Talk:Airbus A319

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: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Time for a change

Hello everyone, I have recently updated the main image of the A319 page from a Lufthansa A319 to a US Airway A319. I changed this because I did not want people confusing the A319 and A320 pages. the new image will be a good reminder to people that this is the A319 page instead of the A320 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:200:F9A:F9CC:5828:1040:D1A1 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

main photo change

current photo, OK but rather bland
proposed photo, better illustrating the general configuration

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New main pic

Hi everyone, just to leave a notice that I changed the main picture. It now illustrates BA, a common A319 operator. Also, the last pic wasn't correctly cropped according to airplane photography standards. Cheers, TramBusAl.

I have reverted it, you need to get a consensus first, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to undo an edit

I hate being on phone all the time, you guys know how to undo an edit?

Merge

The Article should be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#A319 in my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DB:E708:1600:71B5:794E:6BD9:D8D8 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

EasyJet A319 at BFS.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unit conversions

There is no consensus on unit conversions. The only consensus I saw was "it's an editorial decision".--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was enough consensus to program Template:Convert such that when nmi is entered, by default it is converted into km and mi. If you disagree with that, Template talk:Convert would be the venue to discuss that, not here.

As far back as July 25, 2016‎, this page has used the standard conversion of nmi into km and mi. You, Marc Lacoste, were the editor who changed the formatting to have km only. However, the double conversion was the original state and has existed in the intro since that time. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The convert template is generic but this is an aviation topic, where the consensus in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_49#Units_conversion was like All units can be used. Their selection is an editorial decision.

7 years of stability is an obvious consensus. Per wp:brd, you were bold to add sm to the convert template, you were reverted rapidly, thus this should be discussed here while leaving the article in the previous stable state. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nautical mile is a unit of length only used in air, marine, and space navigation. Therefore, aviation topics are one of the three types of pages that use the nmi conversions. I've yet to hear an argument why we should be ignoring the default output other than it's what we've been doing for a long time. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Address again in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]