Talk:Helicopter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WPAVIATIONaviation articles WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft (Rated B-Class) Aviation portal v • d • e 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge core topic of aviation. Was tagged A-class, but I moved to to B-class until it goes through a peer review of some sort. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) According to the template it doesn't meet the B-class criteria, moving it to Start-class. --Born2flie 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Associated projects or task forces: This article is supported by the rotorcraft project. Fire serviceWikipedia:WikiProject Fire serviceTemplate:WikiProject FireServiceFire service articles WikiProject Fire service (Rated B-Class) Fire portal v • d • e Helicopter is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge core topic of aviation. Was tagged A-class, but I moved to to B-class until it goes through a peer review of some sort. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) According to the template it doesn't meet the B-class criteria, moving it to Start-class. --Born2flie 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there. Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class) This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Helicopter article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

Contents 1 Rotary Action - guide to helicopters in movies and TV 2 Should the word 'airplane' be used? 3 Image size 4 NOTAR Safety Attributes 5 Pictures 6 Wikification 6.1 In Defense of Linking 6.2 Uses of Helicopters 6.3 Further reflections on Grammar, Style, and Links 6.4 Style tags 7 Proposed Uses Paragraphs 8 Now I feel old 9 Why wikipedia stinks 10 Russian and American inventions category 11 Alternative Power Sources 12 Merger Proposal - Rotor Configurations with article Helicopter Rotor 13 Expanding the engines section 14 Helicopter toy 14.1 List of sources for Chinese toy date 14.2 List of sources for 1463 painting 15 Measurements and English Variant 16 Tiltrotors 17 Addition to Helicopter article bibliography 18 Uses 19 Good Article

[edit] Rotary Action - guide to helicopters in movies and TV

It has useful information, but I don't know whether or not it's trivial, discuss. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it could be used to eliminate the damn Trivia...I mean, Subject in popular culture sections in the helicopter articles, I say let it in. --Born2flie (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's useful, then it probably won't be allowed by the Delete-gods. I wish I were just being funny, but I have a feeling I'm dead-one! - BillCJ (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gazelle is missing the fake engine nacelles seen in the movie, Blue Thunder. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't even remember WHY I asked this to begin with. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should the word 'airplane' be used?

I'd like to propose that 'airplane' should be removed from the article and, where approriate, replaced with 'Fixed wing aircraft'. The reason for this is simple, The spelling 'airplane' Is only correct in North America and as such is an incorrect spelling with in the commonwealth and to many non-native speakers of english. Its use makes the article read badly outside of N.America and the Wiki article is titled 'Fixed wing Aircraft'. (Morcus (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Y Done IAW WP:MOS. Thanks for pointing that out. --Born2flie (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing from a common term to a less common one. Got to make everybody happy, whatever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming across this nonsense 9 mo later... Change it back!!! I am from the Commonwealth, fiexed wing aircraft is just clunky-sounding. Also, AFAIK the policy is to have each page in one type of English only. 41.247.136.4 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I really think that Image:HE2G8.jpg needs to be enlarged. At the default settings, it's very difficult to make out any sort of detail, and its usefulness suffers. I tried to enlarge it twice and was changed back twice, apparently due to concerns regarding WP:MOS#Images. But, the MOS states that specifying the size of images with extreme aspect ratios may be appropriate in order to improve page layout, which seems to be the case here. Not a huge deal, just wondering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it personally old since it's black and white. But I know what your point is, it's hard to see what the image is about when it's in the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the guideline is that not everyone accesses Wikipedia with a screen size that makes the photo look small. If you give the thumbnail a mandatory size of 300px and view the article at a 640x480 screen resolution, the pic will take up almost half the width of the page at that point. It can give an image more prominence that is perhaps misleading as to an image's actual importance to that part or the rest of the article. Frankly, I think the picture is poor quality and cropped badly (I don't believe that old pictures were that dimension, but possible). Granted, quality is a function of the age of the subject and the available source material, but this is the picture we're left with (unless someone can find a better one?). A custom image size for this image should probably be discussed here among the editors and a consensus reached on just which size would be agreeable to most. --Born2flie (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOTAR Safety Attributes

I think the "Verification Needed" is unnecessary, because in this case the elimination of personnel injury potential is self-evident. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTAR is a tradeoff. The "self-evident" safety advantage has been debated ad nauseum in professional pilot and engineering circles. I had to look hard to find a single report about an individual being struck by the tail rotor, so how big of an issue is this? Some statistics of number of tail rotor strikes resulting in personal injury/fatality to gauge how much of a problem this has been versus how the NOTAR impacts in the realm of safety would be a nice verification. Otherwise, it is simply a statement that parrots the manufacturer's claims and the section becomes an advertisement for NOTAR. --Born2flie (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The article is maturing to the point where additions of pictures affect the layout of the different sections (white space, dividing sections of text). I propose that image additions and placement be discussed in the talk page to keep the article from being overwhelmed by rampant image addition. --Born2flie (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment that the pics are a problem. However, the editors who would make and follow your proposal aren't the ones adding the images. How do you suggest we enforce it? (Other than summary execution or water boarding (equal in the miniscule minds of the US media), which I would be in favor!) ;) I'm having similar problems on the A-4 page, including from an editor who should know better. I just keep deleting, sigh, then scream! - BillCJ (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on a text comment in the article and then of course, deletion of each image added to the article and initiating a discussion for each image here on the talk page. If the consensus is to not add the image, then there is a history showing that the image was considered and rejected with a list (hopefully) of reasons why. Editors who want to contribute might see the historical process (it can even be a talk subpage for each image) rather than just throw their favorite image where they think it fits, which seems to be the modus operandi for editors who have previously had nothing to do with this article. For those images that are just added without taking heed to the comment or the process, simply delete. If the editor feels that the image is worth including, bring it up for consideration on the talk page and the group determines where it goes.

Of course, many will claim WP:BB as their directive to continue to add images carte blanche. --Born2flie (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal works for me. If we get to the point wher we need sub-pages, then one sub-page for image discussions would be fine, but I doubt we'll ever need it! ;) I'm for trimming back as much as possible, and keeping the remaining images in the text. - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have put the two biggest "image farms" in gallery format. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ewww! Galleries are even worse, especially in the main text sections, where pics are often illustrative of the text in that section. - BillCJ (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that one. In gallery form they are more attached to the sections than they were before. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"more attached to the sections", but not the text within those sections, ot at least in order of discussion and moderately close to the relevant paragraphs. Galleries are useful in very short articles where there's not enough room for even 2-3 images, especiallyin cases with long infoboxes, or where there is a group of related images that don't really need to take up room in the text. We have a Commons link for the majority of pictures, and this makes article galleries redundant in most other cases. There is a discussion at WT:AIR#Galleries that is attempting to form guidelines for the use of galleries in aircraft-related article - feel free to chime in! - BillCJ (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a couple of days, and I'm not a fan of the galleries. In the end, they don't really solve the problem either, since they will just grow larger as the repository for all the additional images added to the article. --Born2flie (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification

Regarding a revert of a wikification edit I made:

rv overwikification counter to WP:MOS intent and WP:OVERLINK.

My edits were hardly overwikification - I linked just a few concepts that a person reading the article would wish to explore to further their understanding of helicopters...

• hover - the word is used all over the article and is a pretty fundamental concept for helicopters, yet I do not see it defined anywhere on the page, and it is not wiki-linked anywhere on the page - it should at least be wikied under Flight conditions.
• the article tells me that helicopters can be used for transportation, for construction, for firefighting, search and rescue... I want to click on those things to find out more.. the link for Transport Helicopters is inexplicably routed to the military. Why have an Other uses list when the section right above that already talks about the same things in paragraph form?
• if the article says that helicopters put things on buildings or build roads or move troops, it is reasonable for me to want to find out more about those objects - why use helicopters.

