Talk:Robinson R44

Rating

I disagree with this article being classed as a stub. It contains a lot of information for this type of article. --GW_Simulations 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

reclassed as Start-Class. --Born2flie 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

File:ROBINSON R44 HELICOPTER.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ROBINSON R44 HELICOPTER.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Recomended grounding of certain models in Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-05/unsafe-robinson-helicopters-to-be-grounded/4611458 if someone is interested in including? TinTin (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue with a table

It's concise and well-referenced, and shows at a glance how the R44 accidents in Australia compare with others. Looking forward to hearing from the folks that feel so strongly about this that they are reverting my other changes too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently tweaked the accidents and incidents section as it clearly was unbalanced, Bilcat just reverted it back to this more "balanced" version. The table doesnt add anything and the relevant info is still in the article text. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what's "clearly unbalanced"/ Bilcat's edit summary did not match what he reverted as he removed more than the table that his edit summary indicated. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt matter Bilcat was challenging your change so really you need to explain why you want to change the article and gain consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Milb1, I was reverting to the more-balanced version you wrote. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Socrates2008, you need to understand that Wikipeida must maintain a neutral point of view; it is not for advocacy and is not the place to right great wrongs. If you have conecerns about the safety of Robinson helicopters, you need to do so on a blog, or to write an opinion piece for a website or newspaper; an encyclopedia is not the place to push the implication that they are inherently unsafe. Also, the fair-use photograph of the fuel tank fails WP:NFCC #8, as it does not add to readers' understanding of the article and removing it does not reduce their understanding. (Not to mention that a 1500x1196 picture far exceeds the standards of "fair use"; general practice is that a fair-use image should be no larger than 200-300px on its largest dimension.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robinson R44. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105133245/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=6703 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=6703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2022 Crash

Not sore over my edit being reverted, realized I missed that part of the MOS. However, as Bilcat noted on his page, it may not be notable now but it may become notable whenever more information comes to light. So we should keep an eye on the news/FAA reports for the crash as they unfold and not disregard it entirely. If the crash was a flaw in the craft itself hitherto not covered in this article, we may want to put it back in. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Any accident can be later added if it is later shown to be notable, but at this point in time that one seems to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. If the investigation results in an airworthiness directive or other lasting effect it can be reinstated. The simple fact is out of 6300 built, hundreds of R44s have crashed and most accidents are not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)