Talk:Tecnam P2012 Traveller

Clean

Please can someone review/clean this article? Zadradr (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Breawycker (talk to me!) 17:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tecnam P2012 Traveller. 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://www.tecnam.com/en-GB/notizie/23/TecnamannouncesthelaunchoftheP2012Traveller.aspx

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tecnam P2012 Traveller

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tecnam P2012 Traveller's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TCDS":

• From 2018 in aviation: "Type certificate data sheet No. EASA.A.004 for Airbus A330" (PDF). European Aviation Safety Agency. 26 September 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2018. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
• From Cessna 402: Federal Aviation Administration (March 2007). "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A7CE". Retrieved 2008-08-10.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Merger (P-Volt)

The following discussion 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.

---

Merger has been proposed to fold the Tecnam P-Volt into the P2012 article here. Based on Tecnam's own wording, they appear to be considering the P-Volt to be a new aircraft based on the P2012 rather than simply a variant: "P-VOLT is an all-electric, twin-motor, short-range passenger aircraft whose design is based on the Tecnam P2012 Traveller" ([1]). To me that seems to merit keeping them separate. Retswerb (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - Yes they should be kept separate. The P-Volt easily makes WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - An electric version of an aircraft, especially one intended for full production, is going to be different enough from the base model to warrant separate coverage, or all the details of the electric powertrain etc. will overwhelm the other content. As an aside, a lot of our articles that cover several major variants are quite messy because content from merged articles was dumped in whole without much effort made to integrate the content into the existing article structure, usually in the Variants section. In light of that practice, it's much better to keep an article like this one separate. BilCat (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge - I proposed the merge. For now, this is just a concept, and it looks like just a re-engine with a battery pod, the base aircraft is the same, the TC will certainly be the same. If the section would grow large enough to be split out in a separate article, it would be easy to do.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Close discussion: per WP:WPMERGE stale merge/old proposal, merge is opposed. Merge tag off, Tecnam P-Volt proceeds per NPP. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2021 (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.