Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Airline names vs. Flight names

Note: This discussion relates to the issues raised at Talk:Kogalymavia Flight 9268#Page move.

The current style guide (WP:AVINAME) for the project is to use the name of the airline for aviation accidents/incidents, rather than the name of the airline the flight was operating as/for. This issue has come up a few times, such as Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (all flights are simply AirAsia and indistinguishable from most AirAsia franchises) and recently Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (marketed as MetroJet Flight 9268). The problem with these is that the airlines did not operate any flights as "Indonesia AirAsia" or "Kogalymavia", but all flights were marketed as (and in the livery of) AirAsia or MetroJet. This raises the issue of whether using the airline's name violates WP:COMMONNAME policy. While consistency is a reasonable argument, for chemicals we use the common name if it exists (eg. water, not dihydrogen monoxide). Should the naming policy be changed to reflect the name as marketed and widely used in reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Article titles (a policy, not just a guideline)?

This guideline should be applied only when the name of the airline is almost exclusively used for the flight name (per WP:COMMONNAME). It should not be applied when an airline is operating a flight for another airline (whose name is used for the flight), but the airline operating the flight is widely associated with the incident. In other words, this should not be applied to regional carriers operating flights for a major airline when the regional airline's name is widely used in reliable sources for the flight, eg. Colgan Air Flight 3407 (operated as "Continental Connection Flight 3407"), Comair Flight 5191 (operated as "Delta Connection Flight 5191"), Air Midwest Flight 5481 (operated as "US Airways Express Flight 5481"). However, in the cases of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 and Kogalymavia Flight 9268, nearly all reliable sources use just "AirAsia" or "MetroJet" and the names of those airlines were relatively obscure to the public. AHeneen (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME trumps here. In the case of Kogalymavia it should be under MetroJet. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the guidelines usually work out with a sensible result so I'm not suggesting these need wholsale change - I don't however see the current use of Kogalymavia as sensible and would much prefer the use of MetroJet, which is uncontroversially WP:COMMONNAME. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I support the use of WP:COMMONNAME in certain cases such as this, maybe the rationale can be elucidated better by some others though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwood0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Support this as well. If most reliable sources (e.g. news articles, etc.) refer to it with the common name, then that should be the primary name of the article. Does anyone know how the NTSB or other investigative agencies refer to these incidents in their reports? 171.66.209.8 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass removal of project banners

I don't know if this has been discussed at this project, or even if the project cares, but I thought you might like to know that User:Petebutt is mass removing the project banner from military air unit articles. SpinningSpark 09:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Superfluous as already covered by collaboration with the Military aviation project!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that an article should only be within the scope of one WikiProject? SpinningSpark 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of G-ARRP

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/G-ARRP. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Aviation in India

Need help for my new article. Please review Aviation in India -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 13:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should accident reports refer to pilots by name or by role?

In my experience, when aircraft accident reports describe the sequence of actions taken by pilots, the pilots are referred to by role (e.g. captain) rather than by name. Recent edits to Colgan Air Flight 3407 have inserted names into the factual events. Does the project have a convention or a view on this? Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My very personal view: only mention the name if it is notable - which we can easily and sufficiently accurately correspond to the existence of an article for the crew members concerned. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally per Jan. Notable aircrew would include those who are given a significant award for their actions, even though they may not have an article of their own. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wing configuration

Could use some aerodynamic second opinions in a couple of discussions at Talk:Wing configuration: an edit warrior isn't listening. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

List of individual aircraft and fiction

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:List_of_individual_aircraft#fictional_aircraft as to whether real aircraft used to depict fictional machines should be included in the List of individual aircraft. Currently it is little more than a dialogue between two of us. Any more contributors would be gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This has now been resolved — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Execuflight Flight EFT1526

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/Execuflight Flight EFT1526. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Trapezoidal and elliptical wings

Do these topics merit their own articles? I have started a couple of discussions:

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How to become apart of this WikiProject

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm looking to try and get the page Mental health in aviation as part of the WikiProject. How do I go about doing this?

Thanks for your help Mbenderb1 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Add a "banner" to the article's talk page. Look at the top of Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. It has a section with "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:". I added the banners for this WikiProject and the Psychology WikiProject. AHeneen (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Much appreciated! Mbenderb1 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Mayday episode info

I have been reviewing some air accident pages and find a great many of them have section entries like this:

=== Dramatisation ===

Flight 28M is dramatised in the episode "Panic on the Runway" of the Canadian television documentary series Mayday (otherwise known as Air Crash Investigations and Air Emergency with a title of "Manchester Runway Disaster").

I think it excessive to lend a television program about an air accident an entire section, paragraph or sentence, but there is some disagreement about this. I welcome input from Wikiproject Aviation members; a discussion about this has been started here, it includes my rationale for deletion. --Rhombus (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lists again

More discussion on the finer points of tabulated lists of aircraft here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accidents by location

Today I stumbled across List of aviation accidents and incidents in Australia, List of aviation accidents and incidents in Ireland, Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia and Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ireland, all recently created by User:Mikhat, but currently incomplete with only a single incident listed in most of them. Before we start expanding it with data from existing articles/cats like List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location#Australia and Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Australia as a start, do we really need these "by location" articles and templates? I see that whilst most other countries have categories, not many seem to have articles or templates. The-Pope (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No they are just duplicating the category system. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I PRODed the list articles, so if no one objects they'll be gone in 7 days. The templates can't be PRODed, though, and need to go to WP:TFD. oknazevad (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

William M Leary

I just created a stub for William M Leary who was recognized as an aviation historian. The article is currently an orphan, so I thought I would post here in the event regulars to this project are familiar with similar articles. Thanks. - Location (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with a draft article?

I was wondering if anyone could come and help out with the draft article Draft:Workload management for air traffic controllers, which was/is part of a student assignment. The article read like a student paper and I'm also unsure as to whether or not this topic would really warrant an individual article outside of the main one on air traffic controllers, however I thought that it might be a good idea to ask around here for help just in case this could be salvaged to where it'd either warrant an individual article or to where it could be merged into the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Military transport aircraft

An editor has removed the project's template from Talk:Military transport aircraft. Is this correct or should we have our template there as well as the Military Wikiproject's? (Our template was only added a couple of days ago) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

List of individual aircraft

It's mardy editor season today. Another editor is warring over adding a long "See also" list of list articles to List of individual aircraft. This is not something we usually add to aircraft lists. Can some more eyes settle the matter? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

IP 79.118.116.218 adding Romania as origin for Bristol on List of World War I Entente aircraft

I reverted the changes twice and someone else has reverted them once but they keep making the same alterations, if someone else could have another look in on them. They have made similar edits on other pages. ThanksNiD.29 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Aviation photos that belong to us, our precious!

The issue of images from Flight has arisen again at Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Andy. I fear that in the short term the law may trump sanity, but at least there may be a way ahead in the longer term. I may not have time to download them all for my (perfectly legal) private research, I hope you may want to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. AHeneen (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mid-air collision naming

WP:AVINAME doesn't give clear guidance for a midair collision when only one of the two aircraft had a flight number. In the case of Ceiba Intercontinental Airlines Flight 71, it was the plane without a flight number that was lost and the aircraft with the flight number apparently didn't have much damage (it continued all the way to its final destination, although it skipped a stop-over). In this case, is it really appropriate to name the article for the aircraft that didn't suffer much damage? I think that 2015 Senegal mid-air collision would be more appropriate. AHeneen (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through Category:Mid-air collisions to changes titles to appropriate ones, but would like to ask about these incidents:

Are Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision, & Überlingen mid-air collision common names for these events or should they include the year per AVINAME?
Are Green Ramp disaster, 1997 Israeli helicopter disaster, & Ramstein air show disaster common names ? If not, "disaster" is not appropriate to use in an article title, per WP:DISASTER.
Should the following titles be kept or changed to the more generic "YEAR LOCATION mid-air collision": 1966 Palomares B-52 crash, 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision, & 1989 Alice Springs hot air balloon crash?
Is notability appropriate to use as a title in the case of First mid-air collision of airliners?

