Talk:Landing flare

Discussion regarding prod for Landing flare
This article was proded on 2011-10-09. There was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still agree with my secondment of the PROD, this should be a section within Landing as it is not a large enough subject for a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the idea of large articles is peculiar to Wikipedia and I doubt the idea has any basis in policy or guidelines. This particular topic is one that needs its own article because someone searching for "landing flare" probably either wants the jargon explained, or wants more detail about "landing flare"; and already knows what a "landing" is.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Landing is hardly a large article, in fact right now it is fairly short and could use expansion. What you are proposing for this article is that it consist of nothing more than a dictionary definition which is specifically prohibited by policy. Furthermore the recent addition of information on pyrotechnic flares is off topic and belongs in a completely different article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This material is from WP:Dictionary, "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.[4]"Unscintillating (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a proposal, the problem is already solved, readers can enter "Landing flare" in the search box and learn about it. The previous comment proposes to un-solve the problem in favor of a hypothetical future where the landing article has been improved and readers can find related material with a Google search.  Also, neither www.m-w.com nor Wikitionary list "landing flare".  However, "flare path" is in www.m-w.com.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the 1922 material
There seem to be two possibilities: the two usages developed independently of each other, in which case it is worth noting the relationship between the two, or there is a direct connection between the two phrases. Unscintillating (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Does not seem to be any evidence that the parachute flares were called landing flares the source just uses it as a description from what I can see. So it really should be removed from this article, so only one usage which is all about one of the phases of landing an aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I find that your conclusion based on an absence of evidence has no weight. Furthermore, the source you mention later uses the phrase, "the landing flare".  But I agree that you have identified a third possibility...one that I think I have found some references to refute.  I found a 1957 reference that says, "The CAB Bureau of Safety Regulation has under consideration amendments to the landing flare requirements of Parts 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Civil Air Regulations."  This link is also related.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another usage, from 1932:"... who unfortunately hit a wing-tip on the aerodrome at Jask, crumpled the machine over on top of the landing flare, and set light to it, and died in the fire, along with one of his passengers. The Flare Danger Purely as a side-issue,"Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now we have an article on two different subjects. With the removal of the prod the obvious solution is to merge the aircraft maneuver into Landing and leave the pyrotechnic text here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence that these two concepts are not related? Also, your proposal to leave this article with one-sentence and with one reference is transparent.  Given that this article is larger than the landing article, and given your distaste for small articles, maybe you should be proposing to merge the landing article here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes of course it is transparent - I clearly stated that I am proposing that this article be about the pyrotechnic and that the text about the aircraft maneuver be moved to Landing. I don't see how I can be clearer than that. The article on Pen covers writing implements, not pig enclosures. Articles should be on one subject, not two. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd put the pyro under flare (pyrotechnic), its just a case its been fired from the air rather than land. A lot of overlap with Target Indicators too.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't believe it, when I first saw this article. What is next? Maybe "Right Rudder Pedal Movement?" Or maybe, "Left Aileron Up Movement?" I don't think it even makes sense to have an article just on Landing. All such esoteric, minutia articles like this should be merged into one article on the total subject of how aircraft control systems are designed and work, and how pilots normally use them in the proper manner. Articles like this demonstrate how absurd can be the idea that if RS sources can be found, then the subject matter is automatically notable and encyclopedic. 66.81.52.162 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger
Since the AfD is now closed and the consensus in that debate was to merge and redirect this article to Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus at the AfD, in addition to other issues, was that editors that want to improve the Landing article with material from the Landing flare article should do so. Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a merge, right?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The part discussing the pyrotechnic flare is probably unrelated here and should not be merged, right?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As we discussed at the AfD, it is a different subject and should probably be merged to Flare (pyrotechnic). - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The concluding comment at the AfD regarding the 1922 usage of "landing flare" was this:"We know that in 1922 the term 'landing flare' in the context of aviation was an aerial candle on a parachute, also known as a type of 'bomb'. A 1932 reference exists for the phrase 'landing 'flare' maneuver'. Thus we know, that in 1932, the landing flare maneuver could be accomplished in the dark with the use of landing flares.  So both usages of the term are closely associated with aviation, both are closely associated with the function of landing, and both have their origin within 20 years of each other in the early 20th century."Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking about it, we don't have too much of an issue here. Both of these terms are related to landing, the merge target here. Regardless of their connection to each other (which we really can't assume exists by using original research) both can be acceptably put into the article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus for such action in the discussion; rather there was considerable disagreement. Warden (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually at AfD there were eight clear indications of merge/redirect and three for keep, so you are not correct that there was no consensus. But regardless we are clarifying the consensus here and now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, don't even start. If it weren't for the fact that the discussion was speedily closed, it is incredibly likely an administrator would have closed it as merge and redirect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which was why I opposed an early close as the outcome is not clear enough, hence this proposal to finish the work started there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that consensus will emerge from further discussion of that sort. It would be better to work on the article for a spell and see how it develops.  