| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucas L6B 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 |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
merge proposal edit
Why have three article for whart is essentially the same aircraft?--Petebutt (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: The three different versions of this aircraft have different wingspans, wing shapes and quite different performance. They aren't like different versions of, say the Cessna 150, which use the same wing and have the same performance. If we merge them then, as per consensus, because we only use one set of specs per article, we would lose that detail. Normally on WikiProject Aircraft if we have enough material to present different versions of an aircraft that have different specs then we have different articles on each version. Note that the L6 article currently has L-6B specs. I have been looking for a source to replace these with L6 specs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)