Jump to content

Talk:1904 in aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phillips 1904 multiplane

[edit]

This aircraft is given a full page by Angelucci and Matricardi, World aircraft: Origins - Workd War I, Sampson Low (1977) and a replica was constructed for the film Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. Horatio Phillips was an important historical figure in the development of the modern aerofoil and this was his first manned machine to leave the ground, albeit in unstable hops. Is it notable enough for these timelines? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for Phillips, including a vague description of a first attempt at what turned out to be a dead-end in aviation history (the multiplane) seems unnecessarily trivial. His first actual hop in 1907 is certainly notable and that would seem sufficient coverage of his involvement, readers can refer to his article for more details. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC) [Copied across from Talk:Timeline of aviation#Notability as it is more relevant here — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)][reply]
I would say yes: as you say, Phillips is an important figure in early aviation so his 1904 effort deserves inclusion.TheLongTone (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources say Phillips multiplane did not actually fly but it was an important step in the development of aerofoils so should be included. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK< that's 3 to 1 in favour of restoring the entry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Dinelli

[edit]

This was mentioned at Talk:Timeline_of_aviation#Notability Talk:Timeline of aviation four days ago, suggesting that his flight is notable to any student of Argentinian aviation. No response has been made, so that's a restore too now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are not about what is "important to any student" of a particular country. They are about internationally and historical events in the history of aviation. This glider flight, as I mentioned elsewhere, is of no significance outside Argentina. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over at Talk:Timeline_of_aviation#Notability you said that, "I know of no specific criteria for Year in aviation articles." Now you are making a specific claims over what criteria are to be applied. Where is the support for that claim? [Update] Like I say, to an Argentinian the event is of significance — do you really need me to dig out links to our policy/guideline/whatever about not being so centred on the English-speaking world? Then, there is the Talk:Pioneers of aviation consensus that every pioneer aviator prior to ca. 1909 is notable, and since this flight is Dinelli's only appearance in the story, that makes it notable too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I also quoted from WP:YEARS, which I take to include ALL sub-articles such as Year in aviation articles, that events list important events. Year articles are for internationally important events, events that are not internationally important belong in the appropriate Year in Country article (that is why they exist!). Dinelli's glider flight belongs in 1904 in Argentina and/or History of aviation in Argentina, but has no international significance whatsoever to the history of aviation. That those articles don't exist is no excuse to add yet more trivia to another aviation article when there is too much of that sort of fluff already in them already. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Important, significant, notable, let's not play with words. To whom? If a sub-page does not exist for a very short topic, then it is customary to put that information in the main page. My view is that there is no 1904 in Argentine aviation so the information defaults to 1904 in aviation. WP:BIAS provides some comment on national bias. I guess we have to balance it against WP:YEARS and decide which is the more relevant. I have invited the Aircraft and Aviation wikiprojects to contribute to this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dinelli is so unimportant he is not mentioned anywhere else in English wiki. Nor is he mentioned in Spanish wiki, which is a fairly clear sign, assuming that there must be at least a few Argentinians interested in history/aviation, that no-one in Argentina considers him worthy of mentioning. Although there are some that disagree, there must be some sort of minimum level of importance for adding information, and the bar for the early Year in aviation articles is already very low; this is surely setting it too low. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should not regard Wikipedia as an indicator of notability. Most other wikis are far less mature than en.wikipedia, so we shouldn't take that as evidence either. I just googled "Dinelli argentina planeador 1904" and got "about 789" hits. Given that most/all are in Spanish, WP:BIAS warns us against assuming it is equivalent to a English-language topic getting 789 hits. A comparably obscure French type is possibly the "Biot Massia 1879 glider" which, because it happens to be preserved, rates a massive 173,000 hits, while the British "Smythies ornithopter" gets a mere 190 hits despite some interesting technical features. Not a very reliable indicator there, either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed this I would say it is at a level of notability that fits into this article and should be retained, but it does need a ref added as per WP:V to stay. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a reference to the Aero Club San Pedro web site (in Spanish but Google Translate helps), which in turn mentions the newspaper report(s) of the time and suchlike. Is it enough? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC) [Update:] Ah, you are ahead of me. many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so. I removed the "citation needed" tag. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1904 in aviation. 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).

  • 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) 19:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1904_in_aviation&oldid=1195883788"