Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 21

Articles needing citations

I am really confused by this process. By our current linking method I have come across an article I want to find references for, for example 1995 Royal Air Force Nimrod R1 ditching. But as I've got there from a link to its talk page with no obvious method of marking it as 'done', why should I bother? Playing devil's advocate a bit here, but is it not a legitimate question? Concerned that we aren't providing clarity for those who could/would help us? Mark83 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cant you just edit the talk page and change the b1=n to b1=y. 13:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are two types of 'needing references'. The project assessment templates drive the project categories such as Category:Aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation, if you have hidden categories selected in your gadgets these categories will appear on the talk page (and disappear once the parameter has been changed from no to yes). I view that type of 'need' as being required only to progress up the assessment ladder.

Probably a more pressing 'need' is when an editor places a referencing template at the top of the article itself, that generates a hidden category seen on the article page (not the talk page). The General Electric CF6 article is in Category:Articles needing additional references from November 2008 because it has a referencing tag and it is in several more categories because inline citation needed tags have also been added. Removing all of those tags by addressing the concerns (or deeming that they are not required) would remove the categories. That article has been assessed as B class (referencing criteria met) despite the tags that have been there for many years. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You can go to https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Aviation.html for a bot-generated categorized list of articles in the aviation project that have maintenance templates on them. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back on this. Thanks for the reply. As simple as the b1=n to b1=y solution is (and apologies I should have worked that out for myself), it just doesn't feel like an accessible solution to most users?? But just flagging an issue. Also conscious I'm not being constructive in the sense I don't have an alternative. And I imagine another solution would involve massive effort without the right cost:benefit ratio. Mark83 (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First and fastest circumnavigation of the world in an autogyro

Hi all! I am not usually an editor of aviation articles, but I came across the case of Norman Surplus and James Ketchell recently and how to best word their articles to reflect the various records they have been awarded. Ketchell is the official holder of the first circumnavigation of the world in an autogyro as certified by Guinness World Records, but this was after Surplus finished his final leg 9 years after he began, so a lot of the news coverage in early 2019 referred to him as the "first". I would like some more opinions on what wording should be included for Ketchell, as well in the main article for the Autogyro section on records as I don't want it to descend into an edit war. As several articles are involved, I am unsure as to where an RFC should/could be opened. More expert opinion that mine would be hugely appreciated! Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ketchell was clearly the first according to the FAI, although Surplus efforts are worthy of recognition it should just be mention in a note that the FAI did not consider it the first. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been discussing this with G4gyro on their talk page, but I don't think we'll come to a resolution ourselves. If an RFC was opened, where is the best place for it? There are at least 4 articles effected by this. As an FYI, The FAI have posted about Ketchell's being the "first round the world trip", but have only certified the speed records, it is Guinness that have given Ketchell the certified "first circumnavigation". Smirkybec (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that circumnavigating the world you would finish where you started ! MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you just need to use reliable sources in each article to describe what they did and what was recognised. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue that we are having is that G4gyro and I don't agree on the wording, as there is disagreement on who exactly was "first" and not just the "fastest" circumnavigation! Does the Guinness World Record hold enough sway to unambiguously state Ketchell was the first? Smirkybec (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

So you have to be neutral and say what the source says like "Guiness World Records consider fred to be the first to do something" MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but to stay neutral, a source such as Guinness World Records can only arrive at their balanced, impartial decisions, if they are in prior possession of all the relevant facts...If a physical first circumnavigation occurs but then, for whatever reason, happens not to be formally claimed as a particular record, can any subsequent flight still be able to claim the title of the absolute "First" circumnavigation in its place? As if the prior flight was somehow airbrushed out of history, as if it had never physically happened at all? The "first circumnavigation" title used in this context then possibly does not mean the absolute first physical flight around the world, but simply the first circumnavigation flight that has decided to claim the achievement, while seemingly ignoring the historical fact that a prior flight had already completed the true first circumnavigation.

As a further update on this, a request has now been sent in to Guinness World Records, to enquire what exact supporting information they are basing their claim to award the title of a "First" circumnavigation on, (as opposed to perhaps a title of "Fastest circumnavigation' or the "First speed around the world, Eastbound" record...(as the Official FAI World Record for this category is measured as a "speed around the world" record - Eastbound or Westbound). At the same time, they have also now been made aware of the existence of the prior Surplus/G-YROX circumnavigation flight (in case they were simply not aware/ or had not been informed of it previously) and if deemed as significant new information, this may then shed some further light on the overall validity and accuracy of why they are currently attributing a "first" Circumnavigation title to the particular flight that, in reality, physically, completed the second successful circumnavigation of the globe. This process is expected to take some weeks, but hopefully will provide further clarity on the whole situation going forward. Best Regards G4gyro (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure they consider a flight around the world that did not start and stop at the same place as a circumnaviagation as most poeple would understand, but that is an opinion we should jsut use the reliable sources as they exist. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Surplus circumnavigation flight DID start and stop at the same place!...It departed the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum, McMinnville, Oregon, USA on the 1st June 2015, then flew eastbound, in an completely unbroken circle around the world, and returned to that same start point at the Evergreen Museum again, arriving on 28th June 2019...and hence made the absolute first, physical rounding of the earth by an Autogyro type aircraft. G4gyro (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Did he not start in Northern Ireland ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The full backdrop of the Norman Surplus/G-YROX flight, was that it initially did commence in March 2010 in Larne, Northern Ireland. That flight however was stalled once it reached Japan in 2011 (flying eastwards around the world) by the Russians refusing permission to allow the flight to cross the Russian Far East in order to reach Alaska via the Bering Straits. The aircraft then remained (notionally still en-route) in Japan until 2014, expectantly waiting for the Russian permission to finally be given, but which instead continued to be constantly blocked by the Russian authorities... After Russia annexed the Crimean peninsular from Ukraine, diplomacy between Russia and Europe deteriorated further (summer 2014) and Russian flight permission was now deemed even less likely to happen. After further informal discussions with the British Embassy in Tokyo, the consensus of opinion was that waiting any further in Japan was now futile. Subsequently the aircraft was shipped over the Pacific Ocean by sea container to Oregon USA, where it stayed over the 2014/15 winter and placed on temporary display in the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in McMinnville. On the 1st June 2015, the aircraft re-set and re-started its circumnavigation flight from Oregon and continued across the USA and made the first ever Autogyro crossing of the Atlantic Ocean to reach the UK.(setting also an FAI World Record for that historic crossing in the process). The aircraft arrived again in Larne, Northern Ireland in August 2015, having established 15x FAI world records for Autogyro flight in the process.

At that time it was still widely assumed the Russians would simply continue to not allow a foreign registered, autogyro type aircraft to fly across Russia. However by 2019 they had a change of mind and now, quite suddenly, it was going to be possible to fly in Russia after all. So it was decided to simply continue on with the unbroken maiden circumnavigation flight, onwards from Larne, which now technically and physically remained an "en-route" and unbroken circumnavigation flight since commencement of the "new' 2015 starting point in Oregon. In April 2019 the flight continued in journey across Northern Europe and the entire width of Russia Federation, crossed the Bering Sea, through Alaska and Western Canada, to eventually complete the first full Autogyro circumnavigation of the world by arriving back to the starting point of the Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum, McMinnville Oregon, on the 28th June 2019.

James Ketchell, who incidentally had been given much assistance during the very technically challenging first half his own autogyro flight circumnavigation from the UK, (by flying alongside the much more experienced Norman Surplus, continuously from Moscow through to Oregon), then subsequently went on to complete his own full circumnavigation flight, on his eventual return to the UK in September 2019 after 175 days of flight (which then became the first official FAI 'Speed around the world" Record for an Autogyro aircraft).

