Talk:ULBI Wild Thing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ULBI Wild Thing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weights

Master Ahunt, The weights I wrote were taken from the company's website, which is already mentioned as a reference in the article. Also, I invite you to check the source in which you seem to have blind faith, despite its giving a max weight less than the empty weight. Allow me to insist you should discuss before reverting. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple line transcription error and I have fixed it as per the ref cited. If you had provided a more detailed edit summary this would have become evident earlier. Just for future note, the template in use, Template:Aircraft specs, does not permit the entry of metric and imperial measures as you attempted to do. It permits one or the other and automatically converts to the remaining one. The template documentation gives further guidance. Also the company's website is not cited as a ref, but as an external link. - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, and thanks for enlightening me. If we really can enter the data in one metric only - which could make sense, in a way - wouldn't it be better to use the metric of the designer/creator? Our current approach seems to suffer from the inevitable rounding errors, see the wing span for one example. I hope you'll agree no reference can be more reliable than the creator's own information? Unless one had access to the certification documents. OTOH, if I could please you by re-mentioning the company website in the references paragraph also, I'll be happy to oblige. Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my ref is European and in metric and the aircraft is German, also in metric and the data was entered in metric, so it is as accurate as it can be made. I tend to not cite the manufacturer unless they provide more information beyond the third party refs, just to avoid the appearance of the article being promotional. But if you think the manufacture's website has additional information beyond what we have in the article now, then by all means add the information and the website in as a ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough, and indeed we should be careful about being "promotional", or even suggesting we might possibly be. Still, what about the wing span of the Wild Thing? 9,20 m according to manufacturer's website, 9,15 m as you published from your European metric reference? I can't help doubting the rounding mechanism in your reference book, but can't be sure as I don't have a copy around. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ref says 9.15m and I see the manufacturer's website says 9.20m. Refs like these get their data from the manufacturers, so it all originates at the same initial source. The publication has over 1000 aircraft listed and they don't go and find one of each and measure it themselves. The publication dates from early 2011 and the website has probably been updated more recently to account for perhaps a new style of wing tips. That is only 2.5 cm per wing difference, so a small change it wingtip fitted would do that or it could simpely be a rounding error. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ULBI Wild Thing. 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.ulbi-ultraleichtflugzeuge.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

broken, reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]