Jump to content

Talk:Multirotor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of "multirotor" definition

[edit]

Does the definition of multirotor include a multiple rotor aircraft with variable pitch propellers? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find examples, then yes. Feel free to change the definition. ··gracefool☺ 15:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That answer makes me think that there is no definition per se.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, examples of the word being used that way. AFAIK it is only used as described in the article. ··gracefool☺ 12:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any definition ought to be sourced.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

Why was the Parrot.AR drone, arguably the first mass-market quadrotor, removed from the examples section? Both it and its manufacturer are considered notable enough to have individual articles - the one for the Parrot.AR is particularly well-referenced. They are clearly notable. The only examples that remain here are of manned aircraft, which are a very, very small percentage of the multirotor market and not at all representative of the whole. 97.68.84.119 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit on 16 November 2013 by an IP editor with the summary "spam links removed". - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed pitch

[edit]

the claim that mulitrotors always use fixed-pitch propellers is true for electric-powered multirotors. A multirotor powered by combustion engines can not have fixed-pitch propellers because it is not possible to adjust the rpm fast enough. /Esquilo (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Cierva Air Horse had cyclic control. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Drone"?

[edit]

People often refer to these as "Drones". Should we add it in the first line (and also create a reference page)? VirtuOZ (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multirotors are not necessarily drones as many are manned. It is covered in the second para that some drones are multirotors. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they're not. As a matter of simply obvious use of terminology, these are a distinct modern group set apart from previous multi-rotor helicopters (even the tiny handful of three and four rotor craft). If clearer terminology hasn't yet emerged, that still doesn't change this.
The craft here use fixed pitch propellers and differential thrust between highly efficient electric motors, rather than the previous techniques of cyclic and collective pith control to a rotor on a fixed shaft at relatively constant power. These craft are unmanned: if someone has flown on one, I'd remind the reader that more people have flown on lawn chairs with helium balloons than on modern drone tech.
These are a distinct group from manned helicopters, even multirotor helicopters.
As to "drones", then that terms means anything from bees to bagpipes to fixed wing pilotless aircraft with international range, as used from the Vietnam era onwards. If we don't anticipate bagpipe confusion, yet recognise the overlapping term, then there's no reason why we can't cope with it for 50 year fixed-wing aircraft too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Transferred from my talk page to here -

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Multirotor‎ have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahunt, would you please explain why you feel an external link is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and cite a reference from the MoS. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul venter (talk • contribs)
Sure, it is linked in the note I left you above at WP:ELNO, which says "5. Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." Also WP:LINKSPAM which says: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." It is clearly not appropriate to add links to products for sale when the article is on the general subject. I have removed the link as per WP:VANDTYPES. You can note that explicitly says: "Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially." Future insertions will be treated as vandalism as per that Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, calling a link to a home page spam or promotion is very much an opinion - I do not share Ahunt's opinion. "For the purpose of promoting" suggests that it is possible to read the mind of whoever is posting the link. It is an inconsistent interpretation of policy on his part to countenance an image of a Phantom drone on the article page, but disallow an outside link to the manufacturer.
Secondly, Ahunt seems to have a tendency to ownership of this article. He has reverted some 13 edits to this article since December 2015 and numerous times before that date.
Finally, Ahunt's warning to me about spam links is premature and assumes that the link he has repeatedly removed, would be regarded as spam by other editors. Paul venter (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the manufacturer's home page for a specific commercial drone is entirely inappropriate for a general article like this one. There are hundreds of models of multi-rotor drones available - should we add adverts for every single one of them to this page? The external link in question does not contain anything useful as a reference to this page.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the manufacturer of one of the drone types displayed is hardly advertising.....Paul venter (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a link to the manufacturer of one of the drone types displayed is precisely advertising and it is precisely mentioned as prohibited at WP:ELNO. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: Yes, it is a promotional link, ie spam, regardless of your intent. Please note that repeatedly adding links to a commercial site can result in it being blacklisted by Wikipedia. You aren't a new editor, so I am a bit surprised at your insistence in adding the link back so many times. As to your spurious claims of ownership, simply watching an article and reverting improper edits isn't indicative of ownership in and of itself. Please be careful with such charges, as they can be considered personal attacks. - BilCat (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions." The guideline clearly states "mainly intended to promote a website". Your interpretation is a bit of thumbsucking. Also your condescending manner is deprecated. Paul venter (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you insist on carrying out personal attacks in response to reasonable arguments, but this one rates a warning. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three points: 1. As per WP:ELNO, as I explicitly stated above (from your talk page), putting a manufacturer's website on a general subject article is specifically not permitted. Reinserting it after having that pointed out is specifically vandalism as per WP:VANDTYPES. These are not "an opinion", these are Wikipedia policies and accepted guidelines that we are all required to edit to. 2. As per the responses above we now have a WP:CONSENSUS here that these links don't belong here and are in violation of Wikipedia policies. 3. Given your long history of editing here and especially creating many new articles, you are obviously familiar with Wikipedia policies and certainly know how to read them once they are pointed out, I was starting to become concerned that your account had been hacked. Spamming articles with commercial links is just something an experienced editor would not normally do. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above remarks. Also note that finding some editors to support your views does not automatically make them correct.....Paul venter (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The link you added does nothing to improve the article - from WP:ELNO - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." - how does your link provide a unique resource above and beyond what should be in a featured article - what does it add?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multirotor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multirotor&oldid=1201112392"