Talk:Boeing Vertol YUH-61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject Rotorcraft task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing Vertol YUH-61 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Boeing?

Why isn't this article named Boeing-Vertol YUH-61? --Born2flie 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question. Probably because that was the redlink I used from a designation sequence list on another helicopter page when I created the article. (It's the same way with the Boeing XCH-62.) It never occured to me to use Boeing-Vertol in the title, tho I usually prefer using shorter titles anyway. The major BV/BH products have popular names (CH-46 and CH-47), so it's not an issue there. As to other Boeing products, we use Boeing 747, etc., not Boeing Commercial Airplanes 747. If you think it's that big a deal in this case, go ahead and move it. I don't support it, but I won't revert it or interfere either. - BillCJ 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this aircraft was simply never named the Boeing YUH-61. Odd that we can agree to name an article Schweizer (Hughes) 300 to show continuity of the designing and initial production company but we might have a problem with Boeing-Vertol. According to the Boeing Helicopters article, the name prior to 1987 was Boeing-Vertol and the Vertol products are commonly referred to as the Boeing-Vertol Model 107 and 109. All references that might be used to develop this article are going to reference Boeing-Vertol and this article itself refers to Boeing-Vertol...(ad nauseum) We're not talking about an aircraft that was solely built and designed by the aircraft manufacturer Boeing (e.g. Boeing 747), Vertol Aircraft was a company purchased and renamed to Boeing-Vertol (not Boeing) and operated just as Bell Helicopters and Sikorsky Aircraft do; subsidiary companies of their respective parent corporation. It just happens that this parent corporation began life as an aircraft manufacturer. Anyways, Boeing-Vertol is the manufacturer's common name and I just feel it should be used in accordance with the naming convention. Sorry if my question offended you. --Born2flie 18:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not offended at all. Anyway, I explained that I hadn't thought about it when I named it. And you can change it if you really want to, I honestly don't care what it's named. I'm not going to support the change, but I won't oppose it either. I don't think you need to run a poll on this, as we're probably the only users who know the article exists! Just move it; I won't revert it.

I've tried to think of examples other than the XCH-62, but I can't. You might want to change those links too, as I hope to find enough info to make an article on it in the future. I think the XCH-62 is mentioned in the CH-47 article, so we might redirct the link there for now. - BillCJ 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)