Talk:Sport Flight Talon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sport Flight Talon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Aircraft specifications question[edit]

I added a specifications section for the XP variant of this aircraft because it is by my research, the most popular version, as the numbers in the article reflect as well. I understand that the intention is to have only one specifications block, so I thought that it would be most straightforward to add the new one then remove the old one in successive steps so that it would be easy to edit/undo. However, while I was in the middle of the task, my edits got undone, and the link to publishing only one block of specs was referenced as the reason. Seems that there may be a disagreement as to which set of specs should be used. Is there some reason that the specs of the far less popular single version of the aircraft should be used over the more popular tandem version? (The instructions for the use of the block say that the most popular or noteworthy variant should be used.) NeilWhelchel (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we can use either one, just not both. I'll switch them. - Ahunt (talk)

Done. The main reason that I reverted back to the old one is your specs had a number of errors (it isn't a three-seater - I have fixed all of those) and the ref is unclear - what manual?? We need a title, author, publisher, etc, if you could add that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the mistake about how I used the info blocks about the crew and capacity (I am still not 100% familiar with how the template works, and I did not catch this on my initial proofreading.) I was editing that at the time that it got removed. Seems that we are inadvertently butting heads as I am from a software background and I was taught to make small incremental edits so they are easier to follow as opposed to large atomic edits. Seems you caught me in the middle of a work in progress, coupled with a mistake. I am working on adding references regarding the manual, but I have ran out of time, and I will have to come back to this later today. NeilWhelchel (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, I'll leave it for you to catch it up when you have time there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

A while back I made an edit to the wingspan dimension. It was reverted as being original research because I used the actual measurement from the plane. The value I entered in the edit matches the manual in the weight and balance section, but does not match the general dimensions page. Specifically, the assembly manual called out differing specifications for the same plane on different pages. I did some investigation, and it turns out that there are a number of mistakes in the manual as it seems that the manual was modified as new models of the plane were created, and some updates that are model and configuration specific were missed. (Some were corrected in later versions of the manuals, some were not.) It seems unclear if it is actually original research if the manual lists 2 conflicting dimensions (obviously an error), and I determine which one to use by actually measuring the plane. It seems more like an error correction. Am I incorrect? NeilWhelchel (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question here. If the manual is confusing and offers two or more conflicting measurements and you determine which one is correct and enter that, citing the ref than I think that is fine. The key thing is that it is verifiable, in that it is written down somewhere that can be checked. A note in the ref you cite that indicates the conflict and how it was resolved would be helpful for accuracy. I have changed it back to 28' 10" and added the note. See what you think.- Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]