Talk:Piasecki HUP Retriever

message: Boy, this one was a doozie! I found TWO articles today on the H-25/HUP: once called Piasecki HUP Retriever, and the otehr called HUP Retriever. Both were moves from other pages, maybe more than once. Both had merge tags to H-25, a redirect page which has never had an article; to top it off, both tages were added by the same person!! This is why WIkipedia advises doing a search for a specific name before creating a new article.
By checking the History, I discovered that the HUP Retriever article was older, and so I moved the info from the other page to this one. There's not much to merge, but there are 2 specs, and with all the rest involved here, I haven't had a chance to check out which is accurate, or uses the right template. My guess after what I've seen today is that neither one will be right.
Now, on to the Renaming: So, what to do when there are conflicting names and standards for an aircraft? Make one up, of course, which is what appears to have been done for both articles already!
No!!! Check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft):
:US military aircraft: Number and name. F-15 Eagle, P-47 Thunderbolt. Where there is no name, or where the name is not in general use, use the manufacturer and number instead: Lockheed U-2, Convair B-36, General Dynamics F-111. Where there are many names, none of them clearly the most common, use manufacturer and number: Curtiss P-40, Douglas DC-3.
Very clear, only, not so clear with this aircraft. (What a surprise, huh?) It has both a Navy/MC designation (HUP Retriever) and an Amry designation (H-25 Army Mule). The usual practice is to defer to the older and/or better-known name, which in this casse in the Navy one. But, in 1962, the Navy/MC aircraft were redesignated according to the Tri-Service system as UH-25s. Usually tri-service designations are given precedent, so Piasecki H-25 would be the preferred name, as both aircraft had different popular names. But of course, that page is a redirect, can't move it there; same with Piasecki HUP.
Rather that waiting out the whole Move request/delete/rename process, I split the difference, and went with Piasecki H-25/HUP. A little unorthodox, but the best solution available at the time.
I'm only intending this name as a temporary solution. If someone feels there is a better name available, let's discuss it, and see what we can come up with. As that choice is most likely a redirct page, we'll have to get a consesnus first, then find an administratior to move it. Oh well; such is life on Wikipedia! - BillCJ 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another alternative - the aircraft spent most of its career prior to 1962, and under the old US Navy designation system, and current convention is manufacturer-designation-name - so it should be called Piasecki HUP Retriever, even if help from an admin is needed to implement it.NiD.29 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for current name

message: As an anonymous user, I cannot create new pages, but one of you registered Wikipedians surely can. Please create Piasecki HUP-1 and HUP-1 and redirect them here. 68.72.10.51 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - those are done! Suggestion: sign up for an account - then you can do more to make these articles even better! We always need more members in the WP:WikiProject Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a couple redirects 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Piasecki HUP Retriever. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029172611/http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/hup.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/hup.html
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) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I recently removed the "notable accident" as I could see why it is noteworthy. User:Carguychris disagrees and has added the accident back. I still cant see anything with the accident that makes it noteworthy, nobody notable was killed and didnt involve a change in regulations. It may also suffer from recentism. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the accident should be notable because it destroyed the only flying example; however, this minor edit skirmish ultimately points to what I believe are shortcomings in the notability criteria for light aircraft accidents. I'll move the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Carguychris (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that me removing it because I dont like it and you adding it back in and then a move to discussion is fairly civilised for these parts and I would not characterise it as "a little edit skirmish". MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that! Carguychris (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: None of your suggestions at the other page actually mentions the destruction of the only flying example as being noteworthy enough to add to the inclusion advice as you suggest here! MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. "Flyable examples were sufficiently rare that the accident effectively causes the type to be withdrawn from service, either because the sole airworthy example was destroyed, or because all other airworthy examples were grounded afterwards for precautionary reasons." Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Oh note I have no objection to the fact it was the last one flying getting a sentence in the operational history narrative, just not the accidents section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that seems reasonable. Carguychris (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: N183YP Accident