Talk:TF-RÁN

Requested move 25 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Determining if the subject meets enwp criteria for a standalone article is beyond the scope of this RM and can be discussed at the proper venue, WP:AfD. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• TF-RÁN (II) → TF-RÁN
• TF-SIF (III) → TF-SIF (Dauphin 2)
• TF-SIF (IV) → TF-SIF (Dash 8)

– The current titles contain roman numerals which are not present in the articles. These numerals do not seem to serve a purpose other than disambiguation for the two TF-SIF aircraft, and there are many better ways to disambiguate the two articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The roman numeral represent in what order the aircraft had the name, for instance the Dash 8 is the fourth Coast Guard aircraft to bear the name Sif (or TF-SIF). That numeral order is always included in the lead of the articles. When I created the articles I did consider some alternatives for the article name, such as having the aircraft type, construction number or the year it entered service (similar as is used for naval vessels). Another option was to use a disambiguation such as the Icelandic Wikipedia uses for the aircrafts, TF-SIF (helicopter)(is) and TF-RÁN (amphibious aircraft)(is). I'm not entirely convinced that the proposed moves are better than the current naming or one of the others but more than willing to discuss it further.

On a sidenote, I had planned to write an article on the first TF-RÁN (the amphibious aircraft) as I had found enough significant sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Alvaldi I proposed the removal of the roman numerals because they are not descriptive enough to disambiguate the aircraft. Only someone with prior knowledge of the numeral being the number of aircraft with that name would be able to make sense of the numeral. As of right now, there is only one article about an aircraft with the registration TF-RÁN, so there is no need to disambiguate in the first place. If an article is written about another TF-RÁN, then that would change. As for the TF-SIF aircraft, it would be better to be more descriptive when disambiguating the titles to avoid any more confusion. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@ZLEA After giving this some thought I'm leaning towards your arguments and don't oppose the move. Alvaldi (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Are these aircraft really notable enough to have their own articles at all? The citations are mostly in Icelandic which I cannot read, but they appear to be no more than news chit-chat, which may not constitute "significant coverage ... in detail" per WP:N. I'd suggest they be put up for deletion discussion at WP:AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  These individual aircrafts have significant coverage in major Icelandic sources. TF-SIF (III) has had several, including a two-page introduction at its arrival in the largest newspaper in the country and a seven page coverage about its history following its crash, The history of TF-SIF (IV) has been discussed in detail since its arrival[1][2] and to this date[3]. The history of TF-RÁN (II) has also been discussed in detail as its loss nearly caused the shutdown of the Coast Guard helicopter program.[4][5] Alvaldi (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  See also the section on notability of individual aircraft in our guideline on this matter. For example a service cancellation is notable by virtue of the service, not the aircraft involved. The justification for these articles remains thin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is an essay by a Wikiproject which constitutes as a local consensus and does not overwrite the community consensus of the general notability guideline, which is the notability guideline that is applicable in these cases. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. GNG requires multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail, something that these aircrafts all have. Alvaldi (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is wrong. The essay is a subpage of Wikipedia:Notability and as such has gained encyclopedia-wide acceptance, it is not a sub-page of any WikiProject. It interprets GNG in the context of aircraft. As such it actually establishes the wider-scale community consensus, which you rightly say cannot be overridden here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  You are mistaken as it is clearly stated on the top of the page This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. (emphasis mine). As far as I can tell it was a failed proposal from about 15 years ago. Alvaldi (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's as may be. Nevertheless it is a sub-page of WP:N and thus establishes a Wikipedia-wide scope which cannot be overridden locally. If you don't like it, go argue your case at WT:NAIR, not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  It literally says the opposite of that: This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. As in, it is not part of the community consensus. It is also made clear in on the talk page in a post from 2008 which stated Currently there is insufficient consensus to elevate this proposal to guideline status [[..]]. Furthermore, WP:N lists its subject-specific guidelines on its page, WP:NAIR is not one of them. Alvaldi (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.