Talk:Douglas World Cruiser/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Douglas-first.jpg

The image Image:Douglas-first.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed merger

Consensus at this time is to merge Chicago (aircraft) into Douglas World Cruiser—but with no prejudice against recreating the former should there be a draft with a significant amount of unique content. I'll leave three days for the participants here to carry out a merge before a redirect is put in place. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Merge - Why have two articles on the same subject????
    • There is no reason why there should not be sections on each of the record-breaking aircraft, An ideal opportunity to achieve this. Oops forgot to sign first post.Petebutt (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No Merge - The other article Chicago (airplane) is about the history of the plane at the Smithsonian. Given its title, this article should be about the class of plane, including its development. I have also contacted the proposer on his talk page to see if we can some agreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Request here is the message I left: Hi. I was wondering is we could come to some agreement on this merge issue. Before your proposal, I had proposed this article for use on July 14 at did you know because of the Bastille Day angle. Now, it wont be eligible until we hash this out, so there is bit of a time issue. I created this article based on a request at the Smithsonian Project page, so there was at least some indication that a separate article is warranted. I did comment at the merge discussion and I think I understand your point but given the names of the two articles, it does appear they are on different related subjects - similar to any article pair about a class of things and an individual notable example. So, would you be willing to abate your merge proposal? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge: Typically the information about individual survivors appears on the main article detailing the operational history of the type. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
This article is on the plane design. Space Shuttle and Challenger are two articles, and of course there are others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Other than the following passage (which also can be incorporated), all the other information can be part of the Douglas World Cruiser article: "At the request of the Smithsonian Institution, the Army transferred ownership of the Chicago to the museum. It made its last flight from Dayton, Ohio to Washington, D.C. on September 25, 1925. It was almost immediately put on display in the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries Building. In 1974, the Chicago was restored and transferred to the new National Air and Space Museum building for display in their Pioneers of Flight exhibition." FWiW, individual aircraft of the X-15 series, X-1 series, Lockheed Vega, Lockheed Electra or the XB-70 are not deemed of sufficient merit to warrant an individual article. Was the Chicago that much different from any other Douglas World Cruiser? it merely has the luck to be a survivor. Bzuk (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
"Can be part" is true of multiple articles but we still have different articles with different emphasis. And is it different, yes, it became the lead aircraft and so famous that it went right to the Smithsonian. We wouldn't merge biographies of the pilots, would we?Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Becoming a display aircraft is hardly a distinction, otherwise every aircraft in the Smithsonian would have an article. Besides, there are others from the famous flight that have also been preserved; do you propose an article on each of them? IMHO, there isn't anything in the new article that is so distinctly unique that it couldn't be incorporated in the main article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
Well, its a distinction to the reliable sources (so wether its a distinction to a user is not important), its also a distinctionn to the users at the project that requested this just like they requested Louis Purnell (so there was a demand). Sure, lets write an article on a different notable plane but I think there is no more than one other one that survived and its certainly not at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, the premier museum. And it is not a valid argument for merge that there should be another article on something else. Also, this is not the main article, as it is not the same topic according to the article naming rules that this discussion is suppose to address. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Besides being a notable example of the type, the "Chicago" is one of three surviving airframes, the "New Orleans" was on loan to the Museum of the United States Air Force until 2005, before returned being Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, where it is now on display. The wreckage of the "Seattle" was recovered and is now on display in the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum. Nothing distinguished any of the DWC type from another and the fact that the "Chicago" owes its fame to its one and only circumnavigation flight, does not make this any more significant than Amelia Earhart's "Old Bessie" Lockheed 5A Vega that set countless distance records as well as being her mount for her landmark transatlantic and transpacific flights, or her Lockheed Electra 10E "NR 16020" in which she ultimately was lost over the Pacific. Where is the article for the Wiley Post's "Winnie Mae"? or Alcock and Brown's Vickers Vimy bomber that made the first non-stop transatlantic flight, surely all just as important as "Chicago". (Both Wiley Post's "Winnie Mae" and Amelia Earhart's Vega are a part of the collection of the National Air and Space Museum.) Even the Wright Bros. Flyer does not have an article on its own, and is documented in the main article as one of Wright Flyers. All of these articles are found in the main article for each aircraft type, just like the "Chicago" should be. FWiW, the response to the request to create an article that is normally found in the type article is to direct the individual to that article rather than creating a new and mainly redundant article. Just sayin' Bzuk (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
