Talk:De Havilland Canada Dash 8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Airspeed

High speed cruise 289 kts / 535 km/h

The article is ambiguous about whether this is indicated airspeed or true airspeeed. They can be significantly different. -Rolypolyman (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not detailed in the ref. As it is a marketing brochure showing capabilities, it should be TAS for route planning, not IAS/CAS for operations.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it would be TAS in a marketing doc, not IAS, which would be normally only found in a POH. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename Page

Bombardier has sold the Q400 division to Viking Air, so the page should be renamed. 24.108.52.198 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the press release in the article "The sale and transaction are expected to close by the second half of 2019.". We will rename the article when it has been bought, not when someone has said they intend to buy it. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is too soon. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, we don't generally rename an article in such cases immediately after the sale. This is due to WP:COMMONNAME. It's a case by case decision anyway, and needs to be done through the RM process. - BilCat (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would even support a de Havilland Canada Dash 8 rename. Note that if BBD sold it, it is because the program has almost flatlined. If I was Viking, given their portfolio, I would go ahead and rename myself de Havilland Canada or Canadair!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd rename Viking as "de Havilland Canadair". :) - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not yet. Let them announce any name changes officially first, similar to the Bombardier C Series becoming the Airbus A220.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

variant of the main picture

Although the -400 is the most widespread variant, it's perhaps not the most representative of the whole series, being the longest. Maybe the midsize -300 would be more adapted, showing the same features: same nose, T-tail, long engine nacelles, tall landing gear, etc.; almost the same except for the longer tube: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Lacoste (talk • contribs)

• 
  current -400
• 
  midsize -300
• 
  shortest -100/200

Given that Q400 production accounts for half of all Dash-8s built, it may be most appropriate to have the Q400 as the infobox image. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay then, if we keep a Q400, the current Flybe one mybe less interesting than some alternatives:

• 
  Luxair, gear down
• 
  Eurolot, gear up
• 
  Airberlin, inflight

I do like the Airberlin inflight picture.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the Airberlin one is a better image. - Ahunt (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: RESULT. Page moved, (without the Dash in Dash-8) Johnnyw3 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Bombardier Dash 8 → De Havilland Canada Dash-8 – Program sold to De Havilland Canada as of June 3, 2019. Also, according to their website, their name is De Havilland (note the capital 'D') Johnnyw3 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support: as per https://dehavilland.com/en/about-us - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've already boldly done this move, which I presumed would be uncontroversial, though unfortunately before noticing this RM discussion. Oops, what happens now? Naturally I support the intent of this request! A hyphen is not needed between Dash and 8 in the title as DHC don't have one on their page, so no further move is required. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Great, the dash was just a typo I believe, must have got it confused with the dash in Dash 8-400. I believe I've closed the move, but I'm not an expert on this either, so I may have missed something. Johnnyw3 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Decapitalize the D in "de". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:680:1B08:B1BB:20F9:7FEE:B635 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually if you check https://dehavilland.com/en/about-us you will see that company name is officially spelled with a capital "D" now. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IABot Rescuing X sources and tagging 0 as dead

@Ahunt: Lately @Gog the Mild: is using IABot (no explanation, just a link to a cryptic OAuth applications authorization) on aircraft articles, "Rescuing X sources and tagging 0 as dead", like here. I like avoiding WP:LINKROT, but in this case it does not avoid anything because as noted, it is "tagging 0 [sources] as dead" so every url is still live on the original website. I understand it's a preemptive move, but all it does is obfuscating the wikitext source, not rescuing a rotten link. No gain but a tangible loss. The copy is still in archive.org, no matter if its url is written in a template or not. If a link rot later, the discoverer can tag it as rotten, and then a bot rescuing it would be useful. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'll continue to revert those useless modifications. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "obfuscating the wikitext source". Lately I have had so many issues with WP:LINKROT (some source websites have just disappeared before archive links can even be created) that I have been manually adding archived sources and even creating new archived sources, as I write new articles. Add to that that recently a number of IPs have been just deleting refs that contain broken links (such as here, yesterday). It preserves sourcing; there is no downside to doing this other than space. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. Ahunt has said it better than I could. I archive sources as a sort of "payback" for all of the backroom assistance I receive. As a Wiki-gnome it comes naturally. I have to date received four barnstars and innumerable "thank you's" for this. One editor reverted and contacted me direct: after an explanation I got a "thank you" and an unrevert. Hi Marc Lacoste, I have noted you reverting a couple of times but it didn't seem worth making an issue of, and certainly I have no desire to impose anything on an article which an editor has done a lot of work on, WP:OWN notwithstanding. If you have an issue with a particular article, I don't care, I am just a passing Wiki-gnome. If you object in principle to links being archived, perhaps you could articulate your objections in more detail? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of you are obviously helpful. I also try to do my share. I often archive some refs, I use the useful archive.org chrome extension for that. @Ahunt: I meant "obfuscating the wiki text source" as it become more difficult to read and maintain. Legibility is a downside. @Gog the Mild: I certainly don't own any article. I do not object archiving links, I encourage that, but if no source is dead, it does not change anything but renders the wikitext more painful to edit. Adding archive-urls in bulk may be useful when many urls are broken, but this is querying archive.org, not archiving an url. When I see a dead link, I try to repair it with a new link to the same content (complete ref data is useful) before going to archive.org at least ressort. (like Ahunt did in his exemple for sailboatdata.com) If it ain't broke, don't fix it!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Marc, but I am still not seeing how it makes then text harder to edit or maintain. Sure the refs are longer, but so what? It doesn't impinge on the actual article text. I still don't see any disadvantages to archiving sources like this and it seems to be well supported by policy. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit clash.

