This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shorts developed a Duralumin hull for the F.5 which was very successful and instrumental in persuading the Air Ministry that metal hulls were reliable. This needs to be mentioned here - I'll have a look when I can find the time, but if anyone wants to do this now, please go ahead. Barnes & James (Putnams) has the story in the chapter on the Singapore 1. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have an image of the F.3 in the article about the F.5? It seems odd. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not very happy with the numerous references to plastic model kits; especially as some are not even about this type of aircraft. I intend to remove the whole lot, but wish to first wait for some comments/discussion. Jan olieslagers ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I would politely suggest restoring the links for the benefit of all. Your thoughts please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 17:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
the article and included aircraft types referred to directly in the article including the F5. I accept another approach would be to transfer some of the links to their respective page, but that relies on clicking another link, it seemed more helpful to the reader to have all the links (aircraft) in one place in chronological order as they are referred to in the article and there are lists within the article in any case. I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for traders to push their products.
My response to the article was to look for more information hence my digging for model suppliers; I found the kit manufactures sites to contain information including some excellent colour illustrations and photographs of completed models that as you state above expanded information on the subject not included in the article. I also note the kit manufacturers undertake what appears to be extensive research to ensure the historical accuracy of their products. If there is good reason to delete then it would be based on the information within the links being overwhelmingly inaccurate. It strikes me that the debate here is subjective?-- 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scanning around I see a photograph in the F2.A and F3 articles that although they are not links, effectively advertise the Imperial Museum picture library. The link to the Smithsonian is also broken.
Turning to the links in question we have, through a process of debate, arrived at some findings that I will note:
The F5 article contains both lists of facts and links to other sub-topics.
The same article refers to other aircraft types in relation to the development of the F5 and following, for example the Supermarine Southampton.
The links I added include aircraft types referred to in the article.
Models are not referred to in the subject matter of the article.
Using my response to the article as an example we found there is information contained in the links that expanded on the information not contained in the article.
The extent that the article exists in the readers mind and what might constitute an improvement is seemingly an entirely subjective issue.
The information contained in the links is contained in text, illustrations and photographs; the information varies in quantity and quality.
Within some of the linked pages there is information that provides the reader with an option to buy the models that the various pages represent.
The reader is under no obligation to buy the models represented.
I am not working for a model kit manufacturer.
The parts of the relevant points to ELNO and SPAM already noted by A and N are I believe:
WP:LINKSPAM Adding external links to an article… for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed,... Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances.
I am not a model maker; my interest is information, I do not have an agenda to promote model making, model aircraft or any website that may lead to the sale of model aircraft.
Whether the circumstances of this case are special circumstances and what special circumstances are is apparently open to debate?
WP:ELNO 1. …does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
This point seems dependant on what the F5 article might be as a featured article and whether it would be possible to replicate all the information in the links in a featured article. I am inclined to think there would not be space on a Wikipedia page to do so without the page being overwhelmed with photographs. As to whether the F5 article is ever likely be a featured article, that is perhaps another question.
Assuming the page is a featured article then I would suggest the links do offer a resource beyond what the article contains to different degrees; the specific varients of aircraft referred to in the links are not detailed in the article.
It also occurs to me that the quality of the information in a link might be measured by whether the information is sufficient to be cited as a source, in which case a reader could access the link anyway.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website
The same would apply in my response to SPAM
5. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products
This could be dependant on the quantity and quality of the information that any particular linked page contains and where the balance lies.
In return, I ask the readers for their close attention and careful consideration.-- 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 12:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This matter is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Felixstowe_F.5_and_serial_numbers_in_captions. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I regret the removal of the link to [[ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eerste_Luchtverkeer_Tentoonstelling_Amsterdam ]], this seems to have real added value and I cannot see which wikipedia rule was being broken. Perhaps the form of the link was incorrect, but couldn't we think of a more positive approach than blandly removing valuable information? And yes, valuable it is, though perhaps less to people who do not master Dutch. Jan olieslagers ( talk) 10:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sure there is a reason, why is the F.3 Trans-Canada flight on the F.5 page? Rstory ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
One editor keeps adding links in the "see also - related development" to the article on a manufacturer Gosport Aircraft Company intending it to represent the Gosport G5, a redlinked article on an aircraft that no one has written yet. I have removed these several times. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#See_also explains what is supposed to go in this section "Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it." An aircraft manufacturer is not an aircraft type and cannot be "related development". Including a link to a manufacturer here is confusing to readers, is unexpected and should be removed. The correct solution is to write the article on the Gosport G5 and then add it here. Ahunt ( talk) 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Felixstowe F.5. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any reason for there to be two pages over a difference in engines? Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that score? There doesn't appear to be sufficient material to justify a fork. Cheers. - NiD.29 ( talk) 09:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shorts developed a Duralumin hull for the F.5 which was very successful and instrumental in persuading the Air Ministry that metal hulls were reliable. This needs to be mentioned here - I'll have a look when I can find the time, but if anyone wants to do this now, please go ahead. Barnes & James (Putnams) has the story in the chapter on the Singapore 1. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have an image of the F.3 in the article about the F.5? It seems odd. -- TraceyR ( talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not very happy with the numerous references to plastic model kits; especially as some are not even about this type of aircraft. I intend to remove the whole lot, but wish to first wait for some comments/discussion. Jan olieslagers ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I would politely suggest restoring the links for the benefit of all. Your thoughts please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 17:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
the article and included aircraft types referred to directly in the article including the F5. I accept another approach would be to transfer some of the links to their respective page, but that relies on clicking another link, it seemed more helpful to the reader to have all the links (aircraft) in one place in chronological order as they are referred to in the article and there are lists within the article in any case. I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for traders to push their products.
My response to the article was to look for more information hence my digging for model suppliers; I found the kit manufactures sites to contain information including some excellent colour illustrations and photographs of completed models that as you state above expanded information on the subject not included in the article. I also note the kit manufacturers undertake what appears to be extensive research to ensure the historical accuracy of their products. If there is good reason to delete then it would be based on the information within the links being overwhelmingly inaccurate. It strikes me that the debate here is subjective?-- 81.149.141.199 ( talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scanning around I see a photograph in the F2.A and F3 articles that although they are not links, effectively advertise the Imperial Museum picture library. The link to the Smithsonian is also broken.
Turning to the links in question we have, through a process of debate, arrived at some findings that I will note:
The F5 article contains both lists of facts and links to other sub-topics.
The same article refers to other aircraft types in relation to the development of the F5 and following, for example the Supermarine Southampton.
The links I added include aircraft types referred to in the article.
Models are not referred to in the subject matter of the article.
Using my response to the article as an example we found there is information contained in the links that expanded on the information not contained in the article.
The extent that the article exists in the readers mind and what might constitute an improvement is seemingly an entirely subjective issue.
The information contained in the links is contained in text, illustrations and photographs; the information varies in quantity and quality.
Within some of the linked pages there is information that provides the reader with an option to buy the models that the various pages represent.
The reader is under no obligation to buy the models represented.
I am not working for a model kit manufacturer.
The parts of the relevant points to ELNO and SPAM already noted by A and N are I believe:
WP:LINKSPAM Adding external links to an article… for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed,... Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances.
I am not a model maker; my interest is information, I do not have an agenda to promote model making, model aircraft or any website that may lead to the sale of model aircraft.
Whether the circumstances of this case are special circumstances and what special circumstances are is apparently open to debate?
WP:ELNO 1. …does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
This point seems dependant on what the F5 article might be as a featured article and whether it would be possible to replicate all the information in the links in a featured article. I am inclined to think there would not be space on a Wikipedia page to do so without the page being overwhelmed with photographs. As to whether the F5 article is ever likely be a featured article, that is perhaps another question.
Assuming the page is a featured article then I would suggest the links do offer a resource beyond what the article contains to different degrees; the specific varients of aircraft referred to in the links are not detailed in the article.
It also occurs to me that the quality of the information in a link might be measured by whether the information is sufficient to be cited as a source, in which case a reader could access the link anyway.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website
The same would apply in my response to SPAM
5. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products
This could be dependant on the quantity and quality of the information that any particular linked page contains and where the balance lies.
In return, I ask the readers for their close attention and careful consideration.-- 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 12:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This matter is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Felixstowe_F.5_and_serial_numbers_in_captions. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I regret the removal of the link to [[ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eerste_Luchtverkeer_Tentoonstelling_Amsterdam ]], this seems to have real added value and I cannot see which wikipedia rule was being broken. Perhaps the form of the link was incorrect, but couldn't we think of a more positive approach than blandly removing valuable information? And yes, valuable it is, though perhaps less to people who do not master Dutch. Jan olieslagers ( talk) 10:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sure there is a reason, why is the F.3 Trans-Canada flight on the F.5 page? Rstory ( talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
One editor keeps adding links in the "see also - related development" to the article on a manufacturer Gosport Aircraft Company intending it to represent the Gosport G5, a redlinked article on an aircraft that no one has written yet. I have removed these several times. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#See_also explains what is supposed to go in this section "Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it." An aircraft manufacturer is not an aircraft type and cannot be "related development". Including a link to a manufacturer here is confusing to readers, is unexpected and should be removed. The correct solution is to write the article on the Gosport G5 and then add it here. Ahunt ( talk) 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Felixstowe F.5. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any reason for there to be two pages over a difference in engines? Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that score? There doesn't appear to be sufficient material to justify a fork. Cheers. - NiD.29 ( talk) 09:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)