I think you should check your facts about what remains of the Seattle, which also didn't make it around the world. And as I said, the other's are not in the world's premiere museum. And yes just like the Challenger is a notable type of the Space Shuttle, notable craft have thier own article because they are thier own topic. Yeah it sure looks like there are alot of articles to create (there always are); that is what we are here for. But there is no use just talking about articles no one created about notable topics, that's not the pedia or readers' fault and it's not a basis to merge. The wiki has plenty of room. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Bzuk, he/she (yes there are lady aviation wikipedians) has expressed the reasoning better than I. I am afraid that Alan might be feeling as though this is a personal attack, far from it, we are part of the process to improve wikipedia and the skills of those that edit it.Petebutt (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm? That's an odd thing to say? I don't feel anything of the sort and I'm not sure what what you mean when you talk about what you and Bzuk are doing. Are you part of some club? Quite odd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The case has been made for why the Chicago (airplane) article should be merged. With the recent edits to the Douglas World Cruiser, there are no substantial differences that have not been accommodated in the main article. FWiW, the "Chicago" represents an interesting historical footnote but on its own, it was only one of five aircraft built to circumnavigate the world. It is a survivor of an earlier era of pioneering flights but there is no need to differentiate this aircraft from the other DWC series. Being a part of an aerial collection in a world-class museum does not subsequently provide it status; note that many of the Smithsonian collection are representative aircraft, not necessarily important in their own right. The "Seattle" remains are certainly not a complete airframe, but does represent a substantial portion of the aircraft, and is displayed in the south hangar of the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum. Bzuk (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
The case has not been made. And the contradictory and baseless dismissal of the plane's significance shows the case for merge fails. Your previous comment admitted the Chicago is a notable plane, which it clearly is. It was the lead plane and it and only one other were successful in being the first to circumnavigate the globe. No others succeeded. The Chicago was so celebrated that it was immediately installed in the premier museum the Smithsonian, where it is prominently on display still almost a century later. So, your analysis defies the notability established by the sources. As does your proposed arrangement of the articles. As the title of Douglas World Cruiser is about a class of plane then its contents necessarily must be about the design and development of the class per the naming policy. The significantly notable plane is and should remain at and under the natural name of the notable plane, the name under which it is still viewed by thousands every day. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for an article that essentially duplicates and repeats information already established in the main article on an aircraft type. The Douglas World Cruiser article is the story of an aircraft series of which the individual examples of a production series are merely part of the account. However, the new article, which now contains NO new or unique information still exists. The new article is summarily, titled incorrectly, has errors in formatting the aircraft account (note: aircraft, not airplane, aeroplane or plane, all colloquialisms or arcane usages), is written in an inconsistent style in terms of numbers, dates and terms, provides no bibliography of authoritative references sources, other than electronic sources which again are incorrectly formatted and does not follow the established guideline for articles written about aviation subjects as defined by the WP:Aviation group. The amount of work to redo the article is simply unnecessary as nothing that is there is essentially useful or not found in the main article. How much more clearly can it be stated? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
No. The article Douglas World Cruiser does not comply with the MOS or the naming conventions and has too much extraneous material and too little pertinent information about the design and development. Also because of your copy/paste it now has significant copyright issues and must be undone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge. The debates about "the name is X therefore...!" are a red herring; it's perfectly acceptable for the article to cover, in brief, notable examples of the type discussed - which is what Chicago is. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge no reason why the Chicago or the other individual aircraft cant be discussed at the type article, it doesnt appear to be any more notable than the others. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment:' The copyright and focus issues have been addressed in the rewrite. The two additional comments, I have now seen do not change the sourced facts showing the Chicago to be separately notable and that the naming convention in the organization of information should be followed. The minor issues with the Chicago (aircraft) article have been addressed or are inconsequential. The articles should not be merged. Editors should also note this article: First aerial circumnavigation for organizational clarity of what the Douglas article should cover.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The copyright was not a serious issue all that was needed was an attribution statement to the original article on this talk page. Discussion needs to run a bit longer yet but so far only one editor opposes the move so it is likely to happen. Most of the Chicago article just repeats info from the other articles so it would be much better served with a short section in this article. It may well be that all five could be discussed individually in the type article but none appear to warrant a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
Copyright is always a serious issue. Petebutt has said that this merge discussion will run three months, so we have al;ot of time to consider our options and work something out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The recent removal of content to bolster a case does not do anyone credit. FWiW, the complete merging of the new article into both the main aircraft type and the account of the circumnavigation flight is the proper means to rectify the situation. The merge request typically lasts only a week in order to allow editors a chance to participate. Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC).
