Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
Aviation WikiProjectannouncements and open tasks
watch·edit·discuss

Today's featured article requests

Articles for deletion

(5 more...)

Proposed deletions

(13 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

New categories involving aviation accidents

[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Aviation,

An infrequent editor just created some new categories under the parent categoryCategory:Aviation accidents and incidents by type.They includeCategory:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure,Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by clear air turbulenceandCategory:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by metal fatigue.They are not well populated and I hope by posting this message, those editors who are knowledgeable about aviation accidents can either help populate them with appropriate articles or nominate the categories for deletion or merging atWP:CFDif they are redundant to existing categories. Thank you for any help you can supply.LizRead!Talk!19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the user's category creations, I believe these are all their recent aviation accident/incident category creations:
A lot of these seem oddly specific and unlikely to be useful, so I would not be opposed to CfD. -ZLEAT\C20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've XFD'd the "shootdowns" and "auxiliary equipment" categories, and someone beat me to the punch with the "navigation system failure" category.Carguychris(talk)17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've also XFD'd the excessively specific airliner bombing subcategories. I don't think this category will ever grow large enough to warrant subdividing, and the Soviet Union subcategory is of course permanently capped by certain historical events in 1991.Carguychris(talk)19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment forCathay Dragon

[edit]

Cathay Dragonhas been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page.If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720(talk)21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources atDraft:PH-BUK

[edit]

Hello can someone please help me yo search sources for the articleDraft PH-BUK.The draft review is being declined due to lack of enough sources.BuddyHeigh(talk)12:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might well be a waste of effort. It seems doubtful to me that one particular museum exhibit aircraft, with no particular achievements, or noteworthy events, would be found sufficiently noticeable to merit its own article.Jan olieslagers(talk)12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it just doesn't seem notable and would be extremely unlikely to pass an AfD.Canterbury Tailtalk14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the only sources areWikipediaandPlanespotters.net,then it almost certainly doesn't meetWP:GNG.-ZLEAT\C15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there is no need for an aircraft without any historical importance. The fact that it is the sister aircraft of accident aircraft PH-BUF, and it is the only surviving Boeing 747-200 of KLMBuddyHeigh(talk)20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My neighbour's cleaning woman is a niece of the postman who once had an affair withRonald Reagan's house cook. Who of them (if any) is noteworthy?Jan olieslagers(talk)21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic's relation to another notable topic does not make the former notable. AsWP:NOTEDnotNOTABLEputs it,Whennotabilityis asserted on Wikipedia, it really means reliable sources have "noted" the subject, which has become worthy of "note."-ZLEAT\C22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment forAirbus A320 family

[edit]

Airbus A320 familyhas been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page.If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720(talk)03:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment forBritish Airways

[edit]

British Airwayshas been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page.If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720(talk)19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:H2X#Requested move 16 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Reading Beans08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 7 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 7 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)11:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment forLiviu Librescu

[edit]

Liviu Librescuhas been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page.If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720(talk)07:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Reporting Names degrade in relevance in Russian / Soviet Aircraft

[edit]

I want to de-upgrade the Relevance in NATO designations in articles with soviet technology, including Aircraft, Missiles and Submarines, i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles and put these western designations in a second-plane chart.MGXD11(talk)01:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehiclesPerWP:AIRNATO,The original designations are already present in the first paragraph and are predominantly used to refer to Soviet/Russian aircraft within articles. It is customary to include common alternative names for topics, including those originating outside the country of origin, in the first sentence of an article. NATO reporting names are no exception. Had the USSR assigned standardized reporting names to NATO aircraft, we would have included them in their respective articles as well. -ZLEAT\C01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. PerMOS:BOLDREDIRECT,it is common established Wikipedia practice to include alternate names for all sorts of things – not just Russian and Soviet military hardware – in boldface in the first or second sentence of the lead. NATO reporting names are commonly used in secondary sources to refer to Russian or Soviet materiel; a quick Google search for "flanker" or "fullback aircraft" bears this out. AsZLEApoints out,WP:AIRNATOalready specifies that original designations be used in the title and article body, which I feel is adequate emphasis.Carguychris(talk)14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HIALS

[edit]

FYIHIALS(edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)has been nominated for deletion at RfD --64.229.88.34(talk)23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Frederick E. Humphreys#Requested move 8 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Frederick E. Humphreys#Requested move 8 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!05:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Kvochur

[edit]

I'd like to update theAnatoly Kvochurarticle with a note about his injuries following his spectacular ejection at the Paris Air Show. Currently, the article (and the relevant reference) doesn't say.TheAviationGeekClubsays "cuts and bruises", but I'm not convinced that is a reliable source. Aviation Week has a story (following Kvochur's death)here,but it is behind a paywall. Does anyone have access to AWIN/Aviation Week's paid service? I'll also ask onWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.--Finlay McWalter··–·Talk16:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:2022 Southwest Airlines scheduling crisis#Requested move 14 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:2022 Southwest Airlines scheduling crisis#Requested move 14 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Reading of Beans16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!03:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Wembo Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Wembo Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.RodRabelo7(talk)04:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Matsieng Air Strip#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Matsieng Air Strip#Requested move 22 September 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Surviving Aircraft Articles

[edit]

@Airbus A320-100:has moved a number of articles in thelists of surviving aircraft categoryfrom "List of surviving X" to "List of preserved X" with the comment "fix grammar". I'm not entirely sure what the grammatical error was, but it is presumably in reference to the issue of how to refer to static display aircraft when other examples of the type are still in active service. I'm not sure which format is better. I lean more towards "surviving" because it matches the "surviving aircraft"nomenclature used in main articles. However, I am of the strong opinion that whatever phrasing is used, it should be applied to all articles of the type for uniformity, which has not been done. Does anyone else have any thoughts? –Noha307(talk)01:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noha307.This is because "surviving" is a term used for organic beings. But even if it is used for objects, it looks like it is stylized in a fan's Point of View as perWP:POV.Whereas preserved is used for objects in a neutral Point of View.Airbus A320-100(talk)01:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Airbus A320-100:Surviving (or survivor) is a term that has been used for a long time in main aircraft articles to refer to aircraft that are no longer in active service and the objection you raise seems to be a minor issue. I could see "preserved" being a slightly more neutral term, but then you run into the problem that it can't be used to refer to actively flying aircraft since they are technically not "preserved". I'm not entirely sure how "surviving" is stylized or POV, possibly along the lines ofraiding careerfor U-boats. However, I am somewhat skeptical that this is a problem.
Might I suggest reading through thededicated talk pageto review previous arguments, as this is a subject that has come up repeatedly. –Noha307(talk)02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to very strongly advise againstdeletingtalk page sections as "unnecessary". This is moving intodisruptive editingterritory. Please do not repeat this. –Noha307(talk)02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't let anything worse happenAirbus A320-100(talk)02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for you Airbus: Is English not your first language? –Noha307(talk)02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English is my first language.Airbus A320-100(talk)02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrasing seemed a bit unusual and I thought it might be indicative of someone who was unfamiliar with the language. No criticism or judgement intended, just wanted to make sure nothing was being lost in translation. –Noha307(talk)16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to reverting the undiscussed moves back to their previous titles. If Airbus thinks "preserved" better describes the topics, then they should seek consensus first. -ZLEAT\C02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be moved back immediately. The title formats are by WPAIR consensus, and no dubious claims of POV can override that. I count at least 30 that have been moved. A320-100 needs to move them back immediately. I can do it if necessary, but it's a lot of work to clean up someone else's messes.BilCat(talk)02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with @ZLEA.Sorry @BilCat,but @ZLEAis much more persuasive than others in this thread.Airbus A320-100(talk)03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Everyone agrees that your changes should be reverted. Please do so as you clearly don't haveconsensusfor that change. --McSly(talk)03:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.BilCat(talk)03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCatdid say he could do it and I'll let himAirbus A320-100(talk)03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilCatyou don't have to do that. I'll go ahead and move them. -ZLEAT\C03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even @ZLEAagrees to do so and I'll let him do that too.Airbus A320-100(talk)03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. I'll also advise you to not close discussions which you are actively involved in, especially if you were not the one to start them (perWP:CLOSE). -ZLEAT\C03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Airbus A320-100has openedWikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation.~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~03:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to add to the Village Pump discussion, it already has more content than the whole sorry story merits. But I do wish to express my respect and gratitude and support to all who have kept our dictionary on the right path (in my consideration),BilCatandZLEAandNoha307to name but the most prominent. Keep up the good work!Jan olieslagers(talk)17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability ofAbandoned and Little Known Airfields

[edit]

What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability ofAbandoned and Little Known Airfields,[1],as a source? I've corresponded with Paul Freeman in the past, and he seems sincere about factual accuracy.Carguychris(talk)14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilot intake jet fighter

[edit]

It seems the deleted category fromthis discussionhas been recreated atCategory:Pilot intake jet fighter.I've nominated the new category forWP:G4speedy deletion, but given the different name, I am not confident that the reviewing admin will recognize the category as a recreation. -ZLEAT\C23:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, but someone unfamiliar with aircraft layouts might not immediately recognize a "nose-mounted intake" and a "pilot intake" as referring to the same thing. If it weren't for the articles in the category, I probably would have assumed "pilot intake" was supposed to mean something likethis.-ZLEAT\C00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1251212051"