AHeneen (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You make good points here on all cases. I think you are right on the renaming. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the title of Ceiba Intercontinental Airlines Flight 71. Charki Dadri and Überlingen do not need disambiguation by year until there are two collisions in two separate years to dab. The First mid-air collision of airliners is fine for a title too. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-terrestrial aircraft

Does WPAVIATION cover all aviation topics, or only aviation topics that pertain to the Earth? There are designs for aircraft for Venus, Mars and Titan, and aircraft have actually flown in the Venusian atmosphere already. Do such items fall under WPAVIATION and WPAIRCRAFT? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Those should fall under both WPAIRCRAFT and WP:SPACEFLIGHT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images"

Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)". Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME)

There is a discussion at Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer#Article title on the capitalisation of the article for this qualification. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive linking in list tables

Some of our list tables have repetitive linking for some items, for example the role of "Fighter" endlessly linked to Fighter aircraft for each type listed. I have found conflicting MOS guidelines about this, so I have started a discussion about Linking on the AVILIST talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Bracing (aeronautics)

Thinking to create a new article on Bracing (aeronautics) and merge in both Flying wires and Interplane strut as well as add some new content. I could move one of the existing articles across to preserve its edit history, but if I simply copy-paste content in from the other then the history will be lost. So, two questions:

Is this a good idea in the first place?
Is it possible to merge the existing edit histories, and if not then what is the best approach?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose merging. There are three other strut articles not mentioned here and probably other related but distinctly separate subject articles. The proposed title is not intuitive. They should all be linked using main article links (summary style) from an overview airframe structure article, can't say if they are or not (similar to Aircraft engine). I replied to the other merge proposal at Trapezoidal wing but there was no response. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Lift strut in particular has a rambling historical section more relevant to bracing in general and that needs to be moved/merged/adapted across, with or without the rest of the article. If nothing else, Jury strut should be merged with Lift strut, but I am not sure whether that combined article would be able to stand alone, so I didn't include it in my current proposal. I have no axe to grind over the title of the more general article, but bracing and rigging are about more than just wings. Would Aircraft bracing be more intuitive? There is an Airframe article you might wish to check out.

FYI the suggestion at Talk:Trapezoidal wing was for an AfD. I have now replied to you there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In the end I mashed together the content of Flying wires, Interplane strut, Cabane strut, Lift strut and Jury strut and added some more stuff to create Bracing (aeronautics). So I just changed the title of this discussion to match. There is a lot of repetition, cruft and wrongly-homed material across those articles and they are all pretty short. Please take a look at Bracing (aeronautics) and tell me if you think that any of those short little mess-ups is worth reworking rather than redirecting? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask what a 'mess-up' is? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Things like putting biplane bracing information (which I since removed) in an article on monoplane lift struts, ignoring monoplanes in an article on flying wires (which is really about bracing wires in general anyway), failing to understand that in level flight the main purposes of an interplane strut include reacting against the tension in the incidence wire which transmits engine thrust to the upper wing and stiffening the wing against transient distortions such as torsion and flapping, and including an image of a strutless machine with no explanation why, an utter failure to demonstrate the notability of the jury strut, etc. etc. I could go on with more embarrassments, do you really need me to? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits have missed all the procedures outlined in Wikipedia:Merging, I clearly objected above (no consensus for merging). The new article has many uncited claims, I can assure you that Tiger Moth wires are not adjusted daily and 'transmitting engine thrust to the top wing' is a new concept of the purpose of rigging wires to me. Wikipedia has a good goal but at times, more recently, it fails terribly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Linebacker; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker II needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Linebacker II; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft-class

I was wondering if this project wanted to consider the addition of the Draft class. It would require a change to the template. Currently, draft articles are all under Category:NA-Class aviation articles and require manually being set as "NA-class" or else it'll be called unassessed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any demand for this to date. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well that's cause the articles are currently at Category:NA-Class aviation articles. It makes pages like Draft talk:Frank Barr more complicated for this project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In what fashion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean, so that Category:NA-Class aviation articles would contain only articles genuinely awaiting assessment, while articles still being worked up can be listed in a new Category:Draft aviation articles? That sounds sensible, although we have a fairly small throughput so it wouldn't make a huge difference. I am certainly in favour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that draft articles in draft space have had their WPAVIATION banners deleted by WPAVIATION assessors, so the "lack of demand" may be illusionary due to the deletion of templates. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Are rejected DRAFTs also covered by WPAVIATION? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment categories template

As a separate issue, the code in a templated Category typically looks like {{Template:WPAVIATION WikiProject assessment level category|Aviation|[class]}} where [class] is NA or whatever. It seems wasteful to have the word "aviation" hard-coded in the template name and then have to enter it again as a variable. is there a reason for that? There is no template documentation to explain this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta

An IP warrior now doing the same thing at Air Wing of the Armed Forces of Malta. Help appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Macedonian Air Force

H, Could do with some support at Macedonian Air Force where an edit warrior is reverting my changes and refusing to discuss them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Warrior has been given a final warning. Let me know if there's any further trouble and I'll unlock the banhammer case. If the article needs locking temporarily, I am willing to do so. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:AVILIST

Bringing this to peoples attention here. Per consensus at this project I made the following edit at Egyptian Air Force, I suppose in order to gauge the reaction from editors of the more nationalistic air forces. As suspected, my edits were later reverted. User:AHMED XIV being the culprit this time, who also strangely enough proceeded to copy and paste my user page to his own. Anyway, it would be great if an editor or two could also keep an eye on the page. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Culprit for creating my user page nearly similar to yours, That's nonsense. You changed the form of the table, put all aircraft together without classifying them and deleted information with references. You completely disfigured the table and made it harder for visitors to read the information. You are free to edit any content inside the table providing an accurate reference and respecting other users edits. -AHMED XIV (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Just drawing the attention of Steelpillow. Nope, edits reflect consensus at this project... as for your assessment that WP:AVILIST disfigures the table and makes it harder to read... that is simply not the case, go ahead and compare the two revisions objectively. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Any Airforce page has a table of categorized aircraft, not just a bunch of aircraft added together. The table already reflects the consensus on this project. You have done nothing new except for disfiguring it. I'm not telling you not to edit, do what you want, but keep it organized and categorized. -AHMED XIV (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The changes made by Antiochus the Great (talk · contribs) do appear to be in line with the AVILIST guideline. The suggestion that they were no longer classified is wrong: the Class and Role columns together provide a finer classification: the table was made sortable, so now either of these may now be sorted on to group types having the required characteristic. This issue, and others related to it, have been discussed several times by this Project and the consensus is that it does in fact improve readability and not reduce it as also suggested above. For example a new column here is the date the type was introduced, while the extensive subdivisions and notes on Variants, which both mess up layout and clutter the table, may - or should - be found in the articles on the types concerned. All in all I support the content of Antiochus' edit fully. Such major surgery is bound to create waves, so it is good that people have come here to discuss it. Like all guidelines, WP:AVLIST is not set in stone and if it throws up problems it can be revisited. But I have to say that in the present case, it was developed expressly to deal with the kinds of issues that are being raised here. I have posted a link to this discussion on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm strongly with Ahmed on this one. Why are you claiming that a list with half the information gone is somehow an "improvement"? Sure, there's a column now with nothing in it other than a repeated citation. Sure, that's awfully neat, but it's hardly of encyclopedic value, is it? Why remove the breakdowns by role? The notes on introduction dates? I sincerely hope we don't really have a guideline that says, "Don't say anything, it'll make the article look untidy." Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, regarding your concerns on notes, subsections by role etc... that information is already readily available at the relevant aircraft or operator articles. Also, the 'Class and 'Role' columns per WP:AVILIST are a superior method of classification, especially as they allow the entire list to benefit from the sortable function. On the whole, WP:AVILIST offers a much clearer, tidier and readable list - a good example can be found at List of active United Kingdom military aircraft, compare these two revisions; pre WP:AVILIST and current WP:AVILIST. I would encourage an objective comparison. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The information is also available from Janes' or by travelling to Cairo. However we're trying to produce an article on the Egyptian Air Force, and it should be readable in one, without having to browse to other articles.

If class and role are agreed to be so important, why have their member counts been removed here? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus, That note you're neglecting is very important. It contains information gathered from all over the internet and presented in a simple way. For instance, a new visitor wants to know everything related to the Egyptian F-16, by reading this small and easy note, he'll be able to gather everything about the aircraft in no time. Look at List of active United States military aircraft. - AHMED XIV (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy: Notes should not contain general information that is easily found on the relevant operator or aircraft article. Furthermore, excessive notes are poor form, especially on smaller desktops, tablets or mobiles which have narrow browsers - such tables become unreadable. WP:AVILIST better accommodates all these platforms. Ultimately, the rules at WP:AVILIST reflect current consensus on this and other matters. @AHMED: List of active United States military aircraft is not currently in full accordance with those rules, so it is probably best not to use that article as an example. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The present discussion is a useful forum to determine whether Antiochus the Great applied WP:AVLIST sensibly to the Egyptian Air Force article and perhaps to note other issues and where they may be discussed. The format defined at WP:AVLIST has been hammered out before and consensus agreed: if people want to question that consensus, then the guideline's talk page is the place for that. If people wish to question whether the Egyptian Air Force differs in some important way, then Talk:Egyptian Air Force is the place to go. There is no value in bandying opinionated rhetoric around. So far, no substantive point has been raised to show that Antiochus has applied AVLIST inappropriately. Does anybody actually have any evidence to that effect, or is all this simply some folks' personal reactions against the guideline? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like an ugly mess right now, random irrelevant trivia, incomplete aircraft names/designations, a formatting mess and the usual nationalistic nonsense. Almost any change would have been for the better, and it was precisely this sort of problem that resulted in the extensive discussion over table standardization. In contrast, the redone table is neat, easy to read and to the point - making the information it contains much more accessible, without requiring the reader to dig past the dross.NiD.29 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AHMED's recent changes don't look too great. Changing some values under the 'Role' column to MRCA, introduction of future aircraft (MiG-35) to the table, and the inclusion of very general information in the notes column - again, information too easy to be found on the relevant aircraft/operator article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

For the repetitive linking I have found conflicting MOS guidelines, so I have started a discussion about Linking on the AVILIST talk page.

Future deliveries are definitely not current. One can either create a new article section to deal with planned procurements, or make the table generic to all past, present and planned types. That discussion would need to take place on the article talk page.

I don't know the status of the name "Horus" with respect to the Mirage 2000, so I can't comment on that. It was uncited, so certainly needed challenging if not deleting. Since it got lumped into an otherwise bad edit, WP:BRD is as good a way as any.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow, I was looking through Air Force pages of different countries (United States, Russian, Chinese, French, Indian, Turkish Air Forces) and realised that their aircraft list doesn't reflect the consensus on this project. Why haven't these pages been edited yet ? Thanks - AHMED XIV (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Because there is only one of me and some of the more significant pages involve a lot of work. Currently I am part way through the List of active United States military aircraft and also the List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force‎‎ - see below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force

‎‎There is a discussion here about the huge amount of Notes in this article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, since you are working on the United States and Pakistan Air Force pages, I'll work on the Russian and French ones. - AHMED XIV (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me know if you need any support. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Aeronautical link removal on Ryan FR Fireball

I'm having a dispute with an editor who wishes to remove a bunch of aeronautical links from this article. He appears to believe that they're redundant as he believes that the article will only be read by knowledgeable readers who already know the meaning of those terms. I disagree, but would welcome comments by interested editors at Talk:Ryan FR Fireball.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW

The usage and purpose of MGTOW is under discussion, see talk:MGTOW -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is also being discussed at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

mgtow is also affected, see talk:mgtow -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just how is this relevant to the Aviation project?NiD.29 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"MGTOW" means maximum gross takeoff weight. At the time this discussion was posted mgtow redirected to that; a WPAVIATION topic. So, is MGTOW relevant to WPAVIATION? Do redirects and common aviation terms become relevant to WPAVIATION? Or do only aviation articles fall under WPAVIATION, but other uses such as VOR, CVR, ASL, AGL, MTOW, ELT, ETOPS, ILS, MLS, whose uses become under discussion, not relevant to WPAVIATION? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything regarding an aviation related discussion on the Men Going Their Own Way talk page as it was buried half way down the page with a title that had nothing to do with the question, so not sure why that link was included - a mention should have been made there, nothing more, and the discussion only on the MGTOW talk page - starting multiple discussions on different pages on a single question isn't helpful.NiD.29 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When a discussion manages to sprawl across multiple pages, it is customary to provide cross-links where these discussions are mentioned. We can each then see for ourselves whether we consider the associated discussions relevant. I should like to thank our IP editor for showing us this common courtesy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Recreational tethered jetpacks?

Do recreational tethered jetpacks fall under WPAVIATION? They are devices that allow people to fly in the air, just not freeflight, since the powersource is not lifted off, just the person (one could compare it to tethered kites, or barrage balloons, in being attached to the surface, but yet flying as well) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that if they are otherwise notable, then yes, they would, but they do not get the "it flew = it's notable" status that applies to non-tethered aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If it has an article, then either it gets tagged or not, deletion discussions are separate issues, are they not? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are these things properly regulated or can any backyard tinkerer risk life and limb? If they are regulated, that might lend greater notability to "it flew - and that's official". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any backyard tinkerer could do it, if they had a properly powerful motor on the ground to drive the thrust enough to lift a person (but not the motor or fuel). Many beach resorts already offer these things for rent, with instructors. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The catch is it flies on a tether - not free flight. Therefore 'it flew, it's notable' shouldn't apply. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If accidents/incident occur to Japan-USA/South Korea-USA transpacific flights, consider possibility that Chinese translations may be necessary

Hi!

One thing I have observed on a transpacific flight from Tokyo Narita to Chicago was that:

A large number of the passengers were Chinese
The safety demo was played with Chinese subtitles

If you recall, the majority of passengers on OZ214 (Seoul to San Francisco) were also Chinese nationals, and all three deceased victims were Chinese. The article on OZ214 noted that Seoul/Incheon is a transit point between China and the United States, and Tokyo/Narita also fulfills the same role.

