Talk:Gyrodynes and Heliplanes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.See comments | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Radical Changes
Some anonymous person keeps coming in and deleting half of the Gyrodyne article. I suspect it might be the same person using different IP addresses, but who knows?
Would contributors please Talk before doing really big changes? Some of the changes made have been contentious, to say the least, and while some lovely new material has been added, quite a lot of the old stuff was just removed without a discussion.
My feeling is this: if material is incorrect, the Wiki article should discuss why the material is incorrect. This is informative. To replace a chunk of definition with something along the lines of "The FAA are Wrong" is pretty unhelpful.
What do other contributors think?
n.b. It appears that three of the anonymous contributors have only made changes to this article, and a couple of other articles.
OrangUtanUK 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Conflict
Sorry, guys, Graeme and Biblbroks both got in while I was doing a large edit. I hope my edit is agreeable to you, but if I have missed some bits out please yell so I know what to put back in. Not that I regard myself as the owner of the page or anything, just I feel I ought to correct any damage I've done. Sorry again.
OrangUtanUK 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I only made a little reformulation of two sentences. Your edit is a major improvement to that what I have tried to clarify. Biblbroks 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] trademark merge
theres not a lot to be said about the lone US trademark so I put the other article down for merging into here. GraemeLeggett 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Graeme refers to Gyrodyne Trademark, and I heartily agree with him that the article on the trademark should be merged here. Ingoolemo talk 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I've done a bit recently to bring the Trademark stuff into the G&H article, and I was going to propose the same thing this week.
- OrangUtanUK 09:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] structural changes
I'm not convinced about the changes to the structure of the article - all due respect to GraemeLeggett. We now have basically one long article with no subsections. I'd like to propose that we subdivide it in some form: perhaps --
- Basic Description
- History
- Current Development
OrangUtanUK 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Valid point, I was able to start the rearrangement but not finish. My thinking was
- Intro paragraph to explain what a gyrodyne and a heliplane are
- History - which would be subdivided into Bennett, the 1950/1960s efforts and then current development
- Examples as a separate list for those who read the article but don't veer off part way through
- links/see also as expected.
GraemeLeggett 10:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeh! That's nice. Well done, Graeme.
OrangUtanUK 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] merge in from Gyrodyne_Trademark
Hi all; I propose to go ahead and do the suggested merger, during the first weekend of November, unless anyone objects? OrangUtanUK 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] anonymous changes
Someone, apparently with some useful inside knowledge, keeps making changes to the article. They appear to have an agenda against "gyrodyne" in its modern usage, and often replace established text with strongly opinionated material. Frequently the material is misplaced or duplicated. This has been going on for some time now, and always such changes are made by an anonymous contributor, in clusters of 5 or more changes at a time. We set up the Gyrodyne_Trademark article as a playpen for this user, but they've come back to us.
I relish the opportunity to learn from all input, but it seems to me that the proper way to proceed would be to note that the modern usage exists, and to respect and build upon the effort of other contributors. Erroneous material could be placed in its correct context, and accompanied with a balanced discussion of the merits of each viewpoint. I hope other contributors agree.
Since the contributor in question is always anonymous, we are denied the opportunity of confronting them about their lack of etiquette, or simple poor academic practice. I would like to propose that if this continues, we should apply to have the page protected so that it can only be changed by logged-in users. I think this capability exists.
What do other contributors think? OrangUtanUK 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
RESPONSE
OrangUtanUK is obviously more concerned with ownership of the Gyrodyne page than its actual content. All of the facts in my contributions to the Gyrodyne page can be verified by referring to the included authoritative references.
I know this subject inside and out and do not need to discuss or have my contributions vetted by others. If you don't like my contributions, then replace them. I have no qualms in replacing the poorly written, incorrectly reasoned and presented material on this or other pages. Did some PRA "expert" write this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.129.93.72 (talk • contribs).
- Actually, based on the contents of the page, I am pretty confused as to what a gyrodyne is compared to a compound gyroplane or a compound helicopter and even a compound gyrodyne. Strictly speaking, the patent definition of Bennett wasn't that difficult to gather, and neither is the FAA's definition. What messes the conversation up is all the compound definitions that attempt to clarify but only muddy the water. --Born2flie 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