Please actually read WP:OVERLINK. None of the links I created fall under WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked. As for WP:OVERLINK#What generally should be linked, consider "Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker", "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and technical terms.

From WP:MOSLINK: "Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page." for someone reading this article who is unfamiliar with helicopters, there are a large number of concepts they would naturally want to click on... many of the paragraphs in the current article have one or no links. Internal linking is one of the primary tools we use to bond Wikipedia together - WP:BUILD.

"Fire Helicopter" is a redirect to an article already linked at a much more relevant position in the article, even though downstream

Except that later link is wrong... it should be to Aerial firefighting which includes other aircraft and then no need for a pipe.--Marcinjeske (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• But Helitack is specific for helicopters. It is certainly not "wrong". -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• As far as what should be not be linked, a lot of those linked are common words, e.g. roads. Your point about hover seems like a fair one. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Defense of Linking

Well, it seems silly to link the words "aerial firefighting" to something else when the sentence clearly is referring to "aerial firefighting" (not just helicopter firefighting)... see how you like it now.

Yes, you are correct that I may have overdone it with "road", but that does not diminish the rest. Hover is just the easiest and most obvious example that comes to mind... up until my recent edit, there was no link to such basic helicopter terms as heliport and heliskiing or even Category:Helicopter airlines.

• Not to mention fun but relevant stuff like human-powered helicopter and helicopter prison escapes.
• Not to mention all the terms a user reading about helicopters for the first time might ask:
  • What's a gearbox? A tailboom? Yaw control? Airfoil? What does it mean to be steam-powered? What's altitude?
  • What about something like SimCopter - the existence of software to simulate helicopter flight should find a place in this article... and I am sure there are much appropriate flight sims?
• These all seem silly questions to ask... but this article is not being written for those who already know everything about helicopters.
• And yes, they could just type the word into a search engine... but then why is this article on a wiki at all if that's what you want readers to do in so many obvious cases. I am not advocating WP:BUILD#Wikipedia does not use Allwiki, but the nature of wikis and Wikipedia is that a healthy smattering of links build new paths of learning for the reader... yes, Nazi (linked in Helicopter#Birth of an industry has absolutely nothing to do with helicopters... but that does not mean the reader may not want to learn more. Let them do so with ease.

Anyway, I just did another edit to uses... we will see how other editors will react to those changes. I did try to reign in my linking impulses. --Marcinjeske (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Common words is precisely why I reverted the edit and Fire helicopter is a redirect to the article that was already linked to in the article, again in an appropriate place for people to be inquisitive about that particular use of helicopters. It was much simpler to revert and take a little collateral damage for any valid links than to edit it for each individual instance.

In general, do not create links to:

• Plain English words, including common units of measurement.

In general, do create links to:

• Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.}

– WP:OVERLINK, (emphasis added)

The relevant link for construction and logging is the article on aerial cranes, which discusses the use of helicopters for those uses. While relevant in that article, links to construction and logging are not relevant here where there is no further treatment of the helicopter use for those industries. I probably don't have to address roads.

"Fire Helicopter is a redirect to an article already linked at a much more relevant position in the article, even though downstream." Except that later link is wrong... it should be to Aerial firefighting which includes other aircraft and then no need for a pipe.

– Marcinjeske (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you looked at the Aerial firefighting article, when it treats helicopters, it tells you that the main article dealing with helicopters in aerial firefighting is...Helitack. So, why would we link to the middle man, when we can go straight to the source? Hover is a dab page, also listed in "What not to link" under WP:OVERLINK. The only wikilink that you added that I can't argue against as irrelevant, a dab, or a redirect to an already linked article is "airspeed", which first occurs in the article in the section you were editing. --Born2flie (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I do agree with What's a gearbox? A tailboom? Yaw control? Airfoil? What does it mean to be steam-powered? What's altitude? because I'm not aware of one of those terms. Great going with the links, it's always a good thing to see an article improved. I know how irritating it can be having to copy and paste terms into the search field, I can imagine. So great work you guys, I chose to watch this article because I wanted to know more about helicopters. Hell, I might even check those links sometimes. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The style of articles on Wikipedia is to be a summary of the topic, not a "full-length, in-depth expose of everything that could possibly be brought up about the topic, ever." --Born2flie (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously misread my post, and that's ok, I can misread too. I never said everything relevant should be linked, never. I was agreeing with one example. Again, I'm watching this page to learn more about helicopters. I never said that everything about helicopters should be included. I really think you must have misread my post, I was making a compliment in my last post, saying great job on the link, and I still am, keep it up. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment is directed towards Marcinjeske's perception of what this article should include. It is a common misperception within Wikipedia that every article should be a "leave no stone unturned" exploration of the topic rather than meet the stated purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic article. I have no problem linking to relevant subjects in order to BUILD the encyclopedia. It is just frustrating when someone not vested in the progression of this article along the quality path comes in to make the article less than it was when they arrived because their edits aren't oriented towards the goal. To improve, you have to know where something is and where it is headed, you have to know what it will take to get it there. A guideline by itself, applied with gusto, is enough to take an article out of contention for the next level of article development. There are many subgoals to the Wikipedia, but the goal that always trumps out is to make a quality online encyclopedia. --Born2flie (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of Helicopters

This is meandering toward frustrating... I appreciate your courtesy in at least evaluating my edits and leaving a few uncontroversial ones behind and improving them. I refer to hover, clearer use of helitack, helibuckets, and a few rewordings. You also improved the clarity of the firefighting and medical uses paragraphs.

However, I cannot understand why you insist that the remaining uses of helicopter be relegated to a list without any context. Of those links left in the Other uses list, the article for Motion picture photography, Electronic news gathering, Tourism, and Transport do not mention helicopters in their text, and except for Transport do not mention aircraft of any kind. And Transport mentions helicopter just once, stating that they are used for military application, and then directs the reader back to Helicopter. These topics are relevant to the Uses of Helicopters, but they need to be presented within contextual information so that the reader can know how they are relevant. The set of paragraphs I edited served that purpose... perhaps poorly, but better than a list.

You also removed reference to subjects that 1) have been deemed notable enough by editors to merit their own articles and 2) are directly relevant to the nature of helicopters - in being their uses in tourism, transportation, and culture. Why is it that the Uses section is composed almost solely of uses by institutions, emergency services and the military? Do not civilian and commercial uses merit note? Someone referencing this version of the encyclopedia would remain ignorant that individual people use helicopters to get around, conduct sports, experiment in their backyard, or to get their daily news and traffic. A list of "See also" links does not suffice in this case.

I am not proposing a "leave no stone unturned" exploration... I wish to only note the relevant stones so that readers may choose to turn them (by following the hyperlink) and continue their exploration. I too wish to build the Encyclopedia, and I think that in not being vested in the past progression of this article, I am bringing a fresh perspective to material that should not be set in stone.

I have carefully stepped through the archived discussions of this page, and I cannot find any discussion of why the Other uses list is in this form. I did find these wise words which I will now shamelessly take out of context:

• "An article about helicopters should have a good enough overview of the History and then focus on Uses of helicopters, rather than how they work."
• "Articles are supposed to change, evolve, not remain stagnant."
• "Denying one criteria may confirm another, and so, one brackets the target with indirect fires until one hits the target or else the target presents itself as a direct fire opportunity."

None of us should be here to fight each other; we are ultimately striving for a common purpose... so can we get some Helitack teams in here to douse the "fire"? (and yes, I am mixing your prior metaphor)

As for the aspiration to WP:TPA, I would again like to quote selectively:

• "is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject."
• "branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject."
• "acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject."
• "is not attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians. Perfection may not be achievable, but it's fun trying. For more information, see our editing policy."

