Talk:Lancair

Fair use rationale for Image:Lancair logo.png

Image:Lancair logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Safety Controversy

Please do not remove content from the Safety Controversy section. It is, if anything, already disproportionally small. At present, there are the overall stats from the FAA and two incidents that received wide coverage. Strom (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The size of the section is not the issue. The issue is that by consensus at WikiProject Aircraft aircraft type accidents are not covered in the company article, they are covered in the aircraft type article. In this case, this one is not significant enough to be in either, as it does not make the WP:AIRCRASH inclusion criteria. First off the accident is not notable as there are thousands of light aircraft accidents every year and this did not involve any notable people, secondly it could have involved any aircraft and is not specific to Lancair as it was a propeller failure, not a design flaw with any Lancair provided or designed components. Thirdly the source you have cited is WP:SPS and so is not a reliable source. This does not belong in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this has project-wide implications, I have invited members of WikiProject Aircraft to contribute to the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My initial thoughts upon hearing of the discussion was that a specific aircraft accident would warrant mention in the Manufacturer's article IF it had a significant effect on the company as a whole. Examples: the death of the managing director in an aircraft accident, the loss of a prototype leading to lost orders putting the company into receivership, or a crash that caused the company to be prosecuted for failures. I don't see this instance ticking any of those boxes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt and GraemeLeggett. Accident information belongs in the aircraft type articles (or operator article for airlines or air forces) provided it meets the criteria, this incident doesn't. Roger (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ahunt et al accident information belongs in the type article and from what I can see Appletons accident is already in the Lancair IV article and the Jogger incident is not really notable for any article. If anything the only mention of accidents or incidents in this article would trends that that would cause serious and notable issues for the company, Dont see that here so the entire safety concerns section could be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed. Accidents belong in the type article unless they had an extremely significant impact on the company itself - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the points that User:GraemeLeggett and User:MilborneOne made that accidents should only be included in the company article if they have implications for the company in-terms of bankrupting them or other serious consequences. I'll wait a few more days here to see if any more opinions are posted. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the above reasons given. I removed the jogger death entry as that is does not ssem to caused by major design flaws or any error made by the company. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the clear consensus here then I will remove the rest of the section as it pertains to aircraft types, not the company in general. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)