This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Air sports 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked This article is supported by the Air sports project. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Is that section really relevant to the article? And if it really is then why is there only one song in there when i can think of at least 4 more off the top of my head. I recommend for removing that.

Luke 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)lukemcguire reply

OK with me to remove it. Blimpguy 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I saw an article arguing that Steve Fossett's trip wasn't technically a circumnavigation, because he was south of the 60th parallel; I don't know how common a view this is, and leave it to those more knowledgable to decide whether to add any discussion. Piha 21:20, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The organization that sets the rules for these sorts of records is the Paris based FAI (www.fai.org). The way it works, each type of aircraft has its own rule making committee. As it happens, the rules for balloon circumnavigation are different from those for other types of aircraft. The route Fossett took qualifies for a balloon circumnavigation, but would not have qualified for an airplane, etc.

Blimpguy 00:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense; thanks very much for explaining. Piha 02:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't understand the change of "first" to "second" manifestation of air power. I have reverted. If reverting back again please add (at least as an aside) what the first one is. Blimpguy 23:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a thoroughly BBQ'ed newbie, I would first like a concensus to add more Annual Balloon Festivals.

I personally find Annual Balloon Festivals a wholesome community event which is great for the community.

Some reccommendation (cautiously without URLs):

• 32nd Annual, Adirondack Hot Air Balloon Festival - NY
• 31st Annual, Colorado Balloon Classic - CO
• 29th Annual, Helen to the Atlantic Balloon Race - GA
• 26th annual, Thunderbird balloon Classic - AZ
• 25th Annual, Plano Balloon Festival - TX
• 24th Annual, Lisle Eyes to the Skies Festival - IL
• 21th Annual, Hot Air Jubilee - MI
• 20th Annual, University Motors Mountaineer Balloon Festival - WV
• 19th Annual, High Hopes Balloon Festival - NH
• 17th Annual, World Hot Air Balloon Championship
• 15th Annual, Hot Air Balloons Championship of Poland - (Poland)
• 14th Annual, Kiwanis Balloonfest - IN
• 14th Annual, Gatineau Hot Air Balloon Festival (Quebec - Canada)
• 12th Annual, European HAB Championships - (Luxembourg)
• 10th Annual, Northwest Connecticut Balloon Festival - CT
• 6th Annual, Great Northern Balloon Festival & Air Show 2004 - NY
• 6th Annual, Balonmania (Czech Republic)
• 4th Annual, Mansfield Balloon Festival - (Australia)
• 2nd Annual, Big Bear Balloon Festival - OH
• First Annual, Warren County Farmers' Fair First Annual Balloon Festival - NJ

weide 02:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a list of balloon festivals would add anything to this page. It is also not very encyclopedic. If an individual event is notable for some reason (it is the biggest in a region for example) then the event should have a wiki article on it in its own rightand a link provided from this page. ChrisUK

Perhaps the right thing is start a new page "list of annual balloon festivals". I would organize it on a per country basis. Blimpguy 21:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me, then this page could link directly to the list. Over to you weide to create one - your list looks like a good start already ChrisUK 22:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly - a new page "list of annual balloon festivals".

Each Festival would at least show as a red link (no target page yet existent) with an implied request for expansion. A separate general page "Balloon Festivals" would be nice, with an article on the benefits to communities that have one. weide 22:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DONE - please feel free to edit. weide 22:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can't find the new page. Please add a link to it at the bottom of the main article. Blimpguy 23:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed the header to be a link. Should I add an Internal Link section?

I think that I will break out a section United States Baloon Festivals on that new page, with the other countries above it. weide 23:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good new page started - I'm just going to move the wiki link away from the sub heading and into the text, since the wiki style guides don't like links in subheadings see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)

Image:Virginpaccapsule.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"'Absent any action from the pilot' isn't English: it doesn't make sense: quite apart from it's being one of the ugliest phrases I've seen for some time.)"

Hmmm. In my dictionary, one of the definitions for "absent" says:

–preposition

in the absence of; without: Absent some catastrophe, stock-market prices should soon improve.

That sounds to me to be exactly the same usage that is claimed "isn't English". It makes perfect sense to me, and I might even like the way it sounds. I think I'll put it back. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

No matter what the dictionary says that you looked in, where I live (England) the phrase "Absent any action from the pilot" sounds very odd and is never ever used. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world. - Adrian Pingstone ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

In that case, I imagine "meters" and a few other words appear misspelled, as well. That's because the article is written in American English. Given the policy on the subject, it's best to check that before passing judgement. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 20:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

It would appear that it's not just me that finds this phrasing odd, to say the least. I'd put it back to something more correct. Which is in fact what I shall do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanoylchloride ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, that is one way to handle new information, keep insisting that it is somehow wrong. Good luck with that.

For what it is worth, Wiktionary quotes the Supreme Court of Missouri in a 1919 rulling:

If the accused refuse upon demand to pay money or deliver property (absent any excuse or excusing circumstance) which came into his hands as a bailee, such refusal might well constitute some evidence of conversion, with the requisite fraudulent intent required by the statute.

