Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AV)
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:
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

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

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(4 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

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



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

NATO Reporting Names degrade in relevance in Russian / Soviet Aircraft

[edit]

I want to de-upgrade the Relevance in NATO designations in articles with soviet technology, including Aircraft, Missiles and Submarines, i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles and put these western designations in a second-plane chart. MGXD11 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles Per WP:AIRNATO, The original designations are already present in the first paragraph and are predominantly used to refer to Soviet/Russian aircraft within articles. It is customary to include common alternative names for topics, including those originating outside the country of origin, in the first sentence of an article. NATO reporting names are no exception. Had the USSR assigned standardized reporting names to NATO aircraft, we would have included them in their respective articles as well. - ZLEA T\C 01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, it is common established Wikipedia practice to include alternate names for all sorts of things – not just Russian and Soviet military hardware – in boldface in the first or second sentence of the lead. NATO reporting names are commonly used in secondary sources to refer to Russian or Soviet materiel; a quick Google search for "flanker" or "fullback aircraft" bears this out. As ZLEA points out, WP:AIRNATO already specifies that original designations be used in the title and article body, which I feel is adequate emphasis. Carguychris (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this earlier, but the OP should be aware of ru:Су-9. We've had Russian-language editors gripe about NATO names before, but they always ignore the fact that they're also included in the Russian language Wiki articles. See Talk:Ilyushin Il-76/Archive 1#NATO reporting name for another similar discussion. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Abandoned and Little Known Airfields

[edit]

What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability of Abandoned and Little Known Airfields, [1], as a source? I've corresponded with Paul Freeman in the past, and he seems sincere about factual accuracy. Carguychris (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, only an addition for the sake of completeness: there also exists a European almost-namesake, but I see no indication that the two projects are related. https://www.forgottenairfields.com/ Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilot intake jet fighter

[edit]

It seems the deleted category from this discussion has been recreated at Category:Pilot intake jet fighter. I've nominated the new category for WP:G4 speedy deletion, but given the different name, I am not confident that the reviewing admin will recognize the category as a recreation. - ZLEA T\C 23:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, but someone unfamiliar with aircraft layouts might not immediately recognize a "nose-mounted intake" and a "pilot intake" as referring to the same thing. If it weren't for the articles in the category, I probably would have assumed "pilot intake" was supposed to mean something like this. - ZLEA T\C 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been created by the same editor they are using a different account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I would have noticed had I visited their talk page! I think the intended word was 'pitot' not 'pilot' as that was how I described it at the last deletion discussion (which the creator read and agreed it was a bad category). Re-creation of a bad category with another incorrect term, and suspected socking, it's not looking good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has contested deletion. - ZLEA T\C 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFD is the next step (again!) or a proven WP:SPI would delete all contribs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on policy: is there anything preventing the addition of this gibberish category to multiple aircraft articles being reverted immediately? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but I decided not to as I was not 100% sure an admin would agree with the CSD. With the CSD now being contested, I'm not sure now is the best time to do that, either. I won't oppose anyone who wants to remove the category from the articles, though. - ZLEA T\C 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be removed from the articles for failing WP:CATDEF. Not defining and not supported by references in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will automatically delete the categories from articles as I discovered last time, I was half way through removing them manually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use Cat-a-lot a lot (no pun intended) on Commons, and the deletion of the category gave me the perfect opportunity to test it here. See Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Categories 2. - ZLEA T\C 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it as a category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Category:Pilot intake jet fighter. This editor is causing extra work and it needs to stop. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been deleted. I've added all articles from the category to my watchlist to more easily catch any further recreation attempts. - ZLEA T\C 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

I've created an RfC on listing the officially determined causes in the summary field of the Infobox accident occurrence template. It can be found at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed Survivors

[edit]

I was just reading the B-17 article today and I noticed that the "surviving aircraft" section now reads "surviving aircraft, lost survivors, and wrecks". In response, I made an edit to change the header and remove the information about the destroyed aircraft. However, it brings up another point that I considered mentioning in the previous discussion about names of surviving aircraft articles, but didn't at the time because I didn't want to seem like I was piling on the user. Based on a discussion on the talk page for the surviving Spitfires list, my understanding is that the consensus was that aircraft that survived military service, but were later destroyed should not be included in such lists. On balance, if sufficiently relevant, those destroyed in accidents could be included in the accidents and incident section. Is this correct? –Noha307 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...my understanding is that the consensus was that aircraft that survived military service, but were later destroyed should not be included in such lists. On balance, if sufficiently relevant, those destroyed in accidents could be included in the accidents and incident section. That is my understanding as well. In cases where the aircraft's destruction isn't particularly noteworthy per WP:AIRCRASH but bears mentioning due to special circumstances, it can alternately be mentioned under "Operational history"; see Piasecki HUP Retriever for an example. Regarding the overall question, huge numbers of historic aircraft have been destroyed in non-noteworthy crashes or routinely scrapped or otherwise expended; listing every such instance would eventually overrun surviving aircraft lists with WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. In my opinion, the destruction of a particular aircraft needs to have be specifically discussed in detail in a WP:SECONDARY source to warrant inclusion; a routine entry in a database doesn't cut it. Carguychris (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Concorde

