Talk:Jodel DR1050 Excellence

Merger proposal
The article Robin DR100 appears to cover the same subject as this article - so merging seems appropriate - this seems to be slightly more developed and longer established, I suggest merging that article into this one.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem - do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurHel (talk • contribs) 10:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree - they cover exactly the same topic Possel47 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the merge, but to the other title. Robin DR100 seems to be a broader title for the series, while Jodel DR1050 Excellence is one model in the middle of the series. I know that Jodel DR1050 Excellence is the older article, but the Robin name seems to fit better in the series of template:Robin aircraft. Klbrain (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The recent merge was done very poorly, with text from this article just dumped into Robin DR100 willy-nilly with no regard to WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Robin DR100 is now a complete mess. This all needs to be properly incorporated or else both articles reversed and the whole merger properly reconsidered. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay lacking any action on this by the editor who merged it I have reverted the whole thing. The target article was an irredeemable mess after the merger. Since both articles meet WP:GNG and since both stand alone I see no reason to merge them, even if one is a sub-type of the other. The model relationship needs to be better indicated, but otherwise both articles can easily stand on their own. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you weren't satisfied with the merge, and that I wasn't able to get back to the page within 24 hours. My reading of the articles was that the Robin DR100 described a series of aircraft, of which model DR1050 was an important member. Being an important member, I felt that it deserved its own section. The merge was therefore completed with aircraft page content format within the DR1050 section. It was unclear how many of the details of the aircraft within that section applied to the whole of the series, and hence hence I kept the information in a separate section.
 * As I understand, you're not disputing the need for a merge, but rather the final structure? I therefore suggest that the merge is re-instated and that the article then be edited in situ. Klbrain (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Having seen the results, where we ended up with two complete aircraft articles on one page, yes I do dispute the need for a merge now. Given the amount of information on the types, even though one is a sub-type of the other there is clearly sufficient refs and text for support two distinct articles. We have many examples of articles in several areas, like aircraft and sailboats where a sub-type has its own article, because there is sufficient text and refs to support that. A proper merge of this article into the other would result in the loss of much of the information we have, such as detailed specs, and would prompt a need to split them again into two articles. I think that rather that try a merge again, with the loss of specs and such, that we need to just add text to both articles that shows the relationship between the two designs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ahunt. not somuch a merge as an alignment.--Petebutt (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to confuse the issue even more there is also this abandoned draft by me - I think there probably is some merit in merging the two articles, but it would have to be done properly by someone who has access to the books on Jodel aircraft used as references in the DR100 article, in order to disentangle the story of the two parallel lines of development by Centre Est and SAN in order to show how the two lines are related to each other and the original designs by Jodel.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that draft could be merged into the existing article, with a careful reading of the sources. You can give it a try if you like. In the meantime I am going to add cross-linking to the two existing articles, at least as a temporary measure. - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Better integrating of the material, and the merge of additional material from the draft, all sound like fine ideas to me. Klbrain (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the complexities of the task, I would suggest whomever is going to give it another try first produce the merged article in draftspace, or even here on the talk page for discussion, before going "live". - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)