The tag implication #40282 aircraft -> vehicle has been rejected.

Reason: Just like watercraft or spacecraft

EDIT: The tag implication aircraft -> vehicle (forum #313931) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Should we ensure we don't tag drones with aircraft tags, then?

votp said:
Should we ensure we don't tag drones with aircraft tags, then?

Probably. I think the “craft” suffix implies vehicle. A drone would be more like a flying robot rather than an aircraft.

scaliespe said:
Probably. I think the “craft” suffix implies vehicle. A drone would be more like a flying robot rather than an aircraft.

I'd say craft implies man-made more than vehicle
But vehicle states inclusion of unmanned craft anyway. Though granted, this is not text that's been admin-touched so that's not set in stone.

Any deeper and you're into philosophical discussion on whether there needs to be any form of cargo to be considered a vehicle or whether being a construct which travels is enough (ie is a paper_plane an aircraft/vehicle?)

magnuseffect said:
I'd say craft implies man-made more than vehicle
But vehicle states inclusion of unmanned craft anyway. Though granted, this is not text that's been admin-touched so that's not set in stone.

Any deeper and you're into philosophical discussion on whether there needs to be any form of cargo to be considered a vehicle or whether being a construct which travels is enough (ie is a paper_plane an aircraft/vehicle?)

Is the Boston Dynamics Spot a vehicle?

... actually, hang on, lemme get my saddle--

votp said:
Is the Boston Dynamics Spot a vehicle?

It's a non-sentient unmanned ambulatory craft, so sure.
Though things which are characters should probably not be vehicles unless their "species" is something that is a vehicle.

magnuseffect said:
I'd say craft implies man-made more than vehicle
But vehicle states inclusion of unmanned craft anyway. Though granted, this is not text that's been admin-touched so that's not set in stone.

Any deeper and you're into philosophical discussion on whether there needs to be any form of cargo to be considered a vehicle or whether being a construct which travels is enough (ie is a paper_plane an aircraft/vehicle?)

Well, craft has a few different definitions, but its use in aircraft seems to be derived from the definition referring to a boat. So an aircraft is like an air-boat, and a spacecraft a space-boat.

As for the second part, vehicle…from Latin vehiculum “means of transport, vehicle, carriage, conveyance,” from vehere “to bear, carry, convey” (from PIE root *wegh- “to go, move, transport in a vehicle,” which also is the source of English wagon).

So unmanned vehicles are still vehicles because they are meant for transport, regardless of whether it’s people or cargo. A drone probably could be a vehicle if it can be used for transport, but a toy plane or paper plane would not.

scaliespe said:
So unmanned vehicles are still vehicles because they are meant for transport, regardless of whether it’s people or cargo. A drone probably could be a vehicle if it can be used for transport, but a toy plane or paper plane would not.

So would an unarmed military drone be either of aircraft or vehicle?
If it's not a vehicle because it does not transport anything (does surveillance equipment count?), then according to this implication it should not be called an aircraft at all. And a paper plane can be used to transport text and images short distances. Is information valid cargo, making consumer drones and paper planes vehicles but not aircraft depending on how they're used?

I don't think I'm sold on inherently tying all this together

Edit: POPPING BACK to point out that the current tag for aerial drones is drone_(vehicle) and would need an alias to something like aerial_drone (not UAV because the V is Vehicle)

Perhaps the whole point of the drone is to travel. To go to distant locations for surveillance purposes. A paper airplane hardly travels. It only travels as far as you throw it, so if you can consider that a vehicle, that would have to include anything that can be thrown.

On second thought, despite the actual definition I provided, the most pragmatic definition of a vehicle for our purposes may be “a device built for the purpose of travel.”

scaliespe said:
A paper airplane hardly travels. It only travels as far as you throw it, so if you can consider that a vehicle, that would have to include anything that can be thrown.

It travels further than its mass alone would allow if it were not engineered to produce lift.
(For the record I'm closer to arguing that paper planes are aircraft than that they should be considered vehicles, it's just that this implication would prohibit them from being aircraft if they are definitively not vehicles)

magnuseffect said:
It travels further than its mass alone would allow if it were not engineered to produce lift.

How about this: it has no inherent means of propulsion. Sure, it goes farther when thrown, but anything can travel a short distance by being thrown. The larger distance seems pretty irrelevant. A bouncy ball can travel even farther than a paper plane when thrown, but it still has no integral means of propulsion.

scaliespe said:
How about this: it has no inherent means of propulsion. Sure, it goes farther when thrown, but anything can travel a short distance by being thrown. The larger distance seems pretty irrelevant. A bouncy ball can travel even farther than a paper plane when thrown, but it still has no integral means of propulsion.

Hot air balloons and rafts.

votp said:
Hot air balloons and rafts.