[edit]

Concorde has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Linate Airport disaster#Requested move 27 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Linate Airport disaster#Requested move 27 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commemorative Air Force has an RfC

[edit]

Commemorative Air Force has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –Noha307 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 27 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 27 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for International airport

[edit]

International airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MEA Flight 444 article

[edit]

Hi WikiProject Aviation

I am currently working on writing an article about MEA flight 444, as that was one of the incidents that we do not have coverage for. Please provide feedback, or maybe even contribute yourself Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 - Wikipedia

Thanks,

Mangoflies (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link (so people can click easily): Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444. Commander Keane (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting that there
—— Mangoflies (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoflies, while you are here, I see the draft says "The search operc" so it appears the sentence got cut off. Commander Keane (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on Vital Articles about adding and removing several types of military aircraft.

[edit]

I have created a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM that discusses adding/removing several types of aircraft, with an emphasis on removing some U.S. planes due to them being over represented and adding non-U.S. aircraft. Please feel free to join the conversation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation-safety.net reliable?

[edit]

Aviationwikiflight has been completely removing sources from primarily Russian plane crashes and leaving them entirely unsourced, such as this diff. Included are a couple Russian databases as well as links from aviation-safety.net, which is a curated database. Am I missing some reason why this is not a reliable source? SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources, that could be used to restore the content. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a previous discussion of airdisaster.ru at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 446#airdisaster.ru. I seem to recall some recent AFDs that discussed it futher, but I'm not positive. As much as I'd love for that to be a reliable source, I personally don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, and I don't seem to be alone about that. The ASN articles of the accidents in question are solely sourced on that airdisaster.ru site. Since ASN cites it, does it suddenly become a reliable source? I don't think so, but am happy to hear your input about that site and whether ASN using that source makes airdisaster.ru a reliable source. And lurking just around the corner is the topic of whether ASN using that as a source reduces ASN's credibility overall. RecycledPixels (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty interesting problem, though, isn't it? It's a pretty important source for historical Russian air disasters, and clearly passes WP:UBO. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a huge source for historical Soviet-era air accidents, and if there was just some way to verify its content it would be a gold mine. But I just don't know if all the database entries are just something someone made up one day. It is definitely not for lack of trying on my part. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of ASN, whilst the website is generally reliable, the removed entries cited airdisaster.ru, which appears to be an unreliable source. Whilst the discussion at RS/N was limited, the issues regarding its reliability still stand, and I don't think that ASN citing airdisaster.ru makes the website reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a "reliable source" backing its content on unreliable sources automatically makes it unreliable. It is true that ASN uses other sources, but we cannot determine what information is reliable and what is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 eurocents: the crux seems to be that we think/judge/decide very black vs. white. Either a source is totally reliable or totally unreliable. A bit more nuance would help a lot. The least we could do is to evaluate/judge individual accident reports on sites like ASN for the reliability of their sources, instead of accepting/denouncing the whole source as such. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aviationwikiflight keeps removing the sources. It seems like the reason airdisasters.ru would be unreliable is because it appears self-published, but it's cited by other reliable sources, and in the article I'm specifically interested in the basic database information has been confirmed or used by newspaper articles, and is used on other wikis as well. I don't see a reason to call it blanket unreliable, more of a "use with caution." SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than ASN, what other reliable sources cite airdisaster.ru? Additionally, as this source puts it: "The sources of information on the Airdisaster.ru website are not indicated," which calls into question where the database gets its information from and whether or not the information presented is accurate or not. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they do have a link to the final investigation report on airdisaster.ru for that specific crash, so it's possible it was added later or that the article was mistaken. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article above was published on 23 February 2017, and looking through the Internet Archive, this archived version of the airdisaster.ru entry, dated from 24 February 2017, does show that the entry did not cite any sources for its information until 2020-2021 judging from this archived version from 12 May 2021 which means that, for around 3-4 years, the information presented was unsourced. So while some entries may cite final reports, the majority of entries on soviet aviation accidents do not cite any sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "use with caution" would add a third step on the ladder of reliability of information sources, a 50% improvement! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a general note, I have been contributing to ASN, a few times creating new entries in the database but more frequently honing detail on existing entries. Time and again I found my contributions to be carefully considered, and handled accordingly. So it seems hard to condemn them totally for probably showing too much confidence in one particular resource - though it might indeed be doubtful. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Neal Boortz

