Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 179: Line 179:


:I keep finding it bizarre, not to say suspect, that anybody should be willing to spend so much effort and so many words to try and get removed one single article. There are many many articles far less relevant, much worse written, far more worthy of removal - where is your real grudge? The lack of objectivity is repulsive. [[User:Jan olieslagers|Jan olieslagers]] ([[User talk:Jan olieslagers|talk]]) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:I keep finding it bizarre, not to say suspect, that anybody should be willing to spend so much effort and so many words to try and get removed one single article. There are many many articles far less relevant, much worse written, far more worthy of removal - where is your real grudge? The lack of objectivity is repulsive. [[User:Jan olieslagers|Jan olieslagers]] ([[User talk:Jan olieslagers|talk]]) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

::Save your insults for someone who cares. Unless or until you reply to what I wrote above the first time you made these allegations of suspect motives, I frankly couldn't give a fuck what you think. [[User:Patrol forty|Patrol forty]] ([[User talk:Patrol forty|talk]]) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


== [[Aeroflot Flight 7425]]. Or is it 5143? ==
== [[Aeroflot Flight 7425]]. Or is it 5143? ==

Revision as of 17:09, 7 October 2014

Shortcuts
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 Contents • Add new section
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(5 more...)

Proposed deletions

  • 11 Aug 2024 – Elmer W. Harris (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Cullen328 (t · c): The subject was a non-notable combat pilot and commercial airline pilot. See talk page discussion, and discussion at the Teahouse. The claim to notability that he was a flying ace seems to be original research by a Wikipedia editor 19 years ago. A Go ...
  • 03 Aug 2024 – East African Air (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by GooberBird (t · c) was deproded by Protoeus (t · c) on 09 Aug 2024

Categories for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Red Arrows userbox

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}}

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 (talk • contribs)

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision

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 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 July 2014‎

"Fairfax"

30 SW (talk · contribs) recently rebuilt Fairfax Field (also up for rename [1] at WP:RMTR), by merging from Fairfax Airport and splitting to Air Force Plant NC, Fairfax Air Force Base, USAAF Modification Centers, "etc". I have no idea what "etc" means, that was the only information left at the page concerning the destination. The destinations that are mentioned could do with some cleanup as they are carrying redlinked categories. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for as little as it may be worth: etc stands for et cetera, Latin for "and so on". Some (like myself) like to abbreviate it to &c. Also see Et cetera. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the post means that 65.94.169.222 is not sure which other articles are meant by "etc". That's how it seems to me at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means that "etc" was written in the edit summary, and provides no indication as to what articles were split off from the article in question, therefore does not provide sufficient attribution to be useful. "etc" does not mean anything useful in the context of attribution, and provides no information as to what the "etc" is referring to. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any aviation publication reviews of Dealing with Disaster in Japan?

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

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

Commons WikiProject Aviation now on Twitter

How about we stop the incredibly lame edit war and stop enabling the banned editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi all, C:Commons:WikiProject Aviation is now on Twitter. The purpose of the account is to tweet photos from the extensive aviation repository on Commons and to engage in outreach with airlines, airports, individual photographers, to try and expand the coverage on Commons even further. If anyone has any ideas on how to make the most of this account, please get in touch. You will find the feed at https://twitter.com/commonsaviation. Cheers, Russavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.243.77 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How to define a "shootdown"?

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

We don't need a special definition. We just need to follow what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sources for the Kweilin Incident do call it a shootdown. When I checked Korean Air Lines Flight 902 there are some sources that say it's a shootdown and some that say it's not a shootdown (see Talk:Kweilin_Incident#"Shot down" versus "attacked and forced down"). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parachutes

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

Letort

I've come across the article Léon Letort. Since it was rather vague & sketckily referenced, I thought I'd give it a minor goung over...there isn't much to be found on the man, but i did find this. However, the in l'Aérophile calls him Maurice. Same man withut a doubt. I'm used to correcting the odd date or whatever, but this has me stumped.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure whether L'Aérophile talks about the same person, they give a different birth date too. Leave it for what it is: doubt is possible, but the present article agrees with that on fr.wikipedia, and the sources are there. Until proven otherwise, we cannot exclude that L'Aérophile simply mixed it up. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flight has a good few mentions, mostly as just "Letort", but here as "Leon Letort" [no accent] and here as "Letort (Léon) [with accent]". In one of the other pages referenced, L'Aérophile refers to him as "Letord" with a "d", but in other pages simply as "Letort". I think we just have to assume one-off errors by L'Aérophile unless they can be corroborated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If my French is correct, I see the aviator certificates match up between L Aerophile and Flight. Is it possible that he was born Maurice, but went by Leon. If they named a road after him, there must be more known, contemporary newspapers perhaps (his death as reported in Flight doesn't give Monsieur let along a first name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA list?

