Talk:General Electric J85

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result - No concensus. Archived late (very late!) - BillCJ (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/Redirect

Is there really enough material on the CJ610 to justify a separate article from the J85? I think that's probably Joseph's main point, and frankly, I don't much see the logic behind having two articles for a subject that is unlikely ever to make it past the five- or six-paragraph level.--chris.lawson 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are enough differences to justify a separate article. The CJ610 is still a current production engine, is still used widely. Akradecki 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • [Transported from Talk:General Electric CJ610.] I've already posted to the other discussion page, but there are enough technical differences to warrant two articles, plus the CJ610 is still a current production engine, and other than technical and parts support, I don't believe the J85 is. It has long been the goal of the Aircraft project to have individual articles on all the unique models of aircraft and aircraft engines, and since this is still a current production engine, it should have its own article. Akradecki 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Look at the General Electric CF6/TF39 and General Electric TF34/CF34 for examples of how the related engines should be grouped together. We sort of do the same thing with Rolls-Royce Trent and General Electric F404/F414. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to admit, the CF6 article is nicely laid out, and if this debate were to end in merger, I'd want to see the final product emulate such a layout (the previous attempt certainly fell short). That having been said, though, the TF39 was a fairly limited production engine, seeing use on only one airframe. However, both the J85 and the CF610 have wide-spread, multi-airframe usage. In addition, like I said, these are essentially different engines. They are not interchangeble, and their parts are not interchangeable. One is a military engine, one is civilian. I'd prefer to see each article expanded and focusing on the unique aspects - and usage - of each engine. Akradecki 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Funny you should say that, because the CF6/TF39 (as well as F404/F414) merger was my work (though others have contributed since that time). That's what it would have looked like if I were allowed to finish. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Joseph for his reasons. - BillCJ 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, you think we need a discussion over whether or not we should do the merge? The CJ610 article is ONE SENTENCE. Akradecki, what exactly were you referring to when you say "I have to admit, the CF6 article is nicely laid out". It's ONE SENTENCE. How does one not nicely lay that out? Let's see, the specs area is wrong (it should be a template), the list of aircraft is grammatically incorrect ("aircraft used on", what is that, german?) and it even declares itself a stub. Sheesh. Maury 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a step back and re-read what you wrote, and what I wrote...I said the CF6 article, not the CJ610 article was nicely laid out. I was referring to Joseph's comment about this article. As I mentioned on your talk page, a stub is a starting point to expand, and if you find the article lacking, then expand it. You still haven't addressed the underlying issue: they are two different engines. One's military, one's civilian. The CJ610 is not just a modified J85. Yes, GE used the technology developed in the J85 to further develop the CJ610, but to say the CJ610 is just a variant is simply not true, and if you persist in making it appear so, all you're doing is presenting our readers with incorrect information. As you're an admin, I'm rather surprised that you'd deliberately sacrifice accuracy for the saving of a few electrons. We're not paper, and we don't need to condense. Akradecki 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you know what all these differences are, by all means, add them to the CJ610 article so we can judge. Be specific. It's been two weeks since the merge comments started, and we still have nothing but your complaints and rv's to argue against the merge. I know more than the average bear about engine design and I see two engines that differ primarily in name. Convince me otherwise. Maury 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Chris and Maury are voting yes, the count is now 4-1 in favor of merging. Is that a consensus, or should we wait another week? - BillCJ 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's been another week now. I'm still perfectly happy keeping the two pages separate if its warranted. But so far we don't know what these differences are (if any), and given what I know of jet engines I'm inclined to argue for the merge unless it's a whopper. Akradecki is out there. Should we drop a note on his talk page? Or do we go ahead? Maury 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got caught up in a bunch of other stuff. While I personally disagree, I also highly value the concept of consensus, and I don't take it personally when it goes a different way than I'd prefer. I'd like to suggest, though, that the layout of General Electric CF6 be emulated. Also, BillCJ and I have been known to combine article titles, such as Learjet 35/36 when warranted, so maybe that should be considered. As for differences, besides the obvious (one engine is afterburning, the other isn't), the accessory section is different, the rotating group technology in the CJ-610 is newer, and the civie one is type certificated and the J85 isn't, meaning that there is no way to interchange the few basic parts that might be in common. Other than that, have at it. Akradecki 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the last question is what page should we merge into? J85 is historically more important -- the others came from it -- but CF610 is much more common. It seems the other pages don't have a clear one-way-or-the-other. Maury 15:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest merge to J85 but rename to General Electric J85/CJ610 Akradecki 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.