Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Letort

I've come across the article Léon Letort. Since it was rather vague & sketckily referenced, I thought I'd give it a minor goung over...there isn't much to be found on the man, but i did find this. However, the in l'Aérophile calls him Maurice. Same man withut a doubt. I'm used to correcting the odd date or whatever, but this has me stumped.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure whether L'Aérophile talks about the same person, they give a different birth date too. Leave it for what it is: doubt is possible, but the present article agrees with that on fr.wikipedia, and the sources are there. Until proven otherwise, we cannot exclude that L'Aérophile simply mixed it up. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Flight has a good few mentions, mostly as just "Letort", but here as "Leon Letort" [no accent] and here as "Letort (Léon) [with accent]". In one of the other pages referenced, L'Aérophile refers to him as "Letord" with a "d", but in other pages simply as "Letort". I think we just have to assume one-off errors by L'Aérophile unless they can be corroborated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If my French is correct, I see the aviator certificates match up between L Aerophile and Flight. Is it possible that he was born Maurice, but went by Leon. If they named a road after him, there must be more known, contemporary newspapers perhaps (his death as reported in Flight doesn't give Monsieur let along a first name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FA list?

How does an article get put on the FA list? Mine's up now, and apparently I forgot to drop a note here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has not been tagged under WP:AVIATION so it will not appear. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of ALR Piranha

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance requested for improving Lift(Force)

Over at the Lift_(force) page we (the active editors) seem to have come to an impasse over inclusion of the following sentence describing the lift on an airfoil:

"The resulting force upwards is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air deflected downwards."

Much discussion has ensued; one side wants to include it (there are four reliable sources that support the assertion) and the other side claims it is untrue (citing sources that don't exactly say it's false, but provide equations that can be interpreted to say it is false.) Much more detail is at the Talk page. I'd like to see some more opinions and see if we can come to a consensus about including or excluding that sentence. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an authority on the subject, I wonder if you (all of you!) are not pushing for too much specialism in the article: delving too deep into any matter is always a sure way to provoke dissension. This encyclopedia might well be served by keeping to generally accepted generalisms, supported by pointers to in-depth references. Jan olieslagers (talk)

BTW my sincere compliment for seeking outside advice in good time, and in a polite and constructive tone! Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Finnair flight AY 915

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether this article should be kept or deleted....William 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:WPPilot

Is there some way of checking the person out using this moniker. As the recent work that he has carried out seems out of character. His responses to my recent copyvio tags have almost been threatening, which would seem to be out of character for the user outlined on his page.--Petebutt (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OMG wow I ask you to help me and this is your reply? I have been contributing here for a long long time. I, last weekend spent at my own expense a great deal of money and effort to obtain quality photos to update the page here, on the site. I have, in order to make the page more robust using the same system I have used to author many pages here, created pages on some amazing Racing Aircraft, please note that each of the photos clearly contains my real name, so I have never tried to hide behind my user name and have no reason to do so now. Petebutt, without making any contact whatsoever and without bothering to provide a adequate basis for the tags, tagged for speedy deletion stories I was in the process of developing, some had more effort then others but it was to me offensive, as the user is well aware of my contributions and perhaps I was out of line to think that he would contribute to rather then attempt to remove these pages. @Petebutt, if you like I will send you my phone number and your welcome to give me a call. The user has gone so far as to remove story that I contributed nothing more then photos to, that has already 14 ref's that have been on Wikipedia since 2006, IMHO the user is out of control....... I have discontinued contributing my aerial and aviation photos until this user is under control, this is completely out of line.talk→ WPPilot  16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, @WPPilot:. You can cool it here - we are a reasonably level-headed bunch. Petebutt appears not to be concerned about your photos, but is chasing down text content that has been copied from elsewhere. Your photos are getting caught in the crossfire, which I am sure is distressing to you. Dealing with copyright violations depends on one's assessment of the degree of violation (see WP:DCV). This is the discussion we need to be having. I have to say that Petebutt is usually as level-headed as the rest of us, and if he sees fit to challenge article content that has been around for years, I for one would take that challenge seriously. I don't know if the following applies to you but if you have a lot of articles to create then it is best to get each one "clean" before creating the next one. If it is more convenient to upload the photos as a batch, they can then sit there happily waiting for a suitable article to come along. Hope this helps a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO he is attacking my donations directly and with the intention to dissuade me from continuing to contribute. He has in fact targeted almost every page I have provisioned sans ONE. There is not a chance I am going to continue to waste my time when he is attacking my contribution's, furthermore I intend to remove the rights to the photos I have donate in this sector and request the remove from commons. I have better things to do and perhaps he can replace my pics with nice shot from his gallery of home built aircraft. Others have already chimed in, the Voodoo page was his first target but I don't need to deal with "Butt's" acting like children. talk→ WPPilot  18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only looked at Lee Behel but some of the text is a direct copy or very close paraphrasing from http://www.sportclass.com/pilots/lee-behel/ and the other quoted websites so User:Petebutt was right to tag it as a copyright violation, as far as I can see that article has no images. I have had a tidy up of that article and removed the most obvious copyright violations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@MilborneOne - Rare Bear was first written here on WP in 2006, well before I was involved here. I added a few current pictures and a video, as well as cleaned up the wording a tiny bit, so User:Petebutt removed everything from the page, blanked it and asserted it had been lifted from somewhere, in spite 14 refs that were on the page for almost a decade:^ Kinert, Reed, Racing Planes and Air Races; 1970 Annual, Aero Publishers, Inc., Fallbrook California, 1970.

2.Jump up ^ 'The Bear' Retrieved 1 July 2011. 3.^ Jump up to: a b 'Records' Retrieved 1 July 2011. 4.Jump up ^ Carter, Dusty, Racing Planes and Air Races 1977/78 Bennial Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, 1978. ISBN 0-8168-7870-6. 5.Jump up ^ Dead and gone to Heaven Retrieved 24 September 2011. 6.Jump up ^ Rare Bear Propeller Swap Testing 06-07-04 Retrieved 24 September 2011. 7.Jump up ^ Air & Space/Smithsonian—The Bear is Back 8.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 9.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 10.Jump up ^ www.rgj.com—2008 Reno Air Race report[dead link] 11.Jump up ^ Rare Bear Update Retrieved 24 September 2011. 12.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 13.Jump up ^ www.RareBear.com—Lyle Shelton's "Rare Bear" [Note that Shelton's claim to be the "fastest propeller-driven aircraft in the world" does not acknowledge faster turboprop aircraft such as the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber. Other sources credit "Rare Bear" as the fastest piston-driven aircraft.] 14.Jump up ^ www.AeroSpaceWeb.org—aircraft speed records 15.Jump up ^ airrace.com—speed records from archives of the Society of Air Racing Historians

The ONLY thing that I contributed was media (photo and video) so he tags it as a copyright vio and blanks the page without any suitable foundation for the action. I did not write that, it was crafted over the last 8 years. He as a experienced editor would have seen that had he reviewed the log, but no, he was on a rampage to take away everything I did for a week. He had also done this on Voodoo and the other pages, without reaching out to an editor that even he makes note is a experienced and professional editor (me) then he attacks everything I have done for a week and goes to a admin board and rudely asks the Admins to "Check me out" as he did not understand why I was responding so overtly to his acting like a "Butt" hole. talk→ WPPilot  22:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the media that is tagged but the page itself. If you right click on each of the images, nothing regarding the copyright vio appears on any of the images.

It appears the offending text was added by User:TylerJG fairly early in the page's history as he did a large addition whose formatting messed up the page, and whose language appears to read like advertising or press release copy. He hasn't edited a page since June 2009 but was responsible for starting the page and the first batch of edits, and hasn't edited many other pages, and only one other was an aviation related page (the Reno Air Races).NiD.29 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@WPPilot: You are right, it makes no sense that someone chasing you personally should take exception to an article that you did not write. That is proof, if it were needed, that Petebutt is not chasing you personally - yes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering this point all the while - thanks for support! WP is not a good place for well-meaning delicate personalities, I learned that the hard way, too. And, most of all: such a lot of fuss is always questionable, but I am especially surprised to see such a lot of fuss about articles that, for me, are of questionable relevance: is there really anything encyclopedic about one single aeroplane, generally, even if it has achieved some records? If I was sufficiently implied in the matter, I would long ago have marked the article for deletion, for lack of notoriety; or at best for merging into the Bearcat article - as a sidenote it seems bearable. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is really a waste of time and I had been trying to overlook it, but it comes to my attention that this may well be a stepping off point for me here. I have been contributing to both the photographic and article spaces since 2009. Having started many Wiki's I know the process and know it well. I am terribly sorry that, in the process of writing ONE (Chek Mate aircraft) of the recent contributions that a editorial contribution lead to such a fuss. It was completely out of line IMHO for Petebutt to come here before coming to my own talk page and I have no idea why he would do this to me. I really try to avoid these boards as the Wolf Pack mentality seems to be prevalent on all of them so I just try to do my thing and be left alone. With regard to these craft having there own page any argument to the contrary IMHO is unjust, and not in any way taking into consideration the fact that when flown today these plane and there pilots are truly taking life into there hands. Aviation is so regulated and controlled now that it is rare to see these modified racing aircraft, something that I am sure most of the contributors are far far too young to understand, Air Racing and the planes that race were once a big part of America and these types of races used to take place all the time all over the USA. I have over this process of dissection on this page also been lucky enough to pick up yet a new page stalker @BilCat: whom seems to not want to even talk, this user seems to like to revert and run, all while failing to reply to reasonable questions left on his talk page. Strange... Lastly I have proposed that the NA P 51 page should ref the fact that the lions share of the P 51's are racing airplanes and even added a gallery of the 2 planes that were at Reno this year, yet BilCat removed it, claiming that it needed proper sourcing???? I should have submitted the pics of the event to a Stock house rather then donate them here as it has caused way too much controversy IMHO to make it worth my time to continue, while this conversation is still going on. While I am on the topic let me mention that my contributions in this space started a year ago when I created The Galloping Ghost (aircraft) it was clearly worth of consideration and as the Reno Air Race page had a series of named aircraft that were already hot linked as if pages were already made, I then created the Voodoo & Precious Metal (aircraft) pages and a few others while uploading the photos from the event. My objective is to improve the site, and it always has been. Simply put, I passed out and had saved a story under development and the resulting witch hunt continues today almost a week later. Next time I will simply upload to a Stock Photo house and let people pay for my efforts rather then be tossed under a bus after working hard to take some nice pictures and have the total lack of respect this group has so warmly provided. talk→ WPPilot  17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos on a public archive (The media commons) and illustrations in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) are not the same thing. I am puzzled why you treat them that way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow, what are you talking about, illustrations on Wikipedia are for the most part obtained from Commons. I do not contribute photos to Wikipedia rather I upload them to Commons if it is to me clear that the photo has a place on Wikipedia that it improves a page or illustrates a point better then what is presented on the page already. I am puzzled y your question. talk→ WPPilot  18:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Most images on the Commons never make it into Wikipedia articles. Why rant about pulling stuff from the one just because you haven't chimed with the community on the other? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

- Images can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Wikiepdia and Commons have different restrictions on use. Images on Wikipedia can be of limited use (fair use), while images on Commons have to be of unlimited use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Airshow notability guidelines.

Are there any notability guidelines for airshows on Wikipedia? Thanks. - Nathan121212 (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

FA could use some TLC

Any chance I could get some people to take a gander over here here at the FA for Mk. IV? The last FA closed without a single yay or nay vote, and I'm hoping to avoid that fate this time around. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"carbon fiber"

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Three-surface aircraft

Hi, help appreciated at Three-surface aircraft where an editor is refusing to acknowledge that claims need independently verifying and is warring over it. FYI this editor has previously earned blocks for bad behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 7

Are individual scheduled flights notable enough for articles? And if so, we should have a category for those articles. As the notability of this article seems to be based on it being the longest non-stop flight in commercial service, we should have many articles of this sort, as the record title has been passed on through aviation history. And I assume we also have the shortest flight (IIRC, it's in Bhutan or Nepal, and flies across a valley) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd roll it all into an article on long-haul flight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 7425. Or is it 5143?

Hello everyone. This edit added a source in Russian that contradicts the current flight number used to name the article. Actually the article in Russian Wikipedia, linked to from the English one, considers ″5143″ as the flight number. I think the article should be moved, but I decided to start a discussion first, given that the Accident description at the Aviation Safety Network says the flightnumber was ″7425″. One more question: can airdisaster.ru be considered a reliable source? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Airdisaster.ru is an unknown quantity to ne, whereas ASN is reliable. Easily solved by a redirect and mention of alt number. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that International airport, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Reluctant as I generally am about removing articles, here is one that could be removed for me. Better still would be to severely prune it, and join what remains to the Airport article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

$23,575 for a survey! I suspect the answer is that there is not a magic formula, like minded people will co-operate on projects that interest them, people dont like to be forced or perusaded to do anything if they are not comfortable with the subject. Some people are use to co-operating with others by experience or training or just for the fun of it, but some are loaners, that doesnt mean either a project/group or individual doesnt make a useful contribution to building an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

China Airlines Flight 611: IP edits

I've noticed some IP edits that have added false information regarding the non-ethnic Chinese on China Airlines Flight 611. The sources I have read only stated that there was one man: Luigi Heer from Switzerland. However some IP edits added a German, Japanese, and/or American people to the prose or to the nationality count when this is not true. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If this continues, then I'm willing to semi-protect for a week or two. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Claims to the first powered flight

Hi all. I have drafted an article on Claims to the first powered flight at User:Steelpillow/sandbox. The focus is on the claims and the surrounding debates rather than the events or aircraft themselves. Is it good enough to move live yet, i.e. better than nothing, or does it really need a bit more work first? Please reply at User talk:Steelpillow/sandbox. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now live at Claims to the first powered flight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled across what seems like a textbook case of material inappropriate for Wikipedia.

So I happened across the talk-page comment Talk:Minimum control speeds#Re to talker 193.63.174.211:, and it struck me that, by the author's own admission of how and why he wrote the corresponding article, that article clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia, not because of the subject matter, but because it's an original work based on the author's opinions and experiences, going against standard published sources. No matter how expert the author turns out to be, or how well researched his work is, Wikipedia is not the venue where he should be publishing it. Thoughts? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah much of it seems to be WP:OR and also runs afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL as well. On top of that most of it is written in a non-encyclopedic style. I guess it could be rewritten from scratch or it could just be sent to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

HMS Richmond helicopter crash

I'm sufficiently concerned about the future content of this article to leave a note here. Attempts to delete this have failed, for reasons which still escape me, despite asking for a review. I've only just now noticed User:Mike Peel/Richmond, whose contents appear to be confirming my worst fears for how this article is going to be developed in future. Specifically, I have the following concerns:

• In the absence of secondary coverage, the plan for documenting the official cause seems to be to go directly to the PRIMARY source, the investigation report. Since that is not available on-line, he is using another report on a later crash, in which this one is mentioned. I have serious concerns that this will end up producing ORIGINAL RESEARCH if not double and triple checked.

• He also appears to be adding material from www.ukserials.com, which is apparently put together by the Wolverhampton Aviation Group. To me, that doesn't appear to be a RELIABLE source, but you people here might know better.

• There's a whole bunch of other issues with the claims made in the article, which all derive from the lack of/poor quality of the sourcing, which in secondary terms is still all exclusively news reporting despite the crash having occurred 12 years ago. I've detailed them at length in the original deletion page and the review. Be advised, some of the issues aren't even apparent until you read the article and all the sources.

