Talk:Daher Kodiak

Vspeeds discrepancy

Stall speeds are off compared with the data published in this PIREP: https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/turboprops/we-fly-quest-kodiak31.16.108.193 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That may be true, and thanks for the info; but as an encyclopedia we go by official verifyable information. If the official info is really found to be incorrect, it will eventually be updated. Meanwhile, I think you could make a note (but no more!) of the contradictory information, depending on the reputation of the publisher. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Quest Kodiak on amphibious floats"

@Ahunt - See WP:Manual of Style/Captions. "A good caption: 1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious; 2. is succinct; and 4. provides context for the picture."

While "Quest Kodiak on amphibious floats" identifies the subject, the fact it's a Kodiak on floats is obvious since it's an article on Kodiaks. It however, fails to provide context or explain why it's on floats. The image description, "Setouchi SEAPLANES Quest Kodiak 100(JA03TG, "L'ala Rossa") left front view at JASDF Miho Air Base June 2, 2019 02.jpg", isn't succint and should be edited. If the operator and special livery are known and featured in the image, as identified in the image description, then that provides context for the image, and illustrates that the plane shown isn't a standard model but one painted in a special livery for a specific operator, Setouchi Seaplanes.

Finally, WP:Revert only when necessary. You're dangerously close to initiating an WP:EDITWAR. While "An amphibious Quest Kodiak painted in Porco Rosso livery" may not be arguably better, it provides more context as to why it's painted in the way it is. Wiki protocol dictates either discussing why it's not here in the talk section, or incorporating the information in a way that would be acceptable without resorting to reverting, and definitely not twice. Matsujima (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please cite reliable published sources for your changes and additions to the article. That is Wikipedia policy. BilCat (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

All changes and additions are either included in already cited materials or cited. Daher's own website lists Hamilton and Voetman as designers/co-founders with Bruce Kennedy as its first CEO, and its sale to Setouchi in 2016, while Setouchi's own website identifies the livery of the aircraft in question as having been designed by Miyazaki in reference to his film.

As the article currently stands, its history is confusing as there's no mention of the individual(s) credited with designing the aircraft, nor founding the company, and only mentions the current owner having purchased the company from the second owner, with no mention of how or when the second owner acquired it from the original founders. That information is clearly referenced in the citations provided.

As for the image in question, if the editors don't wish to recognize the clearly identified registration number as a reliable source for the owner of the aircraft and credit them for their unique livery, you shouldn't be using that image and replace it with another image of a aircraft painted in a standard factory paint scheme with its registation number greeked or otherwise obscured. - Matsujima (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Each separate item you add needs to cite a source directly, as your exact sources are unclear. Telling people to look on a website or look up a registration is not sufficient As to the photo in question, sourcing issues aside, the livery is trivial information, and irrelevant to whether or not the photo is used. If the livery is noteworthy, then a reliable source independent of the subject will have covered it. BilCat (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Kodiak is on floats so that it can land on water. No need to state the obvious here. BilCat (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Per revision of: 03:43, 23 June 2023

RE: "Envisioned by aircraft designer Tom Hamilton and pilot David Voetman as a niche single-engine turboprop"...published source

RE: "then CEO Sam Hill sold a majority stake in the company to Setouchi"...published source

RE: "Setouchi Seaplanes collaborated with Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki to create a special edition L’ala Rossa livery"...published sourceprimary source

-AND- primary source, the editor who uploaded the file named it "Setouchi SEAPLANES Quest Kodiak 100(JA03TG, "L'ala Rossa") left front view at JASDF Miho Air Base June 2, 2019 02.jpg"

RE: "the Kodiak is on floats so that it can land on water. No need to state the obvious here." - my point exactly. The caption is mindnumbingly obvious, and it completely misses the context provided by the contributor of the image...namely that it's not a Kodiak painted in factory colors in factory specs, but that it's on floats & painted in a distinctive livery because it's Setouchi Seaplanes' Kodiak in the first place...thus the tag.

How much more clear attribution do you need? Shouldn't we have a responsibility to make an honest attempt to identify the creators of the intellectual property we're writing articles and posting photos about instead of deliberately suppressing it and ignoring the primary sources?

-Matsujima (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Matsujima (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's up to you to show through independent sources that it ought to be mentioned in the article. The information on the photo is available in the photo's file, so it's not being "suppressed". BilCat (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Independent sources are included above and if you're talking about IP attribution, the primary source is the most reliable. If here's a reason this is still a C-Class article is because it is missing important content and does not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. If there's no further objection to the changes, will revert back to the changes of 03:43, 23 June 2023 - Matsujima (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources can't be used to assert noteworthiness. You need secondary sources for that. And yes, I am objecting to changes. BilCat (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Fine, then we should replace the photo with an image that doesn't illustrate a specific distinctive livery such as this or this]. How do you propose to address the question of who intitally designed the plane and how Setouchi ended up owing it? - Matsujima (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no good reason to remove the photo, as it shows the aircraft on floats to good effect; the livery is unnecessary trivia. As to the designers and company purchases, those are from reliable sources, so there's no problem adding that. BilCat (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Use of an image without clearly identifing the subject of the picture when it's a specialized livery goes WP's manual of style for captions (WP:CAPTION) and is potentially in violation of Japanese design law.

There are two easy fixes here:

A. Either accept that per WP:SELFSOURCE, using the company in question as the primary source of information is acceptable especially in articles about themselves, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. It's a Japanese company operating in Japan. The only sources in English that discuss the livery are all potentially sponsored or self-published tourist blogs.

or B. Replace the image with something else that isn't as legally problematic.

