Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Reassessment:1927 KLM Fokker F.VIII crash

May I ask that the 1927 KLM Fokker F.VIII crash article is re-assessed please. I disagree that it it stub class. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I assessed it C-class, and left a note on the talk page. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Luscombe

The Luscombe Aircraft article states that the company went out of business in 1950. However, Flight International, 12 March 1983 has an article on the Luscombe Rattler, a canard ground-attack aircraft produced by Lucombe Aircraft at Lympne. Are these two separate companies? Is so it looks like we need at least two new articles creating. Suggest British company article is housed at Luscombe Aircraft (UK) and a hatnote added to the other article. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

According to my internet research, the Luscombe Corporation declared bankruptcy in 1949, but "[l]ow-volume production continued through 1959 in Fort Collins, CO after the type certificate was purchased from the bankruptcy proceedings." Their last model, the 11E, is still in production by the Luscombe Aircraft Corporation (link not working ATM, but of no relation to the original company.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After bankruptcy in 1949, the assets to the American Luscombe were prurchased by Temco Aircraft, who continued production until 1955, when it sold the rights to the Silvare Aircraft Company, who produced the Luscombe 8F from 1958-61. Silvare was purchased by Luscombe Aicraft Corporation of Altus, Oklahoma in 1961, starting production of the Luscombe 11E in 2004. The Britsh Luscombe appears to have been founded in 1971 to built ultralights/microlights. Its last entry in Jane's appears to have been in the 1987-88 edition, which suggests roughly when the company folded.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The British Luscombe Aircraft Limited as far as I can tell had no connection with the American company apart from the founder Patrick "Pat" Luscombe having the same surname. With other uk and usa companies with the same name the form Luscombe Aircraft Limited has been used rather than a dab like (UK). MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it would seem that maybe we do need an article on the British company and its aircraft. The Rattler was intended to be a military version of a civil design, which may have changed name at some point, being known at Valiant/Vitality. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Centennial Aviation Club

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. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Aviation Club. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user has PRODded two articles

A new anonymous user, 220.253.138.4 (talk · contribs), has PRODded two articles, 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision and Heerodden helicopter accident as non-notable accidents. I personally would say they do comply with guidelines, but I wanted to get other opinions before removing the tags for AfD. Thanks, wackywace 13:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read them, both do comply with WP:AIRCRASH, the latter because it involved fatalities and hull loss in a non-light aircraft and the former because it involved changes in procedures as a result of the accident. I would say go ahead and remove the PROD tags and point to WP:AIRCRASH in your edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. wackywace 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally late to the party, but I agree with Ahunt. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never too late to agree! ;) - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- I've invited 220.253.138.4 (talk · contribs) to discuss his/her ideas here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. It is rather unusual when the first two edits by a new IP are to nominate two articles for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost 99% certain it's a case of "forgot to log in." --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you can count on the fact that this person has edited before, either with an account or as another IP. Most people's first Wikipedia edits are to fix a spelling or grammar mistake, not to nominate two articles for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unless he/she spent a lot of time beforehand reading about how to PROD articles. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review for Hughes Airwest Flight 706

If anyone has a moment or two, please consider stopping by Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review#Hughes Airwest Flight 706 and leaving a comment or six. I'm hoping to get the article up to FA eventually, but in the interim A-class is a nice stepping-stone. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Under construction

I am currently constructing the article Airbus A340, and I dearly request assistance from those interested. I'll try to add the information; the other jobs such as copy-editing and the addition of sources are needed. Anyone with questions please ask me directly on my talk page. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 09:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

{{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1927}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion here. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration, anyone?

The 50th anniversary of Sabena Flight 548 is this coming Tuesday. Anyone up to collaborate to bring the article up to at least GA class by then? (It's currently a Start-class.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Alsek Air Service and 40-Mile Air have been nominated for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Central American Airways Flight 731

Central American Airways Flight 731 has been nominated for deletion. wackywace 16:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA

This is to inform members of this project that an editor who has participated in this project extensively has been nominated for adminship. You may voice your opinions on this nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

AFD notice

Taquan Air has been nominated for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?)

Sourcing problems creeping into aviation articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources was created on January 22, 2011 and lists Joe Baugher's personal, self-published hobby site [1] as a reliable source. Please see WP:SPS (and review the other sources listed on that page). Our policy states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Accurate sourcing would use the sources listed by Baugher, not his personal hobby site. This was well examined at FAR several years ago (at least Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1 and others I can't recall), at which time all articles sourced to Baugher were corrected, yet we now have numerous stub- and start-class articles citing this hobby site, and even a couple of GAs (which should be reviewed and resourced to the reliable sources listed by Baugher). Consulting a hobby site is not good practice-- even less so when the actual sources could and should be consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't list J Baugher as a reliable source - I can see how it might be implied but at the top of the resources page it only says "useful resources for researching aviation related articles". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can fix that page, as it being used to source many articles now. If he lists his sources, those should be consulted and used here so that we don't inadvertently propogate errors from his hobby site. Several of the "regular" editors here are misconstruing that page, and we now have at least two GAs (Douglas XCG-17 and Grumman XSBF) sourced to a hobby site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The good article guide says it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons as baugher is being used for factually information outside of the caveats it appears to pass GA. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've finally found time to investigate and come back to this astounding statement about GA. GA distinguishes between when inline citations are required vs. when only a general references section is needed (for FA, all citations must be inline, not in a general references section, but for GA, only those five kinds of text must have in-line citations as opposed to a general references section). I can't decipher why MilborneOne thinks that the reliability of a source has anything to do with where we place the source (inline or general). Further, since Baugher is being used to cite statistical facts in most cases, published opinion in others, and statements that have been challenged in a few cases where he is shown to be wrong, I cannot understand where MilborneOne's point at all: the GA crit. only tell us that the source has to be supplied somewhere-- in a general references section or via inline citation for five cases. The quality of the Baugher source has nothing to do with the argument MilborneOne presents, so I must be missing something, but the notion that GAs don't need reliable sources is just wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My rebuttal follows: This is an "old" argument as to whether Joe Baugher is an acknowledged expert or merely a "hobbyist." His bio on the internet/wikipedia reads: "Joseph F. Baugher (born 1941) is a retired physicist, software engineer, and textbook author, who has also written a series of articles on aviation. He graduated from Gettysburg College in 1963 and studied physics under Philip J. Bray at Brown University, receiving a Ph.D. in 1968.

After fellowships at the University of Sheffield and the University of Chicago, he became a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1971. Turned down for tenure, he went to work at the Teletype Corporation in 1979 doing research and development related to custom semiconductor chip manufacture. After several years, Teletype's activities gradually shut down (1985-1986), as its parent company AT&T divested various of its operations. Baugher then switched to computer programming for the Naperville division of Bell Laboratories (having developed a taste for computer work), and worked on phone switches for several years, retiring in 2001. As of 2003[update], he teaches part-time at the Illinois Institute of Art, and continues to write.

Baugher's American Military Aircraft website provides detail from the initial design phases to the final fate of the built aircraft, covering practically all the US fighter and bomber models, and several foreigner types as well.

Publications:

• Baugher, Joseph F. On Civilized Stars. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985. ISBN 0-13-634411-9.
• Baugher, Joseph F. The Space-Age Solar System. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. ISBN 0-471-85034-9.
• Joe Baugher's Home Page, [2]. Retrieved: 5 March 2010."

