Talk:Partenavia P.68

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Edit warring

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on Partenavia P.68 article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing others. FYI as it stands you have reverted BilCat and myself, and even went as far to compromise - So you need to take your view to the talk page - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the pictures, and I reverted it per WP:BRD. It was your duty to not reverting it again and go in talk page to gain a consensus. You didn't. Anyway, now would be a good time to present your proposed changes: left, the layout before; right, after your removals. Please explain what's better.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC) This discussion should be moved to the relevant Talk:Partenavia P.68[reply]

Did you miss this part? - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a consensus, as a main pic change should be discussed before usually, and as we reached a consensus with Bilcat that the TP Viator may be split to another page. Anyway, your last revert didn't include it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: leave this part here where it's relevant!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image overload

Requesting for input @BilCat: @Ahunt: @Fnlayson: @MilborneOne: - I've purposed the following image clean up per WP:IMAGEMOS (it included a main image change) - the prior version was this - Editor Marc Lacoste (talk) reverted, followed by BilCat's reversion back. (Lacoste reverted again) so I applied a compromise, not good enough for editor Lacoste, I offered a second compromise restoring his preferred main image, again still not good enough for editor Lacoste. (not even an edit note, on the last revert) - I sent him a warning (edit warring) - So? -FOX 52 ^talk! 07:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dont see a major image overload here, perhaps remove F-HTLI as it is nothing special and a bit cluttered, but all the rest show different variants or operators. MilborneOne (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. File:F-HTLI (26655473180).jpg illustrates the Vulcanair production and marketing, a major change for this aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a major change for this aircraft? and the reader will see these significant changes? - FOX 52 ^talk! 08:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the aircraft is in front of a Vulcanair-branded air show booth and banners.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the current number of images seems okay to me. I wouldn't add any more that this unless a lot more text was added, but it seems okay as is. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Anybody know why we describe variants in "Development" and have a wierd non-standard table in "Variants" ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the (sortable) table as it allow to compare and better understand the difference between variants.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the usual layout of a variant section. MilborneOne (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but is it detrimental or adds value?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of variants is described in "Development" as it shows their historical evolution.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with evolution of variants but the content as written is what we would normally put in a variants section rather than the non-standard table. MilborneOne (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the non-standard "Variant table" really needs a consensus why this type needs it and the other 10,000 do not, I will raise it at project if I get time as it it is a departure from the norm. MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it could be an improvement or a regression?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The major differences in the Variants could be better presented in a Specs table, though this article does not have one now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Could you show an example? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the Boeing 7x7 and Airbus A3xx airliner articles with the main variants in different columns in the Specs table. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it was in the before 12 may revision maybe?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes something like that sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]