Talk:Boeing Cargo Air Vehicle

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Specifications references[edit]

[Moved from my talk page, more relevant here--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)][reply]

The change was important, otherwise it's necessary to put Template:Primary sources in it. Would you really prefer? --Leo067 (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia and no Boeing advertisement, therefore it is better and important to use and prefer independent sources where possible. --Leo067 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be moved at Talk:Boeing Cargo Air Vehicle where it's relevant, not in my talk page. Primary sources are OK for aircraft prototypes when no independent verification could be made anyway: other media outlets only publish the same primary data. No reason to mislead the reader to make him believe there is an independent verification: there is none.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least aerospace professional people had a look on it if it might be true, that IS a difference. Why didn't you discuss it on the page before simply removing? --Leo067 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the edit summary, my goal was to facilitate WP:verifiability by putting the new ref next to the new info. I did not remove it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC) No "aerospace professional people" claimed to check the data in your ref[reply]

Did you really realise what you have done? This is no competition being the most stubborn or to insist on the own opinion. It’s Wikipedia, we are working together. I explained why I undid your change and had good reasons for it. If you don’t want to understand, you won’t. When something is written in a professional magazine like Electric VTOL News there’s not need to say that someone checked it – it is. For my opinion it’s vandalism what you did. Don’t you have better things to do, than to destroy the good work of someone else two times? Because I know your work from former times, I don’t make a vandalism case out of it.

Where’s the discussion in the article, you wanted? I would prefer much more if you’d add a picture to the article instead doing this unnecessary fight. Please be more cooperative. --Leo067 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I explained myself clearly: I did not remove your eVtol ref, I just moved it next to the relevant information.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Please stay WP:CIVIL, thanks.[reply]

This is the first text which is originally posted by me at this place.

Why do you move my texts with my signature without asking or even informing me before? You could have changed it and nobody else (except me) could check. Is this really according to the rules of Wikipedia? Would you enjoy if I'd copy a discussion you took part in someday somewhere? You don't care or respect others?

Instead of explaining about a link moved (there have been two), you'd better increase the part 'Design' or care about articles more important. Once more: Please try to be more cooperative and friendly. You write it, but you don't do it yourself: Please stay WP:CIVIL, thanks. Wikipedia is not your website and you're not the administrator. It's a big project for all people. --Leo067 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the move: In my first reply, I stated This discussion should be moved at Talk:Boeing Cargo Air Vehicle where it's relevant, not in my talk page. It's a common thing, as explained in Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_other_editors/Communicating_with_your_fellow_editors#Article_content. I even asked beforehand, and you did not reply. It looks like you don't read my replies. Again, I did not removed your eVtol ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more usual in specifications to add the references for any additional data next to that data. It is assumed that reference at the top provides a source for all the data in the table unless otherwise referenced. So Marc Lacoste was correct to move it to the specification body next to the specific item. MilborneOne (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not right and you should know it. Wikipedia says the use of secondary sources should be preferred instead of primary sources for good and important reasons. I did change the link of the specifications from primary to secondary sources, there are at least three different ones. I had linked two different pages of the Electric VTOL News, one of them replacing the Boeing link. He changed back to the use of the primary source. Do you agree with this MilborneOne? --Leo067 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the fourth time: I did not remove your eVtol ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing the issue of Marc Lacoste "moving" your reference as far as I can see it was not removed, I did not comment about primary or secondary which is not relly relevant in this case. So one step at a time you accept that Marc moved your reference and did not remove it? MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: There have been two links to two different pages of the Electric VTOL News, one of them he removed, the other he moved. You can see it clearly in the view history, you don’t need to ask me. Please answer my question MilborneOne as I’m sure you can think and answer two thoughts in one text. We are adults, not children. So please answer my question about primary and secondary sources. It’s not necessary to argue about something that is obvious and clear. I don’t want to waste more time and energy in this unnecessary discussion as I explained the subject many times already. --Leo067 (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take care as you are close to personal attack territory which may get you blocked. OK I can see that you added max speed and put the reference at the top, Marc Lacoste moved it into place next to the claim about max speed as is more usual. The confusion is that you then said the reference covers other specification items without giving any clues as to which other ones are not covered by the original spec. On another note the evtol source doesnt actually mention maximum speed only that it has flown at that speed. Looking further into the spec section they are other unreferenced and bogus figures around that are not supported by either reference. The primary/secondary thing is not really an issue when we are dealing with factual information. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crew: None (“The Cube” autopilot by ProfiCNC) [The Cube is not referenced but I dont see why it is needed here]

Capacity: up to 500 pounds (227 kg) payload = [Boeing] + [eVTOL]

Length: 17 ft 6 in (5.33 m) [Boeing]

Wingspan: 20 ft 0 in (6.1 m) [Boeing]

Height: 5 ft 0 in (1.52 m) [Boeing]

Empty weight: 600 lb (272 kg) [Not Supported and Boeing says it is 1100 pounds]

Max takeoff weight: 1,100 lb (499 kg) [Not Supported]

Powerplant: 6 × Vertical Electric dual propeller [Boeing - although it doesnt use the term "Vertical Electric"]

Maximum speed: 23 mph (37 km/h, 20 kn) [eVTOL mentions speed achieved but not that it is the maximum]

Range: 1.0 mi (1.6 km, 0.87 nmi) [Not Supported]

Service ceiling: 390 ft (120 m) [Not Supported]

It also needs to have the more usual specification template rather than free text. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]