Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

U.S. Naval Aviation Squadrons

I've recently created 100+ articles about these squadrons, using the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, (DANAS), which is the authoritative work in the field. There's a list of those articles HERE. DANAS is available online, but it is broken up into chapters and sections of chapters, making it difficult to know what all is in it. I'm thinking of posting an article with a title like "List of U.S. Navy Patrol Squadrons", which would list all the Patrol Squadrons in DANAS, provide easy links to the chapter and section that apply to each chapter, and would provide links to the relatively few squadrons that have their own Wikipedia articles. A draft of what I'm thinking about can be found HERE. I know that such an article would be useful to anyone interested in these squadrons, but I'd like some feedback on the idea of having it. For example, is it kosher to have the links to the chapter sections in the body of the article? Any and all feedback from people involved in this project would be greatly welcomed. You can provide it here or on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, any such uploading will be a copyright violation, and we can't have any links from wikipedia to pages or sites that violate copyright for legal reasons (regardless of whether they have posted the information - you would still need permission to host a copy, and that information needs to be readily available). We also don't normally provide links in the text to external pages except in unusual circumstances - you can however embed the links in references that can be included, provided they have information that supports the statement it follows. External site links that are too general for references are normally included in the external links section however even there explicit rules govern what is addmissable - if the online version of DANAS is authorized, a link there would be appropriate. NiD.29 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DANAS is a U.S.government publication, and in the public domain. Lou Sander (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If one looks at articles about US Air Force formations they are often just copy-and-paste regurgitations of their relevant web pages from the USAF History agency. It's easy to spot them, they're the articles that don't use proper sentences in their text. From what I have seen, you have tried to do better than that in terms of the prose; kudos to you. I think the "List of..." is a good idea, but not in the current format - the DANAS chapters should just be refs instead of embedded in the text, and if VP-2400 is listed on pages 275 to 285 of Chapter 10, then the ref is DANAS Chapter 10, pp. 275-285, with a bibliography linking to the various chapter web pages. Every Squadron should be wikilinked, whether it's blue or red - it will inspire others to get creating - and the Chapters already being available in the "List of..." article will make it easier to get started. Just an observation: pre-existing USN squadron articles are named "VP-xx", "VA-xx" etc., without the (US Navy) qualifier in the title. I think we should have consistent naming across WP one way or the other. I also think that, instead of having "First VP-xx", "Second VP-xx" and so on, these should have disambiguation pages. For example, VP-6 should IMHO become a dab page to VP-6 (1924-1926), VPB-11 and VP-6 (1948-1993) (the current VP-6 article moved to this) or whatever namimg convention we arrive at using. YSSYguy (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There is more discussion on this in the Military History Project, HERE. There is a LOT involved in choosing good names for these articles. Those with "(U.S. Navy)" were named that way because other existing article names conflicted with the preferred name for them. See THIS for my best effort to date in handling the information surrounding all this stuff. Lou Sander (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff; I don't watch MILHIST, perhaps I should start. I will add my two cents' there about a standard for naming, and have struck out my comments on the subject here. YSSYguy (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Passing comment here on the use of DANAS. While it might be authoritative on the squadrons, it could be considered too close to the article subject to be a truly Reliable Source. Equally some of the content is probably not notable for inclusion. A fault that lies with DANFS too, though I find the prose style of DANAS to be far superior to that of DANFS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree about RS for both of these. Since both are secondary works published by their organizations compiled from official documents, I fail to see how they're not the best of RS. That said I will agree that both need to be used with a bit of caution as they often include irrelevant material that isn't notable in itself and they may have POV problems. That last is especially true of DANFS, but that's an entirely different issue than RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Newry Road

Does anyone think this is an aviation accident or incident and should be categorized as such plus be included on the year template for when it happened?...William 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking if individual aircraft being shot down during a battle are notable? That article covers a lot. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking whether it was notable. Should it be categorized as an accident because the aircraft were damaged?...William 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

- No, aviation accidents and incidents are different from shootdowns or other losses during combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some other 1978 British Army Gazelle downing and 1990 British Army Gazelle shootdown to name two. They are in the yearly accident categories and accident templates. Do they belong there?...William 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: - the two examples you cite do belong in the categories and templates as the cover accidents and incidents. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the original question, iff the aircraft's registration is identified in the article, then yes. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

History navboxes

Here are a couple of ideas for an aviation history navbox. The lists may not be complete but they should be self-explanatory. Good, bad, ugly, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the bottom box to the side box. As long as it does not get expanded out of sight (see this one for an example of that) and is only used on aviation history articles, then it looks good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ahunt. A couple of general thoughts on the general history series of articles:

• The period 1909-1914 is in limbo at the moment: I don't think it merits a separate article, but would be most usefully included in the WW1 article

Currently included in the Early flying machines article, for example in Early flying machines#Military use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Would a separate article on the history of helicopters not be useful?TheLongTone (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

History of helicopters would be a great idea for an article! - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a History of rotorcraft would be better, failing that use the more standard phrasing "History of the helicopter". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that would include autogyros. I'll start slinging something together, it will be pleasant to get away from Zeppelins & suchlike.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed that the bottom box is much better; I'm pretty sure I remember seeing somewhere that the side boxes are increasingly frowned upon these days too... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We certainly are getting away from side boxes on Wikipedia. We should stick to end boxes if only for mobile users, if nothing else. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • While side boxes seem pretty useless for mobile use, end boxes don't do that much good for mobile either right now. At least on Safari under iOS 6.x, bottom navboxes aren't shown at all on the mobile site. You have to switch to the desktop site to see them. (I'm not arguing against end boxes, just passing on a gripe.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines aircraft missing

An aircraft from Malaysia Airlines has gone missing: http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6NuT37dZp - MH370, Kuala Lumpur to Beijing

Getting and coordinating info in Mandarin Chinese and Malay would be very helpful! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at WP:CHINA, WP:MALAYSIA, and WP:VIET? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, but it's a great idea. Article now at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian seems to reporting on it fairly well (live blogging) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malaysian-airlines-plane-live XFEM Skier (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. I have contacted all three projects. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

English to Chinese translations related to aviation technical terms

Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Map locations incorrect for UTA Flight 772?

In UTA Flight 772 I noticed somebody put in the article that on the map, the waypoint locations are correct but the "map location right incorrect". Would someone mind looking at this? The Final Report is here WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

SS- and NS-class airships

You are invited to comment on a suggested move at Talk:SS-class blimp#Suggested move, but what to?. This also applies to the UK NS-class blimp article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fog

It seems to me that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fog needs to be renamed to "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving fog". Many of the accidents listed were not caused by fog, but fog was a contibutory factor. The other subcategories of Category:Accidents involving fog are styled "involving", not "caused by". Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with your logic should be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree....William 19:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I started a CFD to rename the categories. It can be found here[1]....William 19:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

LR-87 rocket engine

I need help at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD

The Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with Mandarin Chinese at MH370 Commons gallery

Dear WikiProject Aviation users,

For Wikipedians are fluent or have knowledge of Mandarin Chinese, I am adding as much Mandarin as I can to the Commons gallery Commons:Search vehicles of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 but please add more and/or revise the translations if you think they need to be improved.

