Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for help

The biography of Moye W. Stephens appears to have been created by a well-meaning family friend, and is a bit of a mess. If the name rings any bells, it is because he piloted Richard Halliburton around the world in 1931 and helped found Northrop. I have done what I can but the article is poorly merged and virtually unsourced. This is my first posting within the aviation project pages. Does anyone here have the energy or expertise to help? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Also, I tried to add the category "aviation articles needing attention" but could n't manage to. Please do so if you can! Thanks BrainyBabe (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 380

This article has been nominated for AfD, there is no discussion on the talk page. Thought you would like to know. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reasons are provided on the AfD page. My guess is that this is the third place this material appears it, if not more. I guess the question is, is this flight so notable as a flight that it needs an article? I would have to do some digging, but I would be hard pressed to say we need to cover this in multiple articles and will likely chime in with a delete. It is a news item for the most part, and a passing moment in time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New task force

I've just finished moving/re-naming the Red Bull Air Race task force to the new Air sports task force, expanding its scope beyond the 21 Red Bull articles to include other Air sports articles. The only issue now is how far to expand the scope. Air sports lists the following activities, should they all be included in the scope:

• Aerobatics
• Ballooning
• General aviation
• Gliding
• Hang gliding
• Human powered aircraft
• Model aircraft
• Parachuting
• Paragliding
• Ultralight aviation
• Wingsuit flying

Are there any topics missing? If gliding and ballooning include, should gliders and balloons be included as well?

If you have any interest in these articles please join the task-force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Settling with power

Settling with power has no cites or references. Is this article accurate? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks closely related to the Vortex ring article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 737 now open

The peer review for Boeing 737 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for UH-1 Iroquois now open

The peer review for UH-1 Iroquois is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Helicopters

What is the wingspan of a helicopter?? is it suposed to be the rotor diameter?? Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_ΞΞΞ_} . -- 8:41, 12 January 2008

Helicopter specifications normally use rotor diameter and not wingspan. So the answer to the question is zero unless they have wings fitted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Varig Flight 254

Varig Flight 254 needs the attention of an aviation enthusiast who can read Portuguese. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied material, inappropriately sourced, in aviation articles

I have been coming across a number of aviation articles that "incorporate text from" a given source. Just putting a generic disclaimer that material is copied from a source is not proper referencing. If text is copied, it needs to be put in quotes or set aside in a block quote. See WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW. It is very painful, later on, to try to separate inappropriately sourced material from new writing by other wikipedia editors. The general disclaimer sullies all the writing in the article, suggesting any/all of it is merely copied material. For examples, see Arnold Air Force Base‎, Airspeed indicator, Edwards Air Force Base. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Copying directly from a source is not against the rules as long as it is public domain info (not copyrighted). Only copyrighted info needed to be quoted. Unless it's an important quote from someone, it should be rewritten, imo. Text should still be sourced. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• A discussion about the style for PD text is under way at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Style guideline for PD sourced content. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with project tag

I've noticed your project tag, when inside the project banner shell, causes a space in the listing. See Talk:Boeing for an example. It's happens every time it's in that template. Can someone fix it? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill fixed it for us. It had been annoying me too. ;) Woody (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming of articles about scheduled flights which have crashed

Talk:British_Airways_Flight_38#British_Airways_Flight_38

Synopsis: Most scheduled flights fly every day, some with the same number for years and years. It's not the prerogative of Wikipedia to suddenly decide that a flight number of a scheduled flight which has a minor crash suddenly means "crash". It doesn't. BA Flight 38, for example, is not a "plane that crashed", it's a scheduled flight to China which, on one particular day, was involved in a non fatal incident that's pretty insignificant. The correct title would be something like "British Airways Flight 38 incident". I appreciate that this may be how you record these on your aviation websites, but this is a general purpose encyclopedia.

Since this is a general issue which applies to all air crashes I am posting here for your comments. --kingboyk (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you bring it up here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961?

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? I have never seen one?

If the list has country info for each passenger that would be good. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 190

Has been nominated for deletion, just a 'heads up'. The article looks reasonably well written to me and referenced, seems to hinge on notability. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for EasyJet now open

The peer review for EasyJet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of Future of air transport in the United Kingdom now open

The peer review for Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of scope

Are rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a aviation project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to {{Infobox Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force with them, just like the Military aviation task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• In general, rockets, missiles, space hardware are separate from aviation but they all are under aerospace. I think it's close enough to include them under the Aviation project provided there's not a more closely related project out there. Some of the rocket articles will fall under WP:SPACE too. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation?

The spec templates I've seen for fighters (& maybe other aircraft) don't include fuel capacity. I'd suggest they should... I also notice there's some confusion if you try & add type of propellor, which attaches (in the template) to the engine, rather than coming in on a separate line. Trekphiler (talk) 11:10 & 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated question replied to on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Planes...

Hello members of WikiProject Aviation,

I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.

Please let me know if you;re interested!

Bluegoblin7 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• And there's a couple aircraft ones on wikia.com too. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! Trekphiler (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fighter tactics

As an idea for a new page (copied from Talk:Battle of Britain):

Boelcke is credited in the article. It states that Lützow and Mölders developed their tactics based on his principles - this in its self is a loose assumption. Although the element of suprise (the need to see one's enemy first) is covered in the article Dicta Boelcke, Boelcke did not really cover the "how" this was to be achieved in relation to the style of formation. Lützow invented the Finger four as the "how", while Mölders addapted its manoeuvrability with the "tac-turn". Lützow came up with the fundamentals, which I think was the basis for flexibility. Dapi89 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. (Unclear, again. I should change my username to Mysterio or something! =D) Knowing Boelcke codified the principles, I was wondering if Lützow et al. just reiterated, or added. Looks like he & Mölders made significant additions.

Can this be linked in somehow? I'm thinking of a link to something like a "fighter tactics" page (I don't see one) where the developments can be covered in more detail, & where others, like Chennault & Thach can be included. Comment? Trekphiler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think this would make a good article. Perhaps we could branch out a little further to include the Western Campign as well, to include French doctrine. Dapi89 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking much broader, going WW1 right up to today. I'm just not sufficiently versed to name too many others, tho now, "Boots" Blesse (?) comes to mind. ("Learn to love the vertical.") Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of the Battle of Britain

As an idea for a new page (copied from Talk:Battle of Britain, also copied to Military History Project):

Any thoughts on a link out on mistakes made by both sides & potential consequences? Chances of Ger victory, RAF attacking German bases (per Allan), that like. Trekphiler (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. This would be rather speculative, perhaps branching into Alternate history (of which I am a fan!). I mean, the consequences of various mistakes made were realised on the German side, as for the British it would seem quite obvious consequences of continued mistakes would have led to defeat - but it would be debatable if this would have enabled a successful Op. Sealion. You probably wouldn't be able to satisfy everyone, and it could turn into an problematic article with editors squabbling over the unprovable. My own "2 cent" would be that RAF attacks on German bases would have been a waste of resources - precious fighter pilots would have been lost that were needed for defence. I suppose even if they bailed out they would be lost - perhaps experienced leaders like Bader and Tuck would have been lost at a crucial time unlike the relatively "safe" period of 1941-42.

I tend to believe that even with total German air-superiority it would have been close run. Much has been said about the lack of anti-shipping experiences and training in the Luftwaffe, but it effectiveness over Scandinavia, and Dunkerque proved its potential. Ships did not have to be sunk to be removed from the battle. A relatively small operational area would have benefited the Germans interception rate against R.N forces.

Having said all that, I suppose I could conjure up some good references of prominent aviation historians view points on this subject. I think I can find some material on Overy, Macksey, Price and I think Bungay's opinions on this. This will avoid too much heated debate in such an article. Would this help? Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's possible to offer unbiased thoughts on the possible effects. I think of Allen in Who Won?, Macksey's Hitler's Mistakes, & Quarrie's Hitler: The Victory that Nearly Was (some points of which I disagree with...). (In a similar vein, but OT, John Hughes-Wilson's Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-Ups looks at failures.) Further off are the Cowley What If? 1 & 2, & Deutsch & Showalter's What If. Maybe it's speculative, but without knowing what didn't happen, it's hard to appreciate what did. I'm not suggesting going as far as Macksey did in Invasion, let alone SS-GB (& certainly not that laughable garbage in Harris' Fatherland), but what Allen did: the Germans didn't do a systematic analysis of British targets, didn't hit a/c mfg, didn't concentrate on any 1 target, ignored commo (which would've paralyzed the Sector Control/GCI system as surely as KOing radar towers, & more EZly), that like.

On attacking German bases, I'm with Allen, again. He suggests (& I agree) a handful of dawn/dusk strikes, in the fashion of German intruder missions (or what the Brits called Rhubarbs, if I understand correctly) could have gone off with slim chance of German interception (even FC had trouble against intruders, & that was with CH/CHL, Observer Corps, & a well-prepared organization to deal with them) & the potential to do crushing damage. This also falls under the "what if" I'm talking about: what might the effects have been had FC used its Blenheims for this? Allen makes some suggestions; is there evidence for it? Not just "I say so", but actual evidence. I'm not sufficiently aware, but I'd guess there's a pretty extensive literature on the effects, in Britain, just judging from Allen & Macksey. Trekphiler (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased?

Comair Flight 191 and Gol Flight 1907 have their leads phrased differently.

• Comair Flight 191, or Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair. On the morning of August 27, 2006, the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet that was being used for the flight crashed while attempting to take off from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky, four miles (6 kilometers) west of the central business district of the City of Lexington.
• Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP, registration PR-GTD, on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus, Brazil to Rio de Janeiro, which collided in mid-air with an Embraer Legacy business jet on September 29, 2006 over the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. All 154 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 737 were killed as the aircraft crashed into an area of dense rainforest, while the slightly damaged Embraer Legacy landed safely with its seven occupants uninjured.

Which one is better? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the 2nd one better, since it says what type of plane sooner. But there's no reason for them to follow a set format as long as the wording is clear. Seems like the Delta flight number should be in parentheses or mentioned later. Comair was the operator. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one. I think the first sentence has the most important info (flight type, route, operator), and the fact is airlines number flights based on route and not aircraft type, so to say "Flight 1907 was a 737" is technically incorrect. Also, "Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a..." is against WP:LEAD, which states "Avoid links in the bold title words." I take this to mean that if you want to link to Gol Transportes Aéreos, you're going to have to do it later in the intro, like the first example. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor for the same reason that Flight 191 was "a scheduled US domestic passenger flight" , and that Flight 1907 was not "a Boeing 737". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• It actually says "Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP ... on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus ...". Not the best wording to make that clear though... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fnlayson, even though it specifies the route, if you pare the sentences to the basics it still says "Flight 1907 is a 737" when it should be "Flight 1907 is a route" - I decided that I prefer the style used by the Comair 191 intro. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I already partially agreed with that. Well whatever. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As I mentioned to Whisper on the Gol 1907 talk page, we need to follow our sources. And in aviation safety, the sources normally use the air traffic control terminology, where "Flight X" stands for an aircraft, not a route or a schedule. Thus, aviation accident reports of scheduled airlines typically refer to "AAA Flight X", where AAA is the airline. Other details such as type, route and date/time are then added. Crum375 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be Foo Flight 123 operated by Boeing 737 registration N12345 of Foo Airlines! Then you can link to the airline at the end and not in the bolded lead. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like KISS wherever I can, and I think repeating Foo right in the first sentence is awkward. I see no problem at all in wikilinking from the bolded lead. We generally like to wikilink the first instance of any linkable term, and this should be no exception. So "Foo Flight 123, a Boeing 737-800SFP, registration N12345, operating from Here to There..." would be fine. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction should be the basic facts that are covered in the article. Nitty gritty details should not be in the lead. So the registration number is not needed in the lead. I have mixed feelings about the specific model of the aircraft in the lead since that might be too much detail. I wonder if it makes sense to have an infobox with all of the details. This could be a standard presentation and get the data at the top of the article in a way that it is available for those that want it and easy for everyone else to ignore. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In general we try to follow the sources' style. There are many aviation safety publications that describe accidents, including the NTSB, ASN and many magazines, with a similar format. The lead typically describes the flight, the aircraft, the route, location and time, and the highlights of the accident and casualties, and any unusual characteristics. The aircraft type, for example, is critical to anyone interested in aviation safety, since that is almost like the subject's name in a BLP article. The crash infobox adds more details, and organizes them in a standardized fashion. Crum375 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second. It seems to get to the point sooner, where the first can't seem to decide what it's trying to say. Trekphiler (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest this should really be discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force who even have an infobox for all the details not wanted in the lead! MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruptured Duck

The article about Ruptured Duck (aircraft) has disappeared, although its contents have been merged with an article on Ted W. Lawson. Is this appropriate? Snowman (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowmanradio, see Ted Lawson's talk page on the discussion to merge. thanks, --Trashbag (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussions on one or two related pages but it certainly didn't appear to be a very comprehensive "string" with only two-three editors taking part. If the provision is already in place to identify and elaborate on individual aircraft exists, it would appear that "Ruptured Duck" has enough historical significance to warrant an article on its own. I would invite more responses or commentary before undertaking a new article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

I think that aircraft details and history are a separate topic needing its own page as a notable individual aircraft? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who had commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 73 and suggested that it should be merged into Lawson. The article only indicated that Lawson had any notability, mainly because he had written a book. Nothing suggested the the aircraft was any more notable than any of the other 15 on the raid.MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Devil's advocate checking in: I wonder whether Lawson's notoriety as well as the showcasing of his aircraft in the subsequent movie made from his book, Thirty Seconds over Tokyo would be sufficient to be the reason for chronicling the story of the aircraft. I note that it is often the representative aircraft of the Doolittle Raid, being the subject of a recent Franklin Mint miniature. When I keyed in "Ruptured Duck B-25" as a google search, I came across nearly 1000 entries on the Internet. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

