Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Airbus A380: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs)
Administrators
87,627 edits
rv, okay now you're just being disruptive.
Tdadamemd19 (talk | contribs)
429 edits
Line 159: Line 159:


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

== Readers deserve an explanation as to why the A380 failed ==

This edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A380&diff=883301584&oldid=883300764 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A380&diff=883301584&oldid=883300764] by User:CALDlykLIJ has buried any explanation regarding why A380 production is being ended, and why the program never came close to recovering development costs. The lede, as it stands right now, gives no hint whatsoever. I see this to be a gross disservice to the reader. I understand that there are people who are very emotional about the A380, and will want to present this article in a way that requires the reader to dig to get a clue as to what happened. But if we are to do our jobs properly as Wikipedia editors here, then we will present the story straight and clear:

The reason why the A380 failed is because the paradigm it was designed for, the hub-and-spoke system, was largely replaced by the point-to-point system. And so the industry has seen successes with smaller two-engine aircraft. Evidence the fact that more than 1400 787s have been ordered, averaging almost 90 per year, whereas the A380 has gotten 313 orders, averaging less than 17 per year.

Our readers deserve better. If the justification for deleting the explanation presented is because it included no references, then the proper fix is to add references. My understanding is that this is info that has been widely known for well over a decade. --[[User:Tdadamemd19|Tdadamemd19]] ([[User talk:Tdadamemd19|talk]]) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:47, 14 February 2019

Template:Vital article

Good articleAirbus A380 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 9, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article


Requirements for Accident/Incident Inclusion - Aviation Safety may be too limited as an exclusive source

I discovered this incident, where a door seal failed at altitude forcing an Emergency Landing to avoid possible slow decompression. https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2014/20140106_A380_9V-SKE.pdf The worrisome point is that the plane was flown again (return leg) after a cabin door was excessively noisy, because no cause could be immediately found. The noise re-occurred and became extremely loud, and finally cabin air began escaping through the door, prompting an Emergency Diversion. Cabin doors had already been modified to attempt to resolve a crack problem, but still were insufficiently robust. Dfoofnik (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (Dfoofnik)[reply]

Thanks. I'd take a look at WP:AIRCRASH - it lays out some guidelines on what makes an incident significant enough to be included in an article. Based on the info provided, I don't think this incident meets those guidelines. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Airbus A380. 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:

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) 10:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One under "operators"

Hello! Under the "Operators" heading is a paragraph explaining that the A380 was briefly considered as an "Air Force One" for the United States. Since Airbus/EADS never bid for the contract, having this info under the "operators" section makes no sense- the USAF was never close to being an operator. Is there a more appropriate section for this info? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I moved the subsection under Variants instead. --Finlayson (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it from =Market= because 2 planes won't make or break a market, and didn't know where to put it, so it went to =operators= given the usaf was a potential operator. =variants= isn't great either, even if there was modifications, the main point is the potential sale, so i moved it again in =Orders and deliveries=. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see good reason(s) for it to be under Operators either; there is/was no connection to current or future operators that I can see. So I moved the single paragraph to be under Development. I don't think there is enough info to need a separate subsection also. Any better ideas on this? --Finlayson (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't in Operators, but in =Orders= as the main point was the potential order, not the tech devlpmt. =Dev= isn't well suited. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this previous version of article that I edited here. It was a proposed variant/version too, but that wasn't right or good enough either. --Finlayson (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A380neo to A380plus

If the A380neo is not in issue anymore, then maybe it would make sense if the A380plus gets its own heading. Furthermore, it could be more emphasized, that the neo variant is discarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380 plus

Airbus Just Upgraded the World’s Largest Passenger Jet (Airbus A380 plus) - [1]. Please update the article. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Airbus A380. 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:

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) 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A380. 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:

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) 00:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A380. 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:

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) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readers deserve an explanation as to why the A380 failed

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A380&diff=883301584&oldid=883300764 by User:CALDlykLIJ has buried any explanation regarding why A380 production is being ended, and why the program never came close to recovering development costs. The lede, as it stands right now, gives no hint whatsoever. I see this to be a gross disservice to the reader. I understand that there are people who are very emotional about the A380, and will want to present this article in a way that requires the reader to dig to get a clue as to what happened. But if we are to do our jobs properly as Wikipedia editors here, then we will present the story straight and clear:

The reason why the A380 failed is because the paradigm it was designed for, the hub-and-spoke system, was largely replaced by the point-to-point system. And so the industry has seen successes with smaller two-engine aircraft. Evidence the fact that more than 1400 787s have been ordered, averaging almost 90 per year, whereas the A380 has gotten 313 orders, averaging less than 17 per year.

Our readers deserve better. If the justification for deleting the explanation presented is because it included no references, then the proper fix is to add references. My understanding is that this is info that has been widely known for well over a decade. --Tdadamemd19 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F883304265