I take exception to the charcterization. It added pertinent information like information on the people who actually designed the aircraft, production issues, and improved the lead per MOS lede. And is more focused on the topic. Since the person who opened it said three months we should go with that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge - avoids duplication of content. Its not as if the Chicago had a long and varied history after the circumnavigation that needs to be covered; it got plonked into the museum soon after. Whatever the concensus that emerges it should be obvious with a couple of weeks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge - with the limited size of both articles and a great amount of that material being duplicants of one another; I question the justification for a seperation between the two at this point - it seems more appropriate and normal to address them as one article as it stands currently. Kyteto (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge - there is really just too much overlap for separate articles. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Consensus is currently against my position, but for the record, overlap with other articles was intentionally increased by others with copying from Chicago (aircraft) during the above discussion. However, Douglas World Cruiser has also been further distinguished in detail from Chicago (aircraft) by subsequent edits to those articles. Additional distinguishing detail (on that aircraft's experience and particular museum history) has also been added to Chicago (aircraft) since July 7. The Chicago, and other planes at the Smithsonian have been described as "iconic" in RS; this continues to suggest to me that a separate article is warranted. (Regardless, should this ultimately close as merge, the article edit history of Chicago (aircraft) should be maintained via redirect page history for licensing purposes, as is required for the merges, past, present and future). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - I came here after seeing that the DYK nomination for Chicago (aircraft) is on hold pending the outcome of this merger. After reading these two articles, plus the related article First aerial circumnavigation, I formed the opinion (as a reader) that the three articles have independent merit and should remain separate. The Douglas World Cruiser article is about this particular airplane design and includes information about the handful of planes that were built to this design and their participation in the First aerial circumnavigation. It is reasonable for First aerial circumnavigation to be a separate article from this one because the circumnavigation was an event of interest independent of the aircraft design and because the article covers two events. Turning to Chicago (aircraft), I see multiple reasons to treat this particular airplane as notable independent of the general article about its design:
  • This is not merely the only surviving plane of its design; it is one of exactly two planes that completed the first circumnavigation. As such, it is comparable to other planes that participated in singular aviation feats, such as Spirit of St. Louis and Southern Cross (aircraft).
  • Since it is now a museum specimen, its particular story (who flew it, etc.) has now acquired some notability (i.e., published coverage) independent of its design. In that respect, it is similar to some buildings listed on historic registers, which were not unusual at the time they were built, but have become notable because they are still extant.
  • A significant part of the story of the Chicago is the story of the unsuccessful effort to display it in the city of Chicago, followed by its transfer to and preservation at the Smithsonian. This aspect of the plane's history is likely to be minimized or deleted as mere trivia in the context of an article about the aircraft design. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
All good points, but there are only 102 words in six sentences about the Chicago (aircraft) that are unique; these could easily be incorporated in the other two (main) articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC).
  • Yes it does appear to be a different philosophy and one that seems arbitrary. Douglas World Cruiser naturally has non-unique information from Douglas Aircraft Company and First aerial circumnavigation too. Tailoring the information to the article topic is the reasonable way to go for readers looking for specific or more general information on related subjects. When Chicago (aircraft) was created it did not have this non-uniqueness and there is no reason why it cannot be developed that way. In fact it has. Any editor should look carefully at all the articles in present form and not at stale arguments, and from a readers standpoint as you have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So can we remove the merge tag? Schwede66 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The count is 7-2 for merge but an agreement was struck for the merge proposal to stay for at least three weeks adequate time to address any other editors who wished to contribute. That time period has elapsed, and an admin can make the final disposition. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC).