I can understand the point about notability, but the original article did not give any clues to notability and as not being from North America I had never heard of the aircraft or Lawson! MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind? Snowman (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Bzuk that the aircraft would be notable because of the film and his book not particularly for anything it did in the raid! It looks like it could survive as a stand alone article with the proper citation and balance of content, the early article concentrated on Lawson and the crew not the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See:User:Bzuk/Sandbox/Ruptured Duck. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Good work Bzuk looks a lot better - one point the intro starts of with Lawson and that he flew the duck, suggest it should start of with The Duck was a B-25 flown and commanded by .. to change the emphasis to the aircraft not Lawson in the intro. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with MilborneOne - both that this is now an article about the aircraft, but that the lead should now reflect this. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been less confusing if discussion on the merge was held on the related talk pages of the articles, rather than at the military history project. See WP:Merge#Proposing a merger. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Still really a "work-in-progess" but lead has now been adjusted on the Sandbox project article on "The Ruptured Duck." Check it out now. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

(Edit conflict - commenting on Snowman) Sometimes it's just easier to discuss issues where they are brought up, beit the project or article talk pages. This discussion is a case in point too. I do think care needs to be taken that, when an actual decision is about to be made at the project level, proper notice is given to the relevant pages. Care should also be taken to inform related projects of importnt discussions. MILHIST certainly has "jurisdiction" of this subject, but so does WPAVIATION/WPAIR. THere is a Militray aviation Task Force that is trying to be a forum for discussing overlapping issues, but it is still fairly recent, and most people just go to the parent project they work with the most. BTW, if there's not a note on the Lawson page now regarding undoing the aircraft portion of the merger, one should be placed there soon directing people here, and it would be good to inform MILHIST if that hasn't been done already. - BillCJ (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Ted Lawson" page is not affected a lot by this. The introduction of the original "Ruptured Duck" article is quite good and includes the serial number; see old version of page. I think it is time to bring in the new "Ruptured Duck" now. When the new page is made I expect it will have all the relevant WP:Project tags on the talk page, and relevant projects will be notified by their members if they think this is indicated. The new page can be further edited there if needed and discussions can be continue on the new talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead looks fine to me now... but just a point of clarification: was the aircraft Ruptured Duck or The Ruptured Duck? The photo of the noseart suggests the former; the lead of the article the latter. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

After the name of the aircraft has been clarified, are there any technical difficulties with bringing the new page in? If the new page has the same name, it can not be moved in over the original page, unless the old page is deleted first. Perhaps it can be done with a cut and paste of the full page, by following the wiki procedures. If the new name is different and that page has not been used, it is a simple move procedure. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The origianl page history is still at Ruptured Duck (aircraft), so that's the place to start, since this is a restoration. It's my understanding that copy/paste from a sandbox to the existing mainspace article is perfectly fine, though I could be wrong.

Ruptured duck is a DAB page, and Ruptured Duck redirects to it. There are only two links there at this time. Would it make better sense to get rid of the DAB page? We could move Ruptured Duck (aircraft) to Ruptured Duck, and have a DAB link att he top of the page go to Honorable Service Lapel Pin. - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffaloed

Just came from the Brewster F2A page, found it titled "Buffalo". Since the a/c was officially desingated F2A, shouldn't it be renamed/moved? (BTW, I tried a page move; no go...) Trekphiler (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Brewster Buffalo and although the naming conventions would indicate is should be F2A Buffalo due to the mainly foreign useage a concensus has not been reached to move it!. I would suggest that you bring it up on that talk page again. If you get not joy then I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few other similar examples around the place where a US-built aircraft saw its most significant use outside US service, where our normal naming conventions for US military aircraft have been suspended. The Martin Maryland springs to mind. These are fine where they are. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the location of Martin Maryland, as it was not used in the US beyond intitial testing. I was the last person to bring up moving the Brewster Buffalo to F2A Buffalo. The F2A did see US service, though primarily as target practice for up-and-coming Japanese aces. - BillCJ (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If the issue was brought up for a consensus decision again, there may be a number of editors who would vote for its status as the F2A Buffalo. Trekphiler, perhaps you can restart the process and see where it would go. Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

<--Given what Rlandmann (rightly) says about the Martin 167, I'm happy to leave it. My feeling is, if it actually entered service, the original service should get priority, but in this case, I'm not strong for/against. FYI, I'm going to copy this discussion so far to the talk page there. (No need, I see... 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)) Trekphiler (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW, if anybody's interested, when I copied the page here, it was as F2A. So there. =D)

Machstream?

Looking at quiet spike, I had a thought. Didn't Sukhoi plan a supersonic bizjet? With Gulfstream, IIRC. Anybody who knows more, can you include on all three pages? Trekphiler (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Sukhoi-Gulfstream supersonic business jet (SSBJ) joint venture that was first revealed at the 1989 Paris Air Show. The proposed design had a project designation of S-21. It never really got off the ground (if you'll excuse the pun), and Sukhoi tried teaming with Boeing, but that went nowhere either. Back about 2000 there were reports that Sukhoi was still working on a SSBJ, but I've not heard much since. Perhaps someone who follows the commercial industry would know more. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21 page, but there are no references on it at all. Might be good to add some if anyone has reliable ones. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd heard Sukhoi was working on it, but not that it was the same project. I'm going to add the S-21 link to Quiet Spike, tho; maybe somebody'll come across it with new info for both. Trekphiler (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See this, particularly the subsection "Discussion". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Archtransit's unopposed RfA was indeed a surprise to me. I have always double-checked his edits, as his edits were often not quite "encyclopedic". I'm not sure I can define my suspisions further, but the term "gut instinct", also used a number of time on the ANI page dicussing him, is fitting. I think this whole matter exposes a large hole in the RFA process, in that the projects in which users spend a lot of their time editing are not notified when these users are being considered for admin status. That's too bad, because it might have saved ARBCOM a lot of embarassment in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly hoping ya'll will give Boeing 747 a checkup (make sure sources are accurately represented, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Those was checked by the many editors and reviewers during the FA review. But all his refs are web based and can be readily checked. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Very few reviewers actually check sources, so I'm not sure a spot check wouldn't be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another thing, I hope a lot of you will add Boeing 747 to your watchlists, since someone has to keep it in shape now and watch for vandalism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Sure. But that doesn't apply to the editors working on it such as me... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• More, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched progress on the 747 FA and I saw nothing that worried me, in all the recent conversations on this chap it has been noted that his aircraft article edits were accurate and in good faith. During that process Archtransit and Fnlayson where supplying alternating edits, I regard both of these editors as being very thorough as I do the other regular editors in this project. I do not believe that 'jerrymandering' got the 747 article to FA status. Whatever else he may have got up to does not affect us here and I see no point in prolonging this matter as he has been indefinately blocked in any case. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, just need to make sure you all have had a good look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a fair concern. I think the references got spot checked while we were adding them back in Nov and Dec. I'll check a couple closer to verify sometime. Maybe I can replace a web reference with a book one while I'm at it. ... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft parts industry

Good day all, has anyone taken a look at the Aircraft parts industry article. Sadly, Aircraft part redirects to this same article. This whole thing reads like a bad advertisement. Personally I think an article defining what an aircraft part is should be seperate from the aircraft parts industry article. Thoughts? Any help with the clean up would be appreciated. --Trashbag (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• What all do you think should be in an Aircraft part article? Doesn't seem like there'd be much, unless example parts were listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I just rolled it back to a far less advertisement-like version from mid 07. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I saw the pre-revert version, Lordy! The lead does not match the title. A useful article could be made out of this, the issue of bogus parts does not seem to be mentioned for instance. There is a daft section that says Boeing and Airbus control the standard of spare parts, it would be the FAA and EASA that control any standards. This looks like a copyvio to me. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To answer "what do I think should be in an Aircraft part article?" First, a definition by the FAA (14 CFR Part 21) & other regulatory agencies as to what an aircraft part is, what a life limited part is, what a flight critical part is, What a Material Review Board is & other aspects of manufacturing a part, under the FAA what is an Owner Produced Part, the issue of suspected un-approved parts, trust me this subject could be huge. I'll start hacking away but as always any help would be greatly appreciated. --Trashbag (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You are right, I had to delete all the external links. Please add any regulatory links like the FAA etc. I have experience in this field as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, I really quickly threw up an outline on the Aircraft part article. I'll start filling in the meat tomorrow as I have a beautiful woman in my lap right now (don't get any ideas as it's my adorable three month old daughter ;-) ). Fill free to add any more topics to the outline. --Trashbag (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Prince Bernhard

This might be useful: [1] I knew about the Lockheed F-104 bribe but not this one. Netherlands operated F-5s. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Task force question

Hello, I'm new to this project and I'd like to know whether I can create a taskforce on Australian aviation topics. Can I proceed with this or are there any objections? Littleteddy (roar!) 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3 days have elapsed and there have been no objections. I will go ahead with the taskforce creation. If there are any strong objections, I will gladly 'destruct' the taskforce. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt if a task force of one will work too well. You should wait to get support of others that will help. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I thought the same and I haven't developed it yet. If nobody replies at all I'll just db-author all of the pages. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If this goes ahead, or if anyone decides to create any taskforce, I'd suggest taking a look at these instructions for creating a standard taskforce. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated Liberator I

Hello,

I found the article Consolidated Liberator I on the notability backlog, it has been around with a notability tag for almost a year. From the talk page it seems that a merger into B-24 Liberator has been discussed, but consensus has not been reached (see Talk:B-24 Liberator).

To me, the Consolidated Liberator I article seems a bit strange, overly detailed, and might well be a merger candidate. But I'm not a subject matter expert. Perhaps it would be good if some people from this project could look into the matter. If you have comments, they might best be placed on Talk:Consolidated Liberator I. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuching International Airport Flights

Hi, this article was recently created and I just happened to see it. I have checked on the Heathrow Airport article and that airport does not appear to have a similar page to the one above. It was originally named KCH FLIGHT INFO with no exlanation in the article of what KCH meant. I moved to the above title. The content (what little there is of it) within the article seems as if it could be covered on the airports article. So I was just wondering if it is the norm for these types of articles for airports, and if not should the article be perhaps redirected to Kuching International Airport with any relevant content moved? I am loathe to simply put it forward for AfD because the article creator seems to have done a fair bit of work on it, however I am just unsure as to whether it is notable enough for an article and would appreciate someone fromt this projects input. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WPAVIATION: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 33 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aviation law and industry groups in a sorry state

There's a core subject matter which is in a real sorry state at the moment, specifically Aviation law and relevant industry groups (IATA). I've started by updating Template:Commercial air travel to improve cross-referencing to these articles as well as tagging them to relevant projects, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with some spare time and knowledge of these topic areas is strongly encouraged to help out wherever they can. Thanks, Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighter categories

The fighter categories seem to be in need of work. Category:World War II fighter aircraft has subcategories for German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Soviet and Romanian WWII fighters, but for instance no British or US WWII fighters. That means no Hurricane, no Spitfire, no P51 Mustang.

There are Category:Fighter_aircraft_1930-1939 and Category:Fighter aircraft 1940-1949 whose subcategories should contain most of the relevant aeroplanes, but the World War II category navigation for the American, British, Australian, French, etc, fighter aircraft is non-existent.

I suppose I could jump in and make appropriate categories but perhaps it would be better to discuss first. Thoughts? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft which is the sub-project involved in aircraft categories. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

METAR

METAR is being moved around because of a town in Israel called Meitar. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviation navigation box

{{Aviation lists}} is a nav box used in more articles then those listed in the box. While Wikipedia:Navigational templates is only an essay, it states 'A navigational template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles for the purposes of facilitating navigation between those articles.' Since the nav box in question is clearly not used for that purpose in most applications, I think we should limit it's use. Clearly categories are widely used and support finding more related information then this nav box. In the case of say airlines, it does not aid in navigation within the airline articles. The same can be said for aircraft and airports. Many of these articles already have other nav boxes that do a much better job. We really should limit the use of this nav box to those items included in the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - I find that it's incredibly useful being able to jump straight from any aircraft to the List of aircraft, the List of aircraft manufacturers, the List of aircraft engines, and the List of aircraft engine manufacturers. I think it's great having this "mini portal" in each and every aircraft article. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was sweating there for a bit as I've added it to a lot of articles and was under the impression that it could be used in all aviation articles. I also find it very useful when editing. Nimbus (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it's widespread. It predates WP:Aviation - it was developed by WP:Aircraft in early 2004 and since then has been included in practically every aviation-related article. WP:Aircraft specifically advises including this navbox in articles within its scope; I'm not aware of any similar advice in other aviation-related WikiProjects. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also like it & find it useful. It's a great way to encapsulate the "world" a given aircraft lives in. Trekphiler (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So this is useful for the aircraft project. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 737 A-Class Review

I've submitted Boeing 737 for an A-Class review. Inviting all to review and share your comments. Trevor MacInnis and others have done a lot of work. --Born2flie (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Frequent Flier Program

I notice that Frequent Flier Programs are included with the respective Airline article. Are there any exceptions?--Novelty (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to ask WikiProject Airlines --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List of nicknames by nickname?

