Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What frequencies?

The article totally omits any information on what frequencies are used for drone control. Could someone add this, at least for civilian UAVs? Military UAV control frequencies are likely secret, but I would think some information is available about what part of the radio spectrum is used. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Uncrewed vs. unmanned

Regarding this revert by BilCat of changes here and there from "unmanned" to "uncrewed"... In general, Wikipedia prefers gender-neutral language (MOS:S/HE), and I've been changing a lot of "unmanned" to "uncrewed" and "human" all over the encyclopedia. I know "unmanned aerial vehicle" is a common term in the defense industry, though "drone" is probably more common among members of the public. NASA's style guide now prefers gender-neutral terms like "human spaceflight" and "unpiloted" over "manned", except for proper nouns. I did a search online, and "uncrewed aerial vehicle" is certainly a term that is in general use. I wasn't quite ready to rename this article, but it seems like "uncrewed aerial vehicle" should be at least mentioned in the intro as an alternate term. I also didn't want to obliterate all references to unmanned anything from this article, but I assumed that Wikipedia when writing in its own voice should use "uncrewed" in this article as we do in other articles where we use "human", "uncrewed", "unstaffed", or "autonomous". What do you, BilCat, and other editors think about these two things? -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for thinking you changed all mentions, as I clearly overstated there. My objections are primarily to the Lead title line. However, this is also a WP:common name issue. I did a quick Google search on "unmanned aerial vehicle" and "uncrewed aerial vehicle", and found the former had 4 million ghits, as compared to 2 thousand for the latter! This clearly establishes "unmanned aerial vehicle" as the common name, which is my sole objection to the changes. I am open to variety in the body to "unmanned" when used alone, but not to the full term "unmanned aerial vehicle". - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

As a measure of good faith, and as as I do support listing alternate name in the title line per the MOS, I have added "uncrewed aerial vehicle" back to the title line as an alternate name, with a citation needed tag for a reliable source for usage. Note that Uncrewed aerial vehicle was created as a redirect about 6 months ago, and so should be in the lead on that basis too. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I was about to suggest the same. I can try to more delicately change to "uncrewed" in the body, avoiding any changes to acronym expansions this time, of which I think there were only one or two. -- Beland (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've no problem with that, and no objection to you doing that in the body while this discussion is ongoing, as it will help to illustrate the changes you desire. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unmanned" is the by far most common name, and WP:COMMONNAME (a Wikipedia policy) overrides WP:MOS (a guideline). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, "drone" is even far more common, but as a title is much more ambiguous, so as a title, the current one is preferable per natural disambiguation. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the last two posts. "Drone" is a far older term than "UAV" but WP:NATURALDIS dictates use of the neologism. Having accepted that, WP:COMMONNAME dictates the use of "Unmanned". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I’d like to echo the sentiment that unmanned appears to be the common name. Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Okey, I've made the small changes mentioned above, and I don't plan on making any further changes, if everyone's happy with what's there now. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The only gender-neutral definition for UAV that I have seen in reliable sources is the awkward Uninhabited aerial vehicle, which has been a WP redirect since 2005. 107.77.203.231 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've encountered 3 papers that use Unoccupied Aerial Vehicle. Should there be a brief section offering alternative gender-neutral terminology? -- Matthew Fricke

Not visible enough

Not sure why Delivery drone, Agricultural drone, Autonomous spaceport drone ship, Miniature UAV, Micro air vehicle are not incorporated in the article better as they have they own articles, and maybe in Template:Mobile robots.

There are also Biomimetic drones (Bionic bird deluxe is one example). 95.178.150.90 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Update on delivery drones required

The paragraph on transport drones is totally outdated. If I see right (I see but I can't believe it) the most recent reference is from 2018. That's in regards to such a quickly developing industry an eternity. Just look for yourselves what Yahoo has to say on a company specialised in delivery drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htcrlkn2Eq4 Don Aslan (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Why reverting for the names?

Why reverting names? Few people say UACV daily. And many drones are not for any military use.

Hi. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ as this will add your sig at the end so we know who you are.

You changed the wording to "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or uncrewed aerial vehicle, commonly known as a combat/military drone or drone...". The grammar of that change implies that all UAVs are sometimes referred to as combat/military drones. As you correctly note above, that is not the case. Also "combat/military" is just a description, it is not part of the object class name, any more that "civil/civilian" or "private" would be. It should be used only where a sentence is referring specifically to military use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Classifying UAVs

A long list of wing types has been added. When I reverted, it was restored. I see nothing specific to UAVs in the list, it is pretty much a comprehensive list for all aerodynes. It is not significant to UAVs just because some academic squeezed a paper on UAVs out of it. It need to be deleted. Does anybody have a problem with that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, there is nothing on that list that is specific to UAVs and I don't see how it adds any value. I vote for removing it. --McSly (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, based on the references [73][74][75][76], this is a common classification for UAVs, not in one paper, at least I have found 4 academic papers about it, please note that all of these references are review papers and are considered as secondary sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship) [it means that all of these sources are based on reviewing all the papers have published in their specific field], while there is a similar classification for manned aerial vehicles but it doesn't mean that it's not true about UAVs. In fact, drone designers always select their configuration from this list (based on their mission and the pros cons of each configuration). If you like it or not any UAV belongs to one of these configurations.

Furthurmore, this list is not just about wing type, the configuration of a UAV is different from wing type, not all configurations include wings, and just two categories in this list are about wing type. Configuration of a UAV determines the way a UAV uses to fly, it's more about their flight configuration, and this list includes all methods that have been used in UAVs to fly so far.

So I'm going to re-include it.

Beside of this list, I made some editions in that list, including:

adding appropriate headers

fixing typo mistakes

adding/removing references

and you have removed all of them. you should consider just editing some specific part of the content with acceptable reasons, not changing all of it with a reason that considers just a part of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saviorof (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Steady on there. As a user who has only just opened an account, you need to be aware that sanctions are taken against users who edit war. I posted a Welcome with a big blue button on your user talk page for a reason! In particular, I'd strongly recommend you read WP:EDITWAR, WP:Dispute resolution and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I strongly advise against aggressive behaviour or comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the list, let me try to be crystal clear. Such classifications apply to all powered aircraft. Simply noting that they also apply to UAVs does not make them significant in an article on UAVs. The list adds nothing except clutter to the article; by your argument we should also be listing every configuration of undercarriage type, engine position, construction material, etc. etc. I think you can see how absurd that would be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, Saviorof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please sign all your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This adds your sig to the end of your post and helps other users to follow who is talking about what. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to war with someone, also I can't find anything in my comment that seems to be aggressive.

Based on your opinion we shouldn't include any classification in any article. there are three types of classifications for drones and we should include them in the section "classification". one of them is based on weight and size (which almost all aviation organizations use such a classification), another is based on endurance and altitude (MALE, HALE, ...) and another one is based on configurations and flight mechanisms. in my opinion, we should include all of them because it helps the article. it's not "absurd" at all, it makes the subject clear, easy to understand, shows all of the latest developments, introduces all different available configurations.

Furthermore, almost any manned aircraft can be unmanned as well, so there is no specific classification that could be completely different from the classification of manned aircraft, but it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to classify the UAVs. That list represents all available configurations of UAVs. and definitely, we should include them in the section "classification" as well as two other common classifications.

