Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should all instances of "maiden flight" in articles, portals, templates and categories, in reference to spaceflight and aviation, in Wikipedia's voice, except where "maiden flight" is being given as an alternate term to "first flight" (e.g. "A 'first flight', also known as a 'maiden flight', is...), be changed to "first flight"? 23:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - Gender neutrality, there is no particular reason to use gendered language here. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think "maiden" is gender neutral in this case, as it is only a homonym of the non-gender neutral maiden. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  The adjective maiden is the same word as the adjective for other uses of maiden, same etymology.[1] —DIYeditor (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Research conducted by Levivich at Talk:Maiden flight#Moving Maiden flight to First flight as well as the arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight lead me to believe that the term "maiden flight" is outdated and is not as widely used today as "first flight". This is also in keeping with the essay Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Excluding quotes and other historical uses of the former term where changing the term would constitute historical revisionism. (Clearly what is intended by the OP in saying "in Wikipedia's voice", but expressed here to be absolutely clear.) General Ization ^Talk 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am changing my !vote after reading many of the arguments below, and because I remain concerned that in any "mass" replacement the distinction between historical and "modern" uses of the term will be lost and de facto historical revision will occur. Guidance concerning a preference for GNL for new editors/new articles is fine, but I do not support the mass replacement proposed. General Ization ^Talk 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - See my comment below. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Support - ZLEA _T\^C 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Support entirely, or only to the extent of preferring first flight as discussed below? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Support entirely. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose - Now that I see the opposing users comments below, I am convinced that there is nothing wrong with "maiden" in this case. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I see nothing wrong with "first flight/voyage", I also see nothing wrong with "maiden flight/voyage". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - "first flight" and "first flown on ..." are by far the most used terms. The term maiden flight hasn't been used in the time I have been in aviation, which is 1976 and on. "Maiden flight" seems to be both archaic and sexist. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support Airplanes don't have a gender, so gender neutrality makes sense in this context. Of course, per General Ization, an exception can be made for direct quotes and other historical uses for the term, but per Ahunt, that won't come up often for more modern aircraft. (Summoned by bot)  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support It seems to be the more common term today, and, even it were it not for the gender neutrality issue, I think it's probably fair to say that it's more readily understood anyway, especially by modern readers. Using "maiden" gains us nothing, so why not go for the simpler, more widely used, term? Anaxial (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a systematic change. Whilst "maiden" of course was originally a gendered term, no gendered connotations remain in the "maiden flight"/"maiden voyage" usage. It's hard to get valid usage statistics because "first flight" can be used in far more ways than maiden or inaugural can (e.g. the first flight of the day, my first flight in a glider, etc.), but a quick google search certainly confirms that even publications that typically display a very PC attitude to gendered terms are quite happy to use "maiden flight". Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aircraft, as ships, are almost always a "she" - an exception noted in MOS:GNL - and therefore are appropriately referred to in a gendered context ("Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively."). If sources refer to a "maiden flight" or "maiden voyage" - we should follow source usage. It isn't appropriate to make a project-wide judgement here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Aircraft, as ships, are almost always a "she" - no they aren't. Ships maybe have been referred to as she, but aircraft are not referred to as "she" by anyone involved in aviation. It's a fanciful notion that is not supported by MOS:GNL, which mentions ships as the sole exception, not aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not relevant: the maiden bit applies to the flight, not to the plane. Which clearly shows the absence of sexual/gender connotation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing sexist. Cfr. "maiden speech" for a member of parliament. A bit outdated, perhaps, but that doesn't make the term incorrect. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the sexist inclination is that the "maiden" flight is related to "deflowering" or "loss of virginity". As a pilot I have always found the term "maiden flight" a distasteful one associated with culture issues like this - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • That's pretty tenuous. What next? Should the good people of Maidenhead be watching their Wikipedia page with trepidation? I can't believe we're actually debating this. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

      Or Maiden Newton, Maiden Castle, etc. etc. Looking forward to that ancient instrument of torture being renamed "Iron First", followed closely by the coffin-like cabinet they named themselves after. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

    • That interpretation is much too narrow. A "clean sheet of paper", literally translated from French, becomes a "virgin sheet of paper (feuille vierge)". Likewise for a blank video cassette or so. "Maiden" could almost correspond to "initialisation". As in the earlier example of a (parlementarian) maiden speech. Of course there are obsessed minds that narrow everything down to sexuality, but should we let them weigh on our guidelines and practices? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need editorial flexibility for readability. If the phrase crops up several times close together, being able to vary the language can avoid the irritant of excessive repetition. By contrast, if it crops up in a quote then it can be helpful to echo the language when referencing the quote. We should be allowed that flexibility. Are maiden overs in cricket to be bowdlerised too? There is no disrespect to the female gender in such things. This proposal is is political correctness gone mad. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A standard term used everywhere that doesn't imply any gender of a flight (which is not even a material object!), no need to change it. We have 1,965 articles using "maiden flight" by the way. --mfb (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I am involving in gender neutrality, and the usage of feminine gender in aircrafts, ships etc. is rare. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not correct: the maiden does not apply to the craft, it applies to the flight. And btw aircrafts is a non-existant word in English. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, as a native English speaker (which you are plainly not), I can assure you that you are totally wrong about ships. "She" is very common, even usual, and Wikipedia's style guide recognises this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose wholesale replacement of "maiden flight", given its long standing and widespread use. Mixed use of "maiden flight" and first flight is totally acceptable. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW, on google books I got 3 hits for "plane's maiden flight was" vs. 58 for "plane's first flight was" and on regular google 436 vs. 1150. Not a perfect search but from what I saw the "first flight" results were indeed in this sense. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the FWIW bit: search engine hit counts are not worth anything. They may and can be applied to justify a plentitude of errors. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • This is not a gender neutrality issue, as I understand the Wikipedia standards. The manual of style limits the policy to terms for groups or professions, as does the text of the article on Gender neutrality. That's because gendered terms carry the implication that only one gender is welcome or qualified to be part of the group, and that's a big deal for inclusiveness. But that's very different from trying to expunge ever term with gender-related connotations.
  • The manual of style specifically says that ships may be referred to either as "she" or "it". Either is acceptable, but a change from one to the other requires "substantial reason". I believe it logically follows that same thing would apply to "maiden" voyages or flights. haven't heard any "substantial reason" other than the fact that "some people" aren't comfortably with it.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see some people being uncomfortable with a phrase being a valid reason. As someone who grew up reading books like Fahrenheit 451, the idea that we should censor ourselves and delete any words or phrases which an unknown number of people might object to is more than a bad reason. It disturbs me that anyone would even consider it.
  • This is a weak point, but "maiden" flight does have its origins in the older term, "maiden" voyage, for ships. There isn't, to my knowledge, any alternate term for ships, and I like the continuity implied by using "maiden" flight. Fcrary (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – First flight is perfectly clear and very common, plus is gender-neutral; I can't see why it should not be adopted as the standard phrase. The rare exceptions would be in quotations and possibly to avoid repetition, but the vast majority of instances of maiden flight could be replaced without any adverse effect on the prose. Ironizing on Maidenhead, Iron Maiden etc. completely misses the point: this RfC is not about replacing the word maiden wherever it crops up – save your ammunitions for such cases. Gender-related connotations such as in maiden flight are a pointless distraction, so if there is an easy and painless way to avoid them, such as with this RfC, then why not? --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the common-sense exceptions noted by other editors above, for a few reasons (more here):
  • Online Etymology Dictionary: maiden (adj.) c. 1300, "virgin, unmarried," from maiden (n.). The figurative sense of "new, fresh, untried; first" (as in maiden voyage) is by 1550s.
  • "First flight" describes both aircraft and people; "maiden flight" describes both aircraft and people
  • "First flight" used by NYT, WSJ, India Times, Australian Aviation, ABC Australia, Travel+Leisure, The South African, BBC News [2], Bloomberg, Times of San Diego, Popular Mechanics, Aviation Week ("maiden flight" is also still used by some sources)
  • N-grams: "first flight" > "maiden flight", his first flight > his maiden flight, her first flight > her maiden flight and its first flight > its maiden flight
  • Search results:

	"maiden flight"	"first flight"
JSTOR	625	8,006
Google Books	73 k	1.5 M
Google News	70 k	671 k
Google Scholar	6.5 k	72 k
Google Web	3 M	15 M

• The recent RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight: [3] – Levivich 00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest that your having found many incidents of "first flight" prior to the Wright Brothers' flights at Kitty Hawk in 1909 calls into question the accuracy of your N-grams as they pertain to aviation. Also note that a "first flight of stairs" is going to appear in your results and skew the results. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The 19th century Google Books or Google Scholar results for "first flight" relate mostly to birds or stairs, also to locusts, bees and other insects. There are also hits that correspond to flight in the sense of fleeing, flights of fancy, and more. Most of these senses will continue to be seen in more recent hits, and are clearly so common as to skew the results enough to make them meaningless. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Google News results for "first flight": 671,000. Google News results for "first flight of stairs": 512. Google News results for "first flight of" (to capture stairs, wine, or whatever): 30,000 hits–less than 5% of all "first flight" hits. Google Books results for "first flight": 1.5 million. Google Books for "first flight of stairs": 24,000. Google Books for "first flight of": 250,000. That's not much of a skew. There are plenty of weaknesses to N-grams and search results, but all the evidence brought forward so far shows that "first flight" is way more common than "maiden flight", and always has been. If anyone thinks that "first flight" more commonly refers to birds or fleeing rather than aircraft and pilots, then I'd invite them to post some evidence backing that up. – Levivich 14:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's for this reason that I used "plane's first flight was" and "plane's maiden flight was" in my search above. Still possible there are extraneous results but I think most are what we're looking for. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

To get any sort of meaningful statistics for "first flight" would require a proper corpus-based search, looking at each hit individually and classifying it as aircraft, birds, insects, stairs, fleeing, or whatever, then further classifying the aircraft hits as inaugural flight vs other uses such as first flight of the day. But I don't see it as being worth the effort. There doesn't seem to be much dispute that "first flight" is commonly used, the question is whether "maiden flight" is also acceptable. As things stand, the !votes are roughly evenly split, and no policy-based arguments whatsoever have been cited (WP:GNL being only an essay). That looks pretty much like we're heading for a WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Plane's first flight" definitely doesn't refer to birds, and it's much more likely that WP:RSes using the term "plane's first flight" are talking about the inaugural flight than the first flight of the day. Nevertheless, assuming both "maiden flight" and "first flight" are in equal use, one of the terms equates a plane that hasn't flown yet with a virgin woman, whereas the other does not. For me, this is the tie breaker–and I don't care that WP:GNL is "only" an essay or that MOS:GNL is "only" a guideline, because it's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of decency, at least for me. – Levivich 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no question of any person, male or female or whatever, virgin or not. This is about describing an aeroplane type and its history. As I stated before, it is to me a sign of narrow-mindedness to bring in a sexual connotation wherever possible, however remotely. Again, cfr. "maiden speech" in parliament and (in other languages) "virgin sheet of paper" and a thousand other examples. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a mass change -- no harm mixing "maiden flight" with "first flight", just as we mix "the ship" with "she"; last I heard new parliamentarians -- at least where I come from -- were still making "maiden speeches". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is very common usage in English applied to an inanimate object and not a person. I have tried to enter into the skin of someone else and get upset about this...I can't. Gender in almost every language exists it is simply the way it is. In German a girl is das mädchen, das is neuter, in french a victim regardless of who it is remains feminine. This is the way it is. Maiden when referring to a women means virgin and could be seen as being sexist so let's not use it. An inanimate object has no hymen and cannot be "deflowered" so this is simply a poetic and very common way of saying first. English is an incredibly rich language so for the love of ...a supreme being...let's not let excessive PC concerns make it poorer. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, it is common useage. I totally agree with the comments by Dom of Paris. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I will not be surprised if this quaint holdover is in time dropped, but for the moment there is nothing like a consensus that it creates a hostile environment for women or implies that aircraft are the sexual property of the patriarchy or whatever it is supposed to be doing, and I think we should wait a little longer. It is a usage with a long history; I don't think Wikipedia needs to charge into the vanguard here. Regulov (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - maiden flight is a perfectly acceptable phrase, deriving from maiden voyage in the shipping world. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support For aircraft, but not for ships.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support- Move with the times rather than stick with old terms established in a far-more male-dominated time. Hearing "maiden" described as "gender-neutral"... Sammy D III (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yet arguments have been offered. (Redacted) You certainly did not answer on them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't belong here, I don't know anything about airplanes. I do know something about sexual harassment so I offered an opinion. Sorry. Edit: thank you for "Redacted". Sammy D III (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
      • This is nothing about airplanes, essentially, but neither is it about sexual harassment. At long last, it is about (English) language. Still, with all respect for your opinion, I think facts would add more value to the discussion. And certainly no need to be sorry! (and BTW, I too thanked for the redactional correction). Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Sammy D III:: Thank you for your contribution here. I agree with you that "gender-neutral" is not appropriate to any word with such an obvious origin in gender distinction. But one has to balance a theoretical risk of harassment against the widely established use of language. What about say maiden overs in cricket, or towns such as Maiden Newton and Maidenhead, and other examples at Maiden (disambiguation). At what point does use of "maiden" in an otherwise gender-neutral context gain potentially abusive connotations, as opposed to being mere cannon fodder for the more fanatical feminists? My own view is that Wikipedia must honour common usage, and that shows no sign of significant change. However if common usage is genuinely troublesome then I would rate that more important. But is it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. If usage changes such that a term becomes unacceptable (as has happened with some previously acceptable terms that are now seen as having unwanted connotations), mainstream publications stop using it. In the case of "maiden flight", this hasn't happened, no doubt because the vast majority of people don't see any gendered connotations to it. It doesn't matter that synonyms exist, or even that they are widely used; there's no sign that reputable sources are dropping the term, and so there's no reason to systematically eliminate it from Wikipedia as this RfC proposes. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Steelpillow: I see nothing here other than "it always has been". You have a term coined in a sexist time. If you were making up a nickname today would it be overtly sexual, maybe sexist? Put it in quotes when you need it, but don't perpetuate its use to people who wouldn't use it otherwise.

