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 93: Line 93:
::There was an edit conflict and my addition was lost. I'll try to recreate it. The problem here is [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] it has little to do with [[WP:PRIMARY]] and even less to do with [[WP:RS]]. The detail that "improve" and other similar templates are being added to are all based on trolling booking engines for start and stop dates. This is a practice that does not meet Wikipedia expectations for a reference. But the real problem is the wholesale reversion of these templates without resolving them. One of the editors involved has just admitted that they can not reference these properly at [[Dublin Airport]]. Eireaviation and his puppets all need to be blocked in my opinion they are not aiding the encyclopaedia. [[User:Andrewgprout|Andrewgprout]] ([[User talk:Andrewgprout|talk]]) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
::There was an edit conflict and my addition was lost. I'll try to recreate it. The problem here is [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] it has little to do with [[WP:PRIMARY]] and even less to do with [[WP:RS]]. The detail that "improve" and other similar templates are being added to are all based on trolling booking engines for start and stop dates. This is a practice that does not meet Wikipedia expectations for a reference. But the real problem is the wholesale reversion of these templates without resolving them. One of the editors involved has just admitted that they can not reference these properly at [[Dublin Airport]]. Eireaviation and his puppets all need to be blocked in my opinion they are not aiding the encyclopaedia. [[User:Andrewgprout|Andrewgprout]] ([[User talk:Andrewgprout|talk]]) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
::The fundamental policy here is that the [[WP:PROOF|'''burden of proof''']] lies with those who would include the information. If they do not cite '''[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]''' then that information may be summarily taken down. If it is left up, then it should be tagged to show up the need. However, if there is a mass of such dodgy factoids then [[WP:TAGBOMBING|'''tag bombing''']] the article, whether with cites or requests for cites, in itself affects readability and should not be done. Better to either put up a banner template such as [[Template:Refimprove]] or blank the lot, depending on the community's assessment as to whether RS is likely to exist. The question is not, who can get their version up while everybody argues about it, or get away with being rudest about the other team (and I recognise the odd expert at that game in this discussion), but to ignore such personal trolling (or report unacceptable cases at [[WP:ANI]]) and focus on the encyclopedic issues. I would suggest, in order: 1) strip out references to unreliable sources, and 2) banner-template dense areas of unsourced content. This will clarify the scope of the problem. Then, 3) Build back what you can from reliable sources, and 4) discuss whether RS for the rest is likely to be out there for the finding. Hope this helps. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
::The fundamental policy here is that the [[WP:PROOF|'''burden of proof''']] lies with those who would include the information. If they do not cite '''[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]''' then that information may be summarily taken down. If it is left up, then it should be tagged to show up the need. However, if there is a mass of such dodgy factoids then [[WP:TAGBOMBING|'''tag bombing''']] the article, whether with cites or requests for cites, in itself affects readability and should not be done. Better to either put up a banner template such as [[Template:Refimprove]] or blank the lot, depending on the community's assessment as to whether RS is likely to exist. The question is not, who can get their version up while everybody argues about it, or get away with being rudest about the other team (and I recognise the odd expert at that game in this discussion), but to ignore such personal trolling (or report unacceptable cases at [[WP:ANI]]) and focus on the encyclopedic issues. I would suggest, in order: 1) strip out references to unreliable sources, and 2) banner-template dense areas of unsourced content. This will clarify the scope of the problem. Then, 3) Build back what you can from reliable sources, and 4) discuss whether RS for the rest is likely to be out there for the finding. Hope this helps. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the user continues to tagbomb pages, for example the recent edit as referred to by me, all dates mentioned are confirmed by the attached source, the user flat out ignores this sourcing and then tagbombs the page. It is fundamentally disruptive. [[User:EireAviation|EireAviation]] ([[User talk:EireAviation|talk]]) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:15, 19 October 2021

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

Articles for deletion

(104 more...)

Proposed deletions

  • 19 Jun 2024 – Aergo Capital (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by InvadingInvader (t · c) was deproded by Dodger67 (t · c) (author) on 24 Jun 2024

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



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

Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles ?

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Category:Twin-engined_tractor_aircraft_with_unicorn_sprinkles_? as continuation of existing discussion.

Notification of nomination for deletion of IML Addax

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/IML Addax. - Ahunt (talk)

Around and around we go

There is a discussion here[1] about whether a crash survivor who doesn't have an article should be named in the article. Please come on over and join in the conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

CCI update

Copyright symbol Hello! A case was recently closed at contributor copyright investigations which resulted in the content of multiple articles under this WikiProject being removed or modified. Most of the articles involved were related to Airlines. Members of this project may want to assess how much was changed and if any articles were of high importance. Here are some additional notes about these changes:

  • Many airline stubs had the history presumptively deleted. Please do not restore such content unless you are rewriting it, as this is almost certainly copied from old issues of Flight International.

Thanks! Sennecaster (Chat) 12:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Airport in Ndola

Further information: Copperbelt International Airport and Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport

Since there has been a clear change of Airport administration in the city of Ndola as of August 2021, I need to know if my page, Copperbelt International Airport, should remain as it is or if it should be merged with the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport page. Sources indicate that the name ""Copperbelt International Airport"" is no-longer in use and this new airport has been renamed to ""Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport"". Sources also say that the Old Location of the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport has been renamed "Peter Zuze Airforce Base".

So, what should happen with these 2 pages? How should we edit them? Quick responses will be appreciated. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was already brought up a little earlier; see above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Ndola, we have a problem. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of KaiserAir

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/KaiserAir. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename the article "Vertical_stabilizer" to "Vertical_tail"

A discussion has been started here to rename the article "Vertical_stabilizer" to "Vertical_tail". (Hohum @) 18:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Move

Following the chaotic straw poll, a proper WP:RFM has been opened at Talk:Vertical_stabilizer#Requested move 28 September 2021, to which you are invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Belagaavi Airport#Requested move 25 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 12:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi RE-3A electronic intelligence gathering aircraft

Dear all, yesterday I discovered a variant of the Boeing E-3A Sentry that I'd never heard of; an electronic intelligence gathering version flown by the Saudis. I went to WP eager to learn about this unusual aircraft, but found no mention of it whatsoever. I was frankly very surprised -- the aviation experts here are usually pretty good. So I clicked around, found https://theaviationist.com/2021/09/30/rsaf-re-3a-raf-waddington/ about a recent transfer across the Atlantic, corroborated by our Royal Saudi Air Force article which lists the RE-3A with 19 Squadron, and added a note to the variants section of the article.

I was surprised to be reverted by Mark83 with the edit summary "Undid revision 1047627725 by Buckshot06 (talk) Happy to discuss this further of course, but this doesn't feel right to me. This article is about AWACS. The RSAF R-E3A started life as tankers to support RSAF E-3s (KE-3As). These were modified into Rivet Joint-comparable aircraft. Therefore they are more relevant for discussion at this article. The E-3 part of the desingation is an historical quirk."

Now there is no technical entry for the RE-3A variant anywhere on Wikipedia. This constitutes a gap in our coverage of 21st-century Western military aircraft, which is generally among our most excellent subjects of coverage, given WP's systemic contributor bias. WP should have an entry on such aircraft, and the Boeing E-3 Sentry article is the logical place to look. To go looking at EC-135 or RC-135 when one knows nothing more than the 'RE-3A' designation seems illogical to me. I would strongly suggest that mention of the RE-3A variant be readded back into the Boeing E-3 Sentry article. What do others think? Will copy this to WT:MILHIST and WT:AVIATION (now here done).

Please make all comments at Talk:Boeing E-3 Sentry. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger routes

Is it unreasonable to ask for independent sourcing for passenger routes? Most of the information about these is or completely unsourced or sourced by the airport from where it departs or by the operating airline.

People keep removing source request or request for better sources, claiming that is that what WP:RS demands. What sounds rather strange. For an example of what is happening: Dublin Airport.

I think it improves reliability and reduces advertising when independent sources are added.

I have asked this question on Wikiproject Airports before, but no answer was forthcoming. And with people actively engaging in edit warring over this, help and advice is needed. The Banner talk 08:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think being factual information it would be okay to source it to WP:PRIMARY, but, of course, third party refs are better. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But systematically removing maintenance tags? Like this one is not very helpful or even cordial. The Banner talk 12:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I agree, not helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has not been helpful is the edits inflicted by Andrewgprout and The Banner mainly, the two users operate tactically using their own interpretation of WP:RS and believe its third-party source or its out. Of course, third party reference is preferred but when not available, primary is the only option as otherwise the material must be deleted. The two users need to get a better understanding of this, ironically their behaviour has been far from cordial. The user omits their edits of what can only be described as vandalism, in bulk removal of information when their own narrative can't be the status-quo. It is not helpful. There are many examples of this on the Dublin Airport, Cork Airport pages. Example here of this behaviour, the sources verify the information but the editor bulk edits the page with random commentary seen here; Dublin Airport. EireAviation (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: I was not removing anything, just asking for sources or better sources. And you just removed those maintenance templates as being vandalism. Or removing polite request like this one. To my opinion, the first step is always to ask for sources or better sources to improve an article, not to fight requests for improvements. The Banner talk 07:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source neither a primary one. A primary One would be the airline itself. I understand you think it's ok with wikilinking to to the airline's wikipedia page, but it's not enough. Thanks for addressing the CN request with real, out of wikipedia references, which can be primary (the airline itself), secondary (a press article on the route) or even tertiary (eg OAG), but anyway outside wikipedia. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an edit conflict and my addition was lost. I'll try to recreate it. The problem here is WP:SYNTHESIS it has little to do with WP:PRIMARY and even less to do with WP:RS. The detail that "improve" and other similar templates are being added to are all based on trolling booking engines for start and stop dates. This is a practice that does not meet Wikipedia expectations for a reference. But the real problem is the wholesale reversion of these templates without resolving them. One of the editors involved has just admitted that they can not reference these properly at Dublin Airport. Eireaviation and his puppets all need to be blocked in my opinion they are not aiding the encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental policy here is that the burden of proof lies with those who would include the information. If they do not cite reliable sources then that information may be summarily taken down. If it is left up, then it should be tagged to show up the need. However, if there is a mass of such dodgy factoids then tag bombing the article, whether with cites or requests for cites, in itself affects readability and should not be done. Better to either put up a banner template such as Template:Refimprove or blank the lot, depending on the community's assessment as to whether RS is likely to exist. The question is not, who can get their version up while everybody argues about it, or get away with being rudest about the other team (and I recognise the odd expert at that game in this discussion), but to ignore such personal trolling (or report unacceptable cases at WP:ANI) and focus on the encyclopedic issues. I would suggest, in order: 1) strip out references to unreliable sources, and 2) banner-template dense areas of unsourced content. This will clarify the scope of the problem. Then, 3) Build back what you can from reliable sources, and 4) discuss whether RS for the rest is likely to be out there for the finding. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the user continues to tagbomb pages, for example the recent edit as referred to by me, all dates mentioned are confirmed by the attached source, the user flat out ignores this sourcing and then tagbombs the page. It is fundamentally disruptive. EireAviation (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1050691047"