(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Boeing Insitu MQ-27 ScanEagle - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Boeing Insitu MQ-27 ScanEagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 29 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WPAVIATION}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

UAE

According this this article, the UAE opperates these as well.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019822425_apmliranusdrone.html\

=//= Johnny Squeaky 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believed to be

I have removed the statement twice that an uav show by Iran in an image is "believed to be" a commercial available version, this is pure speculation and clearly not encyclopedic. Please if you want to add it then it really needs a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Iran as a user?

I doubt that Boeing/Insitu have sold this to Iran... If they've produced their own domestic version by reverse engineering, then it needs to be its own section and removed from this. Its not correct/scholarly to list customers of a company when we all know that the company never sold a product to them (capturing 1 drone doesn't count). I'm going to remove it for now until something can be said for its defense. Johnsmithy678 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Iranian production lines

I think the pictures released by Iran do deserve a mention, as they show that they are indeed trying to reproduce the drone on a mass scale (even if no one knows whether it can actually fly)...

The references, however, might certainly be improved. Maybe the best would be to upload one of these pictures? (I don't know how to do that on wikipedia...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vheld (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet

The specifications in the TCDS Q00017LA [1] for the ScanEagle X200 differ in some respects from those quoted in the article, this may be a civilian/military difference or differences for the X200 version. Is it worth a mention anywhere ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing Insitu ScanEagle. 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 true or failed 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania is current (not potential) ScanEagle user

Hi,

please correct, because:

a) there is a statement that Lithuania already has ScanEagle UAS:

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Patuxent River, MD intends to negotiate and award a sole source, Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Delivery Order under Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00019-12-G-0008 with Insitu Inc., 118 E. Columbia River Way, Bingen WA, for launch and recovery equipment (LRE), related technical information, and operation center (i.e., call in) technical support for the previously procured Scan Eagle unmanned air systems for the Lithuania Ministry of Defense.

b) here is a video showing Lithuanian military operating ScanEagle UAS (start from 19:45):

http://www.lrt.lt/mediateka/irasas/157242/karines_paslaptys

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.75.247.226 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing Insitu ScanEagle. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. Wrong venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Boeing Insitu ScanEagle → ScanEagle – Per first sentence at WP:PRECISE: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." (emphasis mine) Google Search for "scaneagle -boeing -insitu -unmanned -drone -uav" strongly suggests that there is nothing else of any significance called "ScanEagle", so "Boeing Insitu" is not required for disambiguation. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not doing alphabet soup stuff today, this is the consensus view of the aircraft project if you think this article is an exception to that consensus then so be it, you have made your case above. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don't understand my comments. I don't think this article is an exception to the project's consensus. Unless there is a documented formal community consensus (the project is not the community), the project's consensus appears to "have no more status than an essay" (from CONLEVEL). If the project wishes to seek that community consensus at this time, I will gladly withdraw this request. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand but this is a discussion on your proposal to move this page it has nothing to do with the status of any such consensus, if you have an issue with that then raise it on the related talk page. I oppose the move based on project consensus, how that was achieved is not relevant to this discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per Wikipedia policy, the project consensus should be discussed at the community level, and it should be made clear that the project seeks an exception to title policy including, but probably not limited to, WP:PRECISE. "This is the judgment of the project and it's how it's been done for a long time" is not a policy-based argument, and it's unlikely to outweigh CONLEVEL on this (unless I overestimate the role of policy in move requests). You can cite WP:CONSENSUS, but CONLEVEL clearly says that the project consensus alone is not enough to override general title policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I am starting to repeat myself but this is about your request to move, you state your case and others agree or disagree. If others quote a consensus then it is up to the closing admin to way the arguments. The consensus could be a couple of blokes in a pub, members of a project or everbody on wikipedia but how that was achieved is not relevant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Stong Oppose - The current title meets the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions for aircraft to use "manufacturer-designation-name" (M-D-N) format. In fact, the aircraft now has a US military designation, MQ-27, but it is not well publicized at this point. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Per WP:MOSAT, explicit conventions are allowed, and the aircraft project's conventions are listed in the {{naming conventions}} listbox at the top of the Wikipedia:Article titles page. So these conventions do have de facto approval of the WP community, even is de jure approval was never achieved in the early days of WP, though it may well have been. If the OP wishes to challenge the right of WPAIR to use these explicit conventions, this specific move request isn't the venue to do it. However, you can request an exception to the guidelines based on some overwhelming common name. But to my knowledge, the only such exception is the Concorde article, and this one is a long way from that level. - BilCat (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now at: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Status of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that has to with move requests. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing Insitu ScanEagle. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing Insitu ScanEagle. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_Insitu_MQ-27_ScanEagle&oldid=1200226572"