Talk:Grob G103 Twin Astir

Photos

I have added two photos of what the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register indicates is a G 103, but I think it is possibly a 103a instead. Perhaps someone who knows the difference between the 103 and 103a can confirm this is the right aircraft to illustrate this article and if not move the photos to the 103a article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the pictures are both of a Grob G-103 Twin II. They are easy to recognize as they have a fixed undercarriage and a nose wheel. The original Twin Astir has a retractable undercarriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.238.126 (talk)

The article indicates that later Twin Astirs have fixed gear, are you certain it isn't one of those? - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a Twin Astir of the first generation

The pictures certainly both show a TWIN II, which has the same fuselage as the TWIN III. The fuselage of the original Twin Astir is more "chubby", as you can see in the picture on the right. The later Twin Astir Trainer indeed had a fixed landing gear, but (afair!) no nosewheel. --El Grafo (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Feel free to add the picture and that explanation to the article. A ref would be useful as well. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the pic. Sadly, I don't have a ref atm - but I have seen several TWIN II and flown my club's TWIN III and when you are used to the look of their fuselage, the difference to the original Twin Astir is pretty obvious. I think I've seen copies of the german handbooks somewhere on the web → I'll try to remember to check that later. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unify the pages for Twin Astir, Twin II and Twin III (in planning)

I propose making a single page for all G103 (I will later complete the section for the Twin III). Do you agree/disagree? --Eio (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The article text makes that case that, despite the designations, the aircraft designs are not related. If this is the case then why would we want to combine the articles, especially given each one has sufficient text and refs right now to stand on its own? - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Twin II and Twin III are developments of the Twin Astir and not completely different airplanes, they have very similar specifications and performance. The main difference in the Twin II ist in the undercarriage, the main difference in the Twin III are the lower steering forces and the wing shape. But my problem is mostly the linking with the other languages: In German there is a single page and I suppose the other languages, which usually have even shorter articles, will not develop different pages. So maybe it will help having a single one. --Eio (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't plan our articles based on what other Wikis do, as each one is different. Also, English WP is the most comprehensive Wikipedia, both in general and in aircraft coverage. The solution is to encourage the other Wikipedias to expand their coverage, not to limit ours. - BilCat (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BillCat, I wouldn't be in favour of combining relatively good stand-alone articles just to make it easier for other language Wikipedias. I suspect that the other language versions are rarely used by readers of en.wikipedia and we have to do what is best for readers, not what is easier for editors or for other language versions. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Other language versions are rarely used by English readers, but the English version is definitely often used by readers from other languages. Therefore good links are important. But well, then I'll begin the Twin III page. Is there a way to link all three English pages to the unified articles in other languages? --Eio (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a good question, that seems to be handled by wikidata these days. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no freedom to make asymmetric links. I had the same problem linking BN-reactor and at the end I made a shorty summary page. Maybe this might be a solution. A very short page on G103 linking the single articles for Twin Astir, Twin II and Twin III. --Eio (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your issue is best solved elsewhere, on the other Wikipedias, not here. You might post a note on Wikidata to see if they have or can make a solution to the issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no suggestion how a better solution in Wikidata or in other Wikipedias may look like. --Eio (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting. Just explain the problem. They may already have a solution, or may be able to devise one, or even give you some other options you may not have considered. - BilCat (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It's unfortunately a quite common problem linking different languages - Eio (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC

I genuinely do understand your concerns. It does happen in the other direction too, as many of the other Wikipedias often do have articles that Wikipedia doesn't. An example is Claudius Dornier Jr., who has an article on German Wikipedia (de:Claudius Dornier) but nowhere else. In English WP, Claudius Dornier redirects to his father, Claude Dornier. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If it helps I have changed the Grob G103 redirect to a dab page. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at some discussions on the topic interlanguage links and there is no standard solution to this problem. It is also discouraged linking to sections of articles. In my opinion, the best solution is, as already proposed above, what MilborneOne did: A short summary article linking to the other languages. -Eio (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The disambiguiation article also helps recognising the common features and main differences. -Eio (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)