For the contentious issue of identifying Taiwan's F-5 derivatives, his article also cites:

• Lake, Jon and Robert Hewson. "Northrop F-5." World Airpower Journal, Vol. 25, 1996.
• Shaw, Robbie. F-5: Warplane for the World. St. Paul, MN: Motorbooks, 1990.
• Shaw, Robert. "Taiwan: The Dawn of Modernisation." Air International, February 1996.
• Scutts, Jerry. Northrop F-5/F-20. London: Ian Allan Ltd, 1986.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

The issue appears to be what constitutes an expert. Is it someone who consults other sources, provides a scholarly and academic approach, and has a background in post-secondary work/research/teaching? We have numerous examples of authors who have now concentrated on digital or electronic publishing that have the same or lesser credentials and are accepted as experte. In the publishing, academic and filmmaking spheres, consultants are regularly screened for not their publishing resumes but their background and knowledge of the subject. In the Canadian Aviation Historical Society, there are countless instances of aficionados who are accepted for their contributions to the mandate of preserving a historical record. Many of these are individuals who have demonstrated an authoritative and precise record and account-keeping. Most are not the traditional "academic historian" but as long as they bring the knowledge and background to the subject, they fill an important niche. Most of the authors I know, started as "fans", and then were accepted as subject experts, no differently than Joe Baugher, who publishes for more than himself. I have yet to find glaring errors in his research. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

If you haven't found errors, I suggest you haven't looked closely enough. Regardless, WP:SPS is quite clear, and his third-party publications are not in the field of aviation, where he is not a published expert. We are free to consult the sources he lists, but we can't propogate errors from his hobby site by using it to source Wikipedia articles. Milborne, are you honestly suggesting that the GA criterion allow us to source articles to non-reliable sources? If that were true, it would be quite astounding-- fortunately, I'm sure it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please qualify your statement that Baugher propagates errors by providing refs. FWiW, I can't identify errors and I do check his work on occasion. Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

None of us should or needs to check non-reliable sources to check for errors; that's why we have WP:SPS and WP:V policy that stop us from using self-published hobby sites. Can you explain why we would source articles to a hobby site when that site allegedly lists the reliable sources it uses? It seems to be mere laziness, corrected with a trip to the library to consult real sources. At any rate, could one of you please correct that page, as the poor sourcing is propogating throughout Aviation articles, and several regular editors here appear to believe the page reflects a list of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did ask for this to be discussed on the talk page of the resources page. However, as it's here now we may as well continue - it can be copied over later.

Joe Baugher has been raised at WP:RSN, where there was not overwhelming consensus that the source is not reliable. Baugher has also been independently called an expert on military aviation by the author of a book on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

...and if there are no apparent errors, then how can his site be considered non-reliable? Baugher like Goebel may represent an expert who chooses to use non-print media as a means of sharing information. Simply bracketing all personal sites as unauthoritative does not allow for the one or two examples that do not fit the typical self-aggrandizing, non-cited and un-academic work. If the authors use sources, others have the opportunity to discover variances and make the judgement as to reliability. I can do a thorough review of the topics that the aforementioned author has written, but other than not using the classic footnote style, there is an abundance of sources for each section of a major topic. When the subject of using Baugher as a reference was first broached, I found that cross-checking the information in an earlier review of the website, no errors were evident. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

At the risk of repeating myself, please reference WP:SPS policy in these discussions. Where is he published in the relevant field? No errors evident, and all of the other verbiage here is a distraction, and does not address the fact that aviation editors are now using a self-published personal hobby site, instead of going to a library so that our articles will conform to our sourcing policies. Has anyone fixed the page, which leaves the impression all of those sites are reliable sources, rather than a means of locating real reliable sources, as in, at a library? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and WP:SPS does not state "under no circumstances whatsoever shall a self-published source be used as a reference". Suppose I wish to reference the construction number of a particular aircraft involved in and accident. I consult Joe Baugher's website and get the info, I consult the reference given and find its from the book Foo's complete compendium of United States Air Force aircraft during WWII, which I don't have. Do I give Baugher as the source (I've seen this, and it can be verifed that what I put is what it says), or do I reference to the book (which I haven't seen, cannot verify myself and may be in error itself, hoping that no-one else has the book and bothers to check)? Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What it clearly says is that "one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I suspect that the desire to rack up Wikicup points is preventing some editors from making that trip to the library to use real sources, readily available. That may be fine for DYK, but should not be fine for a GA, and will never be fine for an FA. You can use Baugher as a place to find a list of real sources, which you should then consult and cite; those seeking adminship and working at DYK will hopefully understand correct sourcing. Are you all suggesting it would somehow benefit Wikipedia if other areas of the Project used such sloppy sourcing, that ignores SPS policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, if I extend your logic, I can now start citing myself in my topic area, as the highest expert in the field also recognized me. But that would be sloppy sourcing, wouldn't it, particularly when "real" sources already say everything I say, published in third-party publications, by experts in the relevant field. I suspect this is fast becoming a waste of time in the pursuit of Wikicup points. I believe I've made my points, and am relieved that such sourcing would not be acceptable at least at the FA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You know full well that you cannot cite yourself, per WP:COI. As I've shown in my first post, Baugher is called an expert in military aviation by the authof of a book on a specific military aircraft. That author is also (as far as is known) independent of Wikipedia. Thus Baugher's credentials would appear to be established. Mjroots (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, me too. So someone else can cite me, as a personal hobbyhorse enthusiast, and a non-expert in the field, because experts recommend me. So how stupid is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As noted on the RfA, Baugher's "self-published" Internet site is described as a reliable souce by aviation historians, by multiple pubished authors in both aviation history and transportation history. It is not a "self-published personal hobby site", it is a site, made and run by an aviation historian who is an acknowledged and recognised expert on aviation history, that publishes his work. Or is it somehow Wikipedia policy to discrminate against those who publish their works in digital media as opposed to on dead trees? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And how do those folks' opinions relate to our WP:SPS policy? It's not about dead trees or websites-- he is not an aviation expert, he's an engineer in another field. Read his bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To belabour the point, beat a dead horse and hit my head with a hammer, the contention that an author who has taken care to cite all the sources used in creating a body of work, is not considered an expert, flies in the face of conventional wisdom. With the acceptance of most experienced editors that Baugher does not fit the traditional mould as an aviation historian, and is not quoted or cited for FA and GA articles, yet can provide useful information for other articles, that seems to be the pattern that is now arising. Full disclosure here, I may have, at one time, used Baugher as an authority, but someone challenged that (no names now, but may still be riding that "hobby horse") and I, along with others agreed with the conventional MOS guidelines and used other sources. However, and big however, here, Baugher still represents a credible source and cannot be discounted on the basis of unresolved claims of not being reliable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

He is cited in at least two GAs (which should not have passed, IMO), and conventional wisdom is not what applies here: Wikipedia's sourcing policies do. And until you've personally checked every statement in his hobby site, you don't know if it's accurate-- that's why we have policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• 1. I live 50 miles from the nearest city library. 2. If it's Wikipedia policy to discriminate against a source that is explictly stated as being reliable, is cited by extensively, is directly quoted, and reccomended for use by students by historians in the field simply because it is published digitally instead of being on a dead tree on a library shelf, then Wikipedia truly is broken. He is described as an aviation expert and as an aviation historian, using those exact terms, by multiple published and established aviation historians. Are we arguing somehow that a Wikipedia policy is somehow superior to the opinions and published statements of multiple established, published historians? Or maybe, perhaps, that if multiple published and established experts agree on something, perhaps their knowledge should be used to modify or adapt the policy - or even to WP:IAR, which I seem to recall was stated by Jimbo Himself to be the #1 rule on Wikipedia? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, your response does not address WP:SPS-- where is he published in the relevant field? And if you want to include every hobby site by a non-expert as a reliable source, where does this stop? And are you intending to address your other uses of non-reliable sources in other artices? I thought we had overcome this problem on the Aviation WikiProject years ago, but now I'm concerned that we have not, and sloppy sourcing is re-emerging as a trend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To deal with the issue of not being published, the self-publishing or vanity publishing concerns are real and cannot be dismissed easily. Baugher does publish for a wide audience and is considered an acknowledged expert in a specific field. He has also been published in a related field that of space science but has chosen, in a quasi-retirement, to continue his research in a subject in which he has a personal interest. He does publish but in a non-traditional, publicly accessible electronic medium. A case can be made that he is also an exception to the "I think, I write" phenomenom of cyber-journalism. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

