Talk:Eurocopter EC135

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

Clocked up?[edit]

From the article (diff):

Just wondering if "clocked up" is a formal enough tone for the article as it seems more a colloquialism. I'm familiar with "logged" in reference to hours flown, but never really heard, "clocked up". --Born2flie 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England[edit]

This is also the police helicopter for the United Kingdom by the way. See Police Aviation in United Kingdom SGGH speak! 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Air Ambulance[edit]

This article has an image which may be of use to this article- I'll add it in, see what you think! HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images[edit]

How many pictures of an EC 135 sitting on the ground, and taken from the side, does this article really need? I know that every editor wants their photo or locality included, but quality really needs to be the discriminator, not quantity. --Born2flie (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could do what I've seen on other articles like this, choose one of the better quality images for the infobox, then just put a gallery at the bottom of the article for the rest, with only one or two images of each style (on the ground from the front, on the ground from each side, in the air, etc.)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with this many images of one model of helicopter, maybe we should consider giving it it's own category (e.g. Category:EC 135 images, or even just Category:Images of Eurocopters?)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look way down at the bottom of the page, crowded to the very bottom by all of the images is the link banner for {{Commons}}, which serves as the gallery for all the appropriate licensed images; commons:Category:Eurocopter EC 135. The Commons even uses categories, the same as Wikipedia; commons:Eurocopter EC 135. --Born2flie (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, need to lose at least four images. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specs...[edit]

Also, when researching my image, I found a specs sheet for the P1 here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labelled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous one.

— WikiProject Aircraft, page content for aircraft articles
Unless there is a significant difference, the specifications usually covers only one variant. --Born2flie (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image of an in-air EC135[edit]

I noticed this image on the pages of Norsk Luftambulanse (The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation), and it's better than several of the existing images on the EC135 page: http://www.norskluftambulanse.no/forsiden/om-nla/kort-fortal/nla-as/

I notice that there are many images already, but the one shown at the url above is very nice. I've contacted the photographer and received permission to publish it under CC BY-SA 3.0. He also sent me a high-resolution version of the image.

My user account is, however, too new to allow image uploads. If anyone else cares to do it I can forward the license grant and upload the high-res image somewhere.

Dangerousduck (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Dangerousduck[reply]

Elimination of Civil Operators[edit]

Just curious why it was deemed necessary to completely eliminate the civilian operators section for the article of the EC135. While not in the aviation industry, I am very interested in aviation hardware, including airplanes and helicopters. Wikipedia is a great source to find out about who might operate a particular aircraft. Not sure how the elimination of this section improves this article.

After adding an operator of the EC135, the entire section was eliminated. This make zero sense to me. I thought the the "Operator" section of aircraft articles are supposed to be comprehensive. Articles for other aircraft have much longer "Operator" lists, both military and civilian.

Did not want to start an edit war, but I would like to ask the Wikipedia community: Should "Operator" sections be comprehensive if well sourced? Both "Civilian" and "Military"?

Danmanmi (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as it was getting a bit out of hand, over 1000 helicopters we cant list every operator and in similar articles we dont have a civilian operators section, it was deemed that military operators were notable. Best place to ask is at the WP:AIRCRAFT project for other opinions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, I welcome your response. However you did not address the points I made. One, how did the elimination of the section improve the article? Two, are operator sections to be comprehensive if well sourced?
Fine point: When you say "... we cant list every operator... ", I think you mean to say " ... we will not ..." I would also like to know who is "we" or is that you mean "you".
A quick look at similar aircraft articles, shows at least two that have Civilian Operator sections, the Bell 430 and the Sikorsky S-76.
I do stand by my original assertion that your elimination of the section did NOT improve the article. I personally think that the operator list should be comprehensive if well sourced. If the list gets to long, then the solution seems to be normally to move the section to a separate linked article, not complete elimination.
Danmanmi (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We is wikipedia (or all of us who edit it) the basis for the edit is the consensus at WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. Also if we are looking at others then refer to Bell 222, Eurocopter AS355 and Bell 206 as well as some fixed-wing aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS Is only suggested guidelines, not the law. Notable users of the type should be included whether it be Civil, Government, or Military. FOX 52 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne on this. The list was getting very long and starting to dwarf the rest of the article. Most operators only fly one or two examples and there are hundreds of operators. The consensus is explained at WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS and allows mention of any principle operators with large fleets in text form. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, your input is noted and appreciated. Ahunt, what is your input on creating a new article with a link as opposed to a complete delete of the section?
MilborneOne, we could go back and forth on the examples of various aircraft articles, my response was in regards to "... similar articles we dont have a civilian operators section ...", that is of course not true. I gave two examples of articles that did have separate civilian operator sections. At any rate, I would like to quote WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS "May be separated into military and civilian sub-sections if applicable and workable." While not an expert, the EC135 is much more a civilian type of helicopter, then a military one. I really don't see the harm in a well source list of any and all operators of a aircraft type. Both military and civilian. If the list becomes rather long, {which is not the case in this instance, IMHO.} it seems to me the obvious solution is not to delete the entire section but to move the list to another article of "operators of". While not an active Wikipedia editor, I am a voracious Wikipedia user/reader. This is what I have seen happen in the past. Still don't believe your removal of the entire civilian operator list made the the article better. I am not sure when or how these so called consensus are made but, a comprehensive well sourced list is better then an abbreviated one. Again if the list was to long, then you should have moved it to another article titled "Operators of the Eurocopter EC135" and not simply deleted an entire section.
Danmanmi (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A new article is not the solution, but some type of compromise is needed. I believe some standards should be in place to regulate the notable from the not so notable. Besides Military I do find relevance in certain police units, and government agencies. The list just needs trimming (small time companies need to get the boot). FOX 52 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Security Network[edit]

I have removed the request for expansion as I presume that the poster means the "Aviation Safety Network" then it doesnt list helicopters, the related and user generated wikibase is not a reliable source but none of those listed there are notable - if you mean a different website then please provide a link, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters: you can't invoke the notability guideline for deleting content, because "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." (See WP:Notability)
Concerning ANS: you are right, it's the Aviation Safety Network and this is the link. It's a very good starting point, but not a reliable source in itself. Because the incidents and accidents listed there are fairly recent and described in detail, it's easy for anyone to search for individual references for each of them, if they'd wish to expand the list.
I'd appreciate if the expansion request were restored. --Mihai (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your statement about notablity but I presume this relates to the 15 December accident, it needs to be notable to be included so I dont understand what that has to do with articles. As for the request for expansion I went through the list of fatal accidents in the wikibase and could not find anything of note that I would add to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my statement about your misuse of the term notability pertains to the selection of accidents in that section of the article. You might invoke due weight, but not notability, which in Wikipedia use only refers to the subjects which can have a Wikipedia article, as the above quote from a notability guideline makes clear.

I don't understand upon which criteria you've decided to keep the November 2013 accident, but dismiss the other recent one, which featured a Eurocopter EC135 and was/can be underpinned by reliable sources (even English ones: official Romanian news agency). From what I've seen in other aviation Wiki-articles, every accident is mentioned if there are reliable sources. When the section grows too long, it is usually separated into a new article. --Mihai (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a fender bender, and a full on wreck, so you have to consider the importance (notability) of a particular accident. And think of the reader, and will that information really benefit them. - FOX 52 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Eurocopter EC135[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eurocopter EC135's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "World Air Forces 2014":

  • From NHIndustries NH90: "World Air Forces 2014" (PDF). Flightglobal Insight. 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 17 January 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota: "World Air Forces 2014" (PDF). Flightglobal Insight. 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eurocopter EC135. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Airbus Helicopters H135[edit]

Please add your views. The manufacture had renamed this in 2016, and since many attempts to change this article name have been reverted. The helicopter itself it marketed has the 'Airbus' version, and the Eurocopter version is now out-dated --Loughrantobias 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go by WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info there appears to be over 1200 EC135s but only about 50 H135s built, so the H135 marketing name is really in a minority here. So it would take about another 1150 H135 helicopters to be built to sway the common name argument. MilborneOne (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points I guess, and yes I suppose the majority of people would still refer to it as the EC135 as oppose to the H135 - probably because the specific helicopter in discussion was made prior to the name change. As Airbus Helicopters starts to become more well known I'm sure the name change will occur and and when. Loughrantobias (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that in line with other aircraft name changes being accepted on Airbus mergers/purchases (eg A220 from CSeries), H135 should be changed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220 The Beanster (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel cell?[edit]

The article mentions "crash-resistant fuel cells", which is mentioned in the cited source. The article then links to the Wikipedia article Fuel cell. Is this correct? I struggle to find any evidence that Airbus Helicopters use fuel cells to generate electricity. I suspect that the "fuel cell" mentioned in the source might refer to the fuel tanks as "cells". The word "cell" has several usages (see Wiktionary - Cell), including those referring to small rooms or compartments. -- S1GGEN (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, the term "fuel cell" is widely used in aviation to mean a fuel tank. I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Its been a decade now since Eurocopter was renamed Airbus Helicopters, is it time to move this article to the new name? A75 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurocopter_EC135&oldid=1213917083"