Talk:Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire

Move or merge?

The company which build this plane, Supermarine Aircraft, has nothing to do with the original Supermarine. Should this article be moved to Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Mk 26 and/or merged with the Supermarine Aircraft article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer the move to Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Mk 26 over a merge. While there is some existing overlap in the company article, much of the aircraft-specific content, such as the accident "controversy" section, is redundant to this article, and can be merged here. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I cant see why it cant have a stand-alone article as it appears to be a number have been built (we do create stand-alone articles for aircraft with only one produced so I dont see this being an exception). I dont have a problem with the current article name the likes of the Light Aircraft Association which certifies the UK-built examaples calls it a Supermarine Spitfire. I am not sure why the name should be an issue but a hat note to the real thing may help if you think the reader would be confused. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Prefer to have it moved. Can we have some continuity though - the producer calls it a MK26 which is at variance with British practice. Let's call it a MK26 or a Mk.26 consistently in title and text. The MK5 mentions in article should be corrected to Mk.5 Lyndaship (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an Australian homebuild kit. There is no reason for it to conform to UK conventions. We should call it whatever the RS call it. They appear to follow the manufacturer in leaving out the separator, e.g. "Mk26". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely stand-alone. I'd favour Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, as the article covers all three versions that makes sense. Does anybody have any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with move to Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Mk 26 and disambiguate with hatnote, such as the one I've just added. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote is not needed, as no one searching for Supermarine Spitfire is going to type in Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 or any of the suggested alternatives. I would add something to the lead, maybe even the first sentence, that says it's a replica and has a link to the original. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

But someone searching for the Spitfire's late variants may well end up here. The title, even with 'Aircraft' in it, is ambiguous more than enough to warrant a a hatnote. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The aircraft's name is accurate, but may confuse some readers, so I think a hatnote is quite justified. - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents - this article should be standalone - the connection to the original Spitfire is inspirational (and the replica has much lower performance - e.g. a top speed of 230 kn vs. 320+ kn (well - depends on variant) of the original, a ~200 hp engine vs. ~1500 hp engine). A hatnote at the top should be required. In terms of article naming - perhaps Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire Mk 26 would be better (to match the manufacturer's name) - however as the manufacturer here has chosen a similar name to the original manufacturer - it is a confusing title.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In reply to Kendall-K1: There is more than one reason for a hatnote. But anyway your argument is false. Searching for "Supermarine Spitfire" does list this article in the suggestions when I type it in the search box, and searching for articles containing the phrase also lists it. It all presents the impression that the Mk 26 is just another variant of the original, and few readers will know this to be false. Changing the article title will help to avoid such a false impression and adding a hatnote will explicitly dispel it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. This discussion shows a reasonably clear consensus for the aircraft article to be moved. But it has also shown that my original suggestion could have been better focused and a couple of extra subtleties have spun out of it. I have opened a couple of subtopics below, to try and clear those up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

New name

Andy Dingley has suggested that the article be moved to Supermarine Aircraft Spitfire, i.e. covering all three variants. I think this is a good idea. Are there any objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection. The Mk25, Mk26, Mk26b (and with a bit of BALL - Mk27 which would go from 90% scale to 100%) are all variants of the same.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) moved it to an intermediate name so I finished the job.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For now, to separate content and not merge. Klbrain (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above shows a clear consensus for the aircraft keeping its own article, under whatever title. Nobody has said the company deserves the same. So I am moving my question about that to this subsection:

Is this single-product company notable enough in its own right to deserve a stand-alone article at Supermarine Aircraft, or should it be merged into this aircraft article?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It would probably make sense, as long as they only do Spitfire replicas, to merge the company with the individual aircraft (which also include a mk. 25).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

To add to the history, I have just noticed that this AfD for Supermarine Aircraft was snow closed some six months after the aircraft article was created. But again, nobody commented on a possible merge. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough to be said about the company itself and enough refs to leave it as a separate article. There are other single aircraft companies that have company articles as well as product articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree. Since I copied/moved across relevant content to the aircraft article, almost all of the company article now duplicates information in the aircraft article and what fragments are left are not significant, never mind notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC) [Updated 13:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)]

I think what we need to do is remove everything from the manufacturer article that is duplicated in the product one and then expand it with more background on the company, officers, history, etc. I don't see any point in making an aircraft manufacturer article disappear. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do, I don't think you will find much left. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Y - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the need to merge. The company article may be little more than a Start-level article, but contains information that wouldn't really belong to an aircraft article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

Not really clear why the above discussion was closed except perhaps as stale? Massive overlap in content, and the company only produces this one aircraft. Unbh (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact I bold merged - there's nothing in the other article that isn't in this one, in many cases word for word. Unbh (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)