Talk:Cessna 162 Skycatcher

message: I have removed a number of links to dates that have nothing to do with the article content. This is explained in the Manual of Style which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Ahunt 11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Date Links

message: That thing looks cool, but it costs a lot compared to a 152.  And a carburated Continental O-200?  That outdated engine surely does not bring forth the win...Pilotbob  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: I understand the Controversy section is, well, controversial, but seriously, this article is supposed to be about the aircraft itself, not posts on a company website! Do we really need several paragraphs about the website?? WP is not a news source, but an encyclopedia. I'm not that up on the issues, so I don't feel I should be the one doing the trimming, but I will if I need to. There's nothing wrong with providing links to the details of the issue, but let's stay focused on what the article is about. If the issue itself is that worthy (notable) of coverage on WP, then it might be good to consider a separate article in which to cover the controversy's details. - BillCJ (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Bill. Do you think perhaps the bulk of the controversy should be in the Cessna article instead, rather than here? I think it is worth retaining somewhere, as it is probably the most controversial issue for this company ever. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, let me give it a kick at moving it over to Cessna and fixing it up at the same time, while leaving a short summary of the issue on the Cessna 162 page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed the section in this article and moved text to the Cessna article, plus rearranged some refs to make sure they still work. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: In the article it mentions range as 470nm and then later as 380nm which is it? Comrinec (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Information 

message: This article would benefit from some TAS information for the 470nm range figure so we could calculate the fuel burn per hour.  My student and I weigh 400 lbs together so I wonder how long we would be able to fly with 14 gals remaining.  Is that 24 gallons total, or 24 gallons usable?  Could make a difference. Guerrid (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should ask the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science which is for asking factual questions. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Burn per Hour and Endurance Information 

message: Is it me or is this article a bit over referenced. I can understand citation for the factual statements but some have five citation each. Also a bunch of references (10) that are not actually linked to the text. Suggest a clean up ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article needs a clean up to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. I have that planned to do in the next few days. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a start on the unlinked refs - every last one was either a dead link or already in the reflist. I'll do a complete article re-org in the next few days and see what can be consolidated. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that - probably best left to you for the time being but please ask if you need help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I have run through the article pretty extensively, deleted a bunch of stuff, fixed a lot of broken refs (Cessna moved their whole website) and consolidated a lot of text as well. It is still fairly detailed and strongly referenced, but because the aircraft is so controversial (two prototype crashed, Chinese production) I think that is justified. We have had aircraft articles criticized recently as needing refs and "not-notable" all because of too few refs, so I would rather err on the safe side. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK understood why it needs to be strongly refd but at least the bloat has been removed - thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am heartened that you think it is an improvement. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 2008 redesign: 
:With the new larger fin the dorsal fin was unneeded and was deleted from the design to save weight
:Dorsal = top 
:Ventral = bottom
I very much doubt that the dorsal fin was removed. This should read ventral, do we have to copy errors from our sources? [14][24] 
[24]:The dorsal fin on the bottom of the tail contributed nothing to overall stability 
Further down the article mentions that the ventral fin was added (back?) to the production aircraft.
Scareodynamics (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you check the refs carefully you will see that the text is correct. The dorsal fin was removed and later a ventral fin was added. On light aircraft the term "dorsal fin" does not normally refer to the main fin, but a small fin that extends forward of the main fin and often used for styling purposes. The small dorsal fin is often blanked out in spins, which is why a ventral fin was added, as it would not be blanked in a spin. If you compare the top picture (production model) with the second one (early prototype) you can see the small dorsal fin in the second picture and the new ventral fin added in the top one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ventral or Dorsal fin ? 

message: I note that some planes out of production say "The P-99 was".  For example the Grumman G-21 Goose says was.  So for consistency this should say the Cessna 162 was but I'm thinking even if it's not in production the aircraft still "is" so long as an example exists, no?  So I'm raising two issues - should this article be changed to say was and generally should we say was when an example still exists?- 71.214.116.175 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus at WikiProject Aircraft is if even one example still exists, even if it is in a museum then we use "present tense" (ie "is"). If there are no examples remaining, such as types where they were all scrapped or destroyed then we use "past tense" (ie "was"). Some parts are past tense, though, for instance it was designed and was produced, but it is flown. A person who owns and flies one of these every day would not be happy reading that "the Cessna 162 was an American aircraft...". If there are other articles that have it wrong they should be fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Grumman G-21 Goose  - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It depends on what your definition of is was... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cessna 162 Skycatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/press-releases/cessna-Skycatcher-light-sport-aircraft-orders-top-75-mi.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121209070620/http://investor.textron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=110047&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1081831&highlight= to http://investor.textron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=110047&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1081831&highlight=
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/home/124.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Cessna 162 Skycatcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130005250/http://cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-overview.html to http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/Skycatcher/Skycatcher-overview.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225110257/http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-pricing.html to http://cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-pricing.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211035959/http://www.cessna.com/NewReleases/New/NewReleaseNum-1192250138543.html to http://www.cessna.com/NewReleases/New/NewReleaseNum-1192250138543.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021060741/http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-avionics.html to http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/Skycatcher/Skycatcher-avionics.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114152541/http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-weights.html to http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-weights.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121053527/http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/28606459.html to http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/28606459.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)