Is there support for a List of aviators by nickname? Trekphiler (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticing no objection, you may find it here. Trekphiler (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Flight Simulation devices

I came across Advanced Flight Simulation devices and added it to your project. I feel it needs some attention from experts in this field. Apart from needing wikifying, I have concerns about potential bias and spam. Most of it seems to have been written by one new editor. Images have been flagged for deletion. I think it either needs to be merged with Flight simulator or some explanation added of why it is 'advanced'. Anyway, I will leave it in your capable hands. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be based on a limited range of company products and ignores the second biggest simulator company Thales Training & Simulation. Agree it needs a some work and is probably better merging most of it with Full Flight Simulator. Advanced is just a marketing name and has no real meaning. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article quality standards

I'm putting this here, because if I put it on the assessments talk page, it will be weeks or months before someone reads it. Okay, I must've been sleeping or misunderstood. Why is A-Class a higher quality than GA-Class? I didn't look to see if it had changed, just apparently I have misunderstood. A-Class is the highest internal to the project. Why do we go external to the project to get a consensus rating for GA-Class and then go back inside the project to rate it an A-Class? In my opinion, quality assessments internal to the project should be listed as subordinate to the community-wide assessments. If the goal is get an article to GA-Class, A-Class should be the last internal step to getting there. From there, the project works with and to meet the rest of the community's expectation for FA-Class. Just my two cents. --Born2flie (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you raise this know as I was about to post something related here myself :)

My take is that assessment is about the number of people scrutinizing the article rather than whether the review is internal or external. For instance:

• B-class - can be self-assessed (but many people prefer to ask someone uninvolved to do it for them).
• GA-class - a single uninvolved editor assessed. This can be as thorough or cursory as they conscience allows. The major criticism of GA is that the reviewer often knows nothing about the subject and the decisions are sometimes eccentric. It is also often perceived as a way of encouraging editors to improve the article in small easy steps.
• A-class - project-wide; at Milhist, the article needs to garner three uninvolved supports in four days with no opposes on significant grounds (ie breaches of policy etc). There is nothing to prevent non-project editors becoming involved. In theory, an article passing A-class has had a specialist internal review, almost to FA standard.
• FA-class - community-wide; consensus for support with no significant opposes.

Now a curious thing happened earlier this week. In a good-faith misunderstanding, Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol was sort of passed for A-class in the mistaken belief that A-class was superior to GA, which the article already has. Then an anon IP upgraded the template to A-class pass and a couple of minutes later the principal contributor updated the class to show A-class pass for all wikiprojects. So, the big question I suppose is: is this article A-class or not?

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the section: "Further Reading" when it is obvious that the author has used selections from the books when a specific page number is given. This is a list that should be incorporated into the endnotes and if a full bibliographical notation is required, then a "Bibliography" should be provided. The use of two different date standards, ISO and m-d-y is also problematic. We also have to fix that template for use in periodical citations, it places the date of the article instead of with the source but with the author, as in book title in APA style. On the other hand, the article is well-written, extensively cited and provides an interesting layout. I would question the minor points of formatting for a lack of consistency that usually is addressed in a review, otherwise it is a GA candidate, A-class, not yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

That article was the catalyst for my realizing my error. I will fix the error today, but I was looking to get a better idea of the process in the first place. A-Class then would, in essence, be the respective project's statement that the article is ready for FA-Class assessment? Kind of seems backwards, why then would we even want an article to be GA-Class if the opinion of the process is so low? We could just eliminate the GA-Class from the project quality standards and allow the rest of the Wikipedia to assess articles as GA at will. --Born2flie (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the theory but it depends on how thoroughly individual projects undertake the A-class review process. The Milhist one (sorry to bang on about Milhist but I'm a coordinator there so it's close to my thoughts) is usually rigorous. Indeed, SandyGeorgia - the deputy FAC director - has mentioned on several occasions that if an article has Milhist A-class it will have ticks in all the right boxes. GA-class has its uses: many editors like to display GA-graphics on their user page and it clearly provides a sense of achievement. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanations. Sorry about the slip-up with the article. --Born2flie (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on missilry and rocketry

There is an open RfC on the naming of missile and rocket articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamming

68.187.153.197, has been adding [2] to various articles as an external link, typically at the top of the list of external links. This practise may be considered spam. Please comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC).

Category:Airport disambiguation

The template {{disambig}} typically is used to categorize the disambiguous page itself. Also, WikiProjects normally categorized Disambiguous pages via the disambiguous talk page. Category:Disambig-Class aviation pages and Category:Disambig-Class airport pages contains such talk page categorization. However, WikiProject Airports and/or WikiProject Aviation also categorizes the disambiguous page itself. See Category:Airport disambiguation. Is there really a need to segment Airport disambiguous pages from Category:Disambiguation? If not, please consider changing {{Airport disambig}} to {{disambig}} on the so tagged disambiguous pages. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg - this has nothing to do with WP:Aviation - WP:Airports is the place to take this us. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pelikan tail vs V-tail

Can you guys come to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelikan_tail and opinate on whether Pelikan tail is different enough from V-tail to have its own separate article? There is also some discussion at Talk:Pelikan_tail --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend you also post at WT:AIR, as that is the project that deals specifically with aircraft and their components. I'd copy it over for you, but I thought I'd give you a chance to do it yourself, in case you wanted to edit or rephrase your comments. Btw, it's not "wrong" to post this type of comment here, but you'll get more coverage in WP:AIR for this item. WP:AVIATION is the parent project of WP:AIR, but it's only about a year old. WP:AIR still has more members, and many of the older ones don't watch this page as yet. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we add the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat to your style manual?

I'm going through all the pages in WP-space today that use the "Style" sidebar, trying to get a sense of whether these pages appear to be style guidelines. I know that you guys have put a lot of thought into style, language and format issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide looks like a nice page, but I'm wondering why it doesn't have a talk page; are you just getting started on this particular version? Do you want to hold off on marking it as a style guideline? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That style page is relatively new. Was started in Jan. 2008. Specific details with it can and should be discussed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

US Airline Pilots Association

Hi there. Are there any project members here who are willing to provide some POV editing for the US Airline Pilots Association article? There appear to be two opposing points of view present in recent edits to this article, and the article looks headed for an edit war. I started to remove a few inflammatory editorial comments, but have decided that I'm well out of area of expertise to clean this up any further. Perhaps the article warrants separate sections for opposing point-of-views. Any volunteers? -- Tcncv (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Farnborough plane crash

An AAIB initial report has been released into the accident. I'm unable to access it as it's a PDF file. Link to the report is on the talk page. Anyone care to take a look and expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

British Airways Flight 38

A new Special Bulletin was released yesterday into the British Airways Flight 38 accident. From news reports it looks like fuel temperature is a major factor in the accident. Link to access the PDF document is posted on the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

I've rewritted and expanded this article, it needs reassessment as I don't think it's stub class anymore. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a bit more than a "start" article and I would rate it as well on the way to a "B" class. Good work, consider using citations/endotes as well as a bibliography. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Not sure exactly what you mean there. Everything is referenced/cited. I've put the article up for a DYK. It's been assessed as B class now :-)). Mjroots (talk)

Project AfDs

I originally posted to WP:AIRCRASH, but after low response from project members there I have decided to post here as well for furhter 'expert' opinions before a couple of AfDs close. Please read 2008 Cessna Compton crash and 2008 Cessnas collision and comment on their respecive AfDs. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Z-plane

Z-739 is up. Looks insuficiently notable. Merge? Trekphiler (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue for WikiProject Aircraft, where it's being discussed. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tagged the page for merge anyhow, that ought to do it, one way or another. Trekphiler (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input

Hello. I'm soliciting opinions regarding the controversy surrounding the formation of the US Airline Pilots Association. Please see Talk:US Airline Pilots Association#Controversy and add you opinion. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Korean Air Line Flight 007

A user with a personal connection with the flight has been adding links and data to a number of aviation articles. I have just removed some external links and comments from Boeing 747 and a I have removed a large chunk of text out of the Air navigation article which completely unbalanced what is a general article on the subject. I have no opinions on the subject matter just the inappropriate placing of text and links in related articles which should be covered in the accident article. As it is always difficult when dealing with users with a personal link just checking for other opinions on the matter. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur absolutely. The additions meant that a full 1/3 of the air navigation article turned into an analysis of KAL007 incident! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open

The FAC for American Airlines Flight 11 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New article

Just dropping a line to announce the creation of a new article; General aviation in the United Kingdom. Start class at the moment, I have outlined my plans for its future development on the talk page. All input welcome. --FactotEm (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I've just listed an RfC for a dispute occurring on Talk:Arrow Air Flight 1285 over the use of a CG image to illustrate an incident. The policy implications are broader than just WP:AVIATION, which is why I've listed it there rather than here, but anyone with any insights on how this may relate to Aviation-specific articles (or in general) should chime in. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Update to project banner

I've updated the banner, hopefully improving it and automating a few things.

1. You can still rate the article however you please, but the template won't accept a rating higher than start in some cases:
   1. If you rate it A-class then you must also use "|A-Class=yes"
   2. If you rate it B-class you must also complete the B-class checklist, and all items must be "yes"
2. The sub project parameters can be shortened to "|Aircraft= , |Airports= , |Airlines= , |Gliding= , |Rotorcraft= , |Air-sports= , |Defunct= , and |Accident= ; but the old forms still work.
3. Every article B-class and below that hasn't had a checklist completed is in the new category: Category:Aviation articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
4. Banners placed on pages in the Wikipedia or User space are automatically tagged NA-Class
5. Banners placed on Template, Category, Image, or Portal pages are automatically tagged with the appropriate class.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Also, if you complete the B-class checklist and all are yes, then the article automatically gets a B-Class rating, that can't be downgraded unless you change one of the checklist items to either "no" or blank it. This will help to identify where articles need improving. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An inappropriate and likely misplaced question about skydiving

My familiarity with aircraft and related matters is limited to knowing that they're awesome. In need of an expert's help, I turn to you in the hope that skydiving is closely enough related to aviation, as web directories claim, to find one or someone who knows where to find one. I'll bug WikiProject Sports too.

Sex in freefall. Has it been done? Any details? I'm improving Sex in space for some reason, which in turn has led to researching intercourse in the closest terrestrial environments: skydiving, Vomit Comet-style planes (twice, apparently) and Antarctic research stations (yes, and let's leave it at that). It was easy enough to find (always non-personal) anecdotes and, eventually, a very unambiguous image courtesy of the lunatic fringe of the Mile High Club, but what I'm looking for now is anything that's usable in the article itself as a reference or at least a link.

Hope that wasn't too disturbing, Kizor 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? Askari Mark (Talk)

Virtual Aviation

A new article Cayman Airways Virtual about a virtual airline, highlights a growing issue regarding the status of articles about virtual resources. While most of us agree that these are not real (I hope!) and are not within the scope of WPAVIATION, some of us feel that an article such as flight simulators is within the scope of WPAVIATION for the very real aviation training provided. While virtual airlines are used primarily for entertainment, there is training going on, albeit of questionable validity. The commonality among these articles is their aviation training potential, so, my question is: is there support for creating an Aviation Training task force? This task force, with accompanying tags, would be the home for the aforementioned articles as well as many other articles that lack a specific home in WPAVIATION: flight instruction, flight test, flight instructor, Flight Training School and associated material: Aviation alphabet, and Air safety. - Canglesea (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

it's not so much a question of is there support for creating such a thing as a question of whether there's already a core of editors working together on these articles who would benefit from a greater level of co-ordination than what WP:AVIATION provides? I don't know that there are either the critical mass of articles or editors to make such a thing work, but sure - if the need actually exists, why not?

However, until and unless we have reliable evidence that any airline or flight school is using "virtual airlines" for training in any notable way, these will still remain outside the scope of any hypothetical flight training taskforce that looks after articles on what happens in the real world. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation

I accidently came to the page in IE and discovered that all the show/hide links from "Requested articles" on down are not visible. It probably needs fixing but I'm not sure how to do it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

HA! I knew you were coming! See above. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New Barnstar Image

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

What do you think? ElectricalExperiment 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Like it, but I can't help thinking you're gonna get "nice piece of tail" jokes... TREKphiler 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Biography task force?

I've already brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Aviators, military or otherwise... with little response, and since it also concerns editors here... How much interest is there in establishing a Aviator Task Force? There are quite a few aviator articles and neither Wp:Aviation nor WP:Biography deal with them directly. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I certainly would be interested as most of my research now stems around people rather than machinery. FWEiW Bzuk (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, too. I'm stronger on tech than people, but there's certainly enough need, IMO, if only judging by the #redlinks I've seen. TREKphiler 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll set it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviator task force. Come lend a hand. I'll also update the project banner . All aviator talk pages will need their banners updated. Stand by for more details. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, before i do this, what should it be called? I was going to go with Aviator task force, but then I realized that non-aviators (aviation engineers etc.) could be a part of this. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation biography task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Aviation biography would definitely be more appropriate - or even Aerospace biography if you wanted to include (for example) astronauts and rocket scientists. I seriously question whether there's the critical mass at the moment to make an aviation biography taskforce workable; so it might help to cast the net wide! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• ^ "Aerospace biography task force" sounds good. That'll cover for pilots that became astronauts for example. WP:SPACE covers space but does not appear to have a biography taskforce. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Aerospace biography task force", for sure. That lets us include broadly, from Neil Armstrong to Robert Goddard to Geoffrey de Havilland to Pancho Barnes, if we want. TREKphiler 08:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I just dropped a note over to WP:SPACE, asking them if they want to jointly manage such a taskforce. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you let us know here what the tag will be I will jump the gun and start tagging. I suggest Biography=yes for consistency with other projects. - Canglesea (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that'll work. In fact you can start adding them now. Until the banners updated they won't do anything, but when it is we'll be ahead of the game. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, its done. See the result, and join up at, Aerospace biography task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Category "Seaplanes and flying boats"

The name of this category suggests that flying boats are not seaplanes. Perhaps the intended distinction was between floatplanes and flying boats. I suggest that the overall category should be 'Seaplanes', sub-divided into Floatplanes, Flying boats and Ground-effect aircraft/Ekranoplanes. These sub-categories could then have a further sub-category of amphibious flying boats/floatplanes/Ekranoplanes (if such things existed). The same consideration applies to the Lists, of course. Any comments? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see this for some reason. As an issue specific to aircraft, I've replied over on WikiProject Aircraft and invited further comment there. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Astonaut Kelly Alert--Help Needed

Thanks to user Fnlayson for helping on the Mark E. Kelly page.