[edit]

Neal Boortz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of sourced content at Shenyang J-35

[edit]

Several users have been attempting to remove sourced content about the J-31B from the Shenyang J-35 article without providing sources to challenge the existing sources. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - ZLEA T\C 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good source for time zones for airports

[edit]

Baikonur_Krayniy_Airport says the offset is UTC+6 but Time in Kazakhstan says it is UTC+5. I suppose the +6 might have been written during DST or something like that? What's the canonical source for this data? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that you are confused by an unusual uncanonical example. Baikonur is on Kazakhstan territory, but has been leased out to Moscow until 2050, as I read; so that it is under Russian authority. That said, it seems not impossible to find an API somewhere on the www to which one feeds a coordinate pair, and gets a timezone descriptor as response. The reliability remains to be seen, especially in a situation as unusual as this one. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for John Glenn Columbus International Airport

[edit]

John Glenn Columbus International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAP studies?

[edit]

Wikipedia's algorithm has directed the Timeline of Ufology to Fringe topic noticeboard, which got a lot of pushbacks. If you guys think it's necessary, could you save it by voting in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs? The content could be updated that is more oriented towards aviation, given that the AIAA UAP Integration and Outreach Committee (https://aiaauap.org/) already exists. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pneudraulics

[edit]

Can somebody please source this stub? It’s part of the November citation drive. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-RfC discussion

[edit]

Now that we've got a consensus on what to do with listing the causes in the aircraft occurrence infoboxes, I would like to propose that we should do a project to clean up the summaries. Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will participate. Before we start, and given that RFC consensus says cause is to be included in the Infobox Summary, I think we should edit the Aircraft Occurrence template Documentation so the explanation of the Summary parameter explicitly says (something like): "Brief statement of the event and cause". DonFB (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DonFB, the consensus is not that "cause is to be included". The RfC closure comment says that causes may be included, "provided they are suitably brief and due weight is followed", and I think it's a fair summary of the discussion. The Aircraft Occurrence template documentation should reflect that, if anything (and the documentation itself doesn't have to be brief, mind you; we can spend as many words as needed to explain the above). --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. How about: "Brief statement of the event, which may include the cause" (or: "...include the causes"). Or would you like to propose wording? DonFB (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Brief explanation of the event, including a plain-language explanation of the primary cause, if one has been identified. "Crashed into mountain due to pilot error" is better than "CFIT into rising terrain due to poor CRM after descending below glideslope in IMC while attempting to diagnose intermittent blanking of first officer's PFD". Carguychris (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Works for me. DonFB (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No: it's neither a statement nor an explanation; it's a summary. Expanding on the current description, and based on the RfC closing comment, we could say "Brief factual summary of the occurrence. It may include causes, provided the result is suitably brief, neutral, and follows due weight. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to say "factual"? DonFB (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) And "neutral"? I'm also a bit mystified by the mention of "due weight". What information in a brief accident summary would be "undue" in the meaning of that term in Wikipedia? DonFB (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can check our neutral point of view policy? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it seems superfluous and condescending to tell users in template documentation that they must be factual and neutral, practices thoroughly embedded in site policies which editors almost certainly know if they're sophisticated enough to be examining a template.
Suggested:
"Brief summary of the occurrence that may include causes." DonFB (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Factual" should stay: it means the summary should stick to ascertained facts and not include speculation (e.g. about causes, motives etc). As for neutral and due weight, it means that the inclusion of causes must result in a neutral, balanced statement. For example, citing only pilot error when two other causal factors are cited in reliable sources means not giving those two factors their due weight, and that results in a non-neutral summary of events.
The above can well be mentioned in the Summary field's explanatory note in the template doc, of course: the summary itselft needs to be brief, the explanatory note doesn't. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply point out that factual, neutral and due weight are already basic requirements, per Policy, for any text in the encyclopedia. I see no need to repeat them here. Do you believe it's necessary to say "brief" twice in Summary instructions: "Brief factual summary of the occurrence....provided the result is suitably brief"? DonFB (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the harm in using a word twice in the same paragraph? Where is the value in making an explanation as short as possible, relying on the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the general policies? You seem to be confusing encyclopedia articles with encyclopedia guidelines: the requirement for conciseness applies only to the former. For the latter, clarity of instructions is rather the overriding requirement, and if it takes a few more words to achieve that, where is the problem? -- Deeday-UK (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me a little like Templating The Regulars. But let's move on and add the RFC-endorsed instruction to the template's Summary parameter explanation, so we can modify the Summary in articles where needed. DonFB (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

[edit]

I have proposed that the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft is split into two new lists. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1259241029"