Talk:De Havilland Canada: Difference between revisions
Mindmatrix (talk | contribs) assessment |
→CS2F inclusion: Reply |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Reply: I agree that there should be some differentiation of original de Havilland Canada designs compared to any licence-built programs. I would like to see the new section: "Aircraft produced under license" (note the capitalization that is recommended by Wikipedia for section titles). ([[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)) |
Reply: I agree that there should be some differentiation of original de Havilland Canada designs compared to any licence-built programs. I would like to see the new section: "Aircraft produced under license" (note the capitalization that is recommended by Wikipedia for section titles). ([[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)) |
||
::The Gipsy Moth, Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, Mosquito, etc., weren't built under licence. They were built when DHC was part of the UK de Havilland parent company. In effect, DHC was treated as just another DH factory, albeit on another continent. The same applied to DHA in Australia at the time. |
|||
==Order of DHC aircraft in article== |
==Order of DHC aircraft in article== |
Revision as of 11:37, 28 June 2009
Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Canada: Ontario Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Toronto Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Companies Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||
|
Business Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
CS2F inclusion
I agree that the CS2F probably shouldn't receive equal emphasis as original DHC designs.
Rather than starting an update war, how about adding another section titled "Aircraft Produced Under License" under the Dash 8 section, then placing subsections about the Gipsy Moth, Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, and Tracker there? Since DHC produced relatively large numbers of aircraft under license, I think this would be fair treatment for these historical aircraft. (Carguychris 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
Reply: I agree that there should be some differentiation of original de Havilland Canada designs compared to any licence-built programs. I would like to see the new section: "Aircraft produced under license" (note the capitalization that is recommended by Wikipedia for section titles). (Bzuk 18:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
- The Gipsy Moth, Tiger Moth, Fox Moth, Mosquito, etc., weren't built under licence. They were built when DHC was part of the UK de Havilland parent company. In effect, DHC was treated as just another DH factory, albeit on another continent. The same applied to DHA in Australia at the time.
Order of DHC aircraft in article
Why is the DHC-6 Twin Otter placed before the DHC-4 Caribou in the article? It's out of numerical and chronological sequence, although I do understand that it's a design development of the DHC-3 Otter. (Carguychris 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)) Exactly because of the development history but putting the order into the correct alphabetical/numerical sequence is fine with me as long as the reader can determine the connection between the Otter and Twin Otter and its lineage. (Bzuk 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
- Start-Class aviation articles
- Start-Class aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aircraft articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- Start-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- Start-Class Ontario articles
- Low-importance Ontario articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Unassessed Toronto articles
- Unknown-importance Toronto articles
- WikiProject Toronto articles
- Unassessed company articles
- Unknown-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
- Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles