Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 10

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

Are military charter flights considered military or civilian per WP:AIRCRASH?

I'm trying to determine if Alaska Airlines Flight 779 passes the general guidelines outlined in WP:AIRCRASH. This flight is a Military Air Transport Service flight, but it had a civilian flight designation. Since six people died, it passes the civilian threshhold for inclusion in the airline's article, but it does not pass the military threshhold as no one notable died and there was no resulting change to procedure, design, etc. I don't believe it's notable enough for a standalone article (per WP:GNG and WP:N(E)), but I'm trying to figure out if I should nominate it for deletion or propose a merge.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters, actually; as a charter flight it's not a scheduled airline flight, despite its "Flight" designation - and it was a cargo flight to boot. I've prodded it; there's really no need for a redirect if it's added to the main article. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it was de-prodded with the reasoning that it meets WP:AIRCRASH.... -- OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 18:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:AIRCRASH is just an essay, and the nature of the operator is irrelevant to the WP:GNG. Does the article pass the notability guideline? bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No.
Also, WP:AIRCRASH may be just an essay but in general it's been treated as (one of the) the notability guideline(s) for aviation accidents/incidents, especially for determining where to draw the line between standalone article or inclusion in the airline's article as a mention of an incident. It's also commonly cited in deletion discussions. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:ONLYESSAY. (Oh wait, WP:ATA is also "just an essay"). I really wish people would stop treating the General Notability Guideline as some sort of Holy Writ. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I really wish people would stop citing AIRCRASH for automatic support stand alone articles about hull losses. AIRCRASH only says they meet the criteria for mention in articles. AIRCRASH quite clearly says 'If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports. I also love stating the % of non-fatal DC-3 and DC-9 hull losses that have articles. The first is miniscule and the second is less than half.
Alaska Airlines Flight 779 is so small potatoes so far as cargo plane crashes go and should probably be taken to AFD. This one[1] killed 91 people in 1976 and was was and still is the worst ever aviation accident to take place in Bolivia. If I could find some more sources(newspaper articles) or the accident report on it, I'd do an article on it....William 02:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think being the deadliest accident in the county automagically makes you notable, but that's my opinion. The problem with Alaska 779 is that it's a military cargo flight that crashed and did not result in changes to procedures or aircraft design, nor did it have repercussions in aviation or the military. As far as the military is concerned, these sorts of incidents are a dime a dozen, especially in the earlier days of aviation.
Unless someone beats me to it I'll take Alaska 779 to AFD when I get home. OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 779. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Burt Rutan and Global Warming

A very substantial section is included in the page on Burt Rutan on his belief that global warming is a hoax, as well as his page being included in a category for such people. While I don't doubt that he likely holds such beliefs (ignorance of the topic being rife in the US), I do doubt that they are notable seeing as he completely lacks any training or expertise in the field (being an engineer and not an climatologist), nor does he do any public speaking on the topic and am wondering what other members of the project think. Should this entire section be excised or trimmed, or should it stand.NiD.29 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Um. In terms of aviation it is not notable. In terms of the global warming debate it is not notable. In terms of Burt Rutan the man, I guess it is mildly notable. There will be visitors wanting to know what he thinks about it. I'd go with a much shortened section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Having just read the section I think it should stay. It is well balanced and explained, is about his beliefs and he has spoken publicly about this. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It probably should be trimmed a bit per WP:UNDUE, but a mention of his publically-stated views on the subject itself is appropriate, just perhaps not to the degree it's currently covered. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) Merger or rename proposal

As part of the WikiProject Aviation, I am seeking comment on a merger or rename proposal. Thank you. Ansett (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines

A lot of work is still needed on the Early flying machines article, to fill in missing detail and add balance, although I have now finished my efforts to rescue and restructure it. Hoping some of you might like to contribute, if only to mount a tag-bombing sortie. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Flying-machine"

The usage of Flying-machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and flying machine is under discussion, see talk:flying-machine. "flying machine" is currently used for a real world aeronautical topic. "Flying-machine" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I recently came across a hyphenated page that led to a different, though related page. A casual reader would expect them to go to the same page.
"Flying-machine" should probably be moved to Flying-machine (War of the Worlds) or similar. Then "Flying-machine" can be deleted, or re-directed to "Flying machine". 220 of Borg 05:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of aviation pages and notability

Hi, another editor is insisting on reverting me. I have started two separate discussions: on the notability guidelines for the timeline at Talk:Timeline of aviation#Notability, and on the Phillips 1904 multiplane in particular at Talk:1904 in aviation. Hoping you can contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on Guido Dinelli is under way at Talk:1904 in aviation#Guido Dinelli. Currently only two contributors, so any contributions would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A319 stall incident

Flagging this one up for discussion -

An Airbus A319 was involved in an incident where it got into a stall, despite the Airbus family of aircraft being equipped with systems which should prevent such an occurrence. Would this be notable enough to justify an article, or would a mention in the accidents and incidents section of the article suffice? Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from this, I don't see much substantial coverage of this by independent sources, so I doubt it passes the notability guideline. Might be worth mentioning in the Airbus A320 family but we don't have to mention every incident... bobrayner (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems to have been a pretty minor incident. There was no crash and the stall seems to have been caused mostly by inattentive and incompetent crew, wind shear and inoperative flight control computer systems. While the Airbus family are pretty stall resistant due to their fly-by-wire controls, you can find ways to stall them anyway if you try hard enough. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is, Airbus aircraft have a public perception of being unstallable. The computer systems operated as designed as far as I can tell, but because limits were exceeded the data was rejected. Just because it didn't result in a major accident does not necessarily mean it wasn't a notable incident. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Do any reliable sources contrast this incident against Airbus' reputation of unstallability? bobrayner (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I have seen any public comment about unstallability? According to the BEA report the automatic protection system stopped the stall condition as it was designed to do and the aircraft recovered so I dont see much to say and none of the recommendations related to the aircraft systems but mostly to training. MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mustang"

The usage of Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Mustang horse -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Crossair Flight 498

Otherwise known as the someone's cellphone crashed a plane flight.

You know something? The accident report makes no mention of cellphones.

So if WP:UNDUE the cellphone theory(If one ever existed before Wikipedia and one website. More on this in a moment) shouldn't be in the intro.

I removed it. But here's something else. The alternative hypothesis section which read-

The government crash report does not mention cell phone activity as a primary cause of the crash and instead attributes it to pilot error.[10] However, a separate investigation into the cause of the crash showed that the autopilot system malfunctioned at the same time that a passenger's cell phone on board the plane received a SMS message and another received a call. After this information was made public, a number of countries that had previously been reluctant to do so outlawed cell phones on flights (including Switzerland).

1- The first sentence is absolutely correct.

2- A separate investigation. There are three IC on the last sentence of the article. They are-

The newspaper article couldn't be the source for separate investigation sentence. Zdnet says 'European newspapers have reported that a passenger using a cell phone during takeoff contributed to the crash of a Crossair commuter plane in 2000'. That article says the crash was still under investigation

Now the mobile review website says-

First alarm was set when cell phones became widely spread and equipment errors became more often but still there were no direct evidences. Till 2000 some of the countries didn't joint to the ban against cell phones but an air crash of the flight number LX 498 Crossair (Saab 340) considerably changed the situation. It was not far from Zurich on the 10. of January 2000. Ten passengers and a whole crew perished in that air crash. For a long time the results of flight recorders decoding were not announced but at last it was a sensation. One of the reasons of the crash was an SMS message, which was received by one of the passengers, and a next cell phone conversation. Navigation monitoring devices showed wrong data at that moment, what led to a crash. Comments of independent experts were not comforting, they said that crew could improve the situation but it also made a mistake and crash was inevitable. Everybody agreed that an airplane fortune depended on crew actions and crew professionalism after electrical systems stopped working. Those countries which hadn't joint to the ban before, hurried on to do it. After that this air crash was forgotten.

The article was written in 2002. 'For a long time the results of flight recorders decoding were not announced but at last it was a sensation.' Who looked at the recorders other than the investigators. 'One of the reasons of the crash was an SMS message, which was received by one of the passengers, and a next cell phone conversation. Navigation monitoring devices showed wrong data at that moment, what led to a crash.' So that's our source for cellphones maybe bringing down the plane but remember people say this is a theory. It is also the source for 'After this information was made public, a number of countries that had previously been reluctant to do so outlawed cell phones on flights (including Switzerland)'. Switzerland isn't mentioned by name.

Is that mobile review website a WP:RS? I don't think it is for causes of aviation accidents, so I seriously rewrote the paragraph. Give me your opinions please. If someone can find a RS to say what the article originally said was right, rewrite the article again. I'd be cautious about what sources to use, this is one of those stories that can drift further and further away from the truth because a wrong story has been told over and over again. Won't bore you now, but I can give examples of just what I'm saying. Anyway chime in on this for me....William 22:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment: this article was shown on the front page in the 'Did You Know' section with this fact: "[Did you know]...that the crash of Crossair Flight LX498 was initially attributed to cell phone use, and led to bans of cell phones in airplanes in several countries?" I think that if this was legitimately the cause of cell phones being banned from planes in "several" counties, it's a legit fact to include, especially if such a fact can be sourced properly. Otherwise, I also modified the article to remove mention of cell phones from the infobox as the cause of the accident (leaving it just "pilot error"). And for what it's worth, I don't believe that the 'mobile-review' site would be considered WP:RS. I'll see if I can find some newspaper sources for this "alternate" investigation. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I remember reading about this in an aviation mag sometime in the last couple of years, but I cannot remember which one. IIRC the article said there were three 'mobile phone events' immediately before the crash, then went on to discuss that no interference has been proven and there have been no crashes since then, even though it is estimated (the article said) that there is at least one active mobile phone on every single flight. IIRC the thrust of the article was a discussion about moves currently afoot to allow mobile phone use in-flight. YSSYguy (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
They didn't do a very good job with the article at DYK time. The cell phone section changed little in the last 7 years and its primary sources were the same.
I'd be careful about sources if their date of publication was in the last 8 years or so. This wikipedia article may have poisoned how this crash is viewed. 62 years ago, a great baseball comeback occurred. Part of its lore is that one team's manager said the other team was dead(pennant wise) and this sparked the miracle comeback. I found a newspaper article about 10 years after the comeback that said this and many newspaper articles on the comeback have said it in the years since. Unfortunately, the Manager's remark was made two years after the miracle comeback. Now try convincing people that Charlie Dressen didn't say 'The Giants is dead' in 1951 rather than 1953 when he really said those words. They'll say I've read it in the newspapers at least twenty times that it happened then. And they did probably read it twenty times and each of those twenty times the article was wrong. If I haven't put you to sleep with the above story, check this out[2] about a book written by a former Supreme Court Justice and where he probably got his wrong information.
Of course if anyone can find a reliable source(s) for the cellphone stuff I edited out, feel free to re-write the section again....William 12:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the television show Mayday aka Air Crash Investigations, will be airing an episode on this crash soon. It will be interesting to see what they do with the cell phone theory. Will the show provide just further disinformation?...William 12:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh they LOVE disseminating wrong information. I'd bet they'll cover the cell phone theory like it's the truth and the "real" reason in the official report is the product of blackmail, bribery, and collusion between the airline and some multinational corporations. Drama sells more tv, and if nothing else, 'Mayday' is good drama. OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 14:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
BTW at List of Mayday episodes, an editor has repeatedly included the cell phone theory in the brief description of that upcoming episode, and I've had to remove it twice. I cited WP:UNDUE and the fact that accident report makes no mention of cellphones....William 14:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of most runways at an airport

Come on over and help decide whether this article should be kept or not....William 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Call for information: RNAS at Isle of Grain

I'd like to call attention to the RNAS Kingsnorth talk page. I have poked about on the 'net a bit and found a variety of apparently contradictory locations and details for this station. It may be that there was more than one location or even station, but none of the references seem particularly detailed. The confusion may also stem from the location of Port Victoria being mis-identified on the wiki, as the base was said to be co-located yet the wiki article places the Port some distance away. Further confusing the issue is that both sites now have power stations, so references to the base being used for a power station - surprisingly - don't clear up the issue! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See User:Mjroots/List of airports in Kent. This may clear up a bit of the confusion. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
See also Port Victoria Marine Experimental Aircraft Depot for a slightly different view! --TraceyR (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RQ-180

Can we please get an article about the new RQ-180?

THXs 95.88.236.162 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Like this one Northrop Grumman RQ-180 ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The end of Google news archive searches

When either starting news articles, or attempting to improve existing ones, I have used Google News archive countless times. Google News Archive was merged into Google News over two years ago but you could still search it archives. That may have ended. Since yesterday when trying to do a archive via a archive search page I had long ago saved, I have been receiving 'The search option you have selected is currently unavailable'. Any links to archived articles still work. This for an example[3]. However if you try to do a archive search from that page, again you are stymied. I don't see a way to do an archive search from Google News main page either. It appears Google News archive searches are at an end. With it the job of working on anything that is dated from 15 or more years ago has become much harder....William 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You can still search the archives. For example, I was just running a search for articles about Capital Airlines Flight 20, which crashed on January 18, 1960 in Virginia. I entered my search terms ("Capital Airlines" Virginia) and clicked 'search'. On the search results page, there's an option called "Search Tools" on the right of the tool bar. Clicking that reveals more options. The "Any Date" drop down shows an option for "Custom Range...". I used this option to narrow down my search to articles between January 17, 1960 and February 18, 1961. Et voila, old news articles about the crash. So while technically the independent "news archive" is gone, you can still do historical searches by filtering on date. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles that need scrutinizing

Indian Airlines Flight 113, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, and Vietnam Airlines Flight 815, all three of which have been seriously redone by a brand new editor. I couldn't help thinking Ryan k is back but this editor doesn't do the things Ryan usually does. More detail is good, but I think its also excessive in places. Alot of detail about lawsuits after one trash, the last transmissions before the Garuda crash, mentions of people who lost loved ones in the crashes. The Indian and Vietnam total fatalities have been changed and the new titles don't jive with other sources. I could use some input before taking a wack at these articles. That's unless someone else wants to do the wacking....William 01:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ArtRave‎

I hope this is not too much of a stretch, but I added ArtRave to this WikiProject. I also added to the article the see also link 2013 in aviation, the category 2013 in aviation, and the aviation portal to the portal bar at the bottom of the article. At this event, Lady Gaga premiered "the world's first flying dress", which was essentially a contraption that lifted off the ground. If the Aircraft WikiProject is preferable, please let me know. If you wish to help expand the article with details about the contraption, just search "Volantis Lady Gaga" on Google. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that a flying dress has nothing to do with aviation? Admittedly I haven't seen images of the dress. Does it satisfy the project criteria? --TraceyR (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a stunt, not aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If the "dress" were to be "worn" untethered in the open air and fly high enough, it would have to be approved by the aviation authorities, possibly as a personal air vehicle. It is not really a dress, more a remote-controlled hover platform with a strap-on plastic shell over the passenger's safety harness. You can find some useful technical description and images here. So while the event is not, as Ahunt says, significant in Aviation, I would say that the Volantis itself is significant enough for the Aircraft wikiproject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay I relent, given the ref I agree, it is an electric helicopter, not a dress and deserves an article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, having looked at it, I want one too (as soon as it gets an airworthiness certificate!) --TraceyR (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
All, please now weigh in at Volantis (aircraft). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Well done! - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, all. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Convert

{{convert}} has just been switched to a new system (Module:Convert) which does more error checking. Would someone please check this edit (which removed a "unit mismatch" error) and if necessary fix it, or let me know what is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Airspeed measured in knots, distance in nautical miles. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a good example of why it is better to not specify the target unit unless you have a good reason to do so. The template will default to the correct one (or in some cases like NMI, to two) that are by consensus the correct targets. Note this is not a new system. Heavy use templates are being converted to LUA for better performance and error checking. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Aurel Vlaicu

Like many Roumanian pages, this one is full of absurd unsubstantiated claims, of which I have attempted to prune down, without much success, particularly in relation to claims of being among the first military flights (alas preceded by the US, France, Germany, Italy, Russia etc). Other eyes on this would be appreciated.NiD.29 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The large number of images in the article although old are unsourced so I have suggested them for deletion at commons and removed them from the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
And someone keeps deleting Citation/ref needed tags without actually fixing the problems.NiD.29 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Same user created this page ... Gheorghe Caranda - which doesn't appear to be all that notable, despite having his name on a monument all he seems to have done was crash an airplane in 1912, killing himself. Any comments or does anyone have any more information or references on him, so as to justify keeping the page?NiD.29 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Despite the hagiography in Jurnalul, I don't think he's notable. bobrayner (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Gheorghe Caranda is not notable from the information provided, feel free to send it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - added speedy delete template Db-person.NiD.29 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

AJet Flight 522 redirect.

