Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Khalidkhoso 11:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known which of "D.H.5" or "DH.5" is the correct or preferred spelling of this aircraft? All the links in the De Havilland info box seem to use the "DH.n" designation. Could someone confirm that this is the preferred name, before I move this page. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern useage would actually be DH 5. Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I think DH.5, D.H.5, DH-5, DH5 and DH 5 are all equally valid. Does Wikipedia favour one style over the others? Drutt (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They might all be valid (and therefore a user searching for any of them will be taken to the article via redirects), but it makes sense to standardise on a particular form for article writing and for article naming purposes within Wikipedia – it looks more "professional" if things like this match! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might make sense to standardise on "DH.5" - purely for consistency with "DH.4" etc. But none of the forms mentioned has any claim to be the only "correct" one, in fact "D.H.5" is probably the most widely used in older sources. Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "DH.5" is still the front-runner. Changing all the articles to "DH n" (with a space) might be a huge job! I'll give it a few more days in case anyone vehemently disagrees, then if it's still okay, I'll change the article accordingly. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is certainly a large number of different designations, the "standard" as such that was adopted in the United Kingdom after the Second World War was to eliminate the "period" in military designations, for example, "Mk. IX" became "Mk IX" and DH. 108 became "DH 108." Dependant on the date of publication, you will continue to see a wide variation in the so-called standard, but [1] and [2] give examples of current use. It probably matters little because the first authors/editors influenced the use of designations in the articles but if you check De Havilland Aircraft, you will notice the preponderance of "DH" designations compared to "DH." From this point on in historical research, the use of the "DH." prefix will gradually disappear, despite the efforts of some "purists" who will continue to support the older convention. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC). Not that there is anything wrong with being a "purist" in the best Seinfeld tradition of not really taking a stand. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have bitten the bullet and moved this one - although all the other Airco DH types will need moving to match. I have fixed a few of the links - but there are still some to do. Is there an automatic way of doing this?? Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big job you've undertaken there. It's not just the De Havilland planes that use the XX.Y or X.Y numbering format on Wikipedia, but most British manufacturers of the day. Drutt (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taking place here, since it involves more than just this particular article. The current format for DH planes is DH.X, and if a change is needed that will affect many aircraft pages, it needs to be discussed there first. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it flew for the first time in October 1916, not August. Can anyone confirm either date? Drutt (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the site in question to be generally accurate although Jackson notes that by the end of 1916, service examples of the DH 5 were already at the front which predicates against the October date. The normal practise was to have a maiden test flight followed by manufacturers' trials and operational evaluation, each of which may take some time, albeit shortened in the case of a simple aircraft, especially in the press of wartime conditions in the First World War. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]