Talk:List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents

Pre-FLC comments

Some quick things I've noticed.

• Needs a proper lead, per WP:LEAD.
• Don't start with "<title of list> is a list..."
• En-dash constistency needed (e.g. " 2001 – 2011" vs "1959-2011")
• WP:YEAR for ranges within the same century should apply.
• "other National Aviation Authority agencies" seems overcapitalised given our article of the same name.
• Not at all keen on FP, it's a bit synthetic in my mind. Most people are only interested in "no survivors" or "one sole survivor" in such incidents.
• Remove spaces between refs.
• Check your columns sort (e.g. distance is wrong).
• Hyphens in sortable columns, what value do you want them to sort as? (Plus, I imagine they should be en-dashes.)
• Avoid leading zeros on human readable dates e.g. 01 Aug... no point.
• The bare URLs are a little odd, we tend not to see those if using the {{Cite web}} template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the initial look. I'll get working on these changes ASAP.--Godot13 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Good luck with the list. (Perhaps some more images?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion??

• Responses to proposed deletion of this list because it is alleged that it is "a jargon filled duplication of other lists already on wikipedia".
• This list is far more comprehensive in scope and quantity than most other aviation accident and incident lists.
• New information, not contained in any other list, has been added.
• This list has higher sorting functionality than any other I have seen.
• This list has exhaustive references to both internet databases and national aviation authority original accident and incident reports.
• Frankly, I think this deletion notice is absurd.--Godot13 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your defence of the article and we are all welcome to our opinion, I will formulate some replies as you have challenged the proposed deltion I will more than likely raise a more formal articles for deletion request. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I have had a more detailed look at it - perhaps we can sort something out if this survives AfD, some of my concerns:

1. Any reason why the limit was 50 are not accidents with a lower limit notable.

   Because if you listed every fatal incident, it'd be huge. See, for instance, List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players etc which set healthy precedent on keeping lists down to a manageable size. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   OK but do we have any evidence that the stats that are used relate to the 50 or above limit, is that what the aviation authorities use? MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Why we need that? This is an encyclopedia and we're trying to make manageable articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Any table that uses jargon does not help the general reader, and table that has to have a large explanation section will confuse most people.

   Are you going to contribute to the FLC? Several have and this issue hasn't been a major stumbling block. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   If the featured list process passes this sort of article then the process is seriously flawed so I wouldnt contribute to it. Featured List is used to indicate good examples of lists when it some cases they are clearly not. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Well, if you believe the use of wikilink, explanatory text and key tables to be "seriously flawed", perhaps it's very wise that you don't contribute to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Appears to be lots of original research going on in the article

   Please be very specific. Tag OR where you see it. Just giving a general comment like this is totally unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Nearly all of the stats in the article are unreferenced and many appear to be home grown rather than sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Oh and Each accident or incident has been reviewed using Google Earth to find the location closest to the crash site is clearly to referenced facts but made up stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   But the articles you suggest should be used in place of this have no references at all..! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

4. I know its not that important but have you tried looking at this list on a tablet or smartphone, not pretty

   No, it's helpful to know that, but right now we have no major direction on mobile devices. However, on all my mobile devices it looks fine. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "not pretty"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   The table comes out with no lines and it is so wide it is difficult to see what is going on, but I dont think we have any actual guidance of tablets and smart phones. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   As I said, helpful to know, but not right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

5. ASN is not actually the most reliable source it just collects stuff from other references.

   Is it an WP:RS or not? Please be specific. If it's an RS then we are content to use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   It is a fanboy website that collects information so would be considered a self-published source. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Ok, so we'll need to root it out across the whole Aviation project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

   • …the RAND Corporation reports are willing to cite (p.18) and draw directly from aspects of the Aviation Safety Network database…-Godot13 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

