Talk:Wright Glider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

The merger of these articles was discussed on the 1902 Wright Glider talk page, but merger occured before completion of discussion, only 2 days after discussion began and thus no consensus was reached. I have proposed that the page be split back into the sections that it was originally in (ie. one page per glider), rather than simply reverting, as I do not wish to start a reversion war. My posistion is that the merger should be reverted. --GW_Simulations 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad form that discussion wasn't completed, I guess, but I disagree that the merger should be reverted. Unless and until there is significantly more substantial info for any of these aircraft, having a separate article for each is overkill. I do think that perhaps the title should be changed to "Wright Gliders", though. SFT | Talk 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree merger. As mentioned, not enough substantial information is present to warrant each glider having its own page. An example would be the North American B-25 Mitchell bomber, there were several different models (A,B,C,D,G,H,J being notable) and each had a different attribute. However, there is substantial information and specifications on each. Even in this case, there has not been a proposal to split the articles that I know of, and there is much more information for each page. But here, just not enough is present. Zchris87v 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Wright Brothers article (including the Glider section), I also think separate glider articles are not necessary. In fact, more information could be added about each glider in this article, without making the article very long. I think it's more convenient and useful for the reader/researcher to keep them all together in one article. DonFB 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This article still needs a lot more content before thinking about splitting it. I'm going to pull the tag since this seems to be a dead issue for now.Dhaluza 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)