I would appreciate any ideas on how turning the set of links at the bottom of the Uses section into prose would detract from the ideal set in WP:TPA. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of hover, would anyone object to using the Levitation disambiguation of it? That will lead to Bernoulli's principle among other tasty topics. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But a hover isn't levitation. And teaching someone that lift is simply an application of Bernoulli's principle is inaccurate and a disservice to the reader. The hover dab article links to Hover (helicopter), which is a redirect to Helicopter flight controls, an article where the explanation of the hover mode of flight is actually included in this article. So, is it really necessary to link to the word hover to explain it when the source that would ultimately be used in the Wikipedia to explain it is already included in this article?

Re: the list of uses versus a prose presentation. In addition to the previous paragraphs having an applicable target article that goes into some detail on the use of helicopters for those purposes, there is some depth to the topic which allows it to be discussed in a prose form, otherwise it would just be a longer bulleted list. Each preceding item is also self-contained in its paragraph with the information relative to that specific use, not multiple uses in a single paragraph. If you can build each of those items in the list into a paragraph with at least three applicable sentences for each item that are fairly decent grammar-wise and not just filler to make three sentences, I wouldn't fight that. But you had two or three topics in a single paragraph, which is just a disguised list.

The MOS says to make it a list (undisguised) or to rewrite it to where it doesn't resemble a list. In this article it repeatedly ends up as a list. Lists are allowed where there is not enough prose to support the information being provided, or when it is better presented in a list form.

In changing the article, the quality should not be reduced, but rather improved. The application of one guideline to the exclusion of another without consensus is not improving an article. What's more, the notion that articles should change isn't in response to a single editors' arrival and determination that the article should change but rather based on new information being available, changes in how the subject matter is addressed in industry/scholarly circles, new media available, all oriented towards developing the article to where it is the Wikipedia equivalent to "near perfect"; the FA-Class article (which is a goal able to be realized for over 1600 articles, and maybe someday even for this article). --Born2flie (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't even a good article yet. Let's make it a good article candidate before thinking about making it featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Born's main point was about improving articles. Featured Article status is (or should) be the end goal with Good Article status a step on the way. If every section was referenced, I don't think this article would lack much to making GA. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On hover and other similar terms... should they be linked when those links also appear elsewhere on the page. Certainly yes... unless those other links appear within a few paragraphs of the term's location, or it is clear that a reader will readily be able to locate the link. We cannot expect the user to see a term they do not understand or wish to know more about, and make them scan the page for a relevant link. This is especially so if the other appearance of the link is piped to a different name or the proposed link would pipe to a different name.

Looking more closely at Levitation, you are correct that it is not an optimal destination to send the hover-curious. The article does imply that Bernoulli's principle is the cause of the list rather than a step along the path. I hope you get a chance to improve it. (Although how one can argue that hovering is not levitation without really splitting hairs is unclear to me.) But Helicopter flight controls#Hover is completely inadequate... unless I am missing something, it does not cover what a hover is at all... it merely discusses how a pilot control the craft and the difficulties involved.

In regards to the Uses prose, are you suggesting that if a topic does not already have an extensive article in Wikipedia, we should refrain from mentioning it at all? The helicopter is the natural place to cover aspects of helicopter use which do not merit their own article at this time. The depth is there... helicopters are used to transport people in a number of different styles and how can heliports not be included in an article on helicopters? There are target articles for heliport, backpack helicopters, human-powered helicopters, and heliskiing, yet you removed that content as well.

As for the grouping and style, while I agree that the Search/News paragraph was mixed (couldn't you have just split them), the transport paragraph was a single paragraph all to itself. The paragraph on recreational uses including tourism, sport, and cultural was perhaps less cohesive, but that is mainly because aerial photography is used in so many ways. You allude to "decent grammar" and "not just filler" - my writing was not poetic, but where did it fail in grammar?

Anyway, I will post to the talk page a proposed rewrite of those... asking that anyone else who finds merit in the edits go ahead and make them... to make sure I don't take any further reverts personally. I did not appreciate your insistence that by describing how helicopters relate to what was a perfunctory list I was reducing the quality of the article. Your reference to "a single editor's arrival" makes it seem that if an editor has not already edited the article, they should not be allowed to start to edit it - an easy way to keep out any new contributions. If only "new information" will convince you to change the article, then you presume the article to be already perfect. That is not the case. --Marcinjeske (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you would take any thing I've said personally. It seems a lot of guff to justify your edits, or to subdue me into not opposing whatever edits you make. This is the personality conflict nature of "anyone can edit". Suffice it to say that I'm not against you editing this or any other article on the Wikipedia, or on my watchlist for that matter, but I am against editors in general who just plop prose down and call it good or an improvement. I don't think you've been honest with the edits you made, and it really just started with you wikifying everything in one section you felt needed "more". We didn't even talk about the formatting you attempted later, or the first person, "Upon reflection..." bit. On the positive side, you're more involved with the article, on the negative side, you seem to only care that what you offered be accepted regardless of the quality, real or perceived.

I'm also not suggesting or advising that you need to submit your edits on the talk page. It is an opinion I have for GA and FA-Class articles that will never reach consensus within Wikipedia. Edit the article at will, that's how Wikipedia works, just don't be surprised or offended if another editor comes along to edit what you put in there. As for me, you know what my position is, and how I will approach whatever you add; I'm looking for the quality of the contribution as well as trying to meet the MOS with an eye towards the goal of GA and then FA. --Born2flie (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No guff, I am simply expressing my frustration at what seems like an arbitrary line in the sand and I wish you would suggest what could be improved in my contribution to meet the standards of this article. Is it simply that a list of uses without any context as to how helicopters are used for those purposes is sufficient? I want to understand what you object to so that I may address it... if I have to blindly try and edit, we are both going to waste time undoing edits and that is pointless.

Why can we not touch on the transportation and recreational uses of helicopters in the Helicopter article? What about the paragraphs I have suggested makes them worse than the single link list they replace? You are wrong in that I am honest about my edits... my initial wikify phase came as I read through the article and found myself constantly thinking... have they introduced that term... or thinking I would like to click and learn more... and it not being a link. I never justified anything by my feeling the need for "more" links... but with specific links to relevant concepts of interest to a reader of the article.

Which formatting are you referring to? When I tried to separate the use paragraph or when I tried to touch the "holy list"? As for the "Upon reflection" being first person... please reconsider:

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

The reflection is that done by the suspects... I was merely using a bit of humor to engage the reader... particularly coming at the end of a paragraph where police were using helicopters to capture criminals... those suspects could apply that same tool to escapes. Whether it was an ill chosen turn of phrase I cannot say, but it certainly was not first person musings.

No, I am asking what is faulty with the quality of what I offered in that you reject it so quickly. It does not make sense for me to simply reinsert if your reaction will be to remove them... that is why I am attempting an alternate approach for a bit. The article you cherish so will not reach a higher status if is lacking in its coverage of how the subject is used in daily life... I hope that concerns you. --Marcinjeske (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're quickly getting into short answer territory.

1. Not the way you used, "Upon reflection,..." The paragraph is discussing the police and then upon reflection, you change to the criminals? It doesn't make grammatical sense. The significant change in style is what lends it to a first person interpretation of the use. Whose reflection, when the paragraph just concluded talking about police use of helicopters. What specifically about beginning the phrase that way lends the reader to believe that it isn't your reflection about the situation and your viewing criminals using helicopters irony? None.
2. Formatting: Using bolding to highlight words. It was contrary to MOS and I don't see a need to ignore that rule for your edits. Again, running contrary to MOS has consequences for the article.
3. The List. The list is not holy, nor is it special. I'd delete the list altogether, but someone will recreate the list in the hidden form of prose as soon as the list is gone i.e. its already been done before. You did it when it was present. Again, already happened before.
4. Your links:
   • You're telling me that you were curious about construction and roads? Or that you were satisfied with the links you chose to tell you how helicopters were used for each of those, that you made links relevant to the subject of this article? You're satisfied with the link you chose for "hover" to answer your stated question about, "What is hovering?" To me, these are arguments to justify your actions because they have been pointed out not to meet the common sense test about wikilinking articles based on the guidelines presented.
   • You linked phrases to articles about companies and categories. These are easter egg links and are to be avoided because the reader doesn't know the actual article they're going to is about a company and not the phrase you linked from. It really doesn't matter that the company does the kind of flying you're talking about. Also, the category link won't answer a questions about, "What is a helicopter airline?" All it will provide is a list of helicopter airlines. The guideline about wikilinking even says to preview the links, to verify the article exists or is about the subject you're linking to, you're stretching that to include any article that might remotely address what you've linked in order to justify linking at all. In fact, it has the appearance that you are advertising those specific companies in the article by linking to them specifically for those uses rather than any other similar company.
5. Expanding to prose.
   • Consequently, you've expanded the section with fluff telling people that helicopters pick people up in one spot and drop them off in another. Really? Wouldn't that be talking down to the reader?
   • Your POV suggestion that "rich" people get shuttled in helicopters. And without a source, it can only be construed to be the editor's conclusion.
   • Your second suggested paragraph is simply a list disguised in fluff prose.

