Talk:Triumph Group

Sectioning

Comment How do we put "Triumph Engines" under the "Divisions" section?Jax 0677 (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt, I like what you are thinking, but now it looks like the paragraphs run together in some areas. Can we use dashes, bullets, or something to separate the city divisions from one another in some of the companies that have more than one location?--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried making the multi-sections into lists instead, which uses bullets. See what you think of that approach. If you don't like it feel free to revert and try something else! - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Determining linking

Comment How do we determine all of the articles (i.e. Triumph Engines) that redirect to "Triumph Group"?Jax 0677 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On the right side of the article page is a label that says "toolbox". Click on that and then on "What links here" and it will show all Wikipedia pages that link to this article - a very useful tool, indeed! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

We probably don't need section headers for the subdivisions at this point, as they can be listed under the main divisions in sentence or list form. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That would probably work better, or at least list the locations as article text rather than section headings. Need some prose to go under the headings! - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has become ridiculous. I'm not sure whether there's is a policy that would recommend not having more section headings than there are words in the article, but there should be. Almost all of them should be eliminated. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well let me see if I can combine some things there. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am done. I didn't remove any text, just reorganized things a bit to make it more comprehensible. Basically I moved the stand-alone headings into a list. If details and refs can be found for this divisions then they can be moved back up into their own sections again. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Segments

I like what you have done Ahunt. I am now trying to move all of the companies under the four segments of Triumph Group, which I think will "section" the article: 1.1 Triumph Aerostructures 1.2 Triumph Aerospace Systems 1.3 Triumph Aftermarket Services 1.4 Corporate and Other --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll add more descriptions over time...--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds okay, I just wanted to reduce the number of headings and make it more readable in its present form. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should "Triumph Aerospace Systems", "Triumph Aerostructures" and "Triumph Aftermarket Services" be their own pages?

I am wondering if "Triumph Aerospace Systems", "Triumph Aerostructures" and "Triumph Aftermarket Services" should be their own pages? The Triumph Group may be getting a little bit long...--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say: not yet. You are doing a great job expanding the article, but I would suggest keeping it all on one page for now. The main thing that is lacking are third party refs to establish notability and you don't really have enough here yet, let alone enough for more sub-articles. I think some heading level changes are needed, but I'll let you finish up your work first and see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Ahunt. Sorry this is taking so long. This is my first article of this length, so I am learning a lot from it, and I don't have time to edit the whole thing in one single swoop. I appreciate your help, and I'm sure I'll finish it in due time. When you say "[enough] third party refs", do you mean in total, or as a percentage of the article length?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem and no rush, either. Take your time, Wikipedia does not have deadlines to meet! I just mean "more" third party refs to balance out the company refs cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

After trial and tribulation, all of the "Triumph Group" sections have descriptions. Now we can work on more third party references.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have done a lot of work there, great going! Yup third party refs would be a good thing to find along with criticism, controversies, etc. It would be really nice to be able to add a photo or two as well as the article is a bit dull with just text. Perhaps if some editor lives near one facility (I don't) then they could snap a photo of the plant and the sign out front? - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we ready to split out "Triumph Aerospace Systems", "Triumph Aerostructures" and "Triumph Aftermarket Services" into their own pages yet?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize that the article is getting a bit long, but other than that is there a need to do this at this point in time? - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess not. If this is the case, then I am done editing this article for the near and foreseeable future.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see if anyone complains about the length. I know I already gave you a Wikiwings award for your work on this, but I just wanted to add an additional congratulations at this point, you have done a tremendous amount of work on this article! - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ahunt, thanks for the vote of confidence. When I think back to the end of September when I created the article, it was only two lines long and was nominated for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion was only denied because the company was a $1.4 billion company on the New York Stock Exchange. It was then placed on Articles for Deletion, which was overwhelmingly overturned. The article now has a history section, as well as detailed descriptions of the more than forty companies that comprise it. Now that I think about it, I too have my doubts about whether or not separating the article into three additional articles is justified. But we'll see how it all goes in due time.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The AfD was how came to find it. Glad I was able to help out in a small way, but you did the heavy lifting. Let's both just keep a watch on it and see how it evolves. I am always on the look out for news stories as well to use as refs to perhaps add some more day-to-day information to what is mostly a background article right now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to direct readers from TAS-Wichita to TAS-Newport News or to TAS-Seattle?

Is there a way to direct readers from TAS-Wichita to TAS-Newport News or to TAS-Seattle and vice versa?--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally in an article you would just mention the connection in the article text without a link, such as "TAS-Seattle also produces these same parts" or similar. I am not sure it is needed to link within the page. If needed you can use an internal page link in the format [[#SectionTitleName]] - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten those sentences with links to redirect pages and then back this article to hopefully clarify the connection (hope I got it right?) and use internal pages links instead (in other words the links just navigate on the same page without going off-page to a redirect page and then back to the same page again). See what you think of that approach. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Length

I made the note on length a hidden note. This article is currently 35 kb in size and Wikipedia:Article size gives a recommendation of 32 kb, but is is far from a hard-and-fast rule. There are certainly longer articles than this. The biggest problem this article has right now is that it is pretty dull reading and needs some more controversies and such to make it more interesting. I can't think a company this big has nothing interestingly that has ever happened to it! - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to add to History and Competitors page

It appears as if there was objection to my additions to the History and Competitors pages, inclusive of breaking the History section out into different decades. Without personal knowledge of the company history, I can not proceed any further on this section, unless I get suggestions on how to do so. These objections were also set forth on the NTN Corporation Wikipedia page--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of the history section was a direct copyright violation and was removed. Use the source as a reference, but do not copy it directly. The competitors section was unreferenced and therefore subjective and not encyclopaedic. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I discussed this issue with "Ahunt", and he stated the following:

"Thanks for your note, I see you have been talking to the other editor on User talk:Biker Biker, too, which is good. I have carefully looked though the text he removed and the text he says it was copied from. Most of it doesn't seem to match or overlap much, although I did find some text that is pretty close. For instance you wrote: 'Fueled by unprecedented demand for airline capacity, Triumph Group posted a $9.7 million profit in 1996' and the cited article says "The group posted a profit of $9.7 million in 1996. This was fueled by unprecedented demand for airline capacity." Keep in mind that actual text is copyrighted but information is not, that means you can say the same things, but need to use different words to do it in. I would suggest you cite the answers.com article and rewrite your history section to eliminate any similar wording and then re-add it into the article again."

In addition to deleting the ENTIRE history (as opposed to the individual components that were too close), the number of locations and subsidiaries was deleted from the company statistics box for Triumph Group. Lastly, the software will often detect copyright violations within a matter of seconds.

I don't feel that the entire history, inclusive of the decade sections needed to be deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. You had a lot of copy/paste and a lot of information that was just slightly reworded from the original. You can use information from other sources, but that information should be paraphrased - which means doing far more than a copy paste followed by a few minor word changes. I suggest you go off and read WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYVIO, WP:CITE before you do any more editing. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The burden of adding text that complies with WP's policies is on the contributor adding the material (Jax0677). I don't blame Biker for doing a wholesale revert if he didn't have time to go line by line through your contributions, and I have done the same thing in similar circumstances. Just follow Ahunt's advice in readding the material, including the infobox and subheading, and you should be fine. Just go back into the edit on the edit history page, and then rewrite the sections that need it. Note that the Wiki software detects text copyied verbatim from other sources, but that doesn't mean the text it does not remove may not be a copyright violation anyway. - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)