Talk:Airframe (novel)

message: I read this and as the article describes, there was a strong link to deals and joint ventures with Chinese government. I read in the McDonnell-Douglas article that they were also trying a joint venture with the Chinese, one of the reasons for their eventual death. It would seem likely that the Chinese aspect was at least partially based on McDonnell-Douglas even if they were presented as a seperate company (and the N-22 incident was based on a MD-11 incident anyway). Any comments? Nil Einne 19:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonnell-Douglas 

message: The N-22 incident was based on an MD-11 incident. The MD-11 page doesn't mention any incidents. I guess it's fairly minor, compared to the Airframe version but is it worth a wiki page? Anyone ready to add one? Nil Einne 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The MD-11 incident 

message: The article says that the accident was modelled after a 1993 accident of MD-11. There was another accident in the same timeframe - Aeroflot Flight 593 crash in March of 1994, it may have been more closely related to the story in the book. --Itinerant1 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the book is a blend of these two accidents. I do think however that the 1993 accident is the main inspiration and that the Aeroflot crash is more coincidence. But that's just me guessing. :) --J-Star 08:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aeroflot flight 593 

message: If the plot of a novel is described in a Wikipedia article, I think it should be done properly. I just read this book, and the following sentence in the description is simply wrong: 
"Embarrassed by the pilot's gross negligence, the Chinese attempted to cover up the entire incident by hiding the entire flight crew."
The crew is not hidden, first of all. Some are in hospital in the US, but mostly they return to their Hong Kong base - nothing illegal about this, since no law requires them to stay in the US (the incident happened in international airspace, for one thing). And of course it's not the Chinese who do this, since the airline is based in HK, which was still British at the time of the story. 
Gsandi 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot is not reported correctly 

message: :Image:Airframe cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Airframe cover.jpg

message: I removed the character of John Chang because he never actually appears in the book, he is only mentioned.  While he is important, he is really a minor character  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndmthght (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chang

message: I disagree with the relevance of drawing attention to Rising Sun & Disclosure in the lede of this article.  The article is about Airframe, not other novels - it's enough to mention that the writing style is in the minority, but not to the extent of naming others that fall into the same category.  When you look into it, there are many works by Crichton that don't feature scifi prominently (if at all) - The Great Train Robbery (novel), Eaters of the Dead, Binary (novel) etc.  Others such as State of Fear are probably not scifi as well.
The lede is to summarise the contents of the article proper - the two novels you name have no other mention in the article, and are of no import to this article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are that many MC novels in this category, then neither does the existing sentence re: non-scifi merit mention. Else it should be replicated in ledes of those others as well. Seems most economical to find a place for it somewhere in article pertaining MC works. My oh my how our logic contorts when we design to pick nits! Wikkileaker (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFF exists to counter "If x exists in article A, it should also exist in article B", but having looked at it, I would support removal of the entire phrase from the lede as you also suggest.  The comment isn't backed up in the rest of the article, so can be removed without issue.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey dokey. But if can find appropriate place for it in some other MC article someone in future who chances upon it may find it interesting. Wikkileaker (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other works in the lede