Since the majority of the passengers come from Mainland China, it is very important that we include Mandarin to support Chinese users.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What a really strange idea for a gallery, but then as commons doesnt appear to have any rules or logic it doesnt suprise me. MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

PIA Flight 705 May 20, 1965

Good morning everyone from the States, I am the son of one of the victims of the crash of PIA Flight 705. I have found the International report and read the Wikipedia entry and the interview with Shaukat A. Mecklai in DAWN but I am interested in finding more information about the crash. If anyone with any more information could communicate with me that would be great. My email address is lovepeter@sbcglobal.net

Thanks,

Peter Love MArch 17, 2013 2602:304:29FB:4089:F8C9:CB0D:4632:58B2 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mobile phones on aircraft

The scope and naming of Mobile phones on aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Mobile phones on aircraft -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Air-ground radiotelephone service

The scope and naming of Air-ground radiotelephone service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Air-ground radiotelephone service -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid airship PoV editor

Hi, we have a new single-topic editor at Hybrid airship, pursuing the line that hybrid airships are useless. I believe that the article should be more neutral but this editor has twice reverted me (and responded to me rudely on both the article's talk page and their own). Any help in assessing/addressing these article edits and discussion comments would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FAI World Grand Prix

Does anybody here know if the recent Durban Sky Grand Prix that took place in South Africa is part of the FAI World Grand Prix? Dodger67 (just so you can follow). Nathan121212 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone at http://www.aerobatics.co.za might know, it's the regulatory body for aerobatics in South Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the Durban event is separate. "The inaugural Sky Grand Prix" [www.aerobatics.co.za/news.htm]

Nathan121212 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how being the first one in Durban necessarily means it is not part of the FAI series? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an 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) 06:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Airship categories

A new article at American Skyship Industries brought to my attention that we do not have a Category:Airship manufacturers. Would that be a good idea? Obviously it would be a sub-category of Category:Aircraft manufacturers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We have balloon manufacturer and airframe manufacturer (and even UAV manufacturer) categories so airship manufacturers makes a lot of sense. There are a number of historical airship manufacturers already existing as articles, Airship Industries is only categorized as defunct manufacturer. I note, in passing, that Royal Airship Works is a redirect to RAF Cardington. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing multiplanes

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Multiplane aircraft#Subcategories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Several cats now nominated for merging at cfd. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Navy One and Coast Guard One have been nominated for merging to Transportation of the President of the United States. The discussions are at Talk:Transportation of the President of the United States. Comments are welcome. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguating article titles

Where an article title needs disambiguating, WP:NATURALDIS points to removing parentheses where possible. Where we currently use parentheses, we have a mixed bag of suffixes including "(aeronautics)", "(aircraft)" and "(aviation)". Article titles which might need attention, and suggested changes to that end, include:

Suggested page moves

• Canard (aeronautics): suggest moving to Canard aircraft over redirect
• Chine (aircraft): suggest moving to Aircraft chine
• Multiplane (aeronautics): suggest moving to Multiplane aircraft
• Propeller (aircraft): suggest moving to Aircraft propeller over redirect
• Stabilizer (aircraft): suggest moving to Aircraft stabilizer
• Strake (aviation): suggest moving to Aircraft strake

Other suggestions

• Balloon (aircraft): (no change suggested)
• Splitter plate (aircraft): suggest sending to WP:AFD as it is not a notable topic

Do any of the moves need formal discussion, or is it OK for someone to do it unilaterally on the basis of WP:NATURALDIS?

Any thoughts on the other two articles?

Are there any more parenthetical titles to add to the list?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

On the handwritten list I use to keep myself sane amongst all these variations, there are another 18! I can write them out here if you like. They mostly use the suffixes you list, but aspect ratio (wing) is an extra. I think, though, it's the variety of suffixes that would be better unified, perhaps using (aircraft) for all, e.g Aerogizmo (aircraft). This form is quicker to type in its short form Aerogizmo than Aerogizmo - see editable text. There was a brief discussion on the Project talk page a year or so ago, though I don't recall the emergence of our preferred suffix.Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good call, this drives me nuts. I agree that Thingy (aircraft) (or whatever) is a better form: if thingy is used in an article, it directs to a disambiguation page, which is useful, & one can use the simple piped link as noted. I'm sure there are bags of other articles:

• Camber (aerodynamics) for instance.

Don't have a strong preference about whats in the brackets, probably "aicraft", since apart from anything else its probably the most common at the moment.

Just to remind, WP:NATURALDIS says NOT to use brackets if at all possible - better to have Wing aspect ratio, Aircraft aerogizmo, Aerofoil camber, etc. unless there is a specific reason why not. So this is more about getting rid of suffixes altogether than normalising them. Are there any objections to summarily applying WP:NATURALDIS?— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this has been a serious mess for a long time. If you can fix this, by standardizing it and getting rid of the brackets that would be ideal. I think the best case for be "Aircraft foo" in almost all cases. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Some things form a natural phrase and some things don't, and sometimes you end up with a slightly different angle. Eg there is a bit of a difference between canard (aircraft) (the thing that gives an aeroplane an unconventional appearance) and a canard aircraft (an aeroplane of unconventional appearance) but so long as the content matches the title is there a problem. Worst case with a move is that we find we have entered BRD. Personally, I trust you not to make a huge cock-up (or even a modest to small one) in applying your judgment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the proposal is correct. On WP:RM there would likely be consensus to retain Canard (aeronautics) unless you can show that Canard aircraft or anything else is actually what this is called. If the common name is Canard and then is how it is commonly used, then changing away from Canard (aeronautics) would not get a positive response. While standardizing is nice, it really needs to be discussed remembering the general guidelines and policies. If you look, you will find a lot of complaining about projects setting conventions that don't have consensus from the community. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Most of these are not moves that should be done. Too much weight is being placed on WP:NATURALDIS and not nearly enough on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Nobody says "Aircraft strake" or "Aircraft chine" - the term is "Strake" or "Chine" and they happen to be on an aircraft. Also, "Canard aircraft" - why? The article is about the canard configuration itself, and the term is simply "canard". "Multiplane aircraft" may be desirable, but the rest sound like, speaking frankly, something that we'd expect more from a children's encyclopedia or Simple English Wikipedia - we're supposed to assume clue in our readers, but renaming these to "Aircraft foo" strikes me as being otherwise. That said, what is needed is consistency in the (disambiguator term); I'd support "Aeronautics" for that, followed by "Aviation" and "Aircraft" in last place (since "Aircraft" can be argued to fall afoul of WP:ENGVAR vis-a-vis "Aeroplane"). TLDR: what's needed here is a consistent (disambiguation), not trying to toss it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Vegas and BR. Further, "(aircraft)" is also used as a disambiguator for individual aircraft articles when necessary, such as Lady Be Good (aircraft) or The Galloping Ghost (aircraft). However, that usage, while it follows the conventions for DABed titles, is also inconsistent, with many such articles using the type designation as the disambiguator, and doing so inconsistently, as with Swamp Ghost (B-17) and Liberty Belle (B-17 Flying Fortress). It might be a good time to address those titles also. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And both of those last two are now fixed for consistency (the first not needing a dab at all, it was added in one of Pete's moves, unsurprisingly...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Pete and I have discussed the general issue before. Thanks for making thoses corrections. If you're up to doing more, you can check Category:Individual aircraft and Category:Individual aircraft of World War II, as there are plenty more there. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

...aaaaaaaugh. Let's see what I can do... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest, formally, that in cases where (disambiguation) is required, the preferred form should be (aeronautics), with (aircraft) used for aircraft type/individual aircraft articles when a dab is needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Another candidate is drag (physics). As a physicist and sometime teacher of physics, I couldn't possibly comment.TSRL (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• The muse struck hard, so in the interest of boldly fixing the immediate problem, I've gone through Category:Aircraft components (and subcats) and moved pages that use (disambiguation) to consistently use "(aeronautics)" or "(aerodynamics)" in most cases. There were a few exceptions where either the current dab was more appropriate for some reason, or in one case where I wasn't sure about it (Lift (force) - should this be moved to Lift (physics) or Drag (physics) to Drag (force)?). Now, if it's felt that some of these, or others, need to be moved to a legitimate natural disambiguator, WP:RM is always open (and some may very well have one). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On the specific articles my inclination would be to have lift (force) and drag (force). The current article on lift is almost entirely about lift for aircraft but someone, perhaps upset by having tiles stripped from the lee side of their roof, might want to expand the scope. There is a little in the bluff bodies section about wind on chimneys but little on the airfoli-like keels of sailing boats or hydoplanes on submarines, so as it stands it could go under aerodynamics with the boats in (hydrodynamics) but that feels a rather unnatural division since the physics is the same. The moves you've made so far are very welcome.TSRL (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good discussion and good moves, thanks for doing it, BR! - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:IDONTKNOWWHATTHATIS is no better a reason for deleting an article (like Splitter FFS!) than your bright idea of renaming blimps as airships was. Please, don't pull this sort of stuff. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

American Skyship Industries AfD

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Skyship Industries. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bank of Utah

Does The Bank of Utah exist under a different name or ought that article need to be created?

