Talk:Partenavia P.68

Edit warring

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

DO NOT engaged in an edit warring as done on Partenavia P.68 article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing others. FYI as it stands you have reverted BilCat and myself, and even went as far to compromise - So you need to take your view to the talk page - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You changed the pictures, and I reverted it per WP:BRD. It was your duty to not reverting it again and go in talk page to gain a consensus. You didn't. Anyway, now would be a good time to present your proposed changes: left, the layout before; right, after your removals. Please explain what's better.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC) This discussion should be moved to the relevant Talk:Partenavia P.68

Did you miss this part? - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a consensus, as a main pic change should be discussed before usually, and as we reached a consensus with Bilcat that the TP Viator may be split to another page. Anyway, your last revert didn't include it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@FOX 52: leave this part here where it's relevant!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Image overload

Requesting for input @BilCat: @Ahunt: @Fnlayson: @MilborneOne: - I've purposed the following image clean up per WP:IMAGEMOS (it included a main image change) - the prior version was this - Editor Marc Lacoste (talk) reverted, followed by BilCat's reversion back. (Lacoste reverted again) so I applied a compromise, not good enough for editor Lacoste, I offered a second compromise restoring his preferred main image, again still not good enough for editor Lacoste. (not even an edit note, on the last revert) - I sent him a warning (edit warring) - So? -FOX 52 ^talk! 07:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Dont see a major image overload here, perhaps remove F-HTLI as it is nothing special and a bit cluttered, but all the rest show different variants or operators. MilborneOne (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

purposed main

pervious main

Thanks for your input. File:F-HTLI (26655473180).jpg illustrates the Vulcanair production and marketing, a major change for this aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

a major change for this aircraft? and the reader will see these significant changes? - FOX 52 ^talk! 08:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as the aircraft is in front of a Vulcanair-branded air show booth and banners.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest the current number of images seems okay to me. I wouldn't add any more that this unless a lot more text was added, but it seems okay as is. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Format

Anybody know why we describe variants in "Development" and have a wierd non-standard table in "Variants" ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I put up the (sortable) table as it allow to compare and better understand the difference between variants.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not the usual layout of a variant section. MilborneOne (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but is it detrimental or adds value?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The evolution of variants is described in "Development" as it shows their historical evolution.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with evolution of variants but the content as written is what we would normally put in a variants section rather than the non-standard table. MilborneOne (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest the non-standard "Variant table" really needs a consensus why this type needs it and the other 10,000 do not, I will raise it at project if I get time as it it is a departure from the norm. MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it could be an improvement or a regression?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• The major differences in the Variants could be better presented in a Specs table, though this article does not have one now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Could you show an example? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm thinking of the Boeing 7x7 and Airbus A3xx airliner articles with the main variants in different columns in the Specs table. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As it was in the before 12 may revision maybe?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes something like that sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)