Talk:Airshow collision kills one in Dittingen, Switzerland

Review of revision 3765882 [Passed]

Revision 3765882 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3765882 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Ejected

{{editprotected}}The story uses the word "ejected". This is incorrect - one pilot parachuted to safety. "Ejected" means they escaped by using an ejection seat, something which this aircraft type does not have. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The story does use the verb "eject". Two of the sources use that word, too. There's a picture of a similar airplane, from which it does appear unlikely that an ejection seat is involved, though further research would be required. Whether the verb "eject" implies the use of an ejection seat, or whether that's just being excessively pedantic (like insisting that "decimate" only applies to a reduction by ten percent) is another messy question. And what would be an appropriate action — {{correction}} or what — is still another question. --Pi zero (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wondering what thoughts the reporter might have on the point. --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary's relevant definition for wikt:eject reads "To project oneself from an aircraft." That matches my understanding, with the proviso that I'm not sure the word requires a special definition just for aircrat. Not being content, of course, with a freely-edited result I hit some alternatives. Cambridge says an ejection seat is required, but it also implies it's not an ejection if it isn't an emergency which I don't buy. Reference.com acknowledges ejection seats but, if I read correctly, uses them only as a typical example ("as by an ejection seat). Collins straightforwardly requires either ejection seat or a capsule.

I save Oxford til last since it has long been my preferred option. The OED does not at any point define specifically for aircraft. Indeed, it does not have any supporting quotations since 1879, meaning they view the word as unchanged since then. "To throw out from within."

The dictionary trawl does not convince me of any error of wording, although it does not entirely eradicate doubt on the point either. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

While we're comparing dictionaries, here's one written in the aviation age: from Second Random-House Unabridged, 1987, and added after the first edition, 1966 (both hardcopy): "v.i. 5. to propel oneself from a damaged or malfunctioning airplane, as if by an ejection seat". No actual ejection seat required. --Pi zero (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and pull the template down. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)