Given sources such as we see below, I'm not seeing much difficulty in expanding the article. Warden (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well in that case I look forward to seeing you using the refs you have found to expand the article yourself. Let's see what it looks like in a week's time, then. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay a week has passed and as expected there have been no improvements made to the article, indicating that the user who was going to expand it is not going to do so. Discounting that the rest of the users here expressed agreement and so I have merged the content to Flare (pyrotechnic), with the Landing article already containing more useful and WP:NOTMANUAL detail than this article ever had. To avoid future confusion I have made this a disambiguation article pointing to those other two articles. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see one user has tried changing this disambiguation page back. You are going to have come here and discuss this and gain a new consensus to make that change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This editor has once again reverted the page and been reverted again by User:Yaksar with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 459448464 by Ahunt: consensus was pretty clear." I agree. From the AFD results and the discussion above we have a pretty strong consensus for merge/redirect, which was done in the form of a disambiguation page. Please stop changing it back to the clearly rejected article text. If you want to change it back to an article you have to come here and gain a new consensus. In the meantime, give the recent consensus, I think you would be better off working on Landing. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is obviously no consensus for this merger as we have multiple editors contesting it. For myself, I am not keen to work on this topic while we have this disruptive edit-warring - too many cooks spoil the broth.  I have been continuing to read around the topic and it continues to seem substantial. Warden (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As the only editor who objected to merge and redirect and in favour of improving it instead, you were given a week to improve and expand the article without any other edits and chose not to. Are you here to suggest improvements? Perhaps, since we have a consensus here, you would care to write something in a sandbox and then we can all look at it and see what you have to propose, or are you just intending to leave the existing reverted and poor quality article "as is"? - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to me? I am clearly not the only editor objecting to the merge and redirect.  There cannot be a sensible discussion if basic facts are not accepted.  One of these is that there are multiple editors contesting the merger - these seem to include myself, Unscintillating and CallawayRox.  As for my contributions, please see the following section in which I present several substantial sources but have received no response.  Such lack of interest in the actual topic is not encouraging.  It would be good to be discussing the origin of the flare manoeuvre; the problems arising in large aircraft; the way in which pilots handle the matter manually; the development of aids and automation; the types of aircraft and circumstance in which flares are avoided; and so on.  But so it goes.  Meanwhile, the Landing article is still start class.  If you think that article is the priority then why don't you focus upon that article and raise its quality?  If you do that while others work on this then we have win-win rather than lose-lose. Warden (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I noted above I am still waiting for you to use your amazing collection of refs to improve this article. I am just hearing a lot of talk page talk so far. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, your use of the word "amazing" indicates the use of hyperbole in your writing. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, it is not efficient to write when there is strong resistance - see principle of least effort, &c. I am content to wait to until the strife subsides as we have no deadline. Warden (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Both User:Yaksar (see edit summary) and I are waiting for you to use your array of refs and your subject-matter knowledge to fix this poor-quality article. No one else is going to act until you do or until you indicate that you really aren't interested. After waiting for a week and you did nothing I figured you really weren't interested, something reinforced by your most recent comment above, but perhaps one week wasn't enough time. How much time will you need to fix the article? A week? A month? Just let me know and I will hold off any work on the article until you are done. Just let me know how much time you need. - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well a month has now passed and quite obviously User:Colonel Warden has no longer any interest in this article as no changes have been made. In considering the above arguments I looks like we do not have a complete consensus to redirect the article, so instead I will rewrite it and re-reference it, including adding a proper photo of an aircraft flaring and not one taking off. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I have re-written the article, resourced it from better refs and fixed it so that it is on one topic, not two, removed the WP:NOTMANUAL text and other irrelevancies and clarified the text so it will make sense to pilots reading it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

relationship between landing and landing flare
It seems that the Landing flare article doesn't need to get overly involved in related "stages" (which some sources calls "phases" or "sub-phases") of landing. Another problem perhaps better handled in the landing article is the relationship between "round-out" and "landing flare", which some sources indicate to be synonymous, and others see round-out occurring before the landing flare. Another concept that still needs to be added to the landing article is the phrase "landing flare".

Regarding material more suited to the landing flare article, the objections to discussing the 1922 bomb used to help with lighting the landing field in preparation for landing may be better understood in the context that the material would be less appropriate at the landing article than here. It also seems more appropriate to focus in this article on the "landing flare maneuver", as opposed to the "landing flare stage". Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

maneuver vs. manoeuvre
I'm not sure why this was changed to manoeuvre, I think this is a British spelling, but given the sourcing from US government sources used in writing the article, "maneuver" seems to be both the way that the article was established, as well as it is following the sources. Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind, it can be spelled either way under WP:ENGVAR. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing flare. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424230424/http://www.aric.or.kr/treatise/journal/content.asp?idx=134235 to http://www.aric.or.kr/treatise/journal/content.asp?idx=134235

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)