  I don't think that proper names relate. Would you name a new town "Maidenhead?" I read the link. Everything other than "Common use" are proper names. You have airplanes/ships (discussion here), two horses and a cricket (sports terms, if you don't care about the sport would you know the term?), and political garbage, the only real use is "Maiden name".

  Please bear in mind that most here have a machine/military machine/history bias that the average reader might not share. If you are going to inform the ignorant why not do it in today's words? Would an ignorant person necessarily know what the term means if not told? Will they in five years? Will it be "politically correct" then? (I'm old and have seen a lot of words go that I never gave any thought to). I think "first" works just fine, it is accurate and clear to anybody. Sammy D III (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  I too think you are right about proper names, but the question needed asking. "Would an ignorant person necessarily know what the term means if not told?" Yes, absolutely. It is very common usage. More people care about sport than technology. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that a small child would be more familiar with such a context and would be surprised to discover that the word had gender connotations, as it has pretty much fallen out of common use in favour of the gender-neutral "virgin". I have never seen the slightest evidence of it causing controversy or distress in the way that some other traditional phrases have done. "Will they in five years?" That is for us to discuss in five years time and not right now, per WP:CRYSTAL (we have a saying, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof). Anyway, I hope this helps clarify the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks for talking, have a good day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Regulov. (Hohum ^@) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -Forcing the use of the term first flight will make for ugly statements like "the first prototype made its first flight".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It's "first prototypye" that is ugly by itself: a prototype is by definition the first of its type. "The prototype made its first flight" is how it should read. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not the case. While "the prototype made its first flight" would be used if the aircraft had only one prototype, many aircraft have more than one prototype. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

OK then: "The prototype made its first flight on July 25, 1950. A second prototype flew on August 20 etc." --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the first prototype of many as "the prototype" would be confusing, as it implies that there was only one. "Prototype" does not necessarily refer to the very first of an aircraft type, but rather any aircraft built with the purpose of development and testing (with the exception of "pre-production aircraft", which are usually service-test aircraft). - ZLEA _T\^C 23:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like "maiden flight" myself, but disagree that it justifies an across-the-board rule for all spaceflight/aviation articles, or, as proposed in the subject, a "mass changing" of articles. I would be happy with a statement saying it's the preferred form without making a crusade out of it, and allowing for individual consensus on an article basis. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, a preference for the term would be a better way to phrase it in some ways (more palatable in particular), but isn't that this net effect of the current phrasing? I.e., if there is some dispute, go with "first flight" - otherwise it would not come up. If we did say "prefer first flight" and someone undertook a mass change, wouldn't they be going by that RfC as well? And if nobody undertook a "mass change" but people simply changed it when they saw it, wouldn't they be abiding by the way this RfC is worded just the same as if it were to "prefer 'first flight'"? The question of whether to prefer it came up because someone did undertake a mass change - if it is preferred what is stopping them from doing so? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, I don't believe it's the same. This RFC is specifically calling for a "mass change"; we can't say, particularly after so many editors have !voted, that we really don't mean mass change. And project-wide RFCs like this do destroy local consensus on individual articles, and we shouldn't pretend they don't. See, e.g., Talk:Apollo program#"Manned" vs. "Crewed"...again, where the local consensus is to use the historically used term "manned", in an era before female astronauts, so it's completely accurate, with the editors there commenting "I don't personally agree with it but it is tough going against an RfC." That's the sort of dispiriting effect RFCs like this can have, and can drive away some good editors. I continue to oppose despite personally preferring "first flight" because RFCs like this have that sort of effect, and it's needless. TJRC (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Soft oppose - I'm usually all for using more inclusive language, but this just isn't a case of inclusivity. As someone already mentioned above, it's not a case of a term implying a judgement on the abilities of different genders, but rather a gendered term that refers to an inanimate object, which I don't think is a problem. It also doesn't seem like the term "maiden flight" is challenged in any way in contemporary society. I've searched far and wide, and despite finding A LOT of articles about sexism in the world of aviation, there is no mention of the word in any of them. To be fair, I think the claims made above by Ahunt that the term isn't actually used in aviation should carry more wight than the perceived sexism here. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• Weak oppose and important procedural caveat that invalidates any result here, regardless: I'll begin with the procedural issue here first, which is something that no respondent here seems to have caught thus far: by long-standing community consensus (confirmed and codified in an ArbCom case, no less) WikiProjects are WP:Advice pages and thus editors working on such a project are not allowed to use it as an alternative to the WP:Proposal process. In other words, we can reach any conclusion we want here about how aviation articles "ought" to be handled, but it will have absolutely zero formal control over the approach taken on any individual article: the proponents of the new approach will still need to seek WP:localconsensus on each and every individual article, and if any dispute arises on any of those articles, said proponents cannot merely reference this discussion: they will have re-establish consensus in each individual case. The only alternative to this one-at-a-time approach is to seek the same consensus being sought here in the appropriate project space--here that would be a policy or MoS talk page, using the normal WP:Proposal process; again, advice pages like a WikiProject talk page are not viable alternatives to this normal approach to changing a policy or a style guideline.

