Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Fixed-wing aircraft → airplane – airplane redirects to this artice;WP:NC(CN);airplane is most common name;google test - see Talk page;no-brainer Serge 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Per google test results below. It's not even close. What's next? circular rain and-or sun deflector because some Brits use the term bumbershoot instead of umbrella? This contrived title is as ridiculous. --Serge 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per Google test. I understand Wikipedia's desire to avoid region-specific terms wherever possible, but with apologies to the Commonwealth folks around here, the prevalent term in the rest of the English-speaking world is "airplane".--chris.lawson 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, the page describes fixed-wing aircraft, not all aircraft. Expand "airplane" or "aeroplane" however you wish, but "airplane" does include both fixed and rotary-winged aircraft. --Mmx1 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See below.--chris.lawson 04:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. The title was a compromise between the American and UK forms of the word (whatever)plane. It's sort of ironic that the nominator of this move cites WP:NC(CN), considering that from that very page I find the following:

Other exceptions are contained in the Manual of Style, for example the National varieties of English section in that guideline leads to fixed-wing aircraft being used instead of aeroplane or airplane, in order not to give precedence to either British or American spelling.[1]

--SigPig 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - When presented with choosing the lesser of three evils, I'm going with the current evil. Redirects from airplane and aeroplane make the actual name of the article unimportant, so why pick between the American or British spelling? --Bobblehead 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• See "Why choose American usage?" section in Discussion below. --Serge 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose in the strongest possible terms - Google test means zero. "Aircraft" is a neutral term. The day this article gets renamed to "airplane", I will quit Wikipedia for good. EuroSong ^talk 14:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Bobblehead and EuroSong. As Bobblehead pointed out WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English notes that a compromise title is acceptable and I echo EuroSong's view that we must be mindful that our readership extends beyond the US. I also feel that a flaw in the WP:NC(CN) has been exposed and being leverage to the a degree of WP:POINT. There is an inherent conflict in the way common names is being used in violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). I think we should reconcile this conflict before exalting the guideline above all others. Agne 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Even if it is an American terminilogy, it would still be completely understood by English speakers outside the US. Even if you take population into account, "airplane" is still the most common name. --Polaron | Talk 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• STRONGLY Oppose All this will do is start a bloody move war between americanites and commonwealthites and it will yo yo back and forth, ad infinitum. We have problems with edits even within the article as it is now... I would love there to be a Commonwealth and American Wiki, but I don't think that is gonna happen. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm thoroughly American and I have no problem with the article being at the present title in the interests of harmony. This is just yet another example of Serge's misunderstanding of the place that the use common names convention has in Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• strong oppose We should not be trying to undo previous compromises. I wonder if there is a bit of wiki point being made here too. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. There are other instances where we don't use strange forms to compromise between American and British English. Aluminium, for instance. Note also Truck, rather than Lorry (a disambiguation page). Surely we could come up with some awkward construction that would avoid either "truck" or "lorry", but why would we want to? Also Apartment. I would rather have the article at either "airplane" or "aeroplane" than the current ridiculous title. john k 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Worth noting that gasoline (instead of petrol) is another example. I agree with John; this should be at one or the other. I don't much care which; anyone who knows what an "aeroplane" is knows what an "airplane" is, and vice-versa. Even the FAA and JAA don't use "fixed-wing aircraft" in their writings, other than as part of the definition of airplane/aeroplane in the first place.--chris.lawson 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The gasoline/petrol example is not the same. "Gasoline" is a perfectly legitimate word in BrE: it means petrol. It's just that it's far less common - and because of the fact that in the USA the word "gasoline" is more commonly used than "petrol", the word is seen as American usage. But it's still perfectly correct BrE. This is different from "airplane", which is simply not used at all outside North America. EuroSong ^talk 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose fixed-wing aircraft is less ambiguous. Gyroplanes may be considered "airplanes" but not "fixed-wing aircraft". 132.205.93.38 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite an example of where gyroplanes are referred to as "airplanes".--chris.lawson 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons cited above. ^BlankVerse 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support, it's nice that you guys want to compromise and all, but this title is just awful. If "airplane" refers to other things besides fixed-wing aircraft, then the scope of the article just needs to be changed slightly. Airplane is the most common term and it isn't even close. Recury 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Google Test results

Results 1 - 10 of about 83,800,000 for airplane
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,930,000 for aeroplane
Results 1 - 10 of about 744,000 for "fixed-wing aircraft"

