Talk:Westland Sea King/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

Support No reason for Westland Sea King ASaC7 to be a separate article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support You either have a page for each variant (which would be stupid) or not MilborneOne 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Support For same reason as MilborneOne - consistency Dowlingm 05:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Support concur with above reasons ThreeBlindMice 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page from Westland Sea King ASaC7

Merge taking place. SilkTork 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

No reason for this to be a separate article. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, should be merged. Chwyatt 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Osprey is an option for AEW on the cvf class? Is that a joke?!

was considered early on, but never a serious contender Chwyatt 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

counter there's a difference between Westland and Sikorsky Sea King. to top it all, Westland bought the plans from Sikorsky, so I think that Westland and Sikorsky need different pages BAFer 14:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged the two articles as requested. I have done minimal editing to blend the two articles, so editing will now be needed. Go for it! SilkTork 12:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Westland Sea King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I have conducted a minor copy-edit. The one issue which seems to repeat is that a handful of sentences are too long. There was also a bit of repeatlinking.(fixed)
• The lead fails to even mention that the helicopter was used by other countries. I would also like to see the first year of production and the total production number in the lead. If that leads to a longer lead, that is probably just as good.
• Quotes are not in italics (fixed)
• The sentence starting with "A variant of the Egyptian Commando..." reads awkwardly.
• NBC protective suits? Spell out for readers who may not know what NBC stand for, and perhaps link to something else than National Broadcasting Company. (fixed)
• There are multiple disambig links in the article (see here)
• A few of the variants are missing refs.
• Online refs need access dates. (done)
• I cannot access the external link "Royal Navy Sea Kings" (dead link, replaced with a more current link).
• Image licences check out good.
• My one major concern with the article is that while it covers the operation history with the UK, Australia and India extensively, no operational history is mentioned for the other countries. I'm not saying that this needs to be as long as the others, but there still needs to be a proportional section on those operators as well.

I feel this shortfall as well; but I honestly have tapped my sources heavily to get this much compiled - two weeks ago we didn't even have a peep on India until I basically wrote the entire section from scratch (and other editors have also expanded it and made alterations with more material, corrections ect). I could go back to my sandbox and draw up an 'Other' section, try and cobble something together, but the only book I have access to on Germany's Sea King is in German, which I can't actually read. As for Norway and Qatar, I haven't even come across books on them. I'm not trying to naysay the concept, as it is valid and should be worked towards, but I struggle to create content in the absense of source material to learn and cite from; I honestly put together as many sections as I thought viable from what I had. Then again, there is always the possibility for more, especially with the help of other enthusastic editors, I'm sure something can be developed. Kyteto (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am Norwegian, I can try to put together a paragraph or so on the NoRAF service, it shouldn't be too hard to find some sources. I can get by reading German, so if the book is online I can try to get something compiled. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well done on a strong start to the 'Others' section. In regards to the German book, it is held in a restricted domain, so it's inaccessable to the general public; if it helps the name was simply: Westland Sea King MK.41, ISBN: 3935761376. I'll keep brainstorming searches in case I get lucky and find something usable. Kyteto (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Most interesting article, not least because it is an helicopter I do get to see around. Placing article on hold until the above has been see to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, though I'd check in and ask if there is an aspect of the article you'd like me to focus on right now? Kyteto (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally my main concern is the lack of at least a decent-size paragraph on the operations in Egypt, Belgium, Pakistan and Qatar, preferably about the length of the Germany and Norway sections. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the power of recycling, I've regurgitated mostly pre-existing information in the article to create a make-shift Others section. I'll ponder on what more I can add to it over the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to summarize the number of helicopters delivered to each country (some countries have this information, some don't). Also, there are some of the minor issues above which still need to be sorted out (for instance disambig links). Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've sort out the disambig links; I'll try to work on the numbers - but I likely won't be able to fill in every section, as in some places numbers get quite sketchy. Kyteto (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Any progress? It's been over a week since any edits have been made to the article. What is left to do? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The numbers were resolved by Nigel; if there are further issues to resolve, I am ready to respond to them. Kyteto (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good enough to meet the good article criteria, so I'll pass it. My personal opinion is that should the article be aiming at FA, there would need to be more balance in the operations section, perhaps even a spinn-off article for some of the major operators. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Westland HC4 Commando in British service

Folks, In the US there is a lot of confusion when they read the word "Marines" in other nations armed forces. The US Marines are unique in that it is it own self contained military with the exception of warships and medical department -- ie it has its own air force, artillery, armour. Other nations have what are called naval infantry which can be army of a separate marine force (ie the French Marines are army units of all volunteers who then by law can serve outside France -- ie the only infantry force the French Navy have are like our SEALs). And the British Royal Marine are actually a lot like the US Army Rangers and many refer to them as Royal Marine Commandos. Hope this clears up the confusion. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Westland HC4 Commando in British service

Folks, In the US there is a lot of confusion when they read the word "Marines" in other nations armed forces. The US Marines are unique in that it is it own self contained military with the exception of warships and medical department -- ie it has its own air force, artillery, armour. Other nations have what are called naval infantry which can be army of a separate marine force (ie the French Marines are army units of all volunteers who then by law can serve outside France when France had a draft -- ie the only infantry force the French Navy have are like our SEALs). And the British Royal Marine are actually a lot like the US Army Rangers and many refer to them as Royal Marine Commandos and they have no pilots or air unit. The Royal Navy or the British Army provides the pilots and the aircraft. Hope this clears up the confusion. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

344 ?