All of that said, even if this were a valid space to have this discussion in this manner, I would still be a weak oppose to the proposition. At the end of the day, "maiden flight" is still a widely used idiomatic expression, with heavy usage in reliable sources on the topic of aviation--both as regards more generalist and specialist literature on the subject. I believe most people, even those of us who believe contemporary English remains loaded with innate gender bias, probably would view this particular phrase as pretty innocuous and unproblematic. But it may very well be that in time, a majority of people and sources will come to find it loaded with a problematic gendered subtext, and it will consequently fall out of favour as the go-to description for a vessel's first flight. If and when that happens, surely we should follow suit, but in the meantime, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY, and we cannot lead the way on this without the sources first establishing the trend themselves. Mind you, anybody creating new content should feel free to use either version, as far as I am concerned, but after one usage is established, if there is a disagreement thereafter, it is essentially a MOS:STYLEVAR issue and the earlier stable version should be preserved to avoid issues. In any event, until there is some seachange regarding this term, proposing a guideline that enforces one variation over the other would be nothing other than needless WP:CREEP. And even if it does come to pass that cultures and sources begin to reject "maiden flight" altogether, such that we decide it is time for our guidelines to match, that proposal should take place (as discussed above) on a policy or MoS talk page, not here. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as nothing wrong with Maiden Flight which has nothing to do with Gender in this context as explained by others. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a can of worms, and it ain't broke. What do we do about wicket maiden or maiden over? And what about our Maiden speech article? Moriori (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Such a blanket change is historically unjustified, and does not seem to add value or clarity to the encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk
• Oppose This is basically splitting hairs. "Maiden flight" remains an acceptable dictionary alternative (Oxford, Collins) and our own article is at Maiden flight. Brandmeister^talk 16:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose across-the board censorship of a historical term. Next thing and wikipedia will prohibit to refer to ship as "she". At the very minimum Wikipedia must follow the sources cited as long as in mainstream both terms are acceptable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I prefer 'first flight', and would support anyone changing it manually and judiciously in any article - they convey the same meaning, 'maiden' does have gender-laden connotations which I think should be avoided where possible. I'm against an automated mass change however, because of the risk of introducing repetitive language within sentences or other mistakes. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Consider this case if it were in the opposite sense: if there was little to no use of "maiden flight" in WP, would anyone support a proposal of changing "first flight" to "maiden flight"? I think it would get very near 100% opposition. Even among those opposed here, no one's refuted that "maiden flight" has more than a hint of anachronistic male-dominance overtones, and is on its way out; "first flight" is preferred. The point of contention seems to be the "mass change" part. Yes, sweeping changes are scary, and likely to cause several mistakes if quickly/carelessly done. But even so, those mistakes will be spotted and fixed in normal process of the way that WP works. Once this is done, no one will care about this ever again. This RFC has already consumed more time and effort from more editors that fixing the results of a mass change would take. Just do it, so we can all move on to more important matters. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Even easier to just not do it :) and move on. And, no, opposition is not only against the "mass change" aspect; there is also the aspect of "editorial freedom" and "no self-censure". Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're saying it's easier if this just goes away then? But it won't. Editors will continue to see "maiden flight" and wonder why WP is okay with this, or wonder if readers will wonder why WP is okay with this, and comment about changing it, and we end up repeating this whole discussion all over again; that will go on until WP isn't okay with this. That's when it goes away, and the only way it goes away.

"Editorial freedom" and "no self-censure" aren't reasons ignore how "maiden flight" makes WP appear either archaic, or insensitive, or both. Using "first flight" is in no way some heavy burden that prohibits good editing. We're not writing poetry here; we provide facts in an encyclopedic format, which includes an encyclopedic tone, which is made more difficult by using terms like "maiden" unnecessarily. Please, let's just move beyond such nonsense already. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"Editorial freedom" and "no self-censure" are excellent reasons. To be fair, we can not exclude words and phrases which some unspecified group finds "insensitive" without also excluding every other word and phrase which anyone finds "insensitive." If we do that, we would not have a language left to write in. What we can, reasonably, do is avoid words and phrases which most or perhaps many people find offensive. The consensus from this discussion seems to be that "maiden flight" does not cross that threshold. Fcrary (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? WP bends over backwards to address sensitively! Whole sections of MOS that are nothing but how to word to avoid the appearance of any insensitivity. And for good reasons; using any phrasing that may merely hint at a lack of sensitivity is, if nothing else, distracting, causing the reader to suddenly think about the sensitivity issue instead of the facts being stated in the sentence. These "excellent reasons" aren't excellent in any way, except excellent at creating unhelpful prose. "Artistic freedom" has a place, but that place is far, far away from any encyclopedia.