If/when an accident and/or incident occurs to an airliner flying between the United States and Japan and/or South Korea, please consider whether it may be good for information on that flight (media, such as maps, etc. as well as the corresponding Wikipedia article) be available in Chinese in addition to English and Japanese/Korean.

If you don't know Chinese, look for Chinese-speakers at the China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, and/or Malaysia WikiProjects and/or on the Chinese Wikipedia and ask for assistance. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"German Air Force" or "Bundeswehr Luftwaffe"

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 20 for a discussion on the naming and scoping of the units and formations category. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft control - toponymy update, and Wikipedia-article-corpus-revamp proposal

Hello,

I have been working for three weeks on the architecture of aircraft controls articles in the english Wikipedia, while my main goal is to write the small Unmanned Aircraft Systems article.

I do think the current architecture is messy and outdated regarding new toponymies. Here is a visualization of the current architecture from the Japanese project Sigwp :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SigWP.png

As you can see there is no high-order article linking avionics, robotics, aircraft control, flight controller, and other important related notions.

With the surge of UAVs, official international actors - including FAA, ICAO, UE SESAR - have issued new definitions, that can overlap with current notions.

Here is what I propose for the flight controller disambiguation page page (see talk). As for concerned articles, and further concerned ones, I suggest revamping them with new links, updates, and redirection pages. List of impacted articles coming in the afternoon.

The main article would be Aircraft Control Systems, with the revamp of the aircraft control category. The article would gather somewhat-redundant-history content from autopilot, UAV, history of UAV, and aircraft flight control system. It would also display links to the existing comprehensive corpus of related articles.

I have the materials ready and up to be shipped this week-end, regards.

P.S. Another idea would be to create a dual-heritage sub-project as Aviation Robotics? Maxorazon (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Civil aviation authority regulated aerial drones

Do recreational/civilian/commercial/consumer aerial drones fall under WPAVIATION? I will note that many civil aviation regulatory authorities around the world are now implementing or planning to implement regulations regarding aerial drones. Also, what size and capability is the dividing line between being a WPAVIATION topic and not such, if some drones are under WPAVIATION -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is sticky. Radio-controlled model aircraft have not been covered under the project, while what are now generally referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles have. A criterion of "on-board control" - my first thought - fails in that some 1930s-1950s "obviously covered" types would have been under ground command, and little tiny drones are going to be autonomous in the future. Note also that the teeny-tiny AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird is covered under the project; a lot of ordinary R/C aircraft are FAR bigger than the Nano Hummingbird. I'm not sure there is a definition we can use, short of I know it when I see it; however, there are VERY few notable R/C aircraft - it may simply be best for us to decide to cover them all. They are, after all, radio-controlled aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it comes down to the regulatory environment. No special license is needed for a toy aeroplane, while proper airworthiness certification is needed for a large remotely-piloted vehicle (RPV) or autonomous air vehicle (AAV) - the two main species of UAV. That regulatory environment is entering a state of flux. As it changes, we need to respond to that. As I suggested elsewhere, "it flies" does not make it a notable aviation topic, but "it flies - and that's official" does. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also a set of rules for very large model aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I totally approve to include model aviation into the project scope.

There are lots of definitions about UAVs coming out currently, from FAA, ICAO, UE SESAR for example : the landscape may be mature enough now.

I do think so, could you get a look at the section I wrote below regarding aircraft control?

Regards! Maxorazon (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Thermal Management"

The usage and topic of Thermal Management is under discussion, see talk:Thermal management of electronic devices and systems -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FlyPast Magazine

FlyPast magazine keeps being moved to FlyPast (magazine) to avoid confusion with Flypast (flyby of a group of aircraft), I have added an about notice at the top which is clearly more elegant, any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A Requested move from FlyPast to FlyPast (magazine) has now been raised. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer qualifications

Another user, CanadianAME (talk · contribs) has posted extensive draft material and commentary about this topic, on various talk pages here, here and here. I do not have time at the moment to make more than a brief courtesy reply, would anybody else be able to assess it and provide any more detailed feedback? Please be gentle and encouraging, as this user is keen but is really struggling to come to grips with Wikipedia's demands on its content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Parnall

Over 90% (19,379 bytes) of the article on Parnall has been deleted today as an uncited copyvio which has been in the article since 2002. I've done some emergency editing to stop it being a mass of sub headings with no content, but if anyone could help improve the article that would be great.— Rod ^talk 21:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

~~It seems strange that an article with a long history and multiple editors has been deleted, any chance that the chew76 site which appears to be dated 2009 didnt copy wikipedia ?~~ MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw that, I have looked at the original edit in 2002 by an IP and it is clearly marked at the bottom of the article that it is a copy of the chew76 site and most of the content was still in the "deleted" version. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The copyright investigator found that the original creator (IP) of the article in 2002 had added "SOURCE: Website maintained by Alan Webb" see Talk:Parnall#Copyright problem removed. When I found the article at the end of last year (because it appeared tagged as "unsourced statements" on the WP Bristol cleanup list) large paragraphs of text were exactly the same as the source site, which I'd found in the process of trying to add references. The investigation identified that a lot more of the text (95%+) was an exact copy of the various pages from the source site (1, 2, 3, 4 & 5).— Rod ^talk 09:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MilborneOne, yours is a fair question, and of course it's one I thought about when I came to do the clean-up. The chew76 site is archived back to 2001, but didn't have this content back then. My guess is that Alan Webb's page was hosted elsewhere, and only later added to the chews76 site. I'm sure beyond reasonable doubt that we copied it and not vice versa. Much credit is due to Rodw for picking up on this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood and thanks to everybody involved in spotting this. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"No." column in military lists

The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is not clear, as both are numbers. I have restarted the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Classification of triplanes

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of triplanes. Comments welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Metrojet Flight 9268

We need more topic familiar editors over at Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268#Why does this still say cause uncertain?..... bombing under investigation?--Moxy (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC) OK will see Dono talk 21:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Winkle" Brown

The article on Eric "Winkle" Brown was briefly on the Main Page in the Recent Deaths section but it has been pulled due to referencing issues. Assistance in fixing these is sought please. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ground fatalities category at CFD

Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_28#Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_with_ground_fatalities. DexDor^(talk) 07:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Status values in general lists

I am proposing to add "Discontinued" to the default status values. Please pass on your views in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#Status_in_general_lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Could do with some more views here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ordering of columns in general lists

A change is proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#Ordering of columns in general lists. Comments welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Could do with some more views here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Songs about aircraft

Category:Songs about aircraft has been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Airline articles nominated for deletion

Could do with some more voices at:

especially the first of these, where the discussion has expanded more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

List of STOL aircraft - criteria for inclusion

There is a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Heliskiing"

Shouldn't Heliskiing be a WPAVIATION topic? It requires the use of helicopters, and there have been several accidents due to the helicopters involved -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The controversy over banning this particular use of helicopters seems to be the aspect most relevant to aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that people use aircraft to go places to do all sorts of things, from playing golf to meeting with shareholders to sex tourism. What's so special about skiing? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no golf course at the end of this, they go to inaccessible areas in the backcountry that you'd otherwise need to hike for days to get to, and then need climbing gear to get up the mountain. So the helicopter is integral to getting to the location, it'd not be skied otherwise. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting to inaccessible locations is true for many uses of aircraft, especially helicopters. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thus being an aviation topic, since there is no alternate way to go, except with the helicopter -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not true that helicopters are the only possibility. Traditionally, one mounted a climbing expedition to reach such difficult places. If it is possible to ski down then it is surely possible to climb up with the help of mountaineering equipment and colleagues. Helicopters are much quicker, that is all. Nowadays they are used to access many such locations for many reasons including scientific research, tourism, mountain rescue, etc. Heliskiing is not unusual in this, and none of these activities concerns this wikiproject. The project already assesses any accident on its own merits.