This is the aviation portal, not the banking portal, so why the Fnord am I asking this here?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/middleeast/mystery-shrouds-american-plane-at-tehran-airport.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimesworld The Bank of Utah is listed as a trustee for 1,169 aircraft, ranging from Boeing 747s to single-engine Cessnas, according to a review by The New York Times of the database. The Bank of Utah acts as a trustee for more planes than just about any other bank, the review shows. Hcobb (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that notability would be conferred by other criteria than being a major owner-of-record of aircraft? Wells Fargo's operation in Salt Lake City is also a major aircraft owner-of-record, especially of bizjets. There may be tax-related reasons for ownership in Utah, like the existence of Delaware corporations, which are also owners of large numbers of high-value aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

https://www.bankofutah.com/about-bank-of-utah.html ? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Added to Aircraft finance as that's were it seems to fit best. Hcobb (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont think these trustee schemes actually involve "aircraft finance" fwiw. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If you find someplace better for Corporate Trust Lease then either please let me know, or move it over yourself. Hcobb (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Style guide - short sortable lists of aircraft

A lot of short sortable lists of aircraft have been cropping up, both in-page and on their own pages. I have been trying to standardise their format, and am wondering whether this format should be added to the style guide. I have drafted an updated version of our Lists style guide at User:Steelpillow/Test. All comments gratefully received - please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#Short sortable lists of aircraft, to keep all List styling discussions in one place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

List of large aircraft

I see from article the talk page that this article has been repeatedly commented on as arbitrary, and lacking any criteria for inclusion - as well as being almost entirely unsourced. I'm reluctant to AfD it, but frankly without meaningful criteria for inclusion, and sources for each aircraft indicating that the criteria are met, it seems to have little encyclopaedic merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, the list does seem to be lacking inclusion criteria and references. Unless someone wants to spend time working on it, an Afd could succeed if the mood of the gang seems so inclined. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this list is just pointless and non-encyclopedic on its own. IMHO there might be scope for an article on large aircraft, explaining things like the structural, aerodynamic and performance issues such as volume-to-area ratio and roll rate, giving a bit of history, and including a list based on this one. Worth moving over the current redirect and re-purposing? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• keep so it needs sources that use "large", or some reasonably synonym, including "heavy". What's the new problem here? Most list articles suffer from some variant of the same issue. We need 1) a defining condition for membership and 2) an adequate source for each member. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• We do have a lot of problems with poorly-scoped and often overlapping lists, which seem to offer opportunities for easy edit-count increases far exceeding any reader benefit. This problem is not specific to aviation. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep just define what characteristics are being listed and limit it to the top-10 (yes arbitrary, but it is common therefore, acceptable as a list limit) "large" being mass, volume, length, span, height are the most common "large" uses. Ofcourse... "mass" could refer to MTOW or empty weight or max flying weight (assuming it can be aerially refuelled) or max cargo weight; "volume" could be maximum cargo size or maximum internal volume; I would suggest renaming it to List of largest aircraft. A timeline of largest progression could also be useful in charting the history of aviation. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We can probably go for more than 10 if this was spread over time. The Ilya Muromets probably belongs in there, yet it would be nothing today. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with above. Inclusion criteria are problematic: the Zeppelin-Staaken RIV is surely a notably huge aircraft with an impressive wingspan, but its all-up weight is less than that of a Wellington. I also think the Sikorsky aircraft surely belong in the article. Without the historical perspective this just becomes a rather trivial list of huge modern aircraft. I also think the list of airships is pretty superfluous, it just reflects the fact that they got bigger and bigger until the point where they became a technological dead end.TheLongTone (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• delete - Defining "large" is impossible except in terms of -est which easily becomes WP:OR unless you have sources for every inclusion, and you won't often find a ref claiming second largest so top tens are out, and you have to weed out false claims from the ignorance of authors particularly when it comes to Russian and Italian heavies unknown in the US/UK. What other lists have you seen with similar problems? - My experience has been that most lists can be defined fairly tightly (although occasionally there are fanbois with unusual interpretations).NiD.29 (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of it, it's completely arbitrary - after spending more than ten years working on bug-smashers, I consider a Convair 580 to be a "large" aircraft". I can find a reliable source that describes the Douglas DC-2 as a "giant" aircraft, who are we to say that is incorrect? YSSYguy (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Large aircraft

The page on Large aircraft is currently a redirect to the List of large aircraft discussed above. I have drafted a proposed article to replace that redirect, on one of my user pages here. It would include lists with a rather different focus - simply a chronological "List of largest aircraft", i.e. the record-breakers for each type of craft. The list of large aircraft would then redirect back to that instead. What do folks think? And of course, any help in tidying the draft, adding refs, etc. would be good too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff cant see why it cant replace both articles, need to find reliable sources for the lists but it will stop being a list of "favourite" large aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. What is largest? Length, weight, wingspan, capacity or rotor diameter? Or do we have a list for each when needed (a balloon does not have wings and balloons, airships and airplanes don't have rotors). Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say we would have a list or section for each (limited to 10 entries at most), and a timeline progression of the exact largest for each of these categories (not limited in length, since it should be a timeline from the beginning of aviation). -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out the sections I have sketched out in the draft. I think that things like widest/longest/heaviest can probably be included, but I'm not sure it's worth having separate lists for those. We can always subdivide the lists later if it looks like it'll help. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'd suggest a different description for the KM; lifting body is a distinctly different term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, would like to see examples of large aircraft across the decades as there are some (interesting?) essays into large aircraft design such as the Rohrbach's stressed skin or the contributions of Walter Barling which showed the technical limitations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed these comments after "moving" the draft live. I'll try and get round to them, if nobody beats me to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What did you mean by "physically" on the Maxim Gorky? Span - length, weight etc? Poor choice of adjective as it is very vague and doesn't mean anything, as all dimensions are "physical" anyway.NiD.29 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It was in another editor's comment in another article, which I just copy-pasted to help get this article started. Now edited out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Reappraisal

I have now made the Large aircraft page something like a proper article. It includes a section for chronologically-based Lists of largest aircraft. Does this affect the viability of the List of large aircraft page? I am thinking that it would now serve better as a redirect to the lists of largest aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting the list to the Large aircraft article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large aircraft — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Giant aircraft

Just spotted Template:Giant aircraft. My first reaction is, this is mental, it is wholly subjective. Better to link to the Large aircraft article where the individual aircraft can be linked in context. If it stays, it should at least be be retitled "Large aircraft" - and what would be the criteria for inclusion? Views? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion as a navigation template the user is unlikely to want to go from Hindenberg to Brabazon to see what large aircraft are so perhaps we dont need it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed to {{large aircraft}} to match the naming of the new article and the list article. As for utility, I would think that someone might want to jump from the largest of one type of aircraft to the largest of another, because they are interested in the largest ones of all types. However the template should have parenthetical explainations of what the entry is the largest of. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_20#Template:Giant_aircraft — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Stellar Airways at AfD

