Talk:Surveillance blimp

Article creation
Something tells me that this article doesn't need to exist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ''This topic has been moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I not have started surveillance blimp‎? Is it over my head? Get it? Over my head? :) Seriously, please PROD it or something...whatever you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a legitimate subject. I suggest you leave it and see how it is expanded by other editors! I have listed it at New articles (Aircraft) to get some input. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that is good news. Thank you. So, no need to float the idea of a PROD then. You've elevated my spirits. Stop me! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You did a good job getting it started! That is the thing here on Wikipedia, you don't have to do all the work yourself! - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks. It's just a sentence, though. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The new article lacks historical context, since surveillance and patrol blimps have been used for decades, and not just for the AWACS, such as police blimps in metropolitan surveillance, WWI surveillance and reconnaissance and artillery spotting, WWII saboteur watch, submarine surveillance and patrol, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Surveillance is the primary military use of blimps so don't really see a need for separate page - is the blimp page so large it cannot be included or merged there?NiD.29 09:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Take it up at article talk. If you want, you can just redirect it boldly there. If you are worried about that, I can delete it as sole editor and creator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. Historically, manned and powered blimps were used extensively for maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and related military roles. Even the old Army observation balloon was not a "surveillance" device, just an unpowered observation platform - the clue is in the name. Unmanned blimps were used only as unpowered barrage balloons. The modern surveillance airship is powered but unmanned, and packed with electronic gear, it is a very different animal and worthy of independent treatment. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The airship here as it is now described is an AWACS platform, but that is not the only type of surveillance blimps are used for. Police forces use blimps that are described as "surveillance blimps" as well, which is not a military endeavor. And spy agencies use blimps for surveillance and espionage, also non-military. IIRC, the DEA uses "surveillance" blimps to track drug smugglers. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition of surveillance amply covers maritime patrol, AEW, reconnaissance, observation etc, by both military, paramilitary and civil organizations. Wikipedia's own definition indicates that a blimp is airship which capable of being navigated, which excludes barrage balloons and kite balloons, which are tethered, all of which is beside the point - it should be MERGED with the blimp article which is undersized - in fact the surveillance blimp article itself is barely a stub by itself and so not a section that needs to be split off from the main page - two examples and a reference that seems to indicate it wasn't even a blimp does not make a strong case for a stand alone page.NiD.29 17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change of article title
"Blimp" is a slang expression in most English-speaking locales, with the correct term being "airship" or, strictly, "non-rigid airship". It also risks confusion with a streamlined balloon, also called a "Blimp" in many English language locales. I think that this article should be moved to Surveillance airship. What do others think? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'airship' would be more appropriate. - the WOLF  child  00:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, Thewolfchild. I know nothing of the subject. I just went searching for this title after reading the news and it came up redlinked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the original term referred to the type of airship, and it is still used for that - airship is a much broader term and includes rigid and semi rigid airships, while the only other accurate synonym is non-rigid airship, which is a mouthful. Any confusion over streamlined balloons can be take care of in the intro, especially as they get their name from the airship in the first place, aided by people's lack of technical knowledge.NiD.29 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a view confined to the US locale. At least some other English-speaking locales take a different view, regarding a "blimp" as any non-rigid streamlined balloon, whether dirigible or otherwise. Here are some examples of its use meaning a barrage balloon:
 * blimp, Pronunciation: /blɪmp, noun, informal, 1 (also Colonel Blimp) British A pompous, reactionary type of person, 2 A small airship or barrage balloon, 2.1 North American A fat person,..." Oxford English Dictionary online.
 * Paris, M.; From the Wright Brothers to Top Gun: Aviation, Nationalism, and Popular Cinema, Manchester University Press, 1995, Page 127: "A novel and highly visible form of defence was the barrage balloon, the 'blimp', flown over a potential target...."
 * Follow that Blimp, WW2 People's War, BBC: "He was armed with a rifle and chasing an escaped barrage balloon which drifted overhead."
 * Wragg, D.; Historical Dictionary of Aviation, History Press, 2008, Pages 25-27: "Airship ... During the Second World War, the main combatants used barrage balloons, or blimps, to protect vital targets ...".
 * If we are to bandy origins of the word, the term was coined in Britain and also transferred to the streamlined balloon in Britain. Lack of technical knowledge does not come into it, that is a nonsensical suggestion. There is no contemporary textbook declaring that "an envelope that goes 'blimp' when you flick it is only a blimp if it has an engine".