Can someone explain where that number came from ? Variants do not match

Author name for Armistead source

I've used the 2nd item in this page's Bibliography section for a source in wiktionary (entry for FAETUPAC), but from looking at the preview on Google Books it looks like it was written by one author called Edwin Leigh Armistead. This article has that name as being two authors:

• Armistead, Leigh and Edwin Armistead. Awacs and Hawkeyes: The Complete History of Airborne Early Warning Aircraft. St Paul, Minnesota: Zenith Imprint, 2002. ISBN 0-7603-1140-4.

Is there a particular reason for that? If someone happens to know that this is a collective pseudonym like Grant Naylor then I'll update my wiktionary citation, otherwise this article's Bibliography should be fixed (along with the references to "Armistead and Armistead"). --Qef (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-king-helicopter/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Germany - It's not been decided yet by which helicopter the Sea King is replaced.

Langfristig wird der „Sea King“ durch den Marinehubschrauber 90 (MH 90) oder den Marinehubschrauber 92 (MH 92) ersetzt.

— Presse- und Informationszentrum Marine

So, please, if you've got any info on whether the helicopter will be replaced by the NH90/MH90 let us know. However, don't simply revert it to something the source doesn't even say. --Dharion (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That source is quite clear about what the selection was down to at that point. Further onto that, however, is that the procurement choice between the S-92 and the NH90 has been terminated - Instead, existing contracts for the NH90 have been reorganized to cover the role, some that were formerly destined for land-based service are to be built as maritime helicopters and used to perform the Sea King's mission. The choice has been closed down to the one option for some time now; the other option has been eliminated due to budget cuts, they're just using what's already on order anyway. Kyteto (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename to Westland Sea King Commando?

The article title and scope here has the name Westland Sea King, which is reasonable. An alternative name might include the "WS-61" numbering too.

One editor is now pushing [1] [2] to restore "Commando" in the lead name of the infobox. This is incorrect: not all Sea Kings were Westlands, not all Westland Sea Kings were Commandos. To use the name of just one sub-variant in the infobox lead position is to imply (as is frequently misunderstood, a misunderstanding we could usefully help to clean up) that all' Westland Sea Kings were Commandos. The Commando is a different version, lengthened and obviously distinguishable in photos. Only about a sixth of Westland production were Commandos.

If The Wisdom of Wikipedia is now that all Westland Sea Kings were Commandos, should the whole article now be renamed for consistency? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've no issue with adding renaming the article Westland WS-61 Sea King, assuming that's a good faith suggestion and not a red herring. However, WS-61 is, to my knowledge, primarily a company name, and so may not be considered by some to be part or the common name. Designations are allowed in aircraft article titles per WP:AIR/NC naming conventions, primarily for countries with military aircraft designations such as Canada and the US, which are quite common.

As to adding Commando to the infobox title, I know of no project guideline (WPAIR or Wikipedia) that forbids or requires variants in the infobox title. It is done in a number of aircraft articles, including Airbus airliner articles such as Airbus A320 family. If there is a Wiki-wide guideline against the practice, I've no issue with complying with it. If not, then it's a case by case issue, and I'll follow the clear consensus of other editors here (ie, more than just the OP). - BilCat (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Airbus title is firstly an article clearly labelled as being a "family" and secondly it splits the multiple variants with slashes: it is obviously a list.

In this case, "Commando" is simply added as a suffix. There is nothing in the title box to indicate that this only applies to a small group within it. That is misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it's on a separate line would be a major clue to me, but I do accept that some of Wikipedia's readership may not be intelligent enough to get that sort of nuance. Still, we don't write solely for the lowest common denominator, so I think most people can figure it out. - BilCat (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't rely on whitespace for semantics (and this is specifically forbidden in any sensible web design or accessibility guide, including WP's MOS). Is it on another line because there was markup to do it specifically, or simply because a long line wrapped? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Where in the MOS is this "specifically forbidden"? I've already stated I'd abide by it if it's against Wikipedia's guidelines, which includes the MOS. I'm just waiting to see it. - BilCat (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Commando was originally a Sea King optimised for the task of trans-shipping stores from and to ship and shore for use with the Fearless class amphibious assault vessels, hence the deletion of the Sea King side pontoons in early Commando versions. The Commando had a heavier lift capability than the Wessex which was being used previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Pakistan Naval Air Arm Westland Sea King.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)