This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofrocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oftechnology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of theAviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists ofopen tasks andtask forces. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
That's great, congratulations. I have been thinking for a while that this Early flying machines article covers too long a span to be coherent, so I'd like to see the material from 1904 onwards merged across and deleted from here. People will probably dicker and whinge about precise cutoff dates appropriate to each title, but IMHO the more encyclopedic view is to dicker and whinge about the article titles for each period (grin). — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk)19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit changed the format of the dates in the section on Whitehead to American (mm d, y) format. Looking at the article I see that the is no existing consistency in date format... indeed at least one section contains both. Any strong feelings?? In any case, the article should be tidied up oone way or the other.TheLongTone (talk)17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the dates have been changed to the non-american d-m-y format, in articles like this without a direct connection to any particular country then we should stick with whatever the first author used as a date format and they should then all be the same (no I havent actually looked at what that was yet).MilborneOne (talk)19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to normalise not just dates but spelling too. The oldest useful version in the history dates from 2010 and has both mixed dates and spellings. Since then the content of several other articles/lists has been merged in. I'd suggest that whoever gets in there and does a major job on sorting it out should get to make the call. — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk)19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That was me who made the date format changes. While I was adding the "convert" template, I noticed the sections I was working on used both US and International dates. I decided to standardise them to the International format (i.e., the format used by ~95% of the world's population). I am fine with whichever format there is a consensus for use in this article . . . just so long as the entire article uses the same format. --Thorwald (talk)04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then can I suggest that we regardThorwald (talk·contribs) as setting the precedent for the direction to normalise dates? I confess that I know little of spellings outside of the UK and USA, is there a similar international majorty standard spelling? — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk)07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of spelling, currently three 'centre' vs four 'center', neither 'cancelled' nor 'canceled', about equal 'metre' and 'meter', but 'aeroplane' is used in the lede.GraemeLeggett (talk)13:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine much of the inconsistancy comes from the article being the result of a seies of merges. Is there a wikipedia equivalent of tossing a coin?TheLongTone (talk)14:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's whatever the first editor to tackle the topic does. Since the first significant edit made a mess, I suggest we default to the first editor to start tackling the mess. That would appear to be Thorwald. — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk)19:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The earliest report of an attempted jet flight dates back to the Ottoman Empire. In 1633, the aviator Lagâri Hasan Çelebi reportedly used a cone-shaped rocket to make the first attempt at a jet flight." it was a rocket flight and not a jet flight
I've added a POV template to this section, since it clearly gives undue emphasis to the Whitehead claims, and fails to note that the 2013Jane's article was later followed by a statement from its publishers clarifying that "The article reflected Mr. Jackson’s opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane’s."[1] It should also be noted that the Smithsonian was far from alone in criticising theJane's article - just as an example theRoyal Aeronautical Society issued a statement on the matter ("All available evidence fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights pre-dating those of the Wright brothers. The arguments in favour of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than 30 years after the fact...")[2] and many similar responses can be found. The consensus amongst mainstream historians remains unchanged, and per Wikipedia policy, we must make this clear.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
