Talk:Partenavia P.68

message: [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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Did you miss this part? - FOX 52 talk! 06:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit warring  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is not the usual layout of a variant section. MilborneOne (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, but is it detrimental or adds value?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

text: * 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for the comment. Could you show an example? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text:  As it was in the before 12 may revision maybe?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yes something like that sure.  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Format