• (edit conflict)I've explicitly referenced WP:SPS several times. When somebody is called an expert by multiple other, established, experts, and their work is published, verbatim, by those experts then why should we continue claiming that he is not an expert? To put it quite bluntly, if WP:SPS does not accept the above scenario as establishing somebody as an expert in a field, then WP:SPS is wrong and should be amended. As for other sources, I did indeed address your concerns about the FMA IAe Pulqui II article in my response: at the time, almost a full year ago, I had less understanding of the RS policy than I do now, and not all of the sites which you raised concerns about I even used or put into that article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, SPS covers it just fine: if it's reliable, someone else will have published it. Those sources can be found in a library, so there's no reason to use a personal hobby site which is not subject to expert review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reiterating the personal hobby site canard, does not have the same sway with others who have used the site as a credible, reliable and authoritative source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We can buy books mail order, I know that I have spent well over £200 on aero engine books purely to expand wiki articles in the last couple of years, it depends on how far you want to take your wiki editing, I have spent the same or more on petrol by travelling to take photographs for articles that previously had none. To put Joe Baugher's site into perspective, if I put all the info from my engine books onto my own website (and declared my sources) would it be accepted as a reliable source for Wikipedia? I suspect the answer would not start with a 'Y'. Sad perhaps, but true. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nimbus, the answer would begin with a "N" until such time as other, independent sources started noticing your website, and acknowledging you as an expert. That is the difference here. Mjroots (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While Baugher is undoubtedly a self-published source, his site long ago ceased to be merely a "hobby" site. If he is accepted as an expert by reliable published soures, then that appears to settle the issue. Btw, the bandying about of terms such as "lazy" and "stupid" is straying a bit into WP:PA territory, and needs to be curtailed. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread: for me to refer to myself as a reliable source as "stupid" is not an attack on anyone but myself. Perhaps someone can template me for insulting myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I missed that you were calling yourself lazy too. :) - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (I don't think); when I find a reference on the web to a reliable source, I go get it, or I don't write the article by citing it to a personal website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Of course you didn't, hence the other part of my admonishment stands. One major reason Baugher is used is because he has been considered reliable by those editors, not simply because editors are "lazy". I actually agreed with you before this discussion started, but the evidence is to the contrary. It might be time to drop the stick, here at least, or file an RFC to gain a broader-ranging consensus from WP as a whole. - BilCat (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(Bite my tongue...) I have to agree with Bilbious as I only entered into the fray as an almost disinterested party. I rarely use Baugher as a source, but have never considered him unreliable and thought that a blanket rejection of his work was too restrictive and did not consider the excellent research that he had done in establishing sources to substantiate his work. FWiW, categorizing others as lazy or uncaring is not a good argument as I recognize many of the editors as being the absolute opposite of these traits. Bzuk (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm always amused when the speed of the internet causes people to declare a discussion over when it's barely begun, and has been going less than a day, with relatively few editors weighing in. I suggest giving it a week or so, since a core policy is under fire here. And accessibility of souces on the web is not a core policy: insisting that sources be available on the net is laziness, and that's not aimed at any one editor, but against what is being advocated here, which will weaken other areas of the Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments continue below. Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Break

I could point out that the spaceflight articles similarly use a self-published source, Encyclopedia Astronautica. I would consider this source "reliable" by any reasonable English usage of the word - NASA points people to it for information, for example. It is widely used as a source across hundreds of Wikipedia spaceflight articles, because members of WP:SPACEFLIGHT believe this is a reliable source. But it would seem this source doesn't, strictly speaking, satisfy WP:SPS. To me this indicates that perhaps WP:SPS should be amended, as The Bushranger suggested. Mlm42 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on our article, and what's at www.astronautix.com , I can't find any reason to think it would be reliable, but there's not much there to go on. I've never seen it used in audited content, as far as I can recall-- are you aware of any GAs or FAs that use it (I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up at DYK). I can't think of any good reason to amend policy to allow sites like this, when so many quality sources are available, but perhaps you have more info on that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just do a Google books search for "Encyclopedia Astronautica", and you get tons of books (which Wikipedia considers "reliable sources"), which are using his website as a source! Do we expect these books to have done further research to verify the information they got from his website? Hardly. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointing to GAs or FAs is circular reasoning.. currently the WP:SPS policy would prohibit the use of it as a source. Mlm42 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, I misunderstood you be saying it was used, when I agree it should not be, per SPS (at least based on what limited info is available on the site, which tells us nothing that I can find about its author). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments continue below. Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Joe Baugher pages from External Links sections

I had brought the following up at SandyGeorgia's talk page without realizing there was already a discussion here; for completeness I'm copying it here:

I know you've been concerned in the past about aircraft articles which use Joe Baugher's pages as citation sources, and I understand that doing this violates policy and is frowned upon, since his is clearly a self-published site. However, I noticed you recently removed links to his pages from the External Links section of several aircraft articles. I don't understand why. To my knowledge, Wikipedia's policy restriction against self-published sites only applies to sources, not External Links. And for many types of aircraft, Baugher is the best or one of the best sources of information available on the web; the only better sources are in print. Removing him from the External Links section cuts readers off from easy access to a potentially useful source of further information. Certainly his pages are more useful and more reliable as information sources on their subjects than many other External Links are.
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems here (and a discussion at the Aviation WikiProject); first, many Aviation editors are seeing that link in many places and believing it to be a reliable source. We now have at least two GAs sourced to it, and several regular aviation editors attempting to defend a self-published hobby site as a reliable source. Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher. It's confusing editors, who think he's reliable and are sourcing articles to him, which adds nothing to the articles. Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links? I'm unconvinved by the frequent assertions that he's such a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the above. It's not a hobby site and has been clearly and explicitly stated to be reliable by published historians. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you've already made this assertion, and I've referred you to WP:SPS-- have you found the requisite publication in the relevant field? They are usually in libraries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But does it state its sources? Don't we accept self-published sources if they cite their sources? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The confusion continues: please read WP:SPS, the policy page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Baugher has a page of over 4,200 references for US military aircraft serials. Mjroots (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good: use them. That's why we have sourcing policies and prefer real sources to self-published hobby sites by non-experts. That the sources are available makes it all the more inexcusable that this is going on at the GA level, much less DYK, where I'm not surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is, we may not have the source to verify the info from, whereas we can all access Baugher's website and verify the info there. Mjroots (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See above, maybe concentrate on the earlier topic as this seems to be a sub-topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Translation: laziness is acceptable and personal self-published hobby sites are preferred to real research from real sources, which are available from experts published in the relevant field. Please consider what you've just written, and where that trend leads if extended to other areas, and then consider why the Aviation Project is the only one I'm aware of that argues to further this trend. This doesn't bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to seeming belief, not everybody has access to libraries, and not everyone can acquire works through the libraries we have. There's books I requested via interlibrary loan over a year ago that I have not received. Also, your continued claiming that Baugher's site is a "hobby site" when it has been established, by reliable sources that it is not, is distressing.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all continue the discourse in the earlier topic as some of the same concerns are being addressed over and over. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Second, I don't know of any reason to include it as an External link; external links are to provide information beyond what can be included in an article from reliable sources, and I know of no reason to include Baugher." That rationale may make sense for an article which is already complete. What about an article which still needs a lot of content? Sure, providing external links may mislead careless editors into using them as cited sources, but there are already policies in place to handle that. Trying to head the issue off by pruning the links ends up hurting those readers who may benefit from access to information not already in the article, and it also hurts conscientious editors who might use those links to get access to information or further sources to work on the article. As for, "Why should we be promoting one hobby website via external links?", well, when I have done so it was because I found better, more complete information on it than I could on any other website, so I figured I'd point other readers or would-be editors toward it as a starting point for future work.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument would imply to me that almost all External Links should be removed, regardless of how much information was currently in the article. It seems to me that would hurt readers for the sake of policy purity. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all the external links are to a dead link anyway, so it may be a moot point. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Not all Bill, I fixed one yesterday. I do believe that link is valid. I compared it to the article and noticed a couple of things, it says where the airframes came from (Davis-Monthan), crew names are given for all the incidents and there is mention of the previous altitude record holder (Ye-66A/MiG-21). There is more useful information there then but to use it we would have to cite the sources listed at the bottom of JB's page, I have them but whether I want to add these facts to the article is a judgement call and could be construed as just copying the facts straight from the book and JB's website (or both). Milb! noted the change of JB's URL some time ago I think for those who cared to update the links, I spotted this one through a dead link tag though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer a counterexample of what I consider to be a useful, self-published website by a recognized, published expert in the relevant field.

• Tourette's Syndrome: minimizing confusion

is a blog by Roger Freeman, MD, clinical head of the Neuropsychiatry Clinic, British Columbia's Children's Hospital, professional advisory board member of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada, and former member of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board. Dr. Freeman has over 180 journal-published articles on PubMed.

