Talk:Aircraft

Aerodyne and Aerostat

The article doesn't explain the terms aerodyne and aerostat (sp?); I guess maybe the difference is analogous to the difference between dynamic and static stability in control theory? -- the dynamic version only achieves lift dynamically, but the latter version has lift statically, or intrinsically? Pagan 09:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aircraft article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aircraft}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flight altitude records

Create a list for aircraft flight altitude records.

manned, crewed or what?

Somebody just change every instance of "manned" to "crewed". I reverted it because, while gender equality is very laudable, the choice of alternative is technically wrong. Manned flight includes passenger-only flights, such as that of Cayley's first glider, "manned" by a boy. Per WP:COMMONNAME it also traditionally includes flights by the equally politically incorrect aviatrix, such as Amelia Earhart or Amy Johnson. let us perhaps recall that Homo sapiens, Latin for "Wise man", nowadays includes the female of the species. The sum of crew and passengers is known as the aircraft's "complement". But no biologist is seeking to reclassify us as Complementum sapiens or any such neutral euphemism. Can we please maintain technical correctness, readability and common usage here, and avoid transparent euphemisms? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur. In many cases, including this one, the WP:GNL essay violates guidelines, such as MOS:NEO. BilCat (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GNL is not an essay. I'd also be wary of calling new gender-neutral terms neologisms, there's a clear reason for their use. In hindsight I shouldn't have changed all the mentions to "crewed" though. One pilot does not a crew make. The lede still suggests "crewed" is the proper term, so maybe @Steelpillow should look into changing that too? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with the lead as it is. The term "crew" is ambiguous; on the one hand we may talk of say a "Captain and crew", but on the other we may say that a plane has a "crew of three", meaning a pilot Captain and two additional persons. A tethered observation balloon, and a few other examples, may have a crew but no pilot. A few aircraft have carried passengers but no onboard crew at all (ancient Chinese punishment kites, for example), but these points are too minor for the lede. At some point we will have a rash of pilotless air taxis and the like appearing, and we will have to revisit the lede, but probably not for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@HansVonStuttgart: My apologies for confusing WP:GNL with MOS:GNL. (Something should be done to remove the confusion.) But I stand by my other point that many cases of GNL are neologistic, especially this one. To state this another way, "manned aircraft"/"unmanned aircraft" and "crewed aircraft"/"uncrewed aircraft" are not currently interchangeable in most cases, as Steelpillow's examples illustrate. That may change in the future, and the terms will evolve to fill in the nuances, but we aren't there yet, which is the point of MOS:NEO. However, "manned spacecraft" and "crewed spacecraft" are mostly interchangeable, and NASA has been using the latter instead of the former for a number of years. BilCat (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

We should note that while MOS:GNL is indeed not an essay (as WP:GNL is), it is not binding policy either; it sits within WP:MOS and as such is a guideline. Within this status in mind, it recommends us to "Use gender-neutral language – avoiding the generic he and generic she, for example – if this can be done with clarity and precision." Often, as here, it can not be. As for neologisms, the article on the neologism and WP:NEO both agree that a neologism may already have become widely accepted (and even notable enough for its own article), whereas MOS:NEO treats it as an unacceptable fringe term. Since the latter is only a guideline, while WP:MOS is policy, one must question this recommendation of the style guide. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)