Because the Surplus/G-YROX Oregon to Oregon circumnavigation flight had been disjointed and would eventually take over 4 years to fully complete, it was thought inappropriate to pursue an FAI "Speed around the world" record for the flight. But regardless of the diplomatic difficulties en-route and the considerable time taken overall, the fact still remains that it was physically the first wholly successful circumnavigation flight undertaken by an Autogyro type aircraft. Subsequently, it was then very surprising to learn, after the second circumnavigation was successfully completed in September 2019, that the Ketchell/G-KTCH flight was now being described in terms of being the "first" Autogyro flight around the world, as if somehow the previous Surplus/G-YROX flight had never happened.

And it is this anomaly that has caused this present debate. Two Pilots, two aircraft and two circumnavigations. One was easily recorded as the fastest, but they can't both have been the first... G4gyro (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue here, at least for how it has been recorded by Guinness, is that "first circumnavigation" does give the impression of one continuous journey particularly to lay reader like me , which is not what Surplus achieved. I have no issue with seeking clarification from Guinness about this, howeveras Wikipedia editors it is not our place to adjudicate, we should report the facts as presented by trusted bodies such as Guinness. Surplus has 19 FAI records to his name as well as a much longer and better article than Ketchell, the idea that there is some grave injustice happening here is baffling to me. Smirkybec (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I agree making a "circumnavigation", in the competitive sense, as in setting or beating a particular record, is commonly assumed to be probably made in one continuous journey. (Such as in a round the world yacht race) However the pioneering first circumnavigation of anything (Such as the Magellan led, first sailing expedition around the world) uniquely, has no such prior benchmark, or particular method as to how it is done. It notionally can take as long as it likes, and with as many stoppages en-route as it likes (whether accidental, voluntary or forced). The fundamental importance however, no matter how long, diplomatically difficult or disjointed the flight may be, is that it remains as a joined up, unbroken loop of the planet that eventually returns to the same start/finish point, flown by one pilot flying one aircraft, for the entire journey.

The injustice that appears at the moment is that whereas the Surplus Wiki page makes a clear acknowledgement and reference to the latter Ketchell flight, the Ketchell page does not make any equivalent acknowledgement or reference to the former Surplus flight...Thus by simply omitting some of these key facts and context, the innocent reader of the Ketchell page is simply left only reading some of the facts, giving the impression that Ketchell made the first (and therefore presumably "only") circumnavigation.... Likewise on the main Autogyro page, the clear distinction should also be made between the "absolute first "physical" circumnavigation" and the "first officially recorded "continuous" circumnavigation". That would define, provide historical context and explain fully to the reader, why there appears to be two "first" circumnavigations.

Perhaps instead of using 'first circumnavigation", the descriptive terms used should be... - first physical circumnavigation Surplus/G-YROX - first officially recorded continuous circumnavigation Ketchell/G-KTCH.

If these distinctions were made clear, on all of the various pages affected, then this would hopefully solve the current inconsistencies and ambiguity? G4gyro (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What I will suggest then is that you edit the Ketchell page to reflect the perceived gaps - surely that is the easiest solution. Although without giving it too much undue weight, as Ketchell's article really does not contain even half as much detail as Surplus'. Until we hear back from Guinness, and any citations about Ketchell indeed being the holder of the first certified circumnavigation, then those mentions in the article on the autogyro and his page should remain unchanged as it does accurately reflect the record he has been given. Otherwise we are straying into editorialising, unless other editors disagree. Smirkybec (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

OkG4gyro (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

So all it really needs is a note on the Ketchell page that Surplus did go around the world before him but was not recognised by Guiness. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Weight of rudder theory of Silkair Flight 185

Please see Talk:SilkAir_Flight_185#Introduction:_Suggest_to_remove_last_part for questions over WP:WEIGHT of the rudder malfunction theory of Silkair Flight 185. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Bréguet 530

This tweet shows a Bréguet 530 of Air France. Obviously unusable as a source, so can we find a source to enable us to add Air France as an operator of tbe Br. 530 to the Bréguet 521 page. Presumably they operated the other Br. 530 built. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Adams Aeronautics Company

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams Aeronautics Company. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Key Lime Air mid-air collision

Thoughts as to whether today's mid-air collsion (Denver Post, Aviation Safety Network) between a Key Lime Air Swearingen Metro and a Cirrus SR22 is article worthy or not. It's a bit borderline, but the Metro is not a GA light aircraft and was operating a commercial flight. The Cirrus pilot activated the CAPS system. In this instance, there were no fatalities. This should not be taken as a factor against the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a fairly marginal case for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A few years ago we had this mid-air[1], no fatalities, just a video that was sold to NBC. The article was deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - having taken a look at the article as it was immediately before deletion (an advantage of having administrative privileges), that was a mid-air between two Cessna GA aircraft. Not the same situation as this one, a mid-air collision between a small airliner and a GA aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-38 : national flags

Doubtlessly well intended, but is the addition of country flags for the Sikorsky S-38 operators not contrary to concensus? Or did that only apply to airport articles? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this is a list of operators, so guidelines specific to lists of aircraft do not apply. However WP:AVISTYLE notes that "Use of flags, insignia, badges, etc. should conform to MOS:FLAGS. In general this allows them only where directly relevant to the subject of the list, for example squadron insignia in a list of squadrons." Also we must ask, "Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?". The guideline on civil airline fleets at WP:ALFC explicitly forbids national flags for destinations.

Turning specifically to lists of (national) operators, I am not sure if we have any guideline other than MOS:FLAGS. The List of Boeing 747 operators avoids flags, the short list at Supermarine Spitfire#Operators includes them but the longer list at Supermarine Spitfire#Operators does not. Given that the text invariably identifies the nationallity, "Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?". Opinions presumably differ.

I'd suggest that we need to clear this up once and for all, and ensure that the consensus decision is easily findable (happy to be told it already is!). Clearly, the Military History wikiproject would need to be involved, and our sub-projects also to be notified.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I feel that "cleaning up for once and for all" is beyond me, my scope, my motivation, my capabilities. I intend to leave a polite word to the "imposter", and remove the flags mentioned. Leaving more fundamental action to those deeper engaged. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been adding flags to orders and operators lists as seen elsewhere and someone has been reverting them. This is useful to quickly see where the orders come from and which countries are operating the planes. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My take on this is that national flags should not be applied to airlines: in most cases (other than the largely legacy notion of flag carriers) their nationality is not a defining characteristic and they do not purport to represent the country or countries in which they are based. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

In general, if you don't see a flag, it means there are no domestic flights with the plane. There are exceptions like if you see some EU flag there could be different intra-EU flights (or theoretically if you saw a US flag), or things like easyJet (parent) which is British but has Austrian and (minority) Swiss subsidiaries. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with an aviation-related Request Edit?

I thought a member of this project might be interested in reviewing requested edits about the company XO, formerly XOJET, at Talk:XOJET Aviation LLC#Request Edit May 2021. I have a COI so would love it if someone independent could take a look. Thanks. HC090384 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Access to the 2007 Flight International world airlines directory (for CCI)?

Hey WikiProject Aviation,

I was wondering if anyone with access to the 2007 edition of the Flight International World Airlines directory would be interested in helping with copyright cleanup. One of the ongoing contributor copyright investigations that we are actively trying to clean up, specifically this one and its subpages, involves a lot of citations from that edition, and someone having access to it would be invaluable for confirming or disproving copyright violations. We can confirm with the 2012 version but the format seems to be slightly different and many possibly infringing edits are on airlines that ceased operating between 2007 and 2012. (As such, many of the pages are marked with "p. delete" or similar meaning presumptive deletion as per CCI policy, so verifying the copyright status of those could be a place to start.) If anyone would like to help out with the investigation, please feel free to do so.

(NOTE: I am aware that sharing the 2007 edition online is probably a bad idea. I am not asking for the directory, just wondering if on the off chance anyone with it could help out themselves.)

Thanks, eviolite (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move and merger at Curtiss JN-4 Jenny

There is a discussion about a proposed move and merger at Curtiss JN-4 Jenny. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent Wikipedia text formatting issues

In case in the last three days you noticed incorrectly sized or positioned text in articles (e.g. co-ordinates at the top overlapping with infoboxes, categories at the bottom displayed in an unusually large font size etc), it's an issue with the Wikimedia software that has already been reported here. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Deeday-UK. I had noticed the changes. Annoying to say the least. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 4978

Not an accident, but might be article worthy. Ryanair Flight 4978 was diverted to Minsk due to a bomb hoax. A passenger on board, journalist Raman Pratasevich was arrested. Belarussian government being accused of deliberately forcing the flight to land in Belarus territory under threat of a shoot-down so they can get their hands on Pratasevich. Highly political situation could escalate. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, certainly looks like being noteworthy. Kind of a "legal hi-jack"? Hopefully, ICAO has legal arguments available to get this banana president convicted. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And five hours after you suggested the article it's on the main page. I can't say I'm surprised, but I didn't think I would see it so soon. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It was in a pretty poor state when I nominated it. I was surprised that there were no objections on quality issues and it was quickly bashed into shape. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've raised an issue at talk:Ryanair Flight 4978#"Aircraft" Section re the removal of certain information about the aircraft involved. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Currently, the article has a suggestion for a name change. Feel free to chime in. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with identification?

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone can identify the aircraft in this image from around 1919.

Thanks.--WMrapids (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The two flying boats on the slip way and one further back look like Curtiss HS. MilborneOne (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Curtiss HS-1

Standard HS-2L, to be exact, and, according to NiD.29, the third aircraft is a Curtiss N-9. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Preighter

Is "Preighter" too much of a neologism for a stand-alone article? It just showed up today. BilCat (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Combi aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure about this one. While not a distinct role, it appears to be a significantly covered piece of COVID culture (if you can call it that) and seems to pass WP:GNG. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a merge. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, merge. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge, indeed - AND prune! Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge clearly not a common name and a practice used before covid. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Distant Early Warning Line#Article issues concerning article issues and current classification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Revamping articles listing airports

I've been going through various United States lists for airports in each state. There are few things that I took notice of. First, the term 'Role' appears to be used incorrectly and should be 'Category' instead. The NPIAS list 'Role' as one of five categories. They are National, Regional, Local, Basic and Unclassified. Secondly, I would like to add a column to the list table that list each airport's Role according to the NPIAS. I have not done so because the guidelines for the pages specifically state not to do so because of transclusion issues. However, I feel that including Role and changing the current column labeled as Role to Category would add pertinent info to each list and help clarify any confusion on the subject. Thoughts? Shaggyski (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You may want to take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on airport destination tables

I am informing relevant stakeholders that an RfC for whether airport destination tables should be allowed in articles has been started Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ariport destination tables. SportingFlyer T·C 08:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles/sections for airline joint ventures

We have articles of the airline alliances, but now that many of the major airlines have established JV (joint ventures) for sections of their networks, I think that information should be included in the alliance articles, and/or a new list article started to list all of them. 02:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

The 10 most-viewed, worst lowest-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

• 16 Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 178,862 5,769 Unknown Unknown
• 413 Jeffrey Skiles 30,022 968 Unknown Unknown
• 208 Richard Halsey Best 47,078 1,518 Stub Start Unknown
• 2 Niki Lauda 323,566 10,437 Start Unknown
• 12 Ryanair Flight 4978 197,940 6,385 Start Unknown
• 14 John Denver 195,083 6,293 Start Unknown
• 43 Operation Entebbe 125,823 4,058 Start Unknown
• 46 Peter Townsend (RAF officer) 124,445 4,014 Start Unknown
• 66 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash 99,596 3,212 Start Unknown
• 88 Breeze Airways 85,213 2,748 Start Unknown

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed Flight 370. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate Saudi fin flash

The article Fin flash and Royal Saudi Air Force show the Saudi flag as being the fin flash for the RSAF. However, looking at semi-recent stock photos of RSAF planes the fin flash appears to have an enlarged shahada and sword. [2] This photo of a Saudi transport plane in particular that claims to be taken in 2017 is a good illustration [3] and this other photo of a RSAF national display team plane [4] demonstrates that this difference from the regular flag probably isn't a mistake. I don't know anything about how to find reliable images of Saudi fin flashes that would be acceptable for use onwiki so I decided to post here in the hopes of getting someone else's attention. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The fin flash is based off of the flag, which comes from reliably referenced sources. Their aircraft use a range of proportions ranging from roughly the same as the flag (shahada = 50% of the width, centred and 25% of the height with the bottom aligned with the centre), to filling almost the entire green field, and with two different styles of sword. I see nothing incorrect with the artwork used. The BAe Hawk was likely painted in the UK and has a marginally larger shahada than the norm, but no two types seem to have the exact same proportions. Also, if you are going to provide a link to an image trying to emphasis a point, it would be helpful to use an image that shows the feature rather than being completely illegible and far too small to base any measurements from. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Franklin Cody

Watchful eyes appreciated at Samuel Franklin Cody. We have folk trying to add a photo of a flying helmet just because they can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is now a somewhat deadlocked discussion at Talk:Samuel_Franklin_Cody#Flying_helmet. More contributions would be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

An-26 crash in Russia

BREAKING: An Antonov An-26 has crashed into the sea off the Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Apparently operating Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Enterprise Flight 251. Aviation Safety Network. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't an article ... yet. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Title corrected, give me 20 mins. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Should have kept my mouth shut. A new editor beat me to it at a different title. We can sort the title later, for now let's bash the article into shape. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes: Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021). Hopefully you can merge in your content and refs! - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Nah, easier to improve what was started as I never actually managed to publish anything due to an edit conflict. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Turns out the title is good, there was also Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2012). Have converted the non-dabbed title into a dab page in case anyone searches by airline and flight number. Article nominated for ITN. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge

It has been proposed that Roadable aircraft be merged into Flying car. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Merge proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Junkers Jumo 204

A rookie ip editor is engaging me to a revert war, about calling Napier & Son a person or a thing - a company vs. a corporation. Also seems unhappy with wiki-linking from a sub-title (Napier Culverin) - I see nothing wrong there, but would not insist, being unfamiliar with the various MOS recommendations - and knowing they have been contradictory at times. Some of her/his edits are laudable, but not all. Support much appreciated, thanks in advance. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Napier and Son is a company not a person. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Napier & son were a company, yes - a company of persons. A reference to the company is inherently a reference to the constituting persons, in English. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, @Steelpillow. I confirms my comment 'please do not "correct" that which is not wrong'. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

PS another citation, from our article about "W O" (Bentley): The Press Association understands that Messrs Napier and Son, aero-engine builders, have reached an agreement to take over Bentley Motors Limited which is in voluntary liquidation. Neatly putting Bentley Motors in the singular but Messrs. Napier in the plural. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

While continuing to revert-war on the Junkers Jumo 204 article, now even degrading into foul vocabulary, same IP is attacking the Daimler-Benz DB 605 article similarly, under a similar comment (too lazy even to spell "general" in full). Some laudable changes, but also some totally trivial, unneeded and even unwanted. Do we need to get a bigger hammer? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Their IP address appears fairly stable, so if we get fed up we can always report them for WP:3RR and get the IP blocked. I have dropped a warning on their talk page. Meanwhile, if they lard constructive edits with a little pointless fiddling, I personally wouldn't worry overmuch. But if they just drop in the odd good change to try and justify a lot of fiddling, then by all means challenge them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Trivial incident(s) repeatedly added to Comair

Several IP editors (might even be just one person) has over several weeks added and re-added trivial incidents (nobody died, no paint was even scratched) involving this defunct airline. Please see the recent history of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've given IP's a month off editing the article. Should be long enough for them to lose interest. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

MJ, that usually works but there was is the case of this article where an IP repeatedly came back to add something once the page protection there expired. Administrator Acroterion finally put it to an end[5]. FYI I agree with your decision today. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:1958 Edungalba air crash

