Talk:EFW N-20

message: This paged should be moved from "FFA N-20" to "EFW N-20" since the project was done by Eidgenössische Flugzeugwerke Emmen! It seems to be imposible to me to do this, so I request an admin or some other person with suficient right to do this. Mnaef (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the original editors meant Fabrique Federale d'Avions (i.e. the French name for EFW/Federal Aircraft Factory) rather than Flug & Fahrzeugwerke AG. I agree that the move would probably be better.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, however I don't know if EFW ever officially had a french name. To clarify however it would help a lot to make a clear distinction between EFW an FFA Flug & Fahrzeugwerke Altenrhein AG. Mnaef (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: EFW. Consider it done. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IMPORTANT

message: I have carried out a major copy edit to correct the grammar and spelling added by an apparent non-English editor. The second infobox has been 'no-wikied' as have three extra specification sections (only one per per page is standard practice). Information can be taken from these 'specs' sections and added to their text sections if desired.
Some notes that may help the clarity of this article:
*The Harpon project whose specifications appeared is not mentioned in the text.
*The text states that Sulzer abandoned their engine development in 1947 but then says engines were built in 1948?
*It is unclear about preserved engines, I read it that there is one in the Swiss Transport Museum and another with the aircraft?
I am happy to copy edit referenced added information if needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. The Sulzer engine is little known (to me at least!!). There is no rush to add details. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_specifications we have a long standing consensus to not have more than one set of specs per article. This is a general encyclopedia, not a specialty aircraft publication like Janes. If you really need multiple specs then split the article into individual type articles, rather than filling this one up with lots of different specs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike some articles which do have dual specs because a later variant was significantly different from the first,  multiple specs are of little use in this case because there was only one flying powered example. Key differences in dimensions between the development airframes and the final can be addressed in text or a simple table rather than a full specs section. Splitting into multiple articles would be a bad idea because it can all be covered in one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the best solution in this particular case is probably to describe the differences in text or a table, but there is no need for multiple spec templates, it just completely clutters up the article, which is why we have a long-standing consensus not to do that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, since this discussion impacts a long-standing consensus I have left a notice at WikiProject Aircraft about this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say at the moment this discussion is 100% in agreement with consensus. The only article I can think of that does have two spcs sections is Heinkel He 111 (a good article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am hoping that the editor who keeps reinserting the multiple specs will participate so we can all either agree on the existing consensus or create a new one. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Long standing consensus is that we only have one specification in a type article, in this instance they are not even the same type and if the other aircraft are that notable then perhaps a seperate article should be considered. MilborneOne (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I have left a message on the user's talk page - seethe diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: As everyone commenting have described above you haven't made a good case here for multiple sets of specs in the article - those differences could be far more easily described in text and with far less clutter than four sets of specs. So far there is no consensus here to accept mutliple specs for this article. You will have to make a much stronger case than you have. Also you should have come here to discuss first rather than carrying on edit-warring again. In the meantime please revert your reinsertion of the extra specs and respect the existing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see another editor has reverted your re-insertion of the extra specs. I did want to point out that you should be making a more convincing case here. If you revert again you will be in violation of WP:3RR and risk being blocked for edit warring. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ahunt, That was me, I felt that another editor weighing in would help make the point that you are not alone. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: @FFA P-16, These designs are so different that to compare specifications is meaningless. Just because the German wikipedia currently includes this material does not mean that another language Wikipedia community will find it acceptable. We at en.wikipedia do things our way, the same for English and Swiss aircraft. Please be clear, four of us here say "only one specification" - a solid consensus - and that is how it will be. We can add the important details of the other specifications to the text, but many details are only theoretical and are not notable enough to include anyway - that we lose those is actually a good thing. We can discuss and agree on this talk page which specification to include here. I think that it should be the Aiguillon, which is also the titular variant (i.e. named in the article title. But we would still need to make clear whether we specify the planned design performance or the low-powered variant which hopped during its taxi trial. I think that the planned design performance would be best, and we would need to make that clear too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple specs