It feels pretty stupid to even have to highlight these issues here - obviously the best way to prevent them is to ensure the crash is one that meets EVENT before even writing the article, and deleting it if it doesn't. But if it must remain, then asking the impossible here, for someone among you to monitor/fix it even though the sources that would allow you to do that without introducing UNRELIABLE information or ORIGINAL RESEARCH don't appear to exist, seems to be the only option left. Patrol forty (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• • The term you're looking for for the outcome of that first point is probably WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • Indeed. I'm concerned about a few things - 1. since he's not working from the report on this crash, he might easily miss out some pertinent detail that wasn't deemed relevant to the later one, 2. you only need to look at how complex and technical these reports are to see how mistakes in relaying even basic facts could be made - expecting other people to volunteer to check your work seems a bad way to ensure quality control, 3. with the best will in the world, nobody but an actual aviation journalist could hope to be sure that the way they condense material like this into fewer words by way of summary doesn't unwittingly lose some vital meaning or introduce some other kind of ambiguity/error, especially when they're not being paid to do it and they don't have a managing editor checking their work. Patrol forty (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that the accident as far as the helicopter goes is just not notable it is the emotional reaction to a girl being killed that appears to be what drives those in favour of the article. Perhaps the article needs to focus on the the "death of the first British naval female observer" and ignore the helicopter technical aspects. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Milborne, I couldn't agree less. That is to say, some phrases do stress the sex of one of the victims and I do find that inappropriate. But even leaving those phrases out, the article remains notable, or at least as notable as certain others. Take 2002_Africa_One_Antonov_An-26_crash for just one example, found at haphazard, which mentions no victims at all, of whatever sex. I can't help fearing that here, as in other cases, a very few contributors are doing all they can to remove an article, applying whatever argument possible, but without any recourse to objectivity, and without revealing their real reasons or arguments. And, also: your use of the word "girl" indicates lack of respect - you might as well have written "nannie" or "lassie" or such. This was a grown-up person, respected for her professionalism. Why would you belittle her? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "real" motives. Are you trying to say I'm lying about why I wanted the article deleted? I thought I'd been very clear about the reasons why I don't think it should exist (as an article on its own, elements of the story can of course can be mentioned in other articles), and I've tried to remain extremely objective, even though some on the other side have been extremely subjective (down to simply saying it should exist because they personally found it INTERESTING). As for that other crash, an objective standpoint would see that you're not comparing like for like (and note that even when you do, on Wikipedia, that is still dismissed as OTHERSTUFF). That article at least states the crash had some significant lasting impact, such as the change in emergency procedures, and therefore per EVENT it's possibly worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Contrast it to this crash, where the only lasting impact at all, is the naming of a locomotive.

I think MilborneOne might have accurately diagnosed the issue - when you look at how Mike's draft is developing, it's hard to see any other reason for this article being retained while not a single other article on a Lynx crash exists on Wikipedia (bar the IRA shoot-down, which I didn't discover until some time into this issue), other than the fact a woman died. An objective review would see that, despite the fact he is veritably stuffing his draft with more sources, the basic fact remains that the only reliable secondary sourcing this article contains that was generated after the event (and I exclude from the 'event' the recovery of the wreckage and the inquest, because nobody has yet given me a plausible reason why news reporting of those things should be considered separate for the purposes of EVENT), is news reporting generated by the locomotive naming.

And an objective review would see that none of that later coverage is even really about her being a woman, it's about her as a pilot and a train enthusiast, who was tragically killed. All good stuff for news outlets, not so much for an encyclopedia, or so I thought. If you can find any other reason, any reason at all, why someone else who is actually being objective, would consider this crash historically notable (as required by EVENT), then I implore you to explain it here and now, because that's what I've been trying to get all the keepers to do for the last two weeks, and not one has bothered to do so (obviously I'm defining objectivity as the ability to identify a reason for notability that isn't simply personal opinion, but is actually reflected by that thing getting attention in secondary sources after the event, in a way that is not simply a brief recap of what happened). Patrol forty (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, expansion of the draft seems to have ground to a halt, with the only new reliable secondary sources found being just more news reports of it at the time, and a couple more from the brief spike generated by the train naming (which was the only time it ever got any secondary coverage after the event, when including the inquest and recovery, as anyone would for 'events' like air crashes). It's got more detailed than before, but it nonetheless remains no more encyclopedic than what you expect to generate if you just merged of all the facts from news reporting into one article. Given this is the aviation project, is there anyone here who would be able to find some actual proper sources (such as books or research papers) that would demonstrate that anyone actually gave this crash any notice after the event in a way that would actually satisfy EVENT? In other words, sources that properly demonstrate DEPTH/PERSISTENCE/DIVERSE have been met? Alternatively, if none can be found, does anyone know how long it would be acceptable to wait before nominating this for deletion again? Patrol forty (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And I just discovered Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richmond helicopter crash - which seems to me to support MilborneOne's theory even more. This article was seemingly created simply to document this 'first female' claim, and whether or not the crash was historically notable otherwise, or whether or not that first female fact was deemed important enough to be documented in sources in enough DEPTH/PERSISTENCE/DIVERSE that Wikipedia could even be able to be clear that it is indeed a fact (as opposed to just 'believed to be'), seemed to be neither here nor there. Patrol forty (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep finding it bizarre, not to say suspect, that anybody should be willing to spend so much effort and so many words to try and get removed one single article. There are many many articles far less relevant, much worse written, far more worthy of removal - where is your real grudge? The lack of objectivity is repulsive. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Save your insults for someone who cares. Unless or until you reply to what I wrote above the first time you made these allegations of suspect motives, I frankly couldn't give a fuck what you think. Patrol forty (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you really didn't care you wouldn't bother responding, no less use foul language whilst responding. You keep trying to invent your own definitions of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:GNG to suit your purpose and despite all of your writing on talk pages, you're failing to gain any consensus. Move on. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tagging lists of airline destinations with "refimprove"

Hi! There is an anonymous user who keeps tagging Julius Nyerere International Airport#Airlines and destinations with refimprove saying that they are required per Wikipedia policy, even though, on a talk page I brought up Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Body after User:Alifazal asked me to talk to the IP user via e-mail. See the IP user's response at User_talk:Alifazal#Refimprove_and_Swahili.

If the IP user doesn't agree with what the project decides he can make it a Wikipedia:Request for comment WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest to check if the IP is not User:AfricaTanz; they have been indefinitely blocked for much the same reason you provide here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

Before AfricaTanz was blocked, was there already an RFC about this matter? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the contributions made by several IPs to the article (and also accross a number of other pages) I don't think they will use RFC. Personally, I see WP:BATTLEGROUND in every user's talk page the IP interacted with.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to the airport project's guideline Bullet 10; otherwise we'll have a proliferation of citations on all the airport's articles. I had requested an SPI check against User:AfricaTanz. It is "now awaiting a behaviour investigation". Thank you User:WhisperToMe for your help in initiating this discussion. Ali Fazal (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could someone clarify - for my edification - is the problem an editor adding refimprove (and/or in a pointy and disruptive manner) when there is already sufficient referencing? Policy on referencing is clear, and looking at the example, although a source is given which supports the operators listed it does not give routes nor the airport terminals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to find an easy way to reference the destinations (as a way of showing proof and to ensure accuracy of information). Is there an RS website which can reference any or all destinations from a particular airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the official airport website should be enough. Unfortunately, you won't have that information for all airport articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. These airports have no sources for specific destinations, hence the tags. Some members of this project do not want to add sources because then there would be a "proliferation" of sources in the article, which Wikipedia plainly requires, by the way. The two choices are clear: either source the information or delete it. This project cannot create an exception to the Wikipedia sourcing policy. 172.56.7.175 (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.7.175: - Do you think there should be an RFC on the matter? You may file one with Wikipedia:RFC (follow instructions) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "doghouse"

At http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-05.pdf I notice "doghouse" is used on p. 132 (17/26) - Is it this definition? http://aviationglossary.com/doghouse/

This is important since in Commons:User_talk:Yasu#Request_for_transcribing_of_Japanese_characters_and_some_translations I'm trying to arrange a partial translation of the map into Japanese WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles for certain plane crashes?

I found that:

• Vietnam Airlines Flight 474 redirects to Cyclone_Forrest#Preparations_and_impact - it was a fatal crash with one survivor, Annette Herfkens
• en:Transmeridian_Air_Cargo#Company_history (has a separate article on the Chinese Wikipedia: zh:環子午線航空3751號班機空難) = Transmeridian Air Cargo Flight 3751

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that the Transmeridian is that notable for a stand-alone article, engine fire on take-off on a cargo flight, it was fatal and a hull-loss so needs a mention on the Transmeridian and CL-44 but in my opinion not a stand-alone. MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam Airlines Flight 474 has been created from a redirect although it needs more work. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Flight insurance

We have an article aviation insurance, but currently has no coverage on personal passenger flight life insurance. This used to be commonly sold at airports in the 60s/70s for passengers to buy prior to boarding, should this be covered at "aviation insurance" ? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved to talk:aviation insurance

"fuel cell"

I noticed that race car fuel cells exist as a topic in an article, and was wondering if aviation fuel cells (aviation fuel tanks) should also have a redirect aviation fuel cell to the aircraft section of fuel tank, as racing fuel cell does to its section.-- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've created the redirect for you. My own feeling/experience is that 'fuel cell' is rarely used in relation to aircraft, it's usually just 'tank'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am finding it very confusing to speak of a fuel cell when meaning a recipient for holding liquid fuel. According to our own definition, a Fuel cell is a device that converts hydrocarbons directly into electrical power. And I never heard the term used in any other meaning. My own idea would be to remove reference to fuel cell in the meaning of a fuel tank, to avoid confusion. Unless perhaps it is a common usage in certain parts of the world (USA?) or in certain activities, such as car racing; in which case that specific environment should be mentioned. But in aviation at least I can see no reason to mention it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is normal for a term to have different meanings in different countries and industries. So we should not go around removing correct usage. We just have to make sure that any links are correct. That's why redirects are good, just link to the redirect to get to material that does not exist yet as an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept that - but, as already hinted by Nimbus, it is not correct usage in aviation, actually it is not used at all in aviation, as far as I can see or hear. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

From memory of working with visiting F-16s they had a Hydrazine fuel cell for emergency electrical power back-up, nasty stuff. I think it's a term more related to spacecraft and rocket fuels, feel free to direct the redirect to somewhere else if needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've heard it many times in relation to aviation [1][2][3][4] ; perhaps it is a North American term. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, those examples are quite convincing. But, as you stated, all from the USA... Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, they would be known as 'bag tanks' or 'rubber bag tanks' in the UK. In the fuel tank article they are called bladder tanks which is also correct. It probably all comes down to what each manufacturer calls them in their manuals and parts catalogues. I'm hoping to write a dedicated article on aircraft fuel tanks soon and this point will get mentioned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely used in Canada [5], so not just the USA ; This [6] indicates usage in Australia -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Dragon Rapide accidents

A discussion is taking place at Talk:De Havilland Dragon Rapide#Accidents re the inclusion of an accident in the Isle of Man in 1947. You are invited to express your opinion there. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Lift (force)

An interminable discussion at Talk:Lift (force), running across many topic headings, seems to have run its course. Could an uninvolved editor take a look and close it? It is about lift equalling the rate of change of vertical momentum of the air, so some understanding of such ideas might be helpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A formal closure would certainly be appreciated. I suggest looking near the end for some pointers to key parts of the lengthy discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers

Hi, could use some help at Talk:Airborne_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_aircraft_and_aircraft_carriers. The article on Airborne aircraft carriers currently uses the term to indicate a mother ship or carrier aircraft that does more than just carry and launch other types of craft. Another editor is challenging that and has cited a couple of oddball sources - a French web site and a Soviet era book in Russian. Would be good to have a few more opinions on those sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, please can someone lend a hand. This editor does not talk rationally and is warring away. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Steelpillow does not talk rationally. He does not understand text in English source too. For example - [7], it's clearly written - "and attached itself to the mother aircraft". But something wrong with this editor. Мехтех (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do these labels on a plane crash map mean?

At: http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/PK-GIE.pdf - p. 73 (PDF 81/30) - Figure 5 Seat Configuration Chart

I'm not sure about certain map markings. There are the labels G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, and G8. I think these are gallies. I do not know what the "A", "B, "C," "D", "H," and "J" mean, and there are also "C/A" labels but I do not know what they mean. I am asking because somebody is making maps of the airplane: Commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_865_map_requests_for_Japanese_and_English_.28later:_Indonesian.29 WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the "G" markings are indeed "galleys" (ie food storage and prep areas). The A, B, C, etc are the seat designations, but are only shown as samples on the leading seats in each area. They show seat 37B, 37A, etc, for instance. C/A might be folding crew seats ("Crew accommodations" possibly) for the flight attendants. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another query... from: File:China_Airlines_Flight_140_EN.svg. A person making a Chinese translation wants to know what "bustle" means in an aviation context. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Trying to clean up & solve a couple issues before a good article nomination. There's a lengthy description of these issues on its talk page, but I need feedback from other editors. Thanks. AHeneen (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Destination lists and Wikidata

Are there any plans to migrate airline destination lists to Wikidata? I think such a task would be very beneficial (it means fewer updates are needed for articles, and sourcing can be done at Wikidata) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed a bunch of unsourced speculation from Samoan Clipper. Can someone please give it a look?

I've removed the old explanation for this accident, because it was largely unsourced speculation which was not in the official report. I'd appreciate it if someone else could give it a look. Thanks. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why so many overrated aircraft articles?

Can someone explain why so many aircraft articles receive heavily inflated article ratings? Take Dalotel DM-165, for an example. Strip away all of the statistics, and there really is nothing written about this aircraft that would classify it above a stub. How could it ever get a 'B' rating in its current state?

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ#Quality scale. I realize that "meaningful content" is a vague description. And perhaps we will disagree on that. What I look for prose. I ignore lists of statistics and images. In order for me to see an article is something other than a stub, I need to see written text.

I know I've had recent disagreements with some of the Aviation project contributors over what is or isn't a stub largely because the ratings used on the pages are not in line with the standard ratings of Wikipedia. Please be aware of this when you find aviation articles tagged as stubs, but with non-stub ratings. Look again with the eyes of a general Wikipedia contributor. If you applied the Wikipedia ratings to the article, what would it receive? Mentally strip away the lists of pure statistics and images and look at what is actually written about the aircraft. What kind of rating would the article then receive? Dawynn (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that Dalotel DM-165 is not a "B" but in aircraft projects terms it is not a stub and would be classed as a "start". Perhaps projects shouldnt assess articles if they cant get it right? MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That particular article is pretty complete as far as the subject material goes, but, that said, I would be very happy to do away with article ratings altogether. In my experience they take up far too much time, especially with discussions over people vastly over or under-rating them and add very little, if anything, to the reader's experience. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with previous comment. The article is fine, could serve as an example to many. What's the relevance of any labels attached, according to vague criteria, if any? Plus, I do not really agree with "I need to see written text" - with all respect for anybody's personal preferences, we are creating an encyclopedia, not (possibly pleasant) reading matter. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The inflated ratings are being awarded by one editor, check the talk page histories then take it up directly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Navbox question

I just ran across {{International Association of Aviation Personnel Schools}}. I found it on the Airbus page, and couldn't see what it was there for at fist glance. I'm not sure this is really needed, as it only has 5 links in the main sections, and the schools are already listed in the main article. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be nominated for deletion if it is found to be of no use.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who's the nut?

I just removed all the aviation accident categories from Macadamia nuts controversy. Some Korean Air exec throws a fit causing a plane to go back to the gate, and therefore its an aviation incident? There's an AFD[8] on the article also. Feel free to take part in it....William 11:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking for opinion

... on Talk:Air transport in Yugoslavia. The article was first made as a list of airports by traffic in the former Yugoslavia. Then some users criticized and some content about the history of air transport in Yugoslavia was added. Then someone renamed the article to its current title. Now some editors want to remove the airports traffic list. I beleave the article could stay the way it is now, which includes a bit of background of the air transport in Yugoslavia (an issue which can be expanded) and the current state of affairs with the list of airports and its traffic numbers. However some editors oppose and think that once Yugoslavia was dismembered in the early 1990s that there is no reason anymore to group the airports of the territory of former Yugoslavia. There are however other lists of airports of former countries and regions like the exemples I provided in the discussion. Also, many air transport related articles do deal with the issue still using the space of former Yugoslavia as subject, some exemples I also provided at the discussion. But maybe I am wrong, maybe the article should focus only in the period Yugoslavia existed. That is why I am here asking for your opinion.