Contributions welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar Airways. See also Talk:Stellar Airways. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rocketplane Lynx (spacecraft)

The name of this article is under discussion, as well as which MOS guides are applicable, as this is an airplane, you may be interested. See talk:Lynx (spacecraft) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, a subsidiary discussion has cropped up about whether the article is an advertisement, and whether (all?) plane articles are advertisements... -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spacecraft aren't part of WPAviation, so they don't follow WPAIR/NC namng conventions. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spacecraft aren't, but spaceplanes are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's been accepted by WP:SPACEFLIGHT, and they have their own naming conventions. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Except this isn't even a spaceplane. The Mark I does not even get to space, it is just an aircraft, and the Marks II and III are not even under construction, so at the moment it's nothing but an airplane. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet they're still claiming it. Anyway, I've disengage from that article, so you'll hsve to make that point there. Given the many lengthy discussions that SR has had with other SPACEFLIGHT editors on that tslk page, I don't see this one being any shorter either. Good luck. - BilCat (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that turfwar has gotten me an ANI appearance for my troubles. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Polar Air Cargo Flight 71

I found this draft article while exploring DRAFTspace. I've suggested it be merged, for the discussion, see Draft talk:Polar Air Cargo Flight 71 -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

North Barrule air disaster -quacking?

I'm not that familiar with what to do about suspected sockpuppetry, but from what little I know the above looks like Ryan kirkpatrick... new editor has also created several categories & a believe using "an" before a consonant is a telltale of this perp.TheLongTone (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• "An" inappropriately used: check. Otherwise horrible grammar: check. "Word-number" username string: check. Disasters and aircrashes: check. Created immediately after the last Ryansock was blocked? Also check.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, blocked. Filing at WP:SPI is usually the way to go (it's actually pretty easy once you find the "enter the sockmaster's username here" box, which is surprisingly stealthy). The truly sad thing about Ryan is that, his grammatical issues aside, he isn't a bad writer - the subjects he works on are almost invariablymost often notable. If he would just take the WP:STANDARDOFFER he could be a productive editor. But instead he'd rather create 200 sockpuppet accounts... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nowt so queer as folk. What got him blocked in the first place, or is it impolite to ask? (I did notice that in the recent article about a non-notable Bear over the North Sea that he was asserting that there was a UK airspace violation & reverting sourced alterations saying this was not the case)TheLongTone (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Creating articles on non-notable incidents was a large part of what lead to Ryan's original blocks, along with a pronounced inability to work with others, IIRC. and of course the cronic spellig/grammer errurs. I doubt accepting the standard offer would lead to any changes in those behavioral patterns, as they still exist. - BilCat (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If RK is even to be given the standard offer, he needs to go at least six months without socking. Getting back to the deleted article, there is possibly an argument to be made that it is notable enough to have an article as there were a number of passengers on board and all eleven people in the aircraft were killed. It is covered in Rough Landing or Fatal Flight by Steven Poole. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the article, what are the circumstances of the crash? YSSYguy (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It was Ryan, and hendce it was G5'd. I'll email you a copy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Combined navex and passenger flight, USAAF B-17G, five crew and six passengers, including one non-military (Red Cross). CFIT, all killed.

No problem with the G5 or reasoning behind it. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Having had a closer look at Rough Landing or Fatal Flight, there was a second B17 crash on North Barrule later that month. This one is definitely well above the notability threshold as it remains the deadliest to have happened in the Isle of Man, with 31 killed. Is there any milage in a combined article covering both accidents? April 1945 USAAF Boeing B-17G crashes on North Barrule could fit the naming convention, but am open to suggestions for a better title. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we can drop the "April 1945", there were no other B-17 crashes in the IOM. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the crash of a B-17 with 11 persons on board is not more noteworthy than the thousands of other non-combat aircraft losses of WWII. Any article that is written should be about the crash involving 31 deaths, with a passing mention of the earlier crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Now created at USAAF Boeing B-17 crash on North Barrule. The accident is also covered in Volume 2 of Hell on High Ground. Additions and improvements welcome as usual. The other accident was in the south of the IoM, so has not been mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The accident is also covered in Freeman, Roger, with Osborne, David, "The B-17 Flying Fortress Story: Design - Production - History", London, UK: Arms & Armour Press, 1998, ISBN 1-85409-301-0, p. 256. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is a WP:RS?

I am talking about this page[2]. It is being used as a source for 2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash....William 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a blog. A very smartly presented blog, of course, but it's a blog. Unless the author has some particularly strong reputation in the industry, or somebody finds evidence of editorial control and error correction, I don't think we should treat it as a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be self-published, based on the about page info. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"We do our best to provide the most accurate and up to date information, and be a resource for anyone with an interest in air safety, but please be aware our content comes from you."[3] In a word, no. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network is a reliable source and covers the accident. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD discussions

There are four at present concerning plane crash articles.

• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash
• WP:Articles for deletion/ALIANSA Colombia DC-3
• WP:Articles for deletion/Eastern Airlines Flight 935
• WP:Articles for deletion/2014 Jämijärvi Comp Air 8 crash

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether these articles should be kept or deleted....William 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft names in infobox

Wondering what the protocol is for this, as I added Goblin (the RCAF name) to the box for the Grumman FF-1, which was then removed citing the F4F Wildcat, however that didn't answer the question since Goblin was the ONLY name the aircraft was known as in Canadian service, and the FF-1 designation was limited to only the USN. At the same time its entirely unofficial nickname was left there, which I am not sure if that is even appropriate.NiD.29 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post responses at WT:AIR#Aircraft names in infobox, as there are already responses there. There's no need to have the same conversation in two places. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Industrial Airplane Show

A relatively new and inexperienced editor has created an article on the Industrial Airplane Show. The editor's main activity seems to be creating articles on people called Chapelle, one of whom, Charles W. Chappelle, is said to have designed and built an aeroplane. References comprise a clutch of newspaper reports, none of them have online links to help verify them. I'm not sure what to make of it all. Any thoughts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick check of The Times, California Digital Newspaper Collection and Flight reveals nothing. Possible hoax? We need an editor with access to the New York Times to check out the quoted refs. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, don't have anything substantial in the way of books on early American aviation but can find f-all on the net, I would expect at least a passing mention. I don't think lack of mentions in The Times or Flight particulary significant: I'll have a look in l'Aerophile but that's very francocentric.TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the wikipedia articles claims that the first aero show was a subsidiary part of the New York International Auto Show of 1911. Might help track things down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI I have also started a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Are the Chappelles for real? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was a hoax I do not think the article creator would have called it the "International Aeroplane Show" (which is what the article title should be) rather than "airplane show" : that looks to me as though it came from a contemporary source. C.W Chapelle certainly existed, although I think any notability rests on non-aviation activities.TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have found a mention of an aero show in New York in May 1912 in Henry Villard's book about the Gordon Bennett races. Villard describes this as "New York's first aero show", but of course what he could mean is that this was the first show exclusively devoted to aircraft. It is mentioned in Flight as the "First International Aeronautical Show]: there is a two-page article on it here.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, found an online access to the NYT, describes the 1910/11 show as in article but calls it First International Aviation Show. Do I need to say that Chapelle is among those not mentioned?TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough - the article does not reference NYT for Chappelle's craft, it references the Savannah Tribune. This editor's work does seem to be genuine, just very inexperienced. To be encouraged, IMHO. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiltjet

I never really came across the term "tiltjet" before and the article was a pathetic stub, so I merged it into Thrust vectoring and went on a link rampage. Then I began to wonder, ooer, is there an established distinction in the industry between the vectoring of thrust nozzles versus the tilting of whole engines? Have I been a bad bunny and do I need to say sorry? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

I would think it'd be very different from our thrust vectoring article, since it's more similar to tiltwings, where not just engines, but the wings they're attached to are tilted. Would you call the V-22 Osprey a thrust vectoring aircraft? The old article even said it was like tiltrotors. If it were a ship, I'd compare it to azipods (tilt-engines) vs pumpjet nozzles (TVC) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: - if you're editing in good faith, then you're not a bad bunny, even if your editing is erroneous. The fact you have posted here shows this. As long as you are open to discussion then there's nothing to be worried about. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A tiltjet is an entirely different beast from thrust vectoring - thrust vectoring is, well, vectoring thrust for increased maneuverability - see for instance the F-22 Raptor's engine nozzles for a good example; the Harrier is an (extreme) example of thrust vectoring, for VTOL, as well. A tiltjet, however, is a case where the engines are located (usually) on the wingtips and the entire engine rotates - the EWR VJ 101 provides a good example of a tiltjet. But, as Mjroots mentioned, no harm, no foul - you acted WP:BOLDly in good faith, then when you went "hmm" came to ask, so we're all good. I've gone ahead and restored the page and links. Tiltjet is a pretty sorry stub - I may see if I can muster the muse to flail at it some... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

They're related enough to link, but not enough to merge. This is why we're supposed to have a process for discussion before a merge like this, and we also pay some attention to sourcing. This is a repeated pattern in your editing because you decide that "blimp" isn't an acceptable term, or that the VJ 101 didn't exist, then you start changing great chunks of content. Do some research before making these changes! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for the clarification, and especially to The Bushranger for undoing it all while I was otherwise engaged. Apology offered to all those who find it welcome. @Andy Dingley, if you want to rant at me, please don't bore everybody else with it. I have a talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

An aviation accident discussion

Please come over to this discussion[4] and give your input....William 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: remove the attention flag from WPBannerMeta

See the discussion here. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

RCAF Station Jarvis

FYI, there's a notice about this article at WT:MILHIST ; this started as a civilian airfield before conversion to an airbase. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Interceptor aircraft

FYI, there's a notice at WT:MILHIST about Interceptor aircraft -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft

I was looking at List of aircraft (pre-1914)#1909 & noticed that three airships have been added. My first thought was that they don't belong there, since (as far as I have noticed) the scope of the list is limited to HTA aircraft. However, the articles are titled "List of Aircraft", & there is no separate list of LTA aircraft.TheLongTone (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Rotorcraft are not only in there and in the main alphanumeric listing but also get their own list so they can be listed three times. IMHO we should take the same approach with LTA. In the navbar I just lumped the historical pre-1914 list in with the lists broken down by type, to get it out of the alphanumeric breakdown where it certainly does not belong. In passing I notice that the List of aircraft of World War II is not included in the navbar, and also has a wildly different format. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say all the lists should indicate what type of aircraft they pertain to, if it is only aeroplanes/airplanes, the list should be so named List of airplanes (pre-1914). If it isn't then it is suitable to add blimps, gliders, etc. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Un-sourced edits to airline & airport pages etc

William.Sudarpo (talk · contribs) has been 'indeffed' for vandalism after making unsourced edits (20 May & 12 June only) to airline fleets/airport pages and blatantly erroneous edits to some other pages. I was wondering if this may be a sock as I recall IP and maybe other editors doing very similar things being discussed here in the past. If anyone has any idea if it could be someone ducking a previous block please advise. --220 of ^Borg 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disembarkation

The nautical article Debark (ship) seems to be on its way to be kept at AfD. Perhaps there should be an equivalent aviation article? (or expand the maritime article to cover all forms of transport?) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion

It has been proposed to merge the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article into the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down#Proposed merge with 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I have propsed that Aeroscraft is merged to Worldwide Aeros Corp, comment at Talk:Worldwide Aeros Corp#Proposed merge would be welcome.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

flying wing defintion:

Discussion going on at List of flying wings, regarding whether aircraft such as the DINFIA IA 38, I.Ae. 41 Urubú and others are flying wings, and whether the Facetmobile is a flying wing or a lifting body. Going by Gunston, Bill, The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, ISBN 978-0521841405: "Aeroplane consisting almost solely of wing, reflecting idealised concept of pure aerodynamic body providing lift but virtually devoid of drag-producing excrescences.", however the definition being used arbitrarily exclude some such as the , but not others. Could use some input on this please. NiD.29 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI the discussion is over, unless anyone cares to reignite. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Military aviation combat losses

Following the creation of the article on the Ukrainian AF IL-76 shoot-down, the subject of military aviation combat losses has raised its head again. I know it will be a big task to list all military aviation combat losses, but is is something that should be achievable in the medium to long term (It's been done pretty well with ships lost during WWII, and not too badly for those lost in WWI). There are many books and magazines covering war-related topics, so referencing shouldn't be a problem!

I've started a list at User:Mjroots/List of military aircraft lost in combat setting out the scope and structure that I envisage the list (and its sublists) taking. Suggestions, ideas, questions etc at User talk:Mjroots/List of military aircraft lost in combat. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Good luck - you might want to look at List of most produced aircraft to give you an idea of the scale - a significant number of the several hundreds of thousands of aircraft built just during WW2 were shot down, and records are not always either accurate, or still in existence. Since the end of WW2, it gets a lot easier but the records are still incomplete. Kill claims are notoriously inaccurate - both the Flying Tigers in China, and the USAF in Korea claimed to have shot down more opposing fighters than had EVER been in their theatres of operations during the entire time they were operational - you'll need to go to the horses mouth and get records for each combatant, on what aircraft they recorded as having lost. In addition, records are not always made on the day of the actual loss, and a significant proportion of those records have not been published as useable secondary references.NiD.29 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll copy that over and respond there. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move3

All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wright brothers vs Romanian Traian Vuia

We need some more eyes at Traian Vuia, where an IP editor is saying that the Wright brothers did not really fly their plane autonomously in 1903 because they launched downhill. The downhill launches were later, not on the first day of flying. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

On it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Aviation At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fedden Mission WIP

I've started a potential page on the British postwar mission at the above link. Comment & addition is welcomed. (It's a fair ways from done... :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

An obvious source I'd have expected to see used would have been the RRHT biog of Fedden. As it is, this sort of "single source" is enough cause to delete at AfD these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nacelle strake/chine article

I'm thinking of creating an article on nacelle strakes, also referred to as nacelle chines (referenced in these two StackExchange questions). Which term should I use when describing them, and does anyone have access to sources beyond patents and those linked from the two questions which I would be able to use? APerson (talk!) 21:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be surprised (well I wouldn't be, but I'd hope not) if any RS called these "chines". They're much more correctly called strakes and even then it's a bit of a stretch, as they're vortex generators rather than lifting surfaces. Chines, of course, are blended into the main fuselage or body so as to reduce vortices and shock waves. Great for increasing lift, not actually that good when you're after a deliberate vortex. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this subject is notable or large enough to sustain its own article. Such small strakes appear in all sorts of places on aircraft and should be given a section in the main article on the strake (aeronautics). Their usual job is to control airflow locally, typically at high angles of attack, by creating controlled vortices (as opposed to uncontrolled turbulence). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Debark

Should Debark (ship) be expanded to cover aviation? see talk:debark (ship) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Embarkment currently covers aviation and nautical topics... -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

then probably not - indeed Debark (ship) should probably be merged with Embarkment.NiD.29 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

They're opposite topics though. Debark and embark and antonyms. Leaving ship/plane is a different process from loading one. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NiD.29: these topics are too short to sustain separate articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And while they may be opposites, they are connected as the one isn't happening without the other, and many of the same procedures are used for both. It only makes sense to cover them as one.NiD.29 (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Aerial photos from commercial airliners criticism

I don't know whether if this is the right place to discuss this but I enjoy taking aerial photos from commercial airliners. Unfortunately, at an altitude that varies between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, everything looks very small and even unidentifiable. Moreover, haze and the mess from airplane window (including reflections), haze and glare can further damage the quality of the aerial photos. For this reason, when I took pictures on a flight from LAX to JFK of random Nebraska communities and carefully using Google Maps to identify them before uploading them to commons and placing the image to the articles, my edits got reverted with a summary that reads something like "Not a very useful photo: clouds and glare, outlines of town hard to make out". To be honest I was shocked to see four notifications come out of nowhere, and they were all reverts (which made me initially think that my edits were looked at as vandalism, even though it really wasn't). I don't know how to go about with this very high altitude photos but I think there should be a way to resolve this, as people will continue to take pictures from above (and perhaps upload them to Commons). Furthermore, people might be interested to see what certain locations look like from above. I know that someone has edited my aerial photo years ago to remove the haze from the image. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 00:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the right place, but I'll comment anyway. To get decent photos you need a good quality camera ($1000+), and aside from the better optics it will also allow you to use a polarizing filter which will eliminate some of the problems with taking a shot through glass. A largish telephoto lens will help with the distance as well, and be careful not to use digital zooms that interpolate extra pixels to increase the size, degrading image quality rather than actually making the image bigger. Getting rid of the reflections will help - hold a blanket over you, the camera and the window like a blind to block the cabin light from the window. Cabin windows are hit or miss - if the airplane is overdue for cleaning, nothing much will help. You'll get better shots from something other than a commercial airliner. A bit of luck, and passing over when there is no cloud cover is helpful as well. Cropping the image to show just the town may be needed as well.NiD.29 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I am not a professional photographer, and I do not have a photography degree. I am just a frequent traveler who likes taking pictures for fun. I conclude that aerial photos, I use luck to get a decent picture (I realized that not all of the aerial photos from the recent LAX-JFK flight was removed from the articles). The least I can say is that it should still be photoshopped. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 23:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There is still a good chance someone will anyway - even on photos that were perfectly fine, some folks seem to feel the need to make changes, and hopefully they will be good ones. Even if the photos are not on pages, they should remain accessible on wikimedia, and it is possible at some future date someone will decide to re-add them. No need to be a professional, often it is just being in the right place at the right time, combined with some luck - certain things can help - if you don't have a camera that accepts filters, using a blanket to block the reflections will do almost as much.NiD.29 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah why not? I agree with NiD.29 on this. I think Wikimedia Commons should have a direct photo editing feature. Also vandalism-type photo edits can be reverted and there can be an option to protect the photos. This is similar to how we can edit Wikipedia articles (and revert nonsense edits). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 00:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You can already download the original version of any wikimedia or wikipedia image, edit it, then re-upload it as a new version of the same image. Any image editor that is embedded in a browser will be somewhat limited so it may not be the best option.NiD.29 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I actually knew about the option for years. I've just seen the photo/video editing features in other websites and smartphone apps. (example: YouTube has the option to fix shaky videos and improve coloring) NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It may have to do with the difficulty in policing vandalism - a script can catch suspicious changes to text but that won't work for images and all image changes need a pair of eyeballs to verify - plus the 720 hour limit means it has to be done soon after the edit was made.NiD.29 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PIA flight shot at, one killed

A Pakistan international Airlines flight was shot at on approach to Peshawar yesterday killing a passenger. Two cabin crew were injured, one seriously.

Raising the question here as to whether or not the incident is notable enough to be worthy of an article. I don't know of any other fatality to a passenger in similar circumstances but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened before. My view is that the rarity of the occurence gives weight to the case for an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

IMHO I think this is notable enough for an article. It should be a crime article instead of a flight article, however. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Alaska and Delta conflict

Here is an article about the Alaska and Delta conflict at Seattle Airport:

• Banse, Tom. "Delta, Alaska Airlines Fight For Market Share In Seattle" (Archive). National Public Radio. June 30, 2014.

Which articles is this best for? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:J & J Ultralights Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 2. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Three B737-800s written off in train crash!

OK, now that I've got your attention, please go to Wikiproject Trains and read the thread I've posted there and give your opinion as the the possibility of the creation of a new article. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If it broke Boeing or the airline that ordered them, possibly an article. But what's the lasting impact likely to be? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

While aircraft were involved, its not an aviation incident....William 17:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments over there please. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned it here and I am saying what it isn't. Which is relevant to here. This is an aviation project after all....William 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not an aviation incident, but it is an incident involving aviation. I asked for comments at TWP to keep the discussion in one place. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:XtremeAir aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:XtremeAir_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Zenoah aircraft engines

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Zenoah_aircraft_engines. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:ZALA aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:ZALA_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RT aerostats systems

A new article has recently been created for RT aerostats systems. This company appears to be a subsidiary of Aeronautics Defense Systems. The new article lacks references and other good things - should it be improved or simply merged in with the parent article? Comments please at Talk:RT aerostats systems. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Windward Performance aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at [[5]]. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wings of Freedom aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Wings_of_Freedom_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:World_Aircraft_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Worldwide Ultralite aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Worldwide_Ultralite_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:William Evans aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:William_Evans_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion

Please join the discussion on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Mass_nomination_of_aircraft_manufacturer_nav_boxes_for_deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Weller_Flugzeugbau_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Whittaker aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Whittaker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Welch aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Welch_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Walter Haufe aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Walter_Haufe_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wagner aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Wagner_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:W.F. Stewart Company aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:W.F._Stewart_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:V-STOL Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:V-STOL_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Velocity aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Velocity_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:VFW-Fokker aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:VFW-Fokker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vidor aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vidor_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Viking Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Viking_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Volmer Jensen aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Volmer_Jensen_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vortech aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vortech_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:UL-Jih aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:UL-Jih_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ulrich Hütter and Wolfgang Hütter aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Ulrich_H.C3.BCtter_and_Wolfgang_H.C3.BCtter_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:US Aviation aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:US_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Trixy aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Trixy_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Tri-R aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Tri-R_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Towle Marine Aircraft Engineering aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Towle_Marine_Aircraft_Engineering_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Thruster Aviation Services aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Thruster_Aviation_Services_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Canard Rotor/Wing

I have started an informal merge/delete discussion at Talk:Canard Rotor/Wing — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this real?

To me it seems like Draft:Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot consists of very little hard information amplified by large servings of synthesis and conjecture, but I may be wrong. The draft needs to be reviewed by someone familiar with the subject area. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have got bored waiting for review, copied it across to main article space at Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot (BUAP) and kept working on it. I think the topic is viable but the article needs a lot of work. I guess the draft could be made a redirect (the editor either didn't care enough about its edit history or know to move that across) but I'm not sure of the correct way to pick up the pieces. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[Update] there is another rudimentary article on the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot, created by a different editor but contributed to by this one and now, it seems superseded by the new one. We will need to revisit the title of the surviving article, including the use of "Honeywell", a hyphen and/or an acronym. After a minimum of digging this appears to be a highly contentious topic associated with aircraft security measures and heavy disinformation is likely to be thrown about on both sides. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've formally proposed a merger at talk: Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. The BUAP article is the older one while BHUAP is newer. But the discussion can choose the other name instead of which came first. I've also asked for a histmerge from the draft article. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a proper name for this "device" or is it a descriptive term? In which case ought to be lower case article title. Seems like a fair bit of Snyth and OR - or a least extrapolation from meager sources - being used to construct the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to also guard against the topic being hijacked :( by 9/11 conspiracy nuts, as this type of article is fodder for their fantasies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:The Butterfly aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 24. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This has triggered a complaint at WP:ANI, see here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ET409 article content dispute

