This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Both articles refer to the aircraft as copies of the Dauphin, either license-built or reverse-engineered and both articles are stubs that would fit the Variants section. --Born2flie02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Support. For reasons above. However, if they are not merged here, they should at least be merged together. - BillCJ02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Support merging the two articles together.Oppose merging Z-9. Given that the Z-9 is a licenced produced copy rather than just a local designation, and that the Chinese have made substantial modifications and their own variants, I think Z-9 can stand as a seperate article. Compare, for example Westland Whirlwind (helicopter) as a seperate article from Sikorsky H-19, and Type 56 assault rifle as a seperate article from AK-47. FiggyBee22:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The recommendation is to merge both Z-9 articles to this article. Both are stub-class articles, and the Z-9 describes it being a stop gap until the Chinese complete their WZ-10 helicopter. I'm just not sure if you realized that was the discussion. --Born2flie02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course I realise that was what you were suggesting. I was simply agreeing with BillCJ's suggestion that the two extant articles on the Z-9 should be merged together, whilst disagreeing that they should be merged into this one. Just because an article is a stub is no reason to merge it into another article, and I think the Z-9 is distinct enough from the Dauphin to warrant its own article. Additionally, take a look at the pages that link to Z-9 - they are specifically Chinese defence topics and it is helpful to link them to a page specifically about the Chinese version of the helicopter.FiggyBee13:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
For the time being, I don't think we're going to get any more votes, so I am supporting not merging the Z-9 with the Dauphin. Hopefully the article will be expanded in the near future, or merger is likely to be proposed again. - BillCJ18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not talking about merging it forever. In fact, merging it may serve as the impetus for someone to improve it enough to split it back out as its own article. --Born2flie02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure there was a concensus established one way or another for the merge. I understand that the Z-9 has had modifications, but they mostly consist of "strap-on" modifications built onto the airframe and not true modifications to make it a totally different airframe. Essentially, they remain license-built Dauphins with locally produced modifications. If I install a different avionics suite than the manufacturer offers, I don't change the nature of the aircraft, even though I may have to do rewiring or bolting on other pieces of equipment to make it work. Z-9=Chinese-built Dauphin, nothing more. --Born2flie03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Turkish Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Forestry) used this helicopter from 1991 to 2016 (can be added to Former operators) and then donated it to NEU (Necmettin Erbakan Universitesi) in Konya.
[1]
The helicopter is in display there, and this information can be added to Aircraft on display section.
[2]
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have a great digital photo I took about a year ago of Maryland State Police "Trooper 1" landing in a field. I'm assuming to medivac an injury as it was right next to a concrete plant and workers and firemen were milling around near edge of the field. Would the community be interrested in another picture or is there too many already? If so, how do I upload? Thanks GarrettJL19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support - Really not enough content to warrant a separate page, esp as less than 50 SA 360s were sold. I would support separating the EC 155 from the older models, as there have been substantial changes to the airframe, but this is not really necessary at this time. - BillCJ17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Support - So far I've counted five different articles, between civil and military , Chinese and US variants about this chopper. That is clearly too many, as these variants are all similar, and with not enough material to go around. Also the choice of titles is misleading: it's not a question of different manufacturers, but of different models: Dauphin and Dauphin 2. Raoulduke4712:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but the Dauphin "1" was long out of production by the time Eurocopter came about, and AFAIK, Eurocopter never marketed the Dauphin 2 under its original name - simply as the "Dauphin". BTW, I would support merging the various Dauphin 2 articles together. --Rlandmann00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - I've only just been made aware of this proposal. Please give me until 28 April to elevate the Aérospatiale Dauphin article above stub class. --Rlandmann19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (and re-write it, since I've just discovered that it was a copyvio in the first place).Reply
Given limited production and usage of the single-engine variants, I'm really not sure how much it can be improved, but I am willing at least to give you a chance to do so. Free or otherwise-usable images would be a great improvement. I can help with adding infoboxes and other sections too, if we decide to keep the article here. - BillCJ20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
In 1972, Aérospatiale built the Dauphin, a single-engine helicopter. Three years later, they built a twin-engine variant of this, called with Dauphin 2. In 1992, Aérospatiale's helicopter division was merged into Eurocopter, and since the original Dauphin was no longer being built, Eurocopter marketed the Dauphin 2 simply as the Dauphin.
Aérospatiale Dauphin - single-engine helicopter
Aérospatiale Dauphin 2 - twin-engine development of above
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Support. Both articles refer to the aircraft as copies of the Dauphin, either license-built or reverse-engineered and both articles are stubs that would fit the Variants section. --Born2flie 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - I've only just been made aware of this proposal. Please give me until 28 April to elevate the Aérospatiale Dauphin article above stub class. --Rlandmann 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (and re-write it, since I've just discovered that it was a copyvio in the first place).Reply
