Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 17 February 2015

Articles for creation Start‑class

This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article was accepted on 14 January 2012 by reviewer Ktr101 (talk · contribs).

Aviation B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Specifications?

Where do those figures come from? The Airbus website cited gives no firm information. Airliners.net is actually a PHOTO website. I especially doubt the seating figures that give a 15% increase in seating capacity over the A320. Geometry hasn't changed so I doubt there will be space for FIVE more rows of seats. Nomad (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yea i was workin on that, someone changed the numbers without a source, never got back on that one. The stats wich are on now are from the Airbus website, like the source tells. Njirk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That was the first source I checked. Airbus website has very limited information about neo. Definitely not specs. Nomad (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Recentism

This article is the bright example of throwing "latest news" in the encyclopedia. There is no need at this stage to have a separate article. There is absolutely nothing to say about A320neo that wasn't said in the A320 article. I seriously doubt A320neo is a separate airplane. It should be viewed merely as a modification of A320. Nomad (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The page specifies the A320neo wider as the main page does. Why do you think 737max has its own page? if readers want to know exactly what the A320neo is, this page tells them what it is way better as the main page. On this page its Only the A320neo, not the history of the A320.Njirk (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't specify neo wider. And it's a VERY good question - why 737 MAX has its own page if the plane won't fly till 2017? At least (unlike this page) 737 MAX page gives SOME information - new fan diameter, some information about the interior. What exactly is different on this page from what was said on the main page? Actually, I'll put it differently - what here couldn't be said on the A320 page? So far, neo is just a future project with as much as no information about it. I doubt even the Airbus engineers know much more at this stage. Why have a separate page instead of just another paragraph in the neo section on the main page? Nomad (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you decided to create and maintain it, could you add the Airbus aircraft template at the bottom. Nomad (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

sry, i have no idea how to add the airbus aircraft template at the bottom, dont even have an idea what that is :P Njirk (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Njirk here, if ppl want to find out information about the A320neo, they would probably like to know more than just a paragraph on the A320 article. Also, with a separate article we can list orders here, which there are a lot of. —Compdude 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in that orders need a separate section. But I still can't agree with the idea of a separate article about something SO far in future. If people want to find out information about A320neo, they'll need to... wait. Because there is absolutely nothing that they can read about it - Airbus hasn't revealed any public information except for some conceptual PR-stuff. And the way this article is written actually proves my point - the tech spec figures cite a SPOTTERS website as a source of information, most numbers are unrealistic... This means that nobody really knows anything about this new plane.

I insist that this article violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Nomad (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should bring this up on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page to get the views of more editors on this issue. —Compdude 05:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, by the time they come to any conclusion we'll have more information about this aircraft family and the existence of this article will be justified. :-)) Actually, I understand the authors quite well - I myself wrote the Russian article about Boeing 737 MAX, so... mea culpa. :-D

I've added the categories and updated the Airbus aircraft template. If this article exists, it should at least be presentable.

Actually, do you guys realize what you got yourself into? For the next three years your job will be to try and maintain the difference between A320 and A320neo articles. Welcome to HELL! *evil laughter* And good luck! Nomad (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

NO_x emissions

I seriously doubt Airbus will reduce NO_x emissions by 50% compared to the A320 series. The prooflink is dead and I suspect this was a typo. Nomad (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done

...some things. Tagremover (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtube: see A320: NOT used as reference proving something, but as related note. Youtube links are ok if they do not prove anything, just giving details.

Try to get some A320NEO experience first BEFORE REVERTING MAJOR EDITS! Read for example the WHOLE A320 article. This will help understand my edits. Nikthestunned: STOP EDIT WAR. You replaced my new version with your old edited version. Tagremover (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely, definitely, do not need to know ANYTHING about the A320neo to tell when some refs need fixing as they have no template and no reference information. As such, no, I won't be reading all of this technical information. I have, however, now fixed up the references and removed youtube links without losing your changes. Re: your comment on Youtube: Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Cheers, Nikthestunned 18:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just TRY to know something about the aircraft articles: READ AND LEARN ! Tagremover (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I really hope someone else comes along and fixes these up, as I don't care enough any more. Insert all the random links you like! Also, learn a little more about how Misplaced Pages works - I do not need to know anything about this subject to know a bunch of your edits are against the manual-of-style. Enjoy. Nikthestunned 09:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A321 NEO LR

It's official. Someone edit this page, and add more information. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2015-01-13/airbus-launches-long-range-a321neo --Trulystand700 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of relevant text and edits.

Someone keeps removing an edit I added about the fact that the A320neo is not a new aircraft. It is a re-engine program. Plenty of information regarding this can be found online. To imply that Airbus is building new A320s called the "A320neo" is a lie. They're rebuilding existing aircraft with new engines, updated interiors and exterior modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Stop edit-war. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trymeonce:, could you provide specific sources that back up your claim? As what you say seems unlikely. --McSly (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@McSly: Thanks for helping. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Although it's deemed "New Engine Option" it's nothing applicable to the basic/older A320. Although the airframe does not seem to be new, there are multiple internal changes + modifications to wings.--Denniss (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/14 January 2012
• Accepted AfC submissions
• B-Class aviation articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles