Talk:Excalibur Aircraft Excalibur

COI/Neutrality
The article has been tagged by an admin for COI and neutrality, but no explanation has been provided as to why he thinks this might be the case. I was the editor who started this article and up until today it was a standard WikiProject Aircraft aircraft type article, just like the rest of the over 1,000 aircraft type articles I have previously started. I have no connection to the aircraft at all, I have never even seen one outside of photos. The members of WikiProject Aircraft, including me, are engaged in trying to produce articles on every aircraft type that has flown, subject to finding independent third party refs of course. Regardless the earlier edits today introduced language that was not supported by the refs, which are more critical of the origins of the design, including specifically calling it "a clone". Since the text is supported by the cited refs I have restored it. I believe I have restored the neutrality of the article so unless there are objections or further concerns, I will remove the tags in a week's time. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The owner posted at help desk that he the craft was not a 'clone'. At the same time I noticed the title looked funny. I edited the article to remove the clone terminology as with all the changes in the comparison there should be no way it can be called a clone. An admin that saw the post at help desk seems to think that the aircraft company is editing this article. I saw that the owner had a valid point and should know if it is a clone or not. I do not have a copy of the book used in the citation so I couldn't vary much on the material. If they author claims it is a clone then that is just his opinion. I think the term is undue as many may see it as pejorative. I can see how admin may think that the help desk request may be COI but I don't feel that way. It was just a polite and open request to correct the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Given that this article was started by an experienced member of the WikiProject this really should have been brought here to the talk page first. It seems that the IP editor complaining is using his own WP:OR, plus his own WP:COI as an owner of one of these aircraft to try to change quotes from a WP:RS review. A basic tenet on Wikipedia is that we don't include original research and we certainly don't replace reliable referenced text and quotes with OR. In reading the article I have no clue why the admin would think that the article would have had company input before your edits, as it is fairly critical of the origins of the design, at least it was until it was sanitized based on the aircraft owner's OR request. Basically an aircraft owner's claims should not trump a reliable source.


 * The description of the design as a "clone" is a quote from a reliable source, as referenced. It may be considered objectionable by some people with a stake in the aircraft, but that tends to add to the argument that the article is balanced and not promotional in nature.


 * The subject of the title is addressed below, but again it would have been nice to discuss it, since the new title does not conform to the WikiProject Aircraft consensus naming conventions, whereas the old one did.


 * The title looked unusual to someone not familiar with the subject because the company was named after the product, something that is not uncommon in the aviation industry, especially with derivative products, like this one is.


 * I had thought that the admin indicated that the sanitized version looked like it had been edited by a COI editor, but I see that you were just trying to appease the desires of the aircraft owner who basically didn't like what the third party ref had to say about his aircraft. Not to be defensive, but the small group of us at WikiProject Aircraft working on creating aircraft type articles are very careful to reference everything to reliable sources and not make stuff up. In starting this article I had never seen one of these aircraft (or else I would have had a photo to add to the article, since I photograph every new aircraft type I see for Wikipedia) We are about two thirds the way though creating would should turn out to be about 25,000 aircraft type articles on every type ever flown. The job is a big one but we do take it seriously and try to turn out articles worthy of Wikipedia. That said, of course, some people with an economic stake in the subject we have written about may not like what the critical reference sources used have to say about their favourite aircraft as not all reviews are favourable.


 * Overall discussion here on the talk page and finding explanations and consensus would have been preferable to well-meaning edits that changed text that was cited to reliable refs so that it was no longer in conformance to the refs cited. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry again. I thought that an editor decided to label it as a "clone" not the author of the book. My definition of clone is a lot closer than the two craft actually are. The company and the author may wish to discuss their own definitions and possibly the author will publish an updated report and remove the term as it is rather vague. Wictionary has it as "2. A copy or imitation of something already existing, especially when designed to simulate it." I am ok with leaving the article as it was before I messed it up. The company may still claim undue but I will let the aircraft project handle that. I see no problem removing the tags added by another editor but you may wish to discuss that with him.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts on this! I'm just going to leave the issue for a week and see if anyone else has any thoughts to add here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming
The article was originally named "Excalibur Aircraft Excalibur", because it is a model Excalibur built by Excalibur Aircraft. This naming is in accordance with WikiProject Aircraft consensus naming conventions, whereas the new name "Excalibur (aircraft)" is ambiguous (there are other aircraft named Excalibur) and is not in accordance. It would have been nice to have a discussion on this prior to just moving the article. Give that the new name is not in accord with long standing consensus naming of aircraft type articles, can it please be moved back? - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That was my fault. I will explain in the section above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. WikiProject Aircraft/Naming provides guidance on naming. - Ahunt (talk)
 * With no further comments on the naming here I will restore it to Excalibur Aircraft Excalibur, as per WikiProject Aircraft consensus naming conventions. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)