1. Yes, the way I used it, as an dependent clause, it attaches to the subject of the sentence: suspects. These two sentences are semanticly identical:

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.
Some captured suspects, upon reflection, execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

To do what you are suggesting, *I* would have to be the subject of the sentence. As in: "Upon reflection, I think the rules of grammar are not the reason for the objection." But that's quibbling over an unessential turn of phrase... if we remove "upon reflection", do you object to suspects using helicopters to escape?

2. Bolding to highlight words. (Ignoring for the moment that bolding is literal highlighting.) You are correct, rereading the Boldface guideline, I was misapplying the style for an article introduction paragraph to all paragraphs. Thank you for correcting me. I will use italics in the future sparingly for that purpose per Wikipedia:MOSBOLD#Emphasis.

3. So perhaps not holy then... your firm stand is that a naked list is the best of two evils. So that goes back to my question of why civilian use of helicopters (for transport, recreation, etc) is not notable enough to actually be discussed briefly in this article? If "it already happened before', then perhaps you might consider that it is not just me being a looney who can't write or read, but that I am a part of a pattern of editors - those who see the article, see that something is obviously missing, and attempt to add it. Wikipedia:Embedded list does not give significant guidance either way, but do the other editors feel so strongly that these topics are not acceptable for a prose form?

4. Please, stop using the roads as your example... I already admitted, earlier on to another editor, that this was an unwise choice. As to construction, yes, it does naturally occur to me to read more on construction. Links serve both to expand on the article topic (Helicopter flight controls) and let users jump to other, related topics (like French language in the opening paragraph of the article). Per Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Internal_links:

"Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic,
the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page."

Linking to the hover disambiguation page was suboptimal, but better than not linking at all, since it gave readers the pointer to either Levitation or Hover (helicopter), at which point they could decide if they want to explore the idea of hovering in general or specifically how a pilot controls a helicopter in hover. I think both those articles are a bit disappointing, but that is life. Why can't you assume good faith on my part and have to question my motives... these "arguments" are not to justify my actions, but to justify the need for links at those particular points in the article.

Ok, that is finally some concrete criticism: linking to specific airlines. I could not find articles describing those uses, so I thought linking to articles about entities which exemplify those uses would be appropriate. That may have been a poor choice. How about footnotes of the "an example of such use is XXXX" variety? I looked through many articles here at Wikipedia to try to pick good representatives of each type. That you perceive it as promotion I can see. Would you also wish to remove all the brand names of helicopters which appear in the article next to "such as" and "common are"? I think that would detract from the article, as it makes sense to point out concrete examples to illustrate abstract discussion.

As to helicopter airline, there is sadly no entry for helicopter airline. There are at least two ways to define something, by description and by examples. Since we do not have a description of helicopter airlines, a list of them serves to illustrate what they are. (You could take the approach of trying to say what they are not, but that would take too long ;).

5. No, the "fluff" discusses why helicopters pick up and drop off people. It may be "talking down" to you, but given that the word passenger appears only once on the page, a casual reader could be excused for thinking that the only people in helicopters are pilots and firefighters.

No, the "rich" was not my POV suggestion... it had direct basis in the article I footnoted for that sentence. I personally don't think that helicopter travel in urban areas is solely for the rich, but I could not find sources to back that up so I went with what I had.

While the second paragraph is less cohesive than the first, it hardly is just a fluff of a list. It expresses the following ideas:

The purpose of helicopters in tourism is sightseeing; in sports, thrill-seeking.
Operators will not devote helicopters to a single purpose, but offer a mix of services.
In filmmaking, helicopters are used because of their ability to capture action scenes and panoramic views.
The energy industry needs to explore possible drilling sites and they use helicopters to do so.

Again, do you object to my specific phrasing, or do you object to these topics having words devoted to them? --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The problem is that "Upon reflection" doesn't fit the way you want it to without a transition, and the use of reflection versus reflecting makes it in disagreement with suspects and the modifying "some", which is also a vague term to be avoided. The end result is that phrase doesn't sound the least bit encyclopedic. And you already mentioned that you were attempting to "add humor" for the reader. If they wanted humor, they wouldn't be reading an encyclopedia. If you want the suspects escaping prison using helicopters, find an encyclopedic tone to write it in. The facts, just the facts.
2. The use of quotes makes me wonder how sparingly is sparingly?
3. The issue is that it has always been done poorly and the end result is, again, a disguised list.
4. The link to the French language is also a guideline for explaining foreign words and not simply an application of MOSLINKS.
5. The article on transport says that helicopters are used to move people from one place to another, and readers are able to get that from clicking on the freaking link in a list to answer the question, "How are helicopters used in transport?"
   • "rich" is a word with negative connotations. You need to find a different way to say that to maintain WP:NPOV.

--Born2flie (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reflections on Grammar, Style, and Links

Starting a new section to ease viewing and response (and to reduce the impression that we are hovering without purpose).

1. I recognize that a reader could be confused by the usage of "upon reflection" and misunderstand its meaning. Therefore, as I have said, let us remove it. However, I am inexplicably driven to correct such a misunderstanding of grammar (it must be a subliminal message in the monobook skin):

Upon reflection, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes.