Does anyone see the difference in this man's qualifications relative to Joe Baugher, for example? (Only as an external link-- I would never think of using this as a source, which is another big difference, even if WP:MEDRS didn't require higher quality sourcing for medical articles, and even if WP:SPS would allow it, I just wouldn't do this. YMMV.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a resolution

Have we now come to a juncture where we can make some resolution to the impasse? Many editors have now been able to add comments. I am now listing some attributes of the Baugher website:

• Provides verifiable sources for his research;
• Has been acknowledged as credible by other sources;
• Has detailed, structured and professionally written accounts;
• Information is dated and updated to reflect new findings;
• Although posted on a personal website, the material is publicly accessible and is non-commercial. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I don't think so-- not only do I see no need to use him as an external link (although I won't oppose on that), but the main opposition is and remains, the source violates WP:SPS. He is not published in the relevant field as our sourcing policies require. And we have no indication of what other credible experts do *not* consider him reliable, just because some editors have located some that do. Using self-published hobby sites from authors who are not experts in their fields is not a slippery slope we should be going down-- certainly not at the GA level. I also don't think we should be ignoring core Wikipedia policies because involved editors find it more convenient to use this website, in contradiction to our sourcing policies, when real sources are available. Another broader concern is that the entire Resources page, created on January 22 and evidencing limited knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, needs to be reviewed and addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your turn, you make a list of what you think are the main characteristics of his site and forget the absolutely ludicrous, "he is not published" canard. FWiW , it has not been a practice to use the site for GA and FA articles, but to throw the "baby out with the bathwater" is also not advocated. Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but my list is quite simple and short, and is based on our core policy. The site does not meet SPS. Long counterlists based on individually cited opinion irrelevant to our policies won't change that, and won't improve Aviation articles (I thought we had overcome this years ago, dismayed this Project is going backwards again). And accessibility of sources is not key to our policies, as far as I recall (I could be wrong); often, best sources are not web accessible. So, I think your fifth point isn't entirely relevant, and your third and fourth points can't be proven. But we have policy to cover this anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What statements do you consider opinion? that there are sources? others consider the site credible? is professionally written? is dated and updated? is accessible and non-commercial? Enlighten me? FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

It is your asssertion that Baugher "has detailed accounts" that are "updated to reflect new findings": that may or may not be true, I don't think we know for sure, and that is why SPS cautions against use of such sources when other sources are available. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate us on your "hobby horse" comment earlier on the page, as I'm beginning to wonder about the investment in this one particular site (at the expense of ignoring other likely problems on the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps the solution is to open a debate regarding WP:SPS, then, and see if there is consensus to modify it to include works by those that are considered by the consensus of experts to be by experts and reliable? As with the increasing use of epublishing and what-not, traditional printed sources are going to gradually become less and less common in the not-too-distant future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also have a "water on a duck's back" maxim regarding Wikiwacky comments, but I do take offense if you are broadly referring to all of us as sending the project backward, hardly! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Have those of you arguing to weaken WP:SPS considered the effect that will have throughout the Project? Is this Baugher site really a "hill worth dying on"? I'm wondering why, when so many other sources are available. For example, why would I quote Roger Freeman, who meets SPS, when published sources are available? Do you really want that occurring throughout the Project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you could advance the discussion by entertaining me with an analysis of the differences I posted above between, for example, a recognized top expert publishing in his own field (Roger Freeman) compared to a self-published website from Joe Baugher, outside of his field of expertise? In the case of Roger Freeman, I don't have to go dig up google quotes to substantiate that he would meet SPS if I chose to use him as a source (which I would not at any rate). This is precisely what SPS addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger, the debate should be about WP:SPS, not this specific case. Mlm42 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's agreeing with Bushranger, because I've had to struggle to bring this back to the relevant phrase (in the relevant field) at SPS. I do agree with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the SPS tries to define what it means to be an "expert on the topic". I think we are disagreeing on this definition. For example it appears Joe Baugher is, in fact, and expert on the topic. Yet SPS excludes him. In my example about spaceflight, Mark Wade is an expert, but SPS excludes him. Mlm42 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone devotes his spare time to research and acquiring knowledge on a particular subject, he can no longer be considered outside his field of expertise, that person has become an expert. To clarify: all the Baugher articles are dated and updated with dates of the updates given; IMHO, the writing is of a professional nature in respect to use of terminology, syntax and style; all reference sources are listed as "footnotes (non-standard)"; the site is publicly accessible, linked to many other sites and is non-commercial. Bzuk (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I defer to your judgment that it is professionally written, and did not question that, but even you have indicated you can't check the entire website for accuracy; that is what I question. Publicly accessible is not relevant to our sourcing policies. And once again, could you bring the discussion back to the specific wording in our policy, SPS-- the rest is tangential. Regardless of individual editors who may believe him to be an expert, that is not what our SPS policy requires. It requires that he be published in the relevant field. But I'm repeating myself again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That "in his own field" argument has to be addressed as well. An avocation or field of study is just as relevant as a life's work or a vocation. FWiW, every article that I have checked (and there are thousands of them which indicates a dedication and resolve that I cannot fathom, mais, c'est la vie) has been bereft of major problems in writing or research. (I am a professional writer and editor so I can spot the "skunk in the hen house".) Bzuk (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

See my query above: is Baugher so important to you that you're willing to weaken SPS and see other articles in other areas suffer when we open the door to anyone who wants to self-publish in any area, because someone else lauded their website, even if they are writing outside of their area of expertise as a hobby? Have you considered how wide that floodgate will become? And followup, since other sources are available, what is it about Baugher that makes him worthy of weakening a core policy that protects our articles in other areas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If everyone agrees they are experts in the field, why exclude them just because they haven't published in the third-party source? It doesn't seem right. Mlm42 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is "everyone"? We have a few editors here arguing in favor of Baugher, and I know of many others who disagree (myself included). We have selective quotes, but no way of knowing what all experts think. I suspect my emphasis and concern on this is different, as I've seen the effect across a broader range of topic areas at FAC, and I don't think opening those flood gates to individual opinions as to whether someone is an "expert" will benefit the entire project-- that is why we have the "expert published in his own relevant field" wording at SPS. It avoids exactly these personalized discussions about whether someone is an expert, where everyone has an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, not "everyone" literally. I don't have a precise wording ready, but it seems in this case there is consensus among "experts" that he's an expert in the field. WP:SPS excludes such cases. Mlm42 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

SPS also tells us to use them carefully, as other sources are likely to have published them, which is something we have in this case, rendering the entire discussion over who is and is not an expert somewhat unproductive. I think our policy does the job of helping avoid these kinds of issues, and it was working quite well in the Aviation Project from at least 2008 until the creation of a dubious list on January 22, 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) We are already in the future, the Flight online archive goes back to 1910 or further, only difference is that it has been scanned by someone with the foresight for make it available for all to read. I use a 1946 gas turbine book (perfect condition) so my latest books should still be readable in 2050 or so (granted, probably not by me!). The Joe Baugher conundrum is beyond this project now, it should be taken up at WT:RS for a final and binding answer perhaps if editors feel the need to flog it. I just use the books he lists directly to save any grief. Taking the point that internet sources may well eventually take over we need to look at the way forward. Looking at the two Featured articles that I nominated though the citation mixture seems to be about 80% book and 20% web sourced (although some of that last percentage is Flight scans, so it's strictly a published magazine source), so were not quite in the 'all internet age' just yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, revisiting the original reasoning behind the WP:BRD premise, we may have identified some aspects of SPS that needs to be explored. Nothing about Baugher is unusual except that he is an author of some repute, has made it a "labour of love" (Canadianisms spoken here) to have created an immense directory of aviation and other articles and in so doing, has become an expert in a specialized field and has chosen a unique means of publishing. An exception to a rule does not break the rule, just bends it a bit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Until it grows, and grows, and grows, and every area of the Wiki is arguing over who is an "expert". Is there any chance of you addressing my query above about Roger Freeman, as an example, and explaining why you would find it preferable for me to cite a blog from an author who meets SPS, when journal-published sources are available in a library, and have been peer-reviewed? I don't see how going to the wider community to try to change a core policy will be helpful if y'all won't answer that basic question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The floodgates argument is just another aspect of the same argument, there are numerous self-published sites that have been offered and rejected. I recently eviscerated an edit from an obvious fanboy site. If a blog is written by an expert is it any less credible than a print version of that same blog. We have a doctor providing a blog in our local newspaper as his column; the rules are changing as we speak... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

