This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft C‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project. Automobiles Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There is an issue with links to other language versions of this page: a lot of them are missing.

I tried adding one to the French version ("Voiture volante") but I had the following error: "Site link frwiki:Voiture volante is already used by item Q1423125.". Item Q1423125 seems to be "Roadable aircraft", but redirects to this page (due to the merge mentioned above).

How should this error be fixed? Should we move all the references from item Q1423125 to item Q5463565 ? Or the other way round, as there are less to move ? Arkane (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like as usual WikiData is non-functional. The alternative would be to add them directly into this article and by-pass WikiData. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, other languages on item Q5463565 (fa, ja, tr, uk, zh) have different (duplicate?) pages (although for zh it is redirected), so moving all the links is no-go.

The category for this item is "fictional aircraft", so in my opinion the link to the English "Flying car" page should not be referenced.

I propose removing the link to enwiki:Flying car from item Q5463565 and, in item Q1423125, replacing the link to enwiki:Roadable aircraft by a link to enwiki:Flying car. Arkane (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiData makes your life better"^TM. I think you should just go ahead if there is anyway to fix this mess at all. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A radical concept, which has reputedly been flown as a model but no more, does not rate significant coverage in this overview article. Contrary to persistent claims by another editor, there is no hardware yet to gain the claimed "first" road and flight capability - indeed, many others have already demonstrated these in hardware and the only "first" remaining is significant production volume. So can we please stop trying to puff this thing up out of all proportion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this edit comment claims I removed citations to RS. I did not, I moved them elsewhere in the article, as can be seen here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. We need citations from WP:RS stating that 'firsts' have actually been demonstrated (with an actual human-carrying vehicle, not a model) before we can even contemplate describing this as the 'first' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah it all reads like too many Alef press releases and not enough aircraft, at least for now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including Gustave Whitehead's supposed aircraft in this list [1] seems inappropriate to me. The claims that Whitehead actually flew anything at all attract little credibility amongst serious aviation historians, and inclusion here, even in equivocal terms (e.g. "Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") seems entirely undue, per WP:REDFLAG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a number of the list entries were mere projects and never even built. Some have been accused of being outright scams. Achieving flight is in no way a criterion for inclusion, I am puzzled why you are under the impression it is? The No. 21's intended roadability is what matters here. I added the "but this has been challenged" bit because the cited sources for the flying car aspect also put the case that it did fly, and I thought it helpful to give some context as to why they contradict the (mainstream) view that it did not. Can you think of a better way to make that last point? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the inclusion criteria for this list is 'projected flying cars', that should be the title. And 'projections' don't generally involve claims, contrary to the views of more or less every subject-matter expert, to have beaten the Wright brothers to fly. Whitehead is discussed, with due weight, in the relevant place - an article on him. Including fringe claims about it here is entirely undue. This isn't a 'projection' - an assertion that something will take place in the future - it is a narrative relating to alleged events 120 years or so ago built around sources that historians of aviation have rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first-to-fly controversy is utterly irrelevant here. Moreover, you are abusing the term "project" - it does not just mean current projects, and is an item description in the status column not an overarching title; that is crystal clear from the table format. Please stay on topic and stop bashing your PoV rhetoric. An editor as experienced as you should know better. Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly ridiculous response. Given your refusal to actually address the substantive issue (undue promotion of claims rejected by mainstream historians) I shall be raising this at the fringe theories noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let us agree to differ then. Don't forget to drop a note here so I can join in the fun. Alternatively, would you like one of us to ping the Aircraft WikiProject first, to gain some idea of the current expert consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FTN thread: [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Flying cars and Whitehead — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has recently added walls of text to the Whitehead table entry. I'd suggest this verbose discrediting tacitly gives his claims undue screen space. Since everything in the table entry is cited in the main text, would it be acceptable to merge the whole Notes entry into the main text? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I have still to see a clear explanation as to why Whitehead is included in the list at all. The only sources offered for any 'flying car' label (i.e. one that implies it had any roadgoing capability to speak of) all ultimately derive their characterisation from a discredited 1901 newspaper source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

typically when you talk about other editors, it is customary to tag them. Please do so in the future, thanks. No I think it's important to describe Whitehead's claims in the table with mainstream views. But I am happy to shorten the entry if appropriate mainstream consensus is respected in the main text. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source regarding what Whitehead himself had to say on the machines intended roadgoing capabilities? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have a quote to be honest. I was looking... But we do have evidence he was designing things like this, with an attempt to make them roadable or road-worthy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from which source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yknow, you're right. I don't actually see "roadable" or "road-worthy" or "car" in any sources. I don't know if we have that.... We would need a source which says he was designing road-worthy aeroplanes, not simply that they had wheels.

