Jump to content

Talk:Douglas DC-7B N836D

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

No consensus to move to the proposed title. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N836D DC-7B → Douglas DC-7B c/n 45345 – Aircraft registrations can get changed even after a long period under the same mark. The one thing that will not change is the c/n. The proposed title, whilst not intuitive, is a good one. Redirects enable easy finding of the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose only because I would expect it to be a Douglas DC-7 N836D and not use the c/n/msn in the name as it does not mean anything to most readers. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article renamed (moved) to better naming convention: Douglas DC-7B N836D leaving redirect behind. -- Alexf(talk) 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose aircraft are usually identified with their tail numbers in the real world, when referring to them in any one period. The serial number on enters into historical research, so is more rarely used. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. S/N is irrelevant to the public. This is a historic aircraft without a name (it would probably have one it it was a warplane) so it is simply known as N836D, the registration, and referred to that way in all the references I've seen. -- Alexf(talk) 10:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Notability

[edit]

Not really sure the aircraft is notable enough for a stand alone article, I have asked for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#N836D DC-7B. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is notable as it is the only passenger DC-7 in flying condition in the world, and sources have been provided. Will comment there. -- Alexf(talk) 18:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually understand why anyone thinks this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.  A Google search on [inurl:N836D] yields 229 pages with "N836D" in the URL, or 229 dedicated web pages, each of which adds cumulatively to the WP:notability of N836D.  It seems similar to the Goodyear Blimp.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GHits do not add or establish notability, since a large number of them are Wikimirrors and Wikiripoffs. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Regarding the recent removal of sources by moving them off as external links, WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".  A trivial mention is something like the mention of the place of employment in an obituary, or an entry in a phone book.  In each case, the removed sources have no relation to being trivial, each source removed was an entire page dedicated to the topic, N836D.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web pages moved from references to external links (by me) were all galleries of photographs of the aircraft. Dedicated to the aircraft yes, but I don't believe reliable sources on the aircraft (self-published, lack of editorial oversight etc). GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Graeme. -- Alexf(talk) 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that these "self-published" websites have no editorial control?  Are we to believe that porn is acceptable at all seven of these web sites?  That would be a concern, but at this point I don't find that it is a credible concern.  How can a picture be unreliable?  And you have dismissed the point that these are not trivial, so it is not a question of if they contribute to notability, but how much.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sought opinion at the Aviation wikiproject on my concern that the photo-gallery type websites aren't reliable sources. the responses to date seem to me to indicate that a picture alone is not a source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

Proposing that this article be merged with the main Douglas DC-7 article, as, sole survivor or not, I don't believe this aircraft meets the WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's a unique aircraft as the only restored flying passenger aircraft of its type. It is akin to "Fifi", which would have to be merged too in that case. -- Alexf(talk) 10:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it's quite possible that Fifi isn't notable enough for an article either; it's near certain this isn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is a notable aircraft because it is the sole flying of her type, and a merge of these two articles would produce a complete article that centers too much on this individual airplane. If they remain as they are, each can get the proper context and attention required. Spartan7W (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being the sole flying example does not confer notability, and of the sources currently in the article, there are only three of the nine provided that appear to be WP:RS, and even then they don't rise to the level to justify a stand-alone article. There is insufficent subtansive coverage in multiple reliable sources for this aircraft to be notable and it desperately needs to be merged, the previous discussions and AfD being filled with WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support is it the only flying example? even if it is being the last is probably not really notable it doesnt appear to have done anything unusual in its life. (29 are still registered with the FAA, some still have current airworthiness certificates so unlikely to be the last). MilborneOne (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This aircraft is the sole example of its type preserved in passenger configuration without ever being converted to a cargo carrier or water bomber. It is a unique representative of transportation and aviation history in North America and warrants a separate entry. RegnansInExcelcis (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a significant airplane, famous among enthusiasts for being the only example - flying or not - restored to passenger configuration. It is a true rarity and I think it should have its own entry. Propjetelectra (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to parent article. Not an aircraft with claim to individual notability through its history. In fact it seems to have had a largely uneventful career. The sourcing (at the moment) seems to fall short of the requirements of General Notability guideline. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary.  So the premise that the topic must continue to attract attention throughout its life is erroneous.  This is also seen in the WP:N nutshell, which does not say that evidence of notability is "enduring", but that attention from the world at large must exist "over a period of time".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How much more sourcing does WP:GNG require?  (Ans: none).  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose  The AfD determined that this topic was wp:notable.  Now it is true that being wp:notable does not require us to keep the article as standalone.  But this is a case in which merging the article would not improve the encyclopedic coverage...as I said at the AfD, this is not just an airplane, it is also an event.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas DC-7B N836D. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_DC-7B_N836D&oldid=1201630906"