Denying this an issue basically denying this discussion is taking place. We all want this to go away and move on to useful editing. And that's easy to do; just get rid of the wording in question -- problem completely solved, and we never, ever have waste any more valuable editors' time on this. If we don't do anything now, the issue will still be there, and some time later on, we'll have to go through this again, and keep doing it, as long as this unhelpful, unencyclopedic, pointless wording exists. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Seriously. I don't want to argue any longer, there are indeed better things to do; and you don't accept the arguments anyway. If you want to stop the waste of time and effort, then stop banging your head against the wall: it is obvious that there is no consensus for a mass change; it is not going to happen. Face it. And anyone bringing up the point in future will be easily pointed to this discussion, hopefully long archived, so no, the same discussion will not have to be done over and over. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet the argument will go on, until resolved; if not now, then later. Consensus can change, and in this case, where it end up is inevitable. All the current problems with "maiden flight" will get worse over time, as it gets more and more out-of-step and archaic. There zero argument actually in favor of using it, just a vague resistance to change, projecting the figurative wall they fight onto others. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 13:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "There isn't consensus now, but eventually there will be, so lets change it now" is a valid argument. Apologies if this is a strawman of your actual argument. (Hohum ^@) 16:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument is: it's already deprecated off-wiki, so deprecating it on-wiki is inevitable, so let's just do it already. (Even among those opposed here, no one's refuted that "maiden flight" ... is on its way out, a notion supported by the declining usage of the term per links to sources, ngrams, search results, etc. above.) – Levivich 16:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you have just hit on the correct word for my objection. You said "deprecated." I do not think the phrase "maiden flight" has been deprecated outside of Wikipedia, and I definitely do not think we should try to do so here. "Deprecated" means a deliberate action to get rid of or devalue something (look it up.) Languages may evolve, and as they do, things like an encyclopedia should follow. But that is a natural, not a deliberate process. The idea of deliberately altering a language to promote a political goal (no matter how desirable) is highly offensive to me. Fcrary (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Wasn't there one chap Orwell who called it Newspeak? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't equate gender-neutral language with government mind-control propaganda. It's offensive. We don't call our secretaries "honey" or slap them on the ass anymore; that's not Orwellian, that's progress. Equating an un-flown plane (a plane that has not yet been put to its purpose) with an unmarried virgin woman (ahem) is offensive, at least to most people, which is why the term isn't used very often. Seeking it deprecate it on-wiki isn't Orwellian, it's progress. – Levivich 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out again and again, this is nothing about women or virgins (m/f) or secretaries (f/m). I won't repeat the same arguments over and over, please read what was offered. And, to be sure, the advocates of Newspeak called it progress, yes yes! You'd be surprised how well you fit the picture! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The word "maiden" means "an unmarried woman, especially a virgin", check the dictionary. – Levivich 18:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Why consult another dictionary than our own trusted encyclopedia? Please refer to Maiden_(disambiguation)#Common uses. Special attention for the "common" bit, if you please. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, among other reasons. A disambiguation page is not an authority on the meaning of words, especially when contradicted by, like, every dictionary. And the dab page doesn't even contradict the dictionary in this case. – Levivich 19:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: You are unfortunately misinformed, I can only wonder where you find the dictionaries you ask us to check. Online, perhaps? English is a rich and venerable language and any given written word may have accumulated many meanings. In my dictionary the gender-specific noun you are thinking of is "maid". The noun "maiden", as well as being a popular variation on "maid", also refers to a washing dolly, clothes horse, or a type of Scottish beheading machine. But that is by the bye, it is the adjective which is under scrutiny here, not the noun. As well as referencing unmarried or virgin females, it can also mean fresh, new, unused, uncaptured, untrodden, unpruned, grown from seed and so on. In this general sense it is used specifically in at least ten common phrases - and my dictionary is not a large one. Note that "maid" is never used in these other genderless senses, only "maiden" has genderless connotations. Which meaning came first and which derived from it is immaterial, both meanings have long been established in the English language and it is absurd to suggest that such a common and longstanding synonym for "fresh", "new", "unused" or "untrodden" has any gender connotations. Or at least, none outside the heads of punsters or of self-appointed thought police. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster. – Levivich 19:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean for example "maiden adjective [before noun]: being the first of its type: The first hydrogen-powered airplane will make its maiden flight this year, his maiden appearance on TV. Synonym: inaugural. See also: maiden speech, maiden voyage." I think your problem may lie in remembering to scroll down to find the usage under discussion, viz. the adjective rather than the noun. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean the part where it says "a girl or young woman" and "synonym[:] girl" and "compare[:] virgin", and don't forget Oxford and Merriam-Webster, plus Collins, American Heritage, and Etymology.com. – Levivich 19:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So what? You are not thinking through the logic of inclusivity here. I can show you dictionaries which give one meaning of "bush" as a certain part of the female anatomy, similarly with "ball" for the male. By your arguments we should replace "bush" with "shrub" and "ball" with "sphere" everywhere they occur on Wikipedia. Let us know how you get on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose mechanical mass change, a bot cannot properly evaluate the specific context of every instance of the term. The word "maiden" has several distinct meanings, only one of them relates to gender. I 'm not opposed to changes by a human editor capable of deciding each case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note (5Ept5xW) at 00:11, 24 July 2019 I amended the RfC to include the provision except where "maiden flight" is being given as an alternate term to "first flight" (e.g. "A 'first flight', also known as a 'maiden flight', is...) which I do not think changes the RfC materially but is necessary to make it logically correct. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I usually see "first flight" in sources, and I think that works better than "maiden flight" in the aircraft infobox. However, both work well in the content of an article, and using both adds variety to articles. While I am usually one for consistency, I don't think articles should be consistent down to the choice of words. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@ZLEA: Understandable, although I think we should never state maiden flight in our voice due to its connotations. Perhaps you could offer an alternate !vote position of Support preferring first flight but not mandating it or something? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@ZLEA: "predominantly towards unmarried females" from the article you linked. 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I am changing my !vote, I had said that, in this case, "maiden" is only a homonym of the non-gender neutral maiden, which I had linked to for an example. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification requested It's not clear to me exactly what's being asked for here. That 'maiden flight' is a deprecated term and should not be used but Is it 1) permission for someone (with or without bot assistance) to find instances of "maiden flight" and change them to "first flight"? 2) encouragement and carte blanch for an editor to change "maiden flight" to "first flight" should they encounter it in an article ? And that it's just 'maiden flight' not 'maiden voyage' (which is a slightly different thing though unlikely to appear in aircraft articles) GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a bot could be used because there are many legitimate instances of "maiden flight" beyond the example spelled out in the RfC - things not in the voice of Wikipedia. So quotes or references to historical use of the term would be kept. Yes I read it as carte blanch to change maiden flight to first flight when encountered otherwise, but of course anyone is free to give a different !vote here. Yes, this is only maiden flight, not maiden voyage, which I am not ready to support yet personally because "maiden voyage" sounds right to me especially for ships. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:5Ept5xW and Wikiproject Spaceflight for context. An editor started changing tens of instances of "maiden flight" to "first flight". I initiated a discussion about that. We have thousands of articles using "maiden flight" in Wikipedia, a general change would be a big project. --mfb (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We also need to keep in mind that whereas a particular vessel, be it air or sea, may have a maiden outing, a type of craft almost always has a first one, as in say; "The first flight of the Supermarine Spitfire took place in 1935, when Mutt Summers took up K5054 on its maiden flight." The cases for type and individual are quite distinct. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In spaceflight (where this discussion comes from originally) it is nearly always the type, as the individual vehicle is rarely reused for now. --mfb (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems this RfC may gain more support with revised wording. – Levivich 15:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an MOS RFC. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Should have been addressed as only a preference for "first flight" in the first place, to be honest I was getting frustrated with 5Ept5xW and did this in a hurry. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis on all points :-) But it's been a useful exercise insofar as it illuminated the community's feelings on the issue. Perhaps it would be useful to start a pre-RfC workshop thread at WT:MOS to see if there's consensus for adding some preference language to MOS:GNL after the bit about ships? (I'm not sure what the exact wording of a proposed addition should be, but I'm sure other editors would have suggestions.) – Levivich 16:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm Judy – fly me! Wait, no Fly me!. Or take a flight on the wild side – FLY ME! EEng 11:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Although I support gender neutrality, I think that we should close this discussion with a conseus that the "first flight" would be changed to "maiden flight". The reason of this is, many people votes to change the "first flight" with the "maiden flight". —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 17:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Soumya-8974 None of the oppose !votes suggested changing "first flight" to "maiden flight". Most said that there is nothing wrong with "maiden" or that it is okay to use both "first flight" and "maiden flight", and forcing the use of only one term could cause problems. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2019 King Air 350 crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 King Air 350 crash. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Seawings Venice

This was never a strong article. When looking around the www I could not find any indication of the company/operation having endured, it would seem to me they folded; probably even quite a while ago. Should the article be put up for deletion? Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It was only ever a brand of Jet Ops Europe a travel operator, I would say add a mention to the parent and delete but the parent doesnt appear to be noteworthy for an article either. So deletion seems reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ural Airlines Flight 178

The Ural Airlines Flight 178 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomson Airways flight BY-1526

Pierre5018 has created Thomson Airways flight BY-1526 after I objected to his referring to the incident in the "See also" section of the Boeing 737 MAX groundings article, then to his mentioning it in a new "Similar events" section of that article. While he has now explained the purported relevance to the MAX groundings, I fail to see how this new article could possibly meet WP:GNG. Thoughts before I nominate this for AfD, anyone? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

no, you're right, it fails WP:AIRCRASH.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a non-notable event that does seem to warrant a separate article. Event are not notable based on what might have happened (worst case scenario) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I just PRODed this article. Or it could be converted to a redirect for simplicity. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

And Pierre5018 has just unPRODded it. Before we envisage the AfD route for this clearly non-notable event, where would you suggest it could be redirected to? Rosbif73 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

PROD has been removed by the original creator. It is a total non-incident, nothing happened. Please send it to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Today's B-17 crash

I've created the October 2019 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crash article. Am somewhat hampered by the fact that many American sources listed at the Aviation Safety Wikibase entry are unavailable in Europe. Are there any US-based editors that can expand the article from the sources listed. Ideally, the Wikibase ref used in the article needs to be replaced with the actual source. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't such article be merged into Nine-O-Nine? A section about the crash would be more than adequate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree: this crash seems not so noteworthy as to warrant a separate article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the crash would probably dominate the aircaft article. There are enough sources to ensure that WP:GNG is met. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mjroots. When I google "Nine-O-Nine", six of the first ten results are about the crash rather than the aircraft itself. - ZLEA _T\^C 11:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Google probably isn't reliable when it comes to things like this. The search criteria aren't exactly public, but it's pretty clear they prioritize recent events. The fact that the first six of ten results were about the crash is probably because that's they are about most recent information about "Nine-O-Nine." If you did the same search a year from now, when the crash isn't breaking news, do you think you'd get a different result? Fcrary (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that this crash has been the most noteworthy part of 44-83575's career since it left the factory in 1945. Unless the Collings Foundation tries to build a new Nine-O-Nine from what's left of 44-83575, I think that I would get similar results in a year. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Really? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. I'd say the "Eighth Air Force record for most missions [flown], without loss to the crews" (to quite the Wikipedia article's lead) is very noteworthy, and sets this aircraft apart from others. The fact that people tried to keep a second world war aircraft flying isn't too noteworthy. The fact that they managed to do so for 76 years is impressive, but not (in my mind) as noteworthy as the war record. The fact that it was eventually in a crash is not exactly shocking. Fcrary (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary The B-17 that crashed yesterday had no war record. The original Nine-O-Nine (S/N 42-31909) was scrapped after the war. The aircraft that crashed was 44-83575, which entered service too late to see combat. 44-83575 was bought post-war and painted as Nine-O-Nine. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm not an expert on vintage aircraft and I just looked at the article's lead. I know that's lazy, but it's what many readers do, so the lead should be written to allow for that. Fortunately, Dmoore5556 fixed that about about 20 hours ago (probably a few hours after I'd read it.) But in that case, why are we even talking about putting the crash of a reproduction in the article about the actual "Nine-O-Nine"? Fcrary (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The article covers both Nine-O-Nines, not just the original. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need two articles - see Liberty Belle (aircraft). YSSYguy (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Call sign format

There is currently a discussion on Call sign formats for all accident articles at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. - Samf4u (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I find that discussion totally moot, as I posted there too. But it leads to a more general point: in most airline articles, the callsign for the airline is given in the infobox in all-caps, which I think contrary to the MOS:CAPS guideline. For example "Speedbird" for BA would be more correct imho. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Official death toll

Is there a good way to find an official death toll for the 2015 Juba An-12 crash? I find 37 and 41 as the most common numbers, and don't really see anything past initial reports on it, which is what I would prefer. I was trying to find a citation to put in November 4, and started down a rabbit hole. Any help would be appreciated (even if we have to change the article to say the death toll is uncertain and ranges from 37 to 41 or something similar). Kees08 (Talk) 07:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Uncertainty about casualty figures is the norm for accidents occurring in certain parts of the world, unfortunately. Normally, the final accident report is the most authoritative source on the matter, but in that case I'd be impressed if an official report (ICAO Annnex 13-style) was ever compiled, let alone published. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case, with the sources available, would it be fair to say that casualty numbers vary and go from there? I agree there is likely no official report. Kees08 (Talk) 15:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would use one source like ASN https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20151104-0 and add a footnote to say that other sources differ in the numbers. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ASN are very reliable, and will make corrections if new information comes to light. Aviation Herald is also trustworthy. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion- Should Cecelia Cichan be mentioned by name?