The sport may be relevant for another reason. Its use of helicopters has been banned in several countries (and remains controversial in others) as environmentally damaging, due to the noise nuisance in and over what are often fragile and protected areas, together with the harmful burning of avgas for the sake of self-indulgence. Few if any uses of aircraft have been explicitly banned for such reasons, for example the uses mentioned above have not. IMHO this legal oddity is the only potentially encyclopedic aviation aspect, as far as this project is concerned. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As an aside, the name "heliskiing" is somewhat misleading, as my first thought on hearing the term was of a helicopter towing a skier out on the ocean somewhere! Naming it after the mode of transport is odd. It's just skiing. - BilCat (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not really such a misnomer, other forms of snow skiing also use this format, such as catskiing which uses snowcats instead of fixed lifts. It is a linear combination, like many other things out there. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my cat doesn't like snow. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

List of X-planes and images

Should the List of X-planes include images? I have started a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 102

I've nominated the above article...aircraft returns after birdstrike, nobody hurt...for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"KHSV"

The usage and topic of KHSV is under discussion, see talk:KVMY -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Future aircraft acquisitions

I have started a discussion on how these should be treated here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Dynamic instability"

Dynamic instability has been nominated for deletion at RFD; I thought I'd let you know, since dynamically unstable aircraft design is a feature of modern jet fighters (though not the usage used in this redirect) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"List of space programs"

List of space programs has been nominated for discussion at RfD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cargo Airline Association has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cargo Airline Association, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about proposed lead sentence policy addition at WP:MOS/Lead section

I have started a discussion here to add a subsection to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for aviation incident articles concerning the lead sentence in articles that have the name "[Airline] Flight [number]" to add a mention about using "Madeup Airway Flight 123 was a passenger flight from Somewhere to Somewhere Else, that on such and such a day, crashed/disappeared/was hijacked." rather than "Madeup Airway Flight 123 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Somewhere to Somewhere Else. On such and such a day, the aircraft used on this flight failed/crashed/blew up/was hijacked." Fellow aviation Wikipedians should comment about that proposed policy addition. AHeneen (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

List of racing aircraft

Hi, The List of racing aircraft is a bit of a mess. I have started/refreshed some discussions at Talk:List of racing aircraft on things like the scope and format of the list. All comments welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Fly All Ways

It would nice if someone could take a look into the article on Surinam airline Fly All Ways, it looks like being done by people close to the company. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

IP 86.187.x.x

Hi, do you guys have a issue with an IP 86.187.x.x changing stuff on aviation articles? Such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Signs of edit warring beginning: compare this by 86.187.170.135 (talk · contribs) with this by 86.187.162.9 (talk · contribs). Note also this by 86.187.166.58 (talk · contribs) four days ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC

I'm dealing with a person in this range that targets edits by User:Eik Corell (he revert Eik's edits) but also I see a lot of edits to airlines and such[10][11][12][13], generally changes to numbers and to formatting of tables. I don't know if they are good edits or not and wondered if a problem had been noticed on airline articles. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In all I could confirm one good edit (not to numbers) on the one hand and one act of war on the other. Another appeared to be an update on the numbers taken from cited sources but without citing the more recent source - this was possibly a good edit requiring tagging rather than reversion, but who can say. Many of the edits have been reverted by other users. So I think the main issue here is one of behaviour - this editor needs to be brought up short to see if they are prepared to engage with the rest of the community or not. I have reported the above IPs on the ANI IP hopping troll discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have also alerted the Airlines sub-project here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BA727, 17-4-16

IMHO, the incident to BA727 today does not warrant an article. It may warrant mention in articles on BA, Heathrow, the A320 family and drones. I'm about to head off to bed so am raising the issue here for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Low-Flying Aircraft"

The usage of this redirect Low-Flying Aircraft is up for discussion at RfD -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Two new aviation related Articles for deletion discussions

They are 2009 Joy Flight crash and Exact Air. Please come over to the discussions and help decide whether these articles should be kept or deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And another...

Air Canada Express Flight 7804. Damaged undercarriage, nobody seriously hurt...TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)—

New User(s) creating drafts

I find myself involved in probably the oddest situation I have come across in my time at WP. There is a nest of registered and IP users (probably just one person with multiple accounts, to judge by the editing style) creating hoax draft articles and draft articles of subjects already having articles - some aviation-related, some not. These include:

Draft:China Western Airlines, hoax deleted after I tagged it for G3 Speedy
Draft:Line 20, Beijing Subway (appears to be a hoax, details in infobox are contradictory)
Draft:1989 Beijing subway accident
Draft:Air New Zealand Boeing 747 hijack and Draft:Air New Zealand Flight 24 (both on the same subject, see their Talk pages)
Draft:Cathay Pacific Flight 418, hoax - see its Talk page
Draft:Beijing Centrel Sky Tower, subject already covered by Central Radio & TV Tower
Draft:List of Greenland passenger jets accident, no jets, and no matching records on ASN either

The User accounts are:

A single box (contrib)
Gavinfu2016 (contribs)
Inarafu2016 (contribs), claims to be Gavin's sister

and pretty-much any IP in the edit histories of the drafts above, and the other articles edited by - and the User pages of - Gavin and Inara. There is some more info at User talk:wiae.

We also have:

All of these are IP-"created" - all consist of material copied-and-pasted from the respective airline articles. Could we have eyes-on please? YSSYguy (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like bucket and mop time. An admin could wipe this up in a few minutes, before it hits mainspace. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two more:

Draft:British Airways Flight 2019 which at least is based on an actual incident
Draft:Air China Link, copy-and-paste of Air China

YSSYguy (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

- @MilborneOne: All of this stuff might be the work of Ryan K and deletable on that grounds. Draft:British Airways Flight 2019 has his kind of misspellings- '1 diead' 'to there destinations', 'minor damege', plus more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

More:

YSSYguy (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

YSSYguy (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

2003 Joy Flight crash - hoax
Joy Flights - hoax

YSSYguy (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened to myrtle beach afb page?

I'm seeing a lot of red links to the myrtle beach afb page. Was the article deleted?TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The page has been deleted as a copyvio as a result of this investigation. It needs to be recreated from scratch.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Aeroprakt A-32 Vixxen

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/Aeroprakt A-32 Vixxen. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Southern Air Command"

The usage and topic of Southern Air Command is under discussion, see talk:Southern Air Command (India) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft suffers engine problem and has to land

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 6 TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Anything usable?

I recently moved Team Starfox: Analysis of Commercial Airline Wings to Draft:Team Starfox: Analysis of Commercial Airline Wings. I get the impression that it's a student assignment, as it's written like a personal research paper or student paper. Initially I deleted it as being redundant to the Boeing articles, but I thought that there might be potential merit in a page about airline wings or perhaps some of the content could be moved into some of the various applicable articles. I'll admit that my first instinct is still the strongest, in that I don't think that there's anything that could be salvaged, which is why I moved it to AfC. I figure that if it never goes anywhere then it can always just get G13'd later on down the line. Just in case though, I'm dropping a note here to see if you guys think that there's anything salvageable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an essay to me.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft in a given role

Hi, I have proposed that we create a default format for tabulated lists of aircraft in a given role. You are invited to join in the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of aircraft

There is a new discussion on whether to include the number of aircraft in role-based lists of aircraft here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists - numbers in tables.