Please come and discuss whether this[4] should be kept....William 20:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Avery JA-5 Walrus‎

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/Avery JA-5 Walrus‎. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163

I am writing to ask for some opinions. Today I edited out[5] of the Saudia article somebody's Eye witness account of what really happened to the flight. The reason I removed this section- WP:RS. The section I removed is all based on one person's webwriting. It wasn't published in a mainstream publication so far as I know. There is a link to the article in the EL section of Saudia Flight 163. I'm fine with that. I'd like to hear other's opinions on the edit I did....William 19:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with your removal. The source in question fails WP:SPS. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for editing it. I didn't realize that the source was self-published. I should have been more careful. I felt the article was pretty bare bones and didn't go into much detail as to WHY the crew didn't evacuate. I should have checked the source more thoroughly. I have been trying to get Aviation Articles, especially crashes to go into more detail. I find that many times they just state what happened and the main causes outlined in the investigative report. I think it was right of you to edit it out. I'm not some crazy conspiracy theorists who never takes investigations for their word. I'm just trying to let people know all the possible details, but obviously I did it in a misleading way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewax11 (talk)contribs) 22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The final report by the Saudi authorities is online so you can use that to bulk up the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
A apology wasn't necessary. I WP:AGF and thought you missed the fact the source wasn't a reliable one. Keep on editing....William 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have read the report but it didn't explain why he went off the runway and waited to shut down the engines. The current editing though says that the planes doors didn't open because of pressurization, but the accident report states that the pressurization was only 80ft off and wouldn't have made any difference. Drewax11 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Air France Flight 296

I was reading the article on Air France Flight 296 and I realized that it stated that the pilots thought the engines didn't respond fast enough, it didn't give any of the evidence sighted. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the investigation was corrupt, but since the captain hired private people and former accident investigators found flaws in the data I think it should be discussed in more detail. It also said nothing about the report that the black boxes were different. I know that the French Courts convicted him, but I think it should be mentioned. I think it was important enough to the accident to mention it. Experts did say the black boxes were different as well as a 4 second time discrepancy. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorists but I think that it at least deserves to be mentions. I'm not super familiar with this topic so please correct me if I'm wrong. Drewax11 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if that is the case it can be added as long as reliable refs can be cited and WP:SYNTHESIS can be avoided. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Category:Flight"

The reorganization of Category:Flight is being discussed at Talk:Aviation -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fatal commercial jetliner crash article tagged for notability due to no demonstration of "lasting effect"

Hi! A Wikipedian tagged for notability the TACA Flight 390 saying that it is not proving notability because there is no proof of a "lasting effect" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I tried making that argument at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash and it got voted "keep" regardless of the fact that it didn't make the criteria for an article. I guess if you think it should be kept you can remove the tag and ask him to take it to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the rationale for keep. It reads: "The result was keep. Many arguments on both sides did not address sourcing, and as such were marginally helpful at best, but those which did indicated that coverage was significantly wider than local and demonstrated that there is sufficient source material. Whether this is more appropriate as a standalone article or a subsection of another should be discussed further as there is no clear consensus on that here." The WP:GNG criteria is independent of AIRCRASH, so if an article fails AIRCRASH it can still be kept under GNG ("coverage was significantly wider than local and demonstrated that there is sufficient source material"). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We really should get our heads together and turn AIRCRASH into a guideline or even a policy in 2014. Far too many lengthy AfD debates happening every day. With very clear rules new articles should not appear at AfD, existing ones can be reviewed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As an FYI TACA Flight 390 is an existing article. I don't think the Salvadoran authorities have yet released the final report to this crash. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I find the most heated AFDs are over recent accidents. IMHO there is two reasons for this- WP:Recentism(IF the crash didn't happen in the last five years, 10 years max, the AFD is usually cut and dry 19 times out of 20. Then not too many article creators are doing older crashes, and those who do know the notability guidelines) and people thinking WP:AIRCRASH means that if a aircraft is written off that is automatically notable enough for standalone article. No it isn't. AIRCRASH only says its notable enough for mention in a aircraft, airport, or airline article and that it 'may be notable enough for a stand-alone ' depending on whether it meets GNG, EVENT, and NOTNEWSPAPER guidelines....William 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
This accident is NOTABLE because Harry Brautigam was one of the passengers killed in the crash. A notable person dying in an aviation accident makes the accident notable....William 23:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nimbus, formalizing WP:AIRCRASH is long overdue. How to we move that forward? - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a hint at WP:PROPOSAL though the process is not clear to me.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I have read that before and it is "clear as mud". I guess we need to start with a solid consensus on the project here and then move it upwards with a wiki-wide RfC or something like that! - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we just start an RfC, add templates to the essay and get it done. Not looked at the essay recently, it should be checked for loop holes and intent before proposing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start. Let's whip it into shape and critique it. Maybe that should be a discussion on its talk page and then back here? - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I found another that was being debated: Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_331#Notability_Tag. I don't think the Jamaicans have released their accident report on AA 331 yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Might want to look over this first: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents). It looks like MickMacNee attempted to get some sort of consensus on this back in September 2010 but got nowhere. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Source with lists of civil aviation agencies

I found a book source that has a list of civil aviation agencies:

This may be useful if you want to start a new article. Some country may not yet have an article on its civil aviation industry in either English or its home languages. It doesn't hurt to try! Some of these are outdated/old, but that's okay. We want to collect info on the former agencies and especially old URLs of their websites (we can see them in the Wayback Machine). WhisperToMe (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Draft" rating

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class Aviation articles‎, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I know many people here use their own namespace to work on drafts for later articles. I'd suggest they start using this. If this project incorporates it wholesale, proposed/new articles may get more feedback. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Unpowered aviation and Category:Unpowered flight

These two categories have come up at WP:CfD, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 3 -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Korean Air Flight 015

Is a new accident article that I just created. The article could use some cleanup work. A few problems- Air Disaster.com and ASN have differing totals as to how many people were on board. News reports at the time are conflicting too. Also- The date Air Disaster and ASN have for this accident is incorrect. One of my references is dated November 17 but those accident websites have the crash taking place on November 19. I am dating the crash as the 17th but it needs confirmation....William 16:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The 17 November date for the The Day reference appears to be a Google mistake - the date on the top of the scanned page states 19 November, as does Flight International here and here (with more here, although the number on board seems to vary.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I could not find any of the sources in the article that actually list Nov. 17. Since the 2 newspapers are dated Nov. 19 and the ASN page (+your FI sources above) lists Nov. 19, I changed the date to match. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów PWS-1

See talk:Podlaska Wytwórnia Samolotów PWS-1 where the systematic name is suggested to be wrong for this article; this may greatly impact other aircraft articles, if it were read as a precedent and not as a one-off. So, if this does to ahead, we should clarify if this is a unique case or a precedent. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Golden Age of Aviation

I cannot find any authoritative references for this historical period "of aviation." For example the FlightGlobal archive since 1990 mentions "inter-war" once[6], "between the World wars" once[7], but there is no sign of a golden age of aviation as such, rather there are several other related golden ages. There are many fanboy web references, but I don't think we should give those much credence, especially as they tend to disagree over the exact period in question. The article on the Golden Age of Aviation has stood with a refimprove tag for two years now and none have been forthcoming. Google gives about twice as many hits for "between the World Wars" as "inter-war" OR "interwar", so I intend to move this article to Aviation between the World Wars unless anyone can back up an objection with cast-iron reference to the contrary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of it; the most solid sources won't wax lyrical about some "golden age" of aviation, and those sources which do will each have their own belief about when it happened, and what exactly made it golden. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Now moved. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aeroperú Flight 603

Does anyone besides myself think this accident should not be classified as CFIT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Doesnt appear to pass the "control" part and I am not sure you can CFIT into water either. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
National Airlines Flight 193 seems to be a CFIT water landing. The pilots of the Aeroperú flight did not have much control of the aircraft before it impacted the water....William 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It certainly isn't a classic sort of CFIT accident, more like an equipment failure. I would probably not classify it as a CFIT, but it is debatable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If the pilot is in control of the aircraft but doesn't realize he is descending, and descends into water I believe that would count as CFIT. If on the other hand, he was not in control, then it cannot be CFIT, just "uncontrolled flight into terrain".NiD.29 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Evergreen International Airlines

Good day all, I'm not the best at editing so I figure'd I would raise a flag. There is a lot of turmoil going on for Evergreen International Airlines and as you can imagine their page is getting a lot of edits. Any assistance at guidance will be greatly appreciated. If this isn't the right venue to bring it up, please let me know the right direction to head in. Thanks, Trashbag (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to have been edited since 4 January and then only one edit, although the latest IP edits could do with some reliable references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of small tags to convey information

per wp:accessibility guidelines, we should avoid using italics and fontsize to convey information. I have repeated reverted changes which violate this guideline in Template:Airports in the United Kingdom, the British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. You may also be interested in this thread if you feel as though small tags are a good way to convey information. Frietjes (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There are bigger issues with that template. My understanding is that the small font is being used to indicate types of destinations as explained in the footnote. From a project standpoint, would it be better to simply say that if you are going to split out information like this, it should be directly conveyed in the body of template with labeled lists? No foot notes, no accessibility issues and plain easy to understand. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
right, like this version, for example. Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
seems like a good solution, I have updated it to this format. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
How do you propose handling the situations that have arisen in the 'Aviation accidents and incidents in [year]' templates, then? Italics and small caps are used to show fatalities and the deadliest accident in each year. See {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1977}} for instance. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
no consensus yet, see Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents#Accessibility. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1954 BOAC Constellation crash

is a new accident article created today about the deadliest plane crash ever to occur in Singapore. Me and another editor are aiming to make this a DYK article. Before that can happen, the article could use more work. I'm inviting other editors to join in. Here's a link to a newspaper archive[8] with lots of articles on the crash....William 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Aeronautics vs. aviation

Somebody recently added a section heading on "Aeronautics" to the aviation article, so I think it's time we cleared this one up. There is a view that "aviation" is strictly limited to heavier-than-air flight while "aeronautics" is broader and also includes lighter-than-air flight. For example the article lead on aeronautics references one such definition. However in practice the terms are often used interchangeably. My old Chambers twentieth century dictionary defines aeronautics as "the science and art of aerial navigation," to aviate as to "fly mechanically, navigate the air," an aeronaut as "a balloonist or airman" against an aviator as "an airman, flying man." It defines an airman as "an aviator".

The mess is neatly encapsulated in Wragg's "Historical dictionary of aviation," (History Press, 2008), which covers both heavier- and lighter-than-air flight (e.g. it has an extensive entry for the Airship). Wragg's entry for "Aviation" defines it as specifically heavier-than-air, yet in direct contradiction of that definition he titles his book as a dictionary of "Aviation" and not of the wider aeronautics which, according to his own definition, it actually covers.

We are in much the same mess. For example we have separate articles for aeronautics and aviation, while the same aeronautics article that references the pedantic definition also notes the interchangeability of usage but does not reference that aspect. It happily discusses airships in the section on "Early aviation," while the article on aviation also discusses lighter-than-air flight in its History section. It seems we have three options:

  1. Treat the terms as interchangeable and merge aeronautics with aviation. It might be necessary to dig out references to support this position.
  2. Treat them as distinct and purge both all aerostats from articles or sections restricted to aviation, and all mention of aviation from articles on aerostats such as Balloon (aircraft). We might then want to rename ourselves the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aeronautics.
  3. Do what many people do - make a pedantic definition which we then proceed to almost but not quite ignore, leaving each article to fend for itself, much as we do now. But then, what do we make of our separate articles on aeronautics and aviation? How do we define the scope of each?

Please add your thoughts below here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly a real "can of worms"! Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2 says:
Aeronautics
The branch of science that deals with flight and with the operation of all types of aircraft. Aerodynamics and aerostatics are both branches of aeronautics.
Aerostatics
The branch of science that deals with the flight of lighter-than-air vehicles, such as balloons, dirigibles, or blimps. These vehicles are filled with hot air or with a gas lighter than the air surrounding it. This gas enables the balloon to rise in the air by displacing more than its own weight of air.
Aviation
The branch of science, business, or technology that deals with any part of the operation of machines that fly through the air.
While only one opinion, that does make it pretty clear. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My layman's understanding is as the dictionary definitions: aviation covers anything that flies (save natural creatures), aeronautics is the knowledge and so aeronautics is subset of aviation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Clear? Is an airship a "machine that flies through the air"? @GraemeLeggett: What dictionaries include bird flight? So, I checked a few online dictionaries:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/
  • aeronautics: the science of designing, building, and operating aircraft
  • aeronaut: (no entry)
  • aviation: the activity of flying aircraft, or of designing, producing, and keeping them in good condition
  • aviator: an aircraft pilot
  • airman: a member of the British or US air force with a low rank
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
  • aeronautics: the science or practice of building or flying aircraft
  • aeronaut: a traveller in a hot-air balloon, airship, or other flying craft
  • aviation: the flying or operating of aircraft
  • aviator: chiefly dated a pilot
  • airman: a pilot or member of the crew of an aircraft, especially in an air force
  • a member of the RAF below commissioned rank
  • a member of the US air force of the lowest rank, below staff sergeant
  • a member of the US navy whose general duties are concerned with aircraft
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
  • aeronautics: 1. a science dealing with the operation of aircraft
2. the art or science of flight
  • aeronaut: one who operates or travels in an airship or balloon
  • aviation: 1. the operation of heavier-than-air aircraft
2. military airplanes
3. airplane manufacture, development, and design
  • aviator: the operator or pilot of an aircraft and especially an airplane
  • airman:: 1. a civilian or military pilot, aviator, or aviation technician
2. an enlisted man in the air force

They show a rough distinction between aeronautics as the science of aircraft flight vs. aviation as the practice, though Oxford sees aeronautics as covering both while Crane (above) curiously sees aviation as embracing the "science" of operations. From an encyclopedic point of view this kind of semantic muddle suggests to me that there is no sense in treating them as separate topics. When and if I can find the time, I'll propose an article merge - unless anyone beats me to it, grin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the refs show general agreement that "aeronautics" is not just lighter-than-air flight, so yes I think they should be merged. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Merger now proposed. All are invited to join in the discussion at Talk:Aviation#Merger proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The merge vote was inconclusive. There is now a new proposal to move Aeronautics to Aeronautical science. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Now made a formal request - see below — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request

I have now formally requested a move of Aeronautics to Aeronautical science. You are invited to comment etc. at Talk:Aeronautics#Requested_move_09_January_2014 — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Undercarriage and landing gear pages

There is a request for multiple page moves at Talk:Undercarriage#Multiple_pages_move_request. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

Was it ever known by the name Aerlínte Éireann? I know the Aer Lingus article says so, but I want to confirm it....William 23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this confirms that the name Aerlínte Éireann was used for some Aer Lingus operations, though I don't know its exact significance. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
From here it "operates with Aer Lingus under the common marketing name of Aer Lingus-Irish International Airlines". Operations were "closely integrated" and the two airlines shared a common HQ. They both seem to have been wholly owned by Aer Rianta. Just to confuse the issue, Aer Lingus appears to have leased Constellations from a previous iteration of Aerlínte Éireann in 1947–48 (see here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that Aerlínte Éireann was a seperate operation formed to operate the transatlantic routes but later got absorbed into Aer Lingus, Flight describe Aerlínte Éireannas a "sister company". MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The future of WP:AIRCRASH

Since this standard we have been using is now being widely ignored I have started a debate on whether it should be retained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents#The_future_for_WP:AIRCRASH. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

1972 Sacramento F86 Sabre accident

I created this article as a spin-off from Farrell's Ice Cream Parlour as reading about it, it seems clear that it deserves an article of its own. Happy for people to lend a hand expanding it. Per the 1954 BOAC article, I'll take it to DYK in a couple of days, assuming we have something to be reasonably proud of! Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To be accurate it wasnt actually an F-86 the Canadians didnt use the American designations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, so let's agree a name and move it. You can call it the Canadair Sabre if you prefer? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
OK I dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Moved, please help expand it as you see fit. It's certainly a tragic event. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree certainly worthy of an article and a bit of an effort to see what can be added. MilborneOne (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
History of the aircraft involved would be a useful addition, if known. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded the NTSB report to commons here and started the transcription of the report at wikisource here. There's a (brief) aircraft history on page 5 of the NTSB report. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Meredith effect

The Stub Meredith effect should be checked for deletion. I find it to be a myth. My expertise on the thermodynamics of real gases is only basic for I am not an engineer in that specific area, but I am happy to argue my point and listen to anyone who can explain why there could possibly be thrust generated. The article does not explain how. --Moritzgedig (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting subject! Responded at Talk:Meredith effect. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is aviation a kind of flight?

Opinions welcome at Talk:Flying#Requested move. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

First helicopter?

I found the text:

In 1917, the engineers of the company designed a radical motorized flying machine (named "P.K.Z.") to replace the highly flammable hydrogen-filled balloons then being used to observe enemy positions. That early helicopter flew to a height of over 50 m. It was supported by 120 hp engines and two massive wooden propellers turning in opposite directions. It was intended to lift a pilot, observer, machine gun and fuel for an hour's flight. Because it left the ground, some consider it as the first helicopter

at Ganz Works article. The given source is http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?ROD-008 But it does not appear at Helicopter#History

What do you think about this information? Is this true or false? Should it present on wikipedia? 79.117.188.87 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The craft appears to be genuine [link to copyvio site redacted]. The first helicopter is generally accepted to be that of Paul Cornu, which made several free flights in 1907, ten years earlier. Also the PKZ-1 and PKZ-2 were tethered so neither ever made a free flight. So the claim to be the first helicopter is false. Cornu's design had contra-rotating rotors although they were not on the same axis. Many earlier models had been made with co-axial rotors but none was manned. These machines should certainly be added to the List of rotorcraft and I would like to see a dedicated Wikipedia article for them too. I think the only reasons to mention them in the History article would be for their notable characteristics. The PKZ-1 was electric powered which may have been a "first", while the PKZ-2 may have been the first man-carrying design with coaxial rotors. If either of these firsts is noted in a reliable source, then I would say yes it deserves a mention in the History, but not otherwise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Steelpillow thanks for your prompt reply. Can you please edit the Ganz Works and correct the phrase "some consider it as the first helicopter", to adapt it to reality, if you consider that necessary? 79.117.187.240 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I have tidied the entry in the Ganz Works article a little, but I think that may be the wrong factory. Sources cribbed by Aviastar suggest that the PKZ-2 was constructed at the works of Dr. Liptak & Co AG near Budapest and that the PKZ-1 was taken there after completion, and then flown there also. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There's an article by Peter M Grosz on the two PKZ helicopters in Air Enthusiast No. Six. Neither appear to have been built at the Ganz works. The PKZ 1, designed by Theodore von Kármán and Wilfred Zurovec, was, according to the article, built by MAG, while the PKZ 2, designed by Zurovec alone, was built by Liptak.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have a copy of that. I'll try to find time to create an article for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be preceded by the French Breguet-Richet Gyroplane, though the article is in need of more and better references.NiD.29 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The Breguet was earlier, definitely existed and lifted its own weight off the ground. However it's not clear if it ever flew untethered, so it doesn't gain the "first free-flight" accolade. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Is there a problem in linking from a discussion? WP:AVIASTAR is based on WP:EL which is only concerned with links from articles. Would be nice if this were made clear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "linking to copyvio" is considered a Bad Idea from anywhere in the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It is all explained at WP:COPYLINK - you should never link to copyright vio material from anywhere, as, in the US at least it "has been considered a form of contributory infringement" just by itself. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the clarifications. I have redacted the link anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

New article now at Petróczy-Kármán-Žurovec‎. Hope I have done the right thing. Please feel free to attack as you see fit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Aviation in World War II

Hi,

I have rescued Aviation in World War II from a redirect to Air warfare of World War II and turned it into a separate article with quite different focus. My aim is to make it a sensible spin-off article from the History of aviation rather than a war historian's plaything. Any help in tidying would be welcome. Adverse reactions? Ah, well, this is Wikipedia.... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-working geotags?

Check out RAF Westhampnett. It has coords in it, but they don't seem to appear anywhere on screen. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It works for me. Possibly something browser-specific? Either that, or something strange involving a transcluded template which has been fixed between your comment and mine. Does this happen on any other pages? bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
They show up for me within the military structure infobox. User:Maury Markowitz are they showing up yet? Gavbadger (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No joy. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, where do you guys see it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
First instance should be on the right hand side of the page at the top level with "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Second instance should be within the top infobox under where it says "Royal Air Force station". Gavbadger (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Weird! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at RAF Brize Norton and see if the coordinates show up there in the same places previously mentioned. Gavbadger (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see the co-ordinates on the RAF Westhampnett article, but the ones on Brize Norton show up fine. Curious.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That explains it then, the infobox on the Brize and the Westhampnett are the same, however the infobox on the Westhampnett article is the old version because the infobox was updated on Wednesday, the infobox needs to be updated to the new version, I have done the current RAF bases in the UK (except the U.S. occupied ones), the Royal Navy and British Army bases. The former RAF bases are next but it will take some time to them all. I will update the Westhampnett infobox soon and will get back to you. Gavbadger (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The co-ordinates on the RAF Westhampnett article has just disappeared to me as well just, but don't worry the coordinates are still in the coding. 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I wonder if this has to do with using latitude = 50.859 and longitude = -0.759 and not {{coord}} or the dms for these? BTW it does not show up for me with Firefox. Another observation? How is an airport a structure? An airport is a facility that contains many structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
RAF Westhampnett has now been updated to the new style, the rest of the former Royal Air Force stations will be updated in due time and the infobox is now called Military installation and includes airport information. Gavbadger (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edited again. Gavbadger (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That fixed the display for me. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fastjet

The fastjet article looks to me like it contains almost exclusively promotional material. It has just been updated with the details of current routes flown. Can somebody familiar with airline articles pop over and see if it needs a cleanup? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming of safety offices internationally

Hi, I noticed an inconsistency for naming articles about aviation safety offices. The German office is officially called "Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung", but its article has the name "German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation", its English translation. For the French article, the article's name is the original local name without translation: "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile". Is there a naming convention which supports this, or may I rename the article? I would like to, because I did not find it immediately, even though I was already in the correct category. --FlugTurboFan (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is normally the common name in English for these establishments, it is not always the name in the local language. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia; my reading of WP:NAME and WP:ENGLISH suggests that the German office's article has the correct title, but the French office's article should be moved to use the English name of the office. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's difficult to balance accurate naming with the most common or recognisable naming among English readers. If the correct name comes second in the WP:COMMONNAME race by a small margin - if it's still supported by a significant proportion of sources - then I would still favour it. But if the name in local language is overwhelmed by a translated name in anglophone sources, then we should definitely use the translation. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The common English name of the French organisation is the BEA. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The translated form of the French office is a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

PSA Airlines

I've just semi-protected the PSA Airlines article for two weeks due to edit warring by IPs over the "Criticisms" section. I've left the section in as it is referenced, but have no strong feelings either way as to its retention or deletion. Suggest this is discussed at the talk page. Fresh eyes and opinions welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually this issue is still going on and could really use some additional input on the talk page at Talk:PSA Airlines to help come to a conclusion on this. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment

Hello, given that the last entry to this page was over a year ago, should it now be discontinued and removed from the front page of this project? It's somewhat misleading to have a link to an assessment page where no assessments occur for over a year. Or at least the submissions section.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

The above hasn't been worked on for over a year, can someone in the project please deal with it and tidy up the links? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I think it could do with a cull or deletion most of the stuff is not notable and if it was it would be included in the standard List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. Military aircraft makes a forced landing and crew walk away with no injuries type stuff would be laughed out in any other accident list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so let's remove it from the box on the project page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, close the assessment/review for that list. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, it's more a nudge to ensure the project doesn't allow it's front end to become stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Santa Ana air show disaster

I just created this article on an a 1938 aviation disaster that killed over 50 people. The aritcle needs a infobox(I never did a air show article so I'm not sure box to use) and the article could use expansion. There is both a Spanish and Portugese wiki article on the crash. These can be used if you can read the articles....William 13:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Wakefield

FYI, there's a notice at WT:ASTRONOMY about this draft article on a flight steward. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As a flight steward this guy is certainly not notable. I think we can let the astronomy project decide its fate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence seems to have a rash of edits by brand new accounts. Should I revert? Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like disputes over unsourced numbers - need sources! Nationalist boosters inflating military strength on Wikipedia is nothing new, but good sources are the best way to fight it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of those numbers, as they stand, can't be trusted. Ditto with recent edits to Serbian Army and Serbian Armed Forces etc. Anything that can't be trusted should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

plane or copter? No, it's a V-22

Apparently the V-22 can do 3 Gs: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a10d964ef-b53b-474d-8f06-ec0a3f7f0914

But we don't list this under specs, because we're treating it as if it were a helicopter. Hcobb (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What are you even talking about? And whatever it is, wouldn't it be better addressed on the V-22 page? - BilCat (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem has nothing to do with it being a helicopter or fixed wing, but rather because no data field exists to specify that the way say span or rotor diameter is - however there is a |more performance= field that the information can be added to quite easily. NiD.29 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could discuss this in prose, rather than trying to shoehorn a description of each subject into an arbitrary table, whether or not the table fits..? First priority, in the V-22 article, should be to describe the V-22. Fitting V-22 tech specs into standardised fields that wikipedians created for other aircraft should be much further down the list of priorities. bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blimps

Somebody has gone to town using the term "blimp" in article titles such as Goodyear Blimp - a good few more are linked to from there. I am British, so I don't know whether this is an accepted official term in the USA or whether this warrants a whole bunch of article moves to more sensible titles. Any enlightenment on offer? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For example in this apparently semi-official history, as the narrative gets closer to official Navy operations our "blimps" revert first to "ships" and then to "airships." And in Ege, D.; Balloons and airships, Blandford 1973, page 72, the US K-class are described as "non-rigid airships." It all makes me suspect that "blimp" is not an official designation but just popular slang. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm at it, the K-class blimp article title lacks the manufacturer's name. It should probably be moved to something like Goodyear K-class airship. There are other articles in the same boat (sic). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My (US) Merriam-Webster's dictionary doesn't list "blimp" as a slang term. Common names are standard on Wikipedia, and preferable in most cases to "official names". Since blimp is a common name for a non-rigid airship, I don't see an issue with it being used, especially in US related articles. Since I'm not British, I can't be bothered to look up the term in a British online dictionary to see if it's listed as an Americanism. ;) - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
UK RS, including Janes', are perfectly happy at using "blimp". It's a technical term with a clear meaning, it's not just a slang like "gasbag". Now there is certainly a predominance of US blimps being described as such, as the US did build most of them (and even Airship Industries is now US-owned), but the ones at question here are themselves US. "Non-rigid airship" is also a term in fairly common UK use (and usually applied to the Skyships, by competent UK RS) but that's a term that is (AFAIK) really quite rare in US practice.
I'm puzzled by the removal of links. If this is a renaming issue, then rename the article under K-class blimp. However there is no reason to remove this link. Nor should the article even be renamed. It was the Navy who defined the name, not Goodyear. Goodyear's name was would have been "Goodyear ZNP-K class", which is a failure of COMMONNAME and also so over-specific that it's only correct for the first ones.
I'm disappointed to see BRD being (yet again) cited as an excuse for edit-warring. It's BRD with one R, not Bold-Reverted-Sneak my change back in Because I'm Right-Discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Where is BRD being used in reference to blimps? - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airship&diff=next&oldid=594838987 "Undid revision 594838987 by Andy Dingley (talk) This is WP:BRD - discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Blimps" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I was confused, as that location hadn't been mentioned to this point AFAIK. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@BilCat, yes, that was me again, it was what prompted this discussion. Somebody tried to add lots of "blimp"-titled article links to the Airship article. I reverted, AndyDingley reverted my revert and I reverted back claiming BRD. FYI the links were all incorrect and came up red, so the edit was a dud anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@AndyDingley, several points:
I have no problem with using less formal terms in the body of the article, my concern is solely about article titles. My understanding of this WikiProject's article naming conventions is that we do not use common names in article titles. For example the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak article does not have "Thud" in its title. By all means keep the common name as a redirect, too.
Ege, to whom I referred above, uses the term 'blimp' in quote marks, just as I have done now, so it is clearly informal as far as he is concerned. Jane's All the world's aircraft 1980-81 does not use the term "blimp" but sticks to "non-rigid airship," so while I am sure they accept "blimp" as a meaningful term they do not use it in formal situations such as entry titles - or even in the entry content for that matter. Or, has Jane's practice changed over the years? It would help if you could provide equal RS for using "blimp" as a formal designator. I do not regard the odd online dictionary's failure to note something this technical as reliable.
The K-series was perhaps a bad illustration for use of the manufacturer's name - in some cases Goodyear made the gasbag but the US Navy made the gondola. But the point remains, it needs to be the US Navy K-series airship - or whoever/whatever is its formal designation.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
And here, Wragg, D.; Historical dictionary of aviation, History Press (2008). Wragg has no entry for "Blimp" but under "Airship" he remarks (Page 27), "During the Second World War, the combatants used barrage balloons, or blimps.... Even if powered, a blimp would have been extremely difficult to control because it lacked any rigid structure." But again, this is a British source, sigh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is a well-respected dictionary, and I was using the 11th edition, print version - it certainly isn't an "odd online dictionary", though it is available in several online forms. As far as using blimp in article titles, I've never heard the Goodyear Blimp called anything but that, but as for specific models such as K-class blimp, I'm not sure how they're refered to in reliable published sources.
The specific Goodyear blimp articles appeera to be named by WPSHIP naming conventions, but are aircraft. Even the US Navy assigns aircraft designations to its WWII-era blimps. (Also note that WP:AIR/NC naming conventions don't strictly follow COMMONNAME, which is only one point in the naming guidelines, but the naming conventions are consistent with the naming guidelines for specific fields.) - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I'd not noticed the earlier changes at Airship (I'd only checked the one immediately before) so I saw your removal as B rather than R.
I'd still support these links though. They aren't redlinks, they weren't even redlinks at the time you removed them (although they do point to a redirect from the plural, not the simpler direct singular link). "Blimp" is an entirely appropriate term here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
They were red links at the time I began my edit. Check out the creation of say K-class blimps and you will see that it happened after the links at Airship were created. By the time I resolved an edit conflict with TheLongTone, they had turned blue but I had evidently not noticed. Confused? That's edit conflicts for you! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"Blimp" is the appropriate, technical, and common term; arguing that the "K-class blimp" or the "Goodyear blimp" should be titled "Airship" makes no sense at all, I'm afraid. (I'll also note, just for the sake of correctness, that the "Thud" was the F-105, not the F-84F). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, showing my lack of American pedigree here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A quick search] of the Flight archive shows the term in common use, and while some of the examples enclose the word in inverted commas many do not. The OED entry does not describe it as a slang usage. Per WP:COMMON, I'd call it the proper term.TheLongTone (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Why the emphasis on COMMNNAME when we have already been reminded that that WP:AIR/NC naming conventions don't strictly follow that? Nobody is denying that the term is commonly used, just that it needs some reliable referencing as a formal product description before it should be used in article titles. Perhaps I should have suggested the term to be "informal" rather than "slang," it does not affect the logic but is perhaps less emotive. And nobody has properly addressed this point, raised in the very first paragraph of this thread: one cannot regard a couple of general dictionaries and a sample of journal articles to be as authoritative as Jane, Ege and Wragg combined. We can't just ride roughshod over Jane's because we feel like it, we need solid evidence to back that up. That's what I am asking for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, it's not 'informal', either. "Blimp" is the formal term here. And we can't uphold Jane's as the be-all and end-all, either: there's a reason the naval version is oft referred to as Jane's Frightening Slips. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