-Matsujima (talk) Matsujima (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If you believe the photo violates copyrights, nominate it for deletion on Commons. BilCat (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The photo by itself doesn't violate Japanese trademark law, the use without acknowledging the design falls into a grey area that is questionable. -Matsujima (talk) Matsujima (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate under Japanese law. BilCat (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As I'm not a lawyer, I suggest that you take the legal aspects of this issue up elsewhere on Wikipedia, where people who are more familiar with such issues can weigh in. As of right now, however, the issue to me is one of relevance, and I'm finished discussing that with you. If you still disagree, an RFC would be your next step. BilCat (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If it's an image that was taken in Japan of Japanese IP, Japanese law (COM:Japan) absolutely applies. As for American law and Wikipedia policy, COM:VEHICLE & COM:UA also applies as an original painted design. American law generally allows for images of derivative works to be uploaded as long as the derivative work is properly attributed (but not all Wiki lawyers agree on this & thus the grey area). Japanese law prohibits it unless permission is given by the rights holder in question. I'm perfectly fine initiating an RFC and have now done so. -Matsujima (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC

RfC switch from policy to media/econ

This image used in this article is a derivative work by Hayao Miyazaki. Can this image be used without attribution to the artist in the caption (or even at all)? Commons (COM:VEHICLE) says images of derivative work are prohibited without permission from the artist, however articles of similar civil aircraft on Wikipedia all feature distinctive livery with attribution in the caption. What is the actual policy for this use? - Matsujima (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure that a unique colorway necessarily an "original design." I think that it is describing something along these lines. I would say there's no issues with using it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been summoned for a few RFCs in the past few months. May I request that there be consensus for an RFC before the bot is triggered? Benjamin (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Original RfC posted at policy

•RfC removed from policy•

c:File:Setouchi_SEAPLANES_Quest_Kodiak_100(JA03TG,_"L'ala_Rossa")_left_front_view_at_JASDF_Miho_Air_Base_June_2,_2019_02.jpg used in this article is a derivative work by Hayao Miyazaki. Can this image be used without attribution to the artist or even at all? - Matsujima (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This RfC currently lacks a question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What dispute needs to be commented on? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 12:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree & AquilaFasciata - Why the question didn't attach, I don't know, but it's per the discussion above regarding properly attributing the derivative work by Hayao Miyazaki in reference to the use of Media:Setouchi_SEAPLANES_Quest_Kodiak_100(JA03TG,_"L'ala_Rossa")_left_front_view_at_JASDF_Miho_Air_Base_June_2,_2019_02.jpg. My understanding of COM:VEHICLE and COM:UA is that the image shouldn't be used here, especially since alternative (commons:Quest_Kodiak_Floats.JPG) images exist...and if it were allowed to be used, the derivative work should be properly attributed. Please advise. - Matsujima (talk) Matsujima (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Matsujima, I'm neither looking for your opinion nor a previous discussion. Please write a simple, neutral question we can provide our opinion on. It should be written directly below the RfC tag. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what this RfC ia all about. It's been put under WP:RFC/POL, but I can't find an indication as to which policy or guideline should be changed; furthermore, discussions regarding changes to policies or guidelines should be held on the talk page for the policy or guideline itself, alternatively at WP:VPP. If it's about the validity of the description, licensing etc. of c:File:Setouchi SEAPLANES Quest Kodiak 100(JA03TG, "L'ala Rossa") left front view at JASDF Miho Air Base June 2, 2019 02.jpg, the file is hosted at Commons, so should be discussed at Commons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's really about how much information is required to be in the caption in order for the photo to used in this article. My take is that since all of that information is already on the file page, it doesn't need to be repeated here per WP:CREDIT, especially without reliable published sources to put the information in context. One caption favored by the OP was "An amphibious Quest Kodiak painted in Porco Rosso livery", which is practically useless. "Porco Rosso" is a "1992 Japanese animated adventure-fantasy film written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki." The livery of the aircraft in the photo is based on a livery used in the movie. In order to explain any of this, we need reliable published sources to establish is relevance and note-worthiness. I'd rather just leave the caption as it currently is: "Quest Kodiak on amphibious floats". We don't even have articles on the airline or its parent company. Other than adding the name of the name of the airline, Setouchi Seaplanes, we don't need to bog down the caption with a long explanation of the importance of the special livery. Without that long explanation, the OP asserts that Japanese law says we can't use the photo in the article, as the livery is a derivative work. (That's the short version!) BilCat (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the "Porco Rosso" paint scheme used in the movie seems to be itself a copy of that used by Italian racing aircraft that competed for the Schneider Trophy - see c:File:Museo Vigna di Valle Macchi 2009-06-06.jpg.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question about changing policy or guidelines but adjudicating the application of existing policy. The image being used illustrates a commercial aircraft operator's livery. COM:VEHICLE states that if a "vehicle carries an original painted design...a photograph of the vehicle may not be uploaded ". WP:Manual of Style/Captions demands "Clear identification of the subject". Existing pages of similar civil aircraft such as Beechcraft Model 99, CASA C-212 Aviocar, Cessna 208 Caravan, and de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, as well as pages of large commercial aircraft such as Airbus A380 and Boeing 777 all identify the trademarked livery in captions regardless of the notability of the owner. If using the image is acceptable, why does identfying the livery somehow bog down the article this particular application? - Matsujima (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll let others respond to you. I was simply answering a question. BilCat (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Matsujima: see WP:RFCCAT: The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my first RfC so unsure about actual protocol here. Moving to WP:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture & WP:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, however this particular situation also seems to fall into a grey-area between commons & wikipedia policy that is yet undefined by wikipedia and could benefit from further definition from the policy editors. - Matsujima (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)