Talk:AgustaWestland/Archives/2012

New model/variant TUHP 149

TUHP 149 is the AgustaWestland candidate for the Turkish Utility Helicopter Programme (TUHP) [1] --Jor70 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead reverts

Having a multitude of linked words goes against WP:Overlinking, especially linking common words, and linkg the same words multible times, especially in the same or adjacent paragraphs. In addition, the linking of redirects that only contain corporate suffixes is unnecessary, as is the repetition of such suffizes at every mention of the corporate name. Finally, the Lead read like a reworeded version of the company website. I've tried to address all these valid issues, and a wholesale reveert is unhelpful. If you disagree with my stylic changes, that is a separate issue, but please address these without wholsale reverts. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am making attempts to address what I assume are the issues that User:Rangoon11 has with my edition of the lead in an effort to reach a compromise, though without any specifics as to what the issues they have are, I am just gussing.

• "NV" - per WP:NCCORP, the legal status suffix is to be used in the Lead title. However, the suffix isn't used prominently on the company website, and may be obsolete at this time. However, I don't think the legal suffixes have to be used when linking to the parents companies, especially as those aren;t the names of the linked articles.
• "a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica S.p.A.." - As Finnemeccanica is mentioned twice in the Lead already, this is redundant, but probably just a style prefernce issue. This may be a requirement in a style guide for corporations, but I haven't been able to find such a guide yet, as it doesn't appeqar to be linked from WP:NCCORP. It may also be a requiremt to include the nationalities of the parent companies in the Lead, but I've left it out at this point as it's repeated in the History section. If we do include it in the Lead, it should probably be revomed from the History as redundant.

Are there any other specifics that needs to be addressed? - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

NV is important as it forms part of the legal name of the topic. No idea why this is being deleted.

"a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica" is a core part of the description of the topic and should in my view be in the opening sentence. It is as important as the fact that the company is Anglo-Italian. I'm not concerned about the "S.p.A." however.

"multinational" is also a core part of the description of the topic and is standard in the opening sentence of the articles of multinational companies.

As a general point the lead is too short and needs expansion with more information about the company's products and history. The article also needs the addition of more information about the company's operations, such as its key facilities.

The issues of "overlinking" and piped links I am not particularly excited about. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Lead is too short, but it was being filled out by redundancies. As to "NV" is important as it forms part of the legal name of the topic", are you certain that's current? I had to search on the company site for a page that mentioned it. I understand that the WP:CORP guideline recommends it, but in practice it's not always used if it's not a clear part of the company's common name and used in the title. I've often seen it in the Infobox title in such cases, and once I found the suffix on the company website, on an obsure page, I readded it. As to the Lead sentence itself, I was aiming for succintness over wordiness. The Lead paragraph supplies the answer to full ownership, and the multinaltionl part clashed with the Anglo-Italian part. Anyway, I'm satisfied with the Lead paragraph at this point if you are, apart from my objections, and furter expansion to add more info as you mentioned not withstanding. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also happy with the new text as a reasonable compromise and I think that it addresses the concerns which you had with redundancy and overlinking. I would like to invest some time in expanding this article, particularly in creating an Operations section. It is on my ever lengthening list of things to do.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

AgustaWestland

This article now has the word AgustaWestland in it 36 times, just wonderful in so brief an article and I expect 72 if you open the edit function. It is good to have the manufacturer's name clear to any WP reader. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Our goal for this article is to reach 55 company mentions by year's end without increasing the word count at all, and 130 including the edit screen by using piped links. - BilCat (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, . . . its, its the stockholders, they're insatiable. Eddaido (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's a government requirement - the Redundancy Department Ministry. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is about AgustaWestland so I don't see that as hugely surprising. Changing examples of "AgustaWestland" to something like "the company" would save no words and would introduce a lack of precision. The use of "AgustaWestland" before each product name in the Products section could in my view be dropped however.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)