This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Airbus A220 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: A, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are some different ideas how to present the A220 article according to WP:Aircontent as this article has more aspects compared to other WP aircraft articles e.g. "Legal" and "Marketing".
As stated in the WP:Aircontent, However "the backgrounds to different aircraft can vary widely and article structures will reflect this variety". Some "frequently used sections" are described here: Development/Design/Operational history/Variants/Operators/Accidents and incidents/../../Aircraft specification/... My understanding from the quoted sentence is that this WP:Aircontent only gives a "recommended layout" and doesn't standardize it (not mandatory). Therefore, in relation to Article A220, we can add an additional section 'legal aspects', dealing with "partnership and dumping petition", while the “Marketing” can be inserted as a subsection of the 'Operators' section. If one section is too much for us, we can also combine the “Design” and “Development” sections into “Design and Development” as was done in the MD-80/ MD-90 aircraft articles. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
more flow solutionshould be the choice of native english speakers. The Boeing dumping petition is an important part of the aircraft history as it caused the Airbus takeover, it's not just a legal hiccup. Anyway, we're going in circles and more external inputs are needed.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the two valuable inputs that support each other and to be honest I had a similar idea before, the cons is as said that the 'Development' section would get too huge. For the first step, the 'Legal Aspects' section has been renamed to 'Partnership and Rebranding'. The 'Development' section will later be reorganized to have a clear chronological order from CSeries - Partnership - Rebranding - A220. Let's just wait for a few more inputs. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've reorganized the article layout, which should reflect the outcome of our discussion. For the planned new article, the provisional title is “A220 takeover by Airbus”. Please review and update it, thanks.— Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
merge of all history into the development main sectionbefore
Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. Stick to that or try to make another consensus emerge.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to wait before getting started.But actually we still have to wait! Based on our discussion, there are 3 ideas that are similar to each other, at least the result is "a new article" with 3 different name suggestions:
a good compromise could be to rename the article CSeries dumping petition by Boeing to Development of the Airbus A220 and then move most of the development info to that article. That way all the "high level” development information can be contained within one Development section of the main Airbus A220 article., while Steelpillow wanted to name the new article with Bombardier-Airbus partnership instead, but agreed that
the details of the business games could move to the other article, but sufficient must remain to shape the main technical development strand, which equally definitely belongs here.
All passages related to business games, particularly in the subsection 'Marketing' should be moved to the current Partnership and Rebranding section, which will then be moved to a new article ... The lede will be then transcluded as a subsection Partnership and Rebranding of the main section Development. and reorganized to make it chronologically clearer.The difference is that the new article can be an all-new one, but not necessary the renamed CSeries dumping petition by Boeing article.
merge of all history into the development main sectionbefore
Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. The question is, why should we merge it first and then split it again (?) Isn't it easier to just split it and move it to the new article, like the first idea said, to avoid double work?
"high level"/"technical" development storyand an
intermediate subsection describing the takeover and any related legal aspects. Two way forwards are suggested for creating the new article, each with two supporting editors:
I'm not sure the statement the marketing designations changed to A220-100 and A220-300 at serial numbers 50011 and 55003 respectively. When I read an older version of Type Certificate No. T00008NY [1], my interpretation of that is, from those serial numbers on, the holder of that Type Certificate changed from Bombardier to CSALP, not for change in the marketing designation (see the note 5).
Especially as Flight Global states, in the also referred link, this was only with the 10th CS300/A220 delivered to AirBaltic [2], which, as the images show, is registration YL-CSJ, which is serial number 55038 [3]
Who knows for sure? Antheii ( talk) 17:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Can we add head note “Not to be confused with Airbus A320”, because both aircraft looks similar? Emery Cool21 ( talk) 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Ich-Du-De: Despite my warnings of avoiding WP:Puffery, you continue to add bloated material as if it came from a marketing brochure. This has to stop.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 22:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence at the top is well worded: "It was originally designed by Bombardier and had two years in service as the Bombardier CSeries." This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries. In line with the lead sentence, to reflect the phrase "originally designed by Bombardier" I wanted to add the following chronic in the infobox, "designer" section:
- Bombardier Aviation (until 2020)
- Airbus Canada LP (2020-present)
While the "manufacturer" section is actually not just Airbus Canada LP, but also Airbus Mobile. However, it is okay to write in this regard only the main assembly line. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 03:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries"This is why Bombardier should be listed under manufacturer. "Design Group" is intended for Soviet-style design bureaux, not full manufacturers, which you admitted Bombardier was. If you want to add the specific dates, that's fine, but I didn't do that as I was uncertain of the dates. BilCat ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Airbus A220 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: A, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are some different ideas how to present the A220 article according to WP:Aircontent as this article has more aspects compared to other WP aircraft articles e.g. "Legal" and "Marketing".
As stated in the WP:Aircontent, However "the backgrounds to different aircraft can vary widely and article structures will reflect this variety". Some "frequently used sections" are described here: Development/Design/Operational history/Variants/Operators/Accidents and incidents/../../Aircraft specification/... My understanding from the quoted sentence is that this WP:Aircontent only gives a "recommended layout" and doesn't standardize it (not mandatory). Therefore, in relation to Article A220, we can add an additional section 'legal aspects', dealing with "partnership and dumping petition", while the “Marketing” can be inserted as a subsection of the 'Operators' section. If one section is too much for us, we can also combine the “Design” and “Development” sections into “Design and Development” as was done in the MD-80/ MD-90 aircraft articles. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
more flow solutionshould be the choice of native english speakers. The Boeing dumping petition is an important part of the aircraft history as it caused the Airbus takeover, it's not just a legal hiccup. Anyway, we're going in circles and more external inputs are needed.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the two valuable inputs that support each other and to be honest I had a similar idea before, the cons is as said that the 'Development' section would get too huge. For the first step, the 'Legal Aspects' section has been renamed to 'Partnership and Rebranding'. The 'Development' section will later be reorganized to have a clear chronological order from CSeries - Partnership - Rebranding - A220. Let's just wait for a few more inputs. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've reorganized the article layout, which should reflect the outcome of our discussion. For the planned new article, the provisional title is “A220 takeover by Airbus”. Please review and update it, thanks.— Ich-Du-De ( talk) 05:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
merge of all history into the development main sectionbefore
Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. Stick to that or try to make another consensus emerge.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to wait before getting started.But actually we still have to wait! Based on our discussion, there are 3 ideas that are similar to each other, at least the result is "a new article" with 3 different name suggestions:
a good compromise could be to rename the article CSeries dumping petition by Boeing to Development of the Airbus A220 and then move most of the development info to that article. That way all the "high level” development information can be contained within one Development section of the main Airbus A220 article., while Steelpillow wanted to name the new article with Bombardier-Airbus partnership instead, but agreed that
the details of the business games could move to the other article, but sufficient must remain to shape the main technical development strand, which equally definitely belongs here.
All passages related to business games, particularly in the subsection 'Marketing' should be moved to the current Partnership and Rebranding section, which will then be moved to a new article ... The lede will be then transcluded as a subsection Partnership and Rebranding of the main section Development. and reorganized to make it chronologically clearer.The difference is that the new article can be an all-new one, but not necessary the renamed CSeries dumping petition by Boeing article.
merge of all history into the development main sectionbefore
Splitting a large part of the A220 history to a possible A220 takeover by Airbus. The question is, why should we merge it first and then split it again (?) Isn't it easier to just split it and move it to the new article, like the first idea said, to avoid double work?
"high level"/"technical" development storyand an
intermediate subsection describing the takeover and any related legal aspects. Two way forwards are suggested for creating the new article, each with two supporting editors:
I'm not sure the statement the marketing designations changed to A220-100 and A220-300 at serial numbers 50011 and 55003 respectively. When I read an older version of Type Certificate No. T00008NY [1], my interpretation of that is, from those serial numbers on, the holder of that Type Certificate changed from Bombardier to CSALP, not for change in the marketing designation (see the note 5).
Especially as Flight Global states, in the also referred link, this was only with the 10th CS300/A220 delivered to AirBaltic [2], which, as the images show, is registration YL-CSJ, which is serial number 55038 [3]
Who knows for sure? Antheii ( talk) 17:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Can we add head note “Not to be confused with Airbus A320”, because both aircraft looks similar? Emery Cool21 ( talk) 10:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Ich-Du-De: Despite my warnings of avoiding WP:Puffery, you continue to add bloated material as if it came from a marketing brochure. This has to stop.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 22:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence at the top is well worded: "It was originally designed by Bombardier and had two years in service as the Bombardier CSeries." This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries. In line with the lead sentence, to reflect the phrase "originally designed by Bombardier" I wanted to add the following chronic in the infobox, "designer" section:
- Bombardier Aviation (until 2020)
- Airbus Canada LP (2020-present)
While the "manufacturer" section is actually not just Airbus Canada LP, but also Airbus Mobile. However, it is okay to write in this regard only the main assembly line. Ich-Du-De ( talk) 03:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"This means that the aircraft was launched, developed and manufactured by Bombardier, certified and entered service for two years as the CSeries"This is why Bombardier should be listed under manufacturer. "Design Group" is intended for Soviet-style design bureaux, not full manufacturers, which you admitted Bombardier was. If you want to add the specific dates, that's fine, but I didn't do that as I was uncertain of the dates. BilCat ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)