Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-9

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 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

Archives: 1, 2

Aviation: Aircraft

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Missing DC9- 14 Accident in article

Hello:

- DC9 article is missing the following accident:

- December 22 1974, DC9-14, Aerovías Venezolanas “Avensa” - YV-C-AVM, Marurin, Venezuela, 71 Dead ( Crew+Pax) , “ Loss of Control” , 3 minutes after take off!!

- Information can be validated at:

- Aviation Safety Network**

BR 139.68.250.190 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ASN does not meet WP:RS due to WP:USERGENERATED content. ASN can be useful for the bibliography, but in this case it consists only of a single book by David Gero that can't be previewed online. The crash certainly warrants inclusion if a reliable published source is used. Carguychris (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is a wiki section of ASN falling in WP:USERGENERATED content, but the other part, the ASN accident database, is reliable as a subsidiary of Flight Safety Foundation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should be "Douglas DC-9," not "McDonnell Douglas DC-9"

I cannot edit the title, though logged in. After Doughlas Aircraft Co. merged with McDonnell Aircraft Corp. on April 28, 1967 as the McDonnell Doughlas Corp., the plane continued to be manufactured as the Douglas (Commercial) DC-9 until the next generation in 1980, at which time it was renamed the MD-80. Contrary to the title, therefore, there never was a McDonnell Douglas DC-9 per se; there was the Douglas DC-9, followed decades later by the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 variant. EarlRSutton (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft article title s can be both simple and complicated, but in the end it's generally just an editorial decision. In this case, the DC-9 was produced for the longest time after the merger, so we've used "McDonnell Douglas". That said, aircraft article titles on Wikipedia can be very inconsistent. Lockheed/Lockheed Martin have produced the F-16 for 30 years, but it's still titled under General Dynamics, with several failed move requests. Aircraft articles have a tendency to stay at their original title in cases like these, as it hard to build a clear consensus to move them. BilCat (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is the wp:commonname policy: the name that is most commonly used. A google search for "McDonnell Douglas DC-9" have 533k results, compared to 142k for "Douglas DC-9" -McDonnell.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME isn't a policy itself, but one aspect of the naming policy, nor are Google searches of themselves proof of a common name. Even so, simply being the common name doesn't automatically mean we can't use another. But you're right that I didn't include that in my discussion, and I should have at least mentioned it as a factor. BilCat (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]