6. A lot of the stats and stuff would be more suitable in Aviation accidents and incidents

   Please be specific. These general comments are really unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   OK just to be clear nearly everything other than the actual list and an introduction should be in Aviation accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Why? That article is a shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which is clearly a good reason to use some of this material to improve it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  • • Clearly... Or we could do that the other way around. Above you refer to the List of accidents and disasters by death toll. Interestingly, it was that list that inspired me to create this one. I attempted to participate/propose redesigning the list and even went so far as to actually create a draft of the entire list just to be able to demonstrate how it could look. There was basically no interest. So I moved on and did my own project. Just wanted you to understand why the idea of cannibalizing this list doesn't sit well...--Godot13 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The table is bloated with stuff that is not really notable and is covered in the related accident article:
2. Total - OK
3. Crew - OK
4. Passengers - OK
5. Ground - OK
6. FR - fataility rate - most people would never have heard it (not used in other accident articles) and would suggest you could get rid of it

   Just about the only thing I agree with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

7. Type - Not really relevant to a list you would for example not come here looking for just commercial accidents we have other lists for that

   Which commercial accident lists are you referring to? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Mainly List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Why? That list is a disastrous mess, has little to no referencing and provides no opportunity to make comparisons between crashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

8. Incident - OK
9. Aircraft - OK although some of the Boeing customer codes and airbus engine codes are not really notable and not really needed

   Which "customer codes" are not "notable" in your opinion? Can you be specific please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   All of them, they have no relevance to the accident or to the reader, all they tell you if you can read them is who the original customer was. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   I don't even recognise what "customer codes" you're referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

eg 71 fatalities Uberlingen mid-air collision "Boeing 757-23APF" (the German investigation report identifies the type as a "B757-200") and 290 fatalities Iran Air Flight 655 "Airbus A300B2-203". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I had suspected. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopaedia, why should we dumb it down? If the information is available, there's probably no major issue with reporting it as such, as long as the type is linked correctly. These customer codes seem to be used widely across all the crash articles themselves, I presume you would advocate the removal of those as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Location - OK
2. Phase - Not really needed all this is covered in the related article
3. Airport - Not really needed we already have a location
4. Distance - Had to think about this one its all a bit confusing and not needed as it is also in the related article
5. Date - OK
6. Ref - OK

So have a look at my comments and simplify the table and get rid of the more important stats stuff to Aviation accidents and incidents and then I may support this replacing List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Now I'm a bit confused, I never proposed using this list to replace List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. They are two completely different animals.--Godot13 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • User:MilborneOne, interesting response but all this "in the related article" is meaningless. The purpose of a decent standalone list is to actually gather the most pertinent information together that would actually interest a reader (like "where was the plane when it crashed?", " where was it going?") in summary, and link to individual articles for more information. I know the Aviation project seems determined to delete as many articles as possible, but most of your objections are personal opinion and have no real substance in terms of what constitutes a good list article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

    • As somebody who has created a few accident articles I think the comments are tad unfair, I certainly dont have any agenda on deletion. The list should be a pointer to the related article where all the facts are, trying to add all the facts from the related article is what bloats all these types of lists, as I have suggested above some of the info would be of help but would be far better handled with text rather than a sortable table. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

      • This was created as a Stand-alone list.--Godot13 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

An odd presentation in the table is the nature of the incident. A key classification of aviation incidents is usally some form of what happened - eg flying into terrain, mid air break up, collision. The table column "Type" gives an indication but having to refer to the bottom of the table each time to see what the cryptic TLA doesn't seem convenient for a reader. Combining Type with Flight phase would give a better reading experience though sorting on that column might have to sacrificed as a result. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable idea. But TLAs are used all over Wikipedia, and a key is ... the key understanding it. You must have read articles with keys before? It's not confusing if the key is presented up front is it? A little like a map. Maps have keys to help readers understand what PH means. It doesn't have to say "Public House" all over the map because there's a key. It's not really cryptic, just convenient. Or would you suggest we don't use acronyms or abbreviations at all on Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case the key is distant from the text, and could be presented better and there is a difference between TLAs taken from sources (the phase of flight) which already have some currency in use and those that seem (I couldn't find a reference to these) invented.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Then we can move the key. No big deal, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding content; why not limit the list to "top 200". Avoids an arbitrary lower limit and adapts readily to further incidents. Generally large lists are split up into smaller lists or use some convention for inclusion that comes from sources or defining attribute (Panamax ships) or some date (1945 as the end of the Second World War). GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Large lists are not split using the "top x" convention at all. They are split by number, e.g. List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that large lists are split as top-anything. And some lists are split by location (Lists of universities and colleges by country), alphabetically (List of aircraft}. There are lists for ranking worst/biggest that take a round number: List of the world's 100 worst invasive species, List of 100 largest law firms by revenue, List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population, List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