OK, so let's suppose the in the relevant field wording is removed. Do you not envision, as I do, this same discussion playing out across multiple Projects and articles? If that clause is removed, by what method do we limit the use of self-published sources? What would prevent me from citing Roger Freeman's blog, and having someone who dislikes Roger Freeman attack the article's credibility because I didn't use peer-reviewed journal articles? (Actually, that's not a very good example, because in the medical realm, we are fortunate to have a guideline that requires the best sourcing, but it's a hypothetical question any way.) I'd like to see you all move beyond Baugher here and understand the effect across the entire Project of allowing self-published sources according to opinions over whether someone is an expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we need to make sure they are an expert in the relevant field. It's the "third-party publication" bit that's the problem. Mlm42 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment WP:SPS doesn't say exactly what an expert is anyway. So we're already avoiding the question. It just says that if someone is an "established expert" on the topic, then we can only include their self-published sources only if they have a third-party publication on that topic. But it doesn't say such a publication is sufficient to be an expert in the field. So the question is already there.. we've just avoided it with the "third-party publication" bit, which is a rough approximation to the concept of being an "expert". Mlm42 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is proposing changing the rules of the game, just recognizing that there are other ways of being accepted as an expert. In advocating for this one individual website does not lead to wholesale changes in the criteria for reliable sources. Is Baugher an expert, yes, he is. Is he the best source? probably not. Should we use him for GA/FA articles, let's say no. Should he be excluded entirely when other editors resort to his site when they have no other credible sources at hand, perhaps. This isn't undermining Wikipedia, it's acknowledging that reference sources can be diverse and ever-expanding. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you agree he shouldn't be used at the GA level, we can close up and go home now :) That's really all I'm asking, and that the Resources page be rewritten to reflect how those sources should actually be used. The implication now is that they are reliable across the board, so we're seeing them used perhaps inappropriately. I won't argue if Baugher is used on a stub, but it is now being used on GAs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec, @Mlm) But, but ... yes it does! By requiring they be published in the relevant field (and bolded there). It's a strange thing about Wikipedia perhaps, but what else would work in its place and not be subjective? If the argument here is to delete that portion, how do we avoid opening the floodgates? What is it replaced with? People googling for opinions about that editor, when critical opinion is less likely to be published for a variety of reasons, best not discussed here? For example, Roger Freeman is quite the plain talker and straight shooter, and he's probably got lots of enemies (using my example from above), so we rely on the fact that he is a published expert in his field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I read it: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It says "an established expert .. whose work ..". It doesn't say what an established expert is.. Mlm42 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the 'resources' page mentioned here, I created a resource page for the aero engines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Reference sources and made sure that nothing there was questionable. If someone can link to the page in question I will have a look at it and report back, (nay, even remove any dodgy ones!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it feels like this discussion has been going on for eons, but it's the very first link at the top of the section I started only about six hours ago :) Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources. I'm going to go away and rest for a while ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I've looked at them and the lead line does not say that they are all reliable sources unlike the engine source page I created, it should say that some (or most) of them are not. Confusingly, at the bottom it says that links in this section are not reliable sources (implying that the links in the upper sections are). With the project's agreement I will fix it to make it much clearer. Without it I won't. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My initial concern was raised by statements on an RFA to the effect that it was "endorsed" (or something) by the Aviation Project, which caused me to go looking for a source guideline here, and that was all I found, so fixin' is needed :) Aviation editors are believing all are reliable, rather than some being places for locating reliable sources, and the distinction at the bottom is most confusing. The page was only created on January 22, so I'm still curious how Baugher was "endorsed" for GAs prior to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so we don't have the MicMac mind trick here, this is not resolved yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

This is the same debate we had last year over navweps.com for WP:Ships. Like Baugher the site is sourced, updated constantly, etc., but the primary author is not a 3rd-party-published expert even though several authors who have been published have used material from his site. Which means that outsiders do regard him as a reputable expert even though that doesn't seem to make any difference to WP:SPS. Which, to my mind, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I see no reason why editors who have no access to expensive, rare, or in another language, books should be kept from using a web source which does use those sources.

I find it rather humorous that such insistence is made on traditional publishing in the criteria for SPS when I've seen plenty of howler-type errors made by publishers who fail to fact-check many books in the name of saving money. To be fair, however, I suspect that that standard was set for lack of anything better that came to mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of howler-type errors in traditional sources, David Porter's Hitler's Secret Weapons references a supposed 700,000LT H-45 battleship design that was apparently made up as a theoretical concept in a forum. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to put forth at WT:V

Alright, let's talk about a concrete proposal. SPS currently reads:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I propose it be amended to:

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, established by one of two ways: the "expert" is cited in multiple reliable third-party publications as an expert in the relevant field, or whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by the same. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so, and higher-quality citations are required for an article to be rated at the highest assessment levels.

I believe this opens the door for (what I believe to be) reliable sources like Baugher or Tony DiGiulian at NavWeaps, ie people who have been cited in reliable books as being "experts", while keeping out everything else. I also hope that the last sentence will be of comfort to Sandy and others; I've actually wanted to add that since WIAFA was altered. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll see tomorrow, but I think that this would be the first time a "double standard" in referencing quality is actually admitted to in a major guideline - obviously we all know this in fact what most articles show, unless and until they are taken to GA or FA. Since Sandy's big concern re all this is the quality of DYK referencing, this may not work for her, but let's see. Myself I don't like departing from the idea that all articles are held to the same referencing standards, even though most just don't live up to them (rather like Catholics and sin). It's a slippery slope. I know nothing about Baugher & won't try to assess his quality myself, but in general there is a load of referencing material published on aviation, far more than many fields, & I think there ought to be a pressing need before the existing principle is departed from. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A double standard was already codified in WIAFA's "high-quality" criterion... I don't see this as a slippery slope as much because there really isn't anywhere else to go down to. Baugher and DiGiulian are reliable, I think, but they are certainly the lowest form of RS. For those who want to quickly expand large amounts of articles, those who don't have access to high-quality sources (or yes, the "lazy" ones), I think these are perfect. For those who want to go up the assessment ladder, they aren't acceptable.

In essence, I think Wikipedia editors should be able to use these sources if published authors use and/or recommend them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, heck. I'm too tired to be doing this tonight, but with Ed17's good faith effort to move this forward, and with it fresh in my mind, I don't like to keep y'all waiting, so I'll try to pound out an initial response, likely incoherent and more rambling than my usual. Please do not take any of my commentary as specifically directed at Aviation or Baugher-- it's that potential opening of the floodgates that concerns me.

1. I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that a double standard is codified at WP:WIAFA, where "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" was added after a long and heated discussion. I'm concerned that we not leave the impression that FAs diverge from core policy, when the situation is possibly (in some cases) one where other articles don't reflect policy. But that's neither here nor there for this discussion.

2. A word on attempts to change long-standing core policy. It is really tough! Editors will come out of the woodwork with scenarios we can't even envision here, so pounding something out at the WikiProject level that will address this problem may be a more effective approach. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't try something wrt WP:SPS; just cautioning that it can be really hard to get something through, so it had best be airtight, preferably before you even think of going there.

3. My (similar) experience in the area I most edit (medicine). Many of us (it may be fair to say most of us) who edit medical articles feel that sourcing for them should be held to a higher standard, as with BLPs, because inaccurate medical articles have just as much potential for harm as poorly sourced BLPs. What core changes to sourcing policy have we ever seen on Wikipedia except BLPs? So, we worked very hard for a very long time to develop WP:MEDRS, a guideline, and to gain broad consensus for it. MEDRS took maybe a year to bring it to something resembling its current state, not sure, and even though it enjoys broad consensus and is very well written, we have never been successful at getting that guideline included in a policy page or elevated to the level of BLPs, so just a note of caution to all of you about how difficult it is to get even broad consensus for change added to a policy page.

4. Now, with that as background, turning to this proposal, I suspect that you will have a very hard time getting "higher-quality citations are required for an article to be rated at the highest assessment levels" through WP:V. First, some editors on the Wikipedia go bonkers at the mere mention of article assessment. Second, some will argue that all articles should use the highest quality sourcing available. Third, plenty of people will simply reject that because they won't want to confuse article assessment with core policy; the idea of introducing different levels of sourcing to different levels of articles, I think, will be a very hard sell. Fourth, as someone else already raised somewhere else in these discussions, fixing up an already cited article after the fact is a nightmare. Dealing with poorly sourced medical articles, I hold the opinion that no content (at least in medical articles) is preferable to marginally sourced content, because fixing them after the fact is so hard, and inaccurate medical info has such potential to harm our readers. I've done a lot of that kind of work, and know how hard it is, and I'd rather we not encourage general or new editors to use marginal sources anywhere at any time-- we've got too much of that already! (Again, I'm not referring to Baugher here-- I'm asking you all to think of the bigger picture). This is precisely the problem I have with how the award culture fuels DYK via WikiCup on the route to RFA; poorly sourced articles do not serve us or our readers well, and fixing them later is a lot of work for other editors, so the whole idea of introducing different levels of sourcing per assessment is likely to be a non-starter, and to include other objections I haven't even thought of. Others have already mentioned that we'd rather see new editors learn correct sourcing from the get-go, so our content is verifiable to reliable sources and we don't have to fix 'em up later.

