Talk:Daimler-Benz DB 600 series

Merger with DB 600, DB 601, DB 603 articles

As already suggested on the talk page of these articles, I am suggesting a merger of these closely related aero engine articles into a single article.

Rationale:

• all of these articles are under-developed, they could be more easily developed into high-standard articles in a single article
• the development of these engines is closely related. Despite the different designations, they were all originated to the original F4 DB engine project. Ie. the 601 series was largely similiar to the DB 600, but sported direct fuel injection. The DB 605 was itself closely related to the DB 601, differing only in minor details, with a larger displacement. The DB 603 is a somewhat different line of development, but
• in addition, closely related variants of the DB 605 series could be described in this article (ie. - DB 628 was a DB 605 with a different, four-speed two stage supercharger design. The DB 606 was a coupled pair of DB 601s, similiarly the DB 610 was a coupled pair of DB 605s etc).
• It would be much easier to overview the history of this engine if the whole development can be read in a single article, without repetitions in other articles.
• the old original articles should redirect to this page.

Kurfürst (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to highlight this proposal at WT:AETF, the engine task force group page. My thoughts are that I am against the proposal for the following reasons: In the aircraft project an aircraft or engine with its own type designator (e.g. DB 603, DB 604) is notable enough for its own article. If all the content of all the articles is kept the article will be very long. You mention that the articles are 'under-developed', many Wikipedia articles are, surely the whole point is to develop them, not delete and redirect them? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that this article is underdeveloped. What happens to {{Daimler-Benz aeroengines}}? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these articles should remain separate. The resulting article would be very long and as as soon as more content is added there would be a call to split them due to length. If you judge them too short now then the effort should go into expanding them not merging them to have them split again. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per previous opposing comments. Also, all of the article are actually quite lengthy for aircraft engine articles, which are usually not that long to begin with. I do appreciate that this is a good-faith-effort to improve the series coverage. We definitely need an article on the F4 engine (I assume there isn't one since it's not linked here). We also do have overview article for both aircraft (Harrier Jump Jet) and aircraft engines (Pratt & Whitney Wasp series, Wright Cyclone series), so having one here to list all the DB 600 variants and offshoots might be workable. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see there is generally no support of this, but I will give a couple of reasons. If we start to develop the 600/601/605/603 articles, it will be probably neccessary to describe the somewhat unique features (which is shared by a number of other WW2 German and other aero engines), such as side mounted supercharger that was driven by a hydraulic clutch and controlled by a barometric unit for maximum supercharger effiency, single lever engine control systems, why inverted vee design was choosen, the noteworthy use of the Bosch direct fuel injection, assymetric compression ratio etc. in each an every DB 60x article.

Moreover each article, if it would (as I plan) devote space to history of development which would again repeat the same, since all of these engines, despite their different designations, are really just linear developments of the same original F4 engine (w. the exception of the 603, which I believe was a bit more distant cousin of this engine 'family'). Each article would repeat the same: from 1929, Daimler Benz begun development of the F4 engine... blah blah blah, then, through the DB 600, the DB 601 we got to the subject of our article, the DB 605.

This would be needlessly repetitive. OTOH I see the concerns that the proposed merged article would be eventually too long. So what I am now pondering is that this could be a sort of a summary article for this series of aero engines, roughly describing development, common technical details (as mentioned above), a shortly describe the development, while for the technical details it would list the Main article for each engine (ie. Main article DB 601, Main article DB 605 etc.), while these other articles would be a bit trimmed down to concentrate on the tech details engines themselves. Kurfürst (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is another overview engine article and that is Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines and is one I'm hoping to improve in time (they are all related V-12s I think). Perhaps this (DB series) article can highlight the differences and improvements between the related types, that would be useful. Unfortunately I feel we do have to repeat information in individual similar but distinct articles because we can't assume that the reader is going to start at DB 600 (as an example) and work their way through to the last one, I understand what you are saying though. You can link to a particular repeated design feature in an earlier series article to avoid typing it all out again. Regards Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering how long the merge tags have to stay in place? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wait a week after the conversation dies down and then go with the consensus. That would have been yesterday! - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)