In my view, there are two possibilities:

• 1- The article stays the way it is, which means that includes a little bit of history of air transport in Yugoslavia, plus the list of airports and their past and current data, or
• 2- The articles are split into one article dealing with the history of air transport in Yugoslavia, and another being just the list of airports with their traffic figures. In case of the second option, I beleave the current article should return to what originally was, the list of airports, and the bits about the history of air transport, which are just a few sentences I added some time ago, should go to a new article. I say this because of the article history and because most editors of that article actually edit the list of airports, so they want loose the article in their watchlist, and anyway the article should ontinue its original form. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Meteor crash at Wadhurst

I accept that military aviation accidents are generally non-notable. However, some accidents do qualify for articles. In 1956, a Gloster Meteor crashed at Wadhurst, East Sussex. Both crew were killed, as were two civilians. Five buildings were damaged, with at least one subsequently being demolished. Would this crash meet the criteria for an article? Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Having given up WP:AIRCRASH on stand-alone articles we seem to hang entirely on WP:GNG these days, so if youhave enough refs then I suppose it would. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about enough refs, but there's three or four from The Times to start with, before I go looking elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This one will easily meet GNG, a whole book has been published on the crash - The Day Wadhurst Changed. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That will do it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would normally say that military crashes are not notable but the fact this killed people on the ground is enough to pass the bar. I presume that this was Meteor NF12 WS661 of the All-Weather Operational Conversion Unit (AWOCU) from RAF North Luffenham "Hit houses while low flying". I have a ref for the serial/type/unit if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed the a/c in question. I intend to get the book and read it first. There won't be a problem referencing this one. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Book has arrived. Looks like I'll have the makings of a GA. Suggestions needed for a title please. Would the simple "Wadhurst Gloster Meteor crash" suffice? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Eyes on a new article please

G'day all, I have just been looking at Sweeping jet actuators, which I think needs some work, as it seems to treat "vertical tail" and "rudder" as interchangeable terms. Could someone cast their eye over it and make any fixes deemed necessary please? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Is a lab curiosity like this really WP:NOTABLE enough for its own article? These kinds of blown systems have been tried for donkeys years, seldom come good and even when something like the blown flap makes it out there it remains a niche curiosity. IMHO it should be merged into a more general article if such exists, or simply deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tradition or Urban Legend?

Out of boredom, I ended up reading my way through "Aviation Accidents and Incidents."

Something that commonly appears is the claim that it is custom, tradition, or common practice for an airline to retire a flight number to be retired after a fatal accident. However, in spite the fact this claim seems to appear in roughly 75% of the articles under the category, the flight numbers were never retired. At best, they were reassigned to another flight route. This "flight number retirement" reference appears in wikipedia articles going all the way back to the earliest days of commercial passenger flight service in the late 1920's.

So it seems to me that if so many flight numbers were not just not retired but not even reassigned to another route, this was actually never a regular practice conducted by the airlines, and thus an urban legend is being portrayed as factual information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.196.184.249 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some airlines retire flight numbers, some don't. The practice has become more prevalent in modern times. Each claim of a flight number being retired should be referenced, or challenged if unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Air template

Has been nominated for deletion. Please come here[9] and join in the discussion whether it should be kept or deleted....William 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation: Editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, on 7 March 2015

You are invited to an editathon at Thinktank, Birmingham, England, on 7 March 2015.

The focus will be on the museum's science and industry collection. We will have an exclusive preview of (and be able to photograph) exhibits recently acquired for the forthcoming new Spitfire (aircraft) Gallery, plus talks, and the opportunity to work with curators. Assistance will be available for new editors.

A light lunch and refreshments will be provided. Booking required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

This is to notify those interested, that a deletion discussion has been opened for newly-created article 2008 Bailundo Beechcraft Super King Air crash. YSSYguy (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Another discussion has been opened for Pan Am Flight 843. YSSYguy (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Short articles about "[adjective] flight"

There are several articles that I think could be better handled by one article listing types of flights as opposed to short, individual articles:

• International flight
• Domestic flight
• Direct flight
• Red-eye flight

I question whether domestic flight and direct flight are notable enough to have their own article, since there's not much to say about them beyond a definition. There's no a lot to say about these subjects, beyond defining what they are (international flight has a little bit of history, while, on the other hand, red-eye flight mainly consists of an almost-unsourced "examples" section). I propose creating Flight (aviation), that would cover/include:

• the above topics (which would be redirected to the new article),
• Flight length could be merged into this article
• split content from flight so that article focuses on the science of flight, while Flight (aviation) covers flight as transportation from one point to another(yes, a flight can end where it started, but I don't know how to phrase that better). Sections in the flight article that would be moved to the proposed article are the "Takeoff and landing", "Guidance, Navigation and Control" and the "Flight safety" sections
• The proposed article would also cover concepts related to flight as transportation in summary style, such as ATC, other types of flights (air charter, air taxi), navigation, airports, and laws/regulations affecting air travel (Freedoms of the air, Open skies).

Also, I think Non-stop flight is an awkward article. The subject is basically a definition: a flight without intermediate stops. There's not much else to say about the subject. As for the non-stop flight article, the first section defines "Ultra long-haul non-stop flights", which doesn't have much to do with the subject of the article (it's something that should be covered at Flight length). The remainder of the article describes the longest non-stop flights, so the article doesn't have much scope. The subject of "non-stop flights" should be moved into the proposed article (it would just be a definition along side direct flight), then that article renamed something like "List of longest non-stop flights".

Part of the motivation for cleaning up these articles is rampant overlinking on aviation incident articles, like "Flight 001 was a long-haul, international flight...". A consolidated article about flights (in the aviation sense) would be very useful to provide some focus for a range of topics that currently aren't well connected. (Note: I might not be around for a couple days after posting this) AHeneen (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree 99%, especially 110% about rampant over[insert frivolity of choice]. I'd only say that I think Flight (aviation) is still rather ambiguous as to whether it includes a) the mechanics of artificial flight, or b) military flights. I would suggest something like Flight (air travel), Flight (travel) or Flight (transportation) as the new article title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is a fantastic idea. Merge them all, just like you've said. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea to roll them up into one perhaps Flight (air travel) would be better than Flight (aviation) then it can cover all aspects of commercial flights. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rationalisation looks like a great idea. However, rolling them up into something like Flight (air travel) or Flight (aviation) is likely to fail WP:AT quite catastrophically, considering that we already have titles which are very widely used in the real world. bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that combining these articles makes a lot of sense, especially articles like Air charter, which are just spam magnets. My only concern is that we need a better title than Flight (aviation). It seems tautological to me, what other kind of flight is there other than aviation flights? How about Airline flight, since that is really what we are talking about here (ie not general aviation or military aviation). - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Airline flight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Slight preference for Flight (air travel) because it is less ambiguous regarding charters. Better still would be a term that also covers cargo, but I can think of nothing better than Flight (commercial) which I don't like either. BTW there could be a Flight of birds too, but that wouldn't make an encyclopedian article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To determine an acceptable title, it's probably best to focus on and determine the scope of the new article first, then determine the best title (using an RfC if needed). The article will cover both scheduled and charter commercial passenger flights, which is obviously the main subject. Since the original proposal also includes an overview (summary style, not replaces the following articles) of ATC and applicable law (freedoms, open skies), I think it would be logical to include air taxi and cargo flights. Furthermore, what about types of aircraft besides airplanes, such as helicopter and airship flights? I think the scope should cover commercial flights of all types (including helicopter & airship flights), but exclude general aviation and the science behind aircraft in flight (currently discussed at Flight#Physics). AHeneen (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created an outline to help visualize the scope of the new article. The "Definitions" section will define the bulleted terms. The wikilinks in the other sections are a mixture of subjects/articles that will be discussed in this article and subjects/articles that are merely relevant to the sections and will receive a short mention. AHeneen (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I will hopefully have some time in the next couple of weeks to work on this. AHeneen (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

LAN Chile Flight 210

Unsure about naming conventions but I've created LAN Chile Flight 210, feel free to rip my work to shreds :) GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with the name, thanks for starting the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that it was reported at the time that the wreckage had been found so I am not sure why it became "missing" to be found again this year. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Eyes on new User please

There is a new editor, User:Johnfromchina2015, whose English skills leave rather a lot to be desired and is focusing on aviation articles. I have undone his edits, but he has started reinstating them. Could others please keep an eye on him. YSSYguy (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you are not the only one. I have dropped a message on their talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I went through his edits, it looks like pretty much all of them have been reverted. His English is so bad that it is hard to tell if he is spamming or not. I think he might be doing machine translation or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If there are continued problems, it may be worth giving WP:CHINA a shout and asking for assistance from a Chinese speaker. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV)?

Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle is a lifting body vehicle, it uses aerodynamic forces for active vehicle control, wouldn't this make it an aircraft, and thus in-scope? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. For example many guided missiles use their bodies to provide lift and/or have aerodynamic controls but they are not classed as aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_16#Template:Ameri-Cana_Ultralights_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

Hello everyone. I'd like to draw your attention to the edits made by Woy23 (talk · contribs) who insists in bypassing redirects at airport and airline related articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's another user that keeps bypassing redirects at airport articles: Vmzp85 (talk · contribs) [10].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Vmzp85's edits are bad at all. WP:NOTBROKEN really means this: say we have an article at title "A", and a redirect pointing to "A" at "B". What one should not do is format a link as [[A|B]], the should just link to the redirect "B" directly (And most especially, if the link to "B" already exists, then no one should reformat it as [[A|B]].) But that's not what we have here. What we have here is a case where the link is [[B|C]] being changed to [[A|C]], which is not only acceptable (the piping isn't being placed to avoid linking to a redirect, as "C", being the name of the city, would be an utterly inappropriate redirect), it is actively encouraged, as one shouldn't link to a redirect unless the purpose is to have the link look exactly like the redirect. So I have no problem with his edits. They strike me as basic maintainence, especially if a page has moved. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN is crystal clear: do not fix redirects. It does include redirects used in a target page within a piped link.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Acme aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_13#Template:Acme_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that this TfD discussion has been re-listed to get wider input as there is no clear consensus on keeping or deleting this template at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus = default keep. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be where we are on both these noms right now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Boeing 717 incident

The ATSB have released their final report into an incident where a Boeing 717 landed on an occupied runway due to ATC errors. A go-around was initiated and there was no damage or injury. As reported by The Aviation Herald, there were major changes implemented as a result of the incident. Does this incident meet the threshold for inclusion in the Boeing 717 article or a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The incident tells us more about ATC than it does about a specific aircraft type so information about it would be better in an article about ATC than about the B717. DexDor (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is about ATC, it could have involved any aircraft type so doesn't really reflect anything about the 717. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this be included in the airport article then? Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but overall I think it is too minor in outcome to be worth mentioning as part of the airport article. It didn't really have any long-term repercussions for the airport and could have happened anywhere. It isn't very specific to this airport, but more an ATC error. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD discussion

For those interested, I have opened a deletion discussion for Bulgaria Air fleet after my edit to redirect it to Bulgaria Air was reverted. YSSYguy (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion as the article was created by a sock of Jajadelera (talk · contribs). Article already deleted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Lift (Force)

An IP editor (who signs themself "Zapletal") has been serially obnoxious and disruptive at Talk:Lift (force) for several months now. I have explained, warned, etc. a few times with increasing emphasis, but all I am getting is more of the same. Can both this and the article itself be semi-protected for at least a month, preferably two or three? Do I need to gather diffs and raise it at WP:RFP first? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Having read over the text there I think admin intervention would be useful at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And it appears the talk page has been semi-protected. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC over at Lift(force)

Should we keep the current quantitative statement on momentum transfer in the second section or replace it with a qualitative version?

Link to RFC.

Comments welcome. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I think I might be heading towards an edit warconfrontation on the subject of British Caledonian and the associated British Caledonian in the 1970s, British Caledonian in the 1980s. I have approached these articles as I have done previously with Dan-Air and British United Airways, the intention to tackle some serious case of citation overkill (four or five cites piling up at end of sentences) and the formatting of references that appear in this style Airline Profile: Number Forty-Two in the Series — British Caledonian, Flight International, 3 August 1972, p. 156. Most of my edits have been formatting of these references, or converting some book references to short cite form but also some copyedit along the way eg this sequence I did also try and get more content summarized from the child articles mentioned above and the Reasons for the failure of British Caledonian article into the parent article.

Now this seems to have antagonized/aggravated an ip editor who has reverted my edits wholesale (and accused me of a certain selfish and regimented mindset). I did earlier revert their first (unexplained) revert of my edits on the 70s article. Is it time for me to walk away? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It just looks like you need help and support to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your changes look fine to me. I reverted some of the mess the IP added. - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

On my watchlist too. I do hope you feel OK to keep at it, you are doing a grand job. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the words (and gestures of support). I can keep plugging away at it. I've started to believe there's less satisfaction in a job well done if you pee off fellow human beings along the way and more so if the cause isn't 'right'.GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

water aerodrome vs. water airport vs. seaplane base

Looking for some input on the following issue. Currently water aerodrome redirects to aerodrome, water airport redirects to airport and seaplane base is a separate article. Would it make more sense to redirect both water aerodrome and water airport to seaplane base? A related issue is that Category:Water aerodromes currently contains only Category:Water aerodromes in Norway and appears (to me at least) essentially redundant with Category:Seaplane bases. Pichpich (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seaplane bases may not be the same as a water aerodrome/airport, I am not sure that water aerodrome/airport is a common phrase in aviation perhaps it is a Norwegian thing. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As aerodrome is pretty much any place where aircraft can expect to take off and land. I'm not sure if a simple dirt strip counts, but certainly if you add a fuel dump and a windsock then you have an aerodrome. An air base is an aerodrome with rather more facilities for looking after the aircraft and crew, i.e. a base of operations. On land the term "air base" seems mostly confined to military use, but on water a seaplane base will more likely be for civilian general aviation. On the other hand, if you have commercial facilities for embarking and disembarking passengers or freight, then you have that type of aerodrome known as an airport. Therefore, all seaplane bases and all water airports are water aerodromes, but not all seaplane bases are water airports or vice versa. However in practice, many sites are described equally commonly as a seaplane base or a water aerodrome, so I do think that separate articles for these can not be justified and that Water aerodrome should be the primary article and that Seaplane base should redirect to it. Many also offer commercial services, so redirecting Water airport there as well would probably be appropriate. Similarly, Category:Water aerodromes is appropriate as a sub-category of Category:Aerodromes (which needs to be created) and further sub-sub-Categories could be appropriate if there were enough articles to justify them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest the category Aerodromes doesnt exist as we seem to follow an American practice of calling all landing grounds airports, even grass strips. Hence List of airports in the United Kingdom has all sort of things that nobody outside of the states would ever call an airport but they are all part of Category:Airports by country and related categories. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe we need to be a little less parochial. I have seen the ICAO use the term "Aerodrome", possibly because the British once stole it from the French, but whatever the origin, I suspect that it is the correct international term. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Aerodrome" is (if I remember correctly) the largest denominator for any place where an aeroplane (perhaps even a more general term, to also include aerostats and dirigibles) may land and/or take off. It surely is ICAO vocabulary. I feel certain the term also covers helicopter landing places on top of buildings, it really tries to cover as much as possible. As to the original question, and the subsequent discussion: I strongly disagree that <quote>we seem to follow an American practice of calling all landing grounds airports</quote>, I have changed the title of many articles to call them "xxx airfield" or "zzz aerodrome"; and indeed I regret the lack of nuance in US parlance. But "water aerodromes" or whatever they must be called are quite rare here in Europe - my own poor little country actually has zero of them - and few countries have plenty of them. Norway and Finland might have the largest numbers. I feel "seaplane base" to be most used, but must admit it is a bit confusing, as "air base" implicitly refers to a military aerodrome. OTOH "water aerodrome", whilst certainly correct, sounds a bit too bookish. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests that Canada has a good few water aerodromes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Canada and Alaska must be the places where they are most common. That's why I feel that people from there should have most to say on the matter, but OTOH I mistrust the generalisations (such as "In the USA they say airport for any flying field"). And does ICAO have anything to say on the specific subject of water aerodromes, and what to call them properly? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been a bit vague, but at least let me clearly agree that Category:Aerodromes needs to be created, to be the root of a whole hierarchic tree of aerodrome categories. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

((a bit off-topic: the gentleman English never steal, but languagewise they have borrowed quite a lot, not least from the French.)) Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My comment about airport was the fact that any landing field/aerodrome/airbase/airport is in the "airport" category structure. The legal term used by the CAA in the UK is "aerodrome" which covers more than just airport. Perhaps we need to re-think how these places that aircraft use are categorised. I have also seen "Military airports" in some articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In 2014 ICAO's Aerodromes Operations and Planning Working Group held a seminar on Water Aerodromes: [11] It looks from the linked information as if they are regarded as much the same thing as what one American speaker knew as seaplane bases.

