Talk:Thales Fulmar
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tiggerjay in topic Requested move 16 November 2016
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 16 November 2016 edit
- 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: moved to Thales Fulmar per consensus below. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Aerovision Fulmar → UAV Fulmar – Aerovision is not more the owner of Fulmar, it is a Thales product, and we want to create the page in English in the same way like in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAV_Fulmar. Elena THESP (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Music1201 talk 16:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Thales Fulmar. Since it is owned by Thales it should be moved to Thales Fulmar. "UAV Fulmar" is presumably a mistranslation from the Spanish and should probably read "Fulmar UAV", and since "UAV" is the class of aircraft it should not be in the article title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Thales Fulmar. The norm for aircraft types is Manufacturer-designation-name, not class of aircraft. This would be like Light aircraft 150 for Cessna 150. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support alternatives: move to Thales Fulmar as Thales are the manufacturer. Ebonelm (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- sceptical: I should expect the norm to be Designer-type identification? This is prominently the case for designs from the former Soviet Union: Yakovlev and Tupolev (and more others) were the managers and chief engineers of their design offices, but had little if anything to do with actually producing the planes. But there are examples in the Western World, too: the Burnelli UB-14 is named after its designer. Or consider the Kitfox ultralight, that has been produced by several companies in several versions. Still, I fully agree that UAV Fulmar makes little sense as a title: the comparison to the C150 shows so clearly. For me, the best title would be Fulmar UAV or Fulmar (UAV) but I can accept there may be good reasons to call it Thales Fulmar. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the place to challenge our aircraft naming conventions. Manufacturer-designation-name is close enough for the present purpose and "Fulmar (UAV)" certainly fails to conform. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds like I hurt some of your most delicate feelings - sincere apologies! Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I did not think your comment was relevant. Please take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide - and have no fear for my delicate feelings, logic would serve you better
. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I did not think your comment was relevant. Please take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide - and have no fear for my delicate feelings, logic would serve you better
- That sounds like I hurt some of your most delicate feelings - sincere apologies! Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is not the place to challenge our aircraft naming conventions. Manufacturer-designation-name is close enough for the present purpose and "Fulmar (UAV)" certainly fails to conform. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (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.