This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to
Chicago or the
Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As a note to anyone wishing to join the conversation, there's been quite a bit of back-and-forth on
Jonchache's talk page, which I would invite editors to read.
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 23:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The requirement was satisfied in my talk page where the dispute was initially discussed.
Jonchache (
talk) 00:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No, it is very specific, you need to notify each individual person involved on their own talk page, as those involved may not be watching your talk page. The page even provides a specific template for that purpose. I would recommend you do that, or you will next get accused of trying to make an end-run around the existing consensus. -
Ahunt (
talk) 00:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Ok, thank you for the heads up.
Jonchache (
talk) 00:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:NPOVN is for drawing attention to existing discussions about neutral point of view issues, and there was no formal discussion occurring, hence my prompt. Plus this is a content dispute that has essentially nothing to do with
neutrality. ––
FormalDude(talk) 00:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
That is your point of view. The proper noun is "man-hour" which is the widely accepted term for the given definition in the article. therefore, it is a point of view issue.
Jonchache (
talk) 00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
That's not what NPOV means. If it were, everything would be a NPOV issue. There's no side that is being taken by using "man-hour" instead of "person-hour" or vice-versa because they both mean the same thing. It is fundamentally a style issue as evidenced by our
MOS:GNL guideline. ––
FormalDude(talk) 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No, natural vs clunky seems subjective. ––
FormalDude(talk) 04:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
so is "person-hour"
Jonchache (
talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
"Person-hour" is not a common term. A local handful of users cannot just arbitrarily choose to insert minor politically correct terms into Wikipedia articles.
Zaathras (
talk) 05:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Came here via NPOV noticeboard. I support the consensus of "person-hour" as a precise, clear and gender-neutral term that is easily understandable to any reader. I don't see it as clunkier than "man-hour", which (subjectively) sounds archaic and weird to me (in my industry such a term would almost never be used any more). Even if it was clunkier, it is hardly harmful enough to Wikipedia to justify ignoring rules per IAR. I just don't see why this is an issue.
BobFromBrockley (
talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Jonchache, I would advise you to read
WP:BLUDGEON, as I've already expressed concern that you're being needlessly argumentative. With that said, there is no consensus to include "person-hours", which was only added in October after "man-hours" stood for several years. Even if it was a long-standing inclusion, "local consensus" cannot be invoked to prevent a change if there's never been an actual discussion on the issue. That's described as disruptive editing in
WP:STONEWALLING, and I would advise
Ahunt and
Drmies to review the relevant policies and guidelines about consensus. It seems clear at this point that there is no consensus to include "man-hours" or "person-hours". Personally, I would prefer just about anything over "person-hours", which is not a commonly used term and does not improve the prose. It's worth noting that other options have been proposed at NPOV/N ("labor-hours" and "work-hours"), but these have been ignored. I suggest we just add one of these and be done with all of this.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm comfortable with "work-hours" or "working hours". Honestly, saying that a procedure "saves 200 working hours" feels way better to me than man-hours or person-hours.
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd go with that, saves an argument.
Selfstudier (
talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
If its labor-hours I would be happy with that. I probably wouldn't have even edited it to begin with. In fact yes, I wouldn't have.
Jonchache (
talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I've edited the page to reflect this, since it's looking like we've got a consensus (but if I've overstepped please feel free to undo and continue the discussion).
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I’m not a fan of “working hours” because it is potentially misunderstood as a measure of duration rather than a measure of work (e.g. we might say there are 16 working hours until Christmas Day). Also, the source uses “man-hours”. If we view that as archaic by modern standards of gender neutrality, we could always quote it rather than say it in wikivoice.
As an aside, I recognise the issue of male-as-default, but rather than “person-hours” I would advocate human hours (abbreviated to ‘man-hours!), as an alternative. This has some built-in futureproofing, distinguishing human hours from machine hours, which I expect to be a distinction of growing importance. However, that’s just my opinion on the direction that language-change advocacy should move in, not something to apply to this article.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Person-hour would confuse readers. I understand trying to follow
WP:GNL but changing anything with man to person is not applicable in every situation. Additionally, the term man-hour is applicable to everyone not just males.
Grahaml35 (
talk) 21:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Coordinate error
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Flight 191.
I don't think that source supports the change of coordinates - the link has an arrow and "approximately", and I note that the arrow is pointing towards where the coordinates currently locate to. The article doesn't have specific coordinates that I noticed, either.
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 14:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've tweaked the coordinates a bit so that they correspond more precisely to the location to which the arrow points in the photo, but I agree that no major change is called for (at least on the basis of the article cited above).
Deor (
talk) 15:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Engineer's suicide
@
Nephx:, @
Ahunt: Wanted to bring this up here in light of the recent edits.
MOS:EUPHEMISM absolutely recommends neutral and precise terms, thus favoring "committed suicide" over "took his own life", but
MOS:SUICIDE points out that while "committed suicide" is not banned, ...[t]here are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide. Is there a neutral compromise we can reach? I'm partial to "died by suicide" or "killed himself", personally. Thoughts?
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I am fine with "died by suicide" or "killed himself" as those are plain and clear. -
Ahunt (
talk) 23:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
With no further responses from anyone, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "died by suicide".
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
How on earth to parse this sentence?
"The Western crash, however, was due to low visibility and an attempt to land on a closed runway, through, reportedly, confusion of its crew."
47.14.77.193 (
talk) 09:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
"However, instead of any structural issues with the DC-10, the contributing factors to the Western crash were low visibility, and attempting to land on a closed runway, due to reported crew confusion."
Skimming the linked article, visibility was zero, and the crew was expected to perform a sidestep maneuver (aim at runway A, then scoot sideways to land on parallel runway B). The crew didn't realize they had to do this, but realized something was wrong; they tried to go-around but one of their landing gear hit a fully loaded dump truck parked on the closed runway. Their plane, a DC-10 like the flight 191 aircraft, was already under scrutiny from several other incidents, but in this specific case the factors contributing to the crash were all external. It just didn't help the plane's safety reputation.
I agree this sentence is kind of messy; hopefully this helps make sense of it for you!
NekoKatsun (
nyaa) 15:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply