Talk:SOCATA TBM

message: I've set the TBM-850 page to redirect to this one as the TBM-700 and TBM-850 are basically the same aircraft, one just having a similar but more powerful engine, so it makes more sense to have them on the same page. The page could use a photo. BabyNuke 15:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: TBM850 VNE: 266 IAS
TBM850 Cruise: 320 kts @ 75%
...the speeds as listed in the article are incorrect. Skiendog (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeds 

message: TBM900 announced this morning.  I saw that some information is slowing rolling into the article, thanks to "TheDude." I'll try and add some information, too.  Skiendog (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TBM900 

message: No mentions of accidents in this article ?
Here a recent one : 
On August 6th 2014 a TBM-700 crashes on Seine-et-Marne (France). Five occupants, two deaths.http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=168262http://www.lavenir.net/article/detail.aspx?articleid=dmf20140806_00510709http://www.metronews.fr/paris/seine-et-marne-deux-morts-dans-le-crash-d-un-avion-de-tourisme/mnhf!BVti48s551nrk/
--AXRL (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: ...I will find you.  Not cool.  If you're going to make a change like that, discuss it in the talk page of the article.  Skiendog (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Already replied on my talk page, it was over two years ago the chart was removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you never discussed removing it.  If you believed sources were needed on the data, say so.  If you wanted to make it smaller, say so.  Instead, you just deleted it without saying a thing.  Skiendog (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I went back in the page records and found the chart. I agree with removing it as it was non-standard and used up a lot of space to give very little information. It was also not referenced and therefore not clear where the data came from. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, so it needs sources and to discuss the format/size?  Good to know. Skiendog (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: ...Really?  Okay- would it make you happy if I say, 'THE' chart? Whatever pleases you; just let me know. The point is that it's polite to discuss things with people before going into an article and just deleting things. Skiendog (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was explained in the edit summary : "dont really need a complicated bar chart". This was 18 months ago. Nobody discussed the change at the time, you included, so it stayed like that. While statements need references, the article presentation come through bold editing and consensus in case of conflict. I'm not sure you could reinstate your chart now, especially with an offended attitude, but you can ask. Propose a change. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not required or even usual to start a talk page discussion before removing something from an article, unless it is going to be controversial. The fact that no one even challenged that edit for a year and a half shows it wasn't controversial. At this point if you want to put it back in I think you would have to make a good case for it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember that the information is still in the article only the format as a chart was removed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true, I just checked that and the numbers are all still there, just more compactly stated. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who took down the chart of production numbers?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SOCATA TBM. 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/20160402112048/http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/press-releases/Airbus-Group/Financial_Communication/2008/01/20080117_eads_socata_unveils_2008_TBM850.html to http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/press-releases/Airbus-Group/Financial_Communication/2008/01/20080117_eads_socata_unveils_2008_TBM850.html
*Added  tag to http://www.daher.com/uploads/assets/Communiques_de_presse/en/News_Release__DAHER-SOCATA_reveals_the_TBM_900.pdf
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) 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Specifications lists the "Useful load" as 636kg/1403lbs. According to the linked PDF spec sheet, that figure is for the maximum payload, not the useful load. Useful load should be equal to max gross weight minus empty weight; from there you would subtract the fuel weight to get the max payload. Max fuel is listed as 291gal which weights 1950lbs, more than the 1403 useful load. This implies the plane could never fly with max fuel onboard, clearly wrong. Bdeshaies (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel Ish (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the specifications (useful load) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article links to the nautical version of strake, shouldn't it link to the aerodynamic version instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strake_(aeronautics)
It's a bit weird linking from an article about aviation to one about viking longships...
86.132.124.67 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, it should point to Strake (aeronautics). Thanks for pointing that out  - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strake 

message: French lesson please. How should I pronounce Daher? Thanks.Pieter1963 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daher pronunciation