Hi, Draft:1958 Edungalba air crash has been submitted to AfC and although similar articles exist such as 1969 Newton Cessna 172 crash others get taken to AfD as failing WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. I and another reviewer are leaning decline, but I though I would post up here for opinions etc. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it is very non-notable, one of thousands of similar accidents that year. I'll add a note to the draft. The story also looks very familiar to me. I think we previously deleted this exact same article under some different title a few years ago. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Appreciate the response! KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The posthumous award of the medals just pushes the balance in favour of an article IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, but it was a plaque. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been declined based on comments and perceived AfD likely outcome, but if you feel that way inclined Mjroots feel free to be bold and move to main-space. I personally would not AfD/Prod it if you did but looking at similar recent ones someone may do. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: The Central Queensland Aerial Ambulance Service seems on the face of it to be notable enough to sustain an article. Details from the draft could be incorporated there. Given other comments here and at draftspace, I'm not going to move the proto-article in to mainspace just so a dramafest can follow. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX groundings

There seems to be a content dispute at talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings. Maybe more eyes on the topic can help solve it. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Category: Mid-air collisions

I'm currently diffusing the entries to subcategories based on the type of aircraft involved (airliner, military, helicopters) and have two questions:

1. How would you describe Cessnas, Pipers, etc.: general aviation, light aircraft?
2. Should the category be diffusing, or like Category:American films, should all such collisions be listed in the base category too? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You can classify aircraft either by design type or by role. For example a light aircraft is a design type, general aviation is a role. Best to be consistent throughout. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Cessnas, Pipers etc are General Aviation aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ndola, we have a problem

Further information: Copperbelt International Airport and Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport

Apparently, the new Copperbelt International Airport has been opened, and promptly renamed Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport. One of the airports also houses an airbase, the Peter Zuze Air Force Base, but I'm not sure which.

This means we need to sort out article titles and links. I suggest we make this a two-stage process. Firstly by moving the article about the former Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport to a new title, and ensuring all links relevant to that article are changed to link th the new title, but leaving all links relevant to the new airport alone. Then, and only then, we move the Copperbelt International Airport article to Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport. Presumably the new Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport has taken the IATA and ICAO codes of the former, but this needs confirmation. Once we are sure which of the airports is housing the airbase, a redirect can be created.

Ideally, the old Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport article would be moved to a title that disambiguated by opening and closing year - Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport (19xx–2021), but if we can't pin down the opening year then the disambiguator could be former, old, first or something else whatever consensus is reached. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a move at Talk:List of military aircraft of the United States (naval). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split

I have proposed that List of military aircraft of the United States be split here. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Air France Flight 296 : name?

Advices requested for an eventual move of Air France Flight 296 to the actual flight number (Air Charter Flight 296Q ?), or to a "popular name" if any. See Talk page. Thanks--Df (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of wheel-well stowaway flights#Requested move 21 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of wheel-well stowaway flights#Requested move 21 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Attacks at airports

Are these within the scope of this project? Jim Michael (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, part of the sub-project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mexico City Santa Lucía Airport#Requested move 17 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mexico City Santa Lucía Airport#Requested move 17 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert war at ICAO airport code

To me, the additions seem valuable, but they have been refuted as being "spam". I was going to re-revert, but thought better of it and opened this little discussion. For clarity: the additional web references point to services on the icao website, and some of them (perhaps even all) are for pay. I do not think there is any reason or rule to disallow such references. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Links to the ICAO store don't belong in the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Recycled. These links are not permitted by ELNO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pristina International Airport#Requested move 2 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pristina International Airport#Requested move 2 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

CCI update

Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Airlines. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:

• Many airline stubs had the history presumptively deleted. Please do not restore such content unless you are rewriting it, as this is almost certainly copied from old issues of Flight International.

Thanks! Sennecaster (Chat) 12:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Airport in Ndola

Further information: Copperbelt International Airport and Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport

Since there has been a clear change of Airport administration in the city of Ndola as of August 2021, I need to know if my page, Copperbelt International Airport, should remain as it is or if it should be merged with the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport page. Sources indicate that the name ""Copperbelt International Airport"" is no-longer in use and this new airport has been renamed to ""Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport"". Sources also say that the Old Location of the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport has been renamed "Peter Zuze Airforce Base".

So, what should happen with these 2 pages? How should we edit them? Quick responses will be appreciated. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This was already brought up a little earlier; see above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Ndola, we have a problem. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of KaiserAir

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaiserAir. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 12:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the article "Vertical_stabilizer" to "Vertical_tail"

A discussion has been started here to rename the article "Vertical_stabilizer" to "Vertical_tail". (Hohum ^@) 18:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for Move

Following the chaotic straw poll, a proper WP:RFM has been opened at Talk:Vertical_stabilizer#Requested move 28 September 2021, to which you are invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Saudi RE-3A electronic intelligence gathering aircraft

Dear all, yesterday I discovered a variant of the Boeing E-3A Sentry that I'd never heard of; an electronic intelligence gathering version flown by the Saudis. I went to WP eager to learn about this unusual aircraft, but found no mention of it whatsoever. I was frankly very surprised -- the aviation experts here are usually pretty good. So I clicked around, found https://theaviationist.com/2021/09/30/rsaf-re-3a-raf-waddington/ about a recent transfer across the Atlantic, corroborated by our Royal Saudi Air Force article which lists the RE-3A with 19 Squadron, and added a note to the variants section of the article.

I was surprised to be reverted by Mark83 with the edit summary "Undid revision 1047627725 by Buckshot06 (talk) Happy to discuss this further of course, but this doesn't feel right to me. This article is about AWACS. The RSAF R-E3A started life as tankers to support RSAF E-3s (KE-3As). These were modified into Rivet Joint-comparable aircraft. Therefore they are more relevant for discussion at this article. The E-3 part of the desingation is an historical quirk."

Now there is no technical entry for the RE-3A variant anywhere on Wikipedia. This constitutes a gap in our coverage of 21st-century Western military aircraft, which is generally among our most excellent subjects of coverage, given WP's systemic contributor bias. WP should have an entry on such aircraft, and the Boeing E-3 Sentry article is the logical place to look. To go looking at EC-135 or RC-135 when one knows nothing more than the 'RE-3A' designation seems illogical to me. I would strongly suggest that mention of the RE-3A variant be readded back into the Boeing E-3 Sentry article. What do others think? Will copy this to WT:MILHIST and WT:AVIATION (now here done).

Please make all comments at Talk:Boeing E-3 Sentry. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles ?

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Category:Twin-engined_tractor_aircraft_with_unicorn_sprinkles_? as continuation of existing discussion.

Notification of nomination for deletion of IML Addax

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IML Addax. - Ahunt (talk)

Around and around we go

There is a discussion here[6] about whether a crash survivor who doesn't have an article should be named in the article. Please come on over and join in the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Requested move at Talk:2021 Milan airplane crash#Requested move 12 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 Milan airplane crash#Requested move 12 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 19:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient archive

Hello, while checking a ref in the Boeing 737 article, it appeared the archived page was only of the ref introduction, interrupted by flightglobal's registering proposition, while the current article is freely accessible :

Stephen Trimble (April 7, 2017). "Half-century milestone marks 737's enduring appeal". FlightGlobal. Archived from the original on September 9, 2017. Retrieved April 7, 2017.

Archiving is great thing (I often tip archive.org for the very useful service) but misleading readers and other editors is dangerous as it gives a false sense of security. Remember to check your archive.org links! Cheers,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Passenger routes

Is it unreasonable to ask for independent sourcing for passenger routes? Most of the information about these is or completely unsourced or sourced by the airport from where it departs or by the operating airline.

People keep removing source request or request for better sources, claiming that is that what WP:RS demands. What sounds rather strange. For an example of what is happening: Dublin Airport.

I think it improves reliability and reduces advertising when independent sources are added.