• "upon is a preposition, which creates "a relationship between other words in a sentence" [1] or, if you prefer an internal source, "indicates a relation between things mentioned in a sentence"
  • this means that "upon reflection" is a prepositional phrase
  • the phrase's surface position is purely syntactic and has no semantic relevance - meaning there is no effect on meaning
    • these sentences are semantically the same: "Upon reflection, Todd ate a sandwich."; "Todd, upon reflection, at a sandwich."; "Todd ate a sandwich upon reflection."; "Todd ate, upon reflection, a sandwich." In fact, the commas are there because I like commas (and to clearly separate the phrase); they are (mostly) not strictly necessary. See: "This morning Todd ate a sandwich."
  • Therefore, "upon" is defining a temporal relationship: First "reflection" happens, then "Todd eats a sandwich".
• So now we are back at "reflection", what is it and who is doing it. (And using "reflecting" instead would make no difference.)
  • reflection is "serious thought or consideration" (Per New Oxford American) and is based on the idea of bending your perception to look back at or within yourself, like looking in a mirror.
  • The subject that indulges in reflection needs to be some thinking being(s). In the sentence, there is only one to choose ("suspects") because neither helicopters nor prisons can think (at least not yet - queue the RoboCop-ter!).
    • You rightfully point out that the subject does not have to be in the sentence, it could be implied. However, explicit subjects are usually preferable.
      • Possible subjects beside "suspects" include: the speaker ("Upon my reflection") and the reader ("Upon your reflection") and any number of possible groupings ("Upon the Senate's reflection", "Upon Aunt Sally's reflection", and so on). All these sound a bit artificial because they act against the natural inclination to attach to a subject within the sentence.
      • Implied subjects are usually only valid in writing an imperative statement, and even then the usual implied subject is the reader: "Go read a book on grammar."
      • I would argue that the subject cannot be the speaker, as Wikipedia is not written in the first-person. The best one can imagine for a speaker is "the collective of all editors", but I think that is not something that will come to the mind of the reader. I think you, reading that sentence in isolation and knowing it is written by me, are able to imagine a speaker, but a reader doing so in the context of reading the article would need to engage in some linguistic convulsions to do so.
    • In general usage, I find that in cases where there is not a clear subject already in the sentence, "upon reflection" is meant to attach to a generic "person" (basically, some arbitrary thinking entity) because the important part is what is being reflected upon. Common usage like "Upon reflection, it seems clear that ..." is not talking about what the writer thinks unless the writer is writing in first person. In scholarly works, it implies anyone... "After one thinks about it, it seems clear" - but notice that "After I think about it, some captured suspects execute their own helicopter prison escapes." is nonsensical.
• I hope that suffices... I have exhausted my ability to discuss prepositional phrases for at least two weeks. (and exposed myself to everyone pointing out my grammatical mistakes in anything I write) --Marcinjeske (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back and clarify the fact that prison means that they aren't suspects, they're convicts. If it was a jailbreak, then they could be suspects, although they could also be convicts at a jail as well. More properly we could call them inmates. And again, all kinds of justification for a poorly worded sentence inserted where it made no sentence agreement in the paragraph, because the subject of the paragraph was talking about police use of helicopters. If you had previously been discussing Tom, then referencing Tom's reflection and subsequent action might be acceptable. Additionally, "Upon reflection" is more often used to describe a change in thought or action by the subject based upon their reflection. You've used it to simply suggest (without a source) that the use of helicopters by inmates to escape prison is a thought generated by their remembering how they were captured. So, I would say, again, that this is an improper use of "Upon reflection...". I think you're just too married to how you want to present that sentence, and I question how much more you're going to add to this library trying to make it acceptable. --Born2flie (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style tags

I just added a whole bunch of style tags to the page to flag up for editors stuff that really does need to be done to improve the wiki-ness of the article. Some sections have no reference at all, many sections are quite light on references. Some of it is just lists (which is understandable at this stage, as the lists were created to make a record of the sort of content that needs to be included). While there is some content in sections that needs to be fleshed out, those sections have those tags, and style seems to be the big thing that needs a push at this stage imo. Petemyers (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Uses Paragraphs

I am proposing that these be added to the uses section in place of the related item from the Other Uses list:

Helicopters are used to transport passengers between heliports which provide facilities for passenger processing, refueling, and maintenance. In urban areas, helicopter airlines serve to quickly shuttle business people and the rich within the city or to destinations in the region^[1] and often offer regular service to local airports. Helicopter passenger service is used to connect isolated communities in mountains or between islands or bring personnel to at-sea facilities like oil platforms. Although passenger helicopters in use are common models, designs for backpack helicopters to serve as personal transport have been devised along with attempts at human-powered helicopters. When war or unrest disrupts more typical routes, governments use helicopters to evacuate personnel and civilians out of danger.^[2] Helicopters also transport government officials and other dignitaries when time is of the essence and travel by motorcade is inappropriate.^[3]

Helitours are conducted for the purpose of tourism or sport (heliskiing). Operators may take customers on flights for the purpose of sightseeing^[4] or thrill-seeking. Helicopter operating companies will use their fleet to offer a wide variety of services, for business and government as well. Film studios use them to capture panoramic scenes or fast action for motion picture photography. Helicopters also provide aerial photography for mapmaking, surveillance, scientific, and artistic purposes. They are important to the energy industry which needs to explore possible drilling sites.^[5]

Let's with those... if there is some sort of view that the writing is trash... well, I welcome you to improve it... if need be, we can set up a user sub page to allow for more fluid editing.--Marcinjeske (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Now I feel old

In the switch from BC to CE & back, did somebody forget there's an 800 yr difference? Somehow, I doubt there were helicopters 2400 years ago... Trekphiler (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, checked the reference. 400 AD/ACE is the right timeframe. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why wikipedia stinks

Whole pages is nothing more than stupid rotor talk. Whoever is doing the editing is doing a poor job.

Most of this stuff is redundant: Just like MOST Wiki articles.

People want to know HOW THEY WORK. Why do you have to go to 'how things work' to find our how the helicopter functions.

There is NO MENTION OF SWASHPLATES in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.149.236 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian and American inventions category

Dear users. Unfortunately, many of us editors about inventions arent aware of an important category: Category:Inventions by country. This article fits Russian inventions, because Sikorsky was Russian, and American, because most of the design was done there.

If you have the question of but wait a minute!!! Many people took part in thar invention, many theries. To who of them it goes?

To the one who is widely considered. For example. The Tank. Before the British made the tank that became commercialy succesful many people built models of it. Some succesful. But the British made it really famous, commercialy succesful. They made the model that counts, lets say it like that. Thats why the tank goes to British inventions.

ANother point. If a man is of one nationality, but made the invention in another country, the invention fits both categories, and that is the case here. See the example of Rubber band. It enters the category of English inventions even though it was invented in Australia, why? It's inventor was English.

Please be aware of that type of categorising to. Kostan1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky developed the first production helicopter. That does not mean he "invented" it though. Read the history section here. Also, provide an edit summary with your edits. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Same thing as the British havent invented the tank. Or Lodygin built the lamp before Edisson, but it goes to Edison. The one who managed to produce it is a strong factor. It goes to who it is widely considered to. I dont know how to do the edit summary. But your point is realy strong and that is the main problem with those categories. It has cruel critereas. Every invention had many developers, and the rest of the series. Kostan1 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Making an edit summary is easy, notice the bar between the big box where you make your edit and "[Save page] [Show preview] [Show changes]"? That's where you put your edit summary. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Power Sources

I've removed this section. The helicopter referred to in it is an RC (Remote Control) Helicopter which is a different subject altogether in some senses, so calling the section "alternative power sources" is therefore misleading. Also, the reference is to the Helicopter's datasheet - this is a primary source, and therefore is original research anyway. Petemyers (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Data from a company does not fall under WP:PRIMARY. Electric power and other alternate sources seems like a valid topic to me. It should be more general coverage than one example though. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a valid topic - but the section is misleading as they're not alternative sources of power for manned full size helicopters.. but that's the subject of the rest of the article, so at best this sentence needs to be incorporated into a different section. Data from a company is not specifically addressed in WP:PRIMARY, however the document does include "administrative documents, patents" as primary sources, quote from here: Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. So a datasheet would be considered a primary source (if somebody wrote a book on the Rotomotion SR20 - which would be a secondary source, they would have to refer back to the datasheet, because there is no more primative source of information for this product - making it a primary source). There is a whole article on Radio-controlled helicopters, and a section on helicopters in Radio controlled plane. I'll leave it a day and then remove the section again, unless someone posts otherwise here. Petemyers (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing that limits this article to manned helicopters. Still don't agree that's a primary source. The policy does not state companies, only individuals. Press releases from companies are valid sources and are used all the time. Give others a chance to respond before removing... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using primary sources where no contention or synthesis exists according to WP:PRIMARY. The data sheet is fine.

