Talk:Aircraft cavern

Cavern airfield was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 August 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Aircraft cavern. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

I think this article is attempting to be a good-faith copy-paste. It looks like an anonymous editor not-so-gracefully dumped these contents into the Swiss Air Force article, as seen here, and the creator of this article is attempting to fix that kludge. So the question is, does the content belong: a) in that article (if so, it needs to be sourced and merged appropriately so it doesn't look like it was dumped in as an afterthought); b) in a standalone article (if so, it needs to be attributed as is customarily done for a split article); or c) nowhere at all? --Kinu ^t/_c 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the author's talk page. He's not up to the task without help. andy (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copied from the following version of Swiss Air Force: [1] DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move

In English the term "cavern" normally means a naturally-formed underground space (a large cave). It is not normally used to refer to man-made spaces (e.g. see Wieliczka Salt Mine) except where there is no alternative (e.g. see Dinorwig Power Station). This may explain why so few people have found this article and linked to it ~~(I'm aware of another user looking for somewhere to put info about the Swedish equivalent)~~. A better translation of Flugzeugkaverne would be “Underground hangar”. I propose to create such an article ~~and move most of this article to Underground hangar#Swiss Air Force~~. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After adding some photos I think the article's big enough to stand alone (as well as the Underground hangar article). DexDor (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more visual / sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2qL8Leu4I Tigris Helveticus 3 exercise film.

--Zeugma fr (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

No need for two articles on the same subject!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Cavern Airfield is not the same as an Aircraft cavern.Only because the name sounds simelar it isn't simelar. It is NOT the same subject. so no need to merge. The Cavern Airfild was a project of the Swiss Air Force, it was not built, it differents afrom an aircraft cavern because of the aircraft evelators inside the Mountain and the Start Runway insde the mountain. Aircraft Caverns have been built, they have no aircraft eevelator, and conventional runways for Take of and landing on a conventional AFB. Also the aircraft caverns are built on differend spotsd but not on that geographical spot the Cavern airfild would have been. Only the Vampire and the Venom would have been able to operate in it. But the Aircraft caverns are able to be used by Vampire, Venom, Hawker Hunter, BAe Hawk, Mirage IIIS, Mirage IIIRS, F-5E. and the cavern Meiringen with the F/A-18 Hornet. FFA P-16 (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

let's have discussion from someone other than the author.--Petebutt (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall kick it off; The airfield cavern concept is merely an extension of the Aircraft Caverns and apart from that they were not built, so a merge is the most sensible option to reduce repetition and redundant articles.

The project of the Cavern Airfield is not an extension of the Aircraft Cavern. this project was first, before the Aircraft Caverns. I see a big differend in this project where the aircraft should take-off straightfrom this "in -mountain runway" to the later build aircraft caverns (there it is impossibel that an aircraft took of straight out of the cavern, there the aircraftz have to be pulled out by an aircrat-tug every time. The Engine Start up is there always outside the cavern and the aircraft has to taxi to the runway. Ther are som simelarys but if you look at some aviatic topics you will finde some kind of repetition often. With havein one page about the aircraft cavern and one about the cavern airfield this two issues are so clearly separated. By merging it into one, I am afraid that it because of the very simelar name, and the simelaretys in use people could get confiused what is build and what was just the ground laying project, what the differenc is in the use of the sysem. Also in the greman wikipedia this are 2 pages, and by mergin it we will have a problem with the link betewn english and german. FFA P-16 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a dubble text. The cavern airfield was a project, it was not built. In this project the aircrat should start inside the mountain trough a tunnel like runway. the aircraft caverns (the article woh is said as dubble) are built and locatet on diffrend geographical locations. by aircraft caverns the aircrat did not start inside the caverns, the aircraft have to be pullet out by aircraft tugs and have to taxi to the runnway.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]