Talk:Eclipse Aviation

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

FSW[edit]

No link to Wiki "Friction Stir Welding". I don't how to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.185.153 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I made the link. For instructions on how to do this have a look at Help:Link#Wikilinks. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes[edit]

Here are some Eclipse 500 userboxes you can put on your user page:

Code Result
{{User:Ahunt/Eclipse}}
This user likes Eclipse 500 planes.
 Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Eclipse|1}}
This user flies an Eclipse 500.
 Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Eclipse|2}}
This user wishes that they flew an Eclipse 500.
 Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Eclipse|3}}
This user is an Eclipse 500 position holder.
 Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Eclipse|4}}
This user is glad that they were not an Eclipse 500 position holder.
 Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article length[edit]

This article is very detailed and is getting a bit long, by Wikipedia standards, although given the nature of the subject the detail is needed and unavoidable. Since the company's assets have been sold to a new company I think the best way of proceeding is that once sufficient information on EclipseJet Aviation International is available within this article to have it stand alone, that it should be split off into a new article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that it is far far far too detailed, and much too long, especially for a company that was not around very long. Much of the article is made up of details and quots about single incidemts and reports that could be much better summarized. I cam here to try to read a simple history of the company, but that cannot be doen with the current layout. I suspect the article is a victim of "recentism" and "controversy-ism", with of the details covering individual items that are answered later; ie, it reads like a collection of sequential news stories. Much of this could be condensed down into brief summaries. I'm not familiar enough with the events to have a go at it without having to spend long hours trying to understand the events involved, as I don't have the time. I am tempted just to take an axe to the article, and hope for a fresh start, but I'll wait to see what others think first. I do agree that an article on the new company is also needed, once enough deatils are available. - BillCJ (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it needs some wikification much of the detail is not really notable or relevant, most the aircraft specific stuff should be in the aircraft articles. Agree the new company should start again. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill & MB1: Thanks for your comments. As indicated above I agree with what you have said. I realize the coverage here is currently longer than some other manufacturer articles, but some very knowledgeable observers have indicated that this company may be more notable than any other in GA history. J. Mac McClellan in the March issue of Flying Magazine said: "The Eclipse episode is the biggest disaster in memory for GA because it took more than a billion dollars that could have been used to create new and viable airplanes and wasted it. And the trauma will linger for years as investors, rightly terrified by the Eclipse disaster, refuse to put money into new airplane programs that can really work." What Went Wrong With Eclipse?
The story itself is quite notable, but the level of detail is debatable. The problem with this story is that, as it has been unfolding, there are lots of details and until the story reaches some sort of conclusion it is hard to determine which are important and which are "red-herrings" or at least dead-ends. I have found it is easier to add material as it becomes available and then once the story has unwound to to cut it down later, rather than try to piece together important parts after the fact when the refs are much harder to go back and locate. This article, as it is currently written, has received some strong praise (in emails and blogs) from people involved in the story as being accurate, balanced and fairly complete.
That said it looks like the final chapter in the story is close at hand. At present from the media refs it seems very likely that the company will either have the court-mandated asset sale to EclipseJet Aviation International completed, although right now their promised funding for the purchase seems to have evaporated and so the sale my not happen. If not it will probably lead to a Chapter 7 piece-meal asset sale very quickly and the end of the venture. If the former happens my concept was to start a new article for the new company and then trim down the existing article, at last with the knowledge of which parts were important and which parts were not. If the latter happens then there will be no second article, but this one can be cut down, again knowing at that point which parts of the story are important. I just ask for a bit of time until the fate of the current company is known - this should be a matter of a week or two. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I did not check to see who the major contributor was before I wrote my piece, and I should have. I had assumed it was written by several users more interested in covering the controversy itsef, and that was obviously not the case here. I agree with your take above, and am fine with giving it all a few weeks to shake out. One possible solution is to have a short overview article on the original company, and then to have a larger one that deals with the problems and controversy in more detail. This way we satify those who just need a quick overview, but also give the details that Adam has worked so hard to add, and that do need coverage somewhere. Any thoughts on that? - BillCJ (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill: No apologies needed - I know it reads like it was written by a committee!! I like your idea of splitting it into two articles - a more standard and shorter one on the company and perhaps move most of the history detail into another article - don't know what we would call it, maybe "Eclipse History" (anything else I can think of would not be NPOV). Since I started following this story, my "target audience" hasn't been the grade 8 student that I usually keep in mind, but a future MBA class. This is an object lesson in something, but until the last dollar is spent, I can't be sure in what! Hence the shotgun plethora of detail. Thanks for your understanding, let's wait a bit then and see how it ends, complete the article and then look at a split into two of something. How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at tidying up the history and tried to put it in some chronological order. I removed some of the information as in my opinion it was not really needed, particularly the endless quotes which dont always add any value and details about the aircraft which should be in the aircraft articles. I think the new company should be a different article and the history could be spun off as it is still large even after a prune. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned then what I will do is spin the history off into a new article based on the original text which will then be edited down. Then the text here can be further reduced to removed some "less-general" information and make it more concise. Based on the assessment of some experts in the field like Mac McClellan quoted above who has called it the "biggest disaster in memory for GA", this is a huge story in aviation. It can't be adequately covered in a couple of paragraphs and many of the details will turn out for be important, although as mentioned above, it is still too early to be sure which ones, at this stage. That should be more evident when the company assets either pass into the hands of EclipseJet or are disbursed through a Chapter 7 process. I don't think that the EclipseJet section should be spun off into a new article until the company is up and running and producing aircraft, otherwise it will just end up as a footnote to the Eclipse story and not a viable stand-alone story in itself. Let me have a kick at the new "history" article and see what you think. When is is ready for a look I will post a link from this article and perhaps clean up and shorten the current history section. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as per above - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eclipse Aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eclipse Aviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eclipse Aviation. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Eclipse Aviation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eclipse Aviation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant assets[edit]

Our bankruptcy postings are created on behalf of our client, Oak Point Partners. We have been asked to adjust these bankruptcy postings to better conform with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and believe this post to be in compliance. Bankrupt Company News is a service of New Generation Research, Inc., a leading provider of corporate bankruptcy and distressed securities publications, products and services for over 30 years. Through its BankruptcyData, Bankruptcy Week, Distressed Company Alert and The Turnaround Letter offerings, New Generation Research helps to identify, monitor, research and invest in bankrupt and distressed companies (https://www.bankruptcydata.com/about). Bankrupt Company News, with an experienced staff and credible editorial policy, provides factual information regarding bankruptcy transactions. Our provided source is the signed Sale Order approved by the court Judge. If you have any questions about the source or information, please reach out to us for further proposed changes or concerns. Our intention is to keep the public informed about the ownership transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wik-authoring (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. On the surfaced that seemed fine to add, but in reading your cited ref there was no indication that there were any remnant assets or if there were that it was in any way notable. The company went bankrupt in 2009 and all assets were list as sold by August 2009. What could be left from that transaction? - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eclipse_Aviation&oldid=1196366283"