Talk:Felixstowe F.5

"Tin Five"

Shorts developed a Duralumin hull for the F.5 which was very successful and instrumental in persuading the Air Ministry that metal hulls were reliable. This needs to be mentioned here - I'll have a look when I can find the time, but if anyone wants to do this now, please go ahead. Barnes & James (Putnams) has the story in the chapter on the Singapore 1. --TraceyR (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

F.3 image here?

Is it appropriate to have an image of the F.3 in the article about the F.5? It seems odd. --TraceyR (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the close relation between the F2/F3/F5, it is acceptable to me; the more so that the little incongruency is clearly documented. Alternatively, one could consider having a single page for all these models, like on de:wikipedia Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The same image appearing again in the article on the F2 is taking things a bit too far, though... Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but until another image is available... FWiW, I was too premature, there is an image in Wikicommons. Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Model kit external links

I am not very happy with the numerous references to plastic model kits; especially as some are not even about this type of aircraft. I intend to remove the whole lot, but wish to first wait for some comments/discussion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a look and removed them, that is clearly WP:SPAM. I also warned the IP editor. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Why did I ever doubt..? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I added them for the following reasons that I hope you and many others would find of educational value:

• Models are an assistance to visualising aircraft (and machines in general) that many are not able to see for themselves for various reasons not least that some aircraft no longer exist.
• Model making is a long tradition in engineering disciplines.
• A model provides more information than a photograph (if you chose to build one).
• The links added are of aircraft referred to in the article.
• By building the models the reader would be able to visualise the development of the craft referred to in the article and see that more closely for themselves.
• Many museums include models as an aid to visualisation.
• Models are simply another way of enjoying history.
• I am not working for any model kit manufacturer.

I would politely suggest restoring the links for the benefit of all. Your thoughts please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Support not adding the challenged external links - external links are to provide information to improve the article and not a web directory or educational or otherwise links. Models are not notable to the aircraft and as such are not mentioned in aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That might depend on your interpretation of 'provide information to improve the article' and to the extent the article exists in the readers mind - anyone else have any ideas?

exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont really need to interpret anything it is up to the challenged editor to gain a consensus for proposed change to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I examined the links before I removed them, they were pure advertising for products and added nothing of value to the article. They run afoul of WP:SPAM and WP:ELNO. I have nothing against models or modelling, I have built many myself, but most of the links you put in weren't even about this aircraft type, but ads for models of other types, like the Curtiss F-5L and Supermarine Southampton. Basically Wikipedia is not a collection of links. External links provided have to provide readers with expanded information on the subject not included in the article, which these don't, and not just advertise at readers. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look more closely at SPAM and ELNO but, the links were carefully selected to compliment

the article and included aircraft types referred to directly in the article including the F5. I accept another approach would be to transfer some of the links to their respective page, but that relies on clicking another link, it seemed more helpful to the reader to have all the links (aircraft) in one place in chronological order as they are referred to in the article and there are lists within the article in any case. I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for traders to push their products.

My response to the article was to look for more information hence my digging for model suppliers; I found the kit manufactures sites to contain information including some excellent colour illustrations and photographs of completed models that as you state above expanded information on the subject not included in the article. I also note the kit manufacturers undertake what appears to be extensive research to ensure the historical accuracy of their products. If there is good reason to delete then it would be based on the information within the links being overwhelmingly inaccurate. It strikes me that the debate here is subjective?--81.149.141.199 (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, it is based on the Wikipedia policies cited that prohibit adding links like the ones you added. These sorts of links are plainly inappropriate in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Would Ahunt kindly cite the specific points of SPAM and ELMO he believes to apply in the circumstances, giving due consideration to all the facts?--81.149.141.199 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He doesnt have to, the edit has been challenged the proposer has to gain a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He does, thus far Ahunt only provides general reasons for his challenge. Perhaps MilbourneOne would like to stand in?--81.149.141.199 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

MB1 is right, at present we have a consensus here to not include these and it is up to you to make a convincing case for including them. However to answer your question, the relevant sections are WP:LINKSPAM, which says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." From WP:ELNO specifically in this case: "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, 5. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Point 1 of WP:ELNO says that links should be avoided if the linked site "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. None of the removed links get anywhere near this level of information, with the majority of them adding no value at all unless you want to buy a model.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you Ahunt and Nigel Ish for providing the relevant points of SPAM and ELNO.

Scanning around I see a photograph in the F2.A and F3 articles that although they are not links, effectively advertise the Imperial Museum picture library. The link to the Smithsonian is also broken.

Turning to the links in question we have, through a process of debate, arrived at some findings that I will note:

The F5 article contains both lists of facts and links to other sub-topics.

The same article refers to other aircraft types in relation to the development of the F5 and following, for example the Supermarine Southampton.

The links I added include aircraft types referred to in the article.

Models are not referred to in the subject matter of the article.

Using my response to the article as an example we found there is information contained in the links that expanded on the information not contained in the article.

The extent that the article exists in the readers mind and what might constitute an improvement is seemingly an entirely subjective issue.