I agree that many articles are catergorised incorrectly and should not be in Category:Airports]], and we should try and fix that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created Category:Aerodromes and begun populating it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If this helps: in Canada an aerodrome is any place used for landing or take-off of aircraft, whereas an airport is a certified aerodrome. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, the CFS lists water aerodromes, thus Canadian usage (anyways, TCan seems to use the term). -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

John Joseph Montgomery

Recently a new editor accompaied by an established SPA Have made an extensive series of (in my view) controversial edits to this page. So far as I am aware the mainstream POV] is that Montgomery acheived a single glide in 1884 anf that the othe two gliders buily in the 1880s were failures. This is in line with the account given by Octave Chanute, who is repeating claims made in 1893 by Montgomery. The editors are citing a number of later documents mainly written by Montgomery: my belief is that these are not reliable. Another point of view (or two) on this would be appreciated.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Documents written by Montgomery are WP:PRIMARY sources. Ideally, we need secondary reporting by secondary sources (The Times perhaps?). If claims made are rebutted, then this can be stated. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Essentially Montgomery is of so little significance that most histories have nothing to say about him.TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE allows for some coverage, though his own claims should not dominate the content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines Flight 191

User:Veggies is looking to improve Delta Air Lines Flight 191 to a Featured Article, including changing the citation style, date format and suggesting that the article will "balloon in sources, info, and media". Supportive of anybody improving an article but any views welcome on the article talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Acme Aircraft Corporation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acme Aircraft Corporation. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible new article?

I would like to see a new article with Aircraft engines listed by date of first test run, or introduction? The first test run would give the best demonstration of the state of technology at the time. I think introduction would seem easiest to me, but would lag behind the true state of the art as it takes time to modify old planes for new engines, and longer still to design new planes around new engines. In addition to this idea, I think we should add the Piston Crown Area Power Density to the list of piston engine attributes. ( HP/Square inches of piston crown, and or, Kw/Cm^2 of piston crown.) This single measure tells us the most significant detail of a piston engine.) Unlike power per unit of displacement, which is extremely variable with conditions not related to the engine itself, The power per unit of piston crown area is the most pure indicator of the state of development of the engine. It also allows comparison of any recip engine to any other in a meaningful way that has little to nothing to do with the instillation. I would offer to help, but my time and energy available to work are extremely limited. Sincerely, Stewart Davies. neoconshooter@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.155.218 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Carbon fiber"

What does carbon fiber mean? We are discussing the primary topic at talk:carbon (fiber). As carbon fiber is a common aviation material, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Airsport aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_17#Template:Airsport_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors can note that another editor has now completed the missing redlinks for this template, whereas it only had one aircraft type article before. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings crash

Germanwings Flight 9525 with 148 on board, for anyone who hasn't heard. 220 of ^Borg 12:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to post a guide to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force as instructions for what Wikipedians may do when an air crash occurs:

1. Determine the "essential languages" of the topic based upon: The country of the airline, the country of occurrence, the origin and/or destination of the flight, and/or the countries of large numbers of passengers.

• For instance Air France Flight 447 was a French airliner (French), crashing in international waters (no additional language), had originated in Rio de Janeiro (Portuguese), and had large numbers of French, Brazilians and Germans aboard (in addition to French and Portuguese: German)
• The airline and/or the air accident agencies may post information in those languages. In addition to French and English, Air France posted information in Portuguese and German, and the BEA did this as well.
• With Germanwings Flight 9525 the crash involved a German airline (German), occurred in France (French), originated in Barcelona (Spanish and Catalan), and had large numbers of Germans and Spaniards aboard. Germanwings and the BEA post information in all of these languages except for Catalan. I stated in the Commons talk page that the BEA doesn't post in Catalan, but I think Wikipedians should strive to have content available in Catalan anyway.

2. Collect the URLs from the involved air accident agencies and the airline, and post them to the English Wikipedia and the respective Wikipedias of the essential languages. Back up the links using Internet Archive and webcitation.org and post the backups to the crash article talk page.

3. Ensure that the Commons has language descriptions in these essential languages and that material is available in these essential languages.

: By doing this you will deliver timely information to people around the world who need to know about the disaster, including friends, family, air accident agencies, etc. If you do not know any of the languages, kindly enlist the help of Wikipedians who can assist you.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively - wait for reliable sources to post usable information for this encyclopaedia, send all the other stuff to https://en.wikinews.org/ GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to linking content that is already posted by the airline and/or the accident investigation agencies, not necessarily by news companies. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Early news reporting on a disaster can be very error prone. There was a news report on this crash that the flight sent a Mayday or distress signal....William 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the need to create instructions. I would like to create a draft, but think it is best to wait for a week or two for things to settle down around here. There is a draft that was created many years ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). AHeneen (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Re initial reporting of an event , see Wikipedia:RSBREAKING. An article on a crash does not need a great list on its talk page that represents the blow-by-blow recounting of press releases, official announcements, subsequent retractions and clarifications. There is an essay Wikipedia:Breaking news sources which I think has pertinent advice. Also I suspect most of us couldn't edit competently on a foreign wiki particularly the non-Latin alphabets. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In regards to adding important links in the external links page: The airline and/or the relevant accident investigation agencies usually have a central webpage where all developments are listed. In this case Germanwings had one for each language (German, English, Spanish, and French) and the BEA had one each in French and English. Usually it means two or so links in the external links section.

I believe that for Latin languages most editors on EN could add the external links with little fuss (especially since the titles of the foreign language pages will already be in those languages, and/or it's an English page so an English title is understandable), and on CJKV (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese) wikis the editors understand when links in English are added. I think EN editors may find lots of issues adding pages on "right-to-left" languages (Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, and Urdu).

If on a particular language Wiki no airline/accident authority links are available in that language, in most cases I post the relevant links of the original language of the airline/accident authority and English. For instance on the Russian Wikipedia article on this accident I would post the Germanwings links in German and English, and the BEA links in French and English. In the case of the Arabic Wikipedia it's a good idea to post English and French links since readers from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia will know French better than English. On the Catalan Wikipedia it seems like editors bristle if you try to post dedicated Castillian Spanish links without links in all other languages as they feel Castillian Spanish is being pushed on them if you try that.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that what other language wikis do is really relevant, nothing stopping users here making a contribution but basically it has nothing to do with this English project. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They are relevant because Wikipedia is a worldwide project and we EN editors need to look out and support editors of other Wikipedias and do so in an organized manner (but without imposing on them/interfering with them). Yes, technically EN, ES, FR, and DE are separate projects, but they work better when everybody works together and shares information. If we help them by posting the necessary links/setting up Commons links/etc, they can help us by providing translations of materials, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK but this is still English Wikipedia so is not really a worldwide project so what they do is still not relevant and as commons is bit of a disaster area as far as the organisation of aviation material is concerned most of us try to avoid the place other than upload pictures. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If "worldwide" is defined as people not from native English speaking countries, EN gets readers and Wikipedians who don't have English as a native language, especially in the field of aviation since aviation uses English as a lingua franca. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Google translate does a reasonable job on most major languages. At least good enough to get the gist of what is being said, although it is not quite so good at subject-object-verb order. That is something that you have to work with/around. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons questions

I'm active on Commons a lot, so if there are any issues with how aviation material is organized you can tell me and I can try to do something about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK how about the completely disorganised category system that makes it impossible to find images like Category:Green painted Airbus A320 A-BCDE operated by Foo Airlines at Fooville bit of an exaggeration but the current categories dont help finding images. Although I dont have a problem with categorising by serial number/registration it is done without the realisation that these identities are not unique so you can end up with completely the wrong aircraft in a type category because they were moved from the actual image to the identity cat. If you wanted to invent a category system to hide images then commons is a good example, I could go on but this is not the place and when you raise it on commons there is no coherent organisation to sort all this out. (it also doesnt help that those categorising aircraft by identity have no knowledge of the difference between a code and a serial or registration, Italy being one disaster area in this regard) MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the cat-astrophe on Commons, but the justification for the mess is not using parent cats when daughter or granddaughter cats exist. Not sure how to get around that, but it makes image hunting very tedious. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For example, this week I was looking for a good in-flight photo of the SOCATA TBM, which has a Commons link to commons:Category:Socata TBM. Note that there are no photos on that category page, and one of the daughter cats has 14 more cats! - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Tangopaso thought of an idea: See Commons:Category:Eiffel Tower and how there are images presented in the index page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the user manually added a gallery, which would be a lot of work, and would have to be continually updated. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If there was an automatic process of adding a visual directory would that make things easier? I'm not a programmer but maybe somebody who does that stuff can get to work on such a system? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be easier to make an option to view all the images of a category and all its sub-categories at one time. That would certainly solve the problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD notification