More help is needed though.

Kelly just returned from outer space as commander of the most recent shuttle mission. I've worked hard on his article but it is still only ranked class C. I need help from more editors and input on how to dramatically raise the quality and rating of this article.

Commander Kelly is currently touring the U.S. promoting America's space program. There is a planned 4 to 5 year gap in America's manned space program when the shuttle program ends in 2010.

If you could help raise the quality of the Mark E. Kelly page it would be much appreciated. People will be googling his name and reading this article as he travels on behalf of NASA.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ask at WP:Space talk page to get more help. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Huge cleanup task

A bot has created a page, here that lists aviation articles with cleanup tags on them. Check it out. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've bookmarked it, seems to be picking up redlinks? That's a fair sized list! Nimbus (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Identification needed

The photo (right) was scanned from a book which discussed a "Boulton and Paul 90 h.p. aeroplane", which I presume to be the one pictured. I notice the aircraft shown is a two seater and 90hp doesn't sound much for an aircraft of that size, but I really wouldn't know. Can anyone positively identify it for me please. Moondyne 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a Boulton Paul P.9. 90 hp was quite respectable back in the day :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks. Moondyne 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I plonked it into a stub Boulton Paul P.9. Moondyne 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

List_of_aerospace_engineers

The Title is a bit Dubious as a lot of entrants in the list are Aeronautical related, rename required ?
Have tagged with a clean-up list as per other similar "List of Engineers" Articles. But have cleaned up some of the total non entries in this and fixed others links but project Aviation members are probably better placed to sort out remaining red links, and the notability of entrants. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New C-class rating and another update to the project banner

As you may have heard, the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at our project.

I've updated the banner to accept C-class ratings, but only under certain conditions. As already happens with Start- and B-Class ratings, a "B-Class checklist" of 5 items exists. It will need to be filled out and at least 3 of the five items be "yes" in order for the article to be C-class. If all five are "yes" the article is B-Class, if less than three are "yes" the article is Start-Class. See here for an example of an article's checklist being completed and consequently upgraded to C.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The benefit of using this checklist is that it quickly indicates to other editors where work is needed by categorizing articles into maintenance categories, Category:Aviation articles needing attention, Category:Aviation articles needing attention to supporting materials, etc. If your looking for something to edit, try hitting these categories, or see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance for something to do. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS is considering using a B-Class checklist that could also assess for C-Class as you have described above however I'm wondering if certain criteria could be required to rate a C-Class. IE: 3-5 must be =yes in order to rate a C rather than any 3 of the 5? --Brad (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. Template:WPAVIATION/Class uses a bunch of if/and/or statements to allow for any variation of the yes and no replies. You would just have to remove the ones you don't want to work. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Airlines Flight 21

Talking to a local pilot the other day, I mentioned this event but it was not known to him so I started this article. I would like to know the location of the wreck and what investigation followed, what the result was, etc but since it happened more than 40 years ago, there is very little online. Is there anyone lurking here who has access to more material? It seems to be "known" that the crash was caused by an intentional explosion. Some pages say it was some kind of insurance scheme but then the sketchy info fades out. Nothing I have found says whether the culprit is known, was aboard or what the scheme was. It would by nice to increase the content before the article is 5 days old so it can make it to the front page as a DYK. 52 people died in the crash, so it should be worth checking out. All help welcome. --KenWalker | Talk 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Inside Loops?

Can somebody exlpain why Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company links to Curtiss Aeroplane Company which redirects to Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company? Exactly? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy! The Curtiss Aeroplane Company and the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company were two separate companies, the latter formed by the merger of the former with Burgess & Curtis (sic) in 1916. It would probably make sense to rewrite the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company to include the history of the earlier entity, and maybe that of Herring-Curtiss too. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Curtiss Aeroplane Company was a redlink at one point, the the page was created as a redirect back to the main article. I'm sure it happens all the time. But since I don't see how that warrants a Redirct project tag at Talk:Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, I've removed it. Were you trying to make some kind of point? - BillCJ (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not beyond there being a redirect in the first place. And it making no sense to have an article linking to itself...which still makes no sense to me.

Y'know, let me amplify that. I'd break the link as is & leave it red. A redirect to the same article, which is how it stands, is unhelpful & maybe needlessly frustrating to somebody looking for more information. A redlink, at least, makes clear there's a separate entity, but, so far, there's nothing on WP about it. I also think, unlike some, redlinks encourage new adds. FWIW. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:59 & 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's a couple sentences on "Curtiss Aeroplane Company" in the "Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company" article. So the redirect is of some help. If there's a lot left unwritten about it, then this is not a good option. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of General aviation in the United Kingdom now open

The FAC for General aviation in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Explosive decompression

Could one of the experienced project editors please take a look at Talk:Explosive decompression where a petty dispute over the nature of QF30's decompression event would benefit from another pair of eyes. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of QF30, people here might also want to participate in the AfD on the incident. Rlandmann (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular aviation pages

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Popular pages. Its an incredible list of the top 2,500 most viewed aviation related pages. I think it will be a great resource, showing us which articles need to be improved to FA status, to make Wikipedia a valuable resource for aviation enthusiasts around the world. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oregon Airports

A while back I went through a started stubs for every airport in Oregon. Public and Private. I have a user now going about an tagging the articles for proposed deletions. I am just curious of a concensus of this project of keeping these. To me it makes no sense to go through and create red-links after a seed has been placed for each field to be expanded on. Thoughts? --Trashbag (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to see articles on airports. There's a lot of factual information that Wikipedia could embrace. Planting seeds is necessary for the garden to grow. Thank you, and please keep it up. --Jdlh | Talk 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that for most airports you can find several sources. When I have added smaller airports, I try to find at least two sources to provide some text for the article. While they may be stubs, at least that are asserting notability and deleting them is more difficult, but not impossible. All articles really should assert notability and not rely on a project to say that they should be kept. The project's opinion will help but we are not the final word. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of airlines

...is a horribly messy and uneven page. I'd like to reorganize it, and bring uniform organization of all airline lists. I've created a templete {{List of airlines}} for this task. My idea is to replace the content of List of airlines with this template, and move all the content to other pages, essentially making it a disambig-type page, much in the same way List of airports in Canada is organized. I'll put the template here as well so you can have a look at it. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More power to you! It's clearly in desperate need of being broken up into smaller lists; and the List of Airports in Canada model seems like a nice way to do it :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments wanted about new changes proposed to date and other wikiliking

Recently a few editors have undertaken a widespread program of reversing the current wikilink system as well as undoing previous links. See: [3] and [4]. In the second instance, the edit change campaigning is accompanied by some unusual prickly comments, see:[5] when I came to the defence of our own prickly BillCJ. What gives? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

I can't tell too well from those contribution lists on the defense part. "Articles are not "owned" by the UK or the US" is the main comment I see. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I can make out, there is a concerted campaign to removed autolinked dates which I am am not sure is actually a policy after reading the latest MoS on dates. There also seems to be an effort to remove all wikilinks to words like World War II, Germany and so on. I don't know the exact reasoning but it seems to be centred around removing clutter. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

All I know as a relative 'newb' is that it makes life difficult when the 'goalposts' keep moving! I can see the sense in not linking very obvious words and we already have a guide that says only link once or where necessary in an article. I can't keep up with it all! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nimby, that's exactly the reason I was questioning the changes since I read and reread the MoS on dates and didn't see a "directive" nor did I find any guidance regarding wikilinking other than using common sense. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

The old stipulation was that full dates (ie day month year) should be wikilinked in order for user preferences to control how such dates were displayed, but this is no longer the case (I'll find the diff ASAP, but you can read discussion about it here). The reasoning was that it was a lot of link clutter for the sake of a feature that hardly anybody used - eminently sensible IMHO. In the wake of this, some editors have started to clear the clutter. Incidentally, the removal of this stipulation to safeguard user date preferences also removes one of the perennial objections we receive here to the "years in aviation" links.

I'm not aware of any specific concerted effort to remove links to things like "World War II" or "Germany", but would agree that most of the time such links are examples of overlinking as well. Links serve at least two major purposes: to define unfamiliar terms and concepts, and to contextualise the topic that the reader is currently reading about. In most cases, links to very broad topics like "World War II" and "Germany" do neither. It's safe to say that anyone reading an article here has some idea of what Germany and World War II are (making the link irrelevant for the purposes of definition), and most of the time, a link to a general article on World War II or Germany will not help contextualise the original topic anyway. Knowing a quick sketch of the physical geography of Germany, its demographic data, and its history back into prehistoric times does not really help the reader understand what a Bf 109 was.

Personally, my "litmus test" for such broad topics is to imagine the term occurring in a news story. If I can't imagine hearing "Germany, a large country in Europe", then I won't link it in a Wikipedia article; but if I can imagine "Sierra Leone, in West Africa", then I will. The same goes for "World War II, fought between 1939 and 1945" (unlikely, I think) and "the Malayan Emergency of the 1950s" (likely, I think).

We have to give our readers some credit, and allow for at least a little general knowledge. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's not one. WP:MOSDATE now has the full date linking (autoformatting) as being optional. There's no requirement to link full dates or not link them. I've seen a user or two take this relaxing of the rule as a mandate to remove the date wikilinks from some articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that we do 'overlink' sometimes in this project. As an example F-101 Voodoo links to McDonnell in the lead (lede?) and infobox, there are many articles like this with a bold, blue manufacturer and then repeated in the infobox, possibly someones' personal style. I prefer only to see it linked in the infobox. Glad to hear the 'avyear' feature can go on, there are plenty of first flights to be entered. Nimbus (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The bolded "McDonnell" at the start of the body text shouldn't be linked, per some-policy-that-I-can't-find-right-now. At some stage, we should formalise the relationship between the article name (ie, its spot on Wikipedia, shown in bold at the very top of the page, above "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), its title (what we put in bold at the start of the body text), and the infobox name (in bold at the top of the infobox). This question came up some time ago on the C-130 page and a little headway was made, but more work needs to be done.

Note that some people have objections to "avyear" other than just that it breaks user date preferences; but that's another fight! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the bolded name in the lead of a lot of our articles is different to the 'official' title but I can understand why and that is a different discussion of course (I don't see a great problem with the way things are in that respect). I don't go into these MOS discussions in depth but the term 'user preferences' crops up a lot. I wonder how many users are aware of the multiple functions of their user preferences? I don't really know how to use it, everything is default apart from changing my raw signature. In other words, some 'autoformat' type changes may well not trouble a large number of readers. Showing my ignorance here (again!!). I just learnt that you can make 'redlinks' a different colour if you want (but I have to ask why?!!!!!) Nimbus (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<--You're not alone. I understand dates are supposed to show up by preference if linked, but I don't see it happening (or I haven't figured out how to make it work, which is very possible...). Ditto links in the bolded lead line. I've seen it said "don't" per guideline, but never knew which one (nor cared, really); it's enough for me it looks like bad form.

Having glanced at some of the changes Colonies Chris has made, I can only say, "Now, cut that out!" I can see wanting to reduce link clutter, but this is going way overboard. The whole idea of a wiki is to link to other articles, isn't it? If this persists, it'll be little more than an online version of a paper encyclopedia...& finding, or adding, new material will be hellish hard. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:31 & 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree entirely. Now you got me 'playing with my preferences'! Managed to put in a time offset for local, marvellous! I do really believe that some of these 'formatting' discussions are carried out within a small group of editors who perceive a problem when there isn't one at all. Nimbus (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop that! You'll go blind. ;D (The monitor's already giving me eyestrain...)

OK, to be serious (rats... ;( ), I do think this is one the very techno-literate may have a beef with, but I don't see it in normal use. I also think the date & year links are useful for the very casual visitor who may just get curious about what's there. (I imagine not everybody comes here with a specific question in mind, even if the overwhelming majority do.) And I can't imagine deleting links to World War Two (geez!). How many articles are there linking back to it? Never mind the sheer effort involved (spend it on fixing redlinks or something!), it seems to me that orphans hundreds of pages somehow, by breaking a connection to where they come from. (I don't mean it literally, but there is that sense to it.) In sum, stop. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 23:21 & 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm extremely glad and gratified that the stipulation to make dates user-preference-friendly was removed, since to me, it exemplified bad policy - ie, an attempt to prescribe common practice "from the top down". The result was that the policy was widely ignored until common sense prevailed, and policy was forced to bow to what had always been common practice "from the grass roots up".

As for linking, no, we don't just link to any and every article we can; we make links when they are "relevant to the context".

Trekphiler's comparison above to a static, paper encyclopedia is a good metaphor for the undesirability of underlinking; but the opposite extreme is also ugly: this version of an article on a Canadian rock band is a horrible example, as is this version of our article on hyperlinks (I assume this latter one was a joke).

There's a trade-off, then, between usefulness (by linking) and readability (by not linking), and the question, then, is where to draw the line. When a link is not going to deepen a reader's understanding of the current topic (whether through defining it or contextualising it), we can therefore increase the readability of the article by judiciously choosing not to link.

Most of the time, links to most countries will fall into this category, and probably most links to World War II as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the use of Wiki Autodating format

There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing discussion at: [6]. Time to get involved with your reacitons and comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

Air Navigation Service (ANS) providers are missing

I think that it should also be considered to add a description of this part of aviation. Think about Skyguide, NATS, FAA, etc.

FAR of Civil Air Patrol

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs)

Aircrew member

I just ran across Aircrew member: It needs major help, starting with its sources - it has none! - BillCJ (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article creation assistance

There's a new template Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be used to assist in creating new articles. It will start things off by creating a page with all the standard information/headers/infoboxes, etc. You just have to fill in the blanks and save. It's stil in the early design stages, so check it out and let me know how it can be improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of recently promoted featured pictures

Hélène Dutrieu

Sophie Blanchard

These got filed as portraits instead of in the aviation FP section. Might be useful for portal-building. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Aviation

Template:Infobox Aviation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Circeus (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Another editor with too much time on their hands! Sheesh! - BillCJ (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The result was keep if you were wondering! Nimbus (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copywrong Police

Since the copyright police on here won't accept a copy of a copy of a US Government Public Domain photo, and I don't have the time or the inclination to research where the originals are these days, I have marked all 31 of my Pre-1940 Aircraft images for lack of source and they should be deleted on 15 August 2008. Since they are public domain I will keep them in my public collection and other Wikipedia editors will just have to try to replace them. Enjoy. --Colputt (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All the images are marked public domain but none of them give a source, it is common for uploaders to mark images as public domain when they have just copied them from the internet. I know we should assume good faith but to people reviewing the images they fall into the no source category and are tagged - despite what you have said when you upload them. So to be fair to the copyright police (whoever they are!) they only have your word that they are public domain and unless you can provide a source it is highly likely they will be deleted. Just the same as anything else on wikipedia that is not sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is currently open at MilHist. I've just added a missing section on protection of aircraft and added the banner for this project, but it needs assessing on the talk page. Please comment on the article at the Peer Review. Thanks Viv Hamilton (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Airports notability / inclusion criteria

I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Airport notability proposal in an attempt to get some thoughts on an inclusion criteria for facilities containing runways, airports, helipads, seaplane bases etc. Right now the discussion is not going anywhere, perhaps some WP:Aviation folks have an opinion, suggestion etc. Maybe no criteria is needed, maybe just a statement on the WP:Airports page stating that the project considers that any facility, past or present, containing any type of aircraft landing area is inherently notable. I think some statement should be made that can be pointed to as a reason to keep or delete essentially unnotable facilities like small, private unattended, landing strips with ICAO or some other national ID's. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 3704 articles assigned to this project, or 15.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get this set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Cleanup listing. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How often is the Clean-up page above updated? Looks like July 17 was the last time. Just wondering, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Any idea? -Fnlayson (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

According to User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings it done very infrequently, every 1-2 months. This is fine for now, because the list is so long it probably won't change very quickly. I think that as people work on it they should remove or strike the entries they fix. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. That'll be fine. I tried to address old fact tags and stuff from 2007. But I've forgotten which all articles I worked on. Oh well.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A. D. Williams Engineering crashes

Are the two crashes mentioned in this article sufficiently notable for inclusion. I have my doubts on this one as nobody notable seems to be in the list of casualties, unlike the 2008 Farnborough plane crash where two notable people were involved. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Accoding to some of the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Notability_guidelines, I'd say no. But since no guidelines have been settled on yet, who knows? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also tend to say no; the only part that even suggests notability is the allegation of sabotage; but I think it would need to be a lot stronger before these events became notable. This should probably be referred to the Aviation accident task force --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another naming question...

Ok, so I just did a first draft of North American DC-3. The problem is the project isn't really North American's. All they did was take some NASA money and draw up a budget based on Faget's team's drawings. So what should the article be named? "DC-3" is out of the question, "Faget DC-3" doesn't seem right, and "DC-3 (space shuttle)" seems like a mouthful. Comments?

Maury (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like "NASA DC-3" maybe. Where did the DC-3 name/designation come from; NASA or North American? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Straight out of Faget's mouth I think. So NASA? Hmmm, ok. Maury (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Skynews seems to take inspiration from list in the MD-80 article

See http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madrid-Plane-Crash-MD-80-Series-Accident-History/Article/200808315083166?lpos=World%2BNews_6&lid=ARTICLE_15083166_Madrid%2BPlane%2BCrash%253A%2BMD-80%2BSeries%2BAccident%2BHistory

Notice the list of MD80 crashes? It seems to originate from the Wikipedia list of crashes, but reversed in latest to earliest and with many of the details stripped out. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look at all the same to me. Maury (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Compare the entries and notice that many of the same words are used - it is just that much of the Wikipedia text was stripped away in the Sky text. See [7] WhisperToMe (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia text: "On November 30, 2007, MD-83 Atlasjet Flight 4203 crashed in the southwestern province of Isparta, Turkey, killing all 57 people aboard. The cause of the crash is unknown."

Sky text:"November 30, 2007 - MD-83 Atlasjet Flight 4203 crashed into the southwestern province of Isparta in Turkey, killing all 57 passengers."

Wikipedia text: "On September 16, 2007, an MD-82 One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 crashed at the side of the runway and exploded after an apparent attempt to execute a go-around in bad weather at Phuket International Airport. Eighty-nine of the 130 people on board were killed.[17][18]"

Sky text: "September 16, 2007 - MD-82 One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 crashed at the side of the runway and exploded at Phuket airport. More than 80 killed."

There are similarities, but many of the differences were formed by Sky News removing many of the details. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Grobs!

I need some help with this one please. I have discovered three articles covering the Grob 109 motorglider, we have Grob G 109, Grob Vigilant and Grob 109B. Needs a three way merge but I don't know where to start with this one. The Vigilant article is the most comprehensive, the Vigilant is just a 109B in military markings and not adapted AFAIK as it says in the lead . There was a G 109 (G 109A?) variant with a lower one piece canopy and faired tailwheel. I've got some references for this. I'm a bit stumped as to the best thing to do. I could use all the best bits in my sandbox to make one article. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a case study of why one should do an extensive search for other articles on the same or related types before creating a new one, Also doesn't look like there's been much cross-pollinization by the same editors either. The Vigilant has one link to the 109B, but nither of the other two link to each other or that one. I'm not too clear on the relationships between the 3 types yet, but I'd probably support one article for all 3, as the Vigilant is really only a military type in ownership. Mess! Good job finding them! - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does say check for other articles before going for it! Some of these articles have been around for a while. I spotted it because I added an image and infobox to one, then when I added the company navbox it linked to a different article! Imagine my confusion! The Vigilant article is quite good, obviously the work of a keen Air Cadet, telling us how all the controls work. I know this aircraft well (several hundred hours flying in two G 109Bs), also maintained them. Just wondered how best to sort it out without treading on anyone's toes. Nimbus (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct title to use would be Grob G 109 with the 'B' and Vigilant as variants, I'm sure we can make a nice article out of all the text available.Nimbus (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd see what the general consensus is here first, and which article they consider the prImary one (probably the G 109). Then we can post a {{mergefrom}} tag on the primary article, and {{mergeto}} tags on the other 2. Give it a couple weeks at that point to gather comments in the Merge discussion. If you want, you can go ahead and work up a combined article on your sandbox page, and then if all 3 are accepted to be merged, copy it to the kept article. - BillCJ (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Weeks! OK! My problem is that I want to fix it all today which clearly can't be done but I do note that the quality in this project is improving dramatically at the cost of some 'editorial exchanges'. Quite happy for others to comment and help, will put something together in a sandbox in the meantime. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The 109 and 109B articles are very small articles without much active editing; I'd say that a formal merge process is unneccessary in this case - just go ahead and be bold. Grob G 109 is the best-named, so material from the other two should be merged there and their articles turned into redirects. For GFDL compliance, make sure to note the source in the edit summary when merging text in. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, do the easiest merge and if there is an issue, discussion can take place in the appropriate article talk pages. (I was going to be silly and recommend that we follow BillCJ's advice and have a two week "mourning" period, but I thought better of it, whoops, I thought I was just thinking that.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Nibmus, my "weeks" answer was response to your question on "how best to sort it out without treading on anyone's toes". I do concur with RLand that it's probably not necessary. I'll be glad to help out with anything but writing new text, if you want a break in the merging chores. Just let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill, please don't take offense at my gentle ribbin', I knew what you meant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

I've got a good draft going in the sandbox now. Will have a look at the edit history a bit closer, two are by the same editor and the same text has appeared in a slightly different form (surprise!). By GFDL do you mean just leaving a clear edit summary RL? I try to do that all the time. No rest for the wicked. Nimbus (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the need for tact nowadays, BillCJ was right but you do have to be bold round here at times to get things done. The draft is here, I know there is still lots wrong with it. Nimbus (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're merging text from another article, the edit summary should explicitly say so for GFDL compliance; so when you move the article out of your sandbox and over the existing Grob 109 article, your summary should say something like "Merging in content from Grob Vigilant and Grob 109B". This acknowledges the contributions (and copyright ownership) of the authors of those articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger, will get on it soon hopefully. Nimbus (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vigilant article is a direct copyvio of this [8]. I will shuffle the words around, I am also translating text from the wiki:de article. Hope to get there soon. Nimbus (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-80#Barack Obama

There's a discussion on the MD-80 page about whether a July 2008 incident in which an evacuation slide inside the plane carrying Obama deployed should be listed on the incidents list involving the plane. Your input is appreciated. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

US-Airport Template

Cool Hand Luke asked me to come here and see if you opinion is the same as mine to replace airnav on the US-Airport Template with globalair’s airport pages. To see the discussion and reasons why I believe the two should be switched out please see the template’s talk page located here. - Neilh89 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up before at WikiProject Airports and my comment at the time was that I cant see template adds any value it is just a vehicle for external links that are not really needed. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Perhaps it would be easier to remove the template from airport articles then it wouldnt matter who it is advertising or site pushing. MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated this and related us-airport templates for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_27#Template:US-airport. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Centennial Airport and COI/POV

We have a POV-pusher on the Centennial Airport page adding info soley from an issue-oriented website. The user's name, User:NoNoise, should tell you what his issue is! I believe the London City Airport page has had similar problems. I've issued several warnings, and given detailed revert summaries, but in the end I'm called "malicious"! Admin help would be nice in this case, as I'm over my reverts. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry spelling or local spelling on aerospace articles

See here. --John (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Emerald Airways

The article mentions the AOC being suspended for unspecified reasons. Reading between the lines of the AAIB report into G-BVOV's accident, I'd say that the reasons could well be to do with the underlying cause of the accident (and possibly other incidents involving Emerald, which I've not checked out yet). Are there any editors who can add to and expand the article as I'm not sure I can make a decent enough job of it myself, being a bit out of my areas of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD A. D. Williams Engineering crashes

The A. D. Williams Engineering crashes article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Gliding

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Aviation

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Defunct Airlines

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aviation articles on the DVD release

There will be a DVD release of Wikipedia this Christmas, and many of the articles in this project have been selected to be included. The project members have been asked to select a particular version to be used, so as not to include any vandalism, false statements, etc. A list of selected articles is here, please add a permanent link to a usable version, per their example. A list of articles with maintenance tags on them is here, check them out and maybe fix them up. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fighter aircraft article could use some improvement if any expert editor has some time to spare. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

• Note the Nom's explanation! - BillCJ (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• How to make friends and influence people! MadScot (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines will be on the Main Page!!

Just checked in with Raul's TFA and Biman Bangladesh Airlines is scheduled for the 28th great job everyone. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Avaition photos source

I have a flickr friend who took many aviation photographs, and he is willing to change any of his photographs to Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike if Wikipedia wants them. I worked a lot with him on drag racing photographs (he's a huge fan of both), and he has relicensed 74 photos to Creative Commons so that Wikipedia can use them [9]. He reserved a Wikipedia account at User talk:Twm1340, but he hasn't use it yet (there are no deleted contributions). All you have to do is ask him on the photo and he will change the license. He does want you to thank him after you upload each photo so he can add it to his group, and please provide a link to the Wikipedia article so that anyone can look it up. He likes that. You can give my name if you want, he knows me as royal_broil. Here's the set of his aviation photographs: [10]. I strongly recommend using the flickruploadbot at Commons because it's real easy. Ask me if you want help explaining that part. There are many great photographs taken from all over the place, even EAA fly-in (in my backyard!). I'm not an aviation fan myself. Royalbroil 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of Melbourne Airport now open

The FAC for Melbourne Airport is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could give Melbourne Airport a copyedit, it'd be very much appreciated. A copyedit would do wonders for this article. Mvjs (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Rocket name cleanup poll

User:GW Simulations has implemented a poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll concerning GW's rename proposal found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Image:Tcollins 1039148.jpg, Image:DSCF1934d submitted.jpg, Image:DSCF6548b.jpg and Image:DSCF3754a GEZJC BRS submitted.jpg all were originally uploaded with copyright marking from Airlines.net / Jetliners.net. Uploader has a user name that indicates they may be the original copyright holder, but since they are copyrighted elsewhere, do these have to go through the Wikipedia:OTRS process? I'm asking here, because these are all aircraft pictures and I know there are plenty of admins that watch this page that can help to sort this out. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a grey area - most of the time if it seems fairly reasonable that the uploader is the copyright holder, we would simply assume good faith, but asking for OTRS verification is a good way to be sure. In this particular case, the uploader has gone out of his way to call attention to his copyright over the photo and has left copyright messages embedded in the images; to me, that makes me wonder whether he's aware of the implications of the GFDL - that while he does indeed still own the copyright, the only right reserved is the one to be credited as the creator of the image and that he has licenced away every other right. I'd suggest that it's worth making contact with him to clarify if this was his intention. If so, then the airliners/jetphotos captions need to be trimmed out - but that's something that anyone is allowed to do for a GFDL-licenced image. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, some of these are being deleted as copyvios. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aviation in Alaska

There have been several AfD debates lately related to the hundreds of small airlines in Alaska. I have initiated a conversation here in order to find some consensus on these issues and any and all input is welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New article

Flying Blind, Flying Safe -- I put it up for a self-nom at T:TDYK, so hopefully it will get to T:DYK on the Main Page in a few days. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Made T:DYK on 10 October. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pier 126 Heliport

An article within the scope of this WikiProject, Pier 126 Heliport, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier 126 Heliport. Thank you. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with new article

I have created a new article about Thunder City, a company based in Cape Town, South Africa, that owns and operates a collection of ex military jets, most notably it owns the only airworthy examples of some types. It is widely believed to be the only place that an ordinary civilain can experience a supersonic flight. I need help to get the article up to standard, I have no experience of using and applying templates, categories, infoboxes, etc. This is the first article I have started from scratch. Roger (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help, just drop a note on my talkpage with what you need specific help with. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RFD of note to your project

You guys may want to have a look at this and offer an opinion on this RFD...it involves a cross-namespace redirect that points within your project. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Alerts

B. Wolterding has created a bot called ArticleAlertbot (talk · contribs) that gives alerts to different WikiProjects, based on the project's talk page banner. Your project was interested in a bot like this one per comments on the talk page. An example of a report is here. Instructions on how to add your project are here. Alerts should be generated daily. Any feedback is appreciated, and should go here. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This new page has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts, and is linked to on the navigation banner. Keep an eye on it for deletion announcements, FAC announcements etc.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

De Havilland logo image

I just noticed that the image Image:De Havilland.png is up for CSD. It would be a shame to lose it. Self made by the editor who has possibly retired from WP, company is defunct. I would appreciate any help from image tagging experts to fix it if it can stay. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a self-made image and therefore free. The non-free logo was the wrong tag. It needs to free type license (GFDL or Creative Commons), but I doubt we could do that for the image maker. Don't know... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As de Havilland eventually became part of BAe, I'd say that the copyright could still belong to BAe. Therefore a fair use rationale would be appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A fair use rationale has been added to that image. Add other reasons for its use to the fair use template. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for fixing that. As a sidenote Bae transferred (sold?) the design authority rights for the 'classic' piston aircraft to a new company called 'de Havilland Support Ltd.' More info here [11] on their profile page. It seems that BAe still look after the classic jets though. The DHSL logo is the same as the de Havilland one with the addition of the word 'support' (can be seen on their homepage). I wondered about de Havilland Canada who have also transferred rights through Boeing and Bombardier Aerospace to Viking Air. It's hard to keep up sometimes! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UAV "Crew"

The Infobox entries for "Crew" in articles about UAV's is inconsistent. Some say "0" (zero), while others give a number for the pilots and system/payload operators, usually with a parenthetical note to say they are "remote"/not on-board. We should have a consistent way of indicating the number "crew" for UAVs. Roger (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to count off-vehicle personnel as crew for UAVs, should you not also do so for other aircraft. The UK's new Sentinel reconnaissance aircraft uses ground stations for data analysis, and the operators in those stations are doing exactly what a UAV's sensor operators are doing. Then there's the question of what to call the occupants of Mission Control during a Shuttle flight ... are they crew too? The simplest solution is to count the people on the vehicle, only, as 'crew'. Every aircraft has a group of people on the ground who have varying degrees of involvement in the operation of the aircraft, and it's difficult to think where else one could draw the line. MadScot (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The UAV controller(s) should be noted somewhere. They fly them somewhat like the pilots do. The USAF uses rated pilots for its higher altitude UAVs so they understand traffic rules and so forth. I say either note them as (controllers) or (remote) in small text. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Another solution is to introduce a "remote crew" parameter into the template for the infobox. The "remote crew" would be those actually "flying" the aircraft directly. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. However this probably needs to include the sensor operator or weapons operator. I guess the crew could be viewed as those occupying positions that replace the traditional positions on board an aircraft. Wording here could be critical. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that would work for UAVs, where all the crew is remote. How do you handle aircraft where some of the crew is remote? And where the number of such crew is somewhat random? (Depending on mission - since it's not constrained by aircraft size, ASTOR/Sentinel could in theory have a ground based component of a hundred people! Should we consider the ground based operator for a Ground Controlled Intercept aircraft as part of the crew - in some doctrines it's the ground that 'controls' the operational parameters, not the pilots. The nice thing about restricting crew to the on-aircraft portion is you can just count the seats - once you start counting people on the ground it all gets hazy. I'd suggest that it is easier to discuss the ground elements in the article but not try to put them in the infobox, because of the need to caveat the number. MadScot (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How many of the "hundred people" would be directly manipulating the aircraft or systems on board the aircraft during flight. There is a qualitative difference between pasively analysing the video feed and actually pointing the camera. I don't think there is any ambiguity - if the aircraft is manned at all then only those on-board are crew. Roger (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MadScot crew should be zero in the infobox and the ground elements discussed in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Remote crew" sounds reasonable. FWIW, we were flying in the vicinity of one of General Atomics facilities where they test Predator, one of which was up in the same airspace as us, talking to Joshua Approach. Joshua asked if they had us in sight, and they replied "affirmative". It was probably a chase plane that they sometimes use which had eyes on us, but it was rather amusing to us that the "crew" of a UAV confirmed a VFR "traffic in sight" request. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure you have to assume it was a chase plane - the crew could have been watching you with their on-board video camera(s). In South Africa during the 1994 "first democratic" elections the Air Force operated a number of Seeker UAVs for the Police to keep an eye on proceedings at some of the larger polling stations. The UAVs flew IFR under civil control and were fitted with the required transponders and radios. Roger (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What UAV infobox? Roger mentioned one, but I haven't seen one, nor can I find one. I see where several articles' specifications lists a crew of zero, though. Is this what we're referring to? In regards to UAV, I agree with Vegaswikipedian. "Crew" should refer to personnel remotely performing the same duties that the crew of a manned aircraft of similar mission would perform. Data analysis is not the same as operating a payload, therefore the Sentinel's "ground station" personnel are not synonymous with the operator for an RQ-7 Shadow, or MQ-1 Predator. This would also exclude ground maintenance personnel, and launch and recovery personnel. In some cases of UAVs, such as target drones, where the vehicle is completely automated from post-launch to recovery, and its progress is not monitored in order to issue commands, except perhaps activation of a self-destruct mechanism, I can agree that the crew is zero. But, as stated, when a human can exert control on either flight path or flight attitude, similar to a pilot, or operate a payload similar to a crewmember of a manned aircraft, then those personnel are essential to the flight function of the aircraft and should be listed or counted as the "crew". If "(remote)" needs to be added parenthetically for consensus then I am agreeable. --Born2flie (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "generic" aircraft infobox Roger (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the remote crew definitely needs to be detailed in the article; however, I'm with Madscot and MilborneOne in thinking that the specifications section is not the best place to do this. For all other aircraft, this parameter refers strictly to the personnel on board. I also think this usage is most consistent with what people expect to find in that data field. After all, the aircraft is "Unmanned".

But yes, if people must include the remote crew in the specs, then I think that "(remote)" or something like it needs to be pointed out. If not, when you read "1 pilot", the natural assumption is that this person is on the aircraft... --Rlandmann (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unmanned" just means that the pilot is not onboard the aircraft; "autonomous" would mean that it is "self-piloting" – that is, uncrewed. My take is the same as Born2flie's: "[W]hen a human can exert control on either flight path or flight attitude, similar to a pilot, or operate a payload similar to a crewmember of a manned aircraft, then those personnel are essential to the flight function of the aircraft and should be listed or counted as the "crew". If "(remote)" needs to be added parenthetically for consensus then I am agreeable." Perhaps the easiest way to look at it is "Any personnel who are essential for the successful in-flight performance of the vehicle's mission, then they are aircrew." That applies whether they are onboard or offboard ("offboard" being an acceptable alternative to "remote"). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, if "essential for the successful in-flight performance of the vehicle's mission" is the criterion then Gene Kranz was part of the crew of Apollo 13. That article does it right IMO - he is listed in the article as "crew" (under the grouping "Flight Directors") but the actual info box 'crew' is ...3. MadScot (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, if the Apollo was an aircraft then it wouldn't need to have those big fireworks pods to make it fly – after all, a successful "launch" (as opposed to a "takeoff") is one where you escape the "surly bonds". :) But I do think we agree that my suggestion shouldn't be extended beyond aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

-That's a adnormal, emergency type situation. We're discussing about crew/controllers required for UAVs under normal circumstances. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Air Europa Flight 196

I've nominated Air Europa Flight 196 for deletion as I feel that the accident is not sufficiently notable as per WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

I'm having issues with an editor on the Igor Sikorsky biography article. I severely edited information that he feels needs to remain, and in the course of reverting to the version he prefers, he has removed several valid edits that had been made since (diff). I'd prefer that other editors get involved to make it more than a him versus me discussion. If I am on the short side of consensus, that is fine, but it definitely needs more input from others. And if someone else could volunteer an RfC on the issue, it should probably be voiced dispassionately by someone uninvolved. --Born2flie (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amiot 143

Interesting problem for you. User:Threecharlie from the Italian Wikipedia was asking about a contradiction at Amiot 143#Variants: if 138 of one model were built, followed by 148 of another model, how can the total production count be only 154? Is the latter model perhaps only an upgrade, or am I missing something else? Wasn't able to find information on this quickly, and thought I should get this down before I forget about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment with #/sources here. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake; the numbers for the 143 and 143M were overlapping. My sources aren't detailed enough to fully resolve the situation, but I've cleared it up a little. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a suspicion of that, but no solid # to back it. Guessed right, looks like. (Yay! ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the quick response. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryanair accident at Ciampino

Does the Aviation Wikiproject consider that the accident at Ciampino yesterday justifies inclusion in the Ryanair and Rome Ciampino Airport articles. There is much discussion on the Ryanair talk page, and my addition of the accident (with reliable references) to the Ryanair article has been removed, claiming the accident is "non-notable". It is a very rare occurrence for an aircraft to be brought down by birdstrikes affecting both engines, and with the substantial damage suffered by the aircraft I believe that its inclusion in both articles is justified. Whether the accident justifies a stand-alone article yet or not I'm not sure. This is something that can be re-assessed at a later date when more facts are known. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that involved a 737-800, so Boeing 737 Next Generation would be the first place it should go. Airline and airport article can't reasonable list aviation incidents and therefore have a higher threshold. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Added to the 737NG article. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 296 AfD

The Ryanair Flight 296 article is currently at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Elinor Smith

Not my area at all, but we have nothing at all on Elinor Smith, probably one of the half dozen or so most celebrated women pilots of the 1920s and 1930s. Probably better that it be written by someone who knows a lot more than me about the history of aviation. Definitely should be DYK-able for whoever takes it on. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatigue

Fatigue (medical) currently has a section on aviation fatigue. It's been a source of some contention, because of its name-dropping tendencies, but on further reflection, I'm just not sure that it belongs in the medical article at all. Is there a Fatigue (aviation) article somewhere? Should one be started? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatigue has been a concern of aviation medicine for some time. The United States military services have conducted studies on the effects of fatigue on aviators since the early 70s, if not earlier. NASA began conducting studies in the 80s and has an office to study pilot fatigue and make recommendations to the industry. This became a large issue with ALPA in the 90s, specifically dealing with some proposed rule changes by the FAA. I think it is perfectly natural for aeromedical issues to be covered in general medical articles of similar topics. I also think that the information about military aviation in that article should be split into an article about the Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool, since it seems to be solely about that product and not about fatigue in military aviation operations. --Born2flie (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, "fatigue" in the field of aviation can also refer to metal fatigue. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That topic is covered in Fatigue (material), which article has not been adopted by any project yet. --Born2flie (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, I tagged Fatigue (material) for Aviation, Technology, & Engineering; anybody who thinks it's mis-tagged, take it down? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Human fatigue is a concern in just about every field of human endeavor, from driving a car to teaching kids to assembling widgets. I'm just not sure that "things that happen when someone is tired" is really quite the same as clinically significant fatigue, which is what I understand is supposed to be the subject of the existing article. I think we can all agree that "being tired because your heart is failing" is different from "being tired because you've been working for too long": The first is clearly a medical problem, and the other is largely a social one. Do I correctly understand that fatigue in aviation is largely from working too many hours/awkward times of day/not getting enough sleep/basically the same as any other worker on irregular or long hours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, it is, AFAIK. There's also an issue of fatigue as a result of boredom (for lack of a better word), with modern jetliners being more/less able to fly themselves, so close attention isn't needed. In older (piston) aircraft, noise/vibration was an issue of inducing fatigue; cause, I couldn't say. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK one of the private pilot exams is 'Human Performance and Limitations' which covers fatigue and sleep deprivation. There is a Human factors article which seems a bit 'heavy' at first glance and it doesn't relate to aviation that I can see. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the definition found under mental fatigue as a type is not enough to include aviation? The issue has gained significant notability in the United States because it is an issue that affects public safety. The article could also address other transportation areas, such as commercial trucking, which has stringent work-rest rules to alleviate fatigued drivers from operating large machines on public highways. The article links chronic fatigue as a symptom of other diseases. However, this does not invalidate the acute and chronic fatigue discussed in aerospace medicine, although that seems to be the argument being made here. Sleep and shift work are the typical stressors relating to fatigue in the aviation environment, but they are not the only stressors that can result in either acute or chronic fatigue. --Born2flie (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No! I was clumsily saying that the Human factors article does not appear to mention aviation. I am personally very well aware of the problem and taught it to student pilots for some years before giving up instructing. There is certainly a need for a Human factors (aviation) article, it is possible that there is an article here already, the search engine needs some lateral thinking sometimes. It's a broad subject to tackle and like the recently deleted Aircraft structures article could go down a road that was not originally intended. If anyone wants to start an article I have a 60 page booklet (with ISBN) that could be used for reference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mental fatigue and everyday tiredness are not the same as medical fatigue. I see nothing in the aviation section here that is actually a medical ("go to your doctor's office about this") issue. The fact that tired people in control of any sort of vehicle are at risk for becoming physical trauma cases does not automatically mean that the tiredness itself is a medical issue. People that are lost, or bored, or listening to their iPods, or talking on their cell phones are also at significant risk for becoming trauma cases, but "sending text messages while driving" is foolishness, which is not a recognized medical condition.

I can see Nimbus' point about merging it into a human factors article, and I like his approach of placing it in the larger context. Since shift work and working too many hours with too little opportunity for sleep are clearly not medical problems, and since they're possibly the most important aspects of pilot fatigue, then perhaps that's the best option. Alternatively, is there some sort of regulation about hours worked and sleep requirements for pilots? An article on regulations might also be a reasonable location, since the tendency of overworked/underslept pilots to crash airplanes is presumably the reason for such regulations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, according to the article, mental fatigue is exactly the same as medical fatigue, or rather half of the answer; and also according to medical references and aerospace medicine studies.

  In addition to physical, fatigue also includes mental fatigue, not necessarily including any muscle fatigue. Such a mental fatigue, in turn, can manifest itself both as somnolence (decreased wakefulness) or just as a general decrease of attention, not necessarily including sleepiness.

  — "Fatigue (medical)", Wikipedia

It doesn't just result in a tired feeling, which I feel is what you're arguing against, but also affects mental acuity, decision making, even going so far as being able to affect visual acuity and the processing of visual information. You also seem to be discounting acute fatigue effects in preference to chronic fatigue as the "valid" fatigue. Proper sleep is only part of the solution, so the issue isn't just about sleep problems.

Fatigue is typically the result of working, mental stress, over stimulation and under stimulation, jet lag or active recreation, depression, and also boredom, disease and lack of sleep.

— "Fatigue (medical)", Wikipedia

The issue is about how the organism deals with stresses, or in this case, how the organism doesn't deal with them, avoid them or get relief from them, resulting in fatigue. --Born2flie (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There are regs, & they get ignored by pilots trying to make a living (just like truckers), 'cause the letter of the reg frequently conflicts with the intent ("rest" doesn't mean/require "sleep", which it probably meant when written), & "rest" periods often incl/req paperwork be done in them to get ready to fly again. There's also an ish of waiting time; for truckers, at least, time spent waiting to load/unload doesn't count as "rest". (Don't know if that applies to freighter a/c, but I wouldn't be surprised.) It's nothing like simple. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is this article about airline crew duty time, Continuous Duty Overnight with a list of fatigue related incidents, it wasn't easy to find. Circadian rhythm touches on jet travel as does jet lag which has a useful 'sleep' navbox: {{SleepSeries2}}. Aviation medicine briefly mentions fatigue problems. Air safety has a human factors section. There are quite a few articles out there possibly overlapping each other in places. It might be useful to create an 'Air safety' navbox (or similar wording) to bring related articles together. I fell asleep on a motorbike once but I'm still here thankfully! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Born2flie, I think you're missing my point. The kinds of fatigue that affect human performance are a bigger subject than clinically significant (medical) fatigue. The goal here is not Fatigue (physiological phenomenon in mammals). It's Fatigue (go see your doctor), which should only include the fatigue that is clinically significant. "I worked too many hours" is not a medical issue. "I've got a normal physiological reaction to staying up for 36 hours straight" is not a medical issue. Does this make sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than missing your point, I think you're missing mine. It is my opinion that you are minimizing the aviation aspect in order to not include aviation in the medical article, despite it having been pointed out that fatigue as defined in this article is a concern of aviation medicine. Perhaps it is because you are not familiar with aviation medicine research on the subject? Now, none of the article is presented in a, "If you have the symptom of fatigue, go see your doctor because you might have $x$ disease," manner. So, your attempt to bend the subject into that mold has me confused. The article simply discusses the medical classification and definition of fatigue and lists the causes, related effects, and a list of diseases for which fatigue is listed as a symptom. None of which preclude the discussion of fatigue in the aviation realm, which I also previously mentioned had become notable in the last ten or so years.

The discussion of mental and physical fatigue, as defined by the medical community, is the basis for the discussion within the aviation medical community. Only a medical professional can make the diagnosis on whether or not a sleep deficit of any duration is a medical issue, and I don't think anyone should come to Wikipedia to find out whether or not they need to go see a doctor. Sure, there are stresses that are self-imposed based on choices individuals make, but that doesn't mean the consequences of those choices can't be recognized by medical definitions. Even the acute type of fatigue you are attempting to disparage from being medically applicable can result in serious short term medical problems that will affect aviation operations beyond just feeling tired. Chronic fatigue doesn't always mean chronic fatigue syndrome and fatigue in aviation doesn't always mean, "I didn't get enough sleep last night and I might crash." --Born2flie (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You assert that acute fatigue can result in serious short-term medical problems. Can you name some? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of visual problems that can occur as a result of acute fatigue. It can also be referred to as visual fatigue, but that refers more strictly to the effect of fixed focal lengths or other factors that cause straining of the eyes. As a pilot, that's pretty serious to me, no matter how short-term it may be.

I don't know why I didn't see this before. You're a medical professional of some type, arguing that the article is solely about a pathological application of fatigue, but the article isn't splitting that hair. I had thought that you were approaching this article from the Aviation perspective and wanted to make it a strictly aviation application, but you've been trying to separate the pathological use of fatigue from any other. I might be more fatigued than I thought. Perhaps I should see a doctor? --Born2flie (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong on all counts today. I'm not a medical professional, and normal physiological reactions (such as vision being less reliable when you're tired) aren't generally considered medical problems. That's inherent in the notion of normal. Medical conditions are abnormal by definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

All counts? So I'm wrong that you're arguing the article should only include any pathological use of fatigue, despite what the article states are the definitions of fatigue? Funny thing about normal, symptoms are the normal physiological response to the presence of disease in the body. Disease is considered a physiological stressor that can result in fatigue. Other stress factors are capable of producing fatigue, per the article even. The effect of stressors is cumulative, so even a supposedly self-imposed stress, such as a poor night's sleep can result in your "real" fatigue, and may even be the result of other stressors and not simply just being drowsy because one didn't get enough sleep last night. I'm going to step off of your merry-go-round now. --Born2flie (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

From the first sentence of Symptom: A symptom...is a departure from normal function or feeling which is noticed by a patient..."

Normal function is not considered a medical symptom. I'm not trying to exclude normalcy from Fatigue (general idea): just from an article that is specifically titled for, and that should therefore specifically be about, the medical aspects of fatigue. Normal = not a medical issue. (See Medicalization of everyday life.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've created Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool per the suggestion above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

<--WhatamIdoing, you're making perfect sense to me, but I think there's a separate ish with Fatigue (aviation), which might be more along the lines of Fatige (step away from the controls before you kill someone), which IMO needs addressing, & maybe not just in aviation. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trekphiler, I think that we do need an article along those lines. Perhaps a new article Fatigue (safety), so that it can also include driving and other issues? Or do you think it should be rolled into an existing Human factors article? Or is an aviation-specific article a better choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd favor Fatigue (safety), & incl every fatigue-related ish, from aviation to trucking (or driving generally) to plant operations (powerplants & such), & link to it from other articles (automobile/driving, trucking industry, airline pilot, & such), rather than a broader Human Factors. If it should be sub-paged to HF is something I'll leave for somebody better qualified to judge; my guess is, it'd end up under that umbrella in any case. I also wonder if there's an issue of fatigue in motor racing (I've always wondered how the early entrants at LeMans ran so long without co-drivers...); with that in mind, I'm posting here, here, here, & here inviting comment.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:47 & 21:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've written a lot of trucking-related articles and one thing I learned while writing Hours of service is that the DOT has determined there are three types of fatigue: time-on-task, circadian, and cumulative/sleep deprivation. Time-on-task is the kind of fatigue you feel when you've spent too much time behind the wheel. Circadian is the kind of fatigue you feel when you are awake at times when a person would normally sleep (which is why many accidents occur between the hours of midnight and 6am). Cumulative is the kind of fatigue you feel when you have not had enough sleep the night before, and can also result from chronic sleep deprivation (such as sleeping 3 hours every night for a week). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the human-factors-related fatigue encountered in aviation aren’t unique to aviation, as Trekphiler observes, nor is it just one “thing”, as ErgoSum88 correctly points out. Aviation-related fatigue is a special case in that it offers a different set of stress environments (air and space), sometimes further “laced” with combat stress (possibly to the degree of encompassing battle fatigue). I’m not a medical expert by any means, but I think it might be advisable to have the general “fatigue (medical)” article differentiate between acute, chronic, human factors, psychological, special environmental, combat, and post-traumatic forms of stress. Aviation-related issues could then be inserted and addressed as appropriate. However, I think Nimbus’s suggestion of a “Human factors (aviation)” article is a good idea and would allow us to go more into detail on the extensive and unique factors encountered in aviation regarding man-machine interfaces, cockpit design, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out the types of fatigue as the US Department of Transportation has defined it regarding truck drivers. Obviously there are multiple reasons for fatigue, but when you boil it down it basically means you are tired. So yes, I think it is just one "thing" with multiple causes. I gotta say, I'm a little confused about the point of this discussion. Are we trying to determine if aviation fatigue needs a separate article? I think all types of fatigue can be covered in the medical fatigue article due to my earlier point that it is one symptom with multiple causes. Aviation fatigue is no different than simple fatigue, it only has a different reason for being. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was agreeing with you (and I've redacted my comment to make it more clear). I think the original question was do we need a separate article on fatigue as it relates to aviation. IMHO, I think not – but rather that there should be one on “Human factors (aviation)” to address aviation-unique human factors in which fatigue plays a role, such as pilot-vehicle interface (PVI) and such. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started Fatigue (safety), which is largely copied from other articles in an effort to centralize the information. There may be a better title, in which case it could be moved. Just as I was finishing up, I discovered sleep deprived driving, which might be another potential source of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 587

There is a dispute at Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_587#Sources_for_Jdey_citation over whether a man saying that he shoe bombed the flight counts as "al-Qaeda did later claim responsibility" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

B-52 crash at Thule Air Base

Looking for some thoughts on the name of this article. It's widely quoted in texts as "The Thule Incident", however the guidlines here indicate it should be named Date Location Airline Aircraft Type crash. I guess that would make it "1968 Thule Air Base Strategic Air Command B-52 crash" - a bit of a mouthful. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

hmm, Strategic Air Command aren't an Airline are they? What about "1968 Thule AB B-52 crash"? Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash"?

PS: I notice that Palomares hydrogen bombs incident does not follow any particular naming convention either. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling out Air Base is OK, but you'd probably want to create a redirect from the short title anyway. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Spruce Creek Fly-In AfD

Expert opinion on this AfD would be appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spruce Creek Fly-In - BillCJ (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge FYI

Something I should've done sooner... There is a proposed merge of this & this to this, under the MAG title. No objections have been raised here, but improvement, especially to sourcing of some claims, to structure, & to clarity, is still warranted. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's also a WP:Military History thing too. You might get some help by asking at their talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's been fairly well covered there already. It's where this started. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see anything on it there when I checked earlier. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, it's mostly here, for anybody wanting to add before the merge goes ahead. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

In the midst of another research project, I just discovered that there are two essentially duplicate articles: List of World War II aces from Italy and List of Italian fighter aces of World War II. I've dropped notes asking why there are two such lists on each of the talk pages. Input is welcome. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe units in WW2

I've come across a reference to II/StG1 and want to know exactly what is meant by that, so that I can link to an appropriate article. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

STAB II./STG1: Can't tell you immediately what the equivalent of Stab (lit. Staff) would be, but StG1 stands for "Sturzkampfgeschwader 1" ("Sturzkampf" was usually abbreviated to "Stuka") i.e. Divebomber Wing 1. "II Stab" would perhaps be "No. II Group". Have a look here for StG2. Hope this helps. --TraceyR (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe during World War II may also help. --TraceyR (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have linked to Sturzkampfgeschwader 1, which will link to the article once it has been created. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue of list vs dab page needs discussion

During the FAC discussions for the 777 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777), it was brought up that Civil Aviation Authority is currently a dab page, and by its nature really should be a List page. List of civil aviation authorities currently redirects to the dab page. Any thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly a list page, "list of aviation authorities by country". If there were different meanings for "Aviation Authority", it would be a DAB. - Canglesea (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it's so clearly a list that I just moved it to List of civil aviation authorities (something I meant to do the other day when I agreed to a request to add it to {{aviation lists}}). In its place, we could do with a general overview article of what a country's civil aviation authority typically does. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far! - BillCJ (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the dab template, also. - Canglesea (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories

I also modified Template:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories to make it more accurate and added sailplane there as well as paraglider, but User:Rlandmann reverted my changes because: "(Not all sailplanes are (pure) gliders, and nothing like all gliders are sailplanes)" and while I agree that there's not a completely hard line between gliders and powered aircraft (some gliders are powered sometimes and some powered aircraft glide sometimes) I think that the designs are distinct enough that most people would recognise these types of aircraft, so I reverted his changes back, but I thought I ought to mention it here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This template is a mess.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted User:Wolfkeeper's changes again. As designed, the seriesbox is divided into three main sections: Lighter-than-Air, Heavier-than-Air, and hybirds. Within each of these sections, there's a division between powered and unpowered machines. User:Wolfkeeper has been inserting links into the headings to say that any powered, heavier-than-air machine is an airplane; which is obviously incorrect.

Furthermore, the table only attempts to capture the classifications of machines along the divisions outlined above. An unpowered, heavier-than-air, fixed wing machine is known as a glider. Sailplane doesn't fit here - it's not a synonym for glider, and the table doesn't attempt to include anything beyond the very broadest categories. If we're going to include "sailplane", then we should include "airliner" and "agricultural aircraft" as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and you reverted it with a minor flag. I don't like seeing administrators do that, it breaks watchlist functionality and is usually a sign that an edit is being made surreptitiously. A glider is any unpowered aircraft, whereas in the box you are trying to 'maintain' that it implies that it is different to, for example a hang glider. Really? Is it? No. In that case why do we have hang gliders there at all? All of this makes no sense. The box fails to adequately cover the different types of aircraft and fails to help the users navigate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, why the heck is rotary wing (which links to rotorcraft linked under unpowered section?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it was flagged minor - I didn't deliberately do that. I simply used the "rollback" button, which I'd never noticed (until you pointed it out now) apparently automatically adds that flag. I'll know for next time.

The "Rotary wing/Rotorcraft" subheading is linked in both the powered and unpowered section, since there are indeed unpowered rotorcraft.

The word "glider" in English, when used in an unqualified way, generally refers to a fixed-wing aircraft. English prefixes modifiers to this word to indicate gliders of types other than this (ie, "hang glider", "paraglider", "gyro glider"). I agree that there is a linguistic blurriness here, but I don't think it's one that amounts to much. What would be the solution? I suppose that we could change "glider" to "fixed-wing glider", but IMHO that creates more confusion than it avoids. What do others here think? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support I concur with Rlandmann. Since the Wright Brothers unpowered aircraft with rigid wings have been called gliders and the name has stuck. When flexible wing aircraft came along they were called hang gliders and paragliders, to distinguish them from gliders. Gliding, as defined by the FAI, refers to the activity of flying gliders. Hang gliding is the sport of flying hang gliders and paragliding is the sport of flying paragliders. Though I suppose the Space Shuttle is technically a glider, it is just an minor point that creates unnecessary confusion. If the rest of the WP:Aviation Project concur, I will gladly get the Glider article back into its previous state after some incomplete and misinformed editing. JMcC (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to relax, you're treating this like a personal attack on your manhood. It's just an encyclopedia FFS.

Thing is, encyclopedia articles aren't about words/terms. They're about concepts/ideas/types. The term 'glider' is ambiguous. It means either any aircraft optimised for unpowered flight OR specifically the kind of rigid wing glider intended to be used for soaring (sometimes called a 'sailplane'). These are different definitions. That's why the space shuttle is a glider- according to the first definition- probably not the second.

The other thing is, we're in, what I like to describe as encyclopedia world, which is not quite the same as normal world unfortunately because an encyclopedia is trying to capture all knowledge, so you're forced to be general. For example, in normal everyday life, or even frequent technical usage in aviation, 'internal combustion engine' is a piston engine. In an encyclopedia it could be that, or it can be a jet engine or rocket engine. That's the way the Encyclopedia Britannica does it for example. This very normally annoys the heck out of people when their favourite article suddenly grows to encompass all kinds of things that they instinctively 'know' aren't right, but the formal definition encompasses. But the processes of the wikipedia say that the definition used sets the scope for the article and the only defensible definition for relatively big topics like 'glider' nearly always turns out to be the more general one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Etihad Airbus A340-600 accident at Toulouse, 15-11-2007

The BEA has released its final report into the accident. Unfortunately my French isn't good enough to read and fully understand it. Apparently it makes interesting reading. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Grain / RNAS

I hope that this is the place to raise the questions below; if not, would someone post it where it will achieve a wider readership? Thanks.

I'm puzzled (and excited) by a possible wiki-hole in the history of the early days of aviation in the UK. Perhaps I risk making a fool of myself over this, but I have been unable to find articles/references/mention in Wikipedia of what must have been an important centre of activity on the Isle of Grain during the pioneering days of aviation! There is an article about a disused railway station (Port Victoria railway station), indicating that there must have traffic there at some time, but that was all; nothing about an RNAS station there nor what must have been a thriving centre of aircraft design, experiment, construction, testing and operation.

The "Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes: Their Designers and Manufacturers" has a whole range of references to its aircraft (see below) There many references to "Grain" in the Putnam "Shorts Aircraft since 1900", often in the context of experimental work (e.g. on wireless systems), and I have just found a list of references RNAS Port Victoria, the RNAS Experimental Construction Depot on the Isle of Grain and a whole range of aircraft designed and constructed there:

• Port Victoria Grain Griffin
• Port Victoria PV.1
• Port Victoria PV.2
• Port Victoria PV.2bis
• Port Victoria PV.4
• Port Victoria PV.5A
• Port Victoria PV.7, PV.8 Family
• Port Victoria PV.7 Grain Kitten
• Port Victoria PV.8 Eastchurch Kitten
• Port Victoria PV.9

Another source mentions a few types (here).

There is enough info here to create a stub about the PV.5.

www.aviastar.org/air/england/a_port_victoria.html mentions a few PV-types too (with some images).

Perhaps experts in this field will be able to solve this conundrum for me: Is Isle of Grain / Port Victoria mentioned here under another name? Are the aircraft already mentioned under other manufacturers' names? If not, there is some interesting work to do here: A new RNAS station, a new manufacturer and many new aircraft - more than I can handle at the moment. I look forward to getting more infomation. --TraceyR (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The aircraft originated from a Royal Naval Aeroplane Repair Depot on the Isle of Grain, because the name Isle of Grain was used for the seaplane station it was named Port Victoria it later became the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Post Victoria railway station was part of the Hundred of Hoo Railway, built to serve steamers to the continent in 1860s. The Eastchurch Kitten was probably named after RNAS Eastchurch, on the Isle of Sheppey, anothe early RNAS station. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Eastchuch Kitten was named after the Eastchurch RNAS Station, where it was designed and part built to meet the same requirement for a lightweight shipboard anti-zeppilin fighter as the Grain Kitten. When its designer was given command of the Port Victoria unit, he took the part built aircraft with him, and it was completed at Port Victoria and designated as part of the PV series. Irritatingly, the only Port Victoria type that actually entered some sort of production(and even some brief postwar service, the Grain Griffin (or Griffon), is the one there seems to be least written about.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos Here, here and here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's information (including a photo) of the P.V.4 floatplane version of the P.V.3 at www.aviastar.org/air/england/portvictoria_pv-4.php. --TraceyR (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag carrier help

The artlce Flag carrier need some major work. I recently nominated it for deletion and a consensus was reached at to keep the page but, remove the table that contained 99% WP:OR, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag carrier...One editor now has steped in after the deletion and refuses to let the table go. So if anyone has a second please check out the page or add to Talk:Flag carrier. Thanks, Spikydan1 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of "Glider"

What should the scope of the "Glider" article be? Input needed here. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost Glider must be separate from the sport of Gliding which is already a big enough subject on its own and a featured article. 'Gliding' is also the official name for the sport given by the FAI. I think that this has been accepted, judging by the lack of further debate, though there has been no concession. What has not been universally accepted is that the term 'glider' has a specific very common meaning in aviation and is used by the FAI, though it also has a more theoretical meaning. Since there is a common usage of term, the glider article should be more than just a disambiguation page. This is consistent with many other Wikipedia articles, eg type in Bomber and you will find the main article on the main meaning, but there is a link to other meanings if you want to find out about suicide attackers or Grenadiers. In the case of glider, the uncommon theoretical meaning can be quickly referred to in the opening paragraph. Few people will be confused or disappointed to find that there are also links to hang gliding and paragliding in this introduction. If interested in either of these types, they will not want to wade through material about the other types of unpowered aircraft. At present the unfinished revamp of glider is trying to combine information on gliders, hang gliders and paragliders in one article. It ends up by being too general or irrelevant to a reader trying to find out about one type. The one exception is the comparison table which I completed in hang gliding and which has now been reproduced in glider. Instrumentation, markings, landing, launching and manufacturers are all different. The article also contains gaps if paragliders and hang gliders are to be covered here in addition to their own articles. The present glider article is neither one thing nor the other. The recent changes may not even make sense to a purist and reduce the usability of these articles for the majority of readers. In summary, the scope should be as it was on 1 December 2008. JMcC (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Both articles are now in a mess and apart from the confusion caused by the split there are inaccuracies in the pre-existing facts (which are unreferenced). The Glider (disambiguation) page covers gliding animals, paragliders and hang gliders etc. which is how it should be, the link is at the top of the article as a hatnote. My view is that this article (Glider) should concentrate solely on soaring un-powered fixed wing aircraft with three axis controls. There is no need for a separate sailplane article as it is just a different word for exactly the same thing, this can be explained in the lead paragraph. I note that the Motor glider article uses an official definition in the lead as I suggested earlier. The Shuttle on approach to land and any other fixed-wing aircraft suffering an engine failure is technically a 'glider' at that time, this could also be mentioned in passing. I notice that Gliding, a featured article, has been proposed to merge with sailplane, I also disagree with that, gliding is the act or sport of flying a glider, sailplanes are objects.

I am struggling to see the original content of the articles because of the split/redirect.

I can see a problem with linking a troop carrier like the Waco Hadrian or the Shuttle to Glider as it is obviously wrong, we could get round this by creating a short article like Gliding (flight) to explain.

The glider/sailplane problem stems from the advent of the word 'sailplane' whenever and whoever coined it many years ago, I for one would like to see where the term began bearing in mind that this is not Wiktionary. It is important to agree the way forward and fix the mess quickly, I would be willing to work on the 'Glider' article to correct and reference the facts, removing very obvious WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE sections at the same time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The term glider is much older and more general than sailplane. If you ask somebody whether a paper plane is a glider they will nearly always say yes. Almost everyone knows what a glider is and does. The most common type of glider is actually the paper aeroplane, and there's millions made and flown every day. It's actually not NPOV to have sailplane at glider. This is self evidently somebody with a axe to grind trying to change the definition of glider by writing the wikipedia in a particular way.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the definition of glider that requires 3-axis control. It's still a glider if it has no control at all. A sailplane is a glider but not all gliders are sailplanes. Everyone knows this really. Having sailplane at glider is a deliberate distortion of the wikipedia's structure so that it doesn't reflect real-world usage, not even the most common usage. Hang gliders and paragliders are true gliders and are more common than sailplanes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting case

The AAIB has reissued a report into the incident involving Airbus A319-131 G-DCBI at Schipol on 18 April 2007. The original AAIB report is here and the reissued report is here. One safety recommendation has been withdrawn as a result of the review of the incident.

Question is, is this incident notable enough to be included in Wikipedia (unusual circumstances?). If so, would anyone care to write it? Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely a minor incident. This would have the the cause of notable aviation policy changes to make it notable per WP:Aircontent#Incidents guidelines. Note the guidelines there for inclusion in aircraft articles. The threshold for a separate article will be higher. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rod Machado

Can someone weigh in on the AFD of this article and given an informed opinion of whether ATPs help in establishing a person's notability (preferably with numbers on how many people attain the license). - Mgm|^(talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the only claim to notability is as an author not a pilot. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This thing surprisingly survived AfD, so I've taken a knife to it and cut out all the promotional and non-encyclopedic crap. The creator has a checkered history, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class Review

The article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) has been submitted for an A-Class review based on WP:MILHIST assessing the article quality as A-Class. Please see the nomination under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review#Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) and describe your support or oppose for the assessment of A-Class quality. You may need to scroll up from the link. It is on the Peer review page under the A-Class requests section. --Born2flie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch de la Meurthe prize

Several articles on early aviation mention the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Deutsch+de+la+Meurthe&fulltext=Search . Could someone please create a stub on this? (I will not be doing so myself.) Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been working several articles on prizes, so if no one else starts one, I'll start putting together material in one of my sandboxes. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I ended up going a different route, and as there were several prizes offered by the same guy, so it made more sense to write a bio on him. The article is now up at Henri Deutsch de la Meurthe (corrections/additions invited), and I'm creating redirects from the prize names. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Wow - I can see what you spent 31 December 2008 doing. :-) Great work! -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Air Arm Museum

Today I visited the Fleet Air Arm Museum & took loads of photos & notes, but I'm having problems with aircraft numbers, what should be italicised etc & checking I'm getting the details on the aircraft right. The article doesn't have this project's banner but I can't find anywhere more appropriate to ask for help.— Rod ^talk 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a great museum, use their official website, click on 'research' (top left) then 'exhibitions' on the next page which should take you to the aircraft and their numbers. I would like a photo of the Wyvern engine for an article if you took one. Happy New Year. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'd found the museum website & will continue expanding when I get some time. The only pic I have of the Wyvern is at Image:Westland Wyvern TR1.JPG but doesn't really show the engine.— Rod ^talk 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, because that aircraft is there we can't use a non-free image in the Rolls-Royce Eagle (1944) article. Hope you enjoyed the 'helicopter ride' to the carrier deck! I used to work on the Phantoms (ex-Ark Royal) and the Buccaneers but in the RAF, makes me feel old when I see them in museums now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviatrixes

I've been doing some reading recently on notable women fliers of the 1920s and '30s. We have some (I'm glad to see a pretty good article on Bessie Coleman), but there are some surprising omissions. I've recently added an article on Elinor Smith; among the missing are Viola Gentry, Evelyn "Bobbi" Trout, Lady Mary Heath, Phoebe Omlie, Jessie "Chubby" Miller, Mae Haizlip, Gladys O'Donnell, and doubtless others of equal note. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I was suprised to see that there was no article on Women in Aviation, International. At least there is an stub about the Ninety-Nines. --Trashbag (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I started a page on Bobbi Trout, which TitanOne took and made great. I also started a page on the Women's Air Derby of 1929 (the original Powder Puff Derby), and was disappointed to see that nothing has been written about most of the contestants (some of which Jmabel mentions). Would anyone like to help with that? :) Acmejia (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Another new GA aircraft crash article

G,day all, I have just PRODded Heli Holland EC130 crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prod supported by Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)