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 a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the
importance scale.
Untitled
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_Simulations19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 |
Talk03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Zchris87v06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
DonFB06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Dhaluza03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Wright Glider. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: