Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
STOP nuvola.svg WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of ContentsAdd new section
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review




Red Arrows userbox[edit]

I don't know if somebody already made one for the Red Arrows but I did, to get this on your talkpage just add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}}

Red Arrows, Southport Airshow 2009 (01).jpg This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.


Tell me if you want one for another team. P.S. I'm quite new at this so tell me if it can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan121212 (talkcontribs)

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision[edit]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 21:14, 20 July 2014‎

Air Methods[edit]

Anyone care to take a look at Air Methods and give a third opinion regarding the headquarters location. It's a long term dispute over self-declared city / mailing address / address on FAA docs, unincorporated areas, Colorado geography, etc. There's talk page history going back to 2008 on the subject as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The great detail on the HQ location seems a bit much in the Lead. At least move it to later in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The location was agreed in previous discussions see comments from 2009, I also had a go at making the page a bit more encyclopedic rather than a publicity brochure for the company, it could also do with some better references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The Englewood, Colorado address issue is much larger. For example, Centennial Airport's article lists Dove Valley, CO as it's location, but http://www.centennialairport.com makes no mention of Dove Valley anywhere on their website and all the mailing addresses and docs with FAA.gov say Englewood, which is their mailing address.[1] Most of the other corps around the airport similarly use Englewood, Colorado as mailing addresses, but a user has taken it upon himself to purge those articles of Englewood in favor of whatever unincorporated area that he feels is closer to the physical location. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, Jeppesen's website says "We are headquartered in Englewood, Colorado and have offices located around the world."[2] but wikipedia says, "Jeppesen is headquartered in Inverness, Colorado,[1] an unincorporated area of Arapahoe County" with reference 1 to their page that says Englewood followed by what is basically original research. It's as if we are saying never mind what their website says about Englewood, wikipedia says it's in Inverness. My opinion is that is a company self-describes as located in Englewood, then the infobox should say Englewood in the HQ field. It seems like 100% WP:OR list some unincorp area that is not mentioned anywhere on the company or airport website. The same applies to the OR at Adam Aircraft Industries, IHS Inc. and others in that business park with addresses of Englewood. Should we be correcting the Centennial Airport page and Jeppesen or just leave it be? It's basically one user who has purged these of the word Englewood. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
We should rely on sources, not on editors' own ideas about what geography should be. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Bobrayner - we have to go with what the refs say. Footnote it and be done with it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they are going to allow cited material to stand, they will just continue to revert it at Jeppesen and Air Methods. Both companies clearly self-identify their HQ as Englewood, I don't know how much clearer it could be than that. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is probably because the postal address is Englewood, although outside of the township's limits. I've lived in similar situations myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To make that clear, the mailing address is not the location. The USPS does not care about the physical location. Their assigned address is for the sorting of mail only! Generally if there is a question, you need to check the assessors web site. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The physical building where people work, the registered office and the correspondence address can all be different. Sometimes one or more is only an accommodation address, a proxy office who basically just pass stuff on, and from what people are saying here it looks like Englewood is just that. A Wikipedia with any sense should be able to cope with all this, even if it means modifying our templates. What we should be doing is to note the address given in the sources and if necessary which kind it is. Anything not in reliable sources is OR and should be reverted. Persistent warring to reintroduce OR is a matter for a little preparation (such as user talk page warnings) before taking to WP:ANI. Don't know if this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, when a company website explicitly says "We are headquartered in Englewood, Colorado and have offices located around the world."[3] or "Air Methods’ headquarters are located on the north side of Centennial Airport in Englewood"[4] that doesn't leave much ambiguity. I realize that it is their USPS mailing address, and their facilities are not physically in downtown Englwood, but each company could put whatever they want on their own website, and they chose to say our HQ is in Englewood, not just our address is Englewood but we are in blah blah. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think my position has always been templates should have an address (no links) and a location. Just because a company claims their address as their location does not make it right. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement since their addresses are both Englewood, CO and that is the location they explicitly list on their websites. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No we are not. What they say to location is, may not be where it is. Companies like to use the address as their location which is not always accurate. As I said someone needs to check and see what the local assessor says. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Jeppesen, Inverness is not a civil township, at best it is a CDP as for the Assessor they list "Situs Address: 55 Inverness Dr E Situs City: Englewood as well as billing address. [5] The assessor lists the neighborhood as Inverness, but city as Englewood. Basically everything in unicorp areas in that area comes up as Englewood. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on ENSCO, Inc. I've devised a way of dealing with these US location-related issues: In cases were places are in unincorporated areas, state both the physical location and the USPS mailing address: Talk:ENSCO,_Inc.#Regarding the address and location of this company

If it's in an unincorporated area not in a census-designated place I write it like: "XXXX is in unincorporated YYY County, ZZZ, near WWWW/with a AAA mailing address." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Airsport aircraft[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_17#Template:Airsport_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors can note that another editor has now completed the missing redlinks for this template, whereas it only had one aircraft type article before. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Carbon fiber"[edit]

What does carbon fiber mean? We are discussing the primary topic at talk:carbon (fiber). As carbon fiber is a common aviation material, I thought I'd let you know. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Germanwings crash[edit]

Germanwings Flight 9525 with 148 on board, for anyone who hasn't heard. 220 of Borg 12:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to post a guide to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force as instructions for what Wikipedians may do when an air crash occurs:

1. Determine the "essential languages" of the topic based upon: The country of the airline, the country of occurrence, the origin and/or destination of the flight, and/or the countries of large numbers of passengers.
  • For instance Air France Flight 447 was a French airliner (French), crashing in international waters (no additional language), had originated in Rio de Janeiro (Portuguese), and had large numbers of French, Brazilians and Germans aboard (in addition to French and Portuguese: German)
  • The airline and/or the air accident agencies may post information in those languages. In addition to French and English, Air France posted information in Portuguese and German, and the BEA did this as well.
  • With Germanwings Flight 9525 the crash involved a German airline (German), occurred in France (French), originated in Barcelona (Spanish and Catalan), and had large numbers of Germans and Spaniards aboard. Germanwings and the BEA post information in all of these languages except for Catalan. I stated in the Commons talk page that the BEA doesn't post in Catalan, but I think Wikipedians should strive to have content available in Catalan anyway.
2. Collect the URLs from the involved air accident agencies and the airline, and post them to the English Wikipedia and the respective Wikipedias of the essential languages. Back up the links using Internet Archive and webcitation.org and post the backups to the crash article talk page.
3. Ensure that the Commons has language descriptions in these essential languages and that material is available in these essential languages.
 : By doing this you will deliver timely information to people around the world who need to know about the disaster, including friends, family, air accident agencies, etc. If you do not know any of the languages, kindly enlist the help of Wikipedians who can assist you.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively - wait for reliable sources to post usable information for this encyclopaedia, send all the other stuff to https://en.wikinews.org/ GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to linking content that is already posted by the airline and/or the accident investigation agencies, not necessarily by news companies. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Early news reporting on a disaster can be very error prone. There was a news report on this crash that the flight sent a Mayday or distress signal....William 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the need to create instructions. I would like to create a draft, but think it is best to wait for a week or two for things to settle down around here. There is a draft that was created many years ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). AHeneen (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Re initial reporting of an event , see Wikipedia:RSBREAKING. An article on a crash does not need a great list on its talk page that represents the blow-by-blow recounting of press releases, official announcements, subsequent retractions and clarifications. There is an essay Wikipedia:Breaking news sources which I think has pertinent advice. Also I suspect most of us couldn't edit competently on a foreign wiki particularly the non-Latin alphabets. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In regards to adding important links in the external links page: The airline and/or the relevant accident investigation agencies usually have a central webpage where all developments are listed. In this case Germanwings had one for each language (German, English, Spanish, and French) and the BEA had one each in French and English. Usually it means two or so links in the external links section.
I believe that for Latin languages most editors on EN could add the external links with little fuss (especially since the titles of the foreign language pages will already be in those languages, and/or it's an English page so an English title is understandable), and on CJKV (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese) wikis the editors understand when links in English are added. I think EN editors may find lots of issues adding pages on "right-to-left" languages (Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, and Urdu).
If on a particular language Wiki no airline/accident authority links are available in that language, in most cases I post the relevant links of the original language of the airline/accident authority and English. For instance on the Russian Wikipedia article on this accident I would post the Germanwings links in German and English, and the BEA links in French and English. In the case of the Arabic Wikipedia it's a good idea to post English and French links since readers from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia will know French better than English. On the Catalan Wikipedia it seems like editors bristle if you try to post dedicated Castillian Spanish links without links in all other languages as they feel Castillian Spanish is being pushed on them if you try that.
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that what other language wikis do is really relevant, nothing stopping users here making a contribution but basically it has nothing to do with this English project. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
They are relevant because Wikipedia is a worldwide project and we EN editors need to look out and support editors of other Wikipedias and do so in an organized manner (but without imposing on them/interfering with them). Yes, technically EN, ES, FR, and DE are separate projects, but they work better when everybody works together and shares information. If we help them by posting the necessary links/setting up Commons links/etc, they can help us by providing translations of materials, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK but this is still English Wikipedia so is not really a worldwide project so what they do is still not relevant and as commons is bit of a disaster area as far as the organisation of aviation material is concerned most of us try to avoid the place other than upload pictures. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If "worldwide" is defined as people not from native English speaking countries, EN gets readers and Wikipedians who don't have English as a native language, especially in the field of aviation since aviation uses English as a lingua franca. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Google translate does a reasonable job on most major languages. At least good enough to get the gist of what is being said, although it is not quite so good at subject-object-verb order. That is something that you have to work with/around. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons questions[edit]

I'm active on Commons a lot, so if there are any issues with how aviation material is organized you can tell me and I can try to do something about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

OK how about the completely disorganised category system that makes it impossible to find images like Category:Green painted Airbus A320 A-BCDE operated by Foo Airlines at Fooville bit of an exaggeration but the current categories dont help finding images. Although I dont have a problem with categorising by serial number/registration it is done without the realisation that these identities are not unique so you can end up with completely the wrong aircraft in a type category because they were moved from the actual image to the identity cat. If you wanted to invent a category system to hide images then commons is a good example, I could go on but this is not the place and when you raise it on commons there is no coherent organisation to sort all this out. (it also doesnt help that those categorising aircraft by identity have no knowledge of the difference between a code and a serial or registration, Italy being one disaster area in this regard) MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the cat-astrophe on Commons, but the justification for the mess is not using parent cats when daughter or granddaughter cats exist. Not sure how to get around that, but it makes image hunting very tedious. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For example, this week I was looking for a good in-flight photo of the SOCATA TBM, which has a Commons link to commons:Category:Socata TBM. Note that there are no photos on that category page, and one of the daughter cats has 14 more cats! - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Tangopaso thought of an idea: See Commons:Category:Eiffel Tower and how there are images presented in the index page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the user manually added a gallery, which would be a lot of work, and would have to be continually updated. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If there was an automatic process of adding a visual directory would that make things easier? I'm not a programmer but maybe somebody who does that stuff can get to work on such a system? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be easier to make an option to view all the images of a category and all its sub-categories at one time. That would certainly solve the problem. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD notification[edit]

This is to let interested parties know that 1942 RAF Hudson Crash has been nominated for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Some articles needing work[edit]

G'day all, during the most-recent of my periodic hunts for the word "aircrafts" I came across several articles that IMO need licking into shape. They are:

Feel free to tackle (or not!) any of them - and remember, the plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft". YSSYguy (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Briffaud aircraft[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this nav box template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_29#Template:Briffaud_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be noted that this TfD was closed as "no consensus" and therefore the template has been retained. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Fabre Aéroplane marin"[edit]

An editor who I have not encountered has moved Fabre Hydravion (to my knowledge the usual name} to the above, without any consensus. They did mention the proposed move on the talk page: I raised an objection & suggested raising the issue here. That was yesterday: today I see it has been moved. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've moved it back (which I did not think I would be able to), but a discussion on the talk page would be proper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fleet status for GE Capital Aviation Services[edit]

