Talk:Cessna 182 Skylane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

For merging into article:

• http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:xZTsEPHkH84J:www.aopa.org/asf/publications/cessna_skylane.pdf+Cessna+182&hl=en
• http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=145

From VfD:

• Wikipedia:Patent nonsense; can someone explain this? Out of curiosity, could this fall under speedy deletion? Telso 07:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Perhaps it could go at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk? Rhymeless 07:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• See the new stub so now Keep Burgundavia 08:00, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
• It now looks a perfectly reasonable article. Keep. -- Arwel 12:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, now a good article. Andrewa 15:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Comment The original was certainly not "patent nonsense." It was utterly inappropriate and not encyclopedic, but perfectly coherent and sensible. It was obviously the work of someone who simply was looking for information, looked for it in Wikipedia (appropriate), didn't find it at Wikipedia, and carelessly assumed that Wikipedia was something like a USENET newsgroup. It definitely was a VfD candidate and definitely was not a speedy deletion candidate. As suggested, I have edited it and forwarded it to Wikipedia:Reference_desk. Dpbsmith 15:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. So clearly keep in its new form I suggest this listing is removed in 24hrs. (having said that, I would have speedy deleted the original if I had found it) DJ Clayworth 18:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. I must diagree with Dpbsmith, however, the first version was, indeed, patent nonsense, and worth speedy deletionn. RickK 22:54, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Trivia section removal

I have the removed the Trivia section for now for the following reasons. I think that this citation sounds 'negative'. As such, it would need a higher standard for inclusion. In other words, the negative comment would have to be notable and verifiable. If it was made on some TV show, then it would require some third party review to show that it was notable. In other words, just some person bashing the subject of a WP article per se is not sufficient, IMO. But if the said 'bashing' subsequently got written up in a review article in a mainstream newpaper (or published in a notable book, etc.), then that critique would become notable and verifiable, and hence acceptable here. I don't think we have met that threshold yet, but if/when we do, it should go back in. Thanks, Crum375 12:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying: We cannot have anything on Wikipedia from TV unless someone has written a book about it? I saw the TV programme. It was on BBC World so it was shown worldwide. More people will have seen and "experienced" a 182 by watching that programme than in any other way. Many will have their impressions of light aircraft and GA formed by that TV programme. Sure, it is trivia, but I think it is noteworthy trivia. I think you set the standard of verification too high by misinterpreting WP standards. Operating by your criteria I could wander around WP deleting truthful, unbiased reports "pending verification" all day. You don't dispute (and no one else disputes) the factual basis of the paragraph. 'Til then back it goes. Paul Beardsell 06:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not doubting here that the TV episode occurred. But my understanding of WP policies and guidelines, such as the ones I cited above, is that an event that happens in the life of an article subject needs to be proven notable. As such, if this is an article about an aircraft with a 30 year history, one would have to show a source that reliably proves this event or fact is notable enough in the life of the subject. Remember the issue of undue weight - it means we can't just stick in any old piece of trivia that comes to mind - it has to be shown to be significant enough to be included. When we have some reliable source that talks about how this TV episode was important in the context of the life and history of the 182 - then it's time to consider it. Right now all we have is the episode itself, unreviewed by a third party. Crum375 14:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the truthfulness of the article is not questioned. That at least two other editors (the author and I) find the info notable does not allow you, IM(H)O, some kind of veto right here. If you do not like it then do a RFC or call for a vote here. I ask you once again to consider the "BBC World ... every country ... millions of viewers ... impressions of light aircraft" argument I make in the paragraph 2 up and ask you to say why it is not noteworthy rather than just saying it is. I am replacing the paragraph complete, this time, with a reference. Please do not delete it again. Paul Beardsell 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have a dog in this (in/out) particular fight, I do have an interest in seeing good, clean aircraft articles. I'm not sure it has yet been noted in this discussion that Project Aircraft recommendations generally disfavor trivia sections. (The "acceptable" example is Top Gun/F-14 Tomcat.) What's really disconcerting is that the non-contested part of this article (consisting currently of fewer than 10 complete sentences) could use solid content--of an encyclopedic nature, directly related to the 182--so much more than it could use trivia. —SkipperPilot 18:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SkipperPilot. I, for one, am not going around adding trivia sections to airplane article. That I have reinstated this one is not because I think it is important to have trivia in airplane airticles; it is because the info is factual, well-labelled as trivia / popular culture, someone has gone to the bother of adding the info, it is entertaining and very mildly informative and (this is the important bit) it may be useful to a user of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper, we are not running out of space. Paul Beardsell 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the Top Gun example cited note: I am not interested in military aircraft much, I thought Top Gun a useless movie, maybe MORE people saw the Top Gear program featuring the 182 than saw the Top Gun movie. So, I contend, this "trivia" is as good as the standard permissible "trivia", not that I necessarily accept that there can be an acceptable standard for such! Similarly, I am not deleting the Top Gun trivia from the F14 article and, if anyone does, I will likely replace it, just as I have the Bugatti-182 race trivia here. For the same reason: the work has already been done, the info is separated and can be skipped, someone might find it useful, WP is not paper. Paul Beardsell 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I have watched the entire Bugatti-182 show (thanks for the link). I agree that it is notable, per se. The issue is relevance in this particular article. We have to address the issue of balance. We are trying to present a subject that has many technical facets, a 30 year history, many related events, etc. The fact that a piece of trivia is related to the article does not automatically mean it belongs here. You can also stick it under truffles, maybe subways, trains, the chunnel, elevators, rigged races, you name it. Notability is important and essential, but it is not the exclusive criterion for inclusion. If I were an editor in the elevator article, I would have similar arguments about the inclusion of this video. Yes, WP is not paper, but it is also not a hap-hazard collection of odds-and-ends. Things have to be balanced importance-wise, and this video puts undue weight on a piece of marginally related trivia, while we are still short of many more important facts and events. A reader seeing the current article (with the trivia) would end up with an incorrect impression about the 182, in many ways (even if it is done in a humorous way there are many misleading items). This is therefore not appropriate for this article, any more than it would be to elevator or train or whatnot. Crum375 19:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore the elevator material in the video clip! Ignore the truffle! If I could have edited that out I would have! By that argument we could ignore all the BBC because they feature slap stick humour as well as news. Paul Beardsell 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, so you remove the material. You do not relocate it to the Top Gear article which, perhaps, is a better place for it. Yet now, if we leave Wikipedia as you would have it, someone's paragraph - which even you do not criticise per se - is lost. A non-negative contribution is lost. Further, the presence of the info does not harm you nor does it harm the encyclopedia, it's appearance does not prevent appearance of other, better material. If you win here, wikipedia is a worse reference. Not a much worse reference, only a marginally worse reference, but a worse reference. How can it be in a discussion between inclusion or deletion that the default position is deletion? Inclusion must always be preferred. What you should be proposing, following your own arguments, is relocation, reorganisation, not deletion. I hope you are now not going to be consistent and remove the Top Gun info from the F14 article. Paul Beardsell 20:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I think the issue of whether this video segment and related verbiage belongs anywhere in WP is very distinct from whether it belongs here. I tried my best to explain why I don't think it belongs in this article. If you wish to move it elsewhere, like to top gear, that makes a lot of sense to me, and of course you can wikilink this article. I don't see why the paragraph should be 'lost' - relocated to a better place makes more sense. I truly believe that WP needs to be a high quality encyclopedia, everything I do here is focused in that direction. But putting items in the places where they belong, vs. where they don't belong, is just as important to a good encyclopedia as adding new items. And remember that 'deletion' of a section in WP is not a true deletion - it remains in the history and can be copied at anytime elsewhere. Regarding Top Gun and F14 - I have no strong opinion. Top Gun was a blockbuster and a significant cultural phenomenon, that even affected our everyday language, so I can see a stronger argument there, but I am still not totally convinced. Anyway, I hope you understand that my goal is just like yours: to improve WP. Thanks, Crum375 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum, I disagree that deletion at WP is just archival. But that could be merely a semantic argument. As to cultural event maybe you are from the USA - outside the USA and outside the English speaking world Top Gun was not perhaps as widely viewed and must have had less effect on language. Certainly Top Gear is a massive cultural phenomemsmsm in the UK and is probably seen by more people each week as ever saw Top Gun. I don't doubt your intentions but generally I think (as a life rule) intentions should be largely ignored and actions considered instead. All that counts in the end is Wikipedia, not the intentions of its editors. Also, it seems to me, the onus on those who think something is in the wrong place is NOT to delete it BUT to relocate it. That should be in the WP guidelines somewhere. Paul Beardsell 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I tried to explain also in your Talk page, every WP deletion (excluding article deletion done by an admin only) only relocates the 'deleted' text into the History section, where it is accessible by everyone for any purpose. So I see no harm in deleting words - that is part of what WP is all about. And regarding Top Gun, this being English WP I think it does make sense to mention that it added words into our language, but I did say that I am neutral on the F14 inclusion issue despite that. Crum375 21:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And as I responded on your now conveniently archived Talk page, paraphrasing: Poppycock! Deleted material is not returned by an ordianry user's search, nor will it be in any forked project, nor will it be in Wikipedia 1.0 (the DVD or book or whatever). That is why we have two words, "deleted" and "relocated", they are different and have different effects. Deleted material can be retrieved but only with difficulty - you almost have to know it is there before looking for it. You play with words. Paul Beardsell 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that in the long run, once an article stabilizes, the old versions are less accessible. But there is no need to get to that point. If someone deletes what you want to stay, or conversely adds what you want to go, or just otherwise phrases things differently from what you want, speak up or be bold or in general fight for your persective and principles. But realize that each editor has a view and at the end of the day, consensus will win. That's what WP is all about. And remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF - that covers edit summaries too. Crum375 23:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No! I should not have to run around checking that a deletionist is not misbehaving. Once the material is deleted usually it never returns - it is effectively lost forever. Fact. Therefore deletes should be circumspectly done - more so than additions. As to your now repeated invocation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF I ask that you make your charges specific. Being passive aggressive is _also_ against the rules. As to consensus I do not see that you have obtained it. There is a dispute and, frankly, a mild edit war: You have done your 3 reversions, I have 1 left. Assuming good faith, your version I have let stand pending you demonstrating your good faith by you including the material you have deleted from here into the Top Gear article, something you have agreed would be better than deletion you have been insisting upon in this instance. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support deleting the section from the article. The section seems more like a reflection on the show than on the plane, and it's the sort of information that belongs with a page for the show, if it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia with that much detail.