So we've just proved that both types of cut-off are widely used across Wikipedia. Job done. Next topic? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

explanation of location - two things

I shifted the bit about reviewing locations against google earth to a hidden note for editors as it's related to the construction of the article.

The other bit about location names is not clear as to purpose. "The names of locations are as they existed at the time of the accident or incident. However, when sorted, countries are arranged alphabetically according to their present-day names."
I understand this to mean that a pair of hypothetical crashes in Yugoslavia in 1967 and 1968 would appear in the list between crashes in Bahrain and Botswana (location in present day Bosnia) and between Senegal and Sweden (present day Serbia).
This seems counter-intuitive since they occured in the same airspace/regulatory framework. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could suggest which naming convention is better and why? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is sorting on a hidden key rather than the displayed name with the result that what is seen makes sense - at the moment when sorted by location the 1976 Zagreb collision appears before Cuban incidents and Britannia Airways 105 (Lubljana, 1966) before Somalian ones but both occured in the same country.

There are two possibilities.

1. Give the countries consistently according to what they are called now.
2. Give the countries consistently according to what they were called when the incident happened.

Both will work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Per your suggestion, all countries are now sorted and displayed by their current name. For only those countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, the USSR has been hidden. (If we went with the number 2 option I think we would still wind up in trouble with inconsistent names...) Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing accident/incident and pre-1944

"The first aviation incident with more than 50 fatalities occurred on 23 August 1944 when an U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber crashed into the center of the village of Freckleton, England, UK."

That is the first fixed-wing aircraft incident. The rigid airship USS Akron (ZRS-4) went down on 4 April 1933 leading to deaths of 73 of 76 aboard. It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And I'd forgotten the French ex-Zeppelin Dixmunde, 50 killed on 21 December 1923 when it blew up in mid-air off Sicily. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks for the help. A shame we have an AFD running in parallel now people are finally clubbing together to be helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement and AFD often run together in my experience. AfDs take time to run and there's no point in not fixing something that needs a fix while it's still visible to readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we have a FLC process and why it was running when the AFD came along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd suggest the criteria was widened slightly to include aircraft operated by the military in times of peace even if they weren't strictly transports. The current strict exclusion of reconnaisance/patrol excludes these two from the list. I don't think opening it up would allow anything else in since most military "combat" aircraft carry a small crew and large fatalities only occur when the end up falling on civilians. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you've already said, we'll need to see how the AFD pans out because it would be a terrible waste of community time to weigh up all these various comments just to have the article deleted. I would wait for that, then make a proposal here on the talk page in an appropriate section so that it isn't overlooked. Of course, as the FLC is running, that would be a good venue to make any suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of tables

I have removed the crash-by-manufacturer and crash-by-month tables as I can't see the value in comparing these data. Are we supposed to infer that we shouldn't fly a 'plane in July? Or that we are all better-off flying in a Mikoyan-Gurevich (a manufacturer of one- and two-seat fighters) aircraft because only one of them has been involved in a 50-deaths-or-higher crash? YSSYguy (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it would probably have been more appropriate, given the volume of interest surrounding this page, to have discussed it first. I would agree that the by-manufacturer table is misleading. It needed, at the least, to include a total number manufactured by each manufacturer for context, for the cases such as you noted i.e. MiG. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But as Cessna, Mikoyan-Gurevich and Piper (to name three) have never built an aircraft capable of carrying 50 people, the number of aircraft built by each manufacturer does not convey anything useful either. YSSYguy (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, without context, the table isn't useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree.--Godot13 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How about including a manufacturer table for at least 10 crashes? That way, minor players are excluded. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the 10 manufacturers whose aircraft were most frequently involved in crashes? In order for it to be truly representative (not misleading), the necessary context would need to include the total number of aircraft produced; more specifically, the total number of relevant aircraft (excluding those too small to even hold 50 people). This is the reason I put the note after the aircraft stats.--Godot13 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage of Model suffixes

In my opinion the use of Model suffixes detracts from the average person's understanding of the list. Those within the aviation industry or with a high degree of interest know that a Boeing 757-223 is a Boeing 757-200, or that an Airbus A330-202 is an A330-200, so why not just call them that here as this is a non-detailed overview, and then have the more-detailed info in the crash articles? I had considered just using "Boeing 757" or "Airbus A330", but that becomes a problem for the Boeing 737 as there are four different articles depending on the Model. YSSYguy (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with that, there's room for some justified rationalization of the model numbers given. Aside from the examples for Boeing you've already mentioned. Eg give Vickers Viscount 800 instead of the current "Vickers 803 Viscount" , Sud Aviation Caravelle III for "Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravalle III" and anything rather than "Lockheed L-1011-385-1-15 Tristar 200" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree per my mention further up on Boeing customer codes and the Airbus engine codes. MilborneOne (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

These customer codes appear in the articles themselves. Shouldn't we be consistent with the disaster articles we link to? Or are the customer codes in the disaster articles somehow not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My take is that the list is designed for comparison between events - otherwise why have sorting on for the columns. To that end, it is better for a reader if relatively minor differences between aircraft of the same overall variant are not overplayed. To give an example - the Bristol Britannia 313 was built for El-Al, the Britannia 314 for Canadian Pacific, but both are in essence the same aircraft and grouped under the Bristol Britannia 310 series. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as long as the types remain reliably sourced. However, I am surprised that you're doing all this work and yet want the article to be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is an excess of OR-type selectivity in the scope of the article and expressed that opinion. And as I said elsewhere, whether deleted or not, an article lingers for a week or more and can be accessed by many readers in that period. And that's aside from the legitimate and illegitimate mirrors and re-users of the wikipedia content. While content exists, there's no reason not to improve on it. And if I had anything better to be doing, I'd be doing it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if you have grave concerns over certain aspects, could you express specifically so perhaps User:Godot13 (who nominated this at FLC) can assist you in resolving them, rather than doing it single-handedly, while we wait for the snow closure of the AFD? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the changes and they are appreciated. Perhaps we can do this through the FLC process (which I would invite you to join). This would be more inclusive, coordinated, and perhaps dig into the minutia necessary to make this a truly great list article. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Size