These three classifications are definitely more useful, standard, and reliable than the current weird, referenceless classification that you have included. Saviorof (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating "So I'm going to re-include it." indicates an aggressive intent to ignore WP:BRD and editwar. "I think it should be restored" would have been better. Also, my opinion is backed up by McSly, who is another experienced editor. If you can gain greater consensus for your opinion, fine. But until then, you need to be realistic about how Wikipedia works. 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Finally, could you please clarify whether you made any recent edits as an IP editor, for example as 31.56.113.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who posted the original list? Failing to disclose multiple accounts creates a WP:SOCKPUPPET and earns grave sanctions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant that those are the reasons that make me sure to add those classifications, I didn't mean that I want to continue this cycle. So I suggest you add those classifications to this discussion so that other interested editors can vote for them.Saviorof (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if you include all three classifications that I have suggested.Saviorof (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides, if that list is just what you guys are disagreeing with, please re-include other editions I made.Saviorof (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You may find the edit where I deleted your latest version here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles

The section on Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles clutters up the contents and duplicates much of the dedicated article on the topic. Does anybody have any objections if I drastically cut it back to the main article link and a paragraph or two? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly useful additions

I've removed this text from Phantom (UAV) where it didn't belong, perhaps parts of it may be useful additions to this article:

Reception of drones generally

A drone enthusiast community called SkyPixel has been created to help drone users. Worldwide, drones are the subject of regulations for safety. For example, a number of incidents - such as a Phantom crash landing at the White House, has prompted authorities in the USA (FAA), the UK (Civil Aviation Authority) and Europe (EASA) to ban them in some locations (including airports) or regulate their use and require permits for commercial operators. 2015 Tokyo Drone Incident led to wide-reaching changes to regulations on drones in Japan. However, in the USA the FAA has granted exemptions for production in Hollywood, aerial surveillance, construction site monitoring, crop scouting in agriculture and photography in real estate.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 September 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. RM withdrawn. Noting that there is a strong opposition to the RM due to WP:NATDAB concerns, which the nominator acknowledged. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Unmanned aerial vehicle → Drone (unmanned aerial vehicle) – 'Drone' is the WP:COMMONNAME for unmanned aerial vehicles, and is therefore what people will search for when looking for this page. Nevertheless it is not unambiguous, so (unmanned aerial vehicle) should be kept per WP:NATURAL A.D.Hope (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - No evidence has been presented that "drone" is the most common name. In fact, I'd argue that "UAV" is as common, if not more so, depending on the context. Also, in modern usage, "drone" generally refers to the smaller, personal or commercial types, as opposed to larger military and government types, which generally use "UAV" or other similar terms (RPV, RPA, etc.) Finally, "unmanned aerial vehicle" isn't a valid disambiguator, partly because it can be taken as implying the subject is a specific model/brand. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  'Drone' is used, so far as I can tell, by most major news outlets when referring to UAVs. Just recently, for example:

  • Al Jazeera
  • The Guardian
  • The Telegraph
  • Reuters
  • BBC
  • CNN

  That suggests that 'drone' is at least partially synonymous with 'UAV' in common usage.

  I'm not sure why '(unmanned aerial vehicle)' as a disambiguator would imply 'Drone' is a brand. Many articles use bracketed disambiguation without seeming to run into that problem, and any confusion would quickly be cleared up in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Withdrawn As a common human American when I think of Unmanned aerial vehicles I think Drone, also, if I didn't know anything about Unmanned aerial vehicles, I would search for what I've always heard it called Drone. My 2¢. I will also add that the purposed name covers both sides, it seems. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed parenthetical disambiguator "(unmanned aerial vehicle)" is a complete synonym for the topic description. As far as I know, Wikipedia never titles article like that. Something like "Drone (aircraft)" or "Drone (aerial vehicle)" seems like a better possibility if something along this line of thinking is to be considered (and also more WP:CONCISE). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the proposed title is a complete synonym, as 'drone' can also refer to, for example, underwater drones or drones bees. The latter article is titled Drone (bee), in fact. I do take your point about concision though, thank you for the suggestions! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Although there are other meanings of 'drone', in this proposal "unmanned aerial vehicle" is a complete synonym for this meaning of 'drone'. A parenthetical disambiguation term should be a context clarifier, not an alternative complete identifier for the topic. In this proposal, "unmanned aerial vehicle" is a complete identification of the topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure what you mean, sorry. Would you mind rephrasing? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  What I'm trying to say is that the term inside the parentheses is too specific. It should be more general than the term that precedes it outside the parentheses. The term inside the parentheses should just clarify the context for interpretation of the term that is outside the parentheses. In this proposal, the term inside the parentheses is a complete description of the topic, making the term outside the parentheses unnecessary and thus making the title redundant. So if you want "Drone" outside the parentheses, you should put something more general inside the parentheses, like just "aircraft" or "aerial vehicle" rather than "unmanned aerial vehicle". The submitted proposal is analogous to using "Drone (male honey bee)" rather than "Drone (bee)" or "Los Angeles (X album released in 1980)" rather than "Los Angeles (X album)". (There was only one X album released in 1980.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I see! Thank you for taking the time to explain, it's very helpful of you.

