Talk:TechHaus Volantis

Article naming
As per WikiProject Aircraft/Naming shouldn't this article be moved to TechHaus Volantis? - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a good point there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) [Update] Or, since it was reportedly designed by Studio XO for manufacture by the TechHaus, should it be the Studio XO-TechHaus Volantis? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Aircraft/Namingsays we usually go with Manufacturer-Designation (if any)-Name, rather than designer, so I think that points to TechHaus Volantis. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, I made Studio XO-TechHaus Volantis a redirect as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article. It makes a nice companion piece to ArtRave. I had not originally imagined that a separate article would exist for Volantis, but you have uncovered additional detail and I hope the article is fully expanded in the near future. Keep up the great work! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the ArtRave article is still a work in progress, but I request your help in making sure the two articles are not too repetitive. My intention was to include much more detail about the aircraft in the ArtRave article, but obviously now that is no longer necessary. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you approve. There is no problem if some repetition occurs, the main thing is to make each article stand in its own right, with its own focus. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard to stop the enthusiastic members of WikiProject Aircraft from writing up yet another odd aircraft in our drive to have articles on every aircraft ever flown! - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This one was such a failure though, just hovered for 2 feet or so and then back to earth followed by Gaga's blah blah blah. :D — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 05:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wright Flyer didn't stay up as long on its first flight and it didn't get much higher either. Maybe we should get it deleted? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that the ArtRave article has been expanded and nominated for Good article status, I wonder if you might be interested in a collaboration in order to make this a companion GA article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly this can be expanded and improved, but what do we have for new refs? - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing, since the aircraft is not in use and disappeared after that shoddy opening night, we do not have any future plans or info regarding it. I am thinking that the best bait is to merge this article with ArtRave now as three years is a long enough time to sit on this. — I B  [ Poke ] 04:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt it won't be flown again, but lots of aircraft that have only flown once have articles, like the Hughes H-4 Hercules. This does have enough refs for a a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article that you linked is an excellent example where it had ample sources to expand it in terms of the aircraft's characteristics and everything. Here, that is lacking and the crux comes from the press conference and its subsequent reception in media. — I B  [ Poke ] 13:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry to ask, but what do you propose we do with this article? Should we merge it with ArtRave, because I genuinely feel this is not going to expand beyond what is present currently. — I B  [ Poke ] 06:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before. I think it should be retained as a stand alone article. It has sufficient refs to establish independent notability and the article is of sufficient length to remain as a credible encyclopedia article. The fact that it has only flown once and is unlikely to fly again isn't important, many aircraft, like the H-4, only flew once. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, then we can move ahead with developing this article a bit more and maybe go for GA. — I B  [ Poke ] 12:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How reliable is the Daily Mail?
WP:RS and its friends make it clear that the reliability of a given source depends on the context. In the present case, a citation referencing the Daily Mail was recently removed. Now, the Mail is as obnoxious in disregarding truth as anybody when it comes to dramatic goings-on, but this cite was supporting technical details that would have been taken straight from a manufacturer's description. Unlike popular fashion/personality claims, aircraft articles quite often draw such technical factoids from popular publications where there is no official published source and the factoid has no reason for bias or likely error. I do not believe there is a case for unreliability of the Daily Mail in the present context. The cite is: Any objections to restoring it? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, please feel free to restore it. In this case the technical details seem factual and not gossip. — IB [ Poke ] 10:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure please do restore it, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!- Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Good article status
I understand that there is an effort to raise this to Good Article status.

As an aircraft article I have done about all I can to it. Could any Aviation/Aircraft project colleagues watching it reassess its status?

I do think that its media status, such as Gaga's rationale and what everybody's verdict was, still needs expanding and that is something that aircraft editors are not well qualified to add. And of course, if anybody can unearth a fair-use or free image of it, that would be wonderful.

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)