'm opposed to doing so for accident/incident articles. Let's keep in mind the purpose of these photos in their respective articles; to depict a typical livery (in airline articles) vs. depicting the aircraft involved (accident/incident articles). Livery should not be prioritized over contrast for the latter. - ZLEA ^TǀC 23:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

While I think we would all prefer an image with a clean configuration, they're pretty scarce on WP, since most free images are taken at landing or takeoff. I've been getting some clean configuration images from a favorable spot with elevation and a nearby flight path just before they start deploying flaps, but distance, atmospheric distortion and lighting are the enemies for ground-based shots of that kind, along with wings covering logos. We really need air-to-air images to satisfy it all. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the idea. This is just a description of what an ideal image would look like. Such an image is indeed hard to come by on Commons, but just having these criteria in a single linkable location will hopefully make it a lot easier to choose the best images out of the available selection. - ZLEA ^TǀC 01:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

For the aircraft accident and incident images, could we also add it is preferred for an image of the aircraft before the accident unless it is worse quality. An example of what I am talking about is if the aircraft is repaired and we have an image of the aircraft taken after the incident. JetBlue Flight 292 is kind of an example of what I am talking about. Is this too niche? Zaptain United (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There is a risk of these words becoming too long, every effort should be made to condense them. Probably the main need for this guideline is for a shortcut to point IP/TA editors to after reversion of undiscussed (on the article talk page) changes of long established (and perfectly fine) lead images (an unwritten rule that has stood for years, wiki-wide). There is scope still for them to argue on talk pages if they feel strongly but my hope is that this guideline will discourage that. Need to weave that in somewhere, it may seem dictatorial to passing editors (with or without accounts) but it has become necessary due to the increasing problem. I know for certain that my first wiki edits were not to change lead images, times are changing, Merry Christmas (or Happy Holidays). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The recent undiscussed changes were not really a consideration when I wrote this proposal. I think it would be better to point them to WP:Consensus first, then only bring up this page only if they do start a discussion on the talk page. That said, I do see your point, but I'm not entirely sure how to address it. Cutting out criteria only means that we'll have to keep bringing up those missing criteria separately every time we have such a discussion, which is exactly the type of scenario I'm hoping this would prevent. - ZLEA ^TǀC 16:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)