LIMSwiki

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 17:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messerschmitt Me 609 → Messerschmitt Me 309 Zw – On pages 111 and 115 of his book Luftwaffe: Secret Designs of the Third Reich, Dan Sharps notes that Me 609 was used as a cover designation for standard Me 262s from summer 1944 to the end of World War II, and that the twin-fuselage Me 309 referred to as the Me 609 in some literature was actually called Me 309 Zw, not Me 609. Convariety (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image in this article was created in Google Sketchup. I have no idea how accurate it may or may not be, but I do know that I can make a far better image using the original model (located here). Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how to upload images to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. nqdp 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NQDP (talk • contribs)

"I have no idea how accurate it may or may not be". Then why did you post it?

Also, why the brick wall and blue carpet background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.186.150 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to the accuracy of a digital model, not the photo already being used. In the absence of photos of a real airplane, we can't know how close a model is - either in form or colouring, especially as factory drawings or sketches are absent to make a comparison of it to - all I can find are drawings possibly done from those sketches, or more likely, from a verbal description. Does that book have any? Worse, since he is referring to a digital model, rather than of a plastic model, the shape could have been simplified to reduce the polygon count. Then there is the colouring - conjectural schemes are overrun with basic errors, and often have far too many personal markings. All major powers in WW2 specified the sizes and locations of almost all markings colours and patterns. For a project with minimal documentation of its own, we can guesstimate these based on similar aircraft used in the same role(s). National insignia, fictional stammkennzeichen (side numbers) using otherwise unused numbers and common stencils, as well as appropriate (Western Europe) theatre markings should be the limit. No unit markings, no personal markings and no random stuff - all based on sourced German markings in use at the time. The digital model is inaccurately coloured and marked. The plastic model is closer but still not 100%.

The site where the digital model was posted has a proprietary licence with restrictions (i, iv, v and vi) that are incompatible with wikipedia or wikimedia, which means their model and depictions of it cannot be used, other than by the original uploader to that site, or the owner of that site. No screenshots, nor even downloading the model, correcting the markings and doing a screenshot of that are allowed.

Overturning dozens of erroneous books all repeating the same widespread error with just one source will be a problem. You will get arguments in the future from people, and already having multiple sources in place will cut that off before they start. I speak from experience on that - look up the arguments around the Whistling Death (aka F4U) and Flying Porcupine (aka Sunderland) myths for the same problem. Ideally a second source is needed - have any other books (in any language) said the same thing regarding the identification? Can you find at least one? Not saying it is needed right away, but it usually takes more than one work to overturn consensus, even if that consensus originated with just a single book from the 50s or 60s that everyone else mindlessly repeated. German language books are more likely to have that information at this point I think. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose the current name is used in several reliable sources [1] unlike the proposed name, which doesn't get any results from Google Books search. We prefer the common, recognizable name for things based on article titles policy. (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current title Messerschmitt Me 609 is a good one for the topic as it was before recent edits, and a good scope for an article. Messerschmitt Me 309 Zw (currently a redlink) should exist but probably as a redirect to a section of this article... it needs work either way to eliminate wp:OR and/or provide more inline references. (But there is some awesome material there already once we sort this out! Maybe need help from a German speaker? I note that the image and several similar, all now in commons, came from German Wikipedia originally. But also note that nom is now indeffed so they can't help!) Andrewa (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A source was provided so it isn't OR, but it is standing perilously alone and at least one or two more are required to overturn 75 years to publications, even when they are in error. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - Per above and the fact that "Me 309 Zw" does not follow the standards of the RLM designation system (most twin aircraft had the variant letter "Z", not "Zw"), making it more likely in my opinion that your source is in error. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]