Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BilCat (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 22 June 2022 (Reverted 1 edit by 2A02:2149:8AD5:E000:3536:F240:20C8:AE4A (talk) to last revision by IAmChaos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Untitled

I


What frequencies?

The article totally omits any information on what frequencies are used for drone control. Could someone add this, at least for civilian UAVs? Military UAV control frequencies are likely secret, but I would think some information is available about what part of the radio spectrum is used. Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncrewed vs. unmanned

Regarding this revert by BilCat of changes here and there from "unmanned" to "uncrewed"... In general, Wikipedia prefers gender-neutral language (MOS:S/HE), and I've been changing a lot of "unmanned" to "uncrewed" and "human" all over the encyclopedia. I know "unmanned aerial vehicle" is a common term in the defense industry, though "drone" is probably more common among members of the public. NASA's style guide now prefers gender-neutral terms like "human spaceflight" and "unpiloted" over "manned", except for proper nouns. I did a search online, and "uncrewed aerial vehicle" is certainly a term that is in general use. I wasn't quite ready to rename this article, but it seems like "uncrewed aerial vehicle" should be at least mentioned in the intro as an alternate term. I also didn't want to obliterate all references to unmanned anything from this article, but I assumed that Wikipedia when writing in its own voice should use "uncrewed" in this article as we do in other articles where we use "human", "uncrewed", "unstaffed", or "autonomous". What do you, BilCat, and other editors think about these two things? -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for thinking you changed all mentions, as I clearly overstated there. My objections are primarily to the Lead title line. However, this is also a WP:common name issue. I did a quick Google search on "unmanned aerial vehicle" and "uncrewed aerial vehicle", and found the former had 4 million ghits, as compared to 2 thousand for the latter! This clearly establishes "unmanned aerial vehicle" as the common name, which is my sole objection to the changes. I am open to variety in the body to "unmanned" when used alone, but not to the full term "unmanned aerial vehicle". - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a measure of good faith, and as as I do support listing alternate name in the title line per the MOS, I have added "uncrewed aerial vehicle" back to the title line as an alternate name, with a citation needed tag for a reliable source for usage. Note that Uncrewed aerial vehicle was created as a redirect about 6 months ago, and so should be in the lead on that basis too. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I was about to suggest the same. I can try to more delicately change to "uncrewed" in the body, avoiding any changes to acronym expansions this time, of which I think there were only one or two. -- Beland (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no problem with that, and no objection to you doing that in the body while this discussion is ongoing, as it will help to illustrate the changes you desire. - BilCat (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Unmanned" is the by far most common name, and WP:COMMONNAME (a Wikipedia policy) overrides WP:MOS (a guideline). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, "drone" is even far more common, but as a title is much more ambiguous, so as a title, the current one is preferable per natural disambiguation. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last two posts. "Drone" is a far older term than "UAV" but WP:NATURALDIS dictates use of the neologism. Having accepted that, WP:COMMONNAME dictates the use of "Unmanned". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to echo the sentiment that unmanned appears to be the common name. Garuda28 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I've made the small changes mentioned above, and I don't plan on making any further changes, if everyone's happy with what's there now. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only gender-neutral definition for UAV that I have seen in reliable sources is the awkward Uninhabited aerial vehicle, which has been a WP redirect since 2005. 107.77.203.231 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered 3 papers that use Unoccupied Aerial Vehicle. Should there be a brief section offering alternative gender-neutral terminology? -- Matthew Fricke

Not visible enough

Not sure why Delivery drone, Agricultural drone, Autonomous spaceport drone ship, Miniature UAV, Micro air vehicle are not incorporated in the article better as they have they own articles, and maybe in Template:Mobile robots.

There are also Biomimetic drones (Bionic bird deluxe is one example). 95.178.150.90 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update on delivery drones required

The paragraph on transport drones is totally outdated. If I see right (I see but I can't believe it) the most recent reference is from 2018. That's in regards to such a quickly developing industry an eternity. Just look for yourselves what Yahoo has to say on a company specialised in delivery drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htcrlkn2Eq4 Don Aslan (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why reverting for the names?

Why reverting names? Few people say UACV daily. And many drones are not for any military use.

Hi. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ as this will add your sig at the end so we know who you are.
You changed the wording to "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or uncrewed aerial vehicle, commonly known as a combat/military drone or drone...". The grammar of that change implies that all UAVs are sometimes referred to as combat/military drones. As you correctly note above, that is not the case. Also "combat/military" is just a description, it is not part of the object class name, any more that "civil/civilian" or "private" would be. It should be used only where a sentence is referring specifically to military use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying UAVs

A long list of wing types has been added. When I reverted, it was restored. I see nothing specific to UAVs in the list, it is pretty much a comprehensive list for all aerodynes. It is not significant to UAVs just because some academic squeezed a paper on UAVs out of it. It need to be deleted. Does anybody have a problem with that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is nothing on that list that is specific to UAVs and I don't see how it adds any value. I vote for removing it. --McSly (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, based on the references [73][74][75][76], this is a common classification for UAVs, not in one paper, at least I have found 4 academic papers about it, please note that all of these references are review papers and are considered as secondary sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship) [it means that all of these sources are based on reviewing all the papers have published in their specific field], while there is a similar classification for manned aerial vehicles but it doesn't mean that it's not true about UAVs. In fact, drone designers always select their configuration from this list (based on their mission and the pros cons of each configuration). If you like it or not any UAV belongs to one of these configurations.
Furthurmore, this list is not just about wing type, the configuration of a UAV is different from wing type, not all configurations include wings, and just two categories in this list are about wing type. Configuration of a UAV determines the way a UAV uses to fly, it's more about their flight configuration, and this list includes all methods that have been used in UAVs to fly so far.
So I'm going to re-include it.
Beside of this list, I made some editions in that list, including:
adding appropriate headers
fixing typo mistakes
adding/removing references
and you have removed all of them. you should consider just editing some specific part of the content with acceptable reasons, not changing all of it with a reason that considers just a part of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saviorof (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steady on there. As a user who has only just opened an account, you need to be aware that sanctions are taken against users who edit war. I posted a Welcome with a big blue button on your user talk page for a reason! In particular, I'd strongly recommend you read WP:EDITWAR, WP:Dispute resolution and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I strongly advise against aggressive behaviour or comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the list, let me try to be crystal clear. Such classifications apply to all powered aircraft. Simply noting that they also apply to UAVs does not make them significant in an article on UAVs. The list adds nothing except clutter to the article; by your argument we should also be listing every configuration of undercarriage type, engine position, construction material, etc. etc. I think you can see how absurd that would be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Saviorof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please sign all your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This adds your sig to the end of your post and helps other users to follow who is talking about what. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to war with someone, also I can't find anything in my comment that seems to be aggressive.
Based on your opinion we shouldn't include any classification in any article. there are three types of classifications for drones and we should include them in the section "classification". one of them is based on weight and size (which almost all aviation organizations use such a classification), another is based on endurance and altitude (MALE, HALE, ...) and another one is based on configurations and flight mechanisms. in my opinion, we should include all of them because it helps the article. it's not "absurd" at all, it makes the subject clear, easy to understand, shows all of the latest developments, introduces all different available configurations.
Furthermore, almost any manned aircraft can be unmanned as well, so there is no specific classification that could be completely different from the classification of manned aircraft, but it doesn't mean that we are not allowed to classify the UAVs. That list represents all available configurations of UAVs. and definitely, we should include them in the section "classification" as well as two other common classifications.
These three classifications are definitely more useful, standard, and reliable than the current weird, referenceless classification that you have included. Saviorof (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stating "So I'm going to re-include it." indicates an aggressive intent to ignore WP:BRD and editwar. "I think it should be restored" would have been better. Also, my opinion is backed up by McSly, who is another experienced editor. If you can gain greater consensus for your opinion, fine. But until then, you need to be realistic about how Wikipedia works. 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, could you please clarify whether you made any recent edits as an IP editor, for example as 31.56.113.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who posted the original list? Failing to disclose multiple accounts creates a WP:SOCKPUPPET and earns grave sanctions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that those are the reasons that make me sure to add those classifications, I didn't mean that I want to continue this cycle. So I suggest you add those classifications to this discussion so that other interested editors can vote for them.Saviorof (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you include all three classifications that I have suggested.Saviorof (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if that list is just what you guys are disagreeing with, please re-include other editions I made.Saviorof (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the edit where I deleted your latest version here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles

The section on Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles clutters up the contents and duplicates much of the dedicated article on the topic. Does anybody have any objections if I drastically cut it back to the main article link and a paragraph or two? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful additions

I've removed this text from Phantom (UAV) where it didn't belong, perhaps parts of it may be useful additions to this article:

Reception of drones generally
A drone enthusiast community called SkyPixel has been created to help drone users.[1] Worldwide, drones are the subject of regulations for safety. For example, a number of incidents - such as a Phantom crash landing at the White House,[2] has prompted authorities in the USA (FAA),[3][4][5] the UK (Civil Aviation Authority)[6] and Europe (EASA)[7] to ban them in some locations (including airports) or regulate their use and require permits for commercial operators.[8] 2015 Tokyo Drone Incident led to wide-reaching changes to regulations on drones in Japan. However, in the USA the FAA has granted exemptions for production in Hollywood, aerial surveillance, construction site monitoring, crop scouting in agriculture and photography in real estate.[9][10]

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gregory S. McNeal. "Will Recreational Drone Flying Lead Drone Usage In 2015?". Forbes. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  2. ^ Jim Acosta (2 February 2015). "Friend: Drone crasher wants to apologize to Obama family". CNN. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
  3. ^ "DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). February 15, 2015. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  4. ^ Ian Morris (November 24, 2014). "Drones Like DJI Phantom Will Soon Require Full Pilot's License In The U.S. For Commercial Use". Forbes. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  5. ^ "China's drone king says the revolution depends on regulators". Reuters. July 30, 2014. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  6. ^ Matt McFarlan (January 21, 2014). "How should licensing work for commercial drone operators? A look at Britain's solution". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2, 2015.
  7. ^ "Civil Drones (RPAS)". EASA. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
  8. ^ "CAA Approved Drone Licensing". Heliguy.com. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
  9. ^ "Authorizations Granted Via Section 333 Exemptions". FAA. Archived from the original on 15 March 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
  10. ^ Zoe Kleinman (8 January 2015). "CES 2015: Why the future of drones is up in the air". BBC. Retrieved 7 March 2015.

Adding citations for the infrastructure inspection application of UAVs.

{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

  • For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
  • If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
  • If the page is protected, use one of the following:
    • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
    • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
    • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
    • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
    • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}.

  • Specific text to be added: I'd like to add a few references for the infrastrucutre inspection application of UAVs in the introductory part of the article.
  • Reasons for adding: Nowadays it is one of the most common and successful application of UAV and I think some references may help the reader weigh that importance.
  • Problem: Since I am author of one of the works I'd like to cite, it is a clear case of COI. However, I do not think I am falling into a case of mere advertising since this addition helps the reader to deepen his knowledge on this application of UAVs.
  • References to be added: [1] [2] [3]

Bnontn89 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bono, Antonio; D'Alfonso, Luigi; Fedele, Giuseppe; Filice, Anselmo; Natalizio, Enrico (2022). "Path Planning and Control of a UAV Fleet in Bridge Management Systems". Remote Sensing. 14 (8). doi:10.3390/rs14081858.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ Savva, Antonis; Zacharia, Angelos; Makrigiorgis, Rafael; Anastasiou, Antreas; Kyrkou, Christos; Kolios, Panayiotis; Panayiotou, Christos; Theocharides, Theocharis (2021). "ICARUS: Automatic Autonomous Power Infrastructure Inspection with UAVs". 2021 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). doi:10.1109/ICUAS51884.2021.9476742.
  3. ^ Trubia, Salvatore; Curto, Salvatore; Severino, Alessandro; Arena, Fabio; Puleo, Lucio (2021). "The use of UAVs for civil engineering infrastructures". AIP Conference Proceedings. 2343 (1). doi:10.1063/5.0047880.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unmanned_aerial_vehicle&oldid=1094464754"