At Talk:Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_409#Unexplained_reverts_by_Jetstreamer someone needs to examine the content that was removed and restored and determine what parts of it are sourced to which sources and whether those sources are reliable. AFAIK I see YouTube and WikiLeaks content cited and I am not sure whether they meet the reliable source criteria WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've locked the article for a week to allow all parties to discuss the issue and agree on a solution. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of flags

Didn't we have a concensus that, generally, flag icons are not wanted in aviation related articles? If so, is it documented somewhere? I am asking because someone (with the best intentions, doubtlessly) keeps on adding one in the infobox to Air Force of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: That's a persistent behaviour from both IPs and regulars. Yes, we had consensus. MOS:FLAGS is the first page to point at.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and supporting reply. Upon second views, however, it seems that the flag icon is used in the infobox of many air force articles - should they then all be removed? I am afraid it will not be easy to convince all the flag supporters... and the flags must have been there for a good while now... Just an example from the "Brazilian Air Force" infobox: |country= Brazil . Quid ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See: WP:AVISTYLES (which could do with some expanding) - The only place they are normally acceptable for the aviation project is within the main operators section and should never show up in an infobox or navbox. The problem is that is that they waste the limited space available, force an additional template to be loaded for each flag, increasing load time if a lot are used, and as aircraft have often been operated by successive governments under different flags (ie Germany, Russia etc) removing the flags removes a source of pointless argument without any loss of information. OTOH on the military project they are used quite widely (especially as just icons), and pages that show up on both projects this distinction may be confusing to some editors.NiD.29 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Flags are acceptable in certain areas. Tables of victims in aircrash articles. Operators in aircraft type articles. Infoboxes in some instances (per WP:MILHIST practices]]) Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments - it is nice to be among people who can see both sides of the medal, as we say here. As the article in question touches upon both aviation and the military, I will not make the issue a casus belli. And the flag icon has been reverted out by someone else, so no issue anyway for the time being... If it ever comes up again, I will mention this little discussion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Serbia

Can someone please take a look at Air Serbia and Jat Airways? The latter has been merged into the former one despite no consensus for doing so. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The user keeps reverting me [6] [7]. This is serious.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Last clean versions reinstated. The user changed their mind after discussion at my talk.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Serbia – issue

Hi everybody! Please take a look at Jat Airways and Air Serbia articles. These two articles are about the same airline company, now-called Akcionarsko društvo za vazdušni saobraćaj Air SERBIA Beograd (in Serbian language). This is a joint-stock company, flag carrier of Serbia based in Belgrade. It employs about 1,500 people and has a revenue of 135.30 million euros. In 2013, company then-called Jat Airways (then 100% ownership of the Government of Serbia) has signed a strategic partnership with Etihad Airways, who later bought 49% of shares. Company then commenced operations under new brand name Air Serbia on 26 October 2013. One user started discussion on 1 August 2013 (on the day a strategic partnership has been signed) whether or not should be article Air Serbia be merged to Jat Airways (See here: [8]). Neglecting his/her will to help, I contest this discussion since it was opened nearly three months before any name change was official, and therefore I contest objectivity and neutrality of the opinions (before 26 October 2013 and after) and eventually results of the discussion ("no consensus to merge"). Yet more, I have few sources which annul any speech about has it to be merged or not. All three are official, two of the company itself: [9], [10] and one from the Serbian government Agency for Business Registries: [11]. Now I want you to read provided links. Former two says that company only renamed its name (read re-branded), and the latter say that it was founded on 29 February 1992. This puts one big period on this issue.

Yesterday, I have made big cleanup on both articles (fixed links, copy-pasted text - edited it in order to put it in correct form, made fairly good general overview and kept neutrality and simplicity), and eventually redirected Jat Airways article to Air Serbia article. This was how the article Air Serbia looked after it: [12], you can re-check all the text here and verify that way my writing. Then, I've got reverts from some prominent good-faith editor, which later took us in so-called war edit. We have made a consensus later that articles should remain as they were until we exchange thoughts with other users. The only argument that contributor had against my edit, were the discussion results and mine disrespect of them , which I contest under named reason. I hope I can get as more opinions on this issue from other contributors. Thanks! --AirWolf (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The user asked me to start a new merge discussion. I've done so and placed the corresponding templates at both Air Serbia and Jat Airways. Please feel free to voice you opinion here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I did ask you, but you refused, and it should have stayed that way until we get opinions from other users. You have disrespected my voice once again by putting a new merge discussion now. Please self-revert your actions. As already explained here, the previous discussion was not legitimate. This way you are trying to fix your mistake by opening a discussion on 1 August 2013. I have provided reasons why now there is no need for a new discussion. We should wait for other contributors to give their opinion on his issue. Thanks--AirWolf ^talk 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand you. I've removed the merge discussions from both articles. Please do not make me waste my time and also do not contact me again for this matter at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Now the user does not want another merge discussion. Rv myself." (in description of edits) Do not try to make me a jerk by putting such content. I have explained you here why we should wait. After some opinions arrive, there will be two options: 1. To start a new merge discussion which I oppose; 2. To directly revert my edit (read - to merge) because of the reasons I provided; This is how the show has to run, if you really want it by "legal rules" (on which you insisted since the day one).. For other users, please just write opinions below about this issue, this conversation was just of technical nature. Thanks.--AirWolf ^talk 14:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: I saw that some users in a [13] were questioning how should Aeroput has its own article (wanting to indicate that Jat Airways should have its own too) based on statement from the text saying: "The airline was officially renamed to JAT - Jugoslovenski aerotransport (Yugoslavian Air Transport) on 1 April 1947, and formally replaced Aeroput in 1948." which is not true. Aeroput ceased its opertions in 1943, in the middle of the Second World war, and JAT Yugoslav Airlines was a legal-successor of the Aeroput, but also a new company and not just renamed as in the case of Jat Airways re-branding to Air Serbia. See source for this information here: [14].--AirWolf ^talk 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This really needs to be discussed on the article talk page, the recent move/merge request did not gain a consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Update No.2: One user again started merge discussion so I won't request from him to revert it, because anyone in the future will do the same. My apologies this way to Jetstreamer, I just wanted to make a consensus with others what is the best to do. From now on, please leave your opinions here: [15] --AirWolf ^talk 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of accidents in general aviation "aircraft type" articles.

Please see my post at Talk:Pilatus PC-12#Notability of the included accidents. I'm afraid WP:AIRCRASH is not sufficiently explicit about accidents involving general aviation. The criteria in the guideline seem tailored for airliner and military aircraft accidents. We need to be more specific about what makes any one out of possibly hundreds of similar accidents notable enough to include in the article about the aircraft type, particularly for types that exist in large numbers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I answered that over there, but I did want to add here that I think WP:AIRCRASH is very clear on the criteria! - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Flight path" for airway?

