Talk:Aerobatics

message: The famous teams list has become long and ungainly, and a lot of people are jockeying for their favorite team to be first in the list. The list also does not add any content about aerobatics itself. Thus I have moved it to the end of the article. Daleh 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving of famous teams to end of article 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I lifted this from P-51:
* Cloud Dancer  (1980): a melodramatic tale of aerobatic fliers includes aerial sequences with a P-51.
if anybody wants to try & figure out if it belongs.  Trekphiler (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild Mustang

message: Hi, my site "aerobaticteams DOT net" is blacklisted for a long time since my past webmaster spaming to reach me more trafic. Since that stuped thing my site is blacklisted. Please help if you have time to see my site and insure that Aerobatic teams website is not a spam site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.77.142 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerobatic Teams website 

message: On 30 April IP address 130.216.133.23 (possibly MarkC) edited the introductory section.  I have reverted the edit for the following reasons:
* The additional text was undoubtedly correct technically, but it was too dense with jargon and technical specialisation for the introductory paragraphs.  If this text has a place in Aerobatics it belongs further down in the article, under its appropriate sub-heading.
: OK then what should be in it? I think a formal definition is OK and it's pretty much the same for the CAA in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. I don't see the "jargon" as being that dense... but would you like to clarify what aerobatics is more simply?
* The article cited USA FAA publications, including USA regulations.  This is commendable, but placing such emphasis in the second and subsequent sentences gives the reader the impression that aerobatics is a USA activity.  It is not.  Aerobatics are practised universally.  Wikipedia is not a USA encyclopedia.  Wherever possible, articles should present a world-wide perspective on things.
:As above, do we just need to add other countries? the referencing will get a bit tedious, and the FAA definition is widely echoed.
* Jim Ward has proposed a moratorium on edits on this subject by himself, myself and MarkC, until some degree of consensus can be achieved.  I think it is a very good idea that we move forward carefully, comparing ideas and seeking agreement on what belongs where.  Dolphin51 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: It appears to me that the section Aerobatics#Aerobatic Solo Performers has become a site for commercial advertising.  There are some links there, but they are external links, not Wikilinks.  There is now some evidence of a commercial battle taking place at this section.  One solo performer with a new Wikipedia account has deleted the external links to two other performers, presumably commercial competitors.  See the diff.
I think the section should be deleted until there is a solo aerobatic performer who has his (or her) own Wikipedia article that can be listed under such a heading. Dolphin (t) 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The offending section has now been deleted.  See diff. Dolphin (t) 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial advertising 

message: The article seems to have more content devoted to a list of aerobatic teams than aerobatics itself. Can we prune / delete this or move it to a list article? (Hohum @) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the creation of a list article. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of aerobatic teams. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aerobatics. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redbullusa.com/en/ArticlePage.1165622311204-62961151/htmlArticlePage.action
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714195416/http://www.northwestaerobatics.com/decathlon.htm to http://www.northwestaerobatics.com/decathlon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the Overview section: "Among the earliest innovators in aerobatics the Frenchman Euclid's name is foremost." Frankly, I very much doubt this unsourced assertion, added by an IP back in 2012.  Wikipedia has no article on this alleged aviator. And neither for that matter does the French-language Wikipedia. The French-language article on 'Voltige aérienne' likewise fails to mention him. Basic Google-foo fails to locate him. If he isn't a figment of the IP's imagination, we need evidence to the contrary, and accordingly I'm going to remove the sentence. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euclid who? 

message: Maybe I'm dense and/or I've missed something, but do we really need two articles, one on Aerobatics and one on Aerobatic maneuver? It seems to me that these would easily combine into one article of not excesive length. 
Idumea47b (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The two articles should be merged. See WP:MERGE. Dolphin (t) 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need two articles? 

message: Inverted flight links to this article, yet there is no mention. Some information in this and similar maneuvers would be useful, and yes merging the two articles would help. Doug butler (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention 

message: :just came to this article and in the limited amount of aerobatics ive done, but a lot of formation flying, I see some inaccuracies.  Aircraft do not fly slightly “below” the aircraft in front but slightly above, and not because of engine exhaust!  You fly slightly above to avoid the lift vortices and wake turbulence of the aircraft ahead.  Even the engine exhaust would be worse slightly below the aircradt ahead of you as the downwash would drift it downward but engine exhaust is hardly a problem at all. Who is writing this stuff.  The only time you would be below the aircraft in front would be because you are so severely close you need to be able to not lose sight of “lead”. [contribution by 2600:6c4c:677f:faf7:94d:2ebc:3aef:bf6b moved to end] Doug butler (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have erased three sentences from the offending paragraph - it was all unsourced and unencyclopaedic. I also inserted the “Refimprove” banner. Dolphin (t) 05:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading