Talk:Transall

Should workshare and final assembly activities by the company be mentioned?
Core to a consortium's function is the division of workshare between its members. It seems odd to have an aircraft manufacturing group article, without covering how its activity was actually distributed amongst its members - other consortiums, such as the Nihon Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation, have long featured whole sections dedicated to that purpose - while I'm not advocating a table, not a single sentence on the topic seems unusually barren, and unnecessary as we have that detail along with the sources to go with. I'll never present my way of writing as being the best possible way to do it, but not to attempt any detail on the entity's core activity - production - seems odd. Kyteto (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Transall was a single product company so I don't think that a separate page is even justified, they're not Boeing or Dassault. All information about the company could just go into a single paragraph on the C-160 page. For years there was nothing much to this page until you copied over a whole lot of information from the C-160 page in March.Mztourist (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think separate company articles are useful, even for one-product companies. Most Wikipedia readers are not av-geeks, and they shouldn't have to wade through a long aircraft article just to find information on the company. (I assume there are company-nerds too, who want a little more information in a company article.) A little background information may be redundant, but from an editorial point of view is helpful. Yes, we have to be careful we don't end up with two articles contradicting each other, but that is a common problem on Wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia is Not Paper, of course, so we have the freedom to be redundant that a print work doesn't have. - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've concerned that the question of "Should workshare and final assembly activities by the company be mentioned?" has been interchanged with "Should the article exist?". If I'm understanding correctly, the belief is that the article shouldn't exist, and that the deletion of heavily manufacturer-related info is directly intended towards the objective of deleting the article. For me, this is conflating two separate issues. On a generic manufacturing article, it is normal convention for workshare responsibilities and final assembly arrangements, shifts in workload over time, responses to customer demands and so forth to be mentioned. The fact that it went 14 years without detailing this is one thing, but I'm not understanding the rationale, outside of the "should this article exist?" question, for deleting it. For me, to channel some TNG, "If we are to be damned, let us be damned for who we really are" - the article should be judged for deletion not after its been stripped down solely for that goal in mind, but in its a reasonably populated state e.g. containing the typically information it is supposed to contain regardless of it were to be kept or deleted. Perhaps this helps convey my confusion as to why the two have been mixed up.


 * On the topic of the unasked question that seems to be being answered: This sentence is general to my editing policy of the last ten or so years - I've tended to avoid creating articles, partially out of cowardice; I've wanted to avoid engaging in the topic of "should it exist" on one side or the other - for me, if an article has been in existence for over a decade (as this has), I take it that it wouldn't have stood this long if it was usually meant for deletion, and thus a given assumption that I won't have to engage in that battle, or that I'll have wasted my time by editing it. Kyteto (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Transall was a consortium, not a company. In my understanding the two concepts are very different, a company is a separate legal entity, while a consortium is an unincorporated commercial arrangement. By comparison the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet was constructed pursuant to a joint development and production agreement, which to me is equivalent to a consortium. We don't have a separate page for the Alpha Jet construction agreement, so I don't see why Transall should be treated differently just because they came up with a name. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know, but since the claim to being a consortium is unsourced in the article, what is the source for it being an unincorporated consortium? - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most consortia are unincorporated, otherwise they're companies. A company would have corporate records and a quick Google search of Transall doesn't bring up any.Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I still don't consider it relevant, however. Bill Gunston did find Transall notable enough to list it separately in his "World Encyclopedia of Aircraft Manufacturers", while not listing Alpha Jet joint venture as a separate entry. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you don't consider it relevant? Gunston was wrong to include it as it should be treated exactly the same as Alpha Jet or Concorde, unlike Eurofighter GmbH, Panavia Aircraft GmbH and SEPECAT which were separate legal entities. Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Gunston is no longer with us, and therefore can't defend himself on the matter. Lucky him. I'll still side with him in this case. He included it, and that is enough for me. - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't justified anything other than pointing to one source. And reinstating information about the program while this discussion is ongoing is not in accordance with BRD, please self-revert it. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You're filibustering, and I'm not playing that game anymore. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion has run its course. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not filibustering, you are refusing to address a completely inconsistent approach, adopting an "I know better" attitude rather than dealing with the issue.Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent? SEPECAT was an incorporated company, and you still AFDed it. So are you now admitting the SEPECAT article should exist? Sorry, but I'm not the one with an "I know better" attitude here. Two editors disagree with your view on this, and I've seen nothing that shows it likely to change. - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the approach is inconsistent, but rather than addressing the issues you seek to divert attention from them. I put SEPECAT up for deletion because it lacks content and still does. You and Kyteto have pumped up the SEPECAT and Transall pages with information about the sole product unrelated to the entity. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Workshare is not unrelated to the entity, and other background information is useful to some readers, as previously discussed. Could information in both articles be trimmed back? Probably, but trimming isn't what has been done here. At this point you should either drop the stick, or seek other opinions. Further point-by-point discussion has no foreseeable end here, and I'm no longer participating in that. Kyteto can continue.to do so if he desires, but further disruptions to the article will be handled appropriately. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There you go again, refusing to address the inconsistencies and mischaracterizing my removal of irrelevant content as disruption. You say "could information in both articles be trimmed back? Probably" but then do nothing about it to address the legitimate issues that I have raised.Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * We obviously have different definitions of what is relevant content and issues. I addition, my goal is to keep the article, and you've made it clear that your goal is to delete it. What more do we have to discuss here? Deletions properly discussed elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your goal is clearly to keep irrelevant information in articles and maintain an inconsistent approach to whether or not aircraft building consortiums should have their own pages. Taking this to AFD is pointless because you'll just oppose it there Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At an AfD, other users comment also, and an uninvolved admin/editor will make the final decision. There's a chance the consensus will be against me. That's the risk of an AfD. - BilCat (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)