@Marc Lacoste and Ahunt: I didn't mean to cast aspertions suggesting that anyone wasn't pulling their weight; as the editor whose edit was being questioned it seemed incumbent on me to establish my bone fides. I understand your point, I think. But sadly, by the time it is broke, it may not be fixable. I have certainly come across articles I wanted to work on where a (non-archived) link has rotted and not been retrievable. I have been picked up at FAC for not having (preemptively) archived my links. It seems to me to be a case of "A stitch in time saves nine".

I am not sure how having a link archived makes the wiki source text "become more difficult to ... maintain". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Gog the Mild on this. I have seen that same issue, where a link breaks and then cannot be fixed later due to lack of archived sources (even though archive.org is supposed to save all Wikipedia ref links, it doesn't always do that), which is why I have started actively archiving them as a I go. It just makes the encyclopedia better referenced. That can't be a bad thing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The IAbot does not archive anything, it only retrieves some archive.org url. It could be done anytime.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Without knowing the detailed workings of the bot, I would assume that it is easier for it to do its job while the page still exists, enabling it to compare the archived content with the original page. On occasions when I have manually searched archive.org after the original link has gone dead, I have frequently come across archived 404-style notices instead of the desired content, for example. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosbif73: but the IAbot is not aware of anything and could also point to "not found" notices in archive.org (not 404s, it's a real http code).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I appreciate source archival; I've had a lot of online source material on obscure topics vanish, be over-written with an update, or disappear behind a paywall. I also appreciate that it's difficult to read through text in the edit window when it's broken up by long citation templates, if that's the problem. When I write or re-write an article, I typically name all the references and place the citation templates at the end of the article under the |refs= parameter of {{reflist|refs=}}. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above opinions from User:Reidgreg, User:Rosbif73 and User:Gog the Mild, it is easier to archive sources when we know they exist, before they are gone and we find archive.org has missed them or only archived 404 pages or redirects. Very often I have to request archive.org archive the page in real time, which it often does, but equally often won't do for technical server reasons. There is no down side to getting archives early, before the source goes dead, except a bit of complexity. I think as encyclopedic editors we can deal with a bit of added complexity in the interests of having a better encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

But IAbot is not archiving pages, it only fetch the archive.org url. No value whatsoever if the url is not yet dead. Reidgreg: I tried placing all references in reflists but I find it difficult for ref maintenance and verifiability.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the above discussion is a back-and-forth talking past each other. @Marc Lacoste: removing URLs to archives has a snowball chance. Ahunt, Reidgreg, Rosbif73, and Gog the Mild: a real editor is having a real issue with readability of wikitext code. Marc Lacoste, consider reformatting usages of citation templates in vertical style, as opposed to horizontal style, where indeed you need to train your eyes hard to look for pipes where one parameter ends and another starts. Here are code examples copied from Template:Cite web/doc:

Horizontal	{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote= |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= }}
Vertical	{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote= }}

Hope this helps. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. IMO a vertical template is even worse as it disrupts wikitext paragraphs. To visually separate the refs I use (and recommend) syntax highlighting in the editor.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem if either style helps anyone edit the page, so thanks for at least bringing it up. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Production

Hi all. My recent edit was reverted [1] and an editor asserted "failed verification". My edit is based on the following according to citation when David Curtis explained the difficulties of bringing back legacy Dash 8: "What a lot of people don’t understand is that the Dash 8, the legacy airplanes and the 400 are very different airplanes. Different manufacturing techniques, legacy airplanes are all bonded panels and skin, and the other ones are chem milled. It’s a very different airplane. They kinda look like they’re similar, but it’s a separate production line." What's wrong with my edit? Thanks.-–-Now wiki (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad: I thought the article was finished after the 4 first paragraphs and the related articles links. I reverted my deletion. Sorry for the mishap! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Fleets?

I note that Horizon has stopped using the Q400 in favour of Embraer jets in January 2023.

I expected this article to tell me when the various carriers started and stopped using this airplane, and how large their fleets are. Anybody up to the challenge? Ronstew (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To add that sort of information we would need to have references to cite. Do you have any? - Ahunt (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)