I have asked this question on Wikiproject Airports before, but no answer was forthcoming. And with people actively engaging in edit warring over this, help and advice is needed. The Banner talk 08:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think being factual information it would be okay to source it to WP:PRIMARY, but, of course, third party refs are better. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But systematically removing maintenance tags? Like this one is not very helpful or even cordial. The Banner talk 12:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I agree, not helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt. Primary sources are acceptable when stating a clear fact. However, links to timetables are ripe with problems of original research, because typically it involves putting dates into a booking engine multiple times. Deleting maintenance tags is not helpful but is unfortunately the common practice with most users who do not edit outside aviation. There’s a reason an airport article has never reached featured status and is also why I’ve mostly stepped away from the encyclopedia. Garretka (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What has not been helpful is the edits inflicted by Andrewgprout and The Banner mainly, the two users operate tactically using their own interpretation of WP:RS and believe its third-party source or its out. Of course, third party reference is preferred but when not available, primary is the only option as otherwise the material must be deleted. The two users need to get a better understanding of this, ironically their behaviour has been far from cordial. The user omits their edits of what can only be described as vandalism, in bulk removal of information when their own narrative can't be the status-quo. It is not helpful. There are many examples of this on the Dublin Airport, Cork Airport pages. Example here of this behaviour, the sources verify the information but the editor bulk edits the page with random commentary seen here; Dublin Airport. EireAviation (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: I was not removing anything, just asking for sources or better sources. And you just removed those maintenance templates as being vandalism. Or removing polite request like this one. To my opinion, the first step is always to ask for sources or better sources to improve an article, not to fight requests for improvements. The Banner talk 07:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source neither a primary one. A primary One would be the airline itself. I understand you think it's ok with wikilinking to to the airline's wikipedia page, but it's not enough. Thanks for addressing the CN request with real, out of wikipedia references, which can be primary (the airline itself), secondary (a press article on the route) or even tertiary (eg OAG), but anyway outside wikipedia. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and my addition was lost. I'll try to recreate it. The problem here is WP:SYNTHESIS it has little to do with WP:PRIMARY and even less to do with WP:RS. The detail that "improve" and other similar templates are being added to are all based on trolling booking engines for start and stop dates. This is a practice that does not meet Wikipedia expectations for a reference. But the real problem is the wholesale reversion of these templates without resolving them. One of the editors involved has just admitted that they can not reference these properly at Dublin Airport. Eireaviation and his puppets all need to be blocked in my opinion they are not aiding the encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental policy here is that the burden of proof lies with those who would include the information. If they do not cite reliable sources then that information may be summarily taken down. If it is left up, then it should be tagged to show up the need. However, if there is a mass of such dodgy factoids then tag bombing the article, whether with cites or requests for cites, in itself affects readability and should not be done. Better to either put up a banner template such as Template:Refimprove or blank the lot, depending on the community's assessment as to whether RS is likely to exist. The question is not, who can get their version up while everybody argues about it, or get away with being rudest about the other team (and I recognise the odd expert at that game in this discussion), but to ignore such personal trolling (or report unacceptable cases at WP:ANI) and focus on the encyclopedic issues. I would suggest, in order: 1) strip out references to unreliable sources, and 2) banner-template dense areas of unsourced content. This will clarify the scope of the problem. Then, 3) Build back what you can from reliable sources, and 4) discuss whether RS for the rest is likely to be out there for the finding. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There was already a case on AN/I but that was archived without any serious discussion or action. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Dublin Airport and serial template removal by EireAviation. The Banner talk 10:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the user continues to tagbomb pages, for example the recent edit as referred to by me, all dates mentioned are confirmed by the attached source, the user flat out ignores this sourcing and then tagbombs the page. It is fundamentally disruptive. EireAviation (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So you start editwarring to prevent improvement based on a better quality of sources? The Banner talk 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The Banner and Anderwgprout now again this morning continue in their efforts to tagbomb the page, it is completely juvenile in nature. The provided source confirms the resumption date and is WP:PRIMARY. What can you not accept about this? Why only are you targeting Dublin Airport primarily in your efforts to affect user readability. Please stop and reflect on your behaviour, it is not conducive to the standard required. Can you at least check the source? You have already seen above from Steelpillow how to better go about this. Eireaviation and his puppets all need to be blocked in my opinion they are not aiding the encyclopaedia. This made me chuckle, Andrewgprout and The Banner are like a joint couple in their operations on wikipedia. EireAviation (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that you have removed the maintenance templates twice this morning. Why are you so afraid of reliability that you refuse to give independent sources and start editwarring to prevent that? The Banner talk 11:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

And about your complaints about our behaviour: you better take a look at your own behaviour. You seem to think that mockery and personal attacks are useful for a discussion. The Banner talk 11:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, looks like original research to me. The primary source here also isn’t really stating a clear fact which basically goes against WP:PRIMARY. Garretka (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Because EA was chuckling about the accusation about sockpuppets and my serious concerns about his editing: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EireAviation. The Banner talk 12:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I struggle to see how sourcing WP:PRIMARY the airline in this case as provided in the article which directly confirms the referred to dates (i.e. LAX resumes 11/03/21) is going against WP:PRIMARY. EireAviation (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, edits such as this [7] where the source is just the airline website, is not acceptable. When primary sources are used, primary sources must state the fact that is being supported, without any interpretation. Using booking engines is problematic in that not only do they require interpretation, they also require original research. Airline press releases or actual, non-searchable timetables make better use of primary sourcing. Garretka (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And how to move forward now? The Banner talk 08:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no "forward" as long as there is no consensus on where we want to go. To me - looking on from afar - it looks like the present situation and compromise are the best that can be achieved at this point in time. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

At least we can try to get a clear answer on the original question: Is it unreasonable to ask for independent sourcing for passenger routes? Most of the information about these is or completely unsourced or sourced by the airport from where it departs or by the operating airline. The Banner talk 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is unreasonable - however the problem is that what many are trying to do on these pages are basically unencyclopadeic in nature.

My big comment......

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - I think there is a very valid argument that most of the detail in destination tables on Airport articles is at best stretching the concept of encyclopaedic content. I believe we do need to solve this despite how upsetting and problematic some may find this to be. To solve this we need to...

Firstly establish what the level of detail that fulfils the encyclopedic need to describe the sphere of influence (or reach) that an airport has. It is my view that the current "pedantically list everything even if we can't reference it properly approach taken by so many" is very counter to WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:PRIMARY among just about every other Wikipedia policy, guideline, and advice out there. Wikipedia was very cunningly designed to keep content encyclopaedic and such detail as we typically see on Airport pages is not tolerated in just about every other subject area on Wikipedia.

At the lowest level this encylopaedic need could be met with a simple text paragraph detailing the sphere of influence an airport. To at the most detailed level anything that does not conflict with the detail being a directory.

My initial suggestion is - that an acceptable and workable level of detail would be to continue to list airports and airlines using the airport. But base this simply on the existence in a current timetable and nothing else. If it is in a timetable for a period of say three months a year then list it. If it is not don't. Ignore whether the route has actually started. If it can't be found anymore and it is resonable to expect that it has stopped delete it - but there is no real hurry in doing so. This means we don't list start or stop dates, nor do we include additional information such as suspensions, charters, seasonal routes or anything else. Following this would stop 95% of the unreferencable detail currently causing problems with rapidly changing random edits of detail largely unreferenced and mostly unreferencable. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If have by no means the intention of removing any sources, as claimed by one editor. I agree that you can better have a bad source than none at all. I see it as a growing model. The Banner talk 07:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Australian Air Force journals digitised

From the Trove email newsletter:

In celebration of their centenary in 2020, the Australian Air Force Association digitised Air Force News (1997-2020) and its previously titled RAAF News (1941, 1960-1997).
But if that wasn’t enough, they have also kindly made current issues of their contemporary Wings Magazine freely available to read in Trove!

Links:

• RAAF News
• Air Force News
• Wings.

