The Internet Movie Plane Database

Hello !

Next month, we will see The Expendables 2 on our screen.
I've built a page with two trailers and found a SA-2 (sorry ! please read: S-75 Dvina).

It's the second time after the action found in Firefox.
I was ready to make a page dedicated but how to title it ?

== [[:Category: Lavochkin S-75 Dvina|S-75 Dvina (NATO code name : SA-2 Guideline)]] == ?

Others russian products category pages don't display their NATO code name but most airplane are now well known by their manufacturer's type.
I'm afraid that's this isn't right about missiles. Wikipedia put their NATO code name just under the title page and frequently just under the original naming (look at the picture's type).
But it's too a patchwork of real name crossing with just the NATO name through the text.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina for example.

So I hold my reflexion and SA-2 in Expendables2 and this seen in Firefox will be upgrade later, once moderators have made the good choice !

BTW, I'm sorry but last week I made the page for the DH114 Heron.
But I failed to type it correctly and a wrong title has been generated.
http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=De ... H114_Heron

So, I immediatly tried to cancel it without success then to remove it from Category:de Havilland Aircraft Company. I failed again...
Could you correct this please ?

Neverless, the right DH114 Heron is already done. (http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=Ca ... H114_Heron)

Regards.

Thanks for all your work recently!! It's great to see some other users contributing, and hopefully benefiting from it as well.

Our guidelines state that an aircraft should be titled: (Manufacturer name) (Alpha-numeric designation) (Common name), where the "Common name" is officially known as i.e. by a Government; or formally designated by the manufacturer.

The "Common name" is clearly where the issue occurs but to avoid biased it best to only use names that are issued by the manufacturer or national government. This can be seen in examples of other military aircraft, NATO names are not used as they are not designated by the sovereign nation.

In this case, however, I do not believe that the section should be included at all as the item in question is a missile system, NOT an aircraft. We have just about allowed space rockets, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I would therefore remove it from The Expendables 2 and Firefox.

In regards to the DH114 Heron, I have deleted the page (only possible by higher-level admins).

For future reference, pages are added to a Category by the use of the '[[Category:]]' tags, not on the actual category page itself. So to remove the DH114 page from the DH Category, you would remove the [[Category:de Havilland Aircraft Company]] from the DH114 page.

Thanks to draw the line as the the difference between Saturn and a Sam is tiny (both hasn't wings)... moreover when the last one is built by an aircraft manufacturer (Lavochkine) !

So things are clear now and this will help me (and others) to work more efficently.

Thanks to have correct the De Havilland page and, again, all my apologizes.

I agree the line between the Launch rockets and missiles is very small. I think we justify it by saying that the Launch rockets are supporting spacecraft for example and, are at some point, part of the space vehicle. ICBMs for example, although similar in size wouldn't be allowed.

Don't worry about getting things wrong, that's why there's a community of us. Although I'm a bit behind at the moment, partly due to all the great work you guys are doing, I do actually go and check all the pages you do!

I'm facing a new question...

Recently, I've identify a Ryan aircraft and made a category page for it as it was already on another page.

Then I realise that it was the third Ryan product and was ready to built a manufacturer category page when I saw that all the two first are under ... North American Aviation !

How strange as Ryan was in fact merged with Northrop grumman (look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Aeronautical#Postwar )

But before this fate, Ryan was a manufacturer of its own and should have its own page, isn't it ?

After all, Heinkel or Republic Aviation do no more exists but have a dedicated category; their planes are not the follower owner.

Or did I miss something ?

Good point. It does seem like it deserves it's own page. Anyone else want to chime in before we go forward with this change?

Carry on