Talk:Maiden flight

Untitled
From VfD:

Delete - Dictionary definition, found via Deadend_pages. No room for expansion that I can see. &mdash;Rory ☺ 01:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Dictdef.  Oh, it could be expanded.  In this form, it hasn't been in a coon's age.  If it gets built up by the end of VfD, I'll change my vote.  ("Maidens flee quite often.")  Geogre 12:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for dictdef and oldologism and I hope people don't create articles about all the "Maiden X" terms that mean the earliest occasion of X: maiden voyage, cruise, speech, crop, day, dish, law ... what? Yes, reading from the OED here, sorry. "He but borowyng their woordes, bryngeth it foorthe for a mayden booke" (1555 copyvio template). Bishonen 14:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dicdef and simply unneccessary. Skyler 01:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutrality 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expanded somewhat. All votes above cast before expansion.


 * I say keep expanded version. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
 * Very cool addition, thanks, DJ Clayworth. Changing my vote to Keep. Bishonen 20:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Decent enough. Keep. - UtherSRG 01:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

List of first flights
This article is linked from a proposed template found on such articles as the F-117 Nighthawk, and thus the article needs more content. I've added a brief list of first flights of various planes. Ultimately, I want the list to cover the first flights of the most famous, most recognizable, most common, or most historic aircraft types. Feel free to make additions, since the current state of the list is just a beginning. Willy Logan 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the list of notable first flights as in my opinion it is very subjective and not really NPOV, a list of first flights is available in the years in aviation articles and individual aircraft articles. My deletion was reverted so I am looking for comments on why these are notable and not the thousands of other first flights and its relevance to this article. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to the list being trimmed.  Some flights are clearly worth noting as objective firsts -- the Wright Brothers; first jet; largest currently flying aircraft, to pick a few random ones -- and should remain.  Arguably some could be deleted, although that's not an argument I'm making.  I think the list now contains maiden flights of either certain classes of aircraft (e.g. jet); certain notable specific aircraft (e.g. Concorde, Blackbird); or specific historic maiden flights (e.g. the Wright Brothers).  It's useful and on-topic having this list of such maiden flights in a coherent form.  The fact that they can each be found spread elsewhere on Wikipedia, spread through multiple articles, is not a good argument for their deletion.  WRT the thousand of other first flights, I expect that some of those, if they are well-known, may also be noteworthy.  I'm not arguing for an expansion here, but the fact that other flights are not in the list is not in itself an argument for deletion of the list. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the list is to be retained then it does need a rationale as why Concorde or Blackbird are more notable then Harrier or any another aircraft you can think of. Why the Boeing 737 and not the A320 you could go on with these sort of arguments. This sort of list just attracts random adding of aircraft types, suprising nobody has added Tejas yet! MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nine months and no comments or rationale on what should be included, I will remove the list shortly unless somebody can propose a rationale and that it is agreed. Remember all first flights are listed in the Aviation in Year articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the deletion of the list. There can be disagreements about whether a particular aircraft type is sufficiently noteworthy to be included here.  That is not grounds for deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK your objection understood, can you be clear which of the 10,000+ aircraft types should be on the list? MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See my 2009-03-18 comment above. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Still not a clear answer this is an article describing what a maiden flight is not which ones are notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase? I can't parse your sentence. TJRC (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you insist - Article describes the term maiden flight it is not a list article. Every aircraft has a maiden flight all are notable to the particularly aircraft type and a lot of them are already listed in the Aviation in year articles. I am sorry I cant see adding a random list of ten or twenty of the 10,000 odd maiden flights adding any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a list article, but it's still a list. This is what WP:LIST calls an "embedded list."  I agree that random flights should not be included.  It should be limited to flights that are notable or noteworthy.   Which flights meet those criteria is a matter of consensus.  If you're looking to establish a bright-line set of rules, in advance, that's probably not a very hopeful task.   I don't see where the fact that the flights in this list also are mentioned in multiple aviation in year articles has any impact on this.  This list provides a list of maiden flights in a single convenient place.  That's its objective. TJRC (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont get me wrong I am not against a well thought out list of examples but at the moment it has no control and could be a bit of a fan boy magnet. A lot on this list at the moment are not first of anything, why the Mil-24 and not AH-64, why the B-24 and not the Lancaster I could go on. Why so many early examples which dont even mention the aircraft type. Just looking for a reasonable rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Vuia
removed some stuff about Vuia's flight being the first heavier than air machine with their own takeoff systems,propulsion units and landing gear because it's immediately below the first flights of several others who had all these qualities. This makes it look like these others didn't have these qualities, and just adding the same descriptive language to the earlier entries would make the whole thing look silly.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Moy
Moy's steamer is discussed in great detail by Octave Chanute. His detailed description of Moy's attempts is adamant that the steamer didn't get off the ground, or even get close to the speed Moy expected it to rise at. (See: Progress In Flying Machines) Does anyone know where the claim that the aerial steamer flew comes from?Romaniantruths (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting sources about this. The U.S. Centennial of Flight website says the aircraft lifted about six inches:
 * http://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Prehistory/late_1800s/PH4.htm
 * The FlyingMachines.org site says it probably did not:
 * http://www.flyingmachines.org/moy.html
 * DonFB (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gliders
The introductory definition The maiden flight of an aircraft is the first occasion on which an aircraft leaves the ground under its own power is not suited for gliders. The definition from Wiktionary is probably a better one: The first flight of an airplane or other airborne vehicle, usually used to test or demonstrate the functions of the systems. Any other suggestions? --Eio (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

