Talk:Xi'an Y-7

new article
The long-awaited Xian Y7 pagePetebutt (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are aware that there already is a Xian MA60 page? The MA60 material and pictures need to be removed from this one, as they are redundant. Some of the info can be added to the MA60 page if it is not there already. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you browse the history of the MA60 page you will find that i proposed that the MA60 page shoul;d be deleted once the Y7 page was created so I propose that that be carried out now!!Petebutt (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus at WT:AIR is that the MA60 should be a separate article. Btw, minor criticisms aside, this was a needed article,a nd you did a good job getting it started. I've created enough articles to know it's not easy work,a nd I don';t want my issues to take away from the fact that you did a good job getting it started.One thig that has always helped me in strating article is to anticipate what issues an articel might have, and to ask other for thir advice before creating the article. WP:AIR is a good place for that, especially when dealing with variants, and even article titles. Also, several editors, includign myself, often create an articel in our userspace, and allow other eidtors to look it over before going "live" with the artivle. I do that mainly with articles where I don't have all the information needed for the article (specs, etc.), and I have several on my userspace right now. Fnlayson has been doing most of the work on my F-111B sandbox article, and it's really starting to look good. - BilCat (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen
You're as bad as me aren't you! I can't find a single reputable source which lists the designation as Y-7, they all use Y7. As a matter of fact they all refer to all the Yunshuji aircraft without a hyphen. Who is right? I suspect that I am, but let's try this discussion thing, anybody out there have any views? I don't want to hear things like "everybody has done it this way in the past", more solid proof than conjecture please.

As an aside I disagree with the dumbing down of Wikipedia for our colonial cousins. If a manufacturer gives an aircraft a designation then that is what it should be called, not some americanised rubbish. Got that off my chest, carry on with discussion.

I believe that when something like this is under discussion then the disputed info should revert to that from the articles originator until the dispute is satisfied. Therefore I move that this article revert to Xian Y7 until resolution is achieved.Petebutt (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have several sources that use "Y-7". Most are British, one is Austrailian, none are Americian. The Chinese military designation system uses the hyphen when translated into English. see Template:PRC transport aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A few online sources with Y-7:
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-7.htm
 * http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=37 - this is a legl reprint of the Australian source I have.


 * These are from Flight International, a British company; all these articles use "Y-7"; there are more there too:
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/07/222739/xian-makes-radical-change-to-ma60.html ]
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2002/03/12/144416/xian-aircraft-considers-smaller-ma60-derivative.html
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/05/31/198697/xian-plots-development-of-jet-powered-freighter.html
 * http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1996/10/23/9687/xian-aircraft.html
 * Y-7 for Chinese Navy


 * In some online sources, the hephen is not used in the "Y7-100", etc. Those may well be the company designations, not the PRC military designations. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to the MA60 official site article on the Xi'an manufacturing company. The official site quotes Y7 without hyphen. That is from the manufacturer!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I rest my case, Y7 without hyphen is the correct designation!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Xian Y-7. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110607135302/http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/aircraft_detail.cgi?aircraft=Xian+Yunshuji++Y7-100C to http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/aircraft_detail.cgi?aircraft=Xian+Yunshuji++Y7-100C

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked Redalert2fan (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Remsense  聊  18:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

– WP:CONSISTENT with name of the aircraft company, also WP:PINYIN: the apostrophe in Xi'an is needed to mark the syllable boundary. Otherwise, it looks like xian, which is a valid, but different word. Some English sources unfamiliar with how pinyin works omit the apostrophe. Wikipedia sometimes uses a non-pinyin transliteration if it's common enough (i.e., Chiang Kai-shek rather than Jiang Jieshi), but this is not an alternative transliteration, it's just a very common misspelling. The fact that it's repeated by some reliable sources doesn't mean we should replicate the error. SilverStar54 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Xian Y-7 → Xi'an Y-7
 * Xian H-6 → Xi'an H-6
 * Xian H-8 → Xi'an H-8
 * Comment: I've also added Xian H-6 and Xian H-8 to this proposal, as the three moves were originally requested together at RM/TR and the proposals have a shared rationale. Nominator may feel free to revert me if they would prefer to handle the discussions separately. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support all three per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator, and of all three articles.  Dank Jae  19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)