Talk:De Havilland DH.60 Moth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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

[edit] reversion

The DH-60 is a specific model, not a family, of aircraft. E.g. The tiger is a DH-82. This info is on the already existing pages re de H. Moths. There are several other moths including single wing and enclosed, about which there are no pages at WP. I am paving the way for that. Disambig is needed. Reverting. Paul Beardsell 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The DH.60 is a specific model, not a family, of aircraft. Isn't that exactly why this should be an article about that specific model? There were aircraft which were not Gipsy Moths, Tiger Moths, Hornet Moths, Fox Moths, Giant Moths, Hawk Moths, Puss Moths, Swallow Moths, or Leopard Moths, but just Moths.

By all means it should be mentioned that deH also used "X Moth" for a lot of different models, and a list may be provided. But we still need an article on the "Moth", the DH.60. If you don't think information on that aircraft should be here, where should it be? FiggyBee 10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

De H referred to the DH60 as the "Moth" only until there were other Moths. Then they too had a disambiguation problem, and the plane once which could be called "Moth", unambiguously, was henceforth always referred to as the DH60 or, usually, as the Gipsy Moth - and I know technically it depends upon the engine fitted. When readers of WP think of De H Moth they will usually (almost always) be thinking of the Tiger Moth. That's the one they've seen or flown in, most probably. When a reader finds her/himself at the DH60 page without any indication that the page they really want is elsewhere, that isn't good for the encyclopedia, or the readers. Paul Beardsell 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a fairly good indication that the article they want is elsewhere, and I've specifically mentioned the Gypsy and Tiger in the lead (which surely gives the reader a better idea of where they should be looking than just having a list of all the moths, if indeed they are looking for the Gypsy or the Tiger). I just think that one or two lines about the original "Moth" are helpful. Particularly since this article is linked to by a number of articles where the aircraft meant is the DH.60. FiggyBee 11:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Best then is to revisit those articles and to correct the links. Although that is an admonishment to me, not to you, as I am the one who changed this from a redirect to the Gipsy to a disambiguation page and, thus, that's supposed to me my job. I bet also, though, that we've fixed the odd page which meant Tiger Moth or Moths in general, and were linked to the DH60 page in error. Paul Beardsell 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the prime example of a page where no other article will do is 1925 in aviation. ;) FiggyBee 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] de Havilland Gipsy Moth

I have been expanding this article and working on format and references. A user on the talk page proposed to rename the article de Havilland DH.60 Moth which I think is very sensible as then all the variants of the DH.60 (Moth, Gipsy Moth, Cirrus Moth, Hermes Moth, Genet Moth, Metal Moth etc) can be included but I see that this article name has been used for a single variant. There has been similar discussion on that article talk page. A discussion on this can be viewed at [1] where it has been been recommended that the content of de Havilland Gipsy Moth and de Havilland DH.60 Moth be preserved and merged in to the latter article. With many variants it is clear that the DH.60 is a series of the same basic type that can be covered in one article. I have been asked as a courtesy to inform involved editors in case there are strong objections. Many thanks.Nimbus227 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with the merge of de Havilland Gipsy Moth into de Havilland DH.60 Moth. See if you can't work in a repetition of or a link to the list at de Havilland Moth too. FiggyBee (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done both as you suggest. Still some work to do here and it could be quite a good article. Editing this has certainly improved my own understanding of the Moth range and their names. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)