Hope these are of use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Member List Update

The member list for the project has been updated, see the talk page for that article for discussion. –Noha307 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

IP Spamming see also sections of accident articles with barely related articles

For a couple of months now, an IP has been spamming the "See also" sections of multiple articles on aviation accidents with links to other very vaguely related crashes. They have been warned over this behavior many times on their talk page by multiple editors but do not stop and do communicate. Should take more serious steps here and maybe get admins involved.Tvx1 09:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Two administrators, @MilborneOne: and @Mjroots:, work on aviation accident articles also. Maybe they can chime in. FWIW, I have seen the IP's work also....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Noted, I will give them a warning if they do anymore. The fact a lot of the see also sections are already filled with barely related accidents perhaps we should look closer at tightening the guidance and perhaps encourage the use of the categories to find similar accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: no need. IP seems stable, and there were plenty enough warnings. I've imposed a 1 month Wikibreak. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was was more swift action than I anticipated.Tvx1 10:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well done on the block; cleaning up the spam was taking up a lot my scarce wiki time. @Mjvlasic: you may want to take heed from this discussion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Tightening the guidance on see also sections for accidents

Going forward on MilborneOne's remark and a trend I noticed as well, it appears that these see also sections in aviation accident articles tend to have excessive amounts of links to barely related other articles on accidents. A good example of the usage of such a "see also" section in my opinion is for instance Turkish Airlines Flight 981's providing a link to American Airlines Flight 96. These two incidents were triggered by the same design flaw on the same plane by the same manufacturer and had a joined backlash on that manufacturer and the transportation safety agency overseeing them. However, just listing an exhaustive list of accidents that involved some sort of stall, with different causes, in another article about an accident involving a stall is for me a bad example of usage of such sections. Any suggestions on dealing with this issue?Tvx1 10:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

But....per WP:SEEALSO says 'As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.' The section is see also not see again (as its been called in at least one talk page discussion) and links to those flight don't belong in the See also section per that because both crashes are linked to in the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the guidelines should be tightened, and agree with WilliamJE too: per WP:SEEALSO, the section should contain "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" (without repeating them). That is if an accident is similar enough (according to RS) to warrant inclusion in the See also section, then go one step further and add it to the article body, rather than leaving it to a one-liner at the bottom. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So, we should remove most of these see also sections alltogether then?Tvx1 11:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I think that See also sections could be a good place to link e.g. to relevant aviation accidents list articles, which are otherwise generally awkward to link to from other parts of the article. Links to individual accident articles in See also sections could still be included as an exception, rather than the norm. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Deeday says above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As often, good refs are welcome: if an article from a RS establishes a similarity between events, it can be added to the see also section, with the ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Some good points, so we should really expect a reliable source to link the events to add to the See Also if they are not already mentioned in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There is enough WP:OR and other nonsense around WP already. For an example of the latter, see this aviation accident edit[8] of mine yesterday. I still wonder about that article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Embraer next-generation turboprop illustrations

Hello everyone, Embraer next-generation turboprop is illustrated with fair use promo pictures. As its configuration evolved from wing-mounted engines to aft-mounted ones, two pictures illustrate both configurations. Do you think both illustrations are useful to understand the change, or is the text sufficient ? Please add your comments in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 26#Embraer concept art, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Militi M.B.1

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militi M.B.1. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com open at Reliable Sources Noticeboard

A Request for Comments regarding the reliability of the website theaerodrome.com is ongoing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of theaerodrome.com. Readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air France Flight 072 (1993)

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 072 (1993). - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

SQ and JL destinations

User:ThePoi had changed the way the airports of Hong Kong and Macau are displayed in the List of Singapore Airlines destinations as opposed to an earlier RfC consensus and with no discussion in the list's talk page. The same had happened to Guam and Hong Kong airports with the List of Japan Airlines destinations. What could be done? 203.145.94.193 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have taken closer look and found that ThePoi had made the same changes to dozens of articles. 203.145.94.193 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Should all these edits be reverted straightaway? 219.76.24.205 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Old threads

The top three threads on this page are not being archived as there are no signatures/timestamps for the bot to read, the first thread is from 2019. If there are no objections I can manually archive them. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No objection here. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Manned/crewed

An editor just changed every instance of "manned" with "crewed" at List of X-planes. Is there any sort of consensus about the usage of "manned" or "crewed" in this project? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I saw those edits as well. As far as I know we haven't discussed it here. We do have MOS:GNL, though, which is pretty clear that we aren't supposed to be using "manned" or "unmanned" anymore. I just wish we had some less "clunky" alternatives. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The truth is, this is PC garbage. "Manned" does by long custom include both genders, it is as gender-neutral as say mankind, manhunt or human (this has led some feminists to propose that, just as we distinguish "wo-men", we should also distinguish "he-men" or similar, and stick to "man" as the generic noun; these feminists have my full support as a heman, but I digress). As such, "manned" is the technically correct convention, and any attempt to narrow its meaning are just PC ignorance. Moreover, GNL is a guideline not a policy. However, "crewed" does have some wider circulation so we cannot object to it as such and we should go with the guideline unless we have specific reason not to. But there will be places where it is clumsy and unhelpful, even misleading. For example aircraft carrying passengers but no crew are beginning to appear. To include those, one might try terms like "occupied" or "complemented", but "unoccupied" makes no sense for robotic or drone craft and "uncomplemented" does not work at all. I have edited the X-planes article to get rid of inappropriate use of "uncrewed", so we can see how it goes down.

Where we do need an umbrella word in a particular instance, I think we would be justified in overriding the guideline, using "manned/unmanned" in such cases, and challenging any PC plaintiff to come up with a viable alternative - who knows, they just might.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We still have manhole cover but manhole has some tortuous variations.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Gracie Slick can record her Manhole (album) (a slightly different manhole perhaps, unless it was the one the White Rabbit went down), then I reckon I am still right up there with the feminists who actually have brain cells too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unpiloted" (or 'remotely piloted') may be an alternative word that can be used. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "remotely piloted" and "unpiloted" are suitable alternatives given that they do not necessarily specify the presence of a crew. In theory, a vehicle can be remotely piloted or unpiloted (autonomous) but still have other crew on board. "Manned/unmanned" and "crewed/uncrewed" are, to my knowledge, the only terms in common usage, so any other alternatives might be confusing. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup, this is a battle that's been slowly brewing. Per WP:GNL:

References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, astronaut, cosmonaut, not manned or unmanned. Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit. (Emphasis mine.)

Most of the craft listed on the List of X-planes are not spacecraft, but a few are. Also, I've been reverting instances of "manned"/"unmanned" being changed in UAV articles, as the term is still almost universally called "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle". One of my personal objections to using "crewed"/"uncrewed" is that they're harsh sounding, with the terms sounding like "crude". It's all an issue we'll have to deal with eventually, so we might as well get out in front of it and pick a replacement term we can live with. (Personally, I agree it's all PC garbage, and, frankly, is neogilistic, which Wikipedia isn't supposed to be doing, per WP:NOTNEO) BilCat (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ndola Airport

I once created a page named Copperbelt International Airport on Wikipedia. But Today, there is no airport in Zambia known by that name, as that name only applied to that airport while it was under construction.

The Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport is now the name of the new airport in Ndola, meaning that that landspace is no-longer known as the "Copperbelt International Airport". The old location of the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" is now known as the "Peter Zuze Airforce Base".

What that means is that the city of Ndola remains having only one commercial airport and that Ndola retains the name it has been using since 2011 to refer to its International Airport. Even Wikipedia Viewers should see that Ndola only has one commercial airport while the other location is an airforce base. Wikipedia Viewers should not get the impression that the "Copperbelt International Airport" and the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" are two separate airports; they should not get the impression that Ndola has two airports!

So, in summary, the name "Copperbelt International Airport" does not exist anymore and the name "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" is the name of the new Ndola Airport. The old location of Ndola's airport is now the "Peter Zuze Airforce Base", no-longer a commercial airport. It is safe to say that the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" has simply moved addresses.

My proposal is that the page I created (Copperbelt International Airport) should be deleted and the other page (Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport) should simply be edited where necessary, as it is clear that Ndola has retained the name it has been using since 2011 to refer to its airport. We shouldn't leave these two airport pages as they are; something has to be done. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no need for a deletion, a redirect will do the job.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is going to take a little sorting out. If I understand correctly, the old Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International airport is now the Peter Zuze Airforce Base. The airport that was named Copperbelt International Airport whilst under construction is now Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe Airport.