 * This article has international scope and we should stick to internationally accepted terms. The usage of "blimp" you describe is simply not internationally accepted. "Airship" is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am also coming to think that if a surveillance "zeppelin" or rigid airship were to be produced, it should also find a place in this article. We do not want to make the same mistake as Goodyear, who have produced an online booklet called "Explore the Blimp's History" and included in it their rigids Akron and Macon here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What article? It is barely a stub off an article that isn't overly large to begin with, and airship is a MUCH broader term - blimp is slang for a subtype of airship, specifically one without internal structure forming to shape of the envelope. Airship covers nearly anything that is lighter than air - now it may be an idea to have them all merged under a single page, but a blimp is distinct from a rigid airship, and has its own history, technical issues etc, that would have to be merged back into the airship page, which is already somewhat lengthy - indeed that page links to pages for rigid, semi-rigid and non-rigid airships, and to be balanced, all would have to be merged back into the main page - which would make it unwieldy. FWIW this discussion has come up before (probably multiple times), and the consensus each time has been to keep it as it is. If the Blimp page is renamed, it should be as Non-rigid airship.NiD.29 18:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "If the Blimp page is renamed, it should be as Non-rigid airship" - now that is one good idea. We can then recreate "Blimp" as a disambig page - or possibly as a redirect to Colonel Blimp which, according to the OED link I posted above, is actually the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the blimp was named for an actual officer, however all I can find seems to suggest a cartoon character that was named for the airship, which if true would make the airship the primary topic (aside from the obscurity of the original officer, if there was one). Most definitions seem to bring up the airship first, and refer to it's use for the character as being a result of the prior use of the term for the airship - in any case, the cartoon character's name includes "Colonel", while the airship requires no prefixes or suffixes. Oddly I recall this nickname being used in the 80s for severely overweight senior officers.NiD.29 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Ege, "Balloons and Airships", Blandford (1973) "Colloquially they always were referred to as 'Blimps'. Over the years several explanations have been advanced about the origin of this word. the most common is that in the military vernacular the Type B was referred to as 'limp bag', which was simply abbreviated to 'blimp'. An alternative explanation is that on 5 December 1915 A. D. Cunningham, R.N., who designed the SSZ type, flipped the envelope of a non-rigid airship with his fingers during an inspection, which produced a sound that he pronounced as 'blimp'; and that the word then caught on as the nickname for all small non-rigid airships." He pretty much avoids the "B" word everywhere else, though uses it occasionally in quotes when discussing American ownership.
 * But the etymology has nothing to do with the primary topic, that is down to customary usage. For example "concorde" is the French spelling of "concord", meaning harmonious agreement, yet the primary topic is a certain supersonic airliner. The Oxford Dictionary link I gave above shows several usages of "blimp" and suggests that an abbreviation of "Colonel Blimp" is the primary topic. And that is a reliable source, it is not your or my opinion.
 * The English-speaking world's usage during WWII as a barrage balloon is also unassailable. There were many more barrage balloons made than airships, and every US serviceman in Europe would have called them "blimps" too. If we were having this conversation in 1944, the idea that a "blimp" was also an airship would be the hard one to sell: there weren't any then.
 * Justifying the present article title on the original etymology of a slang word is not sustainable. Only one name has stood the test of time and remains to this day the perfect encyclopedic foil to the rigid and semi-rigid airships. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Outside the UK the Colonel Blimp usage is considerably less common than the airship usage. Concorde isn't a relevant example as one is a physical item worthy of a page and the other a dictionary definition which isn't. If I were to poll 100 people what comes to mind when I say the word blimp, I suspect very few would mention British cartoon Colonels.
 * The US Navy used blimps during WW2 (particularly for naval patrols), and most naval aviators would have been aware of them - - and as for the name being used for the barrage balloons - that had a lot to do with the shape - during WW1 similar balloons were called sausages or maiden's delights or drachens or cacquots - and the average soldier is hardly useful source (being largely unknowledgeable about the subject), even if it were true. The limp bag fable has been thoroughly discredited even though people won't let it die - the Cunningham story has more merit. If this were 1944 then sure, the Colonel Blimp would be primary, but this isn't 1944, it is 2015, when a Blimp is an airship.NiD.29 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion for this name change - not because I agree that fans of their favourite language locale should be given free rein, but because of something else that we have all failed to notice - and in the context of the above discussion it is just too funny and ironic to let on. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)