Talk:Maiden flight

From VfD:

Delete - Dictionary definition, found via Wikipedia:Deadend_pages. No room for expansion that I can see. —Rory ☺ 01:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Dictdef. Oh, it could be expanded. In this form, it hasn't been in a coon's age. If it gets built up by the end of VfD, I'll change my vote. ("Maidens flee quite often.") Geogre 12:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for dictdef and oldologism and I hope people don't create articles about all the "Maiden X" terms that mean the earliest occasion of X: maiden voyage, cruise, speech, crop, day, dish, law ... what? Yes, reading from the OED here, sorry. "He but borowyng their woordes, bryngeth it foorthe for a mayden booke" (1555 copyvio template). Bishonen 14:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef and simply unneccessary. Skyler 01:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Expanded somewhat. All votes above cast before expansion.

• I say keep expanded version. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
• Very cool addition, thanks, DJ Clayworth. Changing my vote to Keep. Bishonen 20:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Decent enough. Keep. - UtherSRG 01:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

List of first flights

This article is linked from a proposed template found on such articles as the F-117 Nighthawk, and thus the article needs more content. I've added a brief list of first flights of various planes. Ultimately, I want the list to cover the first flights of the most famous, most recognizable, most common, or most historic aircraft types. Feel free to make additions, since the current state of the list is just a beginning. Willy Logan 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the list of notable first flights as in my opinion it is very subjective and not really NPOV, a list of first flights is available in the years in aviation articles and individual aircraft articles. My deletion was reverted so I am looking for comments on why these are notable and not the thousands of other first flights and its relevance to this article. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the list being trimmed. Some flights are clearly worth noting as objective firsts -- the Wright Brothers; first jet; largest currently flying aircraft, to pick a few random ones -- and should remain. Arguably some could be deleted, although that's not an argument I'm making. I think the list now contains maiden flights of either certain classes of aircraft (e.g. jet); certain notable specific aircraft (e.g. Concorde, Blackbird); or specific historic maiden flights (e.g. the Wright Brothers). It's useful and on-topic having this list of such maiden flights in a coherent form. The fact that they can each be found spread elsewhere on Wikipedia, spread through multiple articles, is not a good argument for their deletion. WRT the thousand of other first flights, I expect that some of those, if they are well-known, may also be noteworthy. I'm not arguing for an expansion here, but the fact that other flights are not in the list is not in itself an argument for deletion of the list. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the list is to be retained then it does need a rationale as why Concorde or Blackbird are more notable then Harrier or any another aircraft you can think of. Why the Boeing 737 and not the A320 you could go on with these sort of arguments. This sort of list just attracts random adding of aircraft types, suprising nobody has added Tejas yet! MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nine months and no comments or rationale on what should be included, I will remove the list shortly unless somebody can propose a rationale and that it is agreed. Remember all first flights are listed in the Aviation in Year articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of the list. There can be disagreements about whether a particular aircraft type is sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. That is not grounds for deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK your objection understood, can you be clear which of the 10,000+ aircraft types should be on the list? MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See my 2009-03-18 comment above. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Still not a clear answer this is an article describing what a maiden flight is not which ones are notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you rephrase? I can't parse your sentence. TJRC (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you insist - Article describes the term maiden flight it is not a list article. Every aircraft has a maiden flight all are notable to the particularly aircraft type and a lot of them are already listed in the Aviation in year articles. I am sorry I cant see adding a random list of ten or twenty of the 10,000 odd maiden flights adding any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a list article, but it's still a list. This is what WP:LIST calls an "embedded list." I agree that random flights should not be included. It should be limited to flights that are notable or noteworthy. Which flights meet those criteria is a matter of consensus. If you're looking to establish a bright-line set of rules, in advance, that's probably not a very hopeful task. I don't see where the fact that the flights in this list also are mentioned in multiple aviation in year articles has any impact on this. This list provides a list of maiden flights in a single convenient place. That's its objective. TJRC (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong I am not against a well thought out list of examples but at the moment it has no control and could be a bit of a fan boy magnet. A lot on this list at the moment are not first of anything, why the Mil-24 and not AH-64, why the B-24 and not the Lancaster I could go on. Why so many early examples which dont even mention the aircraft type. Just looking for a reasonable rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Vuia

removed some stuff about Vuia's flight being the first heavier than air machine with their own takeoff systems,propulsion units and landing gear because it's immediately below the first flights of several others who had all these qualities. This makes it look like these others didn't have these qualities, and just adding the same descriptive language to the earlier entries would make the whole thing look silly.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Moy

Moy's steamer is discussed in great detail by Octave Chanute. His detailed description of Moy's attempts is adamant that the steamer didn't get off the ground, or even get close to the speed Moy expected it to rise at. (See: Progress In Flying Machines) Does anyone know where the claim that the aerial steamer flew comes from?Romaniantruths (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are conflicting sources about this. The U.S. Centennial of Flight website says the aircraft lifted about six inches:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/late_1800s/PH4.htm

The FlyingMachines.org site says it probably did not:

http://www.flyingmachines.org/moy.html

DonFB (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)