Talk:Sling Aircraft Sling 2

Pricing

Please categorize, add photo, check prices stated are still current. How will you maintain pricing info? If not prepared to maintain it, please delete. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Photos added, categorized. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You can note that as per WP:NOPRICES costs have all been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahunt reversion

I have reverted your last edit because, as I noted when I made the previous change, you dropped one of the certification categories when you summarised. I have not argued about your removal of the unnecessary inclusion of detail on the categories themselves, nor about any of your other edits. You are clearly an aviation specialist. What bothers me is that in spite of my noting why I changed your text in my edit summary, you have persisted in returning it to exactly the way you had it.
Your words: "an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, factory-built Special-LSA or homebuilt aircraft." Three categories.
My words (now): "a Light Sport Aircraft, a factory-built Special-LSA, an Experimental-LSA, or homebuilt aircraft." Four categories.
You also objected to my putting the same thing in a list format: "(No need for list formatting when text will suffice and covers the same information with greater brevity)". I stll believe a list is far clearer and more accessible to a reader. Is there a premium on page real estate? And no, see above, it is not the same information. There are differences between the categories (which are not explained in the LSA article). I have refrained from insisting on the list format; this is not as important as the content. In view of my minimal and necessary change I trust you will now leave this as it stands. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. No there is not a premium on words or space, but on Wikipedia prose is generally preferred over lists where possible, as explained at WP:PROSE. I took your four categories and made them three because of the redundancy you introduced. The US LSA category is sub-divided into two sub-categories. LSAs can be supplied as complete ready to fly aircraft and are called SLSAs (Special LSAs) or they can be supplied as kits and are called ELSAs (Experimental LSAs). The SLSA and ELSA are the two ways of getting an LSA; there is no need to say LSA, ELSA and SLA as LSA covers both ELSA and SLSA. If an LSA were only available factory-built (SLSA) or kit (ELSA) then you would explain that. Both are operated in the same manner, to the same rules and both can be flown by the holder of a Sport Pilot or higher certificate. Your current wording "The Sling can be operated as a Light Sport Aircraft, factory-built Special-LSA, Experimental-LSA, or homebuilt aircraft." is misleading. They can be built as an ELSA or SLSA, but they are only operated as an LSA or homebuilt. To be factually correct and avoid un-needed redundancy what it should say is either "The Sling can be constructed as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, factory-built Special-LSA or homebuilt aircraft" or "The Sling can be operated as a Light Sport Aircraft or homebuilt aircraft." We also don't use italics for plain nouns. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But this aircraft is also (and, for the moment, primarily) being manufactured in South Africa, where the four categories are not the same. There was originally a full explanation of the differences, but you took that out about 6 months ago. It is not only the U.S. LSA listing that applies, but also others. Please note I may be unable to reply quickly; I am moving and will be temporarily without internet. David_FLXD (Talk) 18:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you can end up with a large amount of text like in South Africa it qualifies as XX and XX, but in the USA it is in YY and YY categories, while in Canada it is a QQ and in Botswana some have been registered as RR, and so on. I think rather than getting into a big long list of which categories it qualifies for in which countries, which is far more marketing information than it is encyclopedic information, we just go with what we do in many other aircraft type articles and indicate that it generally is a homebuilt aircraft and light-sport aircraft and that it is supplied as a kit and as a ready-to-fly aircraft, similar to the lead in this article: Air Command Tandem. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and ok, I see your point. I might argue that a type-listing at least as in the country of origin would be appropriate, but then again I might not. I suppose from a world perspective a brief summary is more useful in practice. Thanks for your patience while I was off line, I am glad to be back! Let it stand as the summary then. - David_FLXD (Talk) 19:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)