5. Another point is that, for some content areas, it's entirely possibly that the highest quality sources available are self-published sources, albeit those written by authors who meet the current SPS, so introducing this change may meet resistance on that front.

6. On "the 'expert' is cited in multiple reliable third-party publications as an expert in the relevant field," I'm less troubled, but still doubt it will get by a broader audience at WP:V, because any editor who has been around for a while knows of some scenario or another where someone tried to argue that so-and-so was an "expert" because so-and-so-two said so, and this could lead to all kinds of debates similar to the one we're having here.

So, in summary, while I don't discourage the idea of review at WP:V, I don't hold out hope, and think a much more effective approach will be to solve the problem at the Project level. I'm not sure how that might be best accomplished, but the case we have here is that there are plenty of reliable aviation sources, so why not teach new editors correct sourcing early on, rather than try for a change to a core policy? It seems to me that the gist of this proposal is to encourage new content, while reminding new editors that for an article to progress through assessment levels, better sourcing may be needed. Can that be accomplished by some other means, like reminding them to use lesser quality sources as a means of locating better sources?

I'm sorry if this isn't very coherent, but wanted to provide something while the discussion is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, and (as with your comments) this is a general thing as opposed to specific, it could be very discouraging to a new editor if they are told "everybody agrees that this source is reliable, but we don't, and if you can't find its sources to use them, tough cookies for you." I know that isn't the intent, but that is exactly how lots of people will take it to mean: that if you can't afford a $200 book (or a $999 one - don't laugh, one of the books I need for a future FL I'm working on is listed as exactly that used at Amazon!), and if your local library can't get it for you via interlibrary loan, you're somehow a lesser editor than those who can achieve either of those - even though the information is right there, and everyone but Wikipedia says it's reliable.

As an aside, what if somebody uses a book to cite an article - and the information in the book came originally from Baugher/NavWeaps/et al.? Are we going to say "sorry, you can't use this book as a source"? Or are we going to say "you can use the book which sourced/quoted X, but you can't use X itself, because the book is reliable and X is not even though the book's source was X"? I think, regardless of where we stand on this issue, we can agree that that would be silly indeed - but it's exactly where things appear to stand at the moment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Bushranger, I just asked that question at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. It was noted that if a reliable source publishes "work" that came from the website in question, then the wording of WP:SPS is such that this counts as having the authors work being published, and hence makes the website an acceptable source. Mlm42 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's how I have always understood it, using WP:COMMONSENSE, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) On your first paragraphs, new (and even experienced) editors put up poorly sourced content all the time; there's nothing new there, but codifying that into policy would be new. Probably 95% of the Project is poorly sourced, but that's not a reason to encourage it in policy. And your "everyone but Wikipedia says it's reliable" is a bit of hyperbole for a general proposal (and maybe even for the Baugher specific example, where not everyone says it's reliable). On your second paragraph, that is not where things currently stand per SPS. Another editor has already pointed out a problem somewhere in these discussions with a Baugher source in another article, so that his site is error free should not be in question. If a reliable source quotes him, that's not really our problem either, the source would meet our verifiability requirements-- until/unless a better source pinpoints an error, in which case, that book would be called into question as a good source. I think if we want to advance this discussion, it is imperative to think beyond Aviation and Baugher, to the bigger picture on Wiki. And I'm not dismissing your concerns about the cost of sources: I used to regularly spend about $500 per year for medical journal articles, but if I can't source articles correctly, I shouldn't be writing them. Now I have friends with access, but nonetheless, that's my view-- in the area I most edit (medicine), I believe no content is preferable to marginal content. Aviation articles might not be causing harm to anyone, so I'm unlikely to scream if Baugher is referencing a stub, but our editors should learn correct sourcing as early as possible. There are many ways on Wikipedia of sharing sources-- have you all tried that? Surely many editors here have many of the most crucial books, and scanning and e-mail are possibilites, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's certainly not error free, I agree - then again there's a lot of books that are reliable in some areas and not in others, and I've seen it said, at WP:MILHIST and elsewhere on the project, that in those cases you simply use what's accurate, and discard what isn't. (Stuff about Soviet weaponry published before the fall of the Soviet Union is particulary bad about this - and it got worse for a short time shortly thereafter when the now-Russian companies decided to throw everything they had on the back of a napkin at the West and hope some of it, any of it, would stick!) I think you misunderstood my first paragraph though - it's not saying that there should, or shouldn't, be a policy change, but rather that a new editor might well think Wikipedia is crazy for saying that X, who Y, Z, A, B and C say is an expert, isn't an expert. I know one group of people, veterans and experts in their fields all, that I'm involved with who consistently mock Wikipedia for things exactly like that - WP:PRIMARY got an especially long round of sad head-shaking, with statements, by published military authors, that primary sources should be given preference over secondary ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can relate: I faced the problem of massively conflicting reliable sources in Brazilian cruiser Bahia#Loss. If a consistent series of errors is identified in Baugher, then we can declare it as unreliable, just like any other source. However, so far I'm not seeing that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@BushRanger, understood now, thanks for the clarification. We have a similar but different problem in medical articles, where *real* experts in their fields are used to writing from primary sources, and mock us for requiring secondary sources, but we have our policies to protect us from sites even more marginal than some of these MilHist sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I tried to explain to them. I'm not sure if they got it or simply decided to humour me by smiling and nodding... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Raised at RSN

Having read all the discussion that has occurred overnight, I've raised the question at WP:RSN#Joe Baugher. The discussion is specifically about Baugher's lists of American military aircraft, No other parts of Baugher's website are under consideration or discussion. I've asked that AVIATION and MILHIST members disclose their membership of the project if they are participating in the discussion. We have "irons in the fire" so to speak. The idea of raising this at RS is to get uninvolved editors to look at the arguments on either side and hopefully establish consensus over the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. I've posted (with disclaimer) there regarding the Gbooks hits. I should note that, regardless of the outcome of this, I will happily comply either way - if the verdict is "not a RS", then I'll remove the links from the GAs in question, see about finding alternative sources, and also use alternative sources on the other pages from B-class and down as I work on them. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's declared not reliable, then it won't be useable at all and all info will have to be referenced from elsewhere. On the other hand, if it is deemed to be a RS, then it can be used across all classes of article, including FA and FL. I'm uneasy with "reliable enough to use if nothing better available". Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots, the post above isn't completely correct-- reliability of sources is a spectrum, and depends upon the source texted and the article, and even if considered reliable for some text or some kinds of articles, it is never likely to be acceptable at the FA level, which requires high quality sources and a survey of the relevant literature-- if Baugher cites his sources, those are the high quality sources that would be needed in a relevant survey of the literature, and that must be consulted to ascertain accuracy of text cited to a hobby site, that may be acceptable for other purposes at lower levels of assessment. The notion that any given source is simply reliable or not is wrong; reliability is context dependent. For example The New York Times is generally a reliable source, but may not be used to cite medical facts. FYI, I wouldn't have opened a RSN post referencing an ongoing RFA (I usually wait for them to close before referencing them anywhere): YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On the spectrum issue, I'm open to accepting the there may be a yes/sometimes/maybe/possibly/no scale rather than yes/no. We'll see what the consensus of the discussion is. I would remind editors that the question raised at RSN is specifically in relation to the three webpages linked to, and those webpages linked from them. No other pages on Joe Baugher's website are in the remit of that discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

General requests

During the next 2 to 3 months, I'll be working hard on articles such as Airbus A300, Airbus A310, Airbus A320 family, Airbus A340, Boeing 707 and Boeing 757. Hopefully my goal of promoting these articles to Good Article, and later Featured Article, status will be realised. Please forgive me removing some information and blanking of sections because, good articles cannot be compromised by unreferenced claims. However, I'll try to find the references for these claims, and the text removed text itself will not be kept far from my screen, as I will actively seek the references.

First of all, does somebody mind producing diagrams like File:A350 variant sizes.svg? For the page Airbus A330, I'm looking for a diagram of an Airbus A330-200, A330-300, Boeing 767-300ER and Boeing 767-400ER, laid out in the same style as the ones on the provided link. Further diagrams requests will be posted.

Secondly, I'm looking for a number of images. A photo of the A330 and A340 wing is needed, because the identical wing is a significant aspect of these two planes. My searches on Wiki Commons show up no results, so I am here, asking for your help. A photo of the Clament Ader assembly hall at Toulouse, France, near Toulouse-Blagnac Airport will also be useful, if someone happens to live nearby.