here, here, here.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This pdf-ed article from navy.mil uses the phrase "blimp" as well as airship alongside "airship". It also uses the phrases "K-type", "K-series" "K-class" and "K-ships" to add plenty of variety to the prose. It also gives the instance of a squadron being renamed from "Airship Patrol Squadron 32" to "Blimp Squadron (ZP) 32". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
However I do not think that the articles on the British WW1 non-rigids (eg SSZ-class blimp) should use the term in the title, if at all. Surely these articles should be in British English, & when these craft were built 'blimp' was certainly slang.TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That PDF is revealing, many thanks. Over 100 mentions of "airship", just under 40 of "blimp." It seems to imply that the US Navy started out calling them airships but then, in the middle of a war, decided to call them blimps instead. The "blimp" terminology hinges around something called a BLPHRN which, aside from some random garbage text strings, achieves the rare privilege of a googlewhackblatt on this very pdf - which is to say that this pdf is the only Internet source for BLPHRN. Not very convincing. I also note that the "blimp" losses tabulated are for the various "Fleet Airship Wings," which suggests to me that "Airship" was the formal term and "blimp" the writer's conceit. However there is also the alleged change of squadron name mentioned above. Perhaps that can be validated? The more we dig into this "we want Blimps" PoV, the murkier it seems to be getting. I'm not anti-blimp, just a hardened sceptic. You know, if "blimp" really is the correct technical term in the USA, why is it turning out so darn hard to verify that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the links I added above is a link to the official Goodyear website, fairly authoritative I would have thought.TheLongTone (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean where they write, "Today, Goodyear operates three airships in the United States -- the Spirit of America, based in the City of Carson, California; the Spirit of Goodyear, based in Akron, Ohio; and the Spirit of Innovation, based in Pompano Beach, Florida"here? Or, by way of clarification, "Non-rigid airships, like Goodyear's current blimp fleet, is the only type in general use today."here? I find it hard to draw any authoritative precedent from this for "blimp" as the correct technical term and not a popular informality. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps or not, Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 69. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2 says: "Blimp. The name given to a cigar-shaped, nonrigid airship. Nonrigid airships were originally called limp airships." My guess is that this started off as an nickname or informal term, but gradually became a more accepted formal term for a non-rigid airship. Transport Canada does not officially recognize the term and the Canadian Aviation Regulations define “airship” means a power-driven, lighter-than-air aircraft", meaning that they classify all airships, rigid and non-rigid, together. The Federal Aviation Administration similarly has no official definition for blimp and the FARs define "Airship means an engine-driven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered." - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow - I was judging by the title of the page, in very large letters.TheLongTone (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, at last we get back to the point in hand. My suggestion is that such page titles do not meet Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). I would further suggest that the discussion to date appears to support that view. IMHO we need to decide whether the descriptor should be omitted, or whether to use the proper descriptor. For example should "K-class blimp" be moved to "Goodyear K-class blimp", "Goodyear K-class airship", or "Goodyear K-class"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Since our naming conventions are Manufacturer-Designation-Name, there doesn't seem to be a need to include "blimp" in the title. We don't have Piper PA-28 Cherokee airplane. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Airship naming conventions are very unlike HTA craft, though. With the exception of Zeppelin craft, very few if any start with a manufacturer name, and the numbers generally used are either government-allocated serial numbers or (as in Zeppelins) airframe numbers rather than type numbers.TheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That seems true. Airship naming does seem to be more maritime than HTA. Maybe we should just follow the sources. For example, Ege simply names and describes classes, as "K class airship." The M class is interesting, as both the USA and Italy had M class types so when we cerate the Italian article that would need disambiguating, as "M class airship (Italy)", the US one moving and a disambig page creating. So - should we modify our guidelines accordingly? On closer inspection they do seem unworkable for airships and I'd prefer not to simply ignore them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For amusement value, there is the American Blimp A-170 as an example of a manufacturer designation. But having looked at the Airships Heritage Trust pages used as references in the British SST-class blimp etc, they do refer to them as airships; the webpage title as given on the article includes "blimp" but the AHT pages don't use that in the page title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary sub-heading

This discussion has gone 16 days without any reliable reference supporting "Blimp" where it is not part of the manufacturer's name. Time to get to work. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Renaming the blimp articles as airships (not even non-rigid airships!) was a really bad move. Please revert. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Does this discussion really support not using the common name? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • More than precisely how common it is (and it is), blimp is much less ambiguous. We now have no obvious distinction between blimps and zeppelins. That's a really serious step backwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, so, we had a long discussion. WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Note that this is not the name that gets the most airing by everyone else. The problem with "blimp", which emerged in the above discussion, has been that the more reliable the sources become, the less the term is used and the more they talk of "non-rigid airships". The term "blimp" also refers to Barrage balloons of broadly similar design and construction - making it in fact more ambiguous than "non-rigid airship". The term "zeppelin" is similarly unsupported for article titles, outside of the eponymous manufacturer - another ambiguity best avoided. Airships come rigid, semi-rigid and non-rigid - and every RS is crystal clear about that. We cannot throw COMMONNAME overboard, so the only alternative is for you guys to come up with sufficient RS to overturn the above discussion. You might like to check that discussion first in case your favorite source has popped up already. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Bollocks, you're talking crap and you're talking it on your own. Sometimes consensus is so clear because no-one else is bothering to refute the bad idea point by point, it's just too obviously bad to bother. Most of us have better things to be doing.
Also, "Hey, it's 16 days since anyone bothered to tell me how wrong I was, you must all now be agreeing with me" and then starting these moves two minutes later is no excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've reverted the move as non-consensual. Obviously it's premature, and more discussion, and possibly an RFC, is needed here. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So - perhaps one of you would do me the kindness, instead of throwing emotive phrases and rude words around, to provide an evidence-based argument for where I am going wrong? Heated emotions alone do not justify an article title. If my arguments are so bad, they should be easy to disprove with contrary evidence. Where is your evidence from reliable sources? (To take just one example, La France was a non-rigid dirigible flown in 1885, for which I have four RS to hand. Every one of them describes it as an "airship". Britannica online calls it an airship too:[9]. Even our fellow Wikipedians who created the La France (airship) article baulked at calling it a blimp - one assumes they relied on the available RS.) All of my sources relegate "blimp" to the body text, if they use it at all, never to the descriptive title. Where are these ubiquitous RS which title such craft "blimps"? (@BilCat, thanks for doing that while I was asleep last night - you are right about the lack of consensus!) 10:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There are still a great many unreverted. Particularly things like K-class blimp, probably the most widely known as "blimp" out of the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Steel - Not sure what the "while I was asleep last night" comment is about. WP is 24/7 and international - I really don't think anyone can schedule their edits around the unknown sleep patterns of a single user in an unspecified time zone! Anyway, as to moving the article Blimp itself, it's probably better to hold a formal move discussion on that page's talk page, which will list it in WP:RM. That way we get broader input than just from WP:AIR project regulars. - BilCat (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@BillCat, just that the issue about the generic article is different from the issue about individual craft and I was thinking I had been too hasty with that particular one but it was my bedtime by then. You beat me to it, is all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, understood! No problem. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Andy - The only move that showed up on my watchlist was Blimp itself. I didn't check Steel's contributions to see what eles he moved. - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Special:Contributions/Steelpillow — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fussed about the American airships, but I feel strongly that 'blimp' should not be used in the article title for the British aircraft: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic. Any official description of these craft refers to them as 'airships'. Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, which to me suggests that 'airship' is a better term overall. The inclusion of 'airship' or whatever in the title isn't to distinguish (for example) the SSC non-rigid airship from the SSC rigid airship: its there to distinguish the airship from anything else that uses the initials, generally necessary since great number of airship designs (for example the US Navy types and the WW1 british types]] are properly designated by such possibly ambiguous letter/number combinations.TheLongTone (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've no problem with that, for the reasons you've stated. I have reverted K-class blimp, as per your rationale it a US topic. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
If we're to rename blimps as airships, then it should at the very least be "non-rigid airship". The technical distinction is crucial.
Consistency of terms has some virtue and I'd thus personally prefer blimp to be used widespread. It should certainly be used for US vessels. UK is less obvious, but airship has the wrong overlap, blimp is clearer and although non-rigid airship is the "official" term and probably does have COMMONNAME to support it, it's not common enough to be understood as well today. For the UK vessels, do we best go with commonness or consistency? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The distiction between non rigids & rigids may be crucial but it does not have to be made in the article title. The article lead is the place for that.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@AndyDingley. FYI, the situation with regard UK usage is wholly obvious and thoroughly verifiable. The term "airship" is used for titles, with the qualifiers "non-rigid", etc. used where appropriate in the text. We have never had problems with ambiguity there, so I don't know why you should. If consistency is deemed necessary, there is no other option. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Postwar history

