Talk:Aviation history

The discussion of the first ever heavier than air flight in the understand section

With all due respect to the achievements of Brazilian aviation, I think there are many more claimants that have an equal or better claim to "first manned heavier than air flight" and there is a reason why we mention the Brothers Wright. Everybody has heard of them, regardless of whether they really and truly were "first". Giving equal room to all other claimants (either those who claim earlier dates with less evidence in their favor or those claiming later dates with more impressive feats or more evidence) would probably go beyond the scope of a travel guide, so what should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• As a training airplane pilot, and self-conscious history/science/aviation buff, I stand by my words. No pioneer has as strong a claim as ASD, not even Wilbur and Orville. I just meant to be fair. There's a commemorative statue at Bagatelle field for all to see. I can add info and pictures later. Ibaman (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Should this article have a temporal "cutoff point"?

While this article is titled "aviation history", I see no reason why we could not and should not cover things to do with aviation that are of interest to travelers (as a thing to visit, not as a means to get somewhere) even if they are not "antique". Otherwise we would have to set some cutoff point, and there I would tend towards either of the world wars, as they definitely brought a lot of development and the first world war ended what could be reasonably considered the "infancy" of aviation whereas World War II saw both the last biplanes and the first jets see action. I am asking among other things, because Tegel Airport (which is still hanging on and might for another decade or two given the disaster that is the attempt to convert SXF into BER) is architecturally impressive if nothing to do with what could be considered "history", even though the first steps towards an airport in Tegel were taken during the Berlin blockade. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a limit in time. If there for instance is some place where an aircraft manufacturer presents their brand new planes or even planes that are just on the drawing table, that one can absolutely be listed here too. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. So for instance the Airbus plant in Hamburg could be listed, even though that sorta-kinda flies into the face of "history" as part of the page title. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Hobbitschuster. "Aviation" is a better title. I was already thinking about how to expand; thought about Tegel, as a matter of fact, I arrived there twice, and loved its design and architecture on first sight (although Tempelhof for me was kinda near-religious awe... and its model on the Teknikmuseum, U-Bahn Gleisdreieck, which I saw before going, is awesome too). Thought as well about the defunct Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong and its hair-raising approaches for landing. About how to mention Saint-Exupéry (did), Chuck Yeager (did) and Amelia Earhardt (not yet). Include the Paris and Moscow airshows. There's unlimited potential on this topic. Let's keep working. Ibaman (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia is almost certain to have some aviation museums of note. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

w:Central Air Force Museum, which per Wikipedia unfortunately closed for an unspecified time a few months back. With my extremely basic Russian knowledge I'm trying to find out if this is true, their home page doesn't seem to be very up to date...

When googling the museum, it looks like it's operating, and it's got google reviews from just two weeks back. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

w:List of aerospace museums has quite the collection of museums and this article would be huge if we had a description of each and every one. Which ones are most notable? K7L (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• the list of Californian ones is huge already. I'm really trying to exercise ponderation, to not get carried away. :) Any input is very welcome. Ibaman (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To Usable and Guide, and possibly FTT?

This article is quite extensive, at least Understand and See. Maybe we could upgrade it to usable already, if it "Has at least a good overview of the topic, and some useful material under each outline heading."? Or is there still something important that we do not cover at all? And then we can eventually upgrade it to guide when everything is well covered :). --ϒpsilon (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There are still some flow and repetition issues, and don't let the PR department of Lufthansa or Ryanair read any of the article ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else? --Ypsilon (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking this might need to be split up by region?

This article is getting quite extensive and generally long lists are an indication that perhaps it's time to split a topic?

The logical split would be by region....

Thoughts? ShakespeareFan00, 20:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Listing details

There are a lot of details on listings here (price, times, phone numbers) that should be in the destination articles instead. Any objection to me moving this info out? I think the expectation is that a travel topic should provide general information on sites, and then readers use the destination articles for final planning on their visits. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)