Suggest that for ease of sorting out wikilinks etc that Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport is moved to Peter Zuze Air Force Base, with a redirect created from Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport (old) to the Airforce base article. Then the hard part needs to be done. All links to Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport will need to be checked, to see whether the link should be to the old or new airport. Links that are relevant to the old airport can be piped [[Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport (old)|Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport]]. If the link is relevant to the new airport, then leave it. Once all wikilinks have been assessed, then the Copperbelt International Airport article can be moved to Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport.

Any objections, or better ideas? Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Moves done, wls altered. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Airbus "Aircraft Characteristics - Airport and Maintenance Planning" and other PDFs

Hi

Anyone know if Airbus has changed it's website addresses/layouts/structure? A lot of the PDFs and other links (such as "Aircraft Characteristics - Airport and Maintenance Planning") are all broken. Instead of going to the PDFs or pages, they are going to the base https://www.airbus.com/en Even some of their own internal links, such as to subdivisions are broken. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You may want to use the archived versions hosted at web.archive.org.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is a common occurrence with any website, see WP:LINKROT. Fix them with archive.org where possible. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the new url: airbus.com/en/aircraft-characteristics. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem sources

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Luft'46 and The Aerodrome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Flight Duration" and "Flight Length" merge

We are only 2 persons interested. More input would be welcome at Talk:Flight_length#Proposed_merging_of_"Flight_Duration"_into_"Flight_Length"_Article. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Abandoned German project categories

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Abandoned German project categories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing assistance please

Hi,

I've removed information from the Barnett J4B in part because it is deliberate false information. "Coast to coast" does not =normally mean flying from the same coast to the same coast (SF to LA). But prior to the vandalism, there was still an assertion of a record. The referencing is not inline, so it is unclear what is being referenced but "Taylor, Michael J. H. (1989). Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. London: Studio Editions. p. 121." is identified. If somebody has access to Jane's and can check if that record is in the entry, that would be helpful. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't help directly, but I have added a citation template to the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have access to the book, but unfortunately it doesn't contain much info on the aircraft. I was able to expand the variants section, but that was it. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. My search for sourcing on the record claim just turns up Wikipedia mirrors / copied of the article text. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Late 1920s German aircraft

Moved from WP:RDM § Late 1920s German aircraft

Hi all, I was updating the description at File:Suedbremse 1924.JPG, and wondered what the aircraft at the Oberwiesenfeld Airfield might be. Are they possibly Junkers W 34s?. My attempts to identify them from their registration numbers (D-250? D-34x, D-409) have failed; this web page [9] gives reg. numbers from the early 20s but doesn't seem to include re-registrations with newer aircraft. Any keen spotters able to help? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@MinorProphet: I've move your query here in the hope that doing so will give a better chance of an answer being obtained. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

MinorProphet They are Junkers F 13s. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: Oops, so they are. I failed to investigate that article beyond the infobox: the photo has a very foreshortened view, making it look much smaller than it is. So the reg. numbers on the web page I cited would seem to be correct. Thanks very much both for your help. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Requested move at Talk:Dynamic Airways Flight 405#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dynamic Airways Flight 405#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:CommutAir Flight 4281#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CommutAir Flight 4281#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Post-RfC cleanup of theaerodome.com

Hi y'all. The WP:RSN RfC regarding theaerodrome.com was recently closed with a consensus of "generally unreliable". Over at WT:MILHIST, we've started slowly working through the 1639 articles referencing it. If you would like to lend your hand, you can check out the list where I'm tracking the cleanup. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Civilian airports with RAF origins

I've started a discussion re the scope of this category at Category talk:Civilian airports with RAF origins. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional input needed

For members of this project: there is a discussion at Talk:Lift-to-drag ratio that could use some additional input. The article itself is temporarily full-protected because of edit warring. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: thanks for keeping an eye open. There are certain things I could say - having had a full training as a recreational pilot plus one on design, construction and maintenance of ultralights - but I am getting so tired of all these big egos, for me they are ruining wikipedia and should be disregarded as much as possible. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06/List of Royal Air Force flying squadrons in April 2018

Would much appreciate extra eyes, comments, and especially *references* in the form of useful edits at this page, one of my sandbox articles. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A few questions

1. Why does the 100th anniversary of the RAF have any useful meaning? It isn't the start or end of a war (AFAIK) and either such lists should be current, they should be tied to a meaningful date, or they should be for the entire existence of the organization. An anniversary isn't particularly meaningful, even the 100th one. Just because we have one snapshot, from one source does not mean it needs its own page - which would then seem to run afoul of pages requiring more than one source AND be a copyright violation.
2. For the scramble page to be a useful source, it would need to mention said date or span of dates, with the dates of any additions or removals - perhaps accessing the archived versions made shortly after that date would be more appropriate.

Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to WP:BURDEN regarding the addition of sources. I don't think anyone else would do your work for you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108#Requested move 28 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108#Requested move 28 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of 'See also' sections continues

IP user 68.49.88.168 (talk · contribs) is at it again after the block expired last 6 December. They made no edits other than further arbitrary additions to See also sections. Admins, feel free to block again. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited for 9 days, so I'm not sure a block is necessary. If they continue, then you should probably report it to the original blocking admin. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

{{WPAVIATION creator/Aircraft 2}}

FYI Template:WPAVIATION creator/Aircraft 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will note that some editors seem to be going through the untranscluded templates list and nominating them for deletion. I notice that the preload templates for the article wizard are listed on that list, so they may in future come up for deletion. If "noinclude" works with preload templates, it might be a good idea to tag those preload templates with {{transclusionless}} and {{subst only}}, and add category:WikiProject Aviation templates, and add a documentation template stating that they are preloads for the article wizard (and the other wizard templates, also needing to add documentation stating they are part of the article wizard) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I discovered {{preloaded template}} and that preloads can use "noinclude" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Should First water-to-water flight be a standalone page

Aside from the dubiousness of the claim (since Fabre's floatplane preceded it in both taking off and landing on water in a single flight), should this not be a part of the seaplane page? - NiD.29 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply. I think indeed that the dubiousness of the claim is prevalent: this "article" should be renamed and updated. Might also get the "too US-centric" label? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

unlinking countries.

I notice that SdkbBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing ALL country links with the claim that "Removed overlinked country wikilink and general fixes (task 2)" I was under the impression that this should have only been done for the largest countries that everyone can be expected to know the location of - ie like the US, however the links are being removed from smaller countries such as Holland and Sweden that I am sure most Americans could never find on a map even if their life depended on it, so is hardly appropriate to completely unlink all instance of country names. Comments? - NiD.29 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It started with US, Britain and Canada, which might be justifiable, but has moved onto countries like Colombia and the United Arab Emirates, which most English speakers probably can't find on a map. It is out of control. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added the {{vandal}} to NiD.29's post purely to allow for easier investigation of the issue raised. The bot is run by Sdkb, who might like to clarify the bots task scope, which could potentially impact on many thousands of articles across all WPs. I have some worries, but will hold off for now until Sdkb responds. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the bot's approval to perform Task 2. Which does bring into question whether it is operating out of scope, or will operate out of scope. The proposal was to unlink "the United States, China, Israel and India", yet the trial run was done on Australia and Japan. As I said above, this has a potential to impact on articles across many WPS. As many of you are probably aware, I do a lot of work connected with lists of shipwrecks. Would the bot unlink British, German, Russian, Dutch, Hanovarian or Japanese? What you see isn't necessarily what you get. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Mjroots. Oh gosh, Americans can't identify Sweden on a map? I guess geography education isn't what it used to be lol