Is the Rotomotion SR20 exemplary of the state of current technology regarding alternate power sources in helicopters? Understanding that current state is relative to the article on manned helicopters (i.e. how far from manned electrics are we?) If the SR20 isn't an example of that boundary, it would perhaps be best exchanged for a better example. My 2 cents. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson - "nothing limits the article to manned Helicopters", ok agreed. "It's ok to use primary sources where no contention or synthesis exists", thanks for the clarification. Berean Hunter has, I think, a good point about the Rotomotion SR20, that sentence does sound like a random advert for this one product! How to move forward from here... suggestion: How about we add a subsection to the Helicopter#Uses section that covers RC Helicopters, and that subsection can link to the main article Remote controlled helicopter. We can include information about electric engines in that. Because - as far as I know (I'm prepared to be corrected :) ), there is nothing like a manned electric helicopter in production or design anywhere in the world. So, can I go ahead and attempt to make that change? Petemyers (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal - Rotor Configurations with article Helicopter Rotor

The sections entitled "Helicopter Rotor System" and "Rotor Configurations" are too similar. The Rotor Configurations section contains too much detail for this article - which could be fleshed out with something other than the helicopter rotor, I'm sure there's more to helicopters than this one topic. I suggest Rotor Configurations is merged into the article "Helicoptor Rotor". Thoughts? Petemyers (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2 sections are different. Just copy parts or all of the Rotor configurations to Helicopter rotor. No need to tag for that. If you want to move most of the text to that article, use a split tag. -Fnlayson (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get on and do that. Petemyers (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the measure of too much detail? I know that Wikipedia does not have an objective measure for "too much" so you need to share why you think it is too much detail and justify how the article will stand without it. As it is, the section is a refinement on information that has been in the article for a long time, and inclusion of some other information to make that section more complete.

"I'm sure there's more to helicopters than this one topic."

Do you mean the Rotor configuration? Sure there is, but you might be going by the TOC which gives the section a larger appearance than the history, when they are similar in size. The Uses section could be larger, but there just isn't a lot of sourced information to build articles that aren't there currently, and in order to add them to this article, you would also need those same sources, albeit fewer of them. All the discussion about rotors, both configuration and types, takes up as much space as the history.

Now, the history could stand to be fleshed out some also. And the history of the article shows that as soon as the discussion about everyone's favorite helicopter configuration is removed from the article, they'll try and inject it into a section whether or not it belongs there. So, the removal of it has to be based on something objective like the MOS guideline or a discussion with a consensus reached here on the talk page. Fnlayson recommended a split tag, which you placed, but then cut the entire section over to Helicopter rotor system, which wasn't exactly the consensus that Fnlayson offered you. I've since reverted that edit but left your tag. However, we should phrase the proposed split for discussion. --Born2flie (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok... well, I haven't helped here at all it seems, so I'll just leave this to someone else. Though, if you've put it back on the Helicopter article, you need to remove the text from Helicopter Rotor. Petemyers (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to make it as if you hadn't helped, just that within the Wikipedia there are processes that are there to protect the article and make sure that the article is developed with a consensus. If you feel that it is too much detail, I'm just asking you to explain what is too much detail and why you feel it should be removed. Although, the preferred method is to edit and rewrite the content to something with the appropriate detail level, not simply cut it out and move it somewhere else.

There is also information on WP:Merge with guidelines about how to discuss the merge and to try to gain consensus for the merge or split. By clicking on the link in the merge/split banner on the article, it will take the reader/editor to the appropriate page to discuss the action. --Born2flie (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Born2flie. Sorry, I thought I had built consensus on it. I realise that I hadn't now, thanks. Here's my reasoning - what do others think?

The actual merger makes sense of the material that's already there: If you compare Helicopter with Helicopter Rotor, then Helicopter contains far more, and far more detailed information about Helicopter Rotors. I think that's bizarre. Also, the article is currently dominated by Helicopter rotors... there are two sections which arguably seem to cover this one area. Helicopter#Helicopter rotor system seems to me to be a good "summary" of the topic, and the information section about individual rotor configurations (in Helicopter#Rotor configurations) would be a sensible "next step" to go to... and I would expect to find that information in the article that Helicopter#Helicopter rotor system links to (which is Helicopter Rotor).

This article could be much broader, and therefore much more useful: I'm not a pilot, I'd love to be. I've only ever flown in a Helicopter once, but I find them fascinating. So coming to an article like this, I would like a much broader sweep of information that then allows me to click through to more detailed information as takes my fancy. At the moment, there is some stuff on Helicopter history and uses, but the vast majority of content is on Helicopter rotors and rotor systems. But what about: Landing, taking off, Helicopter records, piloting helicopters, helipads, electronic components, what happens when they stall (loads of uninformed readers will come to an encyclopedia to discover that), what kinds of fuel can they run on?, are they more or less fuel efficient than other vehicles?, are they safer than aeroplanes?, just some of the many things that aren't really answered in the article in anything like the depth that rotors are.Petemyers (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see better where you are coming from and I can agree with that. I just don't think that the current section covering the rotor system explains anything about the configurations and I don't think that removing the section on configurations improves the article. I do think we could edit the configurations into a couple paragraphs and include them under the rotor system section.

While you're at it, could you tell me what you think of the Limitations section? I mean, as a non-pilot. To me, it seems to have been included by pilots, and most probably student pilots or even instructors, and so it doesn't seem to be intended to benefit a "normal" reader. Does the section make you want to learn more? Does it put you off of helicopters? I've noticed that the fixed-wing aircraft article has no such section. While it does discuss air safety, that is mostly in relation to the airline industry and not particularly discussing any limitations of the aircraft type. That and the section in this article just seems to totally throw off the entire balance of the article. As the new blood on the article, do you have any ideas on how to make it fit better? --Born2flie (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think rotor system and configurations sections should be merged together at least... and we should look at the Helicopter Rotor article and think through what should be outsourced to that article from this one... or at least, what kind of extra depth that other article should have.

Limitations sections aren't great, they're often a vague dump for uncategorised information, and I think they're discouraged somewhere in the wikipedia policy documents (sorry, haven't got time right now to reference that). I think the article needs to be re-thought from the top down. Clearly - to helicopter aviators - the rotor systems are really important... but it's just hard to get excited about them, because the article goes into too much depth on that too quickly. The limitations section doesn't want to make me learn more, no. Thinking big broad brushstroke, I would suggest the article needs individual sections on: rotors; engines; piloting/controls; safety; uses; history; design and manufacture; instruments; structure; development; ... and only one section on each of those topics... that's just a novice's punt... as a pilot can you improve on that list?Petemyers (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the Safety section, and it can generically address both the current Limitations and Hazards of helicopter flight sections, and even retain the accident listing. I've trimmed down rotor configurations to three paragraphs. I'm going to remove the split template. I think we can edit both the configurations and system sections together into something more of an overview on the topic, leaving the detail to the rotor article, since it now contains all the information that was previously in this article. --Born2flie (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I grouped the related sections as described above. That's a start. Adjust section labels as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like what has happened here in the last few days. These changes seem to have totally changed the style of the article, to the point that I don't believe it to be encyclopedic anymore (in the sense of covering all knowledge about something). The old article seemed to cover all the many different types of helicopters, had great pictures of them, and now it's just a bunch of text, and all the pictures are of single rotor helicopters. It's gone wrong. The wikipedia needs to use the most reasonably general definition of something in all its major articles (like this one), not just the most common of something, and this article has veered towards common, and I believe this to be deeply undesirable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi wolfkeeper, thanks for chipping in. I'm just trying to make sure I understand your concerns properly, you are concerned the article isn't encyclopedic anymore... because it has less information in. Is that correct? What do you make of the discussion that we've had about the breadth of this article, allowing a reader to go into more depth in more specific articles elsewhere? Actually covering the topic with more breadth makes it - I think - more encyclopedic. Which I think Born2Flie and Fnlayson have done a great job beginning to shape. I think that's your first concern, have I understood you, and do you want to develop any of what you've said for us?