At the talk page for Northwest Airlines Flight 255. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Notable enough

There was an aircraft accident today in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I was wondering if it was notable enough to start an article, see here. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The standard is WP:AIRCRASH, which indicates it probably should. - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You can note someone else started it: 2019 Busy Bee crash. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

International flights that crash in a third country

There has been a discussion on my talk page regarding international aviation incidents. The question is: if a flight from country A to country B crashes in country C, should it be included in templates/categories for aviation incidents in all of A, B and C, or C only. Examples: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and China Eastern Airlines Flight 583. As this issue affects numerous articles, I'm posting the question here to gain a wider consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• A, B, and C: my view is that a plane crash affects its origin and destination countries far more than the place en route where it happens to go down. Therefore it should be considered to occur in all three countries rather than C only. -Zanhe (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, If it crashes in country C then that's the only "accidents and incidents in X" category it belongs in. What if the airliner was owned by country D, manufactured in country E, the engines were from country F, the pilot from country G ... ? DexDor ^(talk) 06:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't muddy the waters with tangential factors. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, for example, is in three categories: 2014 in the Netherlands, 2014 in Malaysia, and 2014 in Ukraine (A, B, and C). Should Malaysia and Netherlands be removed? -Zanhe (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your question was "should it be included in templates/categories for aviation incidents". DexDor ^(talk) 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment When I wrote the templates it was strictly by the location of occurrence: for example the template for crashes in Mainland China included crashes only occurring within Mainland China. For the Brazil template I did add a footnote saying that AF447 crashed in international waters nearby (the Brazilians did try to do search and rescue ops), but I emphasized that this was international waters.

We could have a separate template where it is "crashes of German airlines" or "crashes of Brazilian airlines" et al to record by the country of the airline.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO that'd be over-navboxing. Not every fact in the article needs a corresponding navbox. More navboxes would add workload for editors without adding much benefit for readers (most of whom don't even see navboxes at all). DexDor ^(talk) 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I've relied on navboxes increasingly is because otherwise "see also" sections become hard to maintain/add to. It is true "most of whom don't even see navboxes at all" because mobile phone views of Wikipedia don't show them. This is something that needs to be fixed. It is also true that "Not every fact in the article needs a corresponding navbox" but airline of occurrence is prominent as it means the investigation authority of that country gets involved in the air crash investigation. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Template is aviation accidents and incidents in Mainland China. The other such templates are specifically by country. Kiss it simple, accidents go where they happened. As I pointed out elsewhere, the consensus is accidents and incidents in airport articles are placed where they happen. A flight that takes off from Foo Airport and crashes at the Fooville Airport only gets listed at the accidents and incidents section of Fooville Airport's article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Viking Aircraft Inc.

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Aircraft Inc.. Please note the nomination also includes two aircraft type articles: St Andrews Viking and Viking Aircraft Viking II. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tadeusz Arentowicz up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Tadeusz Arentowicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The world's largest aircraft by wingspan has found a new owner, and a new mission

It was announced today that the new owner of the Stratolaunch will be Cerberus Capital Management, along with all the assets of the former Paul G. Allen company, Stratolaunch Systems. A new mission was announced by the CEO yesterday: offer "high speed flight test services". I've updated the articles, but did want to invite a review by interested aviation wiki editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Aviation since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Airspeed Aviation

I have re-purposed the article at Airspeed Aviation as a disambig page. It was originally a stub about a defunct airline and all that information is, for now, still there. But I am not expert with the disambig system, so any help in cleaning up my efforts would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a correct move, but premature: as long as all proposed links are red links, there's no need to disambiguate between them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Up for AfD

The page has been put up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airspeed Aviation. I think that one of the companies it listed is notable, so I have now repurposed the page as a stub article on that company. Either way, all contributions to the AfD discussion will be welcomed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401

Are ghosts really that important aspect of air accidents, seems to be a feature of Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 according to recently added content. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If its what makes the crash relevant in the modern times and popular culture then it clearly is, it would just be another 70's plane crash but because of the ghost stories around it there are books, TV shows and countless websites and youtube videos concerning the flight and its fate. You can't pick and choose what makes it renowned in the present. The paragraph on the page is also sourced.86.186.148.190 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with our IP editor. There is plenty enough RS to make the accident at least as notable for the ghost phenomenon as for the loss of life, if not more so. It just means we have to handle the ghost stories with due regard to WP:NPOV and clarity. I have responded more fully on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Airline_fansites This discussion at WP:RSN about the use of enthusiast websites as references may be of interest.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the discussion - I duly added my 0,02 € :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Malakal Airport

User @Hamzamathiw has changed the sole operator at this airport to Badr Airlines; however our article on that airline does not mention Malakal as a destination. Neither do I see a verifiable source for the change. I feel inclined to revert, but prefer to discuss first. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For lack of reaction, I will indeed revert. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

List or categorize near miss incidents.

While researching aviation accidents, I just stumbled upon the 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, that could have resulted in 677 casualties, if not for the near miss, of which I had no knowledge of. The only other near miss I remembered was the recent Air Canada Flight 759 since I saw it on the news at the time. It could have collided with 4 more aircraft and have nearly 1000 casualties. Aviation accidents are well documented and listed in several ways, by year/country/airline/model of aircraft. But these notable near misses, of which I'm sure there's more, aren't all listed in any page I could find on Wikipedia, or even in the categories at the bottom of the page. I suggest creating a new category, and for better visibility and user engagement, a page, with a title like "List of near miss aviation incidents" The List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft page lists all incidents by year, and the near misses are also listed amongst them, but being able to see only other incidents like it could be valuable.Talkkaris (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Talkkaris: I'm not sure we need either the category or list. To start with, what is meant by a "near miss". The Windsor incident could be argued to be a near miss of sorts. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Oh yeah I know that incident with the cargo hatch. Now that I think about it more, I'd describe a "Near Miss" as an "incident or accident, where there were no fatalities". An accident is an incident where something bad happens (an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.) so the 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident technically is an accident, one of the planes had to be repaired and there where injuries, so it's not just an incident, but an accident. The Gimli Glider is also an accident, but the Air Canada Flight 759 is an incident. If a page is too much, at least one category so you can access all available articles without having to google such incidents and then checking if there's a wiki page. Possible name; Airliner/Aviation accidents and incidents with no fatalities.Talkkaris (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Here's another incident; Continental Airlines Flight 1883.Talkkaris (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify here, in normal aviation safety usage an "accident" is an aviation occurrence that results in human injuries, death or damage to an aircraft or ground facilities. An "incident" is where there is potential for injuries of damage, but where none occurs. A "near miss" is an incident, not an accident.