An editor is deleting the numbers built from tables, effectively removing the one piece of information that, more than any other provides context - a discussion is underway as to their inclusion at Aviation list style guide. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's me folks, and the issue applies only to certain specific tables. However a while before the above was posted I had already said that I would stop these deletions while the matter was being discussed. I had also already posted this invitation above here, so if some of you could come and join the discussion on the Aviation List style guide talk page, that would be much appreciated by both of us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Boeing 737 rudder issues

This is to inform the members of WikiProject Aviation, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 737 rudder issues. Please consider joining the discussion to help decide whether this page should be kept or deleted. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on production numbers in lists

There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as few have yet done so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, is there a list of aviation/aircraft-related RfC's that this should be posted on? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

GAN review request

I nominated Virgin Atlantic Little Red for GA a few months ago. An editor made a comment that they didn't want to review it and asked for a second opinion. Suddenly they shut it without warning or a fully explained reason. I have since renominated and I am now placing it out here, to ask the project for that second opinion in a new GAR please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

History of aviation in New Zealand

G'day all, I have moved the History of aviation in New Zealand article from user space into article space on behalf of its author Huttoldboys. It isn't really a topic I'm familiar with, so if anyone here is keen to help improve the article further I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident

Should an article, even one titled "incident", be categorized as an "incident"? Or because it's not an accident, should it not be categorized under "accidents and incidents"?

Or should it be removed, per 3RR edit-warring [14] [15] [16] by a single editor with refusal to discuss in the article?

The claim has been made that this is not an incident (for WP cat) because it is not an accident or incident per the ICAO.http://www.emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/annex_13.pdf However the ICAO definition of "incident" is "An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation". This is clearly an occurrence, and flying beneath a bridge structure would have to be seen as "could affect the safety of operation". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly an incident, even though there was no damage or injuries. Therefore categorizing under "accidents and incidents" is correct. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

For those interested,

are under discussion at Articles for Deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

For those interested I have PRODded Rank of Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range (yes, that is the name). If you can work out what its purpose is and disagree with the PROD, feel free to contest it. YSSYguy (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

...and is now at AfD, see the discussion here. YSSYguy (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess all the good topics are taken, so now people have to make them up.

Facepalm The user also submitted Draft:Five major manufacturers of civil transport aircraft, which was declined. - BilCat (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "It most be noticed that there was some manufacturers that they are defuncted or merged in bigger companies which excluded from this table however their production maybe in service until now." was added to the Lead with the edit summary 'discription [sic] improved'

. YSSYguy (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Yeah, WP:CIR. - BilCat (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cross check

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Cross check. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion

For those interested, List of aircraft by date and usage category is being discussed at Articles for Deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comparison list between wikipedias

Greetings,

I would like to ask if there is a bot or some tool to compare, for example, in aviation, which articles are created simultaneously in pt.wiki and en.wiki and get a list about those that only exist in en.wiki but not in pt.wiki... Or, for example, the aviation articles on en.wiki that does not have the interwiki about pt.wiki... Does anyone think there is a tool or a bot that could build a list like that? Tuga1143 (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this information can be found on wikidata so may be the best place to ask. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on Wikisource

A Wikisource editor is considering the creation of a WikiProject Aviation there. How can we most effectively coordinate? bd2412 T 18:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a lot of expertise here in different aviation fields who would be willing to help, it may well be better to ask for help on particular tasks or areas than a general come and join our project. Users here have tried without success to help at commons whose tagging of images defies logic and makes it less user fiendly every day despite protests so some of us are a bit wary but would probably help with a focused request. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Emirates Flight 521

Would someone familiar with Twitter and the use of {{cite tweet}} please assist with the referencing of tweets in the Emirates Flight 521 article? Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Books

Are books in-scope of this project? (Books about aviators, books about aircraft) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been experimenting with books, see Book:Aircraft wing configurations. But the Book Creator software is crippled and leaves out quite a few things, see for example Help:Books/Feedback. For a current discussion about the state of play, see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Book creator. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking about books, not Wikipedia books. DexDor^(talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes - e.g. see the articles in Category:Aviation books. DexDor^(talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of A.I.R Engineer

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/A.I.R Engineer. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Aviatrix"

A user recently en-masse started changing "Aviatrix" to "Aviator" or "Female aviator" in a large number of aviation articles. I don't believe there is consensus for this and have, accordingly, reverted the changes as controversial and invited them here to discuss if this is a change that should have consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. WP:MOS says to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", and WP:GNL specifically mentions "aviatrix" as an uncommon gender-marked term to be avoided. Moreover, past discussions at WT:MOS seem to make clear that "aviatrix" is considered archaic. All of this seems to support my edits, and I did not expect them to be controversial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have left brief messages at WT:MOS and WT:GGTF to notify other potentially interested editors of this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that MOS:GNL provides that "gender-neutral language" be used "where this can be done with clarity and precision", I'm not sure why you believe there to be a lack of a consensus for these changes. If there is existing consensus for a widespread exception to MOS:GNL with respect to the word "aviatrix", could you provide a link? I was unable to find anything.

Moreover, I fail to see what the justification would be for the use of this archaism rather than using the term most commonly found in modern sources. Graham (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Granger on this matter. Personally, I find the word somewhat charming and evocative in the context of 1930s usage and culture. But those days are gone. It is now 2016 and we should use gender-neutral language in all practical circumstances. Let's restrict "aviatrix" to quotations from the past. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) It is entirely unclear to me why a minor change like this in non-aviation related articles would require formal consensus be established at this WikiProject. Furthermore, while I assume good faith, I am bewildered how such a change could be considered controversial by any reasonable editor—this is not 1916.

