![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is the difference between " Aviation" and " Air transport"? I propose that these two articles should be merged. Do I have a seconder? -- GrahamN 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
I think that air transport is only a part of aviation. I added a partial list of the different aspects of aviation to the aviation entry. Jghiii 01:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Well, to me, "air transport" would mean carrying passengers to a destination. Some might argue that air cargo, like fedex, flying tigers, bulk airfeight, etc. is also air transport. I don't agree, but for this discusion let's say that is. Even combining these things, there is still a whole myriad of other aviation activities.
For example...
There's recreational aviation. That is, personal aircraft that are used for things like sightseeing, or just the pleasure of flying. This would be with aircraft like small single-engine planes, restored vintage planes, ultralights, and even gliders.
Then there's observation and research. Police departments all over the country use aircraft to investigate crimes. And research groups, like universities and NASA use aircraft to collect information about the atmosphere and other areas of science. There's Search and Rescue.
Agricultural application (aka crop dusting) is a really big business.
And of course there's military combat operations.
I think that all of these are not covered by the term air transport.
Air transport, plus all these others, plus a few I've probably forgotten, combined make up the category of aviation. Jghiii 04:03 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Checking more and more on all of the Wiki aritcles, quite a few are stubs or otherwise. If I have freetime, I'll edit some and add extra information of possible. Otherwise, its still suggestive that we merge a good amount of them to reduce confusion. Some, if not most, of the Aviation Articles are very similar, and they don't tend to be very extreme on size. Simply merging one or two could make it a quicker and more informative read, and possibly prevent it from being a stub.
OK, I've added a few links. Maybe some kind of seperate AviationWiki would be better for that, but c'est la vie, I say. I'll put up a few more pages (IFR/VFR/...) User:Qwitchibo
Isn't this See Also section getting a little too big? It's basically just another " List of aviation topics". I suggest shortening it to just "list of..." and mabye some other topics related to aviation but not aviation as such. (for example " Meteorology") Trevor MacInnis 05:11, 26 Jun 2004
I intend to write on `Personnel Licensing' - How the licenses are issued to the personnel linked with the operation of aircraft. My request is to have `Personnel Licensing' as one topic under aviation. I am new to the wikipedia contributions and forgive me if i make some errors.
What is the main article for human/mechanical flight? Human flight and mechanical flight do not redirect anywhere at present. Aviation and aeronautics are both stubs. The aeronautics article seems to have a dodgy definition ("aircraft navigation") and to be confused whether it is a superset, subset or synonym for aviation. The fullest article I've found so far is aviation history, which one would intuitively presume was only about the historical aspects rather than being the main article. Nurg 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this for real? "1 in 3 flights in the 1980's went down" and "Aviation started in Portland, Oregon"?
Surely this could be updated to contain some real facts?
I was born and raised in Oregon and learned to fly there. The contention that aviation "started" in Portland is absurd. The one in three crash rate is equally ridiculous unless it's taken out of context from some extremely narrow perspective; both were properly removed.
ref. air transport, heartily concur that it is not accurately regarded as a synonym for all aviation. Apart from recreational ('general') aviation is sport flying specifically (including aerobatics). Air transport is an important component of military aviation but has nothing to do with most combat functions of aircraft.
Feel free to ask me about aviation subjects. I work and write in the field. btillman3@cox.net
The last bit of the ATC section includes text that is not directly related to ATC: security and safety.
I propose creating "Aviation Security" and "Aviation Safety" sections on this page and moving that text to those sections.
Thoughts on the content of these sections?
My intitial thoughts:
Aviation Security - Need for security (maybe list of major terrorist acts against aircraft) - Current strategies (air marshals, airport security, restricted airspace, improved cockpit doors)
Aviation Safety - notable changes over the years - Agencies responsible (U.S. & EU) -- Jerelabs 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the ATC section here at all? It has its own article, all that is needed is a wikilink. treesmill 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs a major rewrite. I'll mention just a couple of points as examples: Stealth - the one direct example given, U-2, is not stealth technology (though it did fly pretty high, it was clearly visible on the Soviet radars). The SR-71 in the photo for the Stealth section is also not Stealth (according to WP: SR-71 it ironically had one of the largest Radar signatures of any aircraft, detectable at several hundred miles away, due to its Radar-reflecting hot exhaust). The point about heat due to high speeds is valid for all supersonic aircraft, Stealth has more to do with its Radar evasiveness than its speed. Also the statement about US fighter aicraft being 'dominated by Lockheed Martin' sounds strange. Again this article needs a serious rewrite; I would suggest for the writer to try to check out facts and use links to existing excellent articles already on WP. Crum375 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted (most of) your edits to this article. It is an article about aviation in general, not commercial aviation in particular. The article seems to already have sufficient photos (as in roughtly one per main section), and it's worth remembering what Wikipedia is not (Collections of photographs or media files). Probably a good idea to discuss the photos on the article talk page to get the opinion of others. Thanks/ wangi 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
summrise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and describe the documention to be carried on domestic and international flights.
Aviation fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.
{{ Template:User aviation}} |
Note that this is attached to the Wikipedians interested in aviation category, and so placing this userbox on your page also adds you to this category.-- PremKudva Talk 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the actual userbox and just leaving the code, since adding the user box here adds this talk page to the Wikepedians iterested in Aviation category.-- PremKudva Talk 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the claim that the Chinese invented aviation with kites — it would be just as easy to claim that arrows, spears, boomerangs, paper darts, or even thrown stones were the first flying machines. Likewise, the Chinese hot air lanterns, while they float, are not really relevant to aviation, and again, there are probably similar objects in other cultures. I did leave in the story of the Chinese man flying in the kite, and added the Greek legend of Icarus with it. David 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the external links section — it's a magnet for promotional link spam, and nothing there really had a lot of value for a general article on aviation (the link to the glossary and the PBS series were pretty marginal). David 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
DPM64 raised a good point about compacting this section a bit, since the article is an overview. I agree with removing some of the more specific statistics and references. I tried to make DPM64's edit of this section even denser and more economical, though I do feel that the specific information about CO2 and ozone is indispensable and have replaced it in condensed form. I appreciate the flourish that "hot air balloon" adds to the opening of the section; I modified this to emphasize the point it makes, which is that the whole spectrum of powered flight produces emissions. Cyrusc 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to see who is in the WIkiProject Aviation members category and there is no one there, am I the only one using the userbox ? I feel odd. Other matter, I found that the PPL article is quite short and can be merged perhaps, I also found a good description of certifications at Professional certification, shouldn't be the certifications merged in one page and link from others? TopTopView 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why my writing comes out in small? TopTopView 10:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've promoted this article from "Start" to "B" on the quality scale — it's the ideal length for a survey article, is well-structured, covers all the major topics, and is adequately cited. I think it would be a mistake to go into any more detail in the subsections, since we have links to the main articles already. David 13:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Under list of Major Aircraft Manufacturers there is a sub note of Tupelov merging with UABC which needs a citation or source, i will search for it and update as necessary. Will also add a few more companies to that list. Rgp2130 ( talk) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the external link See how it flies: a new spin on the perceptions, procedures, and principles of flight from here to the Flight article. I think it's important to keep this article focused on aviation as an historical/cultural/political phenomenon, so a pilot-training link didn't really belong here (even though it's a very good one). David ( talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are far too many pictures right now for an article of this length. I'd like to trim it down to at most one picture for each section. Please let me know if people have any preferences. David ( talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed an anonymously-contributed section on general aviation record-setting flights, since it's out of place in a general survey article (and could easily grow to be enormous). David ( talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Aviation article is too broad to put into this category — it's a whole field of endeavor rather than a single occupation. Would it make more sense to add articles about specific aviation-related occupations like aviator instead? David ( talk) 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to avoid any agendas about the first powered flight — it can get especially touchy because some countries (e.g. Brazil, New Zealand) have their own national champions to compete with the American Wright Brothers, and it gets down to a national-pride battle, which doesn't belong here (for the record, I'm Canadian, so I don't have a national stake in this). The Wright Bros are the most widely-accepted, but I've linked to the article on the controversy ( First flying machine) to make it clear that they're not the only candidates, and to let readers dive into the details if they're interested. Editing the article to say that they made the "second" powered flight doesn't help things, because it suggests a certainty that doesn't exist for any of the candidates. David ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree. Alberto Santos Dumont still is the most widely-accepted. When I read something else, I wonder if someday it will became true, as a story that became history as people tells the tale over and over again. Anyway, I wasn't alive in early XX century, so I can't tell for sure. What I can assure is if we ignore now who did the first powered flight, near 100 years after, will someday historians found out the truth? I suggest a mention about this polemic in this article or a dedicated article. I don't believe the first powered flight is an irrelevant issue. Tchico ( talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What is the difference between " Aviation" and " Air transport"? I propose that these two articles should be merged. Do I have a seconder? -- GrahamN 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
I think that air transport is only a part of aviation. I added a partial list of the different aspects of aviation to the aviation entry. Jghiii 01:54 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Well, to me, "air transport" would mean carrying passengers to a destination. Some might argue that air cargo, like fedex, flying tigers, bulk airfeight, etc. is also air transport. I don't agree, but for this discusion let's say that is. Even combining these things, there is still a whole myriad of other aviation activities.
