Talk:Aeronautics Defense Dominator
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aeronautics Defense Dominator article.|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Robotics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Name Change Discussion
I tried moving this article to Aernautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back, asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV be an exception? Most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention, and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, folks, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? Akradecki 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Akradecki moved the article to the name he has chosen less than 24 hours after I created the article with out first discussing it with me. I am flexible on the name and I want the best possible name for the article. I scanned the Category:UAVs and drones before I named the article and determined most do not have the manufacturers name first and for those with common names, they place UAV at the end Taranis (UAV) & Aladin (UAV) & Mastiff UAV. The manufacturer has four words in their name, so adding only the first word of the four doesn't make sense to me and will hinder people showing up at wikipedia from finding the article. Headphonos 16:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems N328KF is on an article MOVING spree, as he has moved numerous articles without discussing them first on the articles talk pages, including the one's in my examples. Headphonos 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I can see both points of view but there is probably a convention here that usually links manufacturer's name and type name but not "type" so there is no "Short Sunderland seaplane" there is instead "Short Sunderland." I realize that the UAV designation would differentiate the topic from the "B-32 Dominator" for example but I still like the simplest description- manufacturer and name. IMHO :] Bzuk 16:11 3 February 2007 (UTC).
- Headphonos is the one not conforming to spec here. Except for isolated examples (Concorde), all Wikipedia aircraft articles either use "manufacturer model" or "us_dod_designation us_dod_nickname," or something along those lines. Those other UAV articles are the ones out of spec. Take a look at the whole USAF Q-series or Dassault Neuron. The fact that you found a few articles using another convention means that those articles should be renamed to conform, not that we should create more non-conforming articles. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: N328KF Don't move the article until we can build a consensus on the correct name...your name is one choice there are several others. I have moved everything back as it was...Headphonos 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- False. Per WP:Air, there is only one or two possible correct names, of which your chosen name is not one. You can take it up there if you like. This is an issue for which consensus on the correct name has already been achieved, external to this article. If you would prefer to enlighten yourself, read the WP:Air discussions. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote a comment made on WT:AIR, "We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception?" The consensus on how to name this article was achieved through Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) before this article was even created. Karl Dickman talk 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I cant see anything wrong with Aeronautics Defense Dominator - Just to support Joseph/N328KF, he is trying to follow the agreed standard at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), if you want to change the agreed concensus, or even get an exception for UAVs then I would suggest that it is discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft).MilborneOne 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I support changing the name to "Aeronautics Defense Dominator". It is in line with the WP:Air standard at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). Since the purpose of the naming conventions is to simplify finding articles and not duplicating them under a variety of names, I don't see the purpose in excepting this one UAV. It kind of defeats the purpose. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just got back home after a long afternoon fixing my helicopter, and was surprised at the response from WP:Air...thanks much, guys, I really appreciate it! Akradecki 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have re-directed Dominator UAV to the Dominator (disambiguation) page so users can choose which UAV they want. Really removes the above arguments about re-naming !. MilborneOne 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Eric, I noticed the resemblance (minus the canards), too. I don't believe there is any "official" connection to Rutan's design. There is an effort to make a Berkut, which itself is based on the Long-EZ, into a UAV (they've been doing autonomous T&Ls at Mojave), but it's not related to this effort. I will see what I can find out. Akradecki 02:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
US Military Use
- +Maincat is Category:Unmanned vehicles
- +Subcat is Category:UAVs and drones
- +Sub-subcat is Category:MALE UAVs
I think that the only +cat this article should be in is the +Sub-subcat Category:MALE UAVs, that is why we have have a +cat hierarchy see Wikipedia:Categorization. Headphonos 01:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I would disagree. First, there is a Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories, that specifically allows listing in main and subcats at the same time. There's a really good reason for this. See, many people will have no idea what a "MALE" UAV is, so they might not think to look there. People looking for specifically MALE articles (is that sexist??) will look there. We want the article in the main cat because that's the more likely place that folks who don't know that much about UAVs are going to look. Bottom line, though, is that there is a wikipedia guideline that specifically allows this. Akradecki 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest we leave the article as it is written now...and move on to other projects. Headphonos 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan to me, although I'm still going to see if I can dig up something on the Long-EZ influence. Same verts, same gear. No canards is especially intriguing...means they've got elevons. Note that the ship is sitting with the nose gear extended...either they have it balasted, or there's a lot of gear up front. A normal EZ has to retract the nose when it's parked. Given the other efforts to make UAVs based on the Long-EZ design, this is an interesting development. Akradecki 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Dominator UAV.jpg
Image:Dominator UAV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)