I believe that Schwede66 is asking because the Chicago (aircraft) article was nominated for WP:DYK (as a bit of interesting new content to be featured briefly on the main page), but the nomination is in limbo while the merge template is on that article. If the article is merged, the DYK nomination will be rejected. If the merge template is removed from the article, then the nomination will be reviewed on its merits. --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just confirming that Orlady has correctly identify my motive for asking. Schwede66 05:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

  • I was asked to close this on my talk page. As it stands, I'm inclined to close it as 'merge'. Both sides have good arguments, but as pointed out above, while the plane itself may be 'iconic' and any number of similar adjectives, the article will never have much more content than it already has, and all of that is covered by Douglas World Cruiser and First aerial circumnavigation. Yet at the same time, I'm reminded of WP:SHIPS practice, where we have articles on the ship classes for detailed design information and specifications alongside articles on individual ships for their service lives (though yes, I am aware that individual aircraft are a tad bit smaller, less expensive, and shorter-lived than most ships).
  • Based on this conflicted viewpoint coming in, I suppose the question I have is why Chicago deserves a separate article when the other aircraft do not? If the rest of these articles are written, nearly all their content would be the same as Chicago, minus the museum aspect. So, the real question I've been driving to here, why would we not merge Chicago's content into First aerial circumnavigation, which covers all five of the aircraft's travels, while leaving Douglas World Cruiser for detailed design information and Smithsonian material?
  • Thanks for bearing with me here. If no one objects, I'll be happy to close this after my question has been answered. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned and dispassionate review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Thanks Ed, but I wonder if you have examined the articles, closely, and the ships point you made goes the other way. Chicago was the first to complete the circumnavigation, which may account for its RS notability. Moreover, I see no reason why other aircraft that have RS cannot be written about. Chicago (aircraft) has specific operational details about Chicago, (Chicago (aircraft)#Flight) the other unwritten articles would have those too, if RS exist. These details include Chicago's experiences in Vietnam, Calcutta, Over the Atlantic, and in Chicago. It also has details about the museum fight over the aircraft between Chicago and Washington, (Chicago (aircraft)#Today) and there is no basis for the claim that these could not be expanded, including more operational details and who was involved at the Smithsonian and the Army decision on its fate. I also don't understand why two who have expressed their views, one way, here, came to you about closing, instead of going to AN, if it really needs to be closed now instead of in the three months [1] the nominator said? Finally, why should readers have to go to multiple articles and pick through them when their interest is Chicago? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
My error in regards to time for the merge proposal as three months of "talk" was proposed, which still seems like a very long time. Are we getting into endless debate territory? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
Ed asked questions, so I assume he really wanted his comments and questions, further discussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
An article as written that could have been covered in other articles. The rest is verbiage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
No. The idea, that because no one has written other articles, so this one cannot exist needs to be fleshed out and that people who want to learn about the first plane to do something, have to pick through other articles does too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't all of this been expressed? Now it is Flogging a dead horse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ed asked the questions, so evidently not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
In short- I was wondering why the article shouldn't be merged into First aerial circumnavigation, rather than the proposed Douglas World Cruiser. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur, as typically one of the aircraft of a series is described in the main article on the aircraft type; although the exploits of the individual aircraft could also appear in the article on the "mission." FWiW: precisely the point that was made by all the adherents to the merge proposal. Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
For content development which depends on sources and editor/reader interest, it makes better sense to treat them as the separate topics they are (which is presumably why there was a request that the Chicago article be written); for reader interest, it makes better sense to put all the Chicago pertinent and detailed info where it can get due coverage in its own article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Typically when a new article is written, there is an effort made to see if the information is already present which is what led to the merge proposal, as the first thing that pops up in starting a new Wikipedia article is a listing of where the information already exists. The information already was present in two previously written articles and would be primarily duplicated. What remains as unique to the topic is then incorporated in existing articles. If you type in "New Orleans (airplane<sic>)", you are redirected to "Douglas World Cruiser (redirect from New Orleans (airplane))." FWiW, the New Orleans is also one of the series of Douglas World Cruisers that took part in the first circumnavigation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
Redirect often means it is a topic that someone wants to link to, but no one has written that specific article, yet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It also redirects the writer and/or viewer to the appropriate article that already contains information on that topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge completed

All the relevant unique aspects of the Chicago article have been merged into Douglas World Cruiser and First aerial circumnavigation articles. Please check to see if all the articles are properly revised. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_World_Cruiser/Archive_1&oldid=1218558409"