Hot air and oars.

Gliders)

Holy shit e6 really doesn't like link brackets

scaliespe said:
Hot air and oars.

So a pneumatic piston and anything that floats become vehicles?

votp said:
So a pneumatic piston and anything that floats become vehicles?

If they can be used to travel long distances, I don’t see why not.

So distance of travel, on second thought, may be the more relevant factor here.

scaliespe said:
So distance of travel, on second thought, may be the more relevant factor here.

alleged 205 mile 'copter-drone record
So are they vehicles?
Are they aircraft?

I'd also like to argue that being a robot isn't mutually-exclusive with being a vehicle.

Edit:

scaliespe said:
So distance of travel, on second thought, may be the more relevant factor here.

Distance-of-travel is also a risky classifier, as the Guinness certified record for paper airplane flight is nearly twice that of the 'First controlled, sustained flight in a powered airplane'

magnuseffect said:
Distance-of-travel is also a risky classifier, as the Guinness certified record for paper airplane flight is nearly twice that of the 'First controlled, sustained flight in a powered airplane'

what are paper airplanes if not vehicles for ants

Perhaps we should first reach for the dictionary to see what it says so we can have a starting point for a definition. Then, we can argue.

From Wiktionary:
vehicle (plural vehicles)

• 1. A conveyance; a device for carrying or transporting substances, objects, or individuals.

There's six other definitions, but I think the first one is the one we want.

From Wiktionary:
aircraft (plural aircraft)

• 1. A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift

clawstripe said:
Perhaps we should first reach for the dictionary to see what it says so we can have a starting point for a definition. Then, we can argue.

From Wiktionary:
vehicle (plural vehicles)

• 1. A conveyance; a device for carrying or transporting substances, objects, or individuals.

There's six other definitions, but I think the first one is the one we want.

From Wiktionary:
aircraft (plural aircraft)

• 1. A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift

Good idea. I was just about to bring up the point that an aircraft, by definition, is a vehicle, so this implication should go through either way. At this point, we’re basically debating whether or not paper_airplane or drone can implicate aircraft, lol.

magnuseffect said:
alleged 205 mile 'copter-drone record
So are they vehicles?
Are they aircraft?

I'd also like to argue that being a robot isn't mutually-exclusive with being a vehicle.

Given the recently posted definition, I think any kind of drone probably ought to be both an aircraft and a vehicle.

magnuseffect said:
"
Edit:
Distance-of-travel is also a risky classifier, as the Guinness certified record for paper airplane flight is nearly twice that of the 'First controlled, sustained flight in a powered airplane'

Well, you’re comparing extremes here, when we should probably be comparing averages. Under extraordinary circumstances, sure, a paper plane can travel pretty far. However, the average airplane can cross the Atlantic. The average paper plane can hardly cross your backyard.

scaliespe said:
Good idea. I was just about to bring up the point that an aircraft, by definition, is a vehicle, so this implication should go through either way. At this point, we’re basically debating whether or not paper_airplane or drone can implicate aircraft, lol.

From Wiktionary:
paper airplane (plural paper airplanes)

• 1. (US) A toy airplane made by folding up a sheet of paper.
• 2. (US, aeronautics) An aircraft under development.

I don't know about paper airplanes, but as for drones, the fourth definition is most relevant:

From Wiktionary:
drone (plural drones)

• 4 (aviation) A remotely controlled aircraft, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

Synonyms: UAV, UAS
Hyponym: quadcopter

Usage notes
In sense “unmanned aircraft”, primarily used informally of military aircraft or consumer radio controlled quadcopters, without precise definition.

So, maybe drones are vehicles?

clawstripe said:
So, maybe drones are vehicles?

Well, if a vehicle is "a device for carrying or transporting substances, objects, or individuals", a drone fits that definition since they can be fitted to transport substances and objects.

scaliespe said:
However, the average airplane can cross the Atlantic.

This is a flawed example. Prior to 1919 no aeroplane at all had made a known non-stop transatlantic flight, so under that logic should we exclude all pre-WW1 aeroplanes from classification as aircraft and vehicles, or is it down to what was the average at the time?
I'd argue that the statement itself is untrue regardless. The majority of aircraft by both unique-model and production number are small planes (Wikipedia cites the Cessna 172 as the most-produced airplane of all time), most of which are not designed for the operational range required. Aircraft with the capacity for transatlantic flight are still a minority today, and crossing the Atlantic is itself "an extreme."

