Aircraft depicted in pictures, video and models

[Bthebest]

Ok, a topic that's been bugging me for a while and I want to get some opinions on before possibly introducing some guidelines.

In a few movies, we get screenshots that show aircraft models or aircraft in pictures (incl. stamps) and videos. Sometimes these can overwhelm the page or be the only "aircraft" in the movie. An example is Les félins.

For me, this doesn't really make a positive contribution to the site. I appreciate the efforts of users being thorough, but from an outside perspective it might look silly and lower the overall opinion of the site. It also clutters up the Unidentified Aircraft page.

I would suggest a guideline along the lines of:

Aircraft shown in pictures, photos, stamps, videos or other recorded format and aircraft displayed as models should not be included unless such media is directly referred to in the film or is part of the storyline.

Thanks,

[sixcyl]

Hello Tim.

Thanks for this question.
I personnally find that each aircraft seen in the screenshots, whatever it is, should be listed as an interest for the site. I don't consider it lowers the site at all.
Indeed, sometimes but quite often, pictures, posters or models dispayed on these screenshots may depict some rare and unexpected aircraft that provides up to me a real and genuine interest for the site, even when not very visible or quite in background: one ex. http://impdb.org/index.php?title=Berger ... kel_He_115 ...but they are actually many other ex. I could find.
Another fair interest, are the models...I personnally find interesting these airliners models of travel agency seen in such films:
http://impdb.org/index.php?title=A_bout_de_souffle or old model toys like in http://impdb.org/index.php?title=Les_amants_de_demain.... many other exemples could come.

I agree for the definitively unidentifiable aircraft that clutters up the Unidentified Aircraft page. I suggest to blank all of them from this page, but to leave them in the movie page as == Fictional model == with no other link to other pages.

Best regards.
JM sixcyl

[LVCDC2]

Hi guys !

Like Sixcyl, I consider a plane seen by every type of image (a real one or picture/model of it) is an airplane seen by the spectator.
Who could ask himself : "what type it was?"

Some movie have a great number of aircrafts but seen sometimes just the time of a glimpse.
IS a plane seen just a second (or less !) is more important than a poster seen during several minutes behind a actor acting as a director ?

I try to put these "pictures/models" in sub-section with the help of additionnal <b>=</b> caracters.

== [[:Category: aircraft#1|...
[[Image:...

== [[:Category: aircraft#2|...
[[Image:...

== Posters ==
=== [[:Category: De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver| De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver Mk.1]] ===
[[Image:...

=== [[:Category:Saab JAS 39 Gripen|Saab JAS 39 Gripen]] ===
[[Image:...

=== [[:Category: Eurocopter EC665 Tiger/Tigre | Eurocopter EC665 Tigre]] ===
[[Image:...

Which gives :
1 aircraft#1
2 aircraft#2
3 posters
3.1 DHC-2
3.2 Saab JAS 39
3.3 ...

But Sixcyl has changed it !

This should be too used for a movie where an aircraft type is seen through several variants. But it's another debate ...

Regards
LVCDC

[Bthebest]

This is a good suggestion LVCDC, but my personal opinion is to agree 'Yes' or 'No' for posters/models, and then not distinguish between them as it screws up all the formatting and doesn't flow as well.

So, as the general/majority opinion is to include posters/models we will run with that.

[LVCDC2]

That's democracy !

[kathi]

Same thing with "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes" which has still several planes without screenshot !