Why is documenting fleet losses for GECAS not acceptable, when the article already documents fleet acqusitions as part of the company history? The company outlays money to buy x-number of planes, but when a plane is lost, it shouldn't also be documented? It's a large monetary loss for the company, so seems significant to company history, as much as buying planes. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The operator was Air Canada, which is responsible for the compensations and liabilities (if any). GECAS has nothing to do with AC624.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The owner of the aircraft certainly does have something to do with it, since it is their property, thus a balance sheet event, as a loss of a major capital asset. It would be like a real estate company losing a building to a disaster, even if the building were rented out to a different company for their use. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
GECAS is certainly not paying any compensation.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
GECAS has lost a major capital asset, so is a corporate history event. Compensation has nothing to do with it. And some people sue everyone standing when they sue. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but details such as the number of GECAS's aircraft with each operator is not that notable long term to GECAS. Totals and summary info should be fine though. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Until the 1 April edits that deleted the information, there was info about purchases for aircraft, so the loss of an airframe would have been in line with the information already present in the article. After the 1 April edits, those purchases were removed from corporate history. So, going by the old state of the article, I didn't see why it wouldn't be part of the corporate history. If we go by the new state of the article, then no, it wouldn't be consistent with current content. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Airport railway station listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Airport railway station. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion[edit]

A {{merge to}} tag has been posted to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, suggesting a merger of that article into the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station article. If anyone is interested in weighing-in, please see Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion. (I am also posting this on the Military History and Cold War project talk pages, since they may have an interest in this discussion, too).

This may not apply because it's military aviation, but I thought it's better to be thorough than miss interested parties. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate in need of reviewers[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avianca Flight 52/archive1 is in need of knowledgable reviewers. I improved and nominated the article for FA-status. So far, no one has come forward to do a "support/oppose" review and the article nom is getting a bit stale. Would appreciate some help. Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Corruption at SriLankan Airlines[edit]

Issue raised at Talk:SriLankan Airlines. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster B III JA914[edit]

The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an Avro-built at Chadderton in Lancashire, if I remember they were roaded to Woodford to be flight tested. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of (aviator) and (pilot) in titles[edit]

I noticed in looking at some articles that there are a large group of articles about aviators that use (aviator) in the title and another large group that use (pilot) for the same function. I have provided a collapsed list for comparison below. I don't see any distinction between the kinds of articles that use one or the other.

First of all, I think that we should use the same term for all articles about aviators, and secondly I think the term to be used should be (aviator). After all, a pilot can be someone who plots a course for a ship through local hazards, or even someone who steers the type of spaceship where no avionics are involved. Secondly, in terms of avionic flight, a pilot is more typically someone who flies an airliner on a chartered route, while an aviator is someone who chooses their own flight plan and destination. Airlines have pilots; organizations like the U.S. Navy have aviators. Plus, the name of this project is WikiProject Aviation, not WikiProject Piloting.

It is also worth noting that the first episode of a tv show is typically called a pilot, so (pilot) could be used to identify those as well, for example Adventure Time (pilot) and Dirk Gently (pilot episode). I think that we should make (aviator) the standard and retitle all the (pilot) titles to (aviator) titles, unless of course the (pilot) title is about something like a tv pilot or a maritime pilot. Thanks! - WPGA2345 - 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all aviators are pilots. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Might there be some national variations? For example someone in Fooland might be described as a pilot, while in Baria they might be seen as an aviator. Should we then respect the nationality of the individual concerned? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:, true, not all aviators are pilots, but there are several kinds of "pilot" that don't have anything to do with planes at all. I believe that (aviator) used in titles would be understood to mean people who fly airplanes. @Steelpillow:, I have looked at a bunch of the articles on these lists, and they're almost all people who either flew fighters in combat, or flew test planes, but there aren't national variations that I can see. These seem to be, in both lists, almost all people from the U.S., UK, and Germany, with a smattering of other countries. Since there is no clear dividing line between the kinds of names on the list, the division seems very arbitrary. If there's a reason for some to have one or the other, great, let's figure out what that reason is, but if not, let's think about getting these on the same page. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - 04:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To me the term "aviator" seems rather old fashioned - people who flew when "flying machines" were biplanes with open cockpits were "aviators", these days "pilot" is the standard term. However, I am aware that the US Navy is consistent in using "aviator", but not sure if they use it for only pilots or are other aircrew also included under that label? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
My question is: How many bio articles does EN.WP have that use the disambiguator "(pilot)" that are about pilots other than aircraft pilots? I'd honestly be surprised if there is even one such article, but I could be wrong. (Non-bio articles about TV series pilots should probably be re-titled anyway.) I concur with Dodger that aviation seems more old fashioned. As far as I know, Naval Aviator is only used for pilots in the USN. Non-pilot officers are Naval flight officers. However, future confusion could arise from the fact that "Aviator" is, from April 2015, now an enlisted rating/other rank in the RCAF for OR-1 through OR-3 in place of Private. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Henderson (pilot) was maritime. I do not think we can be sure that others may not gain articles. However, we use (pilot) to disambiguate names, so unless there was also a notable aviator called Joseph Henderson, this is not going to be a problem. If "aviator" is becoming a rank then that would at worst lead to article″ titles such a "Aviator John Doe", so I do not see that as a problem here. There are notable aviators who were not pilots, such as Jimmy Rawnsley, but possibly none has yet needed their name disambiguating. @WPGA2345: my question over national variaions was not aimed at what Wikipedia currently does but what it should end up doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bill, the RCAF as messed this issue up totally, by changing "private" to "aviator" on the basis that the traditional term for an air force private was "aircraftsman" and "aircraftwomen". Apparently they wanted a gender neutral term. So in Canada now this designates a person who fixes aircraft, not flies them. See here for discussion in the press. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware that the RCAF had done that, but I highly doubt that will change what people generally think "aviator" means. When Scorsese made his Howard Hughes biography, they didn't call it "The Pilot"! I don't know what regional variations might be, but there just does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for why one article about an English flying ace is Charles Darwin (aviator) while another English flying ace is Valentine Baker (pilot). There's also some consideration of the numbers. 99 articles use (pilot) and 174 use (aviator), so if some process needs to be done to review all of them for a possible move, it's less work going through the smaller number. If there is a preference for (pilot) over (aviator), I still think we are better off picking one and sticking with it. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Good Article reassessment[edit]

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878[edit]

Today's accident at Istanbul would appear to meet the criteria for an article. Details already added at airline, airport and aircraft articles. It's a bit near my bedtime, so would someone like to start the Turkish Airlines Flight 1878 article?

Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not know with certainty the fate of the aircraft. ASN says damage to the aircraft was "substantial"; it does not mean "written-off". Nevertheless, the article has been created. I was about to PROD it, but will wait either for someone else to do it or for the upcoming news to confirm the damages experienced by the airframe.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A aborted landing which pushes an undercarriage leg through the top of a wing and starts a fire, followed by a second landing in which the aircraft departs the runway due to said damage and is followed by an emergency evacuation equals an accident worthy of an article to me. Give me a chance to improve it and the case for notability will be clearer. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Does appear to be notable and if this was as a result of Windshear then it may result in some procedural changes on seperation. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rumour is that wake turbulence from a 787 that landed before the 320 is a strong possibility. It's not in the article yet because no RS has said it. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Now reported that flight crew have claimed this. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A notable event after all.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Flying wings[edit]

Hi, would appreciate some input at Talk:Flying wing#Incorrect information? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Overspill from offwiki USHPA dispute - please keep an eye out[edit]

There seems to be some kind off offwiki dispute regarding USHPA which is overspilling to that Wikipedia article and onto the user page of an inactive user User:Bob Kuczewski. As far as I can tell everything to date has been reverted, but it might be handy if y'all keep an eye out on whatever hanggliding related articles might be affected. Note the discussion at WP:ANI#Inactive user page a vandalism target. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2015[edit]

A summary of the lead section of Boeing 757 will appear on the Main Page soon, and the nominator of the article at WP:FAC may no longer be active. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Dank! I think the summary is quite excellent. On a side note, it's true I have been "very busy in real life" for some time now, but try to contribute from time to time (including trying to maintain the quality of aircraft FAs). It's been a privilege to work with many of you all! Hopefully there can be more aircraft FAs in the future! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly! I spoke too soon. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox aviation[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Infobox_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Ibis_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the Belgian CAA and Belgian Federal Office for Transport articles be merged?[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgium#Should_these_aviation-related_articles_be_merged.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)