Under your proposed standards, the metric for what is or is not an aircraft is muddied by such fluid factors as time period, technology levels, and design specialisations. None of this is an ideal basis for tagging.

clawstripe said:
From Wiktionary:
aircraft (plural aircraft)

• 1. A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift

From Wikipedia

In general, there are four aerodynamic forces that act on the paper aircraft while it is in flight:

Thrust, which keeps the plane moving forward;
Aerodynamic lift, acting on horizontal surface areas that lifts the plane upward;
Gravity, which counteracts lift and pulls the plane downward; and
Air drag, which counteracts thrust and reduces the plane's forward speed.

magnuseffect said:
This is a flawed example. Prior to 1919 no aeroplane at all had made a known non-stop transatlantic flight, so under that logic should we exclude all pre-WW1 aeroplanes from classification as aircraft and vehicles, or is it down to what was the average at the time?
I'd argue that the statement itself is untrue regardless. The majority of aircraft by both unique-model and production number are small planes (Wikipedia cites the Cessna 172 as the most-produced airplane of all time), most of which are not designed for the operational range required. Aircraft with the capacity for transatlantic flight are still a minority today, and crossing the Atlantic is itself "an extreme."

Under your proposed standards, the metric for what is or is not an aircraft is muddied by such fluid factors as time period, technology levels, and design specialisations. None of this is an ideal basis for tagging.

Ok, the average airplane can cross the distance of a small country. Is that better? Need a precise number? Maybe 100 miles? Paper airplanes still can’t do that. There is a difference of magnitude between the distances crossed by an actual airplane and a paper airplane. They aren’t remotely in the same category.

magnuseffect said:

From Wikipedia

“aircraft (plural aircraft)

1. A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift”

A paper plane is neither a vehicle, not capable of atmospheric flight. A paper airplane relies on similar forces, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

scaliespe said:
“aircraft (plural aircraft)

1. A vehicle capable of atmospheric flight due to interaction with the air, such as buoyancy or lift”

A paper plane is neither a vehicle, not capable of atmospheric flight. A paper airplane relies on similar forces, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

The use of atmospheric flight is in comparison to ballistic flight.
There is no altitude requirement for the status of atmospheric flight. If you've got air, that's atmospheric.

And we're back to whether paper planes are vehicles

Bonus:
post #1394101
If a specific ^{(i.e. with no blanket tag implication)} paper plane depiction is in use as a vehicle through fantasy mechanisms, is it an aircraft and vehicle?

So, what is needed is a single pragmatic definition of a vehicle that we’re going to use, since it can be apparently defined in a number of ways.

I’m going to suggest that a vehicle is a device designed to be capable of travel. I’m going to define travel as the act of traveling; journeying, especially to distant places (def 13) and I’m going to define “distant” as (let’s be generous here) one mile. Maybe a kilometer if you want to use the metric system instead. Still way outside paper plane territory. Any objections?

magnuseffect said:

Bonus:
post #1394101
If a specific ^{(i.e. with no blanket tag implication)} paper plane depiction is in use as a vehicle through fantasy mechanisms, is it an aircraft and vehicle?

I would not object to the use of vehicle and aircraft tags in this particular instance.

scaliespe said:
So, what is needed is a single pragmatic definition of a vehicle that we’re going to use, since it can be apparently defined in a number of ways.

I’m going to suggest that a vehicle is a device designed to be capable of travel. I’m going to define travel as the act of traveling; journeying, especially to distant places (def 13) and I’m going to define “distant” as (let’s be generous here) one mile. Maybe a kilometer if you want to use the metric system instead. Still way outside paper plane territory. Any objections?

I'm more inclined to go with something based on much smaller sustained-flight-duration, and

clawstripe said:
From Wiktionary:
vehicle (plural vehicles)

• 1. A conveyance; a device for carrying or transporting substances, objects, or individuals.

Assuming that graphite/ink/paint^etc. based information is not sufficient to be substance, I am not satisfied by this paper plane carrying $1 in coins 32 feet from a height of ~6 (and most of that appears to instead be ballistic flight)
But I am satisfied by a glider carrying an adult a distance of 180m, launched from ground-level while dropping at most 20m below its launch altitude (aaaaa it doesn't store my measurement line. The 20m contour lines at their closest point on that hill are the claimed 180 metres apart)

The limit doesn't have to be particularly high to exclude most paper planes. But I'd argue that a drone which can lift a GoPro from the ground and carry it level across a three metre room should be enough to be aircraft under these definitions.

magnuseffect said:
I'm more inclined to go with something based on much smaller sustained-flight-duration

I was referring to vehicles in that definition, not aircraft. So, that would include land vehicles and watercraft.

As for the second part, I don’t have an issue with considering gliders and drones to be aircraft and vehicles.

The tag implication aircraft -> vehicle (forum #313931) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

The bulk update request #6809 is active.

create implication aircraft (8958) -> vehicle (49865)

Reason: Another one with solely upvotes rejected automatically due to age.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6809 (forum #392945) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6809 (forum #392945) has been approved by @slyroon.