Talk:Piper PA-44 Seminole/Archive 1

Operators
Does any one else think that the list of operators for this aircraft article is rather pointless? There are many hundreds of flight schools and charter operators who fly these aircraft. I am concerned that this will end up as a huge list that will dwarf the actual article. I haven't found any other light aircraft articles that have a list of operators, although most airliner articles on Wikipedia do.

Ahunt 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of response to the above comments I would like to propose that the list of operators be removed to bring this article into line with other light aircraft articles and to avoid a huge list of operators.


 * Ahunt 21:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have amended the operator's section along with some other clean-ups to the article - adding references, starting a reflist, creating an aircraft box, etc. Ahunt 12:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No-Go Seminole?
I have fact-tagged the nickname "No-Go Seminole". Can someone provide a source for this? According to a Google search the only web source for that name is this article. Ahunt 12:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay lacking any source information for this nickname I have removed this sentence. Ahunt 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm....
"Like its single-engine counterparts, it is primarily used for multi-engine flight training."

Maybe its just me - but doesn't that not make any sense???? 75.40.94.244 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope doesn't make any sense to me either. I fixed it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image
Please do not delete images to put your own in. For dealing with images in aircraft articles please WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the head photo was awful, even the aircraft isn't complete, right wing is cut. Here you have another one: EC-GHA. Gons (¿Digame?) 17:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gons (talk • contribs)


 * I admit the current lead photo isn't the best but I still think it shows the basic features of the aircraft - twin engines, window config, T-tail, doors, etc - the best of what we have to work with. At least it clearly isn't a BE-76 or something else! If you want to see the whole wing then the last photo could be swapped for the current lead one as it shows the config as well, just from further away.


 * I had a look at Image:EC-GHA Piper PA-44 Seminole 2.JPG. It isn't the best either - lots of cluttered background and a very small airplane in the picture. I had a look through Commons and they don't have anything better. I have six more PA-44 photos of my own, but they are all ground photos. I will see if I can go out an get a better photo when I have the opportunity to find a PA-44 in flight. If it has to be a ground photo then perhaps a ladder picture would be best - have to find the time and place to shoot that, though.- Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion
The bottom photo should be deleted. It is totally pointless and unencyclopaedic to have two photos demonstrating the exact same thing, just a couple of degrees different on the angle. The two photos are almost identical and the second seems only to be there to have an other photo, or it's a photo someone took that they want included. The second one adds nothing more and no additional information, and as a result isn't in compliance with Wikipedia's image policies. Images must offer some encyclopaedic value, and two of exactly the same thing don't do that. Canterbury Tail  talk  19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - you are going to have to cite the policies that the article violates and not just say "isn't in compliance with Wikipedia's image policies". The article isn't overloaded with images, if it were then I would support moving some to a gallery or deleting some, otherwise how is an article with fewer on-topic images better than one with more? - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See IMAGE. The extra photo provides zero additional information. It is not relevant and adds no additional encyclopaedic content. How can two photos of the same model of aircraft at almost the same angle possibly add anything to the article. Remember photos have to be relevant and encyclopaedic, not just random photos. There is nothing added in the lower photo that isn't apparent in the upper photo. The bottom photo is completely redundant material. Remember, Wikipedia is not a repository of images, all photos must be relevant, justifiable and add encyclopaedic content.
 * I notice that the photo I deleted from the article was taken and uploaded by yourself. I'm going to assume good faith and that your objection to the removal isn't due to it being your photo. The reason I choose the bottom one was because it was the last one added to the article, and it shows a more damaged version of the aircraft type in question, but if the top one were to go instead that would be fine. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup those are both images that I took. If you check the history you will see that the article had no images at all when they were added, which is why they were taken in the first place, specifically to illustrate this article. I should point out though, that I would oppose removing any existing images from this article, whether I took them or not.

There are two similar side views of PA-44s in the article: C-GPFG is in pristine shape while C-FZLJ is shown in a much more worn condition. Incidentally the aircraft is not "damaged" as you indicate. If it were, it would be unairworthy. In this case its paint is deteriorated from heavy use in a flight school environment. This is normal appearance in service, in other words, not a wreck. This was actually one of the reason that I chose this picture, because it was a well-used aircraft and depicts a realistic appearance in service.

I think one of the things that is often forgotten by editors bent on deleting things is that we should consider the readers of these articles, because we write these articles for the readers, not for other editors. For these sorts of aircraft type articles the "target reader" that I usually keep in mind is a high school or junior high school student who is writing a project. Other than accurate text, the most useful thing to them is the availability of free images that they can freely copy and use directly in their paper. In the case of this article, three of the images are "public domain" and one is "Gnu FDL". This gives a greater variety of images that they can use. What argument can be made that their choice of images should be reduced?

I think your interpretation that IMAGE prohibits one of the existing images is incorrect. It actually says "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." This does not preclude the images as used in this article. Also note at the top of that page that this is not a policy as you claim above that it is. It says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It is guideline and not a policy. The angles and condition of the aircraft are sufficiently different that there is no need under this guideline to delete any of them.

As the Wikiproject Aircraft image guidelines indicate: "Many existing images used in aircraft articles have been carefully selected to illustrate specific variants, angles of view or aircraft features. These images should not be deleted from articles without discussion and consensus that this action will improve the article on the article's talk page. Images may be added to the article without removing or replacing existing images without discussion."

The article text is not overwhelmed with photos, there being only four of them. If there were far more images than text I would agree with you that some could be moved to a gallery or removed from the article, but as it stands I remain unconvinced that any of them need to be removed, whether they are ones I contributed or ones others contributed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But it adds nothing to the article, it is simply another photo of the same thing. The five degrees difference in the angle doesn't add anything the other photos don't show. Plus weren't not here to provide photos for the public for papers. I acknowledge your point about us being here for the readers, and that is quite correct, but I still see no reason for two photos of exactly the same thing. What does the extra photo add to the article that isn't already illustrated by the rest of them? No the article is not overwhelmed with photos, well maybe for it's size there are too many actually, but that's not the issue. What does this extra photo add to it other than an additional photo? Canterbury Tail   talk  14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It adds a different view of a different individual aircraft in different markings and in much different condition than the other side view. But I think you are asking the wrong question there. The question that should be asked is "is there a consensus to delete this image?". At present there isn't one, however in the interests of getting wider input I have invited the members of WikiProject Aircraft to participate in this debate. If anyone is in favour of deletion I am sure they will wade in here.


 * In a lot of ways this debate goes further than this one article. If you look through all the thousands of Wikipedia aircraft type articles, especially the airliners, you will see many pictures that are generally similar to other ones, but with different markings, condition or other minor differences. I am not in favour of deleting thousands of photos from all these articles. As was well discussed there are far better general reasons for erring on the side of retention rather than deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam?
A link in the 'Comparable aircraft' section leads to the stubby "EM-11 Orka" article, which is a modern high-wing twin pusher plane that doesn't even really exist yet (only prototypes) and apart from weight and seats I don't see how that's relevant and comparable to the mass-produced classic entry-level/trainer twins. That smells like spammy fishy utilizing WP for marketing. 213.39.209.28 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well wikilinking can't really be spam, unlike external links, since there is an actual article on the aircraft, but I agree that it isn't very comparable and have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)