The information contained in the links is contained in text, illustrations and photographs; the information varies in quantity and quality.

Within some of the linked pages there is information that provides the reader with an option to buy the models that the various pages represent.

The reader is under no obligation to buy the models represented.

I am not working for a model kit manufacturer.

The parts of the relevant points to ELNO and SPAM already noted by A and N are I believe:

WP:LINKSPAM Adding external links to an article… for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed,... Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances.

I am not a model maker; my interest is information, I do not have an agenda to promote model making, model aircraft or any website that may lead to the sale of model aircraft.

Whether the circumstances of this case are special circumstances and what special circumstances are is apparently open to debate?

WP:ELNO 1. …does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

This point seems dependant on what the F5 article might be as a featured article and whether it would be possible to replicate all the information in the links in a featured article. I am inclined to think there would not be space on a Wikipedia page to do so without the page being overwhelmed with photographs. As to whether the F5 article is ever likely be a featured article, that is perhaps another question.

Assuming the page is a featured article then I would suggest the links do offer a resource beyond what the article contains to different degrees; the specific varients of aircraft referred to in the links are not detailed in the article.

It also occurs to me that the quality of the information in a link might be measured by whether the information is sufficient to be cited as a source, in which case a reader could access the link anyway.

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website

The same would apply in my response to SPAM

5. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products

This could be dependant on the quantity and quality of the information that any particular linked page contains and where the balance lies.

In return, I ask the readers for their close attention and careful consideration.--80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response here, but I don't think you have added any new arguments for keeping these external links. We quite clearly have a consensus to not include them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Try a little harder Ahunt, explain why so the readers can see your arguement for themselves. I do not see any democracy in your reply!--80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. I am only one editor here, so let's see if any of the other editors who previously were opposed to including your links have been convinced by your arguments. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As the starter of this argument, I feel called upon to comment. I fully subscribe the concensus that the disputed weblinks do not belong in this encyclopedia. The basic arguments have been worded by people more able than myself, I should just like to add that an encylopedia should first aim for terse yet complete information, i.e. quality of info over quantity. And, sure enough, democracy was never the point. Democracy is for politiciancs. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a debate, but Ahunt is still avoiding a considered answer and neither of you are prepared to acknowledge the double standard created by advertising the IWM picture library. Here's an idea, I will re-edit the links only including those pages where the reader is not provided with an option to buy or leave it as is, if you take down the images with the IWM stamp on them. Now thats not democratic is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.34.113 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont think it is wise to re-add the links in any form, they have been challenged per WP:EL and you have not gained a consensus to add them, it could be considered as being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any more out there who dare to dissent? And your comments re-advertising the IWM Milbourne One?--80.229.34.113 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we have a strong consensus to not re-add the links here. I think that we are really down to a WP:STICK situation here. It is time to drop the issue and move on. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world - we are wiser for it.--80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of serial numbers in captions

This matter is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Felixstowe_F.5_and_serial_numbers_in_captions. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to Dutch wikipedia

I regret the removal of the link to [[ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eerste_Luchtverkeer_Tentoonstelling_Amsterdam ]], this seems to have real added value and I cannot see which wikipedia rule was being broken. Perhaps the form of the link was incorrect, but couldn't we think of a more positive approach than blandly removing valuable information? And yes, valuable it is, though perhaps less to people who do not master Dutch. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:EL external links are avoided in article text. Foreign language Wikipedias are external links. Also as per WP:NONENGEL we avoid linking to foreign language links, because they are of very limited use to English-speaking people. The better solution would be to write an article on the subject for English Wikipedia and link to that. The English article could be based on the Dutch one, but the Dutch article seems to have some serious issues, like citing no references, which makes it of doubtful reliability! - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

F.3 in F.5

I am sure there is a reason, why is the F.3 Trans-Canada flight on the F.5 page?Rstory (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Related development

One editor keeps adding links in the "see also - related development" to the article on a manufacturer Gosport Aircraft Company intending it to represent the Gosport G5, a redlinked article on an aircraft that no one has written yet. I have removed these several times. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#See_also explains what is supposed to go in this section "Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it." An aircraft manufacturer is not an aircraft type and cannot be "related development". Including a link to a manufacturer here is confusing to readers, is unexpected and should be removed. The correct solution is to write the article on the Gosport G5 and then add it here. Ahunt (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay it has been more than a week now and so in accordance with WP:SILENCE we have a consensus to remove this use of a link to a manufacturer’s article that is being mistakenly used in the "related development" section in place of a link to an aircraft type. I should also point out that we also have an editing consensus to this effect as two editors, including me, have previously removed it and that it contravenes Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#See_also as well. Please do not put this back in without making a case here and gaining a new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Felixstowe F.5. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://japaneseaircraft.devhub.com/blog/614328-hiro-hirosho-navy-type-f5-flying-boat/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 13:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Felixstowe F5L and Felixstowe F.5 pages?

I can't see any reason for there to be two pages over a difference in engines? Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that score? There doesn't appear to be sufficient material to justify a fork. Cheers. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)