List of first flights
Just to return to my comment of twelve years ago! "I removed the list of notable first flights as in my opinion it is very subjective and not really NPOV, a list of first flights is available in the years in aviation articles and individual aircraft articles. My deletion was reverted so I am looking for comments on why these are notable and not the thousands of other first flights and its relevance to this article." as we still dont have a clear rationale of which of the 10,000 aircraft should be listed I propose that the lists are removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, how time flies... The whole article is basically unreferenced, notably the opening section, which is the titular substance of the piece and is currently nothing more than the opinions of editors, though reasonably expressed. The text mentions "type" multiple times, and pre-Wright aircraft don't seem to qualify for that term, which really applies to legitimate industrial development of airplanes. All that being said, the article does not seem to be attracting undue semi-random additions, and the aircraft list remains modest. The rocket list is actually problematic because it's so short. Benign neglect does not appear to be hurting the article or encylopedic credibilty, broadly understood. If the article were truly a magnet for lots of fluff, then stronger encyclopedic discipline (a strict rationale) would probably be needed. The text above (each) list could be changed to something like: "These are examples of noteworthy maiden flights." That wording would avoid use of "incomplete" and its implication that the list is supposed to be comprehensive and needs (many) more entries. Really, though, editors (I'm not exempt) should add a coupla-three refs to the opening section. DonFB (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