I actually think this may count: [3] but you're right, it does not say that Whitehead was intentionally designing it in that way. We can reword to be more accurate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing John Brown. His claims regarding Whitehead have been rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see, it's a brown quote. Well we do have the SciAm description of his crafts to go off of instead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the 2014 Scientific American article cited for the list, it quotes material it wrote in the 1900s regarding Whitehead's machine, but certainly doesn't endorse it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink Currently cited in the article: Bongartz (Popular mechanics) uses the term "flying car", Jackson (Jane's 2013) discusses its roadability, another citation for "flying car" from the Huffington Post was for some reason removed by your own self in this edit. All these publications are frequently-cited reliable sources (save for Jackson's claim of actual flight). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics is clearly reliable here, but HuffPo is questionable in this space, since it has no domain expertise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics is merely reporting what the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of 1901 said. Which has been rejected as a source. What I am asking for is material from recent recognised authoritative sources which have anything to say on the 1901 machines roadgoing aspirations. Not statements from RS about was written earlier, actual recent RS discussing the 1901 machines roadgoing aspirations themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that what you ask for exists. Unless and until someone comes up with it, we just have to follow policy and make do with the RS that does exist - without indulging in OR as to where it is really coming from. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which RS is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that no mainstream RS seek to refute the roadable/flying aspect. In all the many critiques of Whitehead, not one challenges that aspect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We base articles on what reliable sources say about subjects, not on what they haven't 'refuted'. If Whitehead's machine merits inclusion in the list, we need to cite a source to justify it. This is elementary Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both HuffPost (see WP:HUFFPO) and Popular Mechanics are considered reliable sources. It doesn't matter that they "appear to be a precis of earlier material". Both sources apparently did not see a reason to refute the title of "flying car", while they did choose not to endorse the claims that it actually flew. If you still don't believe the sources to be reliable in this case, feel free to bring it up at WP:RS/N. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following a most unusual edit, I have reverted it per WP:BRD and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft. This issue affects multiple articles, so please engage in the discussion there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why the hell should we? Intentionally-misleading list titles are against Wikipedia policy. This isn't an issue where the views of a particular Wikiproject are relevant. Not trhat you have provided the slightest evidence that the Wikiproject even has an opinion on this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does an edit to this page affect multiple articles? I mean, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is silly. jps (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not change from one article to another. There are hundreds of list and article titles to which the same issue applies. For the ongoing debate, see the Aircraft Wikiproject and Fringe discussions and, if you are a glutton for punishment, ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does 'the same issue' apply? Are claims about Whitehead flying in 1901 included in 'hundreds of' other lists? I'd assume not. Which makes this a debate about the inclusion of one item, on one list. Syle guides are not inclusion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should split the list into three subheadings or three separate lists all on this page:

• "Models with recorded flight"
• "Designs that never flew"
• "Still under development"