This is to let interested parties know that 1942 RAF Hudson Crash has been nominated for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Some articles needing work

G'day all, during the most-recent of my periodic hunts for the word "aircrafts" I came across several articles that IMO need licking into shape. They are:

• Vistara
• Forces Goal 2030
• Meraj Airlines
• Asian Aviation Centre (Sri Lanka)
• New Gen Airways

Feel free to tackle (or not!) any of them - and remember, the plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft". YSSYguy (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Air Methods

Anyone care to take a look at Air Methods and give a third opinion regarding the headquarters location. It's a long term dispute over self-declared city / mailing address / address on FAA docs, unincorporated areas, Colorado geography, etc. There's talk page history going back to 2008 on the subject as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The great detail on the HQ location seems a bit much in the Lead. At least move it to later in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The location was agreed in previous discussions see comments from 2009, I also had a go at making the page a bit more encyclopedic rather than a publicity brochure for the company, it could also do with some better references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The Englewood, Colorado address issue is much larger. For example, Centennial Airport's article lists Dove Valley, CO as it's location, but http://www.centennialairport.com makes no mention of Dove Valley anywhere on their website and all the mailing addresses and docs with FAA.gov say Englewood, which is their mailing address.[12] Most of the other corps around the airport similarly use Englewood, Colorado as mailing addresses, but a user has taken it upon himself to purge those articles of Englewood in favor of whatever unincorporated area that he feels is closer to the physical location. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, Jeppesen's website says "We are headquartered in Englewood, Colorado and have offices located around the world."[13] but wikipedia says, "Jeppesen is headquartered in Inverness, Colorado,[1] an unincorporated area of Arapahoe County" with reference 1 to their page that says Englewood followed by what is basically original research. It's as if we are saying never mind what their website says about Englewood, wikipedia says it's in Inverness. My opinion is that is a company self-describes as located in Englewood, then the infobox should say Englewood in the HQ field. It seems like 100% WP:OR list some unincorp area that is not mentioned anywhere on the company or airport website. The same applies to the OR at Adam Aircraft Industries, IHS Inc. and others in that business park with addresses of Englewood. Should we be correcting the Centennial Airport page and Jeppesen or just leave it be? It's basically one user who has purged these of the word Englewood. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We should rely on sources, not on editors' own ideas about what geography should be. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bobrayner - we have to go with what the refs say. Footnote it and be done with it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they are going to allow cited material to stand, they will just continue to revert it at Jeppesen and Air Methods. Both companies clearly self-identify their HQ as Englewood, I don't know how much clearer it could be than that. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably because the postal address is Englewood, although outside of the township's limits. I've lived in similar situations myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To make that clear, the mailing address is not the location. The USPS does not care about the physical location. Their assigned address is for the sorting of mail only! Generally if there is a question, you need to check the assessors web site. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The physical building where people work, the registered office and the correspondence address can all be different. Sometimes one or more is only an accommodation address, a proxy office who basically just pass stuff on, and from what people are saying here it looks like Englewood is just that. A Wikipedia with any sense should be able to cope with all this, even if it means modifying our templates. What we should be doing is to note the address given in the sources and if necessary which kind it is. Anything not in reliable sources is OR and should be reverted. Persistent warring to reintroduce OR is a matter for a little preparation (such as user talk page warnings) before taking to WP:ANI. Don't know if this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, when a company website explicitly says "We are headquartered in Englewood, Colorado and have offices located around the world."[14] or "Air Methods’ headquarters are located on the north side of Centennial Airport in Englewood"[15] that doesn't leave much ambiguity. I realize that it is their USPS mailing address, and their facilities are not physically in downtown Englwood, but each company could put whatever they want on their own website, and they chose to say our HQ is in Englewood, not just our address is Englewood but we are in blah blah. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think my position has always been templates should have an address (no links) and a location. Just because a company claims their address as their location does not make it right. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement since their addresses are both Englewood, CO and that is the location they explicitly list on their websites. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No we are not. What they say to location is, may not be where it is. Companies like to use the address as their location which is not always accurate. As I said someone needs to check and see what the local assessor says. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Jeppesen, Inverness is not a civil township, at best it is a CDP as for the Assessor they list "Situs Address: 55 Inverness Dr E Situs City: Englewood as well as billing address. [16] The assessor lists the neighborhood as Inverness, but city as Englewood. Basically everything in unicorp areas in that area comes up as Englewood. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on ENSCO, Inc. I've devised a way of dealing with these US location-related issues: In cases were places are in unincorporated areas, state both the physical location and the USPS mailing address: Talk:ENSCO,_Inc.#Regarding the address and location of this company

• 1. You may confirm the physical location through maps at the U.S. Census Bureau - Select census block maps and go to "place" - You can use municipal maps and/or maps from the company. You may also cite the entire USPS mailing address so a Wikipedian may use a mapping program to check the physical location. See Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations
• 2. You also mention the USPS mailing address city like in ENSCO, Inc.

If it's in an unincorporated area not in a census-designated place I write it like: "XXXX is in unincorporated YYY County, ZZZ, near WWWW/with a AAA mailing address." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fabre Aéroplane marin"

An editor who I have not encountered has moved Fabre Hydravion (to my knowledge the usual name} to the above, without any consensus. They did mention the proposed move on the talk page: I raised an objection & suggested raising the issue here. That was yesterday: today I see it has been moved. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've moved it back (which I did not think I would be able to), but a discussion on the talk page would be proper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Airport railway station listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Airport railway station. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fleet status for GE Capital Aviation Services

Why is documenting fleet losses for GECAS not acceptable, when the article already documents fleet acqusitions as part of the company history? The company outlays money to buy x-number of planes, but when a plane is lost, it shouldn't also be documented? It's a large monetary loss for the company, so seems significant to company history, as much as buying planes. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The operator was Air Canada, which is responsible for the compensations and liabilities (if any). GECAS has nothing to do with AC624.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The owner of the aircraft certainly does have something to do with it, since it is their property, thus a balance sheet event, as a loss of a major capital asset. It would be like a real estate company losing a building to a disaster, even if the building were rented out to a different company for their use. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GECAS is certainly not paying any compensation.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GECAS has lost a major capital asset, so is a corporate history event. Compensation has nothing to do with it. And some people sue everyone standing when they sue. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe, but details such as the number of GECAS's aircraft with each operator is not that notable long term to GECAS. Totals and summary info should be fine though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Until the 1 April edits that deleted the information, there was info about purchases for aircraft, so the loss of an airframe would have been in line with the information already present in the article. After the 1 April edits, those purchases were removed from corporate history. So, going by the old state of the article, I didn't see why it wouldn't be part of the corporate history. If we go by the new state of the article, then no, it wouldn't be consistent with current content. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion

A {{merge to}} tag has been posted to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, suggesting a merger of that article into the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station article. If anyone is interested in weighing-in, please see Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion. (I am also posting this on the Military History and Cold War project talk pages, since they may have an interest in this discussion, too).

This may not apply because it's military aviation, but I thought it's better to be thorough than miss interested parties. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Briffaud aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this nav box template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_29#Template:Briffaud_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be noted that this TfD was closed as "no consensus" and therefore the template has been retained. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate in need of reviewers

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avianca Flight 52/archive1 is in need of knowledgable reviewers. I improved and nominated the article for FA-status. So far, no one has come forward to do a "support/oppose" review and the article nom is getting a bit stale. Would appreciate some help. Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Corruption at SriLankan Airlines

Issue raised at Talk:SriLankan Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster B III JA914

The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an Avro-built at Chadderton in Lancashire, if I remember they were roaded to Woodford to be flight tested. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)