Talk:Bell 206
Latest comment: 12 days ago by Fnlayson in topic Replacing LongRanger specs with JetRanger specs
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bell 206 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Replacing LongRanger specs with JetRanger specs
editThere was a three-view of the JetRanger, but specs of the LongRanger. The LongRanger is really a specific off-shoot of the 206, while the JetRanger is the 206 itself. Additionally, the LongRanger specs were factually incorrect and seemed to be a mix of both versions (for instance, it gave the seat count and fuselage length of the JetRanger) so I replaced it with the accurate specs of the 206A JetRanger. I CTRL C+V'd the source of the LongRanger's specs below in case anyone thinks both should be present or something like that, but in that case, someone should go in and correct/verify all of the facts because at least two are wrong: WaltSevenThree (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the source text for the specs template as it only clutters the discussion. The old template content can still be found in the page history. I agree that the 206L-4 is not the best variant to represent the type. However, searching for the Bell 206 on the FAA make/model search engine shows that the 206B is far more common than the 206A, and therefore is probably the best variant to cover in the specifications section. - ZLEA T\C 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Finally got around to doing it, they're 206B specs from the '76-77 Janes. I also added internal dimensions but I kind of cheated by throwing them in a height note with a break tag. Is there a better way to do it? I couldn't find any pages that do so, but I figured it was worth including. WaltSevenThree (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, internal dimension parameters are not included in the template because they are almost never reported by reliable sources. That said, I don't see a problem with including them when they are available, and I see no technical issues with the way you did it. In fact, I might just
stealborrow your technique in the near future for a few articles I'm planning. - ZLEA T\C 01:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- I've added extra specs in some articles using the "more general" field or possibly another "more..." field if appropriate. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, internal dimension parameters are not included in the template because they are almost never reported by reliable sources. That said, I don't see a problem with including them when they are available, and I see no technical issues with the way you did it. In fact, I might just
- Finally got around to doing it, they're 206B specs from the '76-77 Janes. I also added internal dimensions but I kind of cheated by throwing them in a height note with a break tag. Is there a better way to do it? I couldn't find any pages that do so, but I figured it was worth including. WaltSevenThree (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)