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

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(10 more...)

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(7 more...)

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



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

"Musical groups or artists" section in Fatalities list

[edit]

Should thelist of fatalities from aviation accidentsinclude duplicate entries for notable musical artists in both the "Individuals" and "Musical groups or artists" sections? I would prefer to consolidate all of them in the latter section. Jointhe discussionon the Talk page.Carguychris(talk)12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of [Aircraft Name] operators

[edit]

Do the lists showing up inCategory:Lists of aircraft operators by aircraft typebelong in Wikipedia?

I haven't checked all of the lists appearing but most of the sources either come from the aircraft manufacturer (such as Airbus or Boeing), come fromWP:PLANESPOTTERS,Airfleets which is similar enough to Planespotters or, but not limited to, sources only talking about a specific operator orderingxaircraft. From what I've been able to find, there really aren't any sources talking about who operatesxaircraft which does failWP:NLISTandWP:GNG.Aviationwikiflight(talk)15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, these lists have always struck me as a violation ofWP:NOTDIRECTORYandWP:NOTDATABASE,but they contain some useful information despite this. I suggest more uniform inclusion criteria and formatting.Carguychris(talk)15:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very generally speaking, I think WP is completely saturated with all kinds of possible and less possible lists. For myself I never consult them, so I find them ALL unnecessary and thus a waste of resources. But that is only me, of course.Jan olieslagers(talk)15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Aeroflot Flight 31 (1955)#Requested move 7 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Aeroflot Flight 31 (1955)#Requested move 7 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Ahecht(TALK
PAGE)16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göringhas anRfC

[edit]

Hermann Göringhas an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on thediscussion page.Thank you.Emiya1980(talk)05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Airfleets.net

[edit]

I've noticed that Airfleets.net is used in almost600 articleson both accident articles involving the aircraft's history and fleet data. And it can be said that it also bears some resemblance withPlanespotters.Its disclaimer page –[1]– states: "While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, Airfleets.net makes no representation as to the accuracy of, and cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors, ommissions, mis-statements or mistakes within the pages of this web site or on other web sites which may be linked to this site from time to time. [...]"I'm also wondering where they get their information from and if there is editorial oversight over the published data.Aviationwikiflight(talk)15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it doesn't appear to beWP:USERGENERATEDlike Planespotters. The disclaimer alone is likely not enough to consider it unreliable as it appears to be purely for legal purposes, but the lack of cited sources and information on their editorial oversight (or existence thereof) is enough for me to leanunreliable.-ZLEAT\C16:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to tell for sure; there is no "About us" type information to know what checks they make, and I can find no Internet chitchat about its reliability. According toWP:SOURCES,we should"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."In the absence of such a reputation we must, perquestionable,"Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires."So, while it may or may not turn out to be questionable, we cannot currently accept it as reliable. This is just one of an ever-growing cascade of dodgy sources which our Aviation hangers-on espouse. In my opinion we need an aviation-wide crusade against all this crap. Sadly, I no longer have either the time or the energy to follow that through. Hey-ho. — Cheers,Steelpillow(Talk)19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.SmittenGalaxy|talk!06:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flightsfrom.com

[edit]

is Flightsfrom.com a reliable source? It is a website that shows a list of which airport has flights to which destinations operated by which airline, they can be a source for adding new routes on airports and list of airlines destinations articles, word of caution: it is a independent source,and it is not a booking website,however, this website sometimes may lack in information, this website only shows nonstop destinations from a specific airport, for an example: Qantas and British Airways operate London Heathrow-Singapore-Sydney flights, however,when you open London Heathrow, it does not show Sydney as a destination, same thing from Sydney, it wont show London Heathrow,also, if a certain route with two flights sections has no fifth freedom route on the second section: KLM's Amsterdam-Taipei Taoyuan-Manila flights has no fifth freedom route between Taipei Taoyuan and Manila, but when you open Taipei Taoyuan-Manila flights, it will show KLM is a operator, and once again, from Manila, it does not show Amsterdam as a destination. Also updated are monthly and not constantly, so if a new route/route change/route discontinuation was announced during or slightly before the update, it may take a longer time to update.Metrosfan(talk)05:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, to clarify, this source sometimes give false information on routes that's seasonal or are temporarily suspended for a while, also this website won't show if a charter flight is a charter or not, it will be treated the same as a normal flightMetrosfan(talk)04:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Total Express Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Total Express Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 16 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Aviationwikiflight(talk)19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Requested move atTalk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable accidents, deletion debates: What's the point ofWikipedia: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/missing articlesthen?

[edit]

I mean, of all the 70 aviation accident articles that I took time to create by using this missing article page, and after seeing that actually a crash that had killed ~10 people can be easily deleted, what's the point of this page, especially for the small crashes resulting in a few people dead?
How is this one2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crashdifferent than any random accident that did 1 to 20 dead in the URSS far back ago then?
Aeroflot related articles - and there are still more than a hundred to be translated from russian - really do not qualify, I mean I'm pretty sure you could ask for deletion most of the articles I created. I tried to help, not knowing this. So basically, a crash, even if the course of event is documented and sourced, is not relevant enough for the English Wikipedia by itself, even if it killed people?
Just trying to understand, this is not a complaint, but I really don't get it --Global Donald(talk)00:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation is that the missing articles list is the result of an idea somewhat common within Wikiproject Aviation, and which I myself espoused in the past: the idea that Wikipedia could become a better and more encyclopedic version of theASN;that it could become the go-to place to learn about every significant air accident ever occurred (with 'significant' meaning having caused a number of fatalities, or having involved a big plane, or some other arbitrary criterion like that).
The harsh reality, however, is that any such idea or project-wide consensus are trumped by Wikipedia's general guidelines on notability. Take for exampleWP:EVENT,in a nutshell: "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."
It's hard to argue that an event such as the2017 Aerogaviota Antonov An-26 crashhas had lasting major consequences, affected a large geographical scope, or received significant coverage that persisted over time; the evidence, in terms of sources, is just not there. Sadly, the same is true for a large number of existing accident articles, and possibly for the majority of the missing articles in the list. --Deeday-UK(talk)12:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet evenWP:EVENTis applied inconsistently, when you have an overwhelming number of editors, many who confuseWP:SIGCOVwith recentism and tabloid scaremongering that make an incident look more significant than it actually is. See the 3 contentious deletion discussions atUnited Airlines Flight 1175,that killed nobody and caused only minor damage to the aircraft. The main argument for keeping it is that it resulted in an airworthiness directive (as any safety issue should and this is a relatively routine occurrence) and that it recieved "lasting coverage" because it was breifly referenced in the media when a similar uncontained engine failure occurred and again when the NTSB released its final report. In truth, the lasting significance of this event really only relates to a particular engine type and could be covered in a paragraph in the article forPratt & Whitney PW4000.Several WP:AVIATION editors have expressed this view only to be drowned out in successive AfDs.Dfadden(talk)21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move atTalk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central#Requested move 16 August 2024that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Reading Beans12:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC concerning an article which may be of interest to this project

[edit]

SeeTalk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article.AndyTheGrump(talk)23:04, 26 August 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1244135847"