Your second concern is that the pictures now only reflect single rotor Helicopters? I think we could probably put some more pictures in to reflect the range of Helicopters there are... and that would fit nicely within the new structure the article has anyway. I'd agree that would be a good idea to add a range of different pictures in, what do others think? Petemyers (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just shifted a couple of the headings around so that within Helicopter#Design_features, there's only one subsection on Rotors. Since this doesn't actually change any content, I didn't think it would be contentious, and just went ahead and did it... it makes sense to explain rotor configurations after the introductory paragraph about rotors, and before the specific information about different types of system. Please shout at me if that was aviation heresy. Petemyers (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've just changed the heading to subheading to "Rotor System", we already know it's the Rotor system for a Helicopter as we're reading the Helicopter article. Petemyers (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the subheading is perfect. I can sympathize with Wolfkeeper about the majority of single rotor helicopter photos, I would've said more about the Bell bias in the photos though. --Born2flie (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the engines section

Ok, engines section needs expansion. How? Some suggestions of things it needs to cover (though these aren't suggested as subheadings): Fuel, different types of combustion engines, things specific to Helicopter engines. I was amazed to discover on the internet in research of this, that lots of Helicopters use non-thrust producing jet engines, for example. Who knows about Helicopter engines, what needs to be covered? Petemyers (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reference to a non-thrust producing jet (turbine) engine is talking about the turboshaft engine, which is mentioned in the history section. Additionally, there was a previous subsection under the configurations that addressed tip jet engines. It should be included in the engine section, because while it provides another antitorque option, it is primarily a power source for turning the rotor and the lack of torque effect is a byproduct benefit. I don't think fuel is important other than a mention with each type of engine. Engine type and size is a significant determinant to the size and functions of a particular helicopter, but I'm not sure how to describe that in an encyclopedic way. Take a look at the introduction for the turboshaft engine, and we might need to look at articles for the models of reciprocating engines, as well as the model helicopters they are used in, to come up with a cohesive discussion of their use in helicopters. --Born2flie (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think there's bound to be overlap with the history section on a number of points... i.e. the history section will tell the reader when particular design features appeared, and the rest of the article will tell the reader what they mean, why they were developed and how they work.

Engine type and size is a significant determinant to the size and functions of a particular helicopter.

That's an important point to go in the introduction of the section on engines. I'm sure it can be made encyclopedic if we find a secondary source for it.Petemyers (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I started the engine section off with a list. It doesn't reference any sources, but almost everything it says at the moment is lifted from another wikipedia article. At least it's a start. I can't find any other type of engine that needs to be covered here. Petemyers (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that RC helicopter information should be included in this article. The Aviation WikiProject and this article, fall under Transportation. And RC helicopters are unsuitable for transportation. Radio-controlled aircraft have their own articles. --Born2flie (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe WP:Aviation falls under WP:Transport. Obviously it is form of transportation though. So what about UAVs? If non-manned helos are to be excluded, the article should say so somewhere for the uninformed.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIR used to be under WPTRANSPORT, but WPAVIATION was formed about a year and a half ago to be WPAIR's new parent Project, and airlines and airports were invited to join, which they did. RC aircraft should have a link under See also, but I don't think they should have more than a cursory mention in this article. UAVs are generally full-size aircraft (but not always), and often are conversions of manned types (MQ-8B, UMLB). They should receive some coverage, but most of it should be in the UAV airticles. My 2 shillings. - BillCJ (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on WP:Aviation's parent (now none). However, I would caution how much of a mention such "vehicles" receive for a myriad of reason, not the least of which is the inclusion of fancruft for each RC model as well as the introduction of fictional helicopter models, which will be justified by, "Well, if you've included x, then y should be included." Much along the same lines as, "Build it and they will come." My recommendation is that they be included in the See also section, since they already have their own articles and that this article be used to discuss the actual vehicles[2] called helicopters.

As far as engines are concerned: Most 19th century models and a couple early helicopter attempts were powered by steam engines. Radial engines were used in the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 and the Flettner Fl 185, since they were adaptations of autogyro technologies. Sikorsky chose a Franklin aircraft engine for the Sikorsky R-4, the same company that would make the engine for the Tucker Torpedo. Bell and Hiller both started with Franklin engines in their earliest helicopters but ended up using Lycoming engines which has became a de facto standard for helicopters. Turboshaft engines were introduced to the world by Sud Aviation. And today, Turbomeca and Rolls Royce have the lion's share of the turboshaft business, although Pratt & Whitney Canada and GE have a presence for larger helicopters. --Born2flie (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Did I spot a consensus there that the article shouldn't cover RC Helos? I think that's a wise decision... since there's already a Helicopter disambiguation page, should reference to RC Helos just be made there? Or does there need to be a specific reference in this article? Come to think of it - there should be some kind of policy across Helo and Fixed Wing on reference to RC stuff shouldn't there? Petemyers (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a consensus. There are other editors that I would wait for them to weigh in, just to give everyone a say, especially since WP:AIR no longer falls under WP:TRANSPORT. That would be in order to give a fair chance to suggest that there is a broader consensus than just among the four or five of us that are currently active. Wolfkeeper hasn't chimed back in and Arpingstone has opinions on photos and Anthony_Appleyard has a broader opinion of what should be included, and there are others. I don't always agree with everyone, but this article is that important to me that it needs a broad consensus, especially here on the talk page, to progress to a higher quality article. When WP:AIR was a child project to WP:TRANSPORT, it was easy to say that RC vehicles didn't fall under transportation. Now the case to exclude them isn't so clear. For now, RC helicopters is already listed in the See also section and I've added Unmanned aerial vehicle to the list also. --Born2flie (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good point. Fnlayson seemed to be the only person on the talk page who'd had a previous disagreement with removing unmanned vehicles, but (s)he seemed to change his/her mind in this discussion. But I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Petemyers (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again this article is simply called "Helicopter". Nothing there to strictly limit it to manned ones. However, anything more than brief coverage of unmanned helicopters could give them too much weight. The article mentions toys and models in the history section already. The current mention/link for RCs seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Born2flie - could you please add your engine information to the list? Though things like steam, hmmm, since it's a form of engine that's no longer in use, should it be confined purely to the history section? I'm not sure. Petemyers (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter toy

The helicopter toy is touted as being used in China in 400 AD. This is believed to be the one held between the hands and spun by sliding the palms apart. Another version is held in a spindle with a string wrapped around the mast, which spins the mast when the string is pulled out through the spindle. In the book, Wings by Tom Crouch (ISBN 0393057674), he says that the earliest record of this type of toy was a drawing in a 1325 Flemish manuscript. The toy also appeared later in drawings in other european manuscripts and in the painting, Children's Games by Pieter Bruegel the Elder in 1560. There is no reference for an obscure painting of the year 1463 or that a toy depicted in such a painting is one that originates from China. --Born2flie (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done for spotting this Born2flie. The first source ([3]) is vague "Over two thousand years ago...". The second one ([4]) states that the Chinese helicopter goes back "at least 1500 years". The third source ([5]) actually dates the Chinese top to 400BC in it's timeline, but the 400AD claim in our article seems to be lifted from the first line of that page, which states "The first concept of rotary wing aviation came from the Chinese in the fourth century A.D." At least that's the best candidate for where the "400AD" date came from (which would also require a misunderstanding of how centuries are counted). So there seem to be a number of issues here:

1. As it is, it appears the 3rd source is the primary source for all the actual facts cited in this paragraph. The first two sources are placed in such a way as they are made to look like they support the "400AD" date, but they don't. This is misleading.
2. We have three sources, which are all conflicting... and the source that our article rests most heavily on even conflicts with itself.
3. The language of the article does not reflect the language of the sources. It should probably not have a date, but a much vaguer reference to the century... or even vaguer than that.
4. Even then, the fourth century AD begins in 300AD not in 400AD. So the article is just plain wrong.

