Talk:Aircraft pilot/Archives/2017

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move 18 May 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments10 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Pilot (aeronautics) → Aircraft pilot – Last week's RM found no consensus for a move to Aviator in part because the term is less familiar. Well, the term "aeronautics" is certainly even less familiar than that. That's particularly troubling as the topic is something virtually everyone knows, but we've given it a fairly unintuitive disambiguator. "Aircraft pilot" is also WP:NATURALDIS, which is generally preferable to parentheses, though Pilot (aircraft) would also be an improvement over the current term. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support per nom. Sensible title – don't know what else to say. No such user (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I am neutral on this. Wikipedia already has Maritime pilot, so Aircraft pilot does make sense. On the other hand it has lots off Foo (aeronautics) articles, so Pilot (aeronautics) works better in relation to those. I can't see that it matters which is the redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My thinking is, virtually everyone who speaks English and has ever seen or heard of a plane knows what a pilot is. But would, say, a third grader, a second language learner, or someone with a lower level of education who was searching for the article on pilots of aircraft recognize "(aeronautics)" as pointing to what they're looking for? IMO, it's a fairly specialized disambiguator for what's really a very, very basic topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That's act a good point, one that I hadn't really considered. "(aeronautics)" is probably fine for the other articles we use it for, but for this one, probably not. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: Seems natural and less complicated. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose only because it doesnt appear to be a natural phrase that people would use, and makes you think of an autopilot rather than an individual. I would support Pilot (aircraft) MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
~~Mild~~ Support - Even though disambiguation is allowed, and it's perfectly fine as is, this suggestion is better than the other alternatives. The problem with "Pilot (aircraft)" is that it's the same disambiguator used for individual aircraft, such as FIFI (aircraft). To be honest, I think a strong case could be made that aircraft pilot is the Primary Topic for pilot in common English language usage among non-specialist readers, not that I expect the boat and TV lobbies to ever let it happen! - BilCat (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

My first thought was that air pilots are the primary topic of "pilot", but it gets fewer page views than Television pilot and Honda Pilot.[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Eek!! Now the car lobby too? Well, I can't argue much with page views, so I'll drop that idea. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:NATURAL, and the arguments I set out in the previous RM. Laurdecl ^talk 09:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Support as the editor who proposed the previous RM. f e minist 10:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 May 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments12 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) - Yashovardhan (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pilot (aeronautics) → Aviator – Per WP:NATURAL. "Aviator" is a very common term and is not ambiguous unlike "pilot". (aeronautics) as a disambiguator, while appropriate per policy, isn't convenient for readers. f e minist 09:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Support, long overdue. bd2412 T 01:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Pilot is far more common than aviator, and disambiguators are necessary part of WP that shouldn't be avoided simply because we don't like them. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Aviator" is a WP:NATURALly disambiguated title. It's simply an alternative way of disambiguation to "Pilot (aeronautics)". feminist 10:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  - From NATURAL: "Do not, however, use obscure... names". I would say aviator is too obscure. Laurdecl ^talk 06:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Move to Aircraft pilot, how it is written on the disambiguation page, and for WP:CONSISTENCY (for example Maritime pilot). This is both the WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:NATURAL. Laurdecl ^talk 09:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Aviator per WP:NATURAL; specifically, it's "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". Aircraft pilot would also be an improvement, but it's overwhelmingly less common than aviator ([2] vs. [3]).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Support per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I oppose the to move to Aviator based on the thread at the top of this talk, which says that aviators are distinct from pilots. NATURAL says not to use obscure names just because there is no disambiguation, and I have never heard "Aviator" in my life, despite lots of flying. Laurdecl ^talk 06:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you really never heard the term "Aviator"? It's not an obscure term, in fact, it's much more common than "airplane pilot", "aircraft pilot", "aeroplane pilot", etc., not to mention the constructed term "Pilot (aeronautics)" (I expect many fewer readers will recognize "aeronautics" than "aviator".)

FWIW, the discussion above is mistaken as to what "aviator" means. Some people try to make a distinction between "pilots" and "aviators", but the dictionary definition of an aviator is the pilot of an aircraft.[4][5][6]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Aircraft pilot, followed by Aviator, both above Pilot (aeronautics) per WP:NATURAL. Not sure that "aviator" is quite "obscure", but it is a little obscure. I also feel there is some difference in meaning, with an aviator being a pioneer in flying aircraft, with a flavor of experiment or sport, and the term being unusual for modern pilots. However, the term is not quite obsolete for modern pilots, it just doesn't fit so well for pilots of modern standard aircraft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, some people do try to distinguish "aviator" from "pilot", but there's no consistency in how they do that. The dictionary definition of "aviator" is the same as "pilot" of an aircraft.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: The RCAF has recently changed the rank of Private to Aviator and these people are technicians who fix aircraft, not pilots who fly them. Until the 1960s the term was "Aircraftsman", but this was not gender neutral enough for the 21st century, hence the new and much more linguistically confusing term. So, at least in Canada, the term "aviator" now means specifically "not a pilot". - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per BillCat: Nobody watches the captain of an airliner board and says, "look, there's the aviator," or talks of the "aviator" of a military jet. They are pilots. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: The term 'aviator' certainly does not always equate to pilot. Keep pilot the primary (and natural) term by using as a link from Pilot (disambiguation) to Pilot (aeronautics). Loopy30 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose clearly Aviator is not the common name for a pilot and not all aviators are actually pilots. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.