Talk:Airbus A³ Vahana

Images

I have contacted Vahana team to get some pictures and images for this article. In addition I am working on the source code to make some histograms for the article. Vastaradelia (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, did you get any response from A³, one year later, how is the situation? If it needs more time to get the pictures, you can add your histograms now, thank you. Leo067 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Airbus A³ Vahana Beta

I'm not sure what is going on here, and efforts to find out have failed, but these appear to be two closly related designs. What I've seen so far can easily be covered here. Having a user just start moving articles and creating new ones without giving sources in the article or even an explanation on the talk page is disruptive, though obviously not intentionally so. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is very easy to explain: There can be put only one number in each line of the specifications table. And of course there is a big difference between the versions Alpha and Beta. Airbus A³ Vahana Alpha had already its first flight, Beta not. Alpha is for one passenger only, Beta can carry two persons. For sure you wouldn't call a A380 and a hypothetic A760 very similar designs. --Leo067 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't remove the good and serious work of others without even having been informed about the reasons of the change and split. Of course most times there are different opinions and reasons. Let's continoue this dicussion first. --Leo067 (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But you just finished splitting the good and serious work of others without having informed them about the reasons of the change and split. Now you want to discuss it after the fact. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BilCat you seem not to like to discussions or care for reasons or different points of views. It's your discussion, not mine. I don't started it. Please give me REAL reasons for your behaviour and why you act and set back the name / lemma without talking before. Did you ever heard about cooperation oder working together in constructive way? I get the impression you think, if it's not according to your opinion, it's wrong. But here are so many other useful possibilities and different opinions with good reasons. Most times it's really better to be open minded --Leo067 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

We would not create a seperate article for a one-off variant it can be described here. We only need the specification of the more common variant and the differences explained in the prose. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

formatting

In the lines Service ceiling

Service ceiling: 5,000 ft (1,524 m)

there should be the temperature added

Service ceiling: 5,000 ft (1,524 m) (35° C)

but because of the automatic formatting it's impossible to write anything different but numbers. I already tried {{ }} (like for the payload), but it didn't work. Does anybody have an idea how to put the temperature in the table? --Leo067 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hum never seen a temperature qouted for ceiling before, but you can add it to the "celing note" if it really is important. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For me it's unusual too to mention the temerature, especially if it's 35° C at 5,000 ft. Hopefully someone else can explain? --Leo067 (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

removing of categories

Dear Yerpo, please start a discussion instead of removing work that is useful. I explained already why I undid your revision. We are here to work together, not against each other.

These categories are in this article already for a long time and nobody complained. Airbus A³ Vahana IS a part of e.g. Urban air mobility. I think a bit mor cooperation and the spirit of working together would be much better than this 'undo-fight'. I asked you to start a discussion, you didn't want to. What's your problem? Do you think your opinion is more important than the work of the other editors? The article of your link says: 'If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.' Why didn't you respect this? --Leo067 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Leo067:: as I explained before, the work was not useful, because it introduced multiple redundant categories - for example, it makes no sense for this article to be both in the category Airbus and its child categories Airbus Helicopters and Airbus Helicopters aircraft. As Wikipedia:Categorization explains, categories in Wikipedia are hiererachical and "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs" (emphasis mine). How long the wrong situation persists is irrelevant here. The category:Urban air mobility category that you added is, on the other hand, obviously devoted to general subtopics of this topic and not for every aircraft model that may someday be used for urban air mobility, if you look at its contents. So my removal was completely in line with standard practices of content organization in Wikipedia, unlike your reverts. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Some people seem to feel to be Mr. Wikipedia themselves. Yerpo, as I already mentioned you linked a rule you don’t care about yourself, but you think you need to tell me and others what to do and what’s right. I would prefer you’d translate this article in your native language Slovene or care about your subject biology instead to start an unnecessary edit-fight. Just have a look on Kategorie:Urban Air Mobility in German or Category:Urban Air Mobility in English. Do you really think all the editors who care about these articles are doing wrong? In opposite to your behaviour I don’t add this category immediately to discuss it first, but I’m sure it should be done. --Leo067 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories have a hierarchy. If an item is within Category:Airbus Helicopters aircraft, it's already in Category:Airbus. No need for categorising it twice.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course I understood this principle. But what’s wrong to put an article about an eVTOL that’s planned for use in Urban Air Mobility in this matching category?--Leo067 (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leo067: it's difficult to have a rational discussion about content if you take every action as an offense against you personally. So can we please stick to the point instead of you lecturing me about where to contribute (which is rather offensive itself) and other ad hominem nonsense?

Now, there seems to be two questions: redundant categories which were added by the article's original author, and category:Urban air mobility added by you. I felt they weren't useful, so I removed them, then you reverted me completely. You now seem to be ok with removing redundant ones, and I could be persuaded about the one added by you (which was returned by Marc), so can we now end this arguing? Or is there something else bothering you? — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not an argument or should be it at least. I care about the subject and wonder why you think I take every action as an offense against me personally. It’s different. We should rather motivate and help each other than talking about ‘nonsense’ or ‘the work was not useful‘ when a part of it is useful. There is often more than one point of view. Dear Yerpo please start a discussion earlier next time. --Leo067 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, your indignant words certainly gave the impression that you were offended, and ad personam attacks against me did not help, either. I invited you to start a discussion with my first undoing of your revert, so you can hardly put the whole blame on me, dear Leo67. But I think it's time to end this discussion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Yerpo, it seems like you feel hurt deeply. There’s no need for that, it's only a small article in Wikipedia. Did you ever heard about de-escalation? There’s always a difference between what's said, meant and understood, especially if both persons talk in foreign language. I would prefer a communication directly, but unfortunately it’s not possible. So everyone can read it, even years later. I should have started a discussion because you suggested it? Why didn’t you do it on your own, you was the last one who removed changes. I wonder how you’d react if I told you what to do in an article of you concerning biology.

Do you know anyone who knows all rules of Wikipedia? I don’t. Of course they are necessary, but if only people could work on it (for free) who know them all and never make mistakes, it would be very short. You write bad things about me which I don’t agree and then you want to finish the discussion. That’s neither fair nor polite.

For sure we don’t need to create an elephant out of a mouse, because such misunderstandings happen more often than useful or necessary. That’s life. In this discussion we have three different countries of origin, so there are three different cultural backgrounds. Why shouldn’t this cause three different points of view or ways to act? --Leo067 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I believe it's time to end this discussion, so I won't dignify this with a reply, because it strayed far off topic and won't serve to improve Wikipedia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct company spelling?

A³ is not a company but a department of Airbus. So Airbus is the company. On every relevant website it’s spelled “A³” and not “Acubed”. Of course it’s pronounced a-cubed. I don’t know why someone found it necessary to change it to this false version. Let’s change it back. --Leo067 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Change of the Lemma of this article?

What do you think about renaming this article from Airbus A³ Vahana to Airbus Vahana? A³ is not a company, but only a department of Airbus (see last discusion). --Leo067 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)