See the changes made to flight path (then airway (aviation)) by User:SilkTork on 27 February. I've never heard of "flight path" being used as a synonym for "airway". 213.7.249.124 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

They are not the same thing so should not have been moved. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone move it back then? 213.7.249.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If no one does it first, you can file for a return to status quo at WP:RMTR ; I will note that flightpath leads to a different place... -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it would've taken a logged-in user very little time. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I settled it, validation welcome. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

User User:Espoo has added "flight path" as a synonym, I still don't agree to that. The furthest we could go is something like An Airway (sometimes incorrectly called a flight path) is ... Opinions? Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

While granting that Wikitionary is not a reliable source, it does equate "airway" and "flight path". I haven't had a chance to check other dictionaries, but is this perhaps an Engvar issue? Also, we'd need a good reliable source to say "flight path" is incorrect, technically or otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To me, it's an error, a flight path is the path a flight takes, or the path a flight plan details, and not a route designed to funnel various flights through the sky. The airway may form part of a flight's flightpath, but it in and of itself isn't one. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked my national AIP: it uses "routes" in the titles, which is confusing enough... The word "airway" is used sparingly, "flight path" not at all. Perhaps consult some other AIP's, too? And yes, linguistically a flight path does not mention altitude information, an airway does, but BilCat is right that we want some kind of formal confirmation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What about moving Flightpath (disambiguation) to flightpath and redirecting flight path to it? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be dealt with once we have the definitions sorted out, including whether or not flightpath and flight path are truly synonymous. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

IMHO this is one of those issues where everybody knows perfectly well that an air way or air corridor is an air traffic control thing, while a flight path is followed by an individual aircraft. Flight paths follow such air ways often enough for ignoramuses to confuse the two, especially when they come across phrases like "regular flight path". In practice a given flight path may pass from one airway to another en route, perhaps dropping out of an airway to a regional airport: the flight path is then flown to its conclusion though the airway is not. Engvar doesn't come into this aspect - at lest, not without rock-solid sourcing. ATC need to give clear and unambiguous instructions, so I cannot imagine them letting this ambiguity through. Cambridge University Press publish a text book actually (and serendipitously) called "Flightpath" - if anyone has access to a copy, that should give a definitive answer (e.g. to prove me totally wrong). But I do think that attempting to distinguish flight path from flightpath would fall foul of Engvar. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC) [Updated 08:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)}

From Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary (Gunston, Bill, The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN 978-0-521-84140-5/ISBN 0-521-84140-2) -

flightpath: Trajectory of centre of gravity of vehicle referred to Earth or other fixed reference.

airway: BS.185, 1951: ‘An air route provided with ground organisation’. Most civil air routes are flown along ICAO IFR airways, typically 10 nm wide with centreline defined by point-source radio navaids spaced sufficiently close for inherent accuracy to be less than half width of airway at midpoint. Each airway has form of corridor, of rectangular cross-section well above Earth. Airspace within is controlled, and traffic separated by being assigned different levels and from ATC having position reports and accurate forecasts of future position (typically, by ETA at next reporting point). In general, made up of a series of route segments each linking two waypoints.

NiD.29 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor furiously further complicating matters. I am getting sick of this. Could we get the article locked until a consensus can be found? In despair, Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Spare me the dramatisation. 87.228.164.233 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You spare me your deities, then. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration formally requested. Too bad. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll spare you my all -- I'm done. Clearly, it was a mistake to bring up this issue here in the first place. Honestly, have you even read the changes you've been reinstating? An airway is "a designated route followed by aircraft in flying from one airport to another"? [bold is mine] Do you even know what airways are? 87.228.164.233 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I do have. I am unhappy about them, too. ((later addition: And yes I do know what airways are. Even passed exams that mention them.)) But blind reverts do not solve anything. That was why I asked you to wait for the outcome of discussion, much as had User:BilCat. Again, I do appreciate your zeal, and I actually think we are fundamentally on the same line of thinking. Just a bit of patience, Rome wasn't built in a day, you know. If User:Espoo doesn't come up with solid arguments in a couple of days, and no other parties bring solid points, I promise to revert to one of your versions. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not how it works. When an edit's disputed, practice is to revert to the latest stable version. We're not keeping factually incorrect information for "a couple of days". 87.228.164.233 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Source? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO 87.228.164.233 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Copied from there: explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page which is exactly what I invited you to. But I found no support of reverting there, as you claim "practice is to revert..." Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Selective reading at its finest. "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up ... During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." 87.228.164.233 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you still not see that the edit you reverted was not mine? And allow me to repeat: it is more than likely that on the facts you and I are on exactly the same point of view. The one thing I can not and will not accept is that you began to revert while wiser people (not meaning myself!) wanted to wait for the end of discussion. The page you referred to does not support your point We're not keeping factually incorrect information for "a couple of days", it does suggest discussing towards consensus. I will now stop arguing, and hope for others to put in their bit. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should stop arguing if you've got no understanding of why reverting a revert is not ok. 87.228.164.233 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The page is about airways so why so much effort to include flight paths, which are not airways. (see definitions above). A flight path is the trajectory of the aircraft (nothing more), an airway is an imaginary highway through the sky created by very specific government regulations that an aircraft MAY follow so as to make directing traffic easier. The definition for airways should only include the actual alternative names as used by aviators and government bodies (such as the US, UK, ICAO etc) and not random words someone could misconstrue to mean something that might be confused for an airway, and any alternate names should be referenced so we know who uses the term.NiD.29 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ICAO Definition of Airway.NiD.29 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if he'll revert you too, or if his beef's only with IP editors. 87.228.164.233 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this addition appropriate?

At Hawker Hunter, a new user added a mention of Interactive Dynamic's G-PRII, claiming it is the oldest such aircraft and listing apparently himself as its pilot. I doubt the appropriateness of this addition, but I know little about aircraft and could use a knowledgable eye on it. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed his name, as he is not notable, and I have a problem with the reference as it seems to be a blog entry.NiD.29 (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds ok, but should we then in fairness not also remove the name of the pilot of Miss Demeanour? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, I missed that.NiD.29 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Airway

Airway currently redirects to Respiratory tract. I started a discussion about this at Talk:Airway#Primary topic / disambig. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for "Location map" of Ethiopian 961

Is anyone interested in adding a "Location map" showing origin, destination(s) (as it had multiple stops), and crash site for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? It can help illustrate just how far off track the jet was taken

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Any aviation publication reviews of Dealing with Disaster in Japan?

I started an article on Dealing with Disaster in Japan, a book about Japan Airlines Flight 123. I found reviews in social science publications and newspapers but I want to know if Flightglobal or any aviation specialist publications have reviewed the book

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons WikiProject Aviation now on Twitter

How about we stop the incredibly lame edit war and stop enabling the banned editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, C:Commons:WikiProject Aviation is now on Twitter. The purpose of the account is to tweet photos from the extensive aviation repository on Commons and to engage in outreach with airlines, airports, individual photographers, to try and expand the coverage on Commons even further. If anyone has any ideas on how to make the most of this account, please get in touch. You will find the feed at https://twitter.com/commonsaviation. Cheers, Russavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.243.77 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the above comment, just to let everybody know that there is a Twitter account for the Commons Wikiproject Aviation, which can be found at https://twitter.com/commonsaviation. For details about the account or to get involved with the feed, which is organised by a number of Commons editors (not just Russavia) please see C:Commons:WikiProject Aviation. Nick (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Fairfax"

30 SW (talk · contribs) recently rebuilt Fairfax Field (also up for rename [16] at WP:RMTR), by merging from Fairfax Airport and splitting to Air Force Plant NC, Fairfax Air Force Base, USAAF Modification Centers, "etc". I have no idea what "etc" means, that was the only information left at the page concerning the destination. The destinations that are mentioned could do with some cleanup as they are carrying redlinked categories. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

for as little as it may be worth: etc stands for et cetera, Latin for "and so on". Some (like myself) like to abbreviate it to &c. Also see Et cetera. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think the post means that 65.94.169.222 is not sure which other articles are meant by "etc". That's how it seems to me at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• It means that "etc" was written in the edit summary, and provides no indication as to what articles were split off from the article in question, therefore does not provide sufficient attribution to be useful. "etc" does not mean anything useful in the context of attribution, and provides no information as to what the "etc" is referring to. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How to define a "shootdown"?

In Talk:Kweilin_Incident#"Shot down" versus "attacked and forced down" an editor argues that even though the sources describing the Kweilin Incident and Chungking Incident are calling them "shootdowns", he says they do not qualify as shootdowns. Please see the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a special definition. We just need to follow what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sources for the Kweilin Incident do call it a shootdown. When I checked Korean Air Lines Flight 902 there are some sources that say it's a shootdown and some that say it's not a shootdown (see Talk:Kweilin_Incident#"Shot down" versus "attacked and forced down"). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Parachutes

The usage of Parachutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Parachutes -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)