No matter: the change is already supported—if not mandated—by established consensus in the Manual of Style guideline, which instructs us to "[u]se gender-neutral language where it can be done with clarity and precision." Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language. That section references Writing About Women, a popular essay, which says: "Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions: actor, author, aviator, bartender, chair, comedian, firefighter, flight attendant, hero, poet, police officer. Avoid adding gender (female pilot, male nurse) unless the topic requires it." Writing about women § Gender-neutral language (bold-face added). Rebb ing 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been left at WT:WOMEN. Graham (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with other commentators. Replacing "aviatrix" with "aviator" is fully in line with the Wikipedia-wide guidelines, and is specifically called out as a term to avoid. Indeed, there is already existing consensus for these changes. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: An editor at Katharine Hepburn has requested that consensus for this change be established on that talk page. I cordially invite everyone here (The Bushranger—Mr. Granger—Graham11—Cullen328) to share their views at Talk:Katharine Hepburn § Should "aviatrix" be changed to "aviator"?. Rebb ing 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As a default, go with the gender-neutral term. Same goes for "comedienne", "actress", etc. I could see making an exception, on anachronism grounds, for female pilots who were in their own lifetime almost exclusively referred to as aviatrixes/aviatrices (depending on how you like to treat Latin loanwords in English), and used "aviatrix" themselves, e.g. Amelia Earhart. This would be consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY. The general non-neutral term could even be used for modern BLPs, given evidence that the subject prefers it (as may be the case with actress and comedienne in some cases), as long as reliable sources often go along with it. I.e., do not use, except in quotations, silly self-identifications that are not normal English and which RS do not go along with, such as "doctress" or "policewomyn". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your analysis. I would likely consider the case you described—a subject who was frequently described both by herself and by reliable sources using a dated but still recognizable term—to be a legitimate exception to the guideline.
  As an aside, is "actor" (in the sense of being an entertainer) commonly accepted as a gender-neutral term now? As with "waiter," I've never seen or heard that word applied to a woman. Also, looking through the "Media biographies" featured article category, "actress" seems to be the unanimous choice for both current and historic women actors. Rebb ing 06:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  - This is not a discussion about gender neutral terms for professions outside aviation. That being said, the gender neutral term for "waitress" is "server". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we should make an exception for pilots who lived back when "aviatrix" was commonly used. We should avoid outdated terminology, even when referring to people from the past. We wouldn't use the word "negro" in Wikipedia's voice to refer to Harriet Tubman, even though she referred to herself that way. Likewise, we should avoid using the word "aviatrix" for Amelia Earhart, except in quotations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  - Oh. Your point is well taken. For whatever it's worth, it doesn't appear we ever describe Ms. Earhart as an "aviatrix." Rebb ing 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment Being a bit of an old-fashioned person I much like the word "aviatrix". It brings a bit of colour. Also, I resent the requirement to avoid indicating people's gender, in a kind of political correctness, as if there were something wrong with being female (or male). Most other languages usually make the difference, French and German for the examples I know best, yet women in those countries seem not to feel any less happier. A striking example is Frau Merkel, always named the Bundeskänzlerin in German. But all this argument does not really belong here: if WP:whatever requires us to avoid gender-specific descriptions, so be it. I'll grudgingly oblige. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I'd suggest that it's a matter of degree. Banning "she" and "he" in favour of the gender-neutral "it" is patently absurd. The criterion has to be, is the gender-neutral word used much nowadays to describe the female practitioner? For example, on the one hand the phrase "madam chairman" is used often enough so the term "chairwoman" is not acceptable, while on the other hand one also comes across the occasional "male midwife" in a maternity ward, so "midwife" is well preferable to "midperson" or whatever. Much as I love the literary merits of "aviatrix", it always had an aspect of contrived humour and I don't think it has similar encyclopedic merits in the 21st century. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I tend to think that for Earhart and contemporaries, we note them as having been pioneers of the female sex in that role. They were much rarer than their male equivalents and that is part of what makes them interesting to both contemporary and modern readers. We can't ignore that fact, unless we want "suffragette" to become the near-meaningless "voting rights activist". LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't use aviatrix, and replace uses of it. It's now anachronistic. All other considerations aside, it's now a rare word, and we avoid rare words when possible -- this is a general-readership encyclopedia, your next reader will be a 13 year old in Bangalore. And no, we don't use anachronisms to match the era -- we don't say "In 1853, the ship struck a torpedo" (instead of "...struck a mine") and so forth. We don't write about Shakespeare using Tudor English. "Actress" is different since that is still common, for now. FWIW I also much like the word "aviatrix". It does brings a bit of color. Doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Though I wouldn't complain if we were to start using exclusively Tudor English in Shakespeare articles… Graham (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A few days have passed with no new comments, and the consensus in this discussion is clear, so if there are no objections, I'll resume changing "aviatrix" to "aviator". —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No comments because we are probably tired after years of the revisonists trying to change a perfectly good word because they are on a mission. You can only state the obvious so many times which is not a defence against crusades. Strange but removing the word somehow makes the pioneering efforts of these ladies into something of less value "just another aviator" was clearly not true for these brave women. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just added a link to this discussion at Talk:Women in aviation#Aviatrix. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly changing the name of the article in the introduction of List of aviatrices to "List of women aviators" without changing the article title looks a bit daft. Also in the political correct world I would have thought that "women aviators" is just as bad as aviatrix. Sigh. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Women aviators" is discriminatory, unless we change all male aviators to "male aviators". It is still singling women out by sex and making them look exceptional or different somehow. In fact noting women's accomplishments in aviation, or any other field of endeavour, is discriminatory. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I agree that the article title should be changed as well, and I've already placed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests‎ to move it. @Ahunt: I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but if you feel that we should avoid singling out female aviators with an article listing them, I think the way to address that would be to nominate List of aviatrices for deletion or merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure "Uncontroversial" move request without a debate is the right way to move that article, I still cant see a clear consensus about the term and as Ahunt as said it probably makes matters worse. I have moved the request into contested. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Accordingly, a discussion has been started at Talk:List of aviatrices#Requested move 26 August 2016. I invite everyone from this discussion to participate there, if you are interested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

D. Napier & Son

The article for D. Napier & Son Limited is currently titled Napier & Son. The company is typically referred to as just "Napier", as in the Napier Lion and Napier Sabre. Is there any objection to moving it to D. Napier & Son? Please reply at talk:Napier & Son#Article title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD nomination

I nominated Template:Learjet_aircraft for deletion. The dsicussion can found here. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Quest Kodiak

Could someone please throw a critical eye at the latest change to Quest Kodiak? It looks too much like a commercial, but I am unsure whether to correct it or to simply revert. There does seem to be some verifyable fact. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed it and reverted it. None of the information that was added and was actually sourced was about the aircraft, but instead was about the company and is already in the company article, Quest Aircraft. The additions that were about the aircraft were not mentioned in the sources cited. The additions looked very promotional and spammy as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks (also for your subsequent defense), I knew I could count on you! :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreign language references

How reliable do we consider references in foreign languages? For one example, Bayraktar_Tactical_UAS has a good many. Not knowing my way among the numerous WP:xxx guidelines I am reluctant to contest any content, far less will I remove it arbitrarily. Advice welcome! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem as far as policy is concerned I believe, I do suspect that most of the content was added by a COI editor so in this case it would be better to find some English referencing for some of it and it doesnt really need three to four references for each "fact". I have culled some of the images and tagged them at commons although some I have left alone as they are OTRS refs which I cant check. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Continental Express

I would appreciate it if folks from the WikiProject Aviation community could weigh in on an issue regarding Continental Express Flight 2286. The page was previously titled Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, and I moved it to its current title/location for the following reasons:

Per WP:COMMONNAME, because the flight is commonly referred to as "Continental Express Flight 2286" or a "Continental Express airliner" in most ordinary English-language sources, including contemporaneous and retrospective articles written by the Associated Press and UPI and published by reputable newspapers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. (This rule is why we have Gimli Glider, for example, instead of "Air Canada Flight 143".) It is important to remember that Wikipedia is a resource for the general public, not just the aviation community.
It is consistent with the executive summary and overview of the resulting NTSB report (which describes the flight at the outset as "operating as Continental Express Flight 2286").
To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles such as Continental Express Flight 2574 (another flight commonly known as a "Continental Express" flight, even though it was operated by a different company with its own callsign).

The move was challenged, and I admittedly became frustrated while discussing on the Flight 2286 talk page. This shouldn't be about me, it should be about what is best for Wikipedia, so I would appreciate if others could help form a consensus, one way or the other. However, if we do not keep it as "Continental Express Flight 2286", then for consistency we will need to rename a number of other pages (such as Continental Express Flight 2574). That's not a task I look forward to. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 15 November 2024

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Vietnam Air Force#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonicblue Airways Flight 604

Noitced that Sonicblue Airways Flight 604 has been nominated for a Good Article Review but first thoughts are that it is not actually notable for a stand-alone article, as somebody clearly has worked hard on this I was looking for second opinions rather than nominating it for deletion or such like, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is less notable than 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash which was deleted over 4 years ago and had 4 times the victims....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Here is the AFD[17]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

The article Joachim Helbig, that is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.