I won't be asking for your help with the text itself though, because I can work on it by myself. However, two or more heads are definitely better than one. Just get along, and improve these articles with me, if you like. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 07:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider breaking up the A320 family before doing to much work on it. So far it has not been done because it would need a bit of co-ordination and team work but suggest it could be discussed on the WP:AIRCRAFT talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Phillip, regarding a photo of the A330/A340 wing I can probably take one of these for you. May have to wait for good light conditions of course. What sort of angle / aspect would you prefer? It would be an A330 wing but as you say it is identical for the A340, you can even see the connection points where the struts for A340 engines 1 & 4 would be on the A330 wing! SempreVolando (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Heerodden helicopter accident

Heerodden helicopter accident doesn't appear to be notable. A PROD has already been contested. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree just another helicopter crash cant see anything special that would cause it to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone do the AFD honors? I have AFDADD (ADF Application deficiency disorder). :) - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, it does technically appear to meet WP:AIRCRASH. (over 12,500lb gross weight, fatalities, hull loss)...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH doesnt define any weight limits! it just says that for a stand alone article it has to meet general notability guidelines. (The weight limit thing was for inclusion in aircraft type articles) MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does: For accidents involving aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:. But the stand-alone bit is a good point, I don't believe this is likely to meet WP:GNG...somebody else will have to do it though, I'm out of time here right now! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Knock yourselves out: AFD. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash

Also noted another non-notable article that has been nominated as a GA! 1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a proposed deletion tag but I am a bit concerned it is within a few days of being nominated as a good article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that the NTSB made several recommendations, this might well qualify as notable. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I'm pretty sure this was a "notable" crash with regard to bird-strike procedures. indeed, it seems the NTSB censured the FAA pretty heatedly (by govermnent standards) over it! [3][4] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Noted but I am not yet convinced that it was that notable for a stand-alone article and the prod has been seconded. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

True; that's why I didn't remove it. It's borderline at best, I'd likely weakly support if it came/comes to an AfD, but as it is I'm content either way. Better sourcing would certainly be a help though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Did the FAA respond in any way? (eg. after the Eastern 375 the FAA developed minimum bird ingestion standards for engines). Did anything similar happen in this case? If it did, I'd say it was notable enough for its own article; otherwise I'd say it should be merged into bird strike. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been promoted to GA. As such, it should probably go through AFD, so that those who promoted it to GA have ssome time to respond, so I'm de-prodding it. I agree it's borderline as written, but I have a hunch that notability can be proved. We'll see what turns up. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay. Whilst it may be good for 99% of the time, there may the the occasional exception. This could be one of those exceptions. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH is just a essay, but it is working reasonably well right now. Of course there is always WP:IAR or at least "Ignore all essays". Actually if this accident did result in upgraded birdstrike standards for small turbine engines used on FAR 23 aircraft (which I believe it did) then the article should be retained as it would comply with WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I originally raised the article as an issue I am happy to go with the suggestion of Mukkakukaku and Ahunt that if it can be established that the rules were actually changed then that would be notable. Currently it is not sourced or mentioned in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

611897 Alberta Limited

Could someone with a knowledge of Canada have a look at 611897 Alberta Limited? To me it looks more like a shell company used to register some planes than an actual airline or tour company. I did a search of the Canadian aircraft register for "Alberta Ltd" (611897 did return any results) and dozens of these "xxxxxx Alberta Ltd." entities come up as aircraft owners for all sorts of different aircraft - powered chutes, warbirds, helicopters, corporate aircraft, lighties, balloons, gliders, etc. On the other hand, according to an official Transport Canada list from 2005, it has had a Code (THD) and a callsign (Doughnut) [5]. Over to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.219.118 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah there are tons of numbered Alberta companies, most are tax dodges used to import planes into the only province that doesn't have a sales tax on imported planes. This one looks very odd, although the company seems to exist. A search for refs turns up absolutely nothing close to WP:CORP level of refs, just airline code mirrors, which may all be nothing bit copies of each other. I would suggest WP:PROD and will do that. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheba Airlines

Anybody heard of them? A Yahoo Search doesn't reveal anything. I've just indefinitely blocked Sheba airlines (talk · contribs) under WP:CORPNAME. Mjroots (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it was a hoax. The Sheba Airlines page was deleted as such a while ago. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DRV Notice

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to the changes to WP:AIRCRASH since the article was deleted. Members of this WP might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was endorsed. May I thank all who contributed to the discussion for their input. The incident is covered under the Kingfisher Airlines article, where any further info may be added. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sudan Airways Flight 139

Any thoughts on the recent edits to Sudan Airways Flight 139? Particularly those by 64.107.208.27. The IP address is in a school and has a lot of its edits reverted, due to vandalism. The ones to Sudan Airways Flight 139 look OK to me, but I thought I might ask someone who might have more of an idea. Yaris678 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the number changed as Lone survivor of Sudan air crash dies says 11 crew and 116 fatalities total. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The edits on Feb. 18 through Feb. 23 mainly just added an Infobox. Another user corrected some numbers. I added an aviation-safety.net link. The article should be OK now, but could use references that are placed inline with text. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh

I have just nominated Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

The Lympne Airport article is currently at GAN, and has been identified as needing a copyedit. The nomination has been placed on hold. Any AVIATION members willing to have a go at this please? Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You might like to list it at WP:GOCE, they're very good at copyediting. wackywace 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Have asked on talk page, and at MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was promoted yesterday. Barnstar and Wikithanks given. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP: WikiProject Rocketry

There is a suggestion to merge WP:ROCKETRY to WP:Spaceflight at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight. As most rockets do not have anything to do with space, and operate in the air. I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit odd, but the member of WPROCKETS like to run their own show without interference form WPAIR. Perhaps a merger of the those two projects will be a good thing, and foster a more co-operative mindset in the combined project than exists now. The proposal is located here. - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about number of articles in Category Aviation

I would like to know if there is a way to know how many articles there are under the category aviation. Or, if it is not posibble, how many articles there are with the template aviation, in its discussion page. Bye--AeroPsico (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably best place is WP:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance; see totals there. Note that Military Aviation is part of WP:MilitaryHistory and its numbers do not add to the Aviation totals. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found this web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Aviation_articles, but dont appear the number of articles with that template. Then Fnlayson, there are 42513 articles with that template???--AeroPsico (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Three files for deletion

File:Tc thy tcthg.jpg, File:Hurricane Hugo DC-3 wreck.jpg and File:G-ARPY Felthorpe.jpg have all been nominated for deletion . Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WWI flying aces lists

Three new WWI flying aces lists have shown up, of one entry each. See List of World War I aces from Greece , List of World War I flying aces from Estonia , List of World War I aces from Fiji . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New article

I have started a sandbox draft, Aergo Capital, an aircraft operating and leasing company. Please feel free to contribute. Roger (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Article needs an infobox. {{infobox airline}} or {{infobox company}} perhaps? Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't an airline. It supplies aircraft and related services to airlines. The generic company box will have to do. Btw you are more than welcome to come over and play in my sandbox :) Roger (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Class A article up for deletion

{{Class A article}} has been nominated for deletion. As this wikiproject uses A-class as a quality rating, I thought I'd let you know. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

proposal to merge Tata Airlines with Air India

I have proposed Tata Airlines be merged with Air India. Reasons listed on Talk:Air India, where I have started a discussion on the same. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Aviation in Wisconsin

G'day all, just seeking opinions on Aviation in Wisconsin. I personally don't think there's a need for this article; over to you. YSSYguy (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be a cat, not an article! It's trivia and looks like it was written by the state tourist board. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are comparable articles Aviation in Norway, Aviation in Moldova, Aviation in Romania, Aviation in Singapore, Aviation in Maryland that should be examined too. If retained, this one should certainly be improved, it's fairly grotesque at present. If deleted, the content should be merged to others. I'm inclined to see it as a navigation aide rather than a content article. We don't normally preclude common content between categories, lists, and tables, different users prefer different ways to navigate. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 812

The Southwest Airlines Flight 812 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That AfD closed on April 5 as a Keep. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 FAC

Please express your thoughts on whether Airbus A330 should be a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive2. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eurowhite