To address your concerns, the bot is operating fully within its approved scope. The four countries you listed were what I used for the non-bot pre-trial, and then the other two were used for the trial, but the proposal was for any of the 40 level-3 vital countries, and that's what the bot has been doing. It would not unlink something like Hanovarian that is not listed. I definitely agree we shouldn't be unlinking super minor countries that readers are unlikely to know—you can get a sense of what the broader community thinks about that in this discussion, where I tried to get the community to list East Timor as an example of a country that generally should be wikilinked but only half succeeded. I finished going through the entire list a few days ago, so the bot's work on that task is essentially complete, and you won't be seeing it on your watchlist for that task more unless new articles crop up. I hope that helps, and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - so the bot will not unlink historic countries, such as those I listed above then? I am keen that we don't accidentally rewrite history and that historic countries are linked where it is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the bot will not unlink any historical countries. It searches for specific wikitext to find and replace, e.g. "was a [[Germany|German]] "→"was a German ", so it would not be triggered by "was a [[German Empire|German]] ". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION creator sub-templates

There is a discussion at Template talk:WPAVIATION creator#Unused sub-templates?. I have spun it off from a recent AfD discussion, which has now been closed, on just one of these templates. I am suggesting that we mess around with them to see what happens, so if you don't like that idea (or even if you do), please follow the link and join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2022 Þingvallavatn air crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Þingvallavatn air crash. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 1986 Ljósufjöll air crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1986 Ljósufjöll air crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for General aviation in the United Kingdom

I have nominated General aviation in the United Kingdom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That article is quite complete, and well-written. There are however, two aspects that it barely mentions, though it should: on the one hand, more and more traditional aerodromes and small airports are closed, and re-developed for housing; as a counter-effect, there is a strong growth of so-called farm strips; in fact the UK must have a very high ratio of farm strips per capita, or per area, compared to most European countries. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Tahoma Flight 587

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Tahoma Flight 587. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian airlines disallowed in West-European airspace and airports

An IP-user wants to absolutely remove the West-European destinations of Severstal Air Company, that were suspended because several European countries closed their airspace to Russian planes. In my opinion, these services should not be removed, but rather marked as "suspended". I tried reverting but promptly got a re-revert. Opinions? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed aircraft in infoboxes

There is a discussion at Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya#"Developed Into" over whether proposed developments should be included in the "developed into" parameter of the aircraft infobox. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Airbus A220 main sections

We have a debate over the Airbus A220 main sections: does the Airbus takeover chronology warrant a separate Legal aspects main section, or should it go in the usual Development main section? As we are only two discussing this point, further input would be welcome. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tan-Sahsa Flight 414#Requested move 25 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tan-Sahsa Flight 414#Requested move 25 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Antonov An-225 Mriya

The Antonov An-225 Mriya is being reported as destroyed, but some editors seem to be having difficulty accepting the fact. More eyes on the article and contribution to the discussion at talk would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable refs are paramount. The current lead section seems appropriate.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with previous. Might wish to consult [url]https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20220227-0[/url] - this site is usually quite reliable, they will not publish whatever flutters around the www. But heed the warning that information may change rapidly. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The reports on its destruction are based solely on a hole in the roof of a HAS hangar made by an artillery round at the opposite end of the building from which the tail of the An-225 can be seen, however the extent of the damage remains unknown, and the tail is not angled or shifted in a manner suggesting that the aircraft has been destroyed, but it did likely sustain some damage, making reports/claims of its destruction premature at best. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It is original research on our part to interpret images such as these. We must go by the reports published in [[WP:RS|reliable sources. These are clear that the dream is over. If the RS change their minds, then and only then should we change ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a new aviation media RS Satellite Photos Give Hope AN-225 Might Have Survived. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Nice one. Enough to update the article yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Steelpillow The photo is also covered at [10]. It's probably enough for a mention. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we have enough refs to at least indicate that its status is in doubt. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but should an encyclopedia publish doubts? I thought our mission is to publish facts :) Still, we might do good by publishing well-founded doubts about other information on various other media. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course we should publish doubts. The plain fact is that other people are verifiably having doubts about its destruction. But all the refs making that claim are based on one satellite photo, so I remain unsure how far we should go. Remember that another photo previously published showed an object in the hangar on fire. A close parallel I have studied recently is the destruction of France's two DH88 Comet racers under similar circumstances early in WWII. Photos show that, even though the hangar roof remained largely intact, blast damage wrecked many of the planes inside. The An-225 is bigger than those old planes, but then modern weapons tend to be more powerful. I would not be confident of any deductions about its state. We really must confine our encyclopedia to reporting what other, more reliable sources have already stated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion to this at Talk:Antonov_An-225_Mriya#It_Was_Not_Destroyed,_Damaged_Only. I'd suggest we post any further thoughts there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

More views welcome

Despite semi-protection, the edit war over the plane's status continues. I have made a proposal at (believe it or not) Talk:Antonov An-225 Mriya#Proposal and would like to obtain a sensible consensus one way or the other. So anybody who can help chip in is most welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle

There will be no issue of The WikiEagle this month. I had started creating it, but I was unable to finish it in time because my week was hectic. Instead, a March-April issue will be released next month. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lufthansa Flight 527#Requested move 18 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lufthansa Flight 527#Requested move 18 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 18:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Subtemplate of the project banner {{WikiProject Aviation}} have been tagged for deletion

FYI, {{WikiProject Aviation/Any}}, {{WikiProject Aviation/Checklist categories}}, {{WikiProject Aviation/Task force categories}}, {{WikiProject Aviation/Timestamp}}, {{WikiProject Aviation/WikiProject categories}}, {{WikiProject Aviation/sandbox/class}}, have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike-through

If found the Pukatawagen Water Aerodrome article while fixing short descriptions. Is it normal for your project to use strike-through text? I couldn't spot anything in your style guide. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We certainly should not be, per MOS:NOSTRIKE. I have edited the article accordingly. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike through text is used for closed runways in airport infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

and also for closed aerodromes in the various lists, and for unassigned/historic IATA or ICAO codes Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

These usages do not appear to be adopted by the Airports style guide, nor is any justification offered as to why they are more important than the MOS:NOSTRIKE accessibility guidelines. Indeed, a consensus against strikeouts for closed runways was established in 2010 and I am not aware of any reversal of it since. Unless and until that is done and our project guide updated accordingly, these strikeouts will quite rightly get challenged and reverted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Further, a project cannot override Wiki-wide consensus on a MOS issue, as we (WPAV) have learned the hard way on several occasions. An exception to the MOS would have to be applied for. An easier solution might be to modify the airport infobox to add fields for defunct codes or runways so that it's clearer. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Other formatting needs to be used the defunct entries, such as coloring the text different or other formatting, instead of strike throughs. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The MOS would habe to be followed in that too. Another option might be changing the background color of the infobox, or of an infobox section, for defunct airports. BilCat (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Colouring has much the same issues as strikeout. Ask yourself, "If I was using an assistive reader, say a voice reader, what presentational features would I need for the nuances to be made clear to me?" Visual styling gimmicks are not a solution, text phrases such as "(not in use)" or whatever, are viable solutions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Good points, I don't know much about assistive reader devices, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bombardier BRJ-X concept picture

Hello everyone, Airbus A220#Bombardier BRJ-X is illustrated with a fair use promo picture of the earlier File:Bombardier BRJ-X.jpg concept. This early concept was dropped in favour of stretching the CRJ700 into the CRJ900, but there are obvious similarities with the later CSeries (now A220). Do you think this illustration is useful to understand the CSeries evolution, or is the text sufficient ? Please add your comments in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 15, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RAAF aircraft hijacking

Today's DYK has Baucau Airport featured, with the only ever hijacking of a RAAF aircraft having happened there. This incident should be notable enough to sustain an article on that fact. How many other hijackings of military aircraft have there been? I'm betting it's very few. 1975 RAAF DHC-4 Caribou hijacking would be a good title. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Common enough in wartime! But if we regard its happening in peacetime as a notable event, why not hijacking of single-engine types or helicopters or whatever? I think we need more than an irrelevant characteristic to justify notability: WP:RS noting the factoid's special significance, for a start. Having said that, I would have naively assumed that any hijacking would be notable enough in its own right, military or not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources available on this incident, so it should be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As this concerns Australia, there should be plenty of newspaper coverage available via Trove. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)