Template talk:Zeppelin aircraft

"ZMe" aircraft

TheLongTone recently removed the ZMe 323 and ZMe 423 from the template with the edit summary "Not Zeppelin designs, company not mentioned in article" (it is mentioned in the article). I reverted the change, but TheLongTone reverted my reversion and left a rather confrontational message on my talk page. I don't want an edit war over a few links, so I'll seek a consensus here.

My argument for inclusion is that the aircraft were assigned distinct "Zeppelin-Messerschmitt" designations by the RLM, which, to my knowledge, was not standard practice for simple license production. Although the ZMe 323 may not have been a Zeppelin design, it was still enough of a Zeppelin aircraft for the RLM to assign it a new designation. As for the ZMe 423, the fact that there is no known "Me 423" means that it wouldn't make sense to include it in Template:Messerschmitt aircraft but not this template. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the RLM used the designation ZMe is conclusive that Zeppelin-Messerschmitt was an official name. An instructive parallel to this case occurs with the Me 155. Basically a high-altitide development of the Bf 109, it went through a couple of iterations before being transferred to Blohm & Voss beacuse Messerschmitt were so busy. There it was heavily redesigned, and redesignated the BV 155. It is always listed as the BV 155; the Me 155 is regarded as a different type. In the case of the Me 323 the same transfer to another company and subsequent design modifications occurred. However the modified design was not taken forwards to the prototype stage. Nevertheless the modifications were of Zeppelin design and the RLM treated the designation accordingly. By the time Zeppelin had iterated their changes to the 523, manufacture had shifted one again - to France - and the RLM designated it as ZSO (presumably for Zeppelin-Sud-Ouest). The RLM were not always wholly consistent between such edge cases, but there is certainly no question but that all three of these Gigant developments (and I have seen others referred to) were products of the Zeppelin-Werke design office and the RLM treated them accordingly. So should we. I do believe that in this case TheLongTone has it wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to superior knowledge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting choice of words. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do my very best to choose interesting words!TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existance of this template

Admitting that I am not sure I understand the full relevance: do we really need this template? What is its added value?

I can see the use and advantage of generic templates like "Family car" or perhaps even "UK family car"; but not of "UK family car with radial tires" or "Family car built 1974-1975". Given the very limited number of Zeppelin designs, I would favour the complete removal of this template. What we don't have cannot divide us. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, though again I am unsure of the relevance: the Me423 IS mentioned, though briefly, in our article Messerschmitt_Me_323_Gigant.Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan olieslagers This is an aviation manufacturer navbox. It's standard practice to have a manufacturer navbox at the end of aircraft articles. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I do not want to be rude, but I do not care tuppence about "standard practice". I asked about "added value". If there's none - as I feel - away with it!

And also, you might notice the difference between "aircraft manufacturer" and "aircraft designer". In today's North-America, the two go together one-to-one, as I understand; but even today they do not everywhere, and in earlier times the landscape had even more shades. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel we should get rid of aviation manufacturer navboxes altogether, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, not here. This is a discussion about the contents of a specific navbox. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what I stated. I questioned the added value of this particular one, not of the whole race. But it seems obvious I am not really understanding you - neither will I try any further. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you might try WP:TFD. I'm almost positive it will be a WP:SNOW keep, though. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As if I cared. Have it all your own way. Still, you have to explain about the added value, and why you are so keen if there is none. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for this template are the same as for all the others. The idea that consensus might randomly back down for one manufacturer is not tenable. Time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not clear to me. Kindly elaborate? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is in favor of having a navbox for all aviation manufacturers/designers with more than a few aircraft as a way to link aircraft articles of the same manufacturer to each other. This template is one of the largest aviation navboxes on Wikipedia, so if you don't think it has value, you would need a very compelling argument to do away with it. Your personal opinion about its value is not a valid reason, since there are many who do see value in these types of navboxes and have established a consensus. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I was not questioning a navbox, I was questioning (the existence of one particular) template. Already stepwise giving in, though, now mentioning "manufacturers/designers" even if not yet seeing the real difference, apparently. Also: did Messerschmitt design more than a few aircraft? It is not a very clear guideline, but I do not think the Messerschmitt works ever came to a hundred, likely much less. How's that for a few? Besides, the question was not addressed at you. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand, this template is a navbox. Also, in the case of aviation navboxes, a "few" usually means the WP:COMMONSENSE definition of few (more than two or three). In the case of most western aviation companies, the designer is usually the manufacturer, so it is not worth differentiating the two. For cases where the designer differs from the manufacturer, the aircraft is usually included in the navbox of the designer, and if the manufacturer has its own navbox, then it is sometimes included there as well (especially if it was assigned a distinct designation). Soviet and some Eastern Bloc aircraft are really the only major exceptions, as they were usually designed by a design bureau but produced in state-owned factories. In those cases, only the designer has a navbox. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right so far: I do not understand the difference between a navbox and a template. And I keep on looking forward to the (usually much valued) response from the intended adressee.

