Talk:E-Sky Lama model helicopters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page needs major cleanup, it looks too much like fancruft/advertising right now, and is also somewhat incorrect in treating the Lama V4 as innovative: the coaxial design has been out on the market since at least 2004 with Esky themselves having a leading role. The Lama V3 is listed as a "competitor" although it's also made by Esky and is mechanically and electrically identical to the V4, and is often considered a much better platform for modding and upgrades.

I thus propose removing unencyclopaedic parts such as parts catalogs and weasel words, performing some major cleanup and extending the article to the whole of the Lama series (including the V2, V3 and their generations). EpiVictor 11:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone must also verify whether the text is at least original or it has just been copied from a copyrighted source -in that case, it just doesn't belong in wikipedia-. EpiVictor 11:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the original creator of the page, and I can confirm none of the material is specifically copyrighted, and if found to be, it was definately not sourced intentionally. I have, however, drawn on the experiences of many Lama users, both LV4 and LV3 in creating this article - which was produced to address the lack of informed information on the internet regarding this type of co-axial remote control helicopter. It is not intended as an advertisement, as I am merely an enthusiast in this field of remote control aircraft. I would argue that this is only the same as listing 'A Ford Focus' on wikipedia - yes, it is a product, but it is a major part of the remote control helicopter world. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcssl (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you can see there's a notable difference in style with the Ford Focus article(s). If the info you have is based SOLELY on users' experiences, then it doesn't belong to wikipedia, unless properly sourced and undisputed. E.g. there's no deny that the simplified coaxial design has some limitations, but to addess this it's sufficient to link to the Coaxial rotors article instead of attempting to write something emotionally charged. Then some things like the part calalog were entirely out of place. If there is ever going to be a Lama V3 or V2 article, it would be more appropriate to merge then with this one. EpiVictor 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement units in Specifications

Since there is a bit of confusion, here is their meaning: The servo's "strength" is a torque, and should be measured in kg cm, NOT kg/cm, a very common error. The other unit should probably be written as "0.12 sec/60 degrees", which essentially indicates the inverse of the servo's angular speed (.12 seconds to perform a 60 degree rotation). When a hoppy/science gets too popular, we must be ready to cope with some obscurity and randomness, and correct it. EpiVictor 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems although I have posted a valuable resource for enthusiasts and people interested in such a popular model remote control aircraft, I would be criticised for my efforts. If you feel so strongly about it, delete it. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.134.254 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have noted, I am trying to IMPROVE the article, I didn't even nominate it for deletion. Step-by-step, it will start looking as it should. When it gets assessed, then you'll know that you have started something good. The only thing that was nominated for deletion was the possibly unfree image used, something which can be fixed by simply changing the copyright tag or using a free Lama V4 image. Why don't you provide one? EpiVictor 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FUCK YOU