How does an article get put on the FA list? Mine's up now, and apparently I forgot to drop a note here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been tagged under WP:AVIATION so it will not appear. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of ALR Piranha

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/ALR Piranha. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:WPPilot

Is there some way of checking the person out using this moniker. As the recent work that he has carried out seems out of character. His responses to my recent copyvio tags have almost been threatening, which would seem to be out of character for the user outlined on his page.--Petebutt (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG wow I ask you to help me and this is your reply? I have been contributing here for a long long time. I, last weekend spent at my own expense a great deal of money and effort to obtain quality photos to update the page here, on the site. I have, in order to make the page more robust using the same system I have used to author many pages here, created pages on some amazing Racing Aircraft, please note that each of the photos clearly contains my real name, so I have never tried to hide behind my user name and have no reason to do so now. Petebutt, without making any contact whatsoever and without bothering to provide a adequate basis for the tags, tagged for speedy deletion stories I was in the process of developing, some had more effort then others but it was to me offensive, as the user is well aware of my contributions and perhaps I was out of line to think that he would contribute to rather then attempt to remove these pages. @Petebutt, if you like I will send you my phone number and your welcome to give me a call. The user has gone so far as to remove story that I contributed nothing more then photos to, that has already 14 ref's that have been on Wikipedia since 2006, IMHO the user is out of control....... I have discontinued contributing my aerial and aviation photos until this user is under control, this is completely out of line.talk→ WPPilot  16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @WPPilot:. You can cool it here - we are a reasonably level-headed bunch. Petebutt appears not to be concerned about your photos, but is chasing down text content that has been copied from elsewhere. Your photos are getting caught in the crossfire, which I am sure is distressing to you. Dealing with copyright violations depends on one's assessment of the degree of violation (see WP:DCV). This is the discussion we need to be having. I have to say that Petebutt is usually as level-headed as the rest of us, and if he sees fit to challenge article content that has been around for years, I for one would take that challenge seriously. I don't know if the following applies to you but if you have a lot of articles to create then it is best to get each one "clean" before creating the next one. If it is more convenient to upload the photos as a batch, they can then sit there happily waiting for a suitable article to come along. Hope this helps a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO he is attacking my donations directly and with the intention to dissuade me from continuing to contribute. He has in fact targeted almost every page I have provisioned sans ONE. There is not a chance I am going to continue to waste my time when he is attacking my contribution's, furthermore I intend to remove the rights to the photos I have donate in this sector and request the remove from commons. I have better things to do and perhaps he can replace my pics with nice shot from his gallery of home built aircraft. Others have already chimed in, the Voodoo page was his first target but I don't need to deal with "Butt's" acting like children. talk→ WPPilot  18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only looked at Lee Behel but some of the text is a direct copy or very close paraphrasing from http://www.sportclass.com/pilots/lee-behel/ and the other quoted websites so User:Petebutt was right to tag it as a copyright violation, as far as I can see that article has no images. I have had a tidy up of that article and removed the most obvious copyright violations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne - Rare Bear was first written here on WP in 2006, well before I was involved here. I added a few current pictures and a video, as well as cleaned up the wording a tiny bit, so User:Petebutt removed everything from the page, blanked it and asserted it had been lifted from somewhere, in spite 14 refs that were on the page for almost a decade:^ Kinert, Reed, Racing Planes and Air Races; 1970 Annual, Aero Publishers, Inc., Fallbrook California, 1970.

2.Jump up ^ 'The Bear' Retrieved 1 July 2011. 3.^ Jump up to: a b 'Records' Retrieved 1 July 2011. 4.Jump up ^ Carter, Dusty, Racing Planes and Air Races 1977/78 Bennial Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishers, 1978. ISBN 0-8168-7870-6. 5.Jump up ^ Dead and gone to Heaven Retrieved 24 September 2011. 6.Jump up ^ Rare Bear Propeller Swap Testing 06-07-04 Retrieved 24 September 2011. 7.Jump up ^ Air & Space/Smithsonian—The Bear is Back 8.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 9.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 10.Jump up ^ www.rgj.com—2008 Reno Air Race report[dead link] 11.Jump up ^ Rare Bear Update Retrieved 24 September 2011. 12.Jump up ^ Picture of the Grumman F8F-2 Bearcat (G-58) aircraft Retrieved 24 September 2011. 13.Jump up ^ www.RareBear.com—Lyle Shelton's "Rare Bear" [Note that Shelton's claim to be the "fastest propeller-driven aircraft in the world" does not acknowledge faster turboprop aircraft such as the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber. Other sources credit "Rare Bear" as the fastest piston-driven aircraft.] 14.Jump up ^ www.AeroSpaceWeb.org—aircraft speed records 15.Jump up ^ airrace.com—speed records from archives of the Society of Air Racing Historians

The ONLY thing that I contributed was media (photo and video) so he tags it as a copyright vio and blanks the page without any suitable foundation for the action. I did not write that, it was crafted over the last 8 years. He as a experienced editor would have seen that had he reviewed the log, but no, he was on a rampage to take away everything I did for a week. He had also done this on Voodoo and the other pages, without reaching out to an editor that even he makes note is a experienced and professional editor (me) then he attacks everything I have done for a week and goes to a admin board and rudely asks the Admins to "Check me out" as he did not understand why I was responding so overtly to his acting like a "Butt" hole. talk→ WPPilot  22:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the media that is tagged but the page itself. If you right click on each of the images, nothing regarding the copyright vio appears on any of the images.
It appears the offending text was added by User:TylerJG fairly early in the page's history as he did a large addition whose formatting messed up the page, and whose language appears to read like advertising or press release copy. He hasn't edited a page since June 2009 but was responsible for starting the page and the first batch of edits, and hasn't edited many other pages, and only one other was an aviation related page (the Reno Air Races).NiD.29 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WPPilot: You are right, it makes no sense that someone chasing you personally should take exception to an article that you did not write. That is proof, if it were needed, that Petebutt is not chasing you personally - yes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering this point all the while - thanks for support! WP is not a good place for well-meaning delicate personalities, I learned that the hard way, too. And, most of all: such a lot of fuss is always questionable, but I am especially surprised to see such a lot of fuss about articles that, for me, are of questionable relevance: is there really anything encyclopedic about one single aeroplane, generally, even if it has achieved some records? If I was sufficiently implied in the matter, I would long ago have marked the article for deletion, for lack of notoriety; or at best for merging into the Bearcat article - as a sidenote it seems bearable. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a waste of time and I had been trying to overlook it, but it comes to my attention that this may well be a stepping off point for me here. I have been contributing to both the photographic and article spaces since 2009. Having started many Wiki's I know the process and know it well. I am terribly sorry that, in the process of writing ONE (Chek Mate aircraft) of the recent contributions that a editorial contribution lead to such a fuss. It was completely out of line IMHO for Petebutt to come here before coming to my own talk page and I have no idea why he would do this to me. I really try to avoid these boards as the Wolf Pack mentality seems to be prevalent on all of them so I just try to do my thing and be left alone. With regard to these craft having there own page any argument to the contrary IMHO is unjust, and not in any way taking into consideration the fact that when flown today these plane and there pilots are truly taking life into there hands. Aviation is so regulated and controlled now that it is rare to see these modified racing aircraft, something that I am sure most of the contributors are far far too young to understand, Air Racing and the planes that race were once a big part of America and these types of races used to take place all the time all over the USA. I have over this process of dissection on this page also been lucky enough to pick up yet a new page stalker @BilCat: whom seems to not want to even talk, this user seems to like to revert and run, all while failing to reply to reasonable questions left on his talk page. Strange... Lastly I have proposed that the NA P 51 page should ref the fact that the lions share of the P 51's are racing airplanes and even added a gallery of the 2 planes that were at Reno this year, yet BilCat removed it, claiming that it needed proper sourcing???? I should have submitted the pics of the event to a Stock house rather then donate them here as it has caused way too much controversy IMHO to make it worth my time to continue, while this conversation is still going on. While I am on the topic let me mention that my contributions in this space started a year ago when I created The Galloping Ghost (aircraft) it was clearly worth of consideration and as the Reno Air Race page had a series of named aircraft that were already hot linked as if pages were already made, I then created the Voodoo & Precious Metal (aircraft) pages and a few others while uploading the photos from the event. My objective is to improve the site, and it always has been. Simply put, I passed out and had saved a story under development and the resulting witch hunt continues today almost a week later. Next time I will simply upload to a Stock Photo house and let people pay for my efforts rather then be tossed under a bus after working hard to take some nice pictures and have the total lack of respect this group has so warmly provided. talk→ WPPilot  17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photos on a public archive (The media commons) and illustrations in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia) are not the same thing. I am puzzled why you treat them that way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelpillow, what are you talking about, illustrations on Wikipedia are for the most part obtained from Commons. I do not contribute photos to Wikipedia rather I upload them to Commons if it is to me clear that the photo has a place on Wikipedia that it improves a page or illustrates a point better then what is presented on the page already. I am puzzled y your question. talk→ WPPilot  18:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most images on the Commons never make it into Wikipedia articles. Why rant about pulling stuff from the one just because you haven't chimed with the community on the other? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Images can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Wikiepdia and Commons have different restrictions on use. Images on Wikipedia can be of limited use (fair use), while images on Commons have to be of unlimited use. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for improving Lift(Force)

Over at the Lift_(force) page we (the active editors) seem to have come to an impasse over inclusion of the following sentence describing the lift on an airfoil:

"The resulting force upwards is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air deflected downwards."

Much discussion has ensued; one side wants to include it (there are four reliable sources that support the assertion) and the other side claims it is untrue (citing sources that don't exactly say it's false, but provide equations that can be interpreted to say it is false.) Much more detail is at the Talk page. I'd like to see some more opinions and see if we can come to a consensus about including or excluding that sentence. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an authority on the subject, I wonder if you (all of you!) are not pushing for too much specialism in the article: delving too deep into any matter is always a sure way to provoke dissension. This encyclopedia might well be served by keeping to generally accepted generalisms, supported by pointers to in-depth references. Jan olieslagers (talk)
BTW my sincere compliment for seeking outside advice in good time, and in a polite and constructive tone! Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Finnair flight AY 915

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether this article should be kept or deleted....William 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airshow notability guidelines.

Are there any notability guidelines for airshows on Wikipedia? Thanks. - Nathan121212 (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA could use some TLC

Any chance I could get some people to take a gander over here here at the FA for Mk. IV? The last FA closed without a single yay or nay vote, and I'm hoping to avoid that fate this time around. Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"carbon fiber"

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Richmond helicopter crash

I'm sufficiently concerned about the future content of this article to leave a note here. Attempts to delete this have failed, for reasons which still escape me, despite asking for a review. I've only just now noticed User:Mike Peel/Richmond, whose contents appear to be confirming my worst fears for how this article is going to be developed in future. Specifically, I have the following concerns:

  • In the absence of secondary coverage, the plan for documenting the official cause seems to be to go directly to the PRIMARY source, the investigation report. Since that is not available on-line, he is using another report on a later crash, in which this one is mentioned. I have serious concerns that this will end up producing ORIGINAL RESEARCH if not double and triple checked.
  • He also appears to be adding material from www.ukserials.com, which is apparently put together by the Wolverhampton Aviation Group. To me, that doesn't appear to be a RELIABLE source, but you people here might know better.
  • There's a whole bunch of other issues with the claims made in the article, which all derive from the lack of/poor quality of the sourcing, which in secondary terms is still all exclusively news reporting despite the crash having occurred 12 years ago. I've detailed them at length in the original deletion page and the review. Be advised, some of the issues aren't even apparent until you read the article and all the sources.

It feels pretty stupid to even have to highlight these issues here - obviously the best way to prevent them is to ensure the crash is one that meets EVENT before even writing the article, and deleting it if it doesn't. But if it must remain, then asking the impossible here, for someone among you to monitor/fix it even though the sources that would allow you to do that without introducing UNRELIABLE information or ORIGINAL RESEARCH don't appear to exist, seems to be the only option left. Patrol forty (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Indeed. I'm concerned about a few things - 1. since he's not working from the report on this crash, he might easily miss out some pertinent detail that wasn't deemed relevant to the later one, 2. you only need to look at how complex and technical these reports are to see how mistakes in relaying even basic facts could be made - expecting other people to volunteer to check your work seems a bad way to ensure quality control, 3. with the best will in the world, nobody but an actual aviation journalist could hope to be sure that the way they condense material like this into fewer words by way of summary doesn't unwittingly lose some vital meaning or introduce some other kind of ambiguity/error, especially when they're not being paid to do it and they don't have a managing editor checking their work. Patrol forty (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that the accident as far as the helicopter goes is just not notable it is the emotional reaction to a girl being killed that appears to be what drives those in favour of the article. Perhaps the article needs to focus on the the "death of the first British naval female observer" and ignore the helicopter technical aspects. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Milborne, I couldn't agree less. That is to say, some phrases do stress the sex of one of the victims and I do find that inappropriate. But even leaving those phrases out, the article remains notable, or at least as notable as certain others. Take 2002_Africa_One_Antonov_An-26_crash for just one example, found at haphazard, which mentions no victims at all, of whatever sex. I can't help fearing that here, as in other cases, a very few contributors are doing all they can to remove an article, applying whatever argument possible, but without any recourse to objectivity, and without revealing their real reasons or arguments. And, also: your use of the word "girl" indicates lack of respect - you might as well have written "nannie" or "lassie" or such. This was a grown-up person, respected for her professionalism. Why would you belittle her? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "real" motives. Are you trying to say I'm lying about why I wanted the article deleted? I thought I'd been very clear about the reasons why I don't think it should exist (as an article on its own, elements of the story can of course can be mentioned in other articles), and I've tried to remain extremely objective, even though some on the other side have been extremely subjective (down to simply saying it should exist because they personally found it INTERESTING). As for that other crash, an objective standpoint would see that you're not comparing like for like (and note that even when you do, on Wikipedia, that is still dismissed as OTHERSTUFF). That article at least states the crash had some significant lasting impact, such as the change in emergency procedures, and therefore per EVENT it's possibly worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Contrast it to this crash, where the only lasting impact at all, is the naming of a locomotive.
I think MilborneOne might have accurately diagnosed the issue - when you look at how Mike's draft is developing, it's hard to see any other reason for this article being retained while not a single other article on a Lynx crash exists on Wikipedia (bar the IRA shoot-down, which I didn't discover until some time into this issue), other than the fact a woman died. An objective review would see that, despite the fact he is veritably stuffing his draft with more sources, the basic fact remains that the only reliable secondary sourcing this article contains that was generated after the event (and I exclude from the 'event' the recovery of the wreckage and the inquest, because nobody has yet given me a plausible reason why news reporting of those things should be considered separate for the purposes of EVENT), is news reporting generated by the locomotive naming.
And an objective review would see that none of that later coverage is even really about her being a woman, it's about her as a pilot and a train enthusiast, who was tragically killed. All good stuff for news outlets, not so much for an encyclopedia, or so I thought. If you can find any other reason, any reason at all, why someone else who is actually being objective, would consider this crash historically notable (as required by EVENT), then I implore you to explain it here and now, because that's what I've been trying to get all the keepers to do for the last two weeks, and not one has bothered to do so (obviously I'm defining objectivity as the ability to identify a reason for notability that isn't simply personal opinion, but is actually reflected by that thing getting attention in secondary sources after the event, in a way that is not simply a brief recap of what happened). Patrol forty (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, expansion of the draft seems to have ground to a halt, with the only new reliable secondary sources found being just more news reports of it at the time, and a couple more from the brief spike generated by the train naming (which was the only time it ever got any secondary coverage after the event, when including the inquest and recovery, as anyone would for 'events' like air crashes). It's got more detailed than before, but it nonetheless remains no more encyclopedic than what you expect to generate if you just merged of all the facts from news reporting into one article. Given this is the aviation project, is there anyone here who would be able to find some actual proper sources (such as books or research papers) that would demonstrate that anyone actually gave this crash any notice after the event in a way that would actually satisfy EVENT? In other words, sources that properly demonstrate DEPTH/PERSISTENCE/DIVERSE have been met? Alternatively, if none can be found, does anyone know how long it would be acceptable to wait before nominating this for deletion again? Patrol forty (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I just discovered Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Richmond helicopter crash - which seems to me to support MilborneOne's theory even more. This article was seemingly created simply to document this 'first female' claim, and whether or not the crash was historically notable otherwise, or whether or not that first female fact was deemed important enough to be documented in sources in enough DEPTH/PERSISTENCE/DIVERSE that Wikipedia could even be able to be clear that it is indeed a fact (as opposed to just 'believed to be'), seemed to be neither here nor there. Patrol forty (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding it bizarre, not to say suspect, that anybody should be willing to spend so much effort and so many words to try and get removed one single article. There are many many articles far less relevant, much worse written, far more worthy of removal - where is your real grudge? The lack of objectivity is repulsive. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Save your insults for someone who cares. Unless or until you reply to what I wrote above the first time you made these allegations of suspect motives, I frankly couldn't give a fuck what you think. Patrol forty (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 7425. Or is it 5143?

Hello everyone. This edit added a source in Russian that contradicts the current flight number used to name the article. Actually the article in Russian Wikipedia, linked to from the English one, considers ″5143″ as the flight number. I think the article should be moved, but I decided to start a discussion first, given that the Accident description at the Aviation Safety Network says the flightnumber was ″7425″. One more question: can airdisaster.ru be considered a reliable source? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airdisaster.ru is an unknown quantity to ne, whereas ASN is reliable. Easily solved by a redirect and mention of alt number. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three-surface aircraft

Hi, help appreciated at Three-surface aircraft where an editor is refusing to acknowledge that claims need independently verifying and is warring over it. FYI this editor has previously earned blocks for bad behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Please note that International airport, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

Reluctant as I generally am about removing articles, here is one that could be removed for me. Better still would be to severely prune it, and join what remains to the Airport article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 7

Are individual scheduled flights notable enough for articles? And if so, we should have a category for those articles. As the notability of this article seems to be based on it being the longest non-stop flight in commercial service, we should have many articles of this sort, as the record title has been passed on through aviation history. And I assume we also have the shortest flight (IIRC, it's in Bhutan or Nepal, and flies across a valley) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd roll it all into an article on long-haul flight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging lists of airline destinations with "refimprove"

Hi! There is an anonymous user who keeps tagging Julius Nyerere International Airport#Airlines and destinations with refimprove saying that they are required per Wikipedia policy, even though, on a talk page I brought up Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Body after User:Alifazal asked me to talk to the IP user via e-mail. See the IP user's response at User_talk:Alifazal#Refimprove_and_Swahili.

If the IP user doesn't agree with what the project decides he can make it a Wikipedia:Request for comment WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to check if the IP is not User:AfricaTanz; they have been indefinitely blocked for much the same reason you provide here.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Before AfricaTanz was blocked, was there already an RFC about this matter? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the contributions made by several IPs to the article (and also accross a number of other pages) I don't think they will use RFC. Personally, I see WP:BATTLEGROUND in every user's talk page the IP interacted with.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we stick to the airport project's guideline Bullet 10; otherwise we'll have a proliferation of citations on all the airport's articles. I had requested an SPI check against User:AfricaTanz. It is "now awaiting a behaviour investigation". Thank you User:WhisperToMe for your help in initiating this discussion. Ali Fazal (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone clarify - for my edification - is the problem an editor adding refimprove (and/or in a pointy and disruptive manner) when there is already sufficient referencing? Policy on referencing is clear, and looking at the example, although a source is given which supports the operators listed it does not give routes nor the airport terminals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to find an easy way to reference the destinations (as a way of showing proof and to ensure accuracy of information). Is there an RS website which can reference any or all destinations from a particular airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the official airport website should be enough. Unfortunately, you won't have that information for all airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. These airports have no sources for specific destinations, hence the tags. Some members of this project do not want to add sources because then there would be a "proliferation" of sources in the article, which Wikipedia plainly requires, by the way. The two choices are clear: either source the information or delete it. This project cannot create an exception to the Wikipedia sourcing policy. 172.56.7.175 (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$23,575 for a survey! I suspect the answer is that there is not a magic formula, like minded people will co-operate on projects that interest them, people dont like to be forced or perusaded to do anything if they are not comfortable with the subject. Some people are use to co-operating with others by experience or training or just for the fun of it, but some are loaners, that doesnt mean either a project/group or individual doesnt make a useful contribution to building an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Airlines Flight 611: IP edits

I've noticed some IP edits that have added false information regarding the non-ethnic Chinese on China Airlines Flight 611. The sources I have read only stated that there was one man: Luigi Heer from Switzerland. However some IP edits added a German, Japanese, and/or American people to the prose or to the nationality count when this is not true. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this continues, then I'm willing to semi-protect for a week or two. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to the first powered flight

Hi all. I have drafted an article on Claims to the first powered flight at User:Steelpillow/sandbox. The focus is on the claims and the surrounding debates rather than the events or aircraft themselves. Is it good enough to move live yet, i.e. better than nothing, or does it really need a bit more work first? Please reply at User talk:Steelpillow/sandbox. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=628675439"