Also "most western aviation companies" (whereas many contributors use "aviation company" to indicate air transport companies, not aircraft designers or builders) and "usually" sound like very much generalist, far too much so for an encyclopedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the difference, see for example Help:A quick guide to templates and WP:Navbox. A navbox is an example of a navigation template. But seriously, you are wasting your time with this argument: this navbox is here to stay, and just because you do not understand it is not going to change that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did my best to understand but the matter is obviously above my intellectual capacity. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A template is any block of text or code placed its own page so the code can be reused in many places without rewriting it each time. It can be as simple as some html code, such as the abbr template ({{abbr|acronym|fullname}}), which just calls the <abbr></abbr> html code. Others can be thousands of lines long and call on hundreds of templates, such as the convert template. It makes the page using the template easier to read as the code is hidden, and it makes updating code across many pages (such as if a link is added or changed, or a bug needs to be fixed) vastly easier, since only one change is needed, instead of hundreds or even millions. Any block of text or code used a lot can be made into a template - whether it is the code for a navbox, a quote, a banner, a bibliographical entry, or an especially long name. I've seen all of those, and more.

A navbox is a specific type of template that provides links a reader might want to follow, and superseded the "sequence" that was in the "see also" section, which still shows up as orphan code on old pages. Unlike "see also", a template enforces consistency, and errors are caught sooner, since the same navbox is seen on every page that it provides a link to. These have proven to be extremely useful and effective. They overlap the category system, however they are more flexible, as they can include red links to show pages that need to be written, along with alternate names and designations, and it is easier to write a single file linking all related types than it is to add each page to a category, and whose removal is impossible to track. There is more flexibility in displaying links as well and the code allows for the page being viewed to be marked in black with self referential links disabled if each page is linked directly, and not through a redirect.

Your argument about aviation companies seems to be pointless pedantry for the sake of an argument, and your comment about it not being addressed to a previous commentator was rude. All discussions on talk pages are open to ANYONE to comment, and you don't get to police who does. Navbox templates exist for manufacturers, for designers (where they are well known, particularly if they changed companies many times), for design bureaus (which weren't just a Soviet thing), for operators (be they airlines or air forces), for military designations, or to group pages related to a single type of aircraft, and for other reasons where there is an obvious grouping. Links do not have to be limited to just official designations, but can include nicknames, names used by other operators, and common names, so there is no need to exclude your ZMe designation - it has been referenced somewhere, so we need a link to redirect the person looking for it to the right place, regardless of how "correct" you think it is. Take for example the Messerschmitt 108. Most references list it as a Bf 108, but the factory's own drawings used both Bf 108 and Me 108 - regardless of how official the latter was. If something was commonly (but specifically) referred to in a certain way there is no reason not to include that. A note can be added if it horrifies you too much. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to each their own, I suppose. In my education it is rude to answer a question of which one is not the adressee. No further comments from me, neither regarding manners nor regarding templates or other navboxes. I must thank you, though, for patiently trying to explain - but, as stated above, the whole thing is beyond me. The blame for that is entirely upon myself, of course. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not accuse me of pedantry. If I were on that hunt, I might question the use of "existance", but I didn't, and I don't.Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan olieslagers: Thank you for your gracious replies. I am sure you are smart enough to understand these complexities if you were offered properly structured explanation. I expect we probably do not fully understand your concerns either, so we must keep answering the wrong points. The cultural differences you note also cannot be helping. If you'd like some further discussion on anything, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page and I will do my best. But I will not be too surprised if you have better things to do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very kind reply, much appreciated. Yes, cultural differences seem to play, and I can only regret that some people seem to take their own very personal set of rules of good behaviour to be universally applicable. If ever again I gather the interest, I will surely enter upon your invitation! Best, Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]