For example...
There's recreational aviation. That is, personal aircraft that are used for things like sightseeing, or just the pleasure of flying. This would be with aircraft like small single-engine planes, restored vintage planes, ultralights, and even gliders.
Then there's observation and research. Police departments all over the country use aircraft to investigate crimes. And research groups, like universities and NASA use aircraft to collect information about the atmosphere and other areas of science. There's Search and Rescue.
Agricultural application (aka crop dusting) is a really big business.
And of course there's military combat operations.
I think that all of these are not covered by the term air transport.
Air transport, plus all these others, plus a few I've probably forgotten, combined make up the category of aviation. Jghiii 04:03 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
Checking more and more on all of the Wiki aritcles, quite a few are stubs or otherwise. If I have freetime, I'll edit some and add extra information of possible. Otherwise, its still suggestive that we merge a good amount of them to reduce confusion. Some, if not most, of the Aviation Articles are very similar, and they don't tend to be very extreme on size. Simply merging one or two could make it a quicker and more informative read, and possibly prevent it from being a stub.
OK, I've added a few links. Maybe some kind of seperate AviationWiki would be better for that, but c'est la vie, I say. I'll put up a few more pages (IFR/VFR/...) User:Qwitchibo
Isn't this See Also section getting a little too big? It's basically just another " List of aviation topics". I suggest shortening it to just "list of..." and mabye some other topics related to aviation but not aviation as such. (for example " Meteorology") Trevor MacInnis 05:11, 26 Jun 2004
I intend to write on `Personnel Licensing' - How the licenses are issued to the personnel linked with the operation of aircraft. My request is to have `Personnel Licensing' as one topic under aviation. I am new to the wikipedia contributions and forgive me if i make some errors.
What is the main article for human/mechanical flight? Human flight and mechanical flight do not redirect anywhere at present. Aviation and aeronautics are both stubs. The aeronautics article seems to have a dodgy definition ("aircraft navigation") and to be confused whether it is a superset, subset or synonym for aviation. The fullest article I've found so far is aviation history, which one would intuitively presume was only about the historical aspects rather than being the main article. Nurg 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Is this for real? "1 in 3 flights in the 1980's went down" and "Aviation started in Portland, Oregon"?
Surely this could be updated to contain some real facts?
I was born and raised in Oregon and learned to fly there. The contention that aviation "started" in Portland is absurd. The one in three crash rate is equally ridiculous unless it's taken out of context from some extremely narrow perspective; both were properly removed.
ref. air transport, heartily concur that it is not accurately regarded as a synonym for all aviation. Apart from recreational ('general') aviation is sport flying specifically (including aerobatics). Air transport is an important component of military aviation but has nothing to do with most combat functions of aircraft.
Feel free to ask me about aviation subjects. I work and write in the field. btillman3@cox.net
The last bit of the ATC section includes text that is not directly related to ATC: security and safety.
I propose creating "Aviation Security" and "Aviation Safety" sections on this page and moving that text to those sections.
Thoughts on the content of these sections?
My intitial thoughts:
Aviation Security - Need for security (maybe list of major terrorist acts against aircraft) - Current strategies (air marshals, airport security, restricted airspace, improved cockpit doors)
Aviation Safety - notable changes over the years - Agencies responsible (U.S. & EU) -- Jerelabs 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the ATC section here at all? It has its own article, all that is needed is a wikilink. treesmill 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article really needs a major rewrite. I'll mention just a couple of points as examples: Stealth - the one direct example given, U-2, is not stealth technology (though it did fly pretty high, it was clearly visible on the Soviet radars). The SR-71 in the photo for the Stealth section is also not Stealth (according to WP: SR-71 it ironically had one of the largest Radar signatures of any aircraft, detectable at several hundred miles away, due to its Radar-reflecting hot exhaust). The point about heat due to high speeds is valid for all supersonic aircraft, Stealth has more to do with its Radar evasiveness than its speed. Also the statement about US fighter aicraft being 'dominated by Lockheed Martin' sounds strange. Again this article needs a serious rewrite; I would suggest for the writer to try to check out facts and use links to existing excellent articles already on WP. Crum375 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted (most of) your edits to this article. It is an article about aviation in general, not commercial aviation in particular. The article seems to already have sufficient photos (as in roughtly one per main section), and it's worth remembering what Wikipedia is not (Collections of photographs or media files). Probably a good idea to discuss the photos on the article talk page to get the opinion of others. Thanks/ wangi 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
summrise the procedures necessary for both embarkation and disembarkation of passengers and describe the documention to be carried on domestic and international flights.
Aviation fans, here is a userbox to set up for placement on your userpage.
{{ Template:User aviation}} |
Note that this is attached to the Wikipedians interested in aviation category, and so placing this userbox on your page also adds you to this category.-- PremKudva Talk 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the actual userbox and just leaving the code, since adding the user box here adds this talk page to the Wikepedians iterested in Aviation category.-- PremKudva Talk 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the claim that the Chinese invented aviation with kites — it would be just as easy to claim that arrows, spears, boomerangs, paper darts, or even thrown stones were the first flying machines. Likewise, the Chinese hot air lanterns, while they float, are not really relevant to aviation, and again, there are probably similar objects in other cultures. I did leave in the story of the Chinese man flying in the kite, and added the Greek legend of Icarus with it. David 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the external links section — it's a magnet for promotional link spam, and nothing there really had a lot of value for a general article on aviation (the link to the glossary and the PBS series were pretty marginal). David 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
DPM64 raised a good point about compacting this section a bit, since the article is an overview. I agree with removing some of the more specific statistics and references. I tried to make DPM64's edit of this section even denser and more economical, though I do feel that the specific information about CO2 and ozone is indispensable and have replaced it in condensed form. I appreciate the flourish that "hot air balloon" adds to the opening of the section; I modified this to emphasize the point it makes, which is that the whole spectrum of powered flight produces emissions. Cyrusc 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to see who is in the WIkiProject Aviation members category and there is no one there, am I the only one using the userbox ? I feel odd. Other matter, I found that the PPL article is quite short and can be merged perhaps, I also found a good description of certifications at Professional certification, shouldn't be the certifications merged in one page and link from others? TopTopView 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Why my writing comes out in small? TopTopView 10:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've promoted this article from "Start" to "B" on the quality scale — it's the ideal length for a survey article, is well-structured, covers all the major topics, and is adequately cited. I think it would be a mistake to go into any more detail in the subsections, since we have links to the main articles already. David 13:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Under list of Major Aircraft Manufacturers there is a sub note of Tupelov merging with UABC which needs a citation or source, i will search for it and update as necessary. Will also add a few more companies to that list. Rgp2130 ( talk) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the external link See how it flies: a new spin on the perceptions, procedures, and principles of flight from here to the Flight article. I think it's important to keep this article focused on aviation as an historical/cultural/political phenomenon, so a pilot-training link didn't really belong here (even though it's a very good one). David ( talk) 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are far too many pictures right now for an article of this length. I'd like to trim it down to at most one picture for each section. Please let me know if people have any preferences. David ( talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed an anonymously-contributed section on general aviation record-setting flights, since it's out of place in a general survey article (and could easily grow to be enormous). David ( talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Aviation article is too broad to put into this category — it's a whole field of endeavor rather than a single occupation. Would it make more sense to add articles about specific aviation-related occupations like aviator instead? David ( talk) 03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to avoid any agendas about the first powered flight — it can get especially touchy because some countries (e.g. Brazil, New Zealand) have their own national champions to compete with the American Wright Brothers, and it gets down to a national-pride battle, which doesn't belong here (for the record, I'm Canadian, so I don't have a national stake in this). The Wright Bros are the most widely-accepted, but I've linked to the article on the controversy ( First flying machine) to make it clear that they're not the only candidates, and to let readers dive into the details if they're interested. Editing the article to say that they made the "second" powered flight doesn't help things, because it suggests a certainty that doesn't exist for any of the candidates. David ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree. Alberto Santos Dumont still is the most widely-accepted. When I read something else, I wonder if someday it will became true, as a story that became history as people tells the tale over and over again. Anyway, I wasn't alive in early XX century, so I can't tell for sure. What I can assure is if we ignore now who did the first powered flight, near 100 years after, will someday historians found out the truth? I suggest a mention about this polemic in this article or a dedicated article. I don't believe the first powered flight is an irrelevant issue. Tchico ( talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)