Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Question on Citations[edit]

The bottom paragraph on legacy about the DC-9 ditching. I think I may have a citation for this, but it may not be that verifiable. Could anyone verify the TV episode of Mayday: Season 3; Episode 13: "Ocean Landing" on the ditching of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 as a verifiable source? It talks about it a bit during the episode, but it does not directly correlate to this subject. Thank you =) Ocenar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Merger proposal[edit]

I would propose that the McDonnell Douglas C-9 be discussed in a section of the main DC-9 article, as opposed to an article onto itself. Only a small number of aircraft were produced in this specific role of aeromedical transportation; it is more typicaly for such limited conversions to be discussed simply in the main article, rather than a dedicated article onto itself. Additionally, the article is effectively only four-to-five paragraphs of prose, and as the aircraft was retired seven years ago, it has a very low probablity of growing to justify a dedicated article. Perhaps these would be better served as being one and the same. Opinions? Kyteto (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Although I do not believe I have enough knowledge in the subject to !vote either support/oppose, it seems like a notable aircraft that is sufficiently different from the DC-9. CyanGardevoir 09:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I have worked a good bit on the C-9 article in the past. I never could find enough details to expand the article. The C-9 variants are really just minor changes to DC-9. The C-9 content can be covered in the DC-9 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As there has been nothing but support for the proposal over the last months, the merger has been conducted. Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

EVA Air keeps being added as a primary user, but it doesn't have a single DC-9 in it's fleet[edit]

I just wanted to mention that EVA Air is shown as a primary user of the DC-9 yet it doesn't operate a single DC-9 in it's fleet. I don't get why it would it be there. I removed EVA Air from the primary users list72.89.35.142 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Status field[edit]

I hold the view that describing the DC-9 as Out of Production, in Limited Service is the only proper and truthful way to go. The aircraft is not in production anymore (although I wish they would restart it and the DC-10), and it unlike the later DC-10 is only seen in limited use unlike said DC-10. A check out outside sources bore this out to me. So I must insist that the description be restored as stated above. If anyone wishes to disagree, tell me so and why so, I'm willing to hear. 68.236.155.234 (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The production years clearly indicate the model is out of production. No need to repeat that part in the status field. Limited service is probably fair, but can be somewhat vague also. You twice removed the C-9 text without explanation/justification. This text was properly merged here after a discussion in earlier section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)While you claim that you are merely changing the aircraft's status, in fact you are not, and are deleting large chunks of cited text. In addition, the infobox does not need a specific note about the aircraft being out of production, as it already gives the years of production, while 129 aircraft in service is hardly "limited service.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I am baffled you are repeatedly trying to change a whole mess of content other than the status alone in your edit-warring; while this Status may be more accurate, your edit reasons don't touch on most of the changes you've been making other than this issue, and that's probably why you're being reverted. Kyteto (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)