First versus maiden flight
5Ept5xW has been going through and replacing all references to "maiden" flights, across the board and including moving this article. I understand a desire to use gender neutral language, but it isn't clear to me that "maiden" is a problem in this respect. I think there is also an argument for preferring the existing and historical terminology. There is a discussion of this on the spaceflight project page, and there appears to be no consensus. I do not think it is appropriate to do anything as major as moving articles without some discussion and consensus, so I've reverted that change. Fcrary (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will probably post an WP:RM here today if no one else does. My research indicates "first flight" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it's also in the spirit of MOS:GNL. – Levivich 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what WP:GNL has to do with it or even gender the term maiden flight or maiden voyage is not related to gender it just means first. Words can have multiple uses and meanings not associated with each other. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect! Language is a virus.... 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry that doesnt make any sense. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please open a dictionary and look up "homonym." Or perhaps look over the Wikipedia article. It discusses homonyms which have unrelated origins in the first paragraph, with "skate" (ice skating and the fish) as an example. Fcrary (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:GNL specifically says ships may be referred to as either "it" or "she" and that "As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." By implication, that's also a substantial reason which is not about gender neutrality. (The section itself is about gender neutrality, so if that were a substantial reason in this case, the whole paragraph would make no sense.) I believe the same logic makes "maiden" voyage acceptable. But, if not, where would you draw the line? Are we supposed to strike every word with some gender-related implication from the dictionary? The Gender neutrality article defining this practice to "avoid[ing] distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender". The idea of extending that to anything anyone objects to is going to far. Fcrary (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia collects information, we do not write definitions here. 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And therefore the definition given in the gender neutrality article was collected from a reputable source. I think you are insisting on a meaning for "gender neutral" which goes far beyond what most people consider reasonable. Fcrary (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am far milder than most of the people I have talked to about this subject, who is "most people" to you? Old white guys? 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we could start with whoever wrote the Wikipedia manual of style's section on the subject, the Wikipedia article on the subject, and the sources cited in that article. I have no idea what their age, ethnic background or gender are. By the way, are you comfortable dismissing people's views based on age, race or gender? Fcrary (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dismissing other people’s points of view because you personally disagree with them is not what we do here - the "consensus" seems to be mostly composed of people stuck in the 1960s, which is not helpful in the digital age. 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This bickering and name-calling serves no purpose. I think this should be taken to an RfC at this point. If Wikipedia consensus is arrived at in a way you don't like,, the place to address that is not in arguments on article talk pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So the dissenting voice must be wrong, is that how this works? 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5Ept5xW, I know you're new to Wikipedia; and being new, you obviously have a lot of questions about how consensus-based decision making happens at Wikipedia, as well as a number of other practices. Please read Consensus; it will answer a lot of your question. If you continue to have questions about that process, bring them up on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. At the moment, you're diverting a discussion about a proposed substantive change into an overall discussion about Wikipedia process in general. That discussion, which is an inappropriate diversion here, would be more productive on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Once you understand consensus, you'll be better-equipped to discuss your proposed changes in light of that. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving Maiden flight to First flight
Currently, First flight redirects to Maiden flight. After doing a bit of searching, I think it should be other way around; the article should be moved to First flight, because it's in wide use (WP:COMMONNAME) and it's gender-neutral (MOS:GNL). First recorded instance of "maiden voyage" is apparently in the 20th century ("maiden flight" obviously would be, too). and of course "maiden" means "virgin" and is used to describe vessels in the sense of (per source quoted below) "new, fresh, untried; first", so "maiden flight" is, well, let's say outdated imagery, at least.
 * Online Etymology Dictionary: maiden (adj.) c. 1300, "virgin, unmarried," from maiden (n.). The figurative sense of "new, fresh, untried; first" (as in maiden voyage) is by 1550s.
 * Dictionary.com doesn't have an entry for "maiden flight", but it's entry for "maiden voyage": This term, originally meaning the first voyage of a ship, was first recorded in 1901, but the use of maiden to signify “the first time” dates from the mid-1500s.
 * N-grams show "first flight" is prevalent (same for "maiden voyage" v. "first voyage" )
 * Search results show "first flight" is prevalent
 * {|class=wikitable indent=1

! !"maiden flight" !"first flight" !JSTOR !Google Books !Google News !Google Scholar !Google Web I would !support an WP:RM, but I'm not going to file one myself; I'll leave that call to more experienced editors. – Levivich 01:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * align=right|625
 * align=right|8,006
 * align=right|73 k
 * align=right|1.5 M
 * align=right|70 k
 * align=right|241 k
 * align=right|6.5 k
 * align=right|72 k
 * align=right|3 M
 * align=right|15 M
 * }
 * WP:RSes widely use "first flight"
 * New York Times: "Stratolaunch, World’s Largest Airplane by Wingspan, Takes Its First Flight" (note the article uses the term maiden voyage but does not use the term maiden flight)
 * Wall Street Journal: "GE Redesigns Boeing 777X Engine Component, Delaying Plane’s First Flight"
 * India Times: "Jet-powered flying taxi unveiled following first flight"
 * Australian Aviation: "BOEING CFO SAYS 777-9X FIRST FLIGHT ON TRACK FOR LATER IN 2019"
 * ABC Australia: "Stratolaunch jet with 117-metre wingspan takes off for first flight"
 * Travel+Leisure: "The World’s Largest Airplane Just Completed Its First Flight"
 * The South African: "SpaceX’s Starhopper almost ready for its first flight"
 * BBC News: "The aircraft first came off the production line in 1968, before making its first flight in 1969", "The first flight of the British-assembled 002 Concorde took place on April 9, 1969" (in some articles, BBC uses "maiden flight")
 * Military.com: "B-2 Stealth Bomber’s Incredible First Flight"
 * Bloomberg: "SpaceX's First Flight With Astronauts On Board May Slip to 2020"
 * Times of San Diego: "General Atomics’ Iconic Predator Drone Marks 25 Years Since First Flight"
 * Popular Mechanics: "The U-2 achieved first flight on August 1st, 1955 ..."
 * Aviation Week: "First Canadian SAR C295 Makes First Flight"
 * But NASA–despite it's gender-neutral policy around "manned"–still uses "first flight", "maiden flight", and "maiden voyage"  ... and so do other RSes: TechCrunch, CNBC, Reuters, The Hindu, American Journal of Transportation, CAPA Centre for Aviation, Time magazine, Times of Oman
 * Note the recent RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight:
 * Support Neutral. I don't feel very strongly about this, but yeah, "maiden" is just a bit creepy, and "first" is perfectly accurate and descriptive. Readers looking up "maiden flight" will still find it via redirect, so that's not really an issue. And the naming decision here does not extend to which term should be used in other articles (that's a different and likely bigger discussion I think we need not open today).
 * By the way, the OED shows uses for "maiden voyage" in 1823 and 1882, earlier than the 1901 mentioned above:
 * 1823 European Mag. Aug. 182/2  His representation of sea-sickness made us deeply sympathise with all the horror of a maiden voyage.
 * 1882 Daily Tel. 4 May  The behaviour of the vessel during her maiden voyage.
 * Maiden flight's first cite is 1917:
 * 1917 A. G. Bell in L. S. Rowe Proc. 2nd Pan Amer. Sci. Congr. XI. 235   Mr. Santos-Dumont is to be congratulated upon the great success of this, his maiden flight.
 * I don't think that impacts the decision, though; we are looking at usage in 2019, not 1823. TJRC (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've altered my position to "neutral". "Maiden" bothers me, as noted above, but I concede that Fcrary and Hawkeye7 raise good points, so I'm no longer so certain and righteous about my position. TJRC (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a move to "First flight". Good case made above for its frequency and use in RS, and I do agree that maiden seems outdated and carries overtones of a genderized pov. DonFB (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (although I don't think we need those official support and oppose statements until there is a formal request for a move.) (1) This is not a gender neutrality issue, as I understand the Wikipedia standards. The manual of style limits the policy to terms for groups or professions, as does the text of the article on Gender neutrality. That's because gendered terms carry the implication that only one gender is welcome or qualified to be part of the group, and that's a big deal for inclusiveness. But that's very different from trying to expunge ever term with gender-related connotations. (2) The manual of style specifically says that ships may be referred to either as "she" or "it". Either is acceptable, but a change from one to the other requires "substantial reason". I believe it logically follows that same thing would apply to "maiden" voyages or flights. haven't heard any "substantial reason" other than the fact that "some people" aren't comfortably with it. (3) I'm sorry, but I don't see some people being uncomfortable with a phrase being a valid reason. As someone who grew up reading books like Fahrenheit 451, the idea that we should censor ourselves and delete any words or phrases which an unknown number of people might object to is more than a bad reason. It disturbs me that anyone would even consider it. (4) This is a weak point, but "maiden" flight does have its origins in the older term, "maiden" voyage, for ships. There isn't, to my knowledge, any alternate term for ships, and I like the continuity implied by using "maiden" flight. Fcrary (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two terms are not synonymous. The maiden voyage of a ship or aircraft or other craft is the first journey made by the craft in its intended duty. Shakedown cruises, test flights etc do not count.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you would refer to a test flight as a first flight? Would you mind providing some sources? --Spacepine (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that this is not a WP:RM and I assume meant they would support rather than !support (which I read as "not support" like !vote is "not vote"?). Going by the research conducted by Levivich I might support the move and support starting a RM. I am not certain, however, that this phrase search would be completely accurate for "maiden voyage" vs. "first voyage" because I have never heard anything but "maiden voyage" of a ship - are we sure that every mention of "first voyage" is actually in that context and not "this was the Vikings' first voyage to another hemisphere" or something like that? I have the same doubts about every use of "first flight" actually meaning the first flight of a specific plane rather than the first flight by someone, or to do something. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I meant I would !vote support, sorry for the confusion. It's true that "first flight" is used to describe the first flight of both aircraft and people, but "maiden flight" is also used to describe both aircraft  and people , so I think it cuts both ways. FWIW, the Ngrams for his maiden flight v. his first flight, her maiden flight v. her first flight and its maiden flight v. its first flight, show that in all three cases, "first flight" is by far more common. – Levivich  03:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, "plane's first flight" vs. "plane's maiden flight" are fairly close, although still in favor of "first". I would support the move based on what I have seen so far. Maiden voyage needs attention too, it is barely an article at this point, and arguably this article is a fork of what it claims to cover. My ear has a hard time processing "first voyage" over "maiden voyage" for a ship, though. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending more details from Hawkeye --Spacepine (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on changing "maiden flight" to "first flight" across Wikipedia
Please note there is a WP:RFC underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation about whether to change all instances of "maiden flight" in articles, portals, templates and categories, in reference to spaceflight and aviation, in Wikipedia's voice, to "first flight".

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Boeing 737-100 (N73700) on its maiden flight.jpg