The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help to select files to be donated

Hi, everyone.

I have contacted the Brazilian Air Force in order to ask them to change all their files to a free one accepted by Wikimedia projects.

They kindly answered and told me that they won't change the license for all files, but told me to select files to be donated to us. They didn't mention a number of files to be donated; just told me to ask with a reason and they will see what to do.

So, I am asking help to select which files we can ask them.

This is their Flickr gallery from where we can choose the files.

Anybody willing to help me? I will be adding files in this page. Please, feel free to use talk page for leaving any considerations or even add files from that gallery. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 21:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

TfD: Pilots/Observer Badge with Diamonds

Template:Combined Pilots-Observation Badge with Diamonds has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Should a skyjacking include the flight code in the article?

Hello, WikiProject Aviation. You have new messages at talk: D. B. Cooper.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Should a skyjacking article include the IATA/ICAO flight code in the article? We are discussing this about NW305 , see talk:D. B. Cooper -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash

Just for information that 2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Akron Rayathon Hawker 800 crash, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this is a recreation of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execuflight Flight EFT1526. - BilCat (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Bankstown Airport

I am currently in a dispute at the Bankstown Airport article, over whether some light aircraft air charter companies that nobody has ever heard of and which are based at Bankstown should be mentioned in the Airlines and destinations or an equivalent Section. More generally, the other User is of the opinion that a particular company saying on its website that it is able to operate to any airport in the Sydney region is sufficient to list it as an operator at the WP articles for the airports in the Sydney region. Other persons' opinions would be welcome (and probably necessary) at this stage. there has been some discussion at Talk:Bankstown Airport. YSSYguy (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red

I have taken the liberty of adding a link from this project's announcements and open tasks list (diff), to a redlist of women aviators for whom we have no biography article. Right now, there are five times as many biographies of men as there are of women on wikipedia. I hope this project will lend its support to addressing this imbalance by creating biographies for women within your project's scope. More generally, WikiProject Women in Red has very many redlists covering perhaps 100,000 notable women for whom we have no biography. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 383 (2016)

See American Airlines Flight 383 (2016). Accident happened today, no loss of life. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the article might be a creation of banned User Ryan kirkpatrick. A new aviation crash article by an editor with no prior history before today is suspicious....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The quality isn't bad enough for the article to be one of his, and its creator has actually been editing for more than two years now; I'd think one of the many SPIs run since August 2014 would have picked up if this person was a match. YSSYguy (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussion

For those interested, a deletion discussion is open for National Airlines Flight 84. YSSYguy (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation of 1979 Dniprodzerzhynsk mid-air collision

I have completed the translation to English of the Russian article and will be moving it soon. Please view it here and feel free to make any changes as you see fit. Most of the raw translation may be viewed here. Samf4u (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk. Everyone interested in commenting is invited to do it there. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331/METAR

American Airlines Flight 331/METAR has been nominated for renaming, see talk:American Airlines Flight 331/METAR -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

METARs

This seems useful as a ref for decoding METARs

"Key to Decoding the U.S. METAR Observation Report". Texas A&M University. Archived from the original on 5 January 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

You'll need to use the archived version -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

31.55.10.219 appears to be edit warring at BOAC Flight 712 and Neerja Bhanot. I'd appreciate it if other editors would take a look please. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the behaviour of User:DRAGON BOOSTER is more questionable, but probably just a hiccup in the good fight against IP vandalism. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reason to undo my edits, it should be very easy to explain what it is. I await with interest. 31.55.10.219 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Steelpillow:, by questionable you meant 'not justifying my actions (impulsive reversion)'. as soon as I knew that was not blatant Vandalism, I let it go. As a matter of fact I started replying on the talk page right away, but that took me a while (caught up in real life). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Yep, I saw that you had moved on. Apologies if I overcooked my remark. Thank you for replying - and keep up the good work! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

31.55.10.219 I usually assume good faith and encourage editing from all the users, even Ips. I see you are trying to contribute but do not edit war (WP:3RR, thats tricky rule). Mean while please refer Wikipedia:Five pillars, so that you can make more substantial and less challenging edits. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Infobox: Aircraft performance

One thing that I've found sorely lacking about Wikipedia's articles on aircraft is that the most basic information about a plane (how fast it goes, how big it is, etc.) tends to be hidden at the bottom of the article in a "Specifications" section. I've made a draft infobox, Aircraft Performance, with a hope to remedy this. You can see an example of how it looks, combined with other standard infoboxes, here.

I fear that with 4 different speed units, it's a bit verbose, and I'm afraid it may not be clear that the bars represent speed out of Mach 0.4 (this is something that would change depending on the plane's V_NE), but what do people think about the idea of adding something like this in principle? — George Makepeace (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I dont like it, I cant see anything wrong with the current arrangement. Arguments could be made for having lots of the specification section in the lead as different people will think each is important so best left out of the infobox I think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It would break the Manual of Style (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Many motorcycle article have their 'specs' in the infobox, as a member of the motorcycle project and enthusiast it looks very cluttered to me. At Triumph Daytona 600 the infobox is longer than the article, Yamaha RD500LC takes a different approach. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I see your points, and would tend to agree that the succinctness of Yamaha RD500LC is good. However, I think the current setup is terribly flawed; on the Pitts Special page, you don't even know whether the plane is supersonic or not until you examine the specifications section (although arguably you could infer that from Role, even if you couldn't see the picture). As someone who doesn't know much about aircraft, I find it incredibly frustrating that I have to scroll to the bottom of the page just to get an idea of whether a plane flies at 100mph or 1000mph. Also, not only does the infobox help readers establish what exactly the article is about, but it helps people on Google as well. If you google Yamaha RD500LC, you'll see a small table with Engine, Weight, Power, and Production; allowing Google users (even those who aren't particularly knowledgeable about motorbikes) to get an idea of what the thing is.

I'm not too bothered whether we have a nice visualization for the speeds or not, but we definitely need to make the information that people are most interested in more accessible. I propose scrapping that bar if you don't like it and adding 4 new rows:

Speed: stall—cruise—max

Mass: empty—max

Seats: crew+passenger

Range: range

— George Makepeace (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

While I think a module like that is worth discussing in theory, bear in mind it will be very difficult to get approved by WPAIR, as the other editors' valid objections rightly show. Also, the basic specs can vary widely across different variants, so necking it down to common ones may be difficult. In the end, it's probably not worth the effort, but consensus can and does change. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to scroll to the Specifications section, the link in the table of contents is clickable. There are usually clues in the article lead paragraphs towards performance and seating. There are further practical problems, 18,000 plus articles would need changing from the established format and for many articles some of the parameters are not known. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the concern that spurred this approach, I don't think this proposal is an improvement, as it just adds to clutter and confusion. Keep in mind that for many aircraft, like paragliders, sailplanes and hang gliders, parameters like maximum speed or cruising speed are not defining characteristics and are relatively unimportant. For these glide ratio or minimum sink speeds are much more defining. The aircraft type articles rely most on their text and that is where the basic role and other basic performance parameters are mentioned, if relevant. The specs template sews it all together for readers at the end of the article, for those who need actual numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence - new fields suggestion

Dear project members. I have submitted a proposal to include two more fields to the Infobox aircraft occurrence, see here. Please visit the infobox's talk page and voice your opinion. Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:Aerovision Fulmar#Requested move 16 November 2016}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:Aerovision Fulmar#Requested move 16 November 2016', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Aerovision Fulmar#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:Aerovision Fulmar#Requested move 16 November 2016}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)