Once we get the snow closure of the AFD out of the way, the one point of real interest that came out of it was a concern over the size of the page. I was wondering if there was any appetite for two lists, i.e. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in 50–99 fatalities? It would probably split the page roughly in half? (Then both lists would be more manageable and you could have two lists at FL rather than just one!) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I still think the stats stuff would be better of in Aviation accidents and incidents it doesnt actually reflect the accidents with 50 or more fatalities and would be better in the overview topic, this would reduce the size, that said I dont have problem with two articles but it would be interesting how you split the stats if they are not moved out. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, but that's not uncommon these days! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you disagree but I still can get over the fact that most of the introduction and stats is nothing to do with the actual list of accidents which is perhaps why it was nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you'd have to ask User:WilliamJE more about that. (But in any case, a lead which is perceived to be not that relevant to the main article should never result in an AFD, simply a discussion with the main contributors on how to make the article better. Still, this isn't the style adopted by some editors and projects). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we are actually discussing deletion but improving the article, that said I still have not seen an explanation why most of the intro and the stats are not actually related to the actual list, seems strange to me. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@MilbourneOne- The intro and stats are custom tailored to/from the list. How is that unrelated? If you moved it to another article it would then be unrelated. @TRM- would it be acceptable to have a single aviation fatality FL that had 2 different linked pages? In other words: lead, table description, with the 100+ fatalities and then a linked or second page (part of the same list, but with a separate table) with the 50-99, but both are tied to the same intro and table keys? With an understanding that any page addition in the future (i.e., 20-50) would require FLC approval. I think that would make one list a central reference, instead of get some info here, some there, etc. Would something like that work?--Godot13 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We've got several topics which span across a few different lists based on numbers or letters. My suggestion is usually the adopted scheme. You could try to write a top level GA or FA to tie all the lists together, that's been done before as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand that after this experience, I do not want to engage the Aviation Project with a reformatted version of the list.--Godot13 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that'll be unavoidable. We'll cope. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@MilbourneOne , you were the one who made the hypothesis that the AFD may have resulted from a particular interpretation of the lead (to whit: "most of the introduction and stats is nothing to do with the actual list of accidents which is perhaps why it was nominated for deletion.") The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man > No idea what the rationale was for the AfD I was discussing the original proposed deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, that wasn't clear, you said "nominated for deletion", not "proposed". Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Godot13 > OK we start with an image of an aircraft that would never carry more that two persons never mind 50, We have to wade through to the end of the second paragraph before a 50+ accident is even mentioned. Then table "Fatality records for incidents involving a single aircraft" doenst relate to the main table which only start at 1945. Perhaps we can address what these have to do with the list.I have some reservations about the descriptive stats but we might need a separate section to sort that out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The image is of the first fatal powered airplane accident in history. Why would that be relevant? (If that's one of your top issues then we should be okay.) 50+ is in the title and in the first sentence, I'm not sure how deep you really need to "wade" before getting what you need. Finally, the intro table puts 50+ accidents/incidents in context by describing the lead up in terms of fatalities over time. You have reservations regarding everything associated with this list, so there are going to be a lot of sections... Perhaps you could just tell me what this is all really about? I've expressed willingness to make changes, edits, etc., but not to chop up the list for you to move things about at will.--Godot13 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Whats this about - I find a new article it has major issues so I propose deletion, another editor sends it to AfD, I spend a lot of time telling you what I think is wrong, but everything raised it deflected with indirect discussion so perhaps I should ask you what is the agenda. You and the The Rambling Man have made some valid points so I have reviewed my list of comments and I was happy to let some of the issues go, but as I am trying to discuss them and come to a consensus I appear to be stone walled at every observation. I would rather work with other editors and use a sound foundation in the table you have spent time and effort on and make this a featured list, it is not that far away we just need to work together. So perhaps we need to stop the accusations of being a deletionist or a cabal and find a compromise, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, perhaps if you had approached me with your concerns (by means other than recommending deletion), having recognized, as you say above, that time and effort went into this list, our interactions might have started on a different foot. There are other aviation editors who are cooperatively working on the list right now who I am happy to work with. The reference to stonewalling is interesting as I have only said I did not want to chop up the list and send parts of it elsewhere. I have worked my ass off on this and want to make it work. But when some editors go into FLC and either Oppose from the start, with no explanation as to why, or oppose without giving the nominator an opportunity to make changes, that doesn't send a message of cooperation...--Godot13 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, the rapid prod then the rapid AFD is purely indicative of a non-collaborative approach from a few members of one single project. What was wrong with trying to discuss the article's shortcomings at the FLC? Turns out that even some of those project members who still actively support the deletion of the page are now starting to work on it. One way or another, there's been a colossal waste of community time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for contributing to the FLC, the correct place for this kind of ongoing discussion, particularly as the AFD is snow-worthy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)