Talk:Lavochkin

Comment

I changed "aircraft manufacturer" to "design bureau". I am not sure that there was no manufacturer (production plant) named after Lavochkin. But note that Soviet economic infrustructure was pretty different from the Western (namely market-type). A design bureau and a manufacturer usually were not a single unit or affiliated companies. Despite the hot competition between design teams (like those of Lavochkin, Mikoyan and so forth), the producers were not controlled by those teams, but by party bureaucracy. So I doubt that Lavochkin's bureau was also producing the planes.

I'm not entirely sure about the 100-series Lavochkin designations. Some sources indicate that these aircraft were not officially assigned La- monikers and were simply referred to as "fighter number ###" or "###". I've done my best to redirect prototypes to production version pages (e.g. La-130, La-132 to La-9). Emt147 08:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Most of "La-" (as well as all those "MiG-", "Su-", etc) prefixes were assigned at the moment of "entering service". Well, sometimes development numbers were retained (as Tu-95 for [ANT-]95). --jno 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge effort

• Oppose. We keep bureaus and the founders of those bureaus separate in other cases. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Because it's been a while and no consensus was reached, I'm removing the tag. Akradecki 02:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Organizations differ from personalities. --jno 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

COI edits

I have concerns about a conflict of interest with recent edits from Expolaspace. Comments like "the editing is officially approved by the management of Lavochkin Association" [1] show a lack of understanding that management at Lavochkin would be a primary source, and of considerably less value than secondary sources. That doesn't mean all changes are wrong. I've reinstated a few details from the edit, suspecting they might survive unsourced, but unchallenged. Much of the rest reads like an advertisement, and some sourced content is removed which may be more in the company's interest than Wikipedia's. Further edits should be done in small stages, and allow for input from all interested editors here on the talk page. Willondon (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And there needs to be a response to the concerns of conflict of interest. Willondon (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)