It also bears mentioning that the term "near miss" is generally not used in aviation safety writing, you only find it in non-technical sources, like the general news media. If you "nearly miss" that means you hit each other. The correct term is "near collision" or "potential collision". - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I can see some merit in Talkkaris's suggestion. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents without fatalities would be a good name. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

These articles are already in about 7-8 categories so probably don't need more. A "... without fatalities" category wouldn't (afaik) fit into a wider category. DexDor ^(talk) 18:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The parent category would be Category:Aviation accidents and incidents. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of move discussion for Death of Aaliyah

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been proposed to be moved from Death of Aaliyah to 2001 Marsh Harbour Airport crash. Discussion is located at Talk:Death of Aaliyah#Requested move 31 January 2020. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pegasus Airlines Flight 2193

As luck would have it, I'm shortly going out. Pegasus Airlines Flight 2193 has crashed at Istanbul. A/c broke into three sections. Will leave the creation of an article to others that have the time to devote to it. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Aviation accidents essay discussion

The essay WP:AVILAYOUT-ACC was recently invoked to justify rearranging content on 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. This essay appears vague and inconsistent with the layout of a number of good articles. I went to start a conversation on the essay Talk page about these inconsistencies, and found an attempt had already had started and fallen dormant, so I revived the discussion. Please join the discussion there. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about use of non-reliable sourcing at Sukhoi Su-35 - a GA

Please see the discussion Talk:Sukhoi_Su-35#Unreliable_sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about inventory source for Finnish Air Force

Kindly please see the discussion on Talk:Finnish Air Force. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Smith Featured article review

Ian Smith has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Slowed rotor

Just come across the Slowed rotor article. It came across as total fanboi, as if it were a standard term and widely used. I have toned that down a little bit, but it is full of micro-facts, especially the inevitable list of aircraft, and I think it would benefit from some fresh and experienced eyes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

2019 Addison King Air 350 crash

I'm not convinced that this is a notable accident, but also not sure that it isn't. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL light aircraft accident, nothing notable about it, no lasting effects. It is very hard to get any aircraft crash article deleted at WP:AFD, because "gosh every last airplane accident is notable", but you could try under WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I just nominated[4] this crash article for deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here[5] and here[6] are two other aviation accident articles up for deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Avialogs - free access

I have just seen this in an advert on Facebook. I have no connection with the company, nor have I taken up the offer - but some of you may be interested:

https://www.avialogs.com/join-now

Only 15 days left to redeem the offer.

With the current COVID-19 crisis going on and stay-at-home orders, Avialogs is offering during April a completely free and full, three months access to its library.

You can access thousands of flight manuals and other technical docs. The access is totally free, no catch, no payment information asked. The only requirement is to join before the end of the month.

Stay safe.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Proposed Aircraft Manufacture Aircraft Section Table

Please see the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Proposed Aircraft Manufacture Aircraft Section Table. –Noha307 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Transall for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transall until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Courtesy note, as filer of AFD didn't do any notifications - BilCat (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Scoping market projections

If anyone has any opinions on whether or how WP:CRYSTAL applies to airline market projections, there's a discussion at Talk:Airliner#Market projections. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Pacific Flying Club

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Flying Club. - Ahunt (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Government of India has released some accident reports online

The government of India (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) has released some accident reports online. I made archives of the PDFs on the Wayback Machine. They include:

• Indian Airlines Flight 257 (1991-08-16) - Final report
• Indian Airlines Flight 491 (1993-04-26) - Final report
• Sahara Airlines crash (1994-03-08) described at Boeing 737 rudder issues - Final report
• 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision (1996-11-12) - Final report

Also there is now an archive in PDF format for Alliance Air Flight 7412 (2000-07-17) - the text format version was already released

Indian Airlines Flight 605 (1990-02-14) had its report uploaded by the FAA but now I also have the URL for the copy at the Directorate General of Civil Aviation website. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Like - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD nomination

Hello, I recently nominated Bay of Bengal Cooperative Air Traffic Flow Management System for deletion; the AFD can be found here. Sharing this here as I felt it was relevant to this WikiProject. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Flight Simulation

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Flight Simulation may be of interest to this project. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Project newsletter

Would anyone be interested in a monthly WikiProject Aviation newsletter? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming for British aircraft

On a related note - if the project consensus naming convention is manufacturer designation name - why is this not applied for almost any of the Avro, DH or Bristol aircraft? - NiD.29 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the issue with Avro, Bristol etc that isnt in guidelines? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is most obvious with DH - but for instance, de Havilland Tiger Moth should be de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth - for several reasons. There were a number of duplicated type names - two Tiger Moths and two Giant Moths etc. Sorting the names is easier when they are all done automatically by their type numbers, which then puts them in their correct chronological order. Same with many of the Avros - all of which had numbers, but not all had names. Before I began the tedious task of renaming hundreds of pages (to which someone would no doubt object) and then having to fix their corresponding wikidata and wikimedia entries to correlate.) I wanted to bounce it off folks - find out if there was a why beyond simple inertia. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The naming convention instruction at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aircraft says: "In general, aircraft articles are named by their manufacturer, then by name and/or designation number" With a note on the subpage "In some cases, the type may not have a designation or name, or its inclusion would not make sense to meet the common name criteria". The DH.82 aircraft is known most commonly as "de Havilland Tiger Moth" but the obscure de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth is differentiated with its number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Except in some parts, the number IS used as much as the name, such as in Canada (where there were multiple variants in use), and by those who are familiar enough to realize there is a possibility for confusion - moreso than for many of the USAAF types that have their designation even though the US was a minor user and the type was known more often by the name (think Vultee A-31 Vengeance). It still does not explain the omission for the rarer types where the RAF (which was the biggest user not using the designations) was not a user. The rule you mention was intended for aircraft like the Concorde, where the full name was a significant problem - that should not be the case for the de Havillands and others I mentioned. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There's always been a lot of "inertia" when it comes to renaming British aircraft to follow the guidelines, usually falling back Common name. The same thing exists with missiles and rockets, where the manufacturer usually is not included in the title, but it is for many British missiles. It drives us "symmetrists" nuts, but all of Wikipedia is that way to some extent. Sometimes it's easier to just.let it ne than to.try to force square pegs to accept round holes. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Project consensus cannot override the WP:COMMONNAME policy - see also its explanatory supplement on WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Common names are not systematic, they are memorable and evocative. So we go with evocative and keep the official designations for when they help us disambiguate in a natural way (or, of course, where the official type designation becomes the common name). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)