Talk:Airbus CityAirbus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Airbus CityAirbus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft / Rotorcraft

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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

name of this article

Of course CityAirbus is the correct name. It's the same name like in the French an German versions and it wouldbe the same in Spanish or Portugues if someone creates it. So what's wrong with it? I just wonder why you, Ahunt didn't discuss this subject before you changed the name once more. Please don't destroy good an serious work of others. You even blocked my updates - this no correct and polite Wikipedia way of worring together. I already corrected three linked articles. Even if you'd be the biggest Airbus fan in the world there'd be no need to double this word in one name. It' just wrong. Airbus A³ Vahana isn't named Airbus Airbus A³ Vahana too. Please try to understand it. Leo067 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the article to a name that doesn't comply with our consensus standard for aircraft names without any discussion and a new consensus. I moved it back for both those reasons. If you wish to propose renaming the article go ahead and start a discussion here. Please also get your facts straight: I did not "block your updates", whatever that means. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With block my updates it was meant I updated the article at the same time,when you undid the renaming, so it couldn't be saved and got lost. Half an hour of work, two text parts and two links. It's different from undo a simple article change. Don't tell me you didn't know this would happen. Why didn't you discuss the undo before? It's strange to me that the namings differ that much in the differnt languages. --16:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Leo067 (talk)

I didn't block anything, that is called an "edit conflict" and can happen with any edit on any article. All editors run into that all the time here, whenever someone else edits an article and saves it before you do. In fact you created an edit conflict while I was writing this reply. At the point where it happens you can save your work and incorporate it later, as the edit conflict page shows. I just did that and didn't lose my reply here. If the work is lost it is because you didn't save it. As for why didn't I discuss the rename back, see WP:BRD. That is normal the editing process. You should have gained a consensus for your page move before you moved it in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt is correct on the title of the article, and was justified in reverting the move. (I would have done it myself if he hadn't.) Each language's Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, or no conventions at all. What something is titled on the French or German Wikipedias is totally irrelevant to what something is titled on English Wikipedia. Interwiki links and redirects exist to make sure that readers can find articles in cases where titles are different. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]