- AndrewDressel ( talk) 19:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you're talking about. Is it American for something? Anyway, I like the revised version, much better than this 'absent' stuff. By the way, I"m not being funny but you're citing something from a court in Missouri as evidence of good English... Anyway, the article reads much better now, don't you think?

Ethanoylchloride ( talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Aren't we all missing the point here? If the word under discussion sounds very strange to a large body of readers then surely the alternative phrasing should be used? The article is in American English I realise, but doesn't that refer to American spelling but not necessarily American phrasing? Meters is a bad example because we are not talking about spelling, we are commenting on a sentence construction that will startle millions of readers (60 million potential readers in the UK alone). Another reason to change "absent" is that the problem will keep recurring from editors who have not seen this discussion. Better surely to accept the change to a world-wide accepted phrasing. - Adrian Pingstone ( talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, one point is that the article should be as clear as possible to as many people as possible. Three other useful points are:

1. " Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." While you and Editor Ethanoylchloride keep asserting that the phrase "sounds odd" or "isn't English", I have taken the time to look it up and have provided references showing its perfect validity. So far, with your help, the large body of readers I can confirm that find it very odd consists of two.
2. " Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow." How civil does "[it] isn't English: it doesn't make sense: quite apart from it's being one of the ugliest phrases I've seen for some time" sound? Maybe it only sounds uncivil in American English.
3. " No variety [of English] is more correct than the others."

I'm happy to learn that "absent" is not used as a preposition in British English, and I'll try to remember for when I'm writing for an international audience. It just isn't very helpful to read, without any supporting evidence, that what sounds perfectly fine to me "isn't English" or is somehow "less correct". We can all focus more efficiently on the good point you make, if we don't forget the other three. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, Andrew but you have not 'provided references showing its perfect validity'. You have cited one sentence from an American court ruling that is nearly 100 years old! I fail to see how you can point to that as being contemporary or useful evidence of 'absent' being used in this peculiar way. As for my not being civil, I think perhaps you're being a little touchy. Again, perhaps this is a British/American thing. Regarding the matter in hand, I think Adrian puts it well: the point of the matter is surely that it does sound odd, and will sound odd, to a large readership. Trust me, I have never come across this phrase before. Were we to use this phrase in any literature at my University (Cambridge), it would be instantly removed as 'wrong'. Not that my University is the definitive authority on this. Instead, I would point you towards this article http://www.jstor.org/pss/454886 (from which I suspect you got your 100 year old 'evidence'). Though this is not the best piece of scholarly research I've ever come across, one point it repeatedly makes is that 'absent' used like this originally occurs, and recurs primarily in legal and quasi-legal contexts. Hot air ballooning is not quasi-legal.

My mistake. I did fail to provide the name of my first source. "My dictionary" is Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). I didn't use JStore because I am "not currently authorized to access this article." I'll have to take your word on the quasi-legal assertion. As I said, my second source is Wiktionary, and I provided that to indicate the usage was not merely recent. More sources include The New Oxford American Dictionary which lists it as a plain preposition, but for “formal” use, which is what I consider appropriate for Wikipedia, and Webster’s New World Dictionary Third College Edition in 1991. It is amazingly easy to find if you look for it, as I'm sure you've discovered.

As for being touchy, you could be right. Put yourself in my shoes, though. I'm not the most prolific editor by any means, but I've worked hard on several articles over several years, and constantly have to deal with vandals and editors who are sure they are correct but who can provide no sources. When I saw an edit to text that looks perfectly fine to me with an edit summary that says "isn't English: it doesn't make sense: quite apart from it's being one of the ugliest phrases I've seen for some time" from an editor with fewer than 50 contributions, most of which seem to be related to a testy argument about the plural of "bureau", and I found confirmation that the original text was indeed correct in a dictionary on the first try, I figured it was just the mad ravings of some nut job and reverted it. Perhaps you would simply say "oh, he means well", and it sure would have saved me some time if I had, but instead, well you know. At least I learned something new, which is what attracts me to Wikipedia in the first place, and I thank you for that. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 13:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Andrew, I quite understand, and thanks for that. Indeed, the 'bureaus/bureaux' saga is somewhat testy, and quite out of proportion. Frankly the weather is appalling, my bike needs a new fairing and I've got too much time on my hands. lol. Anyway, we both seem to have learnt something here. Best, Ethanoylchloride ( talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

-- 222.67.200.212 ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Please stop adding comments that are not about the article. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No mention of Five_Weeks_in_a_Balloon ??? Another anglocentric page on a french invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.145.252 ( talk) 20:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hot air ballooning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317172051/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/query.asp to http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Fun fact: germans never talk about flying a balloon. They say they drive (similar to ships). I don't know if that's true for other countries as well. Maybe it's interesting enough for this article. 85.220.172.194 ( talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hot air ballooning. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/2118.htm?E+mystore
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011202602/http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9612/nitrogen.htm to http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9612/nitrogen.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hot air ballooning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602012700/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Lighter_than_air/Early_Balloon_Flight_in_Europe/LTA1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714201319/http://www.nott.com/Pages/projects.php to http://www.nott.com/Pages/projects.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hot air ballooning. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170705084641/http://www.fai.org/ballooning/ to http://www.fai.org/ballooning/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402020617/http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/03/29/fea25.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/03/29/fea25.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply