Talk:R38-class airship: Difference between revisions
→Useful information: Done |
→design/build: new section |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
:I now have a photo of the memorial and the middle panel and will up load them later. The panels with the names are no longer present, do not know if they have been removed for safety purposes or vandalised. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
:I now have a photo of the memorial and the middle panel and will up load them later. The panels with the names are no longer present, do not know if they have been removed for safety purposes or vandalised. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::The memorial has been refurbished and the plaques of names replaced so I have uploaded a new image of the memorial [[:File:R38 Memorial Kingston upon Hull.jpg]]. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
::The memorial has been refurbished and the plaques of names replaced so I have uploaded a new image of the memorial [[:File:R38 Memorial Kingston upon Hull.jpg]]. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== design/build == |
|||
It's my understanding (based on Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule) that the entire design of the airship was by the British Government - as the Air Ministry. Short Brothers built to the design and did no engineering. Short's are NOT blamed in the current text. The Air Ministyr then went on to design the R101 (which also failed badly) |
|||
I do not know if this is true and perhaps a more learned historian can amend the text accordingly? [[User:Offbeam|Offbeam]] ([[User talk:Offbeam|talk]]) 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:38, 24 September 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R38-class airship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Proposed move and/or better ZR names?
I have posted a note to this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#better ZR airship names?
I see ZR-2 was moved from R38 (ZR-2), which makes sense from the point of view that it spent most of its flying life designated as ZR-2.
However, it is unfortunate that the article now has to host two messy (to my eyes) redirects. Also, a reader looking at the bottom navigation template "Aircraft produced by Short brothers" sees R.38 (airship) which pipes to R38 (ZR-2) which in turn now redirects to ZR-2. The reader will not spot they are the same ship.
The "R.38 (airship)" can be fixed by changing it to something like "R38 / ZR2", but the whole template needs fixing (for one, it's not alphabetical as it claims).
I'm not too motivated to make much of a case for this, so here are some tentative but far-reaching proposals.
1. As the Template:USN rigid airships only has five entries, the names could be enlarged to one of these variants:
- ZR-1 Shenandoah • ZR-2 - R38 • ZR-3 Los Angeles - LZ-126 • ZRS-4 - Akron • ZRS-5 Macon
- ZR-1 USS Shenandoah • ZR-2 - R38 • ZR-3 USS Los Angeles - LZ-126 • ZRS-4 - USS Akron • ZRS-5 USS Macon
- ZR-1 USS Shenandoah • ZR-2 / R38 • ZR-3 USS Los Angeles / LZ-126 • ZRS-4 / USS Akron • ZRS-5 USS Macon
- Shenandoah (ZR-1) • R38 (ZR-2) • Los Angeles (ZR-3) • Akron (ZRS-4) • Macon (ZRS-5)
- Shenandoah (ZR-1) • R38 (ZR-2) • Los Angeles (ZR-3/LZ126) • Akron (ZRS-4) • Macon (ZRS-5)
and I'm sure there are more possibilities. Hopefully the goal is to help the reader navigate.
For comparison, the German template shows as ZR-1 „USS Shenandoah“ | ZR-2/R38 | ZR-3 „USS Los Angeles“ | ZRS-4 „USS Akron“ | ZRS-5 „USS Macon“.
2. The Short Brothers template given a complete overhaul, so all designations and names appear, and in order. Include ZR-2 in the R38 name too. Maybe seperate aerostats from other craft.
3. Move this ZR-2 to one of these possibilities:
- ZR-2 / R38
- ZR-2 - R38
- ZR-2 (R38)
- or something else. Not that I'm recommending what the other languages have: Czech has R 38, German has R38, Italian has R38 (ZR-2), Slovenian has Vzducholoď R 38 (whose article omits to mention ZR-2).
-84user (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Articles on English Wikipedia do not contain alternatives in the article names themselves; that's why we have redirects. Therefore, any article name that has both the ZR-2 and R38 names in it (such as R38 (ZR-2), R38/ZR-2 or whatever) is inappropriate.
- Really, the only choices are to name the article R38 or name it ZR-2. I believe that ZR-2 is the better name, for the very reason that you state: its entire operational life was under its US designation.
Agreed that the Shorts Brothers template does indeed need cleaning up; but the alphabetical section is alphabetical.
The US Navy airships navbox should remain as it is for consistency with the other navigational templates used by WP:AIR.--Rlandmann (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or, of course, the article could be broadened in scope slightly to encompass the whole A class. Since there really isn't much to say about R39 through R41 other than there were short-lived plans to build them, this might be a better approach. It would also be more consistent with how WP:AIR organises content. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Useful information
Just spotted this web site detailing the memorial and the men on the airship that may be useful for expanding the article. I will also try and get a photo of the memorial for the article next time I am in the area. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I now have a photo of the memorial and the middle panel and will up load them later. The panels with the names are no longer present, do not know if they have been removed for safety purposes or vandalised. Keith D (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The memorial has been refurbished and the plaques of names replaced so I have uploaded a new image of the memorial File:R38 Memorial Kingston upon Hull.jpg. Keith D (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
design/build
It's my understanding (based on Nevil Shute's autobiography Slide Rule) that the entire design of the airship was by the British Government - as the Air Ministry. Short Brothers built to the design and did no engineering. Short's are NOT blamed in the current text. The Air Ministyr then went on to design the R101 (which also failed badly) I do not know if this is true and perhaps a more learned historian can amend the text accordingly? Offbeam (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unassessed Disaster management articles
- Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
- Start-Class aviation articles
- Start-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles