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
MickMacNee (talk | contribs)
23,386 edits
Unleashing my claws, and I'll bear the consequenses
Line 216: Line 216:


:::Even though it was withdrawn, I wanted to respond to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Aviation&action=historysubmit&diff=383340755&oldid=383338470 this]. I am absolutely not advocating tossing everything until the investigation - the AIRCRASH essay if ''properly cited'' is actually good at spotting likely factors which will lead to lasting notability. Knowing what it ''actually says'', I've never actually nominated something that meets it, and have even voted keep based on it, and I've certainly never nominated for deletion any article with hundreds of dead, or even more than 20, where it really is just 'obvious', rather than just of interest. But if you guys are routinely keeping all such incidents just to wait for the report, without any RS proof whatsoever, not even a shred, that it might be historically significant, that is just flat wrong, and not in step with the rest of the pedia. If you have good, historically robust, hunches that you all agree on - then put it into a Guideline, or get AIRCRASH approved. But by just playing hunches without that, you are making it so much harder to enforce NOT#NEWS, because other people see these votes, with no arguments except news Ghits and prediction, and think that really is all AIRCRASH notability is about, and thus they think in future that simple vague hand waves to news coverage are just acceptable votes for these things, which are WP:EVENTS like anything else, subject to CRYSTAL and NOT like anything else. They have no idea that you intend to reconsider it later after the report, and you will always get people then resisting an Afd thru NTEMP, if it turns out to be non-notable, which they of course will have a case on, because everywhere else, we don't do speculative keeps. And it doesn't matter what ratio of articles air crashes are to the rest of the pedia, my comment relates to the quality of the project as a resource for people actually looking for significant aircrashes, which is not helped by effectively advocating a database of newscruft. You only have to look at [[List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft|this list]] to see the massive recentism problem that has already developed. I do not tend to treat people as a group, but frankly, some of the attacks and circling of wagons that has been going on at Afd makes it hard not to do so. I simply cannot fathom how so many knowingly false statements made about AIRCRASH are allowed to go uncommented on in Afds, if it is not down to some sort of Avi-crash loving groupthink, certainly not if there are actually 'deletionists' in this project, as is claimed. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Even though it was withdrawn, I wanted to respond to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Aviation&action=historysubmit&diff=383340755&oldid=383338470 this]. I am absolutely not advocating tossing everything until the investigation - the AIRCRASH essay if ''properly cited'' is actually good at spotting likely factors which will lead to lasting notability. Knowing what it ''actually says'', I've never actually nominated something that meets it, and have even voted keep based on it, and I've certainly never nominated for deletion any article with hundreds of dead, or even more than 20, where it really is just 'obvious', rather than just of interest. But if you guys are routinely keeping all such incidents just to wait for the report, without any RS proof whatsoever, not even a shred, that it might be historically significant, that is just flat wrong, and not in step with the rest of the pedia. If you have good, historically robust, hunches that you all agree on - then put it into a Guideline, or get AIRCRASH approved. But by just playing hunches without that, you are making it so much harder to enforce NOT#NEWS, because other people see these votes, with no arguments except news Ghits and prediction, and think that really is all AIRCRASH notability is about, and thus they think in future that simple vague hand waves to news coverage are just acceptable votes for these things, which are WP:EVENTS like anything else, subject to CRYSTAL and NOT like anything else. They have no idea that you intend to reconsider it later after the report, and you will always get people then resisting an Afd thru NTEMP, if it turns out to be non-notable, which they of course will have a case on, because everywhere else, we don't do speculative keeps. And it doesn't matter what ratio of articles air crashes are to the rest of the pedia, my comment relates to the quality of the project as a resource for people actually looking for significant aircrashes, which is not helped by effectively advocating a database of newscruft. You only have to look at [[List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft|this list]] to see the massive recentism problem that has already developed. I do not tend to treat people as a group, but frankly, some of the attacks and circling of wagons that has been going on at Afd makes it hard not to do so. I simply cannot fathom how so many knowingly false statements made about AIRCRASH are allowed to go uncommented on in Afds, if it is not down to some sort of Avi-crash loving groupthink, certainly not if there are actually 'deletionists' in this project, as is claimed. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

::Mick, your an arrogant asshole. Everyhting you've written above is an absolute lie!!!! That is far from the truth of anything you've said at the AFDs. ZYou treat everyone who doesn't rise to your standards as trash. You make condescending statements that are highly insulting to others, and you excecpt us simply to remain civil? Sorry, I have had enough from you. I'm not here to destroy WP,and voting Keep on a few crash articel will not make it irrelevant. You have thown away your right to any respect a long time ago. Go to hell. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


== UPS Airlines Flight 6 ==
== UPS Airlines Flight 6 ==

Revision as of 00:31, 7 September 2010

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

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:

Notification of Nomination for deletion of List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs

This is to inform members of this project, within whose scope this article falls, that User:76.66.193.119 has nominated this article for deletion. Interested project members are invited to add their thoughts on this proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs. - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of the editor requesting the change, appears very troll-like. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that closed as a keep. Article probably should be renamed, but is moved protected. -fnlayson (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for lists of accidents per aircraft type

Should lists of accidents that cover a specific aircraft type be added to the relevant categories for aircraft accidents and incidents per year? I recently added a load of cats to the List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount, but another editor removed them. As this also affects the DC-3 lists (and others), I'm throwing the question open to members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont think it is what the year categories should be used for. The categories are a finding aid and having long list items in the category does not really help find anything. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MilbroneOne. The lists shouldn't link to a category for aviation incidents in a particular year.- William 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats removed from the DC-3 lists. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USAir Flight 405 FAC

Hi all -- User:Wackywace has nominated USAir Flight 405 as a FAC. If anyone is interested in reviewing, please take a look over there. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvios

For a little while now, I've been monitoring the contributions of Jojo7727644it and I've noticed that most of the time, the user copies sentences (and sometimes paragraphs) from copyrighted sources and places them in various articles. I have repaired most of the damage and I have warned the user about WP:COPYVIO and instructed him to review WP:COPYRIGHT but I would appreciate if others could keep an eye on this user as well. I have no reason to not AGF but that doesn't mean that users can continue editing simply on the basis of not reading policies. Vedant (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just created Sikorsky Firefly

I saw an article about this new, experimental, all-electric helicopter in my local paper, so I used that as a source to create the article. My interest in this is pretty limited (and not being an expert, I could have made some mistakes or repeated a mistake by the reporter), so if anyone would like to look it over and perhaps improve it, please do. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the article. I'm a better editor than writer, so it's good to have something to wotk with than starting from scratch. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solairus Aviation

Just for information Solairus Aviation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solairus Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More AfDs

A number of aircraft accident articles have been nominated for deletion overnight. They are in Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation). Quite a few of the articles have a redlinked AfD debate link, although the debate is live. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airblue Flight 202

There is a discussion about the incorporation of the METAR into the Airblue Flight 202 on the talk page. Input from members of this WP is requested. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday Season 8

An editor has opened up a new sectionand modified the show's template. The only problem is- I've found no independent confirmation for the new episodes this editor has listed.

There has been a history of erroneous episodes for this show in the past. Look at the template's edit history, Mayday episodes were supposed to be made about Northwest Airlines Flight 5, Air New Zealand Flight 901, and China Airlines Flight 140. None of them were ever done.

I think the Season 8 entries should be deleted till some confirmation is received. Anyone agree or disagree with me? Please give me some input. I'm willing to revert the entries and take resulting heat but prefer to have editorial consensus first.- William 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: victim list on an aircrash article

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient airliners with massive windows?

I've just been watching a bit of No Highway in the Sky (1951) depicting a commercial jet airliner with a huge, continuous strip of windows like in a tour bus. The film is more than a little absurd, but I've seen such things before in the old movies. Someone at that article suggested it was based on the de Havilland Comet, which from the photos seemed to have nicer windows than current planes, but not to that extreme. I'm curious how large windows did get in the early days of commercial aviation. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all to do with pressurization. If the aircraft is unpressurized, then the windows can be quite large. With a pressurized aircraft, the windows are a lot smaller. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for British European Airways Flight 548

The British European Airways Flight 548 article is currently at FAC. Can we please have some input this time round as it was not promoted last time due to a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk)

Articles for deletion List of flight schools

This is to notify members of this project that this article, which falls within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors may add their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flight schools. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the list is deleted it might be a good idea to have a look at each article linked on it, to see whether any of them should be deleted as well. YSSYguy (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is a good idea! Will do. Help would be welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have been though the list. Right now some are university and military schools which generally make notability. The following currently don't make notability. Any objections to sending any of the following to AfD?
- Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple of Flight International articles on what appears to be Oxford Aviation Training - here and here which may indicate notability. Not sure about the other ones.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford is possibly the largest school in the UK and has been operating under different names for 40 years or so. One way of looking at this problem that just occurred to me is that they are all companies and should be dealt with under WP general company notability guidelines, I assume that we have some. It would save us from forming a new flight school guideline at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think we have pretty much settled on staying with WP:CORP for notability requirements for air carriers. Most of these schools above are fairly large and old ones and I am sure refs could be found for most if an effort was made. I will start off tagging them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way to go. The problem with the Oxford one is that the lead is far too short and does not explain the history or the fleet size. Never heard of any of the others so you can delete them! They may well have the same problem, as editors we only look at the lead and any important facts that are missing from the article we just don't know about. Plenty of non-notable articles at AfD instantly become very notable when someone says 'hang on a minute' and adds a ton of good notability refs. If (and it's a big if) articles were created properly we would not have this problem and all the work trying to sort it all out. It's not going to happen though. Yours (optimistically!) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished tagging them all for notability and refs as applicable. I have found that AfD is actually a very good way to make the encyclopedia better. In general poor quality articles articles taken there get either improved quickly or deleted, which in both cases improves the encyclopedia. In some cases I have taken a poor article to AfD and had everyone say "keep" as a worthwhile topic but no improvements are made. In that case I usually reduce it to a stub article as a way of starting over. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be that way though, I don't get involved in it but the patrolling of new articles should be tightened up considerably IMO, a bot lists the possibly aviation related ones and I look through them sometimes, an overwhelming amount of dross gets missed. Now if I was paid full time to sort it out that would be a different story!! We really have got much more important things to do with our (often very limited) time in here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Frederick James Harvey

On William Frederick James Harvey an IP who is trying to contribute appropriate content could use some help dealing with vandal fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.43.31 (talk)

First, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - any sources that cannot be reliably sourced are liable to be reverted. Personal records, logbooks etc generally don't count as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Secondly, when you find some WP:RS's to back up what you want to say, take care in carrying out your edits - assuming that you were the IP editor that contributed to William Frederick James Harvey on the 14th, many of your edits were poorly written and broke formatting - please use the preview button to check that what you are adding doesn't break anything, or discuss thingts on the article talk page first.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.43.31 (talk)
Some of the IPs additions were appropriate (for example he was born in Hackney not Portslade) although it needs a reliable reference. Main problem is the IP made such a mess of the code with his/her edits that I would suggest it may be better for the IP to seek help and discuss the changes needed and the reliable sources on the article talk page until they gain experience in editing articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to see page patrollers do is fix those newbie mistakes, rather than revert the newbie. Show how to fix the mistake, not tell the IP to do it (obviously the IP does not know how), nor smack down the IP for the mistake. Less gatekeeping, more helping. A newbiew has no clue; page patrollers such as User:Docboat are supposed to be experienced editors, thus capable of fixing mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.43.31 (talk)
If you read what I said above, that is is bring it up on the talk page and people will help do the edits until the IP learns. This project has nothing to do with new page patrollers but some of them do not have time to fix all the errors they come across. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Accidents Investigation Branch

Just a heads-up. The AAIB was known as the Accidents Investigation Branch until November 1987. Therefore any mention of them in articles covering accidents up to November 1987 should use the Accidents Investigation Branch link and not the Air Accidents Investigation Branch link. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents Investigation Branch is a redirect to Air Accidents Investigation Branch, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 Stratofortress A class review

The above article is currently undergoing A-class review under WP:MILHIST at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Please take a minute to drop by. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

For those interested I have nominated Skydrift Air Charter for deletion at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of aircraft accidents

The question of a number of deaths not establishing notability has reared its head again. Therefore I've proposed an amendment to WP:AIRCRASH at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Automatic notability. Please feel free to give your views. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 World Airliner Census

G'day all, the 2010 Flight International World Airliner census is available online via this link. YSSYguy (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of SaxonAir

For those interested I have nominated SaxonAir for deletion at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Garrison edits

A spate of submissions about the pilot Lynn Garrison have been appearing, see North American P-51 Mustang and Canadair CT-133 Silver Star, with some reversions taking place: here. This could be a conflict-of-interest issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

BA Incident

The AAIB have released a Formal Report into an incident at St Kitts on 26 September 2009 in which take-off was initiated from the wrong position. Currently, the report on the AAIB website won't open for me, but it is also reported by the Aviation Herald. Is this incident significant enough to be mentioned under the Airline, Aircraft and Airport articles? If so, would it also be notable enough to sustain an article of its own? Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to be non-notable to the aircraft (Boe 777). But is more of an issue for the airport due to poor signage/markings for taxiways. The airport article is the most relevant place for that be mentioned. -fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it it is notable enough to be mentioned at one, then it should be at all three IMHO, the relevant section being titled "accidents and incidents". Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incident did not damage or even affect the aircraft, so there's no justification for mentioning it in the aircraft's article. -fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The airport has already started to improve signs according to this flightglobal.com article. -fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incident could be mentioned as a point on the performance of the 777 in taking off safely from such a short take-off run. However, the neither of the 2 FlightGlobal stories on it today mention that aspect of the incident, so we'd need another reliable source that pointed it out. Beyond that, I don't see it as notable to the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting report. Is WP:AIRCRASH still a beta only guideline? It might help if it was finalised and add something to cover how best to deal with an incident like this. Reading the report the 777 performed as it should (not notable), the problem was apparently with the airport management (notable) and the crew (probably not notable as no damage/casualties). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:AIRCRASH is still a beta-only essay. See my post further down the page. I've outlined my thoughts on a sub-page of my User page and invite comments on that page's talk page. I'm trying to get it as simple as possible whilst covering all major points in WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight inspection and navaids

G'day all, just came across Flight inspection while looking for a general article about aviation navaids (there is a nautical-focused article navigation aid that mentions aircraft in passing). First of all, any suggestions as to what to do with the flight inspection article? Second, assuming one doesn't already exist that I haven't found, should we have an aviation-focused navaid article? Do we just expand the existing navigation aid article? YSSYguy (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that radio navigation would be the main general article to cover all the aviation navaids. Calibration of the different aids will be specific to each one, the best place to cover calibration is at each individual navaid type and it is mentioned in some of the articles. The title 'Flight inspection' seems a bit misleading to me, is that what the process is called in the US? Difficult to see a use for this article as it is at the moment, it could possibly be expanded by adding companies or organisations that operate calibrator aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Pre-flight inspection" meant? Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be about navaid calibration. The two King Airs used in Australia for these duties have Flight Inspection titles. YSSYguy (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of aviation

Hi. I've left a query at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Timeline of aviation that editors of this wikiproject might be able to assist with some aspects of. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of aircraft accidents 2

WP:AIRCRASH does not seem to have as much support as it used to do. It also has a couple of gaps which I have unsuccessfully tried to fill without success. Therefore, I've put down my thoughts on the notability of aircraft crashes at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents. I must stress that, at the moment, these are just my views. I would ask editors to discuss any issues they have on that page's talk page rather than editing my views (I've got the page watchlisted).

I'm trying to simplify WP:AIRCRASH using aviation industry weight bands. I have specifically avoided lighter-than-air craft as I believe there is little dispute over notability for accidents involving these aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we need to rethink the whole idea of the AIRCRASH guidelines, and if they are even "wanted" by the general community at all. The current DRVs at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2#Filair plane crash and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2#Agni Air Flight 101 give some insight into the community's views on the guidelines. For the most part, they are just ignored as being "essays", with no thought at all put forth that they are valuable in any way. With this attitude, I can't see us ever getting them to guideline status this way.
The oringinal AATF guidelines were created because some editors reviewed reviewed (that was the idea anyway) the AFDs, and drew the guidelines from them. Now we are trying to be proscriptive, laying out what we think the guidelines should be. I think we need to go bak to the intuitive approach, and find several "hallmarks" of notability in the Keep articles, and list those. These should be as few as possible, and basically be illustrations of how to apply the existing policies and guidelines of WP:N, WP:V, W: NOTNEWS, and the others to the articles. Then we can submit these directly to WP:N for consideration. There may be other ideas that would work to, but I don't think we can create them in a vacuum any more and then expect the community to accept them, not with the current attitude being against project guidelines. It has to be done with broader input this time, or it will fail again. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you Bill way back I did suggest Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability/Archive_1#New_10-passenger_idea - which basically said accidents with more than ten passengers was notable, those with less may be. All Incidents are not notable but some may be. Little bit more explanation needed to explain the may be section, a bit shorter than the current suggestion! But as you say all we should be doing is supplementing the general guidelines with some advice particularly to aviation, not trying to re-write the WP:N etc guides. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is already pretty good, I don't think there is a discrepency between it and NOT#NEWS at all, except when it is being used for tiny airliners or tiny airlines, where common sense is going out the window a lot. The reason it has lost the respect it might have once had, is that people are actually constantly mis-quoting it, either out of simple ignorance or assumption having not read it properly, or worse. People are now claiming it automatically allows articles for hull losses, or for meeting just 1 criterion, or for deadly airliner crashes if on scheduled flights - when all of that is just flat wrong when you actually read the essay. Combined with people now often simply hand waving to the GNG about news coverage for 'serious' crashes, with the definition of serious changing daily, and bizarrly claiming that investigations are not routine and a sign of significance even before they are published, then you have a real problem convincing the outside community you actually have a handle on things. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points MickM but the problem could stem from the fact the essay has to many criteria (which is where the ten or more idea came about) as you say it is unlikely that smaller losses are really notable without other factors. You also have to remember that a lot of editors have been through a lot of AfDs and can normally tell quickly if it is notable enough for a stand-alone article or not without quoting essays or guidelines. So as Bill suggested is it really neeeded, if it is then it has to assist AfDs in coming to a conclusion not confusing everybody. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it was withdrawn, I wanted to respond to this. I am absolutely not advocating tossing everything until the investigation - the AIRCRASH essay if properly cited is actually good at spotting likely factors which will lead to lasting notability. Knowing what it actually says, I've never actually nominated something that meets it, and have even voted keep based on it, and I've certainly never nominated for deletion any article with hundreds of dead, or even more than 20, where it really is just 'obvious', rather than just of interest. But if you guys are routinely keeping all such incidents just to wait for the report, without any RS proof whatsoever, not even a shred, that it might be historically significant, that is just flat wrong, and not in step with the rest of the pedia. If you have good, historically robust, hunches that you all agree on - then put it into a Guideline, or get AIRCRASH approved. But by just playing hunches without that, you are making it so much harder to enforce NOT#NEWS, because other people see these votes, with no arguments except news Ghits and prediction, and think that really is all AIRCRASH notability is about, and thus they think in future that simple vague hand waves to news coverage are just acceptable votes for these things, which are WP:EVENTS like anything else, subject to CRYSTAL and NOT like anything else. They have no idea that you intend to reconsider it later after the report, and you will always get people then resisting an Afd thru NTEMP, if it turns out to be non-notable, which they of course will have a case on, because everywhere else, we don't do speculative keeps. And it doesn't matter what ratio of articles air crashes are to the rest of the pedia, my comment relates to the quality of the project as a resource for people actually looking for significant aircrashes, which is not helped by effectively advocating a database of newscruft. You only have to look at this list to see the massive recentism problem that has already developed. I do not tend to treat people as a group, but frankly, some of the attacks and circling of wagons that has been going on at Afd makes it hard not to do so. I simply cannot fathom how so many knowingly false statements made about AIRCRASH are allowed to go uncommented on in Afds, if it is not down to some sort of Avi-crash loving groupthink, certainly not if there are actually 'deletionists' in this project, as is claimed. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, your an arrogant asshole. Everyhting you've written above is an absolute lie!!!! That is far from the truth of anything you've said at the AFDs. ZYou treat everyone who doesn't rise to your standards as trash. You make condescending statements that are highly insulting to others, and you excecpt us simply to remain civil? Sorry, I have had enough from you. I'm not here to destroy WP,and voting Keep on a few crash articel will not make it irrelevant. You have thown away your right to any respect a long time ago. Go to hell. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPS Airlines Flight 6

The UPS Airlines Flight 6 article is currently at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to be detecting a pattern in who is nominating recent articles for AFD. Is there a history behind this we might ought to look into, or just another deletionst with time on his/her hands? - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another deletionist I think. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. So, you were complaining to me the other day about people not being CIVIL in Afd discussions. Does you admin training tell you that the direction this little discussion here is taking, is civil, or not civil? Or is it just OK because you haven't actualy said it at the nominatoin page? Good luck with convincing people you are someone worth collaborrating with in good faith on a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MM, perhaps draw in the claws, this is not the place to fight that fight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is civil. A question was asked, without resorting to swearing, or questioning the editing capabilities of the editor being talked about. It was suggested that maybe there was something worthy of further scrutiny, and I gave my opinion that nothing untoward seemed to be taking place, just a straightforward deletionist nominating articles in good faith so that the community may give their opinion of the merits of keeping or deleting the article, which they are doing. The placement of the neutrally worded notice at this WP is perfectly reasonable, it does not suggest to editors that they should vote one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I was just making an observation. I could have added a bad-faith nomination comment to the AFD page, but I didn't, as I don't have any evidence of that. It's just a gut feeling without any real substance, but I wanted to get another's opinion on it, and see if they knew of any history. I got that, and he's probably right. End of discussion, barring further evidence. As to the UPS AFD itself, if you spend much more time on air accident AFDs, I think you'll develop your own sense for what is notable or not, and realize that this one has all the hallmarks of notability. And then perhaps you'll understand why I asked the question here. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people deletionists is a bad faith comment in of itself, and is most definitely an incivil way to be discussing other editors, and definitely when done behind their backs. And I already have a good idea of how these debtates go, and I'll be testing their general logic at VPP quite soon, because I think that if the issue gets some exposure to a wide range of editors who deal in all sorts of fields, all with the common goal of writing an encyclopoedia adhereing to WP:NOT and WP:5P, rather than operating a news aggregation service for 'serious' crashes, then I think things might look very different. MickMacNee (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Inculsionist and deletionist are standard terms used on WP, and I stand by that as good faith usage. As far as being behind the user's back, if you found it, so could he. He's welcome to comment here. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, statements such as "I think that if the issue gets some exposure to a wide range of editors who deal in all sorts of fields, all with the common goal of writing an encyclopoedia adhereing to WP:NOT and WP:5P, rather than operating a news aggregation service for 'serious' crashes, then I think things might look very different" are not assuming good faith in ANY way, but entirely typical. The fact that you apprear to actually believe it speaks volumes, since anyone who has actually read the aircrash AFDs from the past few years could easily disprove it. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's enough, this is not productive; everyone should just move along (these are not the droids you are looking for...) FWiW (LOL), the AFD is now becoming extremely vexing... Bzuk (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you some kind of Jedi? I'm a Tandorian! I'm immune to Jedi influence. (Or something like that!) - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a standard term at all, and in the accusatory way it is being used here, it is most definitely incivil. And if you think that, then feel free to disprove it with some links then, they will be useful at VPP. Although I suspect that you haven't quite understood what I meant by serious accident as it is being bandied about at Afd currently, and are about to link me up to some past Afd's that are not remotely relevant to the current issue, which is the automatic aggregation of the news reporting on all loss accidents of 'big' planes, (and even little ones if it's still an 'airliner' and a few people died) just because we can, and not because it does not violate NOT or 5P. MickMacNee (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS has existed for a long time, and many accidents and incidents have been added over the years that fail that guideline (and the others), and most of them have been deleted. Perhaps you would have voted to delete in every case, perhaps not. But you have declared them irrelevant before even reviwing them. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the m:Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians could help you with your efforts at VPP. Oops, was I being uncivil again? - I said deletionist! - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, far from it being my wont but here is some unsolicited advice: DFTT. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
But the plant kept saying "Feed Me, Seymour!"!!! - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know... I am having a hard time keeping a civil tongue in the AFD "string" as it is getting to the point where an admin has to be called in. FWiW, isn't this a useless waste of time for all involved?!! Sorry for not making a funny quip, but I am rapidly losing my sense of humour (note I still write in Canajan) ... Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too technical here, but for the purposes of CIVIL, there is a world of difference between self-identifying as a 'deletionist', and being labelled by someone else as a 'deletionist'. I won't even bother commenting on being called a troll and the other nonsense. As they say, the best way to deal with incivility when it's directed at you, is to ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Mick being Mick. Funny! - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What was the point of this post? And you have the gall to call me a troll? MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has called you a troll. At leasst not today on this page, which is what I assume you meant. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the case, I admonished you not to engage in "feeding the troll," namely, not to poke sticks at an editor whose comments are meant to inflame or create animosity. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
This discussion is going nowhere fast. I've made an Administrative decision and closed it. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=383359660"