Talk:Snecma Atar

Two division units problem

In mathematical operations, multiplication and division have the same priority. Absent any grouping with parentheses and the like, the operations proceed from left to right.

That means that for "lb/hr*lbf" you would first divide pounds by hours, then multiply the result by pounds-force. However, that is not what is intended. What it should be is "(lb/h)/lbf" with the second operation a division by the pounds force. This is equivalent to "lb/(h·lbf)"; note, however the difference between this and what used to appear on this and similar pages. The parentheses are necessary for the units expressed in this format.

In this article I have used the superscripts format, an unambiguous way of expressing these complex operations because it still works no matter how you rearrange the component units. Gene Nygaard 13:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Split the article

This article needs splitting now as the 101, 8 and 9 were distinctly different engines. On another tack, to state that the ATAR was developed from the BMW 003 is really pushing the bounds of credibility a bit. There is no direct link to the BMW 003 but the ATAR family is closer in size and construction to the BMW 018 or BMW P.3006 / BMW P.3007 engines.--Petebutt (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Snecma Atar. There was a consensus to decapitalise "Snecma", in line with the parent article. There was not a consensus to change the capitalisation of "Atar" so we default to the status quo there. Jenks24 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

---

SNECMA Atar → SNECMA ATAR – ATAR is the conventional form of the name, rather than Atar, per sources. This needs admin intervention, as there's a blacklist against names with that many uppercase letters Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If it was made by Snecma, why should we use SNECMA instead of Snecma? ALSO, IS IT ALWAYS WRITTEN THAT WAY IN RELIABLE SOURCES? —BarrelProof (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No objection to Snecma ATAR. Both forms seem current. It mostly just seems odd to uppercase SNECMA but not ATAR. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Google book search suggests "SNECMA Atar" is the most commonly used form, followed by "Snecma Atar". Peter James (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Both forms are certainly in use, but Google isn't fussy about what it counts. A more authoritative source (and Flight magazine, with its excellent archive, is usually my choice) favours ATAR. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Flight (magazine)? That seems to prefer "Snecma Atar". Peter James (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to Snecma Atar per Peter James' Flight results and allcaps problems -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Merge of SNECMA Atar 101

We currently have two articles. We should have either one or three.

The ATAR series is important, so obviously deserves an article that covers its history. This history has a number of variants, but the two major ones are the 101 and the 8/9. These were distinct generations: for technical design, for performance, for their applications. Notability, from their commercial success, justifies separate article on each of these two variants. However we don't have three articles of material here at present. What we have instead is an unhelpfully split article where one of these (the less well known) is separate and largely duplicates the others. This just makes it harder for the reader. Size of a merged article isn't an issue, with the current content. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Yeah, that was another User:Petebutt "brainchild". I'd support a merge given the articles' current states, as they don't appear to have changed much in 7 years. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)