Talk:Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 and No. 2

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Title[edit]

The actual title of the aircraft that were built was the Baddeck No. 1 and Baddeck No.2, which is the exact section title used by all authoritative sources, including the landmark Canadian Aircraft since 1909 (1982) by K.M. Molson and H.A. Taylor and by Larry Milberry, Canada's storied historian who uses the same terminology in all of his tomes including the latest Aviation in Canada: The Pioneer Decades (2008). Changing the name to "Baddeck (airplanes) is not consistent with the terminology of the period nor of modern research. First of all the aircraft (not aeroplanes, aerodromes, airplanes or planes, all of which are now arcane terms or colloquialisms, and not in current use) were never referred to as a "Baddeck" nor as a "Baddeck series", merely each aircraft was called: the Baddedck No. 1 and Baddeck No. 2. Since there was such a similarity to each aircraft, they are typically considered together, as although not a true production series, since they were each hand-crafted, the two aircraft were essentially copies, and this follows the standard formatting of all other aircraft types, see any other short-run aircraft type for examples. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The next and final aircraft completed by the nascent Canadian Aerodrome Company was the Canadian Aerodrome Hubbard Monoplane (Hubbard II), an aircraft that was thought to have been patterned after Blériot aircraft, although it had only a few test flights, it remains the first aircraft sold and exported from Canada. Nicknamed "Mike", the aircraft was entered in both the Montreal Air Meet and Harvard Aviation Meet (Boston) in 1910, but there is no record of the aircraft appearing at either event. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Can you give me some examples of similar articles on short-run aircraft? The article is a bit unclear at the moment as to whether its referring to one plane or two. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article was already in place before revising, it probably is misnamed anyway as the typical identifier would be Manufacturer-Designation-Name, so that the article should really be identified as the Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 and No. 2. As to short-run or experimental aircraft, it's difficult to create separate articles for essentially the same aircraft, but see Boeing P-29 which combines the XF7B-1 variant; while the Bell XFL Airabonita which is a derivative of the Bell P-39 Airacobra, qualifies as a unique type. As for other "short-run" (usually experimental aircraft), see: Avro Triplane, Avro 707, Bell X-1 that combines all the X-1 series into one article; Horten Ho 229; North American X-15 and Tupolev ANT-20 come to mind, there are obviously many more examples. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Proposal to rename article[edit]

The article should actually be titled: Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 and No. 2. Same with the Canadian Aerodrome Hubbard Monoplane. Comments? Observations? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Why is it "Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 and No. 2" and not "Canadian Aerodrome Company Baddeck No. 1 and No. 2"? Tchaliburton (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same reason that It is not the Grumman Company F4F Wildcat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Any reason why it cant be Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 with No. 2 as redirect, it would not change the content but provide a focus on the primary design with No. 2 as a variant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work if the information from Baddeck No. 2 was incorporated as a section of this page with the redirect going to that section. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real need for two articles as the Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 2 was essentially a copy and replacement for the Baddeck No. 1, when the original aircraft was heavily damaged. In a sense, it was really the same aircraft, although the Baddeck No. 1 was eventually repaired and joined the Baddeck No. 1 in flight trials, till it crashed and was replaced by the Baddeck No. 2. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry Bzuk my suggestion was one article Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 1 which covers both aircraft, primary as No. 1 and No. 2 as a variant. Canadian Aerodrome Baddeck No. 2 would just be a redirect to No. 1. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely feasible and makes sense, basically two prototypes of the same aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Just looked at Baddeck No. 2 and it offers nothing new, except for different images that still may be incorporated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

All of the info from Baddeck No. 2 seems to be in this article now, so I'll go ahead and redirect it. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]