Thoughts, feelings? Workshopping subtitles? This delineation would go a long way towards not misleading our readers about prototypes, disputed flying machines, and theoretical designs which only exist on paper. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Steelpillow, @AndyTheGrump, @Chipmunkdavis, @Nigel Ish, @M.nelson, @ජපස, @Ahunt, @Blueboar, @Rhododendrites from FT/N. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No particular problem with that, as a general principle. I'd merely note that the evidence that Whitehead's machine meets any of them is questionable, in that little in the way of RS-based evidence has been offered that it was even intended to have significant on-road capability. The engine-powered wheels seem to have been a launch-assist mechanism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I’d read somewhere that the road capability was to allow the machine to transport itself to a launch site rather than as a means of transporting people, but (of course) I can’t find it now. Can anyone more familiar with the subject and sources help? Not sure how this would affect the machine’s status. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a vehicle is nowadays often described as a "roadable aircraft". Both these and obvious flying cars are rare and there is no clear dividing line between them; as such it is fairly common to treat both under the same umbrella, and the article lead explicitly states that it is doing so. This does not affect the vehicle's status here in any way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn’t quite make that clear, referring to both as vehicles that “function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft“. Brunton (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion requires sources to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brunton There is no requirement for a roadable aircraft to be a practical automobile for day-to-day use. As long as it can be driven on the roads, that is enough. If you can find a better form of words, please do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’ve come up with a form of words that says that. Brunton (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two approaches that need to be reconciled here. A great many aviation books cover both flown and unflown types without any special indication outside the individual entries. The Putnam's series of monographs on British aircraft manufacturers are a good example. Other books are dedicated to flying types or the cancelled projects, though there is often modest spillover. Nobody makes a big fuss once one gets past the book's title. These professionally-produced books are the way they are for a reason, and the bunch of aviation enthusiasts here tend to follow that resource base for much the same reasons. On the other hand, a visitor to Wikipedia may have no such background. They may be confused to find a list of "aircraft", some of which are real and some of which are mere design studies or useless hulks. Separating out the one from the other is very helpful to them. The question here is, can we achieve that cleanly in a single list, or is it better to split up the list? One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups. We could look at improving some of the columns to give a better fly/no-fly separation (currently requires reference to both the Status and Notes), but I would not recommend any actual split. There is also an ongoing discussion by the Aircraft WikiProject about the implications of this issue across all the aircraft articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with a split is that every visitor wants a different one. Some would want rotorcraft, fixed wings and powered lift separated. Others would want them listed by date or, like an index, alphabetically so they can easily find the one that interests them. This led to the adoption of sortable tables, such as the present one. Frankly, if we split it for one group of readers we will upset all the other groups Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I see no evidence of anyone being upset by the delineations you describe. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covering a topic within a book is a very different matter to putting items into a simple list. I don't think anyone has suggested removing discussion of failed prototypes from the article (supposing of course they have due weight). CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a source which calls something a "flying car" and it was able to actually fly, I think that's what a naive reader like myself would expect to see delineated. Other failed attempts or prototypes or bizarre claims can also be included, but it needs to be much clearer than the current free for all. Split it up or make sure that we are very upfront in the section title so that we can tell what is included in the list. That would help this naive reader the most. jps (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. If the sortable Status entries were changed to say "Flown", "Failed to fly" and "Unbuilt", it would be a quick and easy check on whether the full split was really necessary. Worth a try? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that would surely make it clear and keep all the entries in 1 table too. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think having all the entries in 1 table is necessarily a virtue. If they are all in one section but in multiple tables or subsections, very little is lost. As a naive reader, I primarily want to know whether each "flying machine" actually "flew." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the status values. Does this meet our needs? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the need to determine whether Whitehead's machine should be considered an attempted 'flying car' at all. Where is the RS to support this? Sources that suggest Whitehead intended it to function as an automobile, as well as an aircraft? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding the obvious Whitehead fan site, the HuffPost source states that "[Whitehead] purportedly took aloft a flying car of his own design". A source used earlier in the article, the December 1981 Popular Mechanics, states that "[Stanley Y.] Beech described the plane as self-powered on the ground, like an automobile" and later explicitly describes the aircraft as a "flying automobile" (here it is on Internet Archive). - ZLEA _T\^C 17:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I knew I had seen it somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA Agreed, in the absence of RSes which directly contradict, this is sufficient to describe the Whitehead device as a flying car. Doesn't mean it flew, which is the essence of why we need better delineation here of which ones did and did not. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the HuffPost is the best of sources for aviation history - that citation is of much more use for its discussion of Jackson, and of subsequent responses. The relevant content in the Popular Mechanics article appears to be a precis of earlier material, from the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of 1901. A source given little credibility in subsequent assessments. It seems likely this description is from the "single flawed news article" that the RAeS was so dismissive of in its report on the Jane's piece of 2013. [4] We really need more recent sources discussing the roadgoing merits of the machine, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow I would still heavily prefer separate lists delineated by whether or not they actually flew, this does not meet my needs or (I would guess), the needs of others who have responded similarly. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer a single sortable list format over a bunch of different lists in the same article, based on differing status. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and I think I would be happy if a consensus here clearly showed that a delineating column in the table is enough, and multiple tables is too much. I would disagree, but I am always happy to respect a clear consensus against me. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list as it is now, with a column clearly stating whether or not they flew, is adequate. Brunton (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I doubt the average reader would find the current list structure confusing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ahunt but perhaps we can find something better then "Failed to Fly" like "Not Flown" or something. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are importantly two different things. A design you never tried to fly would be the latter, but one you tried and failed could more neutrally be described as "Unsuccessful attempts" or something like that — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this an issue when updating the table. We can always add more status values, such as "Built (not flown)" or whatever. There is a danger with more values that alphabetical sorting would no longer give clean groupings of similar statuses, while adding a sort key would confuse readers who assume alphabetical sorting. And we could end up with either wordy status entries that mess up the display, or short ones where we need to explain that "not flown" means not tried to fly and excludes failures, etc. etc. But yes, this built-not-flown was the main issue I came across, so maybe just a fourth value can be included. Any better suggestions for its wording? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think we need to delineate more than "built, not flown" and "not flown". I think flown, not flown, and not built are perfectly fine. (edited 21:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the distinction would need be between no attempt made and failed when attempted. Possibly replacing "Not flown" with "Built (not flown)" and "Failed to fly". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point MilborneOne is making is that "Failed to fly" is ? wrt WP:NPOV — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However "not flown" does not make the distinction between hangar queens and those which actively refused to take off. The former have unknown capability, the latter have it all too painfully known. Certainly, "Failed to fly" does not cover the former. It is a standard enough distinction, and I wonder if it might be what MilborneOne has in mind. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Failed to fly" didnt seem to be that useful in the table (it could have stayed in the hangar and failed to fly). Really only need "Not Built", Not Flown and Flown. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]