Talk:Cessna CitationJet/M2

Merge proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No constest - will merge shourtly. - BillCJ (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cessna Citation CJ1, Cessna Citation CJ2, Cessna Citation CJ3, and Cessna Citation CJ4 → Cessna CitationJet

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Three of the four CJ articles were created about a year ago, just a couple of months after the rationalization of the existing Cessna Citation family articles to the Cessna Citation overview page. In fact, one year later, no attempt has been made to link the four CJx articles to the Citation overview page. In addition, all four pages lack many features recommended by WP:AIR's page content guidelines, notably the Aircraft Infobox and proper Specs templates. I can easily fix these problems, and I usually do. However, as I found the other CJx pages, I realized their content was so minimal (even after one year, they are all basically still stubs) that none of them were sufficient for an article on their own. As such, I beleive that these pages should be merged together into one article at Cessna CitationJet. I don't believe this should cause a problem, as all of the CJs use the Cessna "525" model number, and are closely related. Other Cessan jet pages follow this pattern, such as the Cessna Citation Excel page, which includes the Excel, the Citation XLS, the Citation XLS+ and the Citation Sovereign. - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support - Per my nom. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As per BillCJ, very little in standalone articles as they are all just 525 variants they should be put together as suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose -

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CJ4?

Has the CJ4 received it's certification yet? I looked at FAA TCDS A1WI and did not see it denoted therein. Tail # research of N4CJ does indeed reveal that it is model 525C. I wonder if it will really end up on the same TCDS... -TodWulff 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Picture?

I would like to add a cockpit picture that I took myself, although I haven't figured out how to add the picture. Will someone please help? Rocket (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cessna Citation M2

Cessna has announced the "new" Cessna Citation M2, per this story on FlightGlobal]. The M2 is a "light business jet that spans the gap between the $3.1 million Mustang and $7 million CJ2+." While Cessna considered a new aircraft, the M2 is really a revamped CJ1. SO my question is, should we write a new article for the M2, or simply add it's info in to this page? I'm leaning towards simply adding the info in here, as we can always split the M2 info off to a new article later. - BilCat (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say for now keep it here - although I'm sure the "M2" designation no doubt will cause confusion with the Citation Mustang.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I support a merge proposed in Talk:Cessna_Citation_M2#Merger proposal --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cessna_citation_cj4/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead image change

• 
  current : smallest CJ1, a bit from behind, pointing right
• 
  proposed : midsize CJ2, frontside, pointing left

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

other candidates in commons--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting pictures

While scrolling through the near 1000 files of the category scan, I selected those interesting pictures for use in the article --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

moved to commons--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont think the article needs any more images. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it's already much improved --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That's debatable, in my opinion you have taken what was a perfectly-acceptable article and stuffed it up good and proper. YSSYguy (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What model is the aircraft on the ground. Is it an M2, or don't we get one of it? I wasn't in favor of merging the M2 article here, and lack of space is one reason I don't like lumping a bunch of variants into a short article. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessna CitationJet/M2. 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://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/cj2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151014141059/http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-10-13/pilot-report-citation-m2 to http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-10-13/pilot-report-citation-m2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

CJ4 picture

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

I changed the CJ4 pic with an inflight, left pointing pic, stating "per WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES "Infobox or lead images should show the aircraft in flight whenever such a picture is available." YSSYguy changed it back to his picture stating "That does not apply as image is not in infobox or Lead, and it's pretty monotonous to have all these images taken from the same perspective". I changed it again for the proposed one, explaining "pic : clean background with alternating direction to avoid monotony", but it was reverted again with "Changed image - higher resolution and a different perspective to all of the images taken from below". The proposed picture isn't a very low res at 2000 pix wide, the perspective is very close and I think the clean background is better for the article layout. Some external comment?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)