Talk:Cessna 162

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cessna 162 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 SkyCatcher? 2 Irrelevant Date Links 3 Wow 4 Controversy section

[edit] SkyCatcher?

There seems to be some disagreement on whether the "C" in the plane's name is capitalized, as it has been capitalized on some of the company's announcements. The July 2007 brochure has it written without the C being capitalized: Skycatcher, so I suppose that is how Cessna will use it in the future.Raymondwinn 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The brochure and what appears to be a preliminary version of the PIM/POH both use "Skycatcher", which I think is the reasonable assumption. Marketing probably goofed on the press release. ericg ✈

[edit] Irrelevant Date Links

I have removed a number of links to dates that have nothing to do with the article content. This is explained in the Manual of Style which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Ahunt 11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

That thing looks cool, but it costs a lot compared to a 152. And a carburated Continental O-200? That outdated engine surely does not bring forth the win...Pilotbob —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

I understand the Controversy section is, well, controversial, but seriously, this article is supposed to be about the aircraft itself, not posts on a company website! Do we really need several paragraphs about the website?? WP is not a news source, but an encyclopedia. I'm not that up on the issues, so I don't feel I should be the one doing the trimming, but I will if I need to. There's nothing wrong with providing links to the details of the issue, but let's stay focused on what the article is about. If the issue itself is that worthy (notable) of coverage on WP, then it might be good to consider a separate article in which to cover the controversy's details. - BillCJ (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point Bill. Do you think perhaps the bulk of the controversy should be in the Cessna article instead, rather than here? I think it is worth retaining somewhere, as it is probably the most controversial issue for this company ever. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a start, yes, I think Cessna would be a better place for it. If the controversy continues to have repurcussions, then perhaps later it can be made into its own article. Notability is the key for a separate article, and if there were to be legislation proposals or changes regarding the issue, that would certainly be notable. - BillCJ (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me give it a kick at moving it over to Cessna and fixing it up at the same time, while leaving a short summary of the issue on the Cessna 162 page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the section in this article and moved text to the Cessna article, plus rearranged some refs to make sure they still work. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)