Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Talkkaris (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 14 January 2020 (→List or categorize near miss incidents.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)

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.

Notable enough

There was an aircraft accident today in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I was wondering if it was notable enough to start an article, see here. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:AIRCRASH, which indicates it probably should. - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can note someone else started it: 2019 Busy Bee crash. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International flights that crash in a third country

There has been a discussion on my talk page regarding international aviation incidents. The question is: if a flight from country A to country B crashes in country C, should it be included in templates/categories for aviation incidents in all of A, B and C, or C only. Examples: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and China Eastern Airlines Flight 583. As this issue affects numerous articles, I'm posting the question here to gain a wider consensus. -Zanhe (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A, B, and C: my view is that a plane crash affects its origin and destination countries far more than the place en route where it happens to go down. Therefore it should be considered to occur in all three countries rather than C only. -Zanhe (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, If it crashes in country C then that's the only "accidents and incidents in X" category it belongs in. What if the airliner was owned by country D, manufactured in country E, the engines were from country F, the pilot from country G ... ? DexDor (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't muddy the waters with tangential factors. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, for example, is in three categories: 2014 in the Netherlands, 2014 in Malaysia, and 2014 in Ukraine (A, B, and C). Should Malaysia and Netherlands be removed? -Zanhe (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was "should it be included in templates/categories for aviation incidents". DexDor (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I wrote the templates it was strictly by the location of occurrence: for example the template for crashes in Mainland China included crashes only occurring within Mainland China. For the Brazil template I did add a footnote saying that AF447 crashed in international waters nearby (the Brazilians did try to do search and rescue ops), but I emphasized that this was international waters.
We could have a separate template where it is "crashes of German airlines" or "crashes of Brazilian airlines" et al to record by the country of the airline.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that'd be over-navboxing. Not every fact in the article needs a corresponding navbox. More navboxes would add workload for editors without adding much benefit for readers (most of whom don't even see navboxes at all). DexDor (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I've relied on navboxes increasingly is because otherwise "see also" sections become hard to maintain/add to. It is true "most of whom don't even see navboxes at all" because mobile phone views of Wikipedia don't show them. This is something that needs to be fixed. It is also true that "Not every fact in the article needs a corresponding navbox" but airline of occurrence is prominent as it means the investigation authority of that country gets involved in the air crash investigation. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Template is aviation accidents and incidents in Mainland China. The other such templates are specifically by country. Kiss it simple, accidents go where they happened. As I pointed out elsewhere, the consensus is accidents and incidents in airport articles are placed where they happen. A flight that takes off from Foo Airport and crashes at the Fooville Airport only gets listed at the accidents and incidents section of Fooville Airport's article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Viking Aircraft Inc.

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/Viking Aircraft Inc.. Please note the nomination also includes two aircraft type articles: St Andrews Viking and Viking Aircraft Viking II. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Arentowicz up for deletion

Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The world's largest aircraft by wingspan has found a new owner, and a new mission

It was announced today that the new owner of the Stratolaunch will be Cerberus Capital Management, along with all the assets of the former Paul G. Allen company, Stratolaunch Systems. A new mission was announced by the CEO yesterday: offer "high speed flight test services". I've updated the articles, but did want to invite a review by interested aviation wiki editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Aviation since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airspeed Aviation

I have re-purposed the article at Airspeed Aviation as a disambig page. It was originally a stub about a defunct airline and all that information is, for now, still there. But I am not expert with the disambig system, so any help in cleaning up my efforts would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a correct move, but premature: as long as all proposed links are red links, there's no need to disambiguate between them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up for AfD

The page has been put up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airspeed Aviation. I think that one of the companies it listed is notable, so I have now repurposed the page as a stub article on that company. Either way, all contributions to the AfD discussion will be welcomed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malakal Airport

User @Hamzamathiw has changed the sole operator at this airport to Badr Airlines; however our article on that airline does not mention Malakal as a destination. Neither do I see a verifiable source for the change. I feel inclined to revert, but prefer to discuss first. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For lack of reaction, I will indeed revert. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401

Are ghosts really that important aspect of air accidents, seems to be a feature of Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 according to recently added content. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its what makes the crash relevant in the modern times and popular culture then it clearly is, it would just be another 70's plane crash but because of the ghost stories around it there are books, TV shows and countless websites and youtube videos concerning the flight and its fate. You can't pick and choose what makes it renowned in the present. The paragraph on the page is also sourced.86.186.148.190 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with our IP editor. There is plenty enough RS to make the accident at least as notable for the ghost phenomenon as for the loss of life, if not more so. It just means we have to handle the ghost stories with due regard to WP:NPOV and clarity. I have responded more fully on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:RSN

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Airline_fansites This discussion at WP:RSN about the use of enthusiast websites as references may be of interest.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning the discussion - I duly added my 0,02 € :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List or categorize near miss incidents.

While researching aviation accidents, I just stumbled upon the 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, that could have resulted in 677 casualties, if not for the near miss, of which I had no knowledge of. The only other near miss I remembered was the recent Air Canada Flight 759 since I saw it on the news at the time. It could have collided with 4 more aircraft and have nearly 1000 casualties. Aviation accidents are well documented and listed in several ways, by year/country/airline/model of aircraft. But these notable near misses, of which I'm sure there's more, aren't all listed in any page I could find on Wikipedia, or even in the categories at the bottom of the page. I suggest creating a new category, and for better visibility and user engagement, a page, with a title like "List of near miss aviation incidents" The List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft page lists all incidents by year, and the near misses are also listed amongst them, but being able to see only other incidents like it could be valuable.Talkkaris (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=935778640"