Talk:Leading-edge extension

message: I have just run through the high-lift device article and came here in the process. I would have thought that the scope of this article is just to describe the LERX and chine type of device. Most of the others have their own article, except 'Dogtooth' I think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the leading edge slat has its own article.  The chordwise 'sawcut' slot needs adding - OK it's the opposite of an extension, but I think it's relevant. I would like to see this article grow a comparison between devices and discussion of their relative merits, such as use at high or low speeds, effect on spanwise flow, etc. H'mm maybe a move to Leading edge device might be useful, then we can discuss spanwise and chordwise slots too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well slat shouldn't really be here ('slot' is not here?!). The dogtooth and saw cut do need to be covered and they will be in time hopefully. Wing fence we have! Might need to have a look at the categories to see what goes with what, possibly a separate navbox for high-lift devices (which is turning into a sort of overview parent article). In my own mind the LEX, LERX or Leading Edge Extension is specifically the type of device that the F-18 has (triangular bit at the wing root to be technical!).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that something is a leading edge extension in ordinary language but is not technically a Leading Edge Extension (LEX) seems really bad to me. If you can find enough content for an article on just for that then I think 'leading edge root extension' is both technically more accurate and linguistically more sensible. Meanwhile, another sort of overview parent article, as you so enjoyably put it :-) , for leading edge devices still seems to me like a good idea, and fundamentally where the present article (and this discussion page) is headed. The more I think about it, the more I like the move to leading edge device. Sure the overview of high-lift devices is good too and the two device classes overlap, but they are nevertheless quite distinct. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that my books are so old these things are not in them! I agree that you can't write an awful lot about a jazzy wing root fairing unless you have the wind tunnel notes to hand. I'm going round most of the aircraft component articles slowly and have just started an FAC which will sap my WP time for sure, we're getting there though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope?

message: I took a flyer and created a new article at Chine (aircraft). Hope you all approve. Needs more about the design issues, and a list of aircraft with chines would be cool. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: It would be nice if someone that understands the terminology highlighted on the pictures which parts of the airplane are relevant. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added diagrams to my To Do list, I think that will be more generally useful than annotating copies of the photos. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had the same question; diagrams would indeed be very helpful. -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any better now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: These requests were posted above the earlier discussion by  without any explanation. I moved them down here to preserve the chronological order of discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not "further" requests; they are more-specific categorization of the original requests. Diagram requests should use the most specific template(s) possible. —swpbT 18:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already added one diagram in response to the OP. How does that fall so far short that you now feel a need to make more specific requests? If you think that more specific diagrams are needed then I would need some more specific indication of their envisaged application. There are vehicle illustrations already, so why would vehicle diagrams help and what would they need to show? Similarly, what aspects of the physics need diagramming? I can understand a need for a physics diagram if the physics is being discussed with equations given and suchlike, but that is not the case here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What in the pictures are you talking about? 

message: :These requests were posted above the earlier discussion by  without any explanation. I moved them down here to preserve the chronological order of discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not "further" requests; they are more-specific categorization of the original requests. Diagram requests should use the most specific template(s) possible. —swpbT 18:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already added one diagram in response to the OP. How does that fall so far short that you now feel a need to make more specific requests? If you think that more specific diagrams are needed then I would need some more specific indication of their envisaged application. There are vehicle illustrations already, so why would vehicle diagrams help and what would they need to show? Similarly, what aspects of the physics need diagramming? I can understand a need for a physics diagram if the physics is being discussed with equations given and suchlike, but that is not the case here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Further requests

message: (moved from my talk)
Hi Widefox - I see you moved this article from 'Leading-edge extension' a few months back. I don't understand this move. My reading of WP:HYPHEN is that an endash should be used when the two components are in some sense equal (such as Navier–Stokes equations), but a hyphen is appropriate when the first word qualifies the second (e.g. liquid-crystal laser). Therefore it seems to me that the original title was correct, since 'leading' qualifies 'edge' here.  Colonies Chris (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion, and it was a while ago. The endash matches other articles here (although one isn't hyphenated), so some consistency would be good. Widefox; talk 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Making titles consistent without checking or knowing if they're correct in the first place just makes them consistently wrong. - BilCat (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to fix blatant inconsistencies is good, in this case I just made an error fixing them, bad. None of that justifies bad faith assumptions of other editors not "checking" or "knowing" - how does that help? How many of these articles are still inconsistent, and who's fixing them? Widefox; talk 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a bad-faith assumption? Are you saying you knew it was incorrect when you moved it? Because what I was saying was that you didn't know. My point is to be a little more careful next time, that's all. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "without checking or knowing" <- how could you possibly know that, it's an assumption, correct? I'm glad Colonies Chris caught my error, and I'm glad I brought it here. Instead of speculating on other editors, and doubling down with more fruitless speculation ("Are you" and "you didn't know"), suggest you read WP:BOLD. These articles needed improving, and still do. Widefox; talk 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're assuming I made a bad-faith assumption, which I did not, which makes it bad faith on your part. Just be more careful next time, or better yet, propose a move until you know the guidelines better. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No assumption, it's in black and white above. The difference is I admitted my mistake. Widefox; talk 12:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I self reverted: 1 , 2 , 3 left for you. We still have quotes without the hyphen in other articles, so it's still a mess. Widefox; talk 17:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Long-term editor User:Ahunt created Leading edge cuff, so I'm pinging him to see if he has any objections to moving the article to Leading-edge cuff. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text: There's also Leading edge slot. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text: There are also a couple of references to Trailing edge flaps. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to go with what the refs say. The first ref cited, Crane, calls this Cuff (wing leading lead components), but does have leading-edge flap with a hyphen (not an endash). - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move