So the eurowhite livery -- is this an actual aviation term? I've been trying to find sources so I can reference the existing article but have found, to my surprise, that there are no books, no news articles, and the only google search results seem to be forum posts or wiki clones and the like. This leads me to believe this is either WP:MADEUP or obscure aviation slang/lingo that probably deserves a mention somewhere but probably not an article of its own. (Interestingly enough, it seems to be a moderately used word in sociology/business to refer to people of Caucasian European ancestry.) Thoughts? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it sounds like MADEUP, especially as no references are provided. The sociology model sounds much more plausible. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that the article was started on 17 May 2005, six years ago!! Reading the article and especially Talk:Eurowhite, it looks like WP:OR to me, recommend WP:PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what got me. I've run into this article a number of times over the years and never considered it might be make-believe. I've prod'ed it. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seconded the PROD. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been de-Prodded. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurowhite. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it amazing that articles can last six years with no refs and none found today. I have added my note the AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: AfD completed, deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Jal Hans

There is an ongoing discussion on whether Jal Hans is just a plane and not an airline. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A (air/aero)plane is a type of aircraft. But the discussion there is about plane vs. airline. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Corrected the typo. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the company is notable enough to sustain an article. A Cessna 208 is not an airliner by any stretch of the imagination. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A single plane does not an airline make, nor does it pass general notability requirements. I'd support a prod. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 09:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear editors, please leave your valuable comments on the talk page of the article rather than this section. Thanks, —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Air France A380 incident

Yesterday, an AF A380 was involved in a ground collision with a CRJ-700 at New York's JFK airport. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Air France accidents and incidents as to whether or not this incident is notable enough to be included on the Air France accidents and incidents article (inclusion there would also mean notability established for inclusion on the airport and aircraft articles IMHO). The evidence is posted at Talk:Air France accidents and incidents, where your input is sought. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

... And now the Air France Flight 7 article is at AFD. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Majuba Aviation crash

Created new article. However, other than planecrashinfo.com, i can't find any source that the plane was operated by Majuba Aviation. I have not even seen anything about Majuba Aviation on any other article or website. So, can somebody help me to find out who operated the aircraft? And can somebody add it to the 2010-11 template. Cause i suck at that. --KzKrann (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Majuba Aviation is a South African aircraft charter company, est. 2010, a subsidiary of Italtile Limited. The crash killed Majuba's chief pilot, as well as Italtile's CEO and HR manager. I'm not sure this incident is notable enough to merit an article.... --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, i do since 9 people actually died. Thanks for the information. KzKrann (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Majuba Aviation is simply a subsidiary of Italtile itself - created as a separate entity to operate the company plane. It's not an airline. Roger (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what shall we call the article? KzKrann (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Majuba Aviation Pilatus PC-12 crash would be a good title. Although the PC-12 is under 5,700kg MTOW, the high death toll may just be enough to justify an article IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The notability of one or more of the victims (senior executives of a large company) might also lend weight to notability of the accident. Roger (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The company itself is not notable enough to merit an article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 20:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD here. I decided to skip PROD as based on past experience I am certain the article's creator would have removed the PROD tag. YSSYguy (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed i would have ;) --KzKrann (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Zurf citing his own website

User:AircraftZurf has been citing his own opinions as published on his website aircraft.zurf.info. There is a discussion under way at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zurf_Military_Aircraft. Please weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft/help

{{Infobox aircraft/help}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Aircraft arquitecture"

A new category has shown up... Category:Aircraft arquitecture ... 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's even spelled wrong. Lovely. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. It's entirely redundant with Category:Aircraft and Category:Aerospace engineering. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 06:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my english is not good, but, what is the spelled correct? In spanish, Arquitectura de aeronaves is a subject in the aeronautical engineering.--AeroPsico (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Architecture is the English spelling/word. But it is generally used with buildings and ground structures, not aircraft. Category:Aircraft, or Category:Aircraft configurations is probably more what is meant. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• In Spanish (and French) the word "architecture" has a more broad meaning than in English. It refers is more analogous to the English "engineering" in that it refers to the construction of most anything. Category:Aircraft architecture has been created in the meantime which I am nominating for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to unilaterally change dates, formats

Although a lot of good is being done by User:Magus732 in tackling some old articles, there has been a widespread crusade to change dates of military aircraft to mdy rather than the present dmy used in military parlance. Another concern is that a very obtuse edit comment is being used to "cover over" these and other potentially controversial changes. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Considering the numerous comments on his talk page, which seem to have been ignored, I'd suggest an RFC --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 09:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support an RFC. An uninvolved editor should issue a final warning. If this is ignored, WP:ANI is a the next step. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Raj Hamsa Ultralights

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 for a second time, in this instance by User:Bongomatic. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights (2nd nomination). - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Lockheed D-21/M-21; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

VTVL

The naming of VTVL is under discussion, see Talk:VTVL. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AF447 Major Development

The search team recovered the memory unit from the Flight Data Recorder today. It's on the surface and on its way to France. Hopefully the data's good and reveals much about the Air France 447 mystery. N419BH 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Graydon Evans

Has anyone ever heard of Graydon Evans? I can't find out anything about him, nor can I figure out what aircraft type he was flying when he died. YSSYguy (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be made up or a family story blown up in importance a lot of the information doesnt appear at first glance to add up, only internet references are mirrors of this article. Unless somebody can provide any references perhaps it should be proposed for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks suspect to me as well - there are no Convair correspond to the mystery aircraft that the article alledges Evans was flying when he died. The article creator does not appear to be active on wiki anymore. A definate PROD candidate.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it and I agree, it looks suspiciously like a hoax. I agree, go PROD and see if anyone objects. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thought it might have been related to the XB-24F but that did not crash, why would he have had full military honors if he was a civvy test pilot, if it was a test flight why did it have a rear-gunner. Tried different combinations of the facts in searches with no luck, I would say it needs a prize for the longest surviving hoax article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And why would a fighter-bomber have a rear gunner, there is lots there that makes it look like hoax. And why would Patton, an armoured commander, get involved? And why even try to built this at a time when the P-47 was in service? Let's see if anyone comes out of the woodwork to explain it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that the one source used in the article is a self-pub. It's also only 94 pages long, has no ISBN, and though I found it on Google Books, a search within that text for "graydon evans", "evans", and "1908" came up empty. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the original author admitted on his user page that Evans was his Great-Uncle, so there's a definite COI there. Probably is a family story blown out of proportion as MilborneOne mentioned above. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The PROD was successful, article was deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of airlines up for deletion

List of airlines of Turkmenistan has been prodded for deletion. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of airlines of Northern Cyprus has been prodded for deletion. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A-class review

The article Airbus A330 is currently at A-class review. Anyone who could spare some time please come forward and see this article through. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 13:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

theaviationindex.com

A bit of controversy over addition of an theaviationindex.com external link added by a newbie has been challenged as spam by a long-time editor. Whatdayathink? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Links were also added by another user, editing style suggest they are the same person. Website is merely a collection of magazines and some books containing articles about the subject. Website usually has big links to Amazon to actually buy these books/magazines, that's the main reason for calling it Spam/adlinks. --Denniss (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That site might be useful as a tool to aid research. I doubt it could be cited itself as a WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable as an EL. It's not the kind of thing you'd want to base a whole article on (after all, they're just offering up other reliable sources, and maybe some less reliable ones) but considered as a collection of "further reading" it's OK, and not particularly spammy if it's done in moderation (ie. only a relevant link and not on too many different articles). bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried out the site to see if it was useful and found on the three searches that it turned up magazine/periodical articles that were not evident in other sites; for that reason alone, I believe that theaviationindex.com could be retained as an external link to help editors find the obscure article that stymies you... FWiW, the link to a mainline publisher's site is not as worrying as many other websites have made that kind of link in order to pay the bills. If it was a phish site or a deceptive site, I would be more concerned. Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Worth adding to the resources page then? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes; that sounds reasonable. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt look like a website that could be used as an external link or a reference, it appears to be self published with content added by registered users and most of the magazine and book covers are copyright and the site does not give any attribution to the image sources. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MB1 on this one - it looks like it runs afoul of both WP:SPS and also WP:COPYLINK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers magazine covers using the non-free magazine covers templateTemplate:Non-free_magazine_cover so following a similar rule I think the use of the site is acceptable. Book covers appear to be coming directly from Amazon using an Amazon API - also acceptable IMHO. As an external reference on a page about a publication (or an Aviation author (e.g. its use on Robert_F._Dorr and or Air_International) the external link is particuarly useful. Some pages have quite a large bibliography already, while still missing particuarly useful publications so a good poitner to use for further research F18hornetfan (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still a self-published site so cant really be used as a reference particularly if the article moves up the assessment grades. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For the F-4 theaviationindex.com link, it does not adds any info that's not in the article. That's a valid reason to remove per WP:EL. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In the 150 items listed, the website does not bring out any new information? Bzuk (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I looked at the first page of info and saw only summary snippets. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)