Talk:Pipistrel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pipistrel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pipistrel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major error in History section[edit]

There is a major untruth in the history section: "In the early 2010s the company produced the Flight Team Spider ultralight trike under sub contract to Flight Team UG & Company AG of Ippesheim, Germany." The correct information is the other way round - Flight team was the distributor for Pipistrel trikes, not vice versa. Also the year of beginning of the cooperation is much earlier. This same incorrect information appears also on all the linked pages, Flight_Team, Flight Team Spider and Flight_Team_Twister. There is no such thing as "Flight Team Twister" or "Flight Team Twister" - It is in fact the trike (Twister or Spider model, designed and produced by Pipistrel), which was imported into Germany by Flight Team UG.

I suggest: From the early 2000s onward Pipistrel has been cooperating with Flight Team UG & Company AG of Ippesheim, Germany, who became the General distributor of all Pipistrel products for Germany.

Ymmo (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up here. The cited ref, Bayerl, Robby; Martin Berkemeier; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2011-12, page 211. WDLA UK, Lancaster UK, 2011. ISSN 1368-485X says, "Flight Team Spider XL: Built under subcontract by Pipistrel in Slovenia, a company better known for its excellent ultralight sailplanes, the Spider is marketed by Flight Team with a choice of wings ..." That was written by an author whose first language is not English, however, so the choice of words may not be optimal. According to the ref it was sold as the Flight Team Spider, but the archived webpage about the aircraft is less clear which name it was sold under. The same ref (page 212) lists the Twister as the Flight Team Twister. Once again the archived webpage is unclear as to the name sold under. All the refs agree that the Spider was built by Pipistrel and sold by Flight Team, though. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So how can I get the correct info published? Would a written statement by Flight Team be okay or must it be some permanent online-published source? Ymmo (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given the language issues, that we can just address this though editing. The practical difference between a company manufacturing an aircraft and another one distributing it, and a company manufacturing it under sub-contract and the other selling it are pretty subtle differences that easily get lost in translation. In many cases it comes down to the name it was publicly sold under, but even that varies, too. We have seen cases where a distributor renames an aircraft and sells it under the distributor's brand name and a new model name, just for marketing reasons, because the original name is hard to pronounce, or, even, just that it sounds too foreign for some markets. It seems that the ref cited understood these two aircraft to be the latter case, while you are saying it was the former case. The company website isn't really clear, so I think we can just correct it across the board. Please leave it with me and I'll address that and drop a note back here when done. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Affected articles: Pipistrel, Flight Team, Pipistrel Twister & Pipistrel Spider. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested updates[edit]

Hello, As an employee of Pipistrel company I would like to suggest a change with the sentence "By June 2016, Pipistrel had produced 800 examples from the Sinus and Virus series.[18]". This has changed so far, as of May 2018 Pipistrel has produced 900 aircraft from the Sinus/Virus family [1] (and is now approaching 1000). Thank you! Ymmo (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. I was looking at your ref cited and there is no date on the press release to indicate when this milestone was achieved. If I date can be added to the webpage I can make the update. - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The news can be dated if you look on the main news index at the Pipistrel page [2]. Scroll down to May 28 2018 and you will see the news I am referring to. If you think that Pipistrel's own website isn't reliable enough, I can provide links to other online articles by aviation pages, such as [3] but mostly just in Slavic languages because this was quite local news. Thank you. Ymmo (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The company is the authority here, so the ref is appropriate. If you have any influence with the webmaster, you may want to suggest adding dates to the individual press release pages. It would make our job here easier! - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thank you! Ymmo (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggested update: The company hasn't been "branding itself as Pipistrel Vertical Solutions". This is a sister company - there are in fact three: Pipistrel Vertical Solutions (Slovenian, purely R&D, quite new), Pipistrel d.o.o. (Slovenian, focused on production of basic sistems, 30 y.o.), Pipistrel Italia (Italian, final assembly and flight testing). All three are located within 30 km of one another on both sides of the border and function as one big unit, but on paper they are 3 sister companies, three successive steps of the process. Ymmo (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a ref that explains that? I was going by this aviation media ref, which says "Pipistrel is best known for its line of single-engine light aircraft, including the Alpha Electro trainer, the only commercially available electric aircraft for the trainer role. To cement its role in the eVTOL market, the company recently rebranded itself as Pipistrel Vertical Solutions." - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I contacted the author of the article and he corrected the mistake on my request. Ymmo (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that is one way to get it fixed! The ref hasn't been changed yet, but I'll keep an eye on it and fix this article as soon as it is updated! - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pipistrel.si/news/time-flies-faster-than-pipistrel-aircraft-and-here-is-900
  2. ^ https://www.pipistrel.si/news/
  3. ^ http://sierra5.net/novice-novo/novice/item/2939-pipistrel-izdelal-ze-900-letal
Okay the AVweb ref has been updated, so I have changed this article to match. Thanks for bringing that up! - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Ymmo (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change of references-links[edit]

Hello,

As an employee of Pipistrel company I would like to point out an inconsistency with references and links that a recent change brought. Pipistrel completely rearranged its website and also changed its domain from "www.pipistrel.si" to "www.pipistrel-aircraft.com" . The head link redirects to new page, but all the links which are more detailed (such as for example https://www.pipistrel.si/news/time-flies-faster-than-pipistrel-aircraft-and-here-is-900) will appear as broken. This change affects many articles where Pipistrel's website is referenced.

If possible I would like to ask that the links get updated over time. If any content cannot be reached directly by substituting the "pipistrel.si" with "pipistrel-aircraft.com", please contact me and I will provide the correct new location of the article. Thank you for this great help! (Ymmo (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your note here. I have updated the official links, top and bottom. I did a test "replace" and did find many broken links on the new website from the old URLs, so it may make better sense to just fix these from archive.org instead, so they will not get broken by any future website reorganization and will be permanent refs, instead. I can do that, may take a day or so. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, thank you very much for your fast and effective help, I appreciate it a lot! As mentioned, the broken links are pretty much all over Wikipedia now, for example every Pipistrel aircraft model page contains a reference to the "manufacturer's page". I'm afraid replacing them all would mean a lot of work, but I trust your judgement. Take all the time you need. If there is any way in which I can help, please let me know. Thanks again! - Ymmo (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for mentioning the aircraft type articles. I'll check and fix those too over the next couple of days. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already been active around the links. Thank you! The archive.org links are a good idea, however they are all about one year old (or more, I noticed some dated to 2012), so they don't really give the correct information and the correct visual image of the page. They would need to be retrieved now, since the entire webpage has been renewed. Since sub-pages such as history (ex. https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/about-us/history/) get constantly changed and updated, I wonder how much is it really reasonable to "freeze" the sources like that. This is quite a debate and a demanding project. If you wish to be more included with the media activities of Pipistrel, I can give you my e-mail address so that we can continue the debate in private. Once again, thank you for all your time, help and knowledge! Ymmo (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to keep the conversation all here so others can participate. The main advantage to using archive.org archived pages is that they are permanent links. If we change to new company links and then the companyt reorganizes the website or removes old pages than we we will have to do this all again. The archive.org links can be updated to newer versions, or we can just add new events with new refs from the new website. It is okay if there are duplicate refs from different times with different information. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all the aircraft type articles are  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ahunt, the characteristic you present as the greatest advantage of archived links is in fact their greatest drawback. The information on the page changes, the products change and if the links are archived from 2012, the article will reference to 50% of wrong information. You say "...than we we will have to do this all again". Yes, but that would happen once in 20 years, like it did this time. If however you want to keep correct information in your referenced links, then you'd have to do it all again every time some aircraft characteristics change, that's about twice per year. Would you like to do that? Even now I noticed that some of the "corrections" were radically wrong, for example the link from Twister trikes points to Apis/Bee single-seat glider etc. I don't want to steal your time, I understand that Wikipedia is probably your hobby, but if we want to have a correct network of links and information, then our company should hire somebody to do that. The only problem is that as soon as someone starts editing stuff in the name of the company, immediately all gets undone and voila, edit war. Ymmo (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Apis/Bee page was used due to its list of current aircraft at that time that shows that the Twister was not listed, indicating that it was probably put of production. Many manufacturers actually list "past products" on their websites and provide old product pages and even manuals, etc for discontinued products, or even list "discontinued dates" or put out announcements when production of an aircraft type ends, while other manufacturers just delete all mention and it is like they never existed. Obviously the former is a better situation for researchers. I did search for refs for aircraft on the new company website, but the discontinued models all seem to have been removed, which means we have to rely on archived refs. I have converted all the old company website refs to archived refs, but there is nothing to stop us adding refs from the current company website if they have updated information, like revised specs, etc. Feel free to point out where that needs to be done and I can add them. Since you brought it up, I should add a note about paid editing, which says, "those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles". Paid and conflict of interest editing to promote company products generally gets removed and the person quickly blocked, so it is usually pretty ineffective for the company to hire people to edit Wikipedia. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not the company website and the company does not get to control what is in articles, just like you can't control magazine reviews of products, etc. We are happy to take suggestions from company reps to improve articles, but, in the end, articles reflect the consensus of non-COI editors working on the page. So, all of that said, if you would like to make some specific suggestions for further work, please do. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, that was my point exactly. As I said, I don't want to use a stranger and his time to fix "my" company's page, but if you offer to do it, then I will be very grateful. Ymmo (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, well let's work on that, but we should use the talk pages for the individual articles in question, so that other editors can participate in the process. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, this is really kind of you! So I suppose you are going to check the links (which ones are broken and which ones are old, containing the image of the old website) and then update them/make new archived screenshots? If I can help in this process, please let me know. Thanks! Ymmo (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The archived refs can be updated to newer archived ones or the new website refs can be added (where the pages still exist (such as for current models and not past models) where there is newer information available, just need to point out where that is needed and I can take care of it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. In that case we will find out all the links or references which are now outdated or broken, we will point them out to you and we will ask you to make a new screenshot and a new "from the original" connection to the new location on the website. Is that okay? Once again, thank you! Ymmo (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by make a new screenshot and a new "from the original" connection to the new location on the website. I can update the links to newer existing archived versions or add refs to the new company website. I can't create new archived pages, although there is a way to request pages be archived that sometimes works. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I didn't write that clearly enough. A reference to a location on Pipistrel website now looks like this: [1] (click on the link below to see the actual ref under the Pipistrel article). It includes two things: The part between the parentheses (in this case "History") points to an archived screenshot of a page, which is very outdated (2011) and now non-existent. So this is the task we were talking about and I asked you to do - if you can achieve that the link can point to a newer version of an archived screenshot (since you say that the links must point to archive.org instead of actual active page). For that purpose I (or my colleague) will give you the exact link of the article at the new page (pipistrel-aircraft.com) which corresponds to the now non-existing or outdated one on the old (pipistrel.si). So this is the second part: the "Archived from the original" part of the sentence links to the exact active page where the screenshot was taken from, correct? The <ref> below is supposed to point to the History page at the old domain, which is now gone. This is the second thing which needs to be replaced. If I or my colleague give you the exact corresponding link, could you achieve both? Hopefully I made myself clear now and I really hope this is something that you can help us with. Thank you! Ymmo (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. Sure I can do that. Each link will have to be checked for the text it supports, but it can be done. In picking the archived pages that I did I chose the ones closest to the dates that the refs were cited, to make sure that the text was supported by the archived age, as later pages may have been modified and not support the text. These refs can be updated if the text is checked and updated if needed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel#cite_note-5

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Source[edit]

"Due to legal restrictions imposed by the Yugoslavian government during the 1980s, the first aircraft was flown secretly in the evening, between dusk and dark". Source of this opinion that contradicts the company statements? https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/about-us/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.206.39 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is all in the cited ref for that para. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pipistrel&oldid=1210471551"