Talk:Beechcraft Denali

System Details

I agree they are not extremely important, but they exist nonetheless and are documented, as they are in Boeing 787. It shows the project is still on track and give a glimpse of Cessna design work. While they could be excessive, this article is still a stub and needs material, which is scarce right now. When the article will be richer and too long to read, it will be time to prune it. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Existence of information is not a reason to include it; we would not bother to mention which company manufactures the wheel hubs, which company manufactures the tyres, which company manufactures the propeller de-icing system components, which company manufactures the pitot head, which company manufactures the windscreen, which company manufactures the cabin vanity, which company manufactures the standby battery, which company manufactures the Nav antennas, which company manufactures the bleed air system, which company manufactures the outflow and safety valves.... YSSYguy (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

if you have this kind of info with sources you should add it. eg:" Thales supplies the integrated standby flight display and power management,[7] while Meggitt/Securaplane provides the auxiliary power unit (APU) starting system, electrical power conversion system, and battery control system[196][197] with lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) batteries by GS Yuasa.[198][199]" (787) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Why should I add it? YSSYguy (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

because it details the development of the aircraft. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is falling under WP:TRIVIA. Keep in mind this is a general encyclopedia, info at this level wouldn't even be included in Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up relevant policies but I understand WP:TRIVIA is for pop culture, not the kind of tech details here. WP:TRIVIAL is perhaps more appropriate. I think these tech details pass the significant coverage requirement. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of whether parts suppliers have been detailed in a ref, it is whether it belongs in a general encyclopedia article. There is probably 100 suppliers making parts for this aircraft, that is just the way modern aircraft are built. If an article can be found that lists who is making the wheel rims, tires, wiring harnesses, rivets, etc, etc, we aren't going to add all that, it is just too much minor trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

So why it's acceptable for the 787 and not here?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Yuasa batteries used in the 787 represent a significant departure from all previous aircraft electrical systems and the other items mentioned are ancillary to the batteries; and of course there are the battery problems that grounded all 787s. YSSYguy (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It should be in #Operational problems rather than #flight systems then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverting

[first two comments moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

Hello Marc, you reverted the convert template and marketing from my edit. I get the bit about references but why change it all instead of just putting the reference back? Avi8tor (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, you did not separate your edits either. If some material is supported by a reference, the reason for removal may be beyond personal preference and it has to be false.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)this discussion should be moved to the relevant Cessna Denali talk page.

---

Hello Marc, I see you have again reverted the edit I made despite my including a reference, if this needs more discussion I'd like to hear it. The bit about the door being bigger than the competition and then naming the competition is marketing and does not belong on Wikipedia. The article is about the Cessna Denali not the competition. You removed the convert template, why? Avi8tor (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparing one new design to the competition is not marketing, it's a comparison. It's referenced, and the source article makes many comparisons with the PC-12. Wikipedia is here to refer to WP:RS, and it's the case. I've been thanked for restoring this referenced content. As for the cvt template, if the source gives both units, we should avoid making our own conversions to avoid picking the wrong source number. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to do some research but I'm sure the MOS does not want something what appears to be "ours is better than the competition". It's similar to saying "this is the best hotel in (Lagos)". Magazines are published to make comparisons.

Many conversions done without the convert template are not accurate when required, hence the convert template. Some conversions don't need to be accurate, as in something is about 100 yards away is an estimation, so it's also about 100 metres away. English language articles all too often convert original metric to a larger or smaller rounded number and then someone will convert the rounded conversion back to metric. 5000 m might be rounded to 15000 ft and then converted back to 4500 m, generally only happens when the original number is metric. I don't think you should be removing the convert template and relying on someone else's calulation. Avi8tor (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

[comparisons] It's factual. X+3 inches is longer than X inches. Maybe you could find a relevant essay. There maybe another essay for the opposite position.

[converts] Yes, so it's better to stick with the conversions done by the source to avoid further drift.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The conversion from the source may be incorrect, especially in newspapers, the only way to see is with the convert template. Also worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

Avi8tor (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is an error in the source (unknown in the present case), we should avoid choosing one number over the other one because we don't know the good one. The best thing to do would be to find a better source.

WP:IMPARTIAL is about disputes, not comparisons.

MOS:QUOTEPOV is interesting in our present case: if the comparison seems biased to you, it's possible to quote the source (eg AIN states that one dimension is 3 inches longer than another one). If stating the source seems overkill, it's because it's not that controversial. see WP:BLUESKY.

MOS:CONVERSIONS aptly states In a direct quotation, always retain the source units.

Anyway, we're starting to go in circles now, we need another editor input.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Development updates?

I'm unfamiliar with this aircraft program, and the article indicates that several important development benchmarks were scheduled to take place in 2020, which is 5 months behind us as I write this. If these events happened, the article needs to be updated; if not, the article needs to be reworded. Carguychris (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)