As for the matter of the text being effectively "deleted" when it's removed from the article, might I suggest that it be copied onto this talk page? That way, it's right there to see for anyone who might come across this discussion, and can be restored much more easily than by sifting through older edits. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support all of that and note that the moving (by the deletor) of the unwanted text to the Talk page is recommended somewhere or other in the WP best practice pages. Paul Beardsell 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, so here's the deleted text. My position on this issue: create a "in pop culture" section and add the comment back. I think it's useful to provide context for wikipedia topics, and a section like this accomplishes that goal. --TrentonLipscomb 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This was the chosen plane by [[James May]] to try and beat the [[Bugatti Veyron]] driven by [[Jeremy Clarkson]]
on the race from [[Italy]] to [[London]]. Upon seeing the plane, [[Richard Hammond]] commented "James, It's 
pathetic! It looks like something a builder would leave behind." He would later remark that "182" referred to 
how much it costs.{{fact}}

---

LrdChaos's recommendation is supported and Crum375's action specifically advised against here. The guideline says whereas trivia in Wikipedia is mildly discouraged, the deletion of exisiting trivia is specifically and fairly strongly advised against. So, the trivia in this article should never have been removed, according to the guidelines, in the first place. But, if removed from the article, it should be relocated to the talk page by the deletor, as LrdChaos suggested. Paul Beardsell 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with moving the top gear episode trivia to the Talk page, if that helps in any way. OTOH, I don't think it belongs in the article. Crum375 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I have removed the "quality" assessment as the assessor did not follow the instructions, which are: Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Paul Beardsell 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of significant digits in specifications section

Currently, the specifications section looks somewhat like:

# Wing area: 174 ft² (16.16513 m²)
# Empty weight: 1,970 lb (893.577 kg)
# Loaded weight: 3,110 lb (1410.672 kg)

The metric measurements should use significant figures as to avoid the illusion that the measurements are exactly as stated (174.0000 feet). So, for wing area, it would become 16.2 m², empty weight would become 893.6 kg, etc.--TrentonLipscomb 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done --Mirage GSM 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

Crucial missing information from the article - who makes it? Which country? History and development? The whole article just seems to be about technical specifications. 86.134.26.84 (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added this info to the lead and the infobox. Thanks for pointing it out, the article isn't up to the usual WikiProject Aircraft standards. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuel capacities should also be added. Hackercraft (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Truthful estimates for the cruise speeds are also missing. 145kn is what owners think their cruise speed should be. Same problem with the 185 article.220.244.84.72 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can note these are TAS airspeeds, not IAS. They are certification data, so they are cited and accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Model History

I am C182 model history: looking through the Cessna Maintenance Manuals, according to the maintenance manuals there is no history of a C182M or C182P, only the Argentine A182M and 182P. The Cessna MMs I have copies of are issued by Cessna and were up to date to around 2004. Once I've finished the review I'll update all the factual info I've found to the model history, but mean time if anyone have any references to a C182M or C182P made in the USA? 195.229.236.219 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the "M" and "P" are in the article and are correctly referenced to the Type certificate. They were produced in Wichita. - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

G1000

G1000 panel: The article says the G1000 was offered as an optional upgrade beginning in 2005 and became standard equipment subsequently. I have a 2004 Skylane that came from the factory with the G1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.35.1 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not referenced and apparently wrong, so I removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

loaded weight is higher than max. takeoff weight?!

There has to be a error somewhere:

Empty weight: 1,970 lb (894 kg)
Loaded weight: 3,110 lb (1,411 kg)
Useful load: 1,140 lb (517 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 3,100 lb (1406 kg)

I think usually the loaded weight is around 75% of the max takeoff weight... but strongly depending on the aircraft and engines... Greetings and sorry for bad English Kilon22 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted - the higher weight is actually the maximum ramp weight, not the loaded weight, according to both of the sets of specifications quoted, although I note that the Cessna website appears to present specifications for a different model than quoted.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cessna 182 Skylane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

182 is one of the most popular small aircraft in the world, thus assessed "high" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoRsE (talk • contribs) Lead-in and history are weak for what is touted as one of the "most popular small aircraft in the world". There is no coverage on the development and of course the history has very little of the notability of the aircraft. Lots of "stats" but the stats don't make an article achieve encyclopedia quality. --Born2flie 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 11:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations

Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)