Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBell Boeing V-22 Osprey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Error in this article[edit]

This article contains the text "[these powertrain improvements] should also improve reliability in high-altitude, high-heat conditions and boost maximum payload limitations from 6,000 to 8,000 shp"

The final part of this phrase implies that "maximum payload" is measured in shaft horsepower (shp). That is nonsense. I believe that what is meant is that the powertrain improvements will increase the available shp, which in turn will increase the maximum payload. 2A00:23EE:2300:3A36:1FD:973D:E357:91CF (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Rather disappointing that nobody has remedied this. 146.199.81.84 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. BilCat (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023[edit]

163411- V22A in storage at Hickory Aviation Museum, Hickory NC. Wings/engines/tail were removed before transport from former location. Tacco40 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tacco40: Please provide a source to support this change. Sources are needed per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Typo Mistake: BuNo is 163911. I am a volunteer and Webmaster/Social Media director at the Museum and look at the fuselage every day I am there. If that's not good enough, then ignore my change suggestion, there is no written articles or links to supply, I do not have it on the museum website because it's used for storage. I can send a photo of the fuselage. Tacco40 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be a source that can be cited in the article to support this info per Wikipedia polices that others can verify. Just a photo can be vague. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 Aug 2023[edit]

Hull losses and fatalities need to be consistent between this article and Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey. 139.218.233.166 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIRCM[edit]

I added that the Osprey has DIRCM capability in the "Specifictions" section and this was deleted. Why? The MV-22B does have DIRCM capability according to: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32309/osprey-rear-ramps-and-carrier-aircraft-elevators-make-for-great-fast-rope-training 2.25.65.76 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No source was added IN the article to support that addition per WP:Cite and WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave a source here. So why wasn't my edit restored? Bloody hell, what is wrong with established Wikipedians? It's not hard to Google something to check if it's true or not. But no, instead someone just deletes the edit without checking if it's true or not. So much for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a few questions Fnlayson: (1) If a source is absolutely required, why does Wikipedia let people submit an edit without a source? That makes absolutely no sense. It would be easy enough technologically speaking to require an editor to provide a source before allowing the edit to be submitted. And this would avoid this whole submission-deletion farce in the first place. (2) Apart from MY edit, ALL the other entries in the Specifications>Avionics section of this article lack sources. So why did my CORRECT edit get deleted, yet all the others with NO sources get accepted? That is totally illogical and utterly inconsistent. (3) If it was you who deleted my edit, why didn't you apologise and restore my edit that you incorrectly deleted? (4) Why didn't you do a little Googling instead of deleting my edit? Or at the very least give me the benefit of the doubt? But nope, my edit got deleted. Are YOU here to build an encyclopedia? Seemingly not, if it was you who deleted my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia

Entries lacking souces[edit]

All the following enties lack sources:

AN/ARC-182 VHF/UHF radio KY-58 VHF/UHF encryption ANDVT HF encryption AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning System AN/AYK-14 Mission Computers APQ-168 Multifunction radar

I'm not saying they're wrong, but what I AM saying is that sources are required. 2.25.65.76 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]