This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why was the descriptive table removed from this page? If there's a good reason, I'm fine with it, but otherwise I will revert the changes and accomodate the updates as I find the table to be a handy at-a-glance reference. - Lommer 00:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article contains the following:
... given that the Beaver was in production for 20 years, this seems implausable... 100 a month would mean 1200 a year. Perhaps trying to source this would be a good thing. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images I suggest that this new image be removed from the article for three reasons:
This is really a "tourist photo" and not of the normal image or subject quality one would expect in an encyclopedia. If anyone objects to removing it please indicate your reasons. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Minor quibble, the intro paragraph states, "The U.S. Army Air Corps purchased several hundred;" The U.S. Army Air Corps became the U.S. Army Air Forces in June of 1941, which became the United States Air Force on September 18, 1947, shortly after the aircraft's first flight. It is possible but highly unlikely, especially in peacetime, that the Army Air Forces ordered the Beaver before its first flight, but I believe the Air Force selected the Beaver in 1951. I changed the name and link as appropriate. JPAnalog ( talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I know the correct answer is "it depends," but what sort of runway length are we looking at for one of these things? Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 07:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
wtf is with each when it has single engine and when clicking edit theres no each there, really strange snuff that wiki is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.252.55 ( talk) 00:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently took a new photo of this aircraft. Compared to the existing photo, my photo is technically superior in terms of resolution, sharpness, noise, as well as in composition. Would it be okay to replace the current lead photo with the new one? dllu (t, c) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That deserves a little amplification I think, by a better link than the generic materials fatigue article or by an in-line explanation. If we did footnotes I'd say it should be a footnote, actually. Midgley ( talk) 10:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a severe accident i Sweden on the 8 july 2021 killing 9 people. A swedish wiki page exists. My note was deleted. Is this accident not significant enough ?
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygolyckan_i_%C3%96rebro_2021
Franke 1 ( talk) 12:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed it was a significant accident with nine persons dead. However the Swedish Wikipedia page on the accident is not an en.wikipedia link. Even so, I have noted this as a significant accident on this page, and I am sure that once US and Canada editors come on board, they will make an article and edit my edit
boopolo ( talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
After checking through the recent edits on this, I see the OP has deleted other significant news on this incident. I would suggest that before deleting, one would use this talk page, or create an new article themselves. Deleting true and honest news is not what Wikipedia is about, regardless of your Wiki score. For the general public, it may be seen that the editors here are 'covering up', or have some connection to the manufacturer. boopolo ( talk) 14:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I honestly think you Ahunt should inhibit yourself from editing this article. You have no right to delete others posts or mine, just because you feel 9 deaths is not significant. To me it sounds that like you are using your Wiki quantity edits to bully others. As far as I see your deletions are bordering on vandalism. Others may think (right or wrong) you are connected with the manufacturer and therefore biased. One way or the other, you are trying to depress the truth, and do not delete my edits again without consultation on this page. ( talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I am here from a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. Is the claimed edit warring over this edit? Normally I would protect but not in a case where the edit is clearly outside normal procedure. @ Boopolo: Articles sometimes contain comments but they follow a consensus on talk. Articles are not available for editors to post personal thoughts. Please do not attempt that again. I have no opinion on whether the particular crash should be included but I am inclined to believe the statements above that consensus is against including all incidents. If admin attention is needed, please ping me. @Boopolo: You need to follow WP:DR. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Ahunt: See Swedish DHC-2 fatal crash probe urges formal rating training for skydive pilots. Would that be sufficient to make the incident notable? (Since the recommendation is recent, it doesn't mean the previous deletion of the accident article was improper. Rather, the new recommendation would make the incident notable.) BilCat ( talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Why was the descriptive table removed from this page? If there's a good reason, I'm fine with it, but otherwise I will revert the changes and accomodate the updates as I find the table to be a handy at-a-glance reference. - Lommer 00:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article contains the following:
... given that the Beaver was in production for 20 years, this seems implausable... 100 a month would mean 1200 a year. Perhaps trying to source this would be a good thing. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images I suggest that this new image be removed from the article for three reasons:
This is really a "tourist photo" and not of the normal image or subject quality one would expect in an encyclopedia. If anyone objects to removing it please indicate your reasons. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Minor quibble, the intro paragraph states, "The U.S. Army Air Corps purchased several hundred;" The U.S. Army Air Corps became the U.S. Army Air Forces in June of 1941, which became the United States Air Force on September 18, 1947, shortly after the aircraft's first flight. It is possible but highly unlikely, especially in peacetime, that the Army Air Forces ordered the Beaver before its first flight, but I believe the Air Force selected the Beaver in 1951. I changed the name and link as appropriate. JPAnalog ( talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I know the correct answer is "it depends," but what sort of runway length are we looking at for one of these things? Paul, in Saudi ( talk) 07:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
wtf is with each when it has single engine and when clicking edit theres no each there, really strange snuff that wiki is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.252.55 ( talk) 00:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently took a new photo of this aircraft. Compared to the existing photo, my photo is technically superior in terms of resolution, sharpness, noise, as well as in composition. Would it be okay to replace the current lead photo with the new one? dllu (t, c) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That deserves a little amplification I think, by a better link than the generic materials fatigue article or by an in-line explanation. If we did footnotes I'd say it should be a footnote, actually. Midgley ( talk) 10:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a severe accident i Sweden on the 8 july 2021 killing 9 people. A swedish wiki page exists. My note was deleted. Is this accident not significant enough ?
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flygolyckan_i_%C3%96rebro_2021
Franke 1 ( talk) 12:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed it was a significant accident with nine persons dead. However the Swedish Wikipedia page on the accident is not an en.wikipedia link. Even so, I have noted this as a significant accident on this page, and I am sure that once US and Canada editors come on board, they will make an article and edit my edit
boopolo ( talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
After checking through the recent edits on this, I see the OP has deleted other significant news on this incident. I would suggest that before deleting, one would use this talk page, or create an new article themselves. Deleting true and honest news is not what Wikipedia is about, regardless of your Wiki score. For the general public, it may be seen that the editors here are 'covering up', or have some connection to the manufacturer. boopolo ( talk) 14:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I honestly think you Ahunt should inhibit yourself from editing this article. You have no right to delete others posts or mine, just because you feel 9 deaths is not significant. To me it sounds that like you are using your Wiki quantity edits to bully others. As far as I see your deletions are bordering on vandalism. Others may think (right or wrong) you are connected with the manufacturer and therefore biased. One way or the other, you are trying to depress the truth, and do not delete my edits again without consultation on this page. ( talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I am here from a request for full protection at WP:RFPP. Is the claimed edit warring over this edit? Normally I would protect but not in a case where the edit is clearly outside normal procedure. @ Boopolo: Articles sometimes contain comments but they follow a consensus on talk. Articles are not available for editors to post personal thoughts. Please do not attempt that again. I have no opinion on whether the particular crash should be included but I am inclined to believe the statements above that consensus is against including all incidents. If admin attention is needed, please ping me. @Boopolo: You need to follow WP:DR. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Ahunt: See Swedish DHC-2 fatal crash probe urges formal rating training for skydive pilots. Would that be sufficient to make the incident notable? (Since the recommendation is recent, it doesn't mean the previous deletion of the accident article was improper. Rather, the new recommendation would make the incident notable.) BilCat ( talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)