Jump to content

Talk:2016 in aviation

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

Can there be an editorial section with the most salient facts?

[edit]

Reading "A year in aerospace, the top 11 moments of 2016". Flight Global. 12 December 2016., I was wondering if it coud inspire an editorial section ?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2016 in aviation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on air strikes

[edit]

Should air strikes in the Syrian Civil War (and similar conflicts) be included in this article? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose including these entries. While the strikes use airplanes, they aren't related to aviation as a whole, and don't fit thematically with the engineering research and commercial aviation topics otherwise listed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : In an article such as "1943 in aviation" (selected randomly) we include all military operations in World War II that involved aircraft. Same with 1968 in aviation (also selected randomly), which is full of Vietnam bombing runs. The practice is therefore to include military and civilian news alike, and it cannot be gauged in terms of the "size" of warfare. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but raise bar - generally yes - military aviation and significant operations should be listed (as well as "firsts" - e.g. first F-22 or Su-57 combat deployments, beginning of operations, etc. etc.) - this is true for Syria and elsewhere. However, I would support raising the bar used for Syria content on this page (and possibly a few other pages) - if it is the umpteenth Russian cluster bomb attack or Syrian barrel bomb attack - it isn't really notable on a blow to blow basis (listing each sortie - possibly even a single aircraft doing the bombing run!) - one would expect such repeated events to be lumped together into some sort of bombing campaign or multi-day operation.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but raise bar - generally yes, raising the bar per Icewhiz.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is already too long to be useful. Any support, regardless of calls to raise the bar of inclusion, simply count as support for more catch-all behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, reluctant "support but raise the bar", for consistent information presentation in "like" articles. I'm sympathetic to both above opposers' concerns (very), but this should not be argued one article at a time. Try a cleanup RfC that addresses them as a class.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - with a caveat that only those that mention a specific target (not just a city) be included, thus the attacks on notable individuals, schools, hospitals and compounds should remain but be consolidated, while those that are just x number killed should just be removed or also consolidated. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for splitting this article?

[edit]

Where is the discussion on splitting this article - none of the incoming links have been changed. Is this an attempt at deletion by proxy?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see why this article would or should be deleted, regardless of split. Why would any of the links have to change after a split? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any objections to splitting the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I dont think it is a good thing to do, none of the other years are split by month. That said if you removed all the guff about Syrian operations to 2016 in aviation (Syria) or such like it would be a more normal size. Or perhaps just delete some of it, we certainly dont mention every airstrike for other years (it would perhaps make some articles in the 1940s huge). MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles aren't as large as this one though. This article certainly is needlessly enlarged by content about the Syrian Civil War. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you've just decided to remove the content you don't like to your talk space. This IS deletion by proxy. Revert yourself.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with MilborneOne that there is too much about the Syrian Civil War here. We can move them into their own article, which is why I have preserved them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the content from article space isn't preservation - you have deleted it from article space.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started moving it from article space to user space. I haven't moved anything into talk space. The content is preserved for anybody to use. We can split the content into a new article, we can delete content, or some combination. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently has 423,557 bytes of wiki-markup. That is too big by far. If a considerable amount of content is not removed, then it needs to be subdivided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even without a blow by blow account of the Syrian war, there is a huge amount of cruft here - multiple entries of no significance whatsoever that are only included because some news organization had a slow news day (like lost boaters being found, or an airplane making a precautionary diversion - both routine non-notable events) but someone thought they should add them. Then there are the overly wordy statements, some of which read like verbatim US government announcements, complete with a lot of unrelated details and horribly POV terms, and as many as four references each for a whole bunch of entries no-one is arguing about. The question then is - how much do we need to prune it down to? Clean up of the first 7 months has reduced it to 392,580 bytes - smaller than it was in late November 2016. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now down to 352,903 bytes, with one month still to clean up, but it needs to drop a lot more. There remains a major problem with overlinking on this page. Only the first use should be linked, not every last one, so thousands of terms can be delinked, even if we compromise and allow one use per section. The page is still too large for me to readily edit as a whole though, which will be necessary to do this properly. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_in_aviation&oldid=1196720143"