  It seems very unlikely now that any move will be made, but 'Drone (aircraft)' would work better than my proposal for the reasons you mention. A.D.Hope (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Foo (aircraft)" is the format generally used for names of individual aircraft, so would not be a recommended disambiguator in this case. BilCat (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - lack of evidence to show proposed title is better under the article name guidelines and conventions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The proposed title uses the WP:COMMONNAME with a disambiguator, whereas the current title uses a technical name. In my opinion that makes the proposed title better. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You haven't shown that its the Common Name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I have given evidence which suggests it is. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any evidence that drone is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. Is it sometimes used to describe the subject? Yes, undoubtedly. However even if it were the commonname, Drone is already a DAB, so it would need a parenthetical disambiguation. Thankfully we can avoid that by using a natural disambiguation: Unmanned aerial vehicle, the title it's already at. In fact, even the sources that were shared above as an example of the usage of "drone" uses the word drone colloquially, but also specify that they mean "unmanned aerial vehicle" and use that in the same article. In fact with the exception of the BBC article, every single example listed above to support the commonality of the word drone also very specifically uses "unmanned aerial vehicle" in the article to specify what they're actually talking about within the prose. If those examples were meant to show that this article's current title is not used in reliable sources, they fail to demonstrate that and in fact support the current title. There's no reason to move the article. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Does the fact that all those articles use 'drone' as the primary term not suggest that it's the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME? Noting that a cat is a feline does not make the latter the common name, after all. UAV being a natural disambiguator carries more weight as an argument, I'd argue. --A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, it suggests news editors like short words in titles. BilCat (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  'Drone' is used throughout the articles after the disambiguation, though. I think I'm right in saying that only the Guardian article uses 'UAV' more than once. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I can see this move isn't going to pass, and I do think the Wikipedia:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION argument is solid. If all comments were in opposition I'd close the move request early, but as they aren't I don't think there's any choice but to wait it out (correct me if I'm wrong). A.D.Hope (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you can withdraw the request, but I don't the guidelines on when then isn't permitted. Perhaps someone else knows. BilCat (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The relevant bit of guidance at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions is 'a move request proposer may close their own move request as withdrawn if no one has commented yet, or if opposition is unanimous'.

Since there's one comment in support I'm not able to withdraw the move, but I would if that weren't the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Got it. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Adding citations for the infrastructure inspection application of UAVs.

• Specific text to be added: I'd like to add a few references for the infrastrucutre inspection application of UAVs in the introductory part of the article.
• Reasons for adding: Nowadays it is one of the most common and successful application of UAV and I think some references may help the reader weigh that importance.
• Problem: Since I am author of one of the works I'd like to cite, it is a clear case of COI. However, I do not think I am falling into a case of mere advertising since this addition helps the reader to deepen his knowledge on this application of UAVs.
• References to be added:

Bnontn89 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

To anyone reading and reviewing this edit request: The requesting user (Bnontn89) has stated that (at least) the first reference listed in this request was written by them (both in their request above, and in a discussion on my user talk page). Adding that reference to the article would likely violate Wikipedia's no original research and verifiability (self-published sources section) policies. I highly recommend that the other two references listed also be looked into as well. See the conversation between Bnontn89 and myself on my user talk page for more information (diff, permalink). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Oshwah! I report here part of the answer I gave you on your user talk page beacuse I think it could be useful to other editors.

In Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy there is a specific paragraph on self citation. I report it here for the sake of completeness: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming."

I am in line with this guideline in at least three aspects: 1) I am proposing the edit on the article's talk page; 2) My references are very relevant to the topic since infrastructure inspection (the topic of the three papers) is one of the main applications of UAVs and it is already mentioned in the UAV wikipedia article introduction 3) My article is not the only one I cite, and it is the only self citation I have ever requested on wikipedia, thus certainly avoiding any possible accusation of spamming. The ultimate and only goal is to give the wikipedia reader verifiable references on this application of UAVs, which will allow him or her to investigate the topic further.

Bnontn89 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bnontn89, and thanks for responding here. :-) I hope that you understand that I'm not responding here to come after you or to accuse you of any bad-faith or malicious wrongdoing; in fact, I've re-worded the response I made above - I don't see this as a conflict of interest issue and I apologize for citing it. :-) I just want to make sure that anyone who reviews your edit request are aware of and take into account the fact that (at least part of) what you're attempting to add to the article may be original research.

One important part of the text that you quoted from the conflict of interest guideline is that your self-written sources must conform "to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB" (emphasis mine with the italicizing of the text). That Wikipedia link points to the section on self-published sources within Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In that section, it states that self-published material is "largely not acceptable as sources" and due to the fact that "[a]nyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert." However, this section also states that "[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (emphasis not mine; this was emphasized in the policy page text). This is what the conflict of interest guideline text that you quoted refers to.

Is the content that I quoted from Wikipedia's verifiability applicable to you? Are you an an established subject-matter expert? Has your work (including the self-published references that you wrote and referenced in this article) previously been published by reliable, independent publications? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oshwah I don't think that paper counts as self-pub'd. It's on MDPI, which does have questionable reliability but is still peer-reviewed. At least a bit. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:CITEKILL (and possibly MOS:CITELEAD) I don't think there's enough value to adding 3 sources to an already accepted statement (though they may provide good material for additions elsewhere). GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

what does this mean?

"UAVs are real-time systems that require high-frequency to changing sensor data."

high-frequency what? I suspect it's intended to convey that the system must respond quickly to sensor data, but the writer's sense of drama has overtaken his need to convey actual information. or else it's a typo.

beyond this point, I found the article increasingly badly written, with a jargonistic use of nouns-as-verbs & so on.

duncanrmi (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"which?"

The current text has "By 2013 at least 50 countries used UAVs. China, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, and others - which? -". (I removed the markup there)

Look at the context. It says there are at least 50. Listing anything less than 50 would still warrant "which?". The question is either meaningless or it will leave a list of 50 countries which would be daft and quickly obsolete. I've removed the question. Someone might like to replace it with a more reasonable tag. JohnHarris (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it says that by 2014 there were at least 50 countries. One might presime that the list has grown since then. (There are currently 49 WP categories of the form "Unmanned aerial vehicles of ...".) I don't think we need that statement, and I suspect it wouild be difficult to find a reliable source for a specific number. It will be enough to state that UAVs are in use in many countries. It might be useful to provide a list of countries that are known to manufacture and export UAVs, but if it turns out that a great many countries do so, then I'd be sort of 'meh' about having that list. Donald Albury 21:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 9 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makuraren (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Makuraren (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Too broad

Does it really make sense to combine $50 quadcopters with $1B military drones in the same article like they're equivalent? They're massively different things and much of what applies to one is irrelevant for the other. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Gendered language

Suggest using Uncrewed instead of Unmanned. 23.162.40.96 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Article titles are controlled by the policy at Wikipedia:Article titles, which says that [a]rticle titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. You will need to demonstrate that "uncrewed aerial vehicle" has replaced "unmanned aerial vehicle" in common usage for the topic to have much hope in changing the name of this article. Donald Albury 01:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)