For some time I have been working to underpin the History of aviation with a series of more detailed articles, each taking the history a step later. To date we have:

  1. Early flying machines (which I am wondering whether to split into two, broadly pre- and post-1900, but I am in no hurry)
  2. Aviation in World War I
  3. Aviation between the World Wars
  4. Aviation in World War II

But what articles are needed for the postwar period? Would a single article on say "Postwar aviation" cover it, or should it be broken into say "Aviation in the Cold War era" followed by say "Modern aviation" or "Aviation in the digital age"? At present we have a rather suspect stub on the "Jet age", while "Modern aviation" redirects to "Aviation." All comment, opinions, ideas, acid indications of articles I have missed, etc. are all welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Post-war aviation boom deserves its own history article! - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The term "Modern aviation" seems problematic for me, as the definition of "modern" is always changing. Better to use a term that can define a subject for a fixed point in time; otherwise your article "Modern aviation" would likely have to be continually split off as subjects proceed too far into the past to be considered "modern". As a title, "Aviation in the digital age" seems reasonable, though it feels like an odd shift as the other periods are all being defined by wars. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Modern" (and "current") are things that are quite discouraged in category naming for exactly that reason - they really should be avoided overall. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. It now occurs to me that the "postwar" period is limited in time - people born this millennium do not think of themselves as living in the aftermath of WWII any more than of any other historical war. But, post which war? There are many more recent ones. I found this at the List of time periods, though it is unreferenced and looks like the aftermath of a bunch of PoV editors who all majored on socio-political history before buying themselves smartphones:

I'd suggest that in aviation, the eras are generally characterised by technology and usage - things driven heavily by the two World Wars, hence their appearance in the traditional periods we adopt. Is there anything in the above list that captures an era of aviation technology and usage? Historians evidently end the postwar era in 1962, I don't know why, but it seems a bit too soon for me. The cold war era spans a neat period but much of the tech, especially civil, is not driven by cold war imperatives. Bending the "information age" to the "digital age" seems neat. Keep those comments coming. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting by decades makes sense, with post-war either covering 1945-49 or 1945-59. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If split by decade, it should not use "names" (ie. "The Tens" (2010-2019), since there was aviation in "The Teens" (1910-1919) ) frequent manned aviation already spans three centuries, and infrequent manned aviation occurred occasionally before that period for centuries. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Postwar aviation now created. Please improve with your usual determination. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Aviation in the digital age

I have drafted an article on Aviation in the digital age here, but I am short on modern references so much of it is off the top of my head. I would welcome any sanity-checks, additions and especially references, before it goes live.

Aviation in the digital age now invites your TLC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

When done, this will complete a series of sub-articles on the history of aviation, stretching from antiquity to the present day, and some sort of navigation toy will become useful. But first things first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich

Back in 2005 it was decided to move MiG to Mikoyan on the grounds that it is "the name that the bureau has had for decades". The thing is that, according to the official website, the Mikoyan bureau, is one of the four components of MiG corporation and all the aircraft, according to the same website, are manufactured by MiG corporation, not Mikoyan bureau itself. The corporate logo itself features only the MiG abbreviation, not Mikoyan. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), the aircraft's name should be the official name given by the manufacturer. Besides, to this moment, the letter "G" has not been dropped from the aircraft names, all of them use MiG (i.e. Mikoyan–Gurevich), not just M.

In the Category:Mikoyan aircraft many articles begin with Mikoyan-Gurevich, while some begin with just Mikoyan. In the latter case Mikoyan MiG-... doesn't fully explain the abbreviation "MiG" and doesn't give the due credit to Mikhail Gurevich. When it comes to other aircraft manufacturers with two names, they are retained (Category:Anderson Greenwood aircraft, Category:Beck-Mahoney aircraft, Category:Dayton-Wright aircraft, etc.) As such I propose to:

[Update] Support in part Looks a very good idea to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
By way of explanation: the company name changed around 1971 and again in 2006. WP:AIR/NC requires that older aircraft be named according to the name of the bureau at the time. Sources I have handy do this too, though there is inevitable confusion over versions produced under the new brand which are just updates of types originated under the earlier brand. This may go a long way towards explaining the mixture of titles commented on by Brandmeister, they should certainly not all be normalised to the same name.
WP:COMMONNAME requires that for the current joint stock company we use the name commonly adopted by the more recent reliable sources. A quick Google suggests that since the financial merger of 2006 this should be "MiG". The term "Russian Aircraft Corporation" appears to be just a generic descriptive status (see for example this reference to the Yakovlev Russian Aircraft Corporation). The Bushranger suggests below that Mikoyan is in use, but is that really the current company name or just legacy designs from the 1971-2006 era, and as outdated as Mikoyan-Gurevich for those pre-1971 designs?
Lacking stronger evidence to the contrary, I would say we should move the company article and categories as suggested, but not the aircraft articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Concur. Never should have been moved in the first place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME in sources for the current company is Mikoyan. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. A tricky one. Interwiki links seem to lean towards Mikoyan. They seem to be using 'MiG' as a tradename and aircraft designator even though both designers are long gone (like Rolls-Royce). The English versions of Russian aircraft and engine company websites (which all appear to have the same webmaster!) are obviously written by English-speaking Russians, the translations don't show a clear picture to me. Might be worth having a look at the Flight or Jane's company directories to see what they make of it. I don't think Russian Aircraft Corporation will catch on as a common name either (which is what it should be if we follow their website). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Can anybody confirm from a current RS, as suggested by Nimbus, that Mikoyan really is the current company name and not just used for legacy designs from the 1971-2006 era? Otherwise, "Per WP:COMMONNAME" appears to be a comment in support of the move. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and just to be clear, we would not put the "RAC" in page titles any more than we put say the "plc" in BAE Systems plc page titles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that there is a formal discussion. A formal move discussion was opened here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. It probably needs to go to Deletion Review first. - BilCat (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Especially considering the AFC's original source is listed as being Wikibin: http://wikibin.org/articles/northwest-airlines-flight-188.html ! - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
A note pointing out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 really should be entered on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188!! - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked at doing that, but I'm not familiar with how to do it in an AfC, so I noted it here instead. Hopefully someone knows the correct way. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have done that and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 seeking opinions on what to do with the AfC or if a deletion review is needed. The AfC is notable imo. Ochiwar (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The way it is written now it does seem to make WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there were persistent procedural changes as a result of the incident. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Archive_10&oldid=1146365973"