Talk:Embraer Legacy 450/500 and Praetor 500/600

Legacy 450 Merger proposal

I propose that Embraer Legacy 450 (EMB-545) be merged into Embraer Legacy 500 (EMB-550). The 450 is a subtype of the Legacy 500 [1]. A lot of information is redundant between both articles and leads to difficulty comparing the subtypes. Both are short articles and a merge won't be much larger. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge Makes sense to have a single article for two sub-types--Petebutt (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge --Dali-Llama (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge, makes sense! - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Agree. Samf4u (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Done --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I was thinking of the same for the Embraer Phenom 100/Embraer Phenom 300 --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifications

Any reason why we have ended up with a non-standard specification section - normal practice is to only list one variant using a standard template, and explain any differences in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I used a table because it's the common practice for major variants : google.com/search?q=aircraft+variants+Specifications+site:wikipedia.org. Most specs differ, separating them would be tedious to read and compare. It's a great use of reference tables. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is, that as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia does not require every variant and sub-type to be described in detail or their specs listed. Just one set of specs using a specs template is the normal practice.--Petebutt (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course! But major revisions are noteworthy. We aren't detailing differences between the A330-302 and the -303, but we must between the -300 and -200. The Legacy 450 even had its own article before the merge. And notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this article should be non-standard it needs to be reverted to one specification template as is normal practice - any major differences can be dealt with in the text (if it is that different they need separate articles!), thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of airliner articles, which have always tended to use tables and so are accorded somewhat of a grandfathered status, we use the standard specs table on almost every other type of aircraft article. One reason we have separate smaller articles on related types is because of a desire to uses specs for each subtype. I'm sorry you didn't realize this, Marc, when you suggested merging the pages, but the consensus seems to be against you on this one. Also, I probably would have opposed the merge, partly for that reason, but you merged it too quickly. (A week is generally considered the minimum in merge discussions - 4 hours is far too short.) - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[merge] It was a bit short, but I asked each contributor and nearly half supported it after 30 hours, it was obvious the consensus was not going to swing. And it was the weekend, I have more time than within a weekday :). Nothing can't be undone, though. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[specs] This is an interesting subject! I made the table in good faith, believing that it was a common practice, universal for airliners. I have read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications and while it was promoting the templates - the fact there is at least 3 of them isn't confidence inspiring - it doesn't seem mandatory ("Please use"). I was viewing the spec templates as guidelines for completeness, if the data is the same in a table, what does it cost? I don't see it as an anachronism from wikipedia's early days, but as a much needed practice whenever there is major shrink/stretch variants : would you separate the B737-800 from the B737NG article? Major variants are obvious for airliners, were less common for smaller airplanes but are more frequent for new bizjets like this one, the phenom 100/300, the gulfstream 500/600 or the global 7000/8000. They are not related types, they have the same type certificate. It's not meant for minor variants though, yesterday I edited the Pilatus PC-12 article but if there is some weight/engine/avionics variants the airframe is still the same, a table would be less useful there. I searched Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) for discussions on the subject but didn't found anything, do you think it would me more interesting to continue there? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Embraer Legacy 500. 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/20160807193838/https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf to https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA_2015_Databook_LoRes%20updated%203-29-2016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

Any ideas for a better title than the convoluted one we currently have, we dont normally list all the variants in the actual title. The Praetor just appears to be another marketing name which is not mentioned on the FAA or EASA Type Certificates. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)