So, my vote is that either we get a better (i.e. hard-copy published) source for the date of this Chinese toy thing, or we just remove the reference altogether. I'll put some tags, etc. on the page to indicate some of the work that needs to be done. Petemyers (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any relevant templates or tags, so I'm not going to mark the page. Petemyers (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There was some back and forth edits on 400 BC/AD. The vectorsite page said 1500 yrs ago, so I believe I added that as a reference to stabilize things. See if anyone can find a better source for that toy date. The earliest thing mentioned in helicopter book I have is de Vinci. {{t1|^{[verification needed]} seems to be the proper tag here. I already added one for the 1463 painting. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motives Fnlayson, well done for ending what sounds like an edit war. But 1500 years ago, actually puts the date more like 500AD. I think we obviously need to get as many sources as we can. I'll stick in a list here.Petemyers (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• More like some sparing than warring. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in the space of 2 minutes, I've found 2 sources which support the 400BC date. One of which is a Cambridge University press book. For that reason, I'll put that source in the article, and change the date to 400BC. Petemyers (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well done, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Anything for the 1463 painting? --Born2flie (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section below with any sources I can find on this. Sounds like the painting - if it ever existed - was lost. From the first source I've found, it sounds like it's worth mentioning that there is rumour of an obscure painting existing... but the current sentence stating that it's absolute fact is probably too heavy. Petemyers (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1463 source my conclusion - check it out if you want, but this source is just smoke and mirrors. I stopped bothering looking through Google... almost all the sources say essentially the same thing, sometimes they move the facts round in a different order, and sometimes they change the odd word. It's not even clear anymore what sources predate the Wikipedia article, and what sources have lifted their text from the Wikipedia article. No source I've found offers any evidence, or cites any reason, for it's claim that there was a picture in 1463 with a chinese helicopter toy in it. The blog entry is the closest, offering an alternative picture from the 1480s where you can clearly see a child holding a helicopter toy. I've found nothing in Google books. My view is we remove this thing until we find a source that's better than an obscure website. Though I won't do that now, waiting for your response... Petemyers (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I removed the information today. Someone had included the link to Dr. Leishman's history in his aerodynamics text, however, my experience with Dr. Leishman as a source is that his vetting of his historical sources is questionable. Until this vague painting can be accurately established with a name, an artist, and a year, it should not be included as a historical fact. --Born2flie (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of sources for Chinese toy date

1. Wired article which references 400BC date: [6]Petemyers (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Google book (Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics By J. Gordon Leishman) which supports 400BC date: [7] Petemyers (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Google book (Helicopters by Stanley S. Magowan) supports the 400BC date: [8] Petemyers (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of sources for 1463 painting

1. A blog entry mentioning that this is a "popular idea": [9] Petemyers (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2. A helicopter history website that just makes the "raw claim": [10] Petemyers (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Another "source" basically touting exactly the same thing: [11] Petemyers (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, lots of the sources referenced are almost word for word the same as the WP article. Is this because the paragraphs on this were originally ripped off from somewhere? Or because a lot of these sources are actually ripping off Wikipedia (giving us a big circular loop of references?). I'm VERY tempted to suggest that we comb through this article and make sure that we use as many published sources as possible - and only web sources that are really really good/old. Petemyers (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Measurements and English Variant

Measurement: Even though I'm from the United States, I recommend metric be the standard for this article because helicopter flight began in Europe. The history portion of the article will have to be edited to comply. Spelling: It seems that most of the article is written in U.S. English. I can't determine if that is because of a weight of U.S. editors on the article or because the article was originated by a U.S. editor. I've edited other articles that utilised British spellings and had no real issues contributing. My recommendation is that unless it is shown to be originated by an editor using a different variation of English, that U.S. English be used. Not a nationalist matter for me, but rather a practical matter of not wanting to hunt through the history to determine who started it and what variant they used, and then have to weed through the article to ensure all the spellings are changed, although if someone else desired to do that and share the diff so it can be established one way or the other... --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a better explanation for why you reverted my substitution in of convert templates for all the figures. You pointed to WP:MOSNUM but reading this there is nothing there to say that conversion templates should not be used on small numbers. The conversion templates make sure the conversions are accurate and help keep the format consistent. Prior to my doing all that work there were some values in text, some numerical, some had the units written in full, some abbreviated. It seems like my edit was only an improvement and all that reverting it achieved was wasting my time. It certainly didn't deteriorate the article in any way. Unless you can explain why having them is a bad thing, or provide a valid reason for me not to revert them back in, that is what I will do. Mfield (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Your application of {{convert}} wasn't quite universal throughout the article. Since you weren't going to take the care to ensure that all numbers were converted, and because the MOSNUM-compliant numbers had been changed by applying {{convert}}, I reverted and hardcoded the conversions into the text of the article. Also, {{convert}} defaults to the SI spelling, and we just started discussing whether or not to use the U.S. or the Queen's English standard for spelling. I think your application of {{convert}} was a waste of your time in the first place, and reverting back to your version will likely be another waste of your time. Unless you can apply the guideline more thoroughly and account for more than one section of the guideline, we will probably be discussing mine and your actions on this article again. --Born2flie (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If all it would have taken was for you to add the few that I may have missed (or the few that could not be converted such as horsepower data, then the better course of action on your part would have been to do that rather than to revert all. What spelling type is used is a separate issue that could be readily changed later, even easier in fact as would be simple to do a search and replace once the {{convert}} templates were universal. I am not going to get into a pointless debate about it though, if you'd prefer to revert good faith edits without discussion, correcting the simple errors or contacting me to point out I had missed a few, then I would rather leave you to it. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you had simply added the units that hadn't been previously converted and "hardcoded" into the text, and if you had spelled out the units that were abbreviated instead of text, it would've been a much simpler edit that took less of your precious time than rewriting all most measurements in the History section using {{convert}}. --Born2flie (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The convert template has a US spelling option and a bunch of other options, but nothing for spelling a number as a word, e.g. 2 -> two. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of words instead of numbers wasn't standardized before I edited it either. Mfield (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is a part of the guideline that you seem to have been previously unaware of, and that parts of the article had been in compliance with prior to your edits. --Born2flie (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think that the choice between numbers and words has a lot to do with the context, i.e. whether the figure is being used as a number of items or an empirical value for e.g a height. So to prefer "Two helicopters" over "2 helicopters" and "the aircraft attained an altitude of 6 feet" over "six feet"? Mfield (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an adoption of a writing standard that says that those numbers should be spelled out in text whether it be for a unit of measure or a count of objects. I'm familiar with that standard, remembering it from grade school, and having come across it later in other venues, so I don't think it is simply a preference for context. There are exceptions listed in the MOS guideline, but none of them really applicable to this article, as far as I can determine from the article's context. --Born2flie (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiltrotors

I concur with Born2flie that ths addtion of the comments on tiltrotors is not needed. Encyclopedias need to be as consise as possible without strying into tangental areas, especially in an article that is allready lengthy. Also, introducing another item in a complex discussion is likely to confuse a reader who does not yet understand the concept of a helicopter rotor, rather than make it easier to understand. - BillCJ (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiltrotors are still included in the "Antitorque configurations" section lower down in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Helicopter article bibliography

I'm a new contributor/editor, so I don't yet have permission to edit a semi-protected article like "Helicopter". There is a very good book that I feel should be added to the bibliography section. The citation is:

Chiles, James R. The God Machine: From Boomerangs to Black Hawks: The Story of the Helicopter. New York: Bantam Books, 2007.

Would someone who has full editing rights please consider adding this citation to the bibliography? Thanks.

Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What info do you intend to add from or cite using that source? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The early chapters include detailed information on early, failed helicopter designs. Yamamoto333 Yamamoto333 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. That's book has been added. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be added to a Further Reading section unless/until it is actually used as a reference. Failed helicopter examples, unless they are notable (and I suggest here that notability means that the failure led to a success, such as Cierva's), should probably not be included, because there are so many more early failures than successes. --Born2flie (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome to move to Further reading section. One policy page (WP:Cite) seems to suggest a general reference is OK if not footnoted. But some other policy says an unused book should go in Further reading. I'll add a book with the intent to footnote to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uses

I was glancing this page and I noticed that heliportable exploration (reflection seismology/seismic exploration) is not on the page. I work in this field and helicopters are heavily used today. Just thought I would mention it and I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

It is almost time to nominate this article to move it forward. I'm concerned that there are too many sections labeled as unreferenced. This may cause the article to be automatically failed for a good article nomination. --Born2flie (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)