Come on folks, airplane is 12 times more commonly used than "aeroplane" to reference the subject of this article, and 112 times more commonly used than the current title, Fixed-wing aircraft. This contrived title makes no sense, and is unprofessional. --Serge 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Airplane"

Mmx1 notes, above, that "airplane" refers to both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. This statement is contrary to every dictionary definition I've ever read, and in particular, disagrees with both Wiktionary [2] and Webster's [3]. It's difficult to extract a definition from context on Google, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the 84 million hits (see above) for "airplane" use it in describing only fixed-wing, heavier-than-air craft, which sort of shoots down that whole line of reasoning (no offence intended to Mmx1).--chris.lawson 04:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OED(Oxford English Dictionary, unfortunately closed resource):

Air-Plane:Alteration of AEROPLANE, after AIR- III.] Also airplane

Aero-plane: 1. A plane (or slightly curved) light framework or ‘surface’ forming part of a flying-machine, and serving to sustain it in the air. Obs. (Later called simply plane, also wing.) 2. {dag}a. An airship provided with planes. Obs. b. (The current sense.) A heavier-than-air flying-machine supported by such planes or wings and mechanically driven.

Dictionary.com has a similar defns. [4]--Mmx1 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that Dictionary.com lists the OED definition 2(b) (more universally thought of as "aircraft") as a secondary definition, not as its primary definition (which agrees with both Wiktionary and Webster's). Have you ever heard anyone refer to a helicopter or gyroplane as an "airplane" or "aeroplane"?--chris.lawson 05:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the JAA (via the EASA) and FAA both disagree with your assertion that "aeroplane" refers to anything other than fixed-wing. See [5] and [6]. As the JAA and FAA are the two major regulatory bodies in the world of aviation, I'd say that the OED takes a very distant back seat to their definition of "airplane" or "aeroplane".--chris.lawson 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why choose American usage?

Bobblehead asks above, why pick the American usage for this article? Because the American usage happens to be the most common name used to reference the subject of this article, which matters because the title of an encyclopedia article has a specific purpose: to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of the article, which, in this case, is most certainly not "fixed-wing aircraft" or "aeroplane", and most certainly is: airplane.

There is a larger issue at stake here: do we continue to make exceptions to this principle (for various reasons - this "compromise" between British/American usage being but one of them), and end up with more and more articles with contrived articles? Or do we stick to WP:NC(CN) (not including the exceptions currently noted there) and have an encyclopedia with titles that consistently specify the most common name used to reference the subject in the title? --Serge 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Serge, as I have already said to you on Talk:Popsicle, your definition of "common name" is flawed, because you're just going by the fact that the USA has a population bigger than all the other English-speaking countries combined. Of course, more people will lead to more Google hits. But in an international encyclopædia, you can't just steam-roller decisions over the rest of the world because there are more Americans. If this were usa.wikipedia.org then that would be fair enough, but it's not: it's en.wikipedia.org, and it's for all English-speaking people over the world. Therefore international compromises must be used - even if they're less commonly said. EuroSong ^talk 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Euro, it's not my definition of "common name" - it's the only objective one that exists. I understand your argument. But, with all due respect, it doesn't support the conclusion that "international compromises must be used". At best, it encourages it be considered, especially when there is a close call in usage. But, let's be reasonable. Is there anyone in the English speaking world who has not heard, if not actually used, the term "airplane" to refer to the subject of this article? The google test results indicate a difference far greater than one that would be explained by population differences. I understand the desire for a compromise between the two usages. But fixed-wing aircraft is by far worse. Personally, I would heed to Solomon's wisdom and support aeroplane for the title before killing it, and hurting Wikipedia in the process, with a contrived compromise title like Fixed-wing aircraft (except that aeroplane has been shown to not be limited to the subject of this article, which does not include helicopters for examples, like airplane is). Like I said, there is a larger issue at stake. For all too many articles there are contrived titles that have been created due to supposed conflicts that required compromise solutions. The result is unprofessional and unacceptable. --Serge 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point behind all this handwringing about how "bad" fixed-wing aircraft is. The google test is pointless, airplane/aeroplane encompasses "fixed-wing aircraft", so it's not a fair comparison anyway. --Mmx1 16:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See above; no, it doesn't. "Airplane" or "aeroplane" has a definition synonymous with "fixed-wing aircraft" everywhere that matters. The OED is on its own in this one.--chris.lawson 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist the facts. Websters is the only one that agrees with you. Wiki doesn't count for the same reason that wiki isn't used as a source; American heritage also uses this defn. OED is the standard for english dictionaries. --Mmx1 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And a dictionary has approximately zero authority in defining what an "airplane" is. That's the province of government, and the world's aviation authorities say that an "airplane" or an "aeroplane" is synonymous with "fixed-wing aircraft", period. I can't help that the OED usage does not reflect reality.--chris.lawson 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So where is this FAA ruling on "airplane" versus "fixed-wing aircraft" versus "aeroplane"? OED is the authority on the English language, I can't help it if you have your own definitions. --Mmx1 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been asked in prior discussions you've been involved in, Serge, what gives WP:NC(CN) precedence over other guidelines? In this case WP:MOS#National varieties of English which specifically lists in cases where there is multiple spellings there may be value in selecting a synonym. Fixed wing aircraft is equally acceptable as a name for airplanes\aeroplanes it avoids the whole American vs. British spelling debate. It's also worth noting that NC(CN) actually gives precedence to other naming conventions. --Bobblehead 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Bobblehead. Wikipedia should be an international community where we cooperate; not an argumentative one in which differences across the Atlantic create divisions. That's why it's so important to find compromises. "Fixed-wing aircraft" isn't my first choice of title either, but at least it's a compromise, and I understand the need for it. I wish our dear Serge would too :) Thank you for your input. EuroSong ^talk 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, no one is disputing the value of finding compromise. But at what cost? Like the woman who accidentally smothered her child, and then preferred killing the other woman's child in the name of "compromise" (but, really, so that the other woman would not have a child either), opposing the American usage here because you can't have your preferred British usage, and choosing a contrived title instead, is, frankly, a disingenuous appeal to compromise (albeit probably a subconscious one). I, for one, am not buying it, no matter how many times you repeat it. --Serge 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I could say that you're opposing the compromise, and you are only interested in a USA-centric Wikipedia with American usage to the exclusion of everyone else. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. EuroSong ^talk 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict. This is aimed at Serge)Wow. Talk about the king of inappropriate and equally inaccurate analogy. Perhaps you should check out WP:NCR, Serge. Wikipedia is built on finding consensus and in order to stave off a spelling war an equally correct alternative was chosen that was acceptable to both sides of the pond. You seem to have an over attachment to a naming convention guideline that is superceded by all other naming convention guidelines. --Bobblehead 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not deny that I feel very strongly that Wikipedia quality is greatly and unnecessarily compromised on countless articles where a contrived title is chosen -- for various reasons among which an alleged British/American "compromise" is only one -- rather than the name that is most commonly used to refer to the subject of that title. That, again, is the broader issue. That Eurosong continues to see my position as being based on an interest in a USA-centric Wikipedia only reinforces how strong and blinding his own anti-American bias is. --Serge 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it's just a name. Secondly, given the choice between a term "airplane" that can mean any flying machine (and sometimes used to mean only the following), and the more precise "fixed-wing aircraft"; wouldn't it make sense to make the former an article on all flying machines and then specify fixed-winged aircraft...in the "fixed-wing aircraft" page? If you reserve airplane/aeroplane for only fixed-wing; what do helicopters, airships, and gyrocopters fall under hierarchically? flying machine? It makes more sense to make the topmost category (airplane) as general as possible. --Mmx1 19:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically in common usage "airplane" is more frequently associated with fixed-wing while the word "aircraft" is used for all the various flying machines. Both airplane and aeroplane redirect to this article, so I'm not sure how much validity is in that argument. That being said, I'm not entirely sure this should be a bias issue. There is nothing inaccurate about referring to airplanes/aeroplanes as fixed-wing aircraft and keeps us out of the entire 'airplane' vs. 'aeroplane' argument. Kind of how there's a truce on having American be a disambiguation page in order to avoid the whole "American should redirect to United States" vs. "American should redirect to Americas" argument. Both of which are true, but to create harmony within the community sacrifices were made. --Bobblehead 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this idea that "airplane" can be used to mean a helicopter coming from? Has anyone ever encountered such a usage? john k 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See above; apparently some people believe the Oxford English Dictionary carries more weight than the force of law in the EU and the United States.--chris.lawson 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But the OED definition in question refers only to aircraft "provided with such wings or planes." Isn't that the same thing as a fixed-wing aircraft? john k 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

If this is about anti-U.S. centric usage, would anyone oppose the following move instead:

• Fixed-wing aircraft -> Aeroplane (airplane)

--Serge 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related guideline discussion

Since the heart of the move is related to an application of the Common Names guideline that conflicts with other guidelines, I think clarification should be made to that guideline to alleviate some of this conflict. All views are welcomed in the discussion on the guideline's talk page. Agne 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.