Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
STOP nuvola.svg 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 ContentsAdd new section
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Red Arrows userbox[edit]

I don't know if somebody already made one for the Red Arrows but I did, to get this on your talkpage just add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}}

Red Arrows, Southport Airshow 2009 (01).jpg This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.

Tell me if you want one for another team. P.S. I'm quite new at this so tell me if it can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan121212 (talkcontribs)

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision[edit]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talkcontribs) 21:14, 20 July 2014‎

Lancaster B III JA914[edit]

The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an Avro-built at Chadderton in Lancashire, if I remember they were roaded to Woodford to be flight tested. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of (aviator) and (pilot) in titles[edit]

I noticed in looking at some articles that there are a large group of articles about aviators that use (aviator) in the title and another large group that use (pilot) for the same function. I have provided a collapsed list for comparison below. I don't see any distinction between the kinds of articles that use one or the other.

First of all, I think that we should use the same term for all articles about aviators, and secondly I think the term to be used should be (aviator). After all, a pilot can be someone who plots a course for a ship through local hazards, or even someone who steers the type of spaceship where no avionics are involved. Secondly, in terms of avionic flight, a pilot is more typically someone who flies an airliner on a chartered route, while an aviator is someone who chooses their own flight plan and destination. Airlines have pilots; organizations like the U.S. Navy have aviators. Plus, the name of this project is WikiProject Aviation, not WikiProject Piloting.

It is also worth noting that the first episode of a tv show is typically called a pilot, so (pilot) could be used to identify those as well, for example Adventure Time (pilot) and Dirk Gently (pilot episode). I think that we should make (aviator) the standard and retitle all the (pilot) titles to (aviator) titles, unless of course the (pilot) title is about something like a tv pilot or a maritime pilot. Thanks! - WPGA2345 - 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all aviators are pilots. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Might there be some national variations? For example someone in Fooland might be described as a pilot, while in Baria they might be seen as an aviator. Should we then respect the nationality of the individual concerned? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:, true, not all aviators are pilots, but there are several kinds of "pilot" that don't have anything to do with planes at all. I believe that (aviator) used in titles would be understood to mean people who fly airplanes. @Steelpillow:, I have looked at a bunch of the articles on these lists, and they're almost all people who either flew fighters in combat, or flew test planes, but there aren't national variations that I can see. These seem to be, in both lists, almost all people from the U.S., UK, and Germany, with a smattering of other countries. Since there is no clear dividing line between the kinds of names on the list, the division seems very arbitrary. If there's a reason for some to have one or the other, great, let's figure out what that reason is, but if not, let's think about getting these on the same page. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - 04:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To me the term "aviator" seems rather old fashioned - people who flew when "flying machines" were biplanes with open cockpits were "aviators", these days "pilot" is the standard term. However, I am aware that the US Navy is consistent in using "aviator", but not sure if they use it for only pilots or are other aircrew also included under that label? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
My question is: How many bio articles does EN.WP have that use the disambiguator "(pilot)" that are about pilots other than aircraft pilots? I'd honestly be surprised if there is even one such article, but I could be wrong. (Non-bio articles about TV series pilots should probably be re-titled anyway.) I concur with Dodger that aviation seems more old fashioned. As far as I know, Naval Aviator is only used for pilots in the USN. Non-pilot officers are Naval flight officers. However, future confusion could arise from the fact that "Aviator" is, from April 2015, now an enlisted rating/other rank in the RCAF for OR-1 through OR-3 in place of Private. Facepalm3.svg Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Henderson (pilot) was maritime. I do not think we can be sure that others may not gain articles. However, we use (pilot) to disambiguate names, so unless there was also a notable aviator called Joseph Henderson, this is not going to be a problem. If "aviator" is becoming a rank then that would at worst lead to article″ titles such a "Aviator John Doe", so I do not see that as a problem here. There are notable aviators who were not pilots, such as Jimmy Rawnsley, but possibly none has yet needed their name disambiguating. @WPGA2345: my question over national variaions was not aimed at what Wikipedia currently does but what it should end up doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bill, the RCAF as messed this issue up totally, by changing "private" to "aviator" on the basis that the traditional term for an air force private was "aircraftsman" and "aircraftwomen". Apparently they wanted a gender neutral term. So in Canada now this designates a person who fixes aircraft, not flies them. See here for discussion in the press. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware that the RCAF had done that, but I highly doubt that will change what people generally think "aviator" means. When Scorsese made his Howard Hughes biography, they didn't call it "The Pilot"! I don't know what regional variations might be, but there just does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for why one article about an English flying ace is Charles Darwin (aviator) while another English flying ace is Valentine Baker (pilot). There's also some consideration of the numbers. 99 articles use (pilot) and 174 use (aviator), so if some process needs to be done to review all of them for a possible move, it's less work going through the smaller number. If there is a preference for (pilot) over (aviator), I still think we are better off picking one and sticking with it. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Good Article reassessment[edit]

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878[edit]

Today's accident at Istanbul would appear to meet the criteria for an article. Details already added at airline, airport and aircraft articles. It's a bit near my bedtime, so would someone like to start the Turkish Airlines Flight 1878 article?

Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not know with certainty the fate of the aircraft. ASN says damage to the aircraft was "substantial"; it does not mean "written-off". Nevertheless, the article has been created. I was about to PROD it, but will wait either for someone else to do it or for the upcoming news to confirm the damages experienced by the airframe.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A aborted landing which pushes an undercarriage leg through the top of a wing and starts a fire, followed by a second landing in which the aircraft departs the runway due to said damage and is followed by an emergency evacuation equals an accident worthy of an article to me. Give me a chance to improve it and the case for notability will be clearer. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Does appear to be notable and if this was as a result of Windshear then it may result in some procedural changes on seperation. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rumour is that wake turbulence from a 787 that landed before the 320 is a strong possibility. It's not in the article yet because no RS has said it. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Now reported that flight crew have claimed this. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A notable event after all.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Flying wings[edit]

Hi, would appreciate some input at Talk:Flying wing#Incorrect information? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Overspill from offwiki USHPA dispute - please keep an eye out[edit]

There seems to be some kind off offwiki dispute regarding USHPA which is overspilling to that Wikipedia article and onto the user page of an inactive user User:Bob Kuczewski. As far as I can tell everything to date has been reverted, but it might be handy if y'all keep an eye out on whatever hanggliding related articles might be affected. Note the discussion at WP:ANI#Inactive user page a vandalism target. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2015[edit]

A summary of the lead section of Boeing 757 will appear on the Main Page soon, and the nominator of the article at WP:FAC may no longer be active. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Dank! I think the summary is quite excellent. On a side note, it's true I have been "very busy in real life" for some time now, but try to contribute from time to time (including trying to maintain the quality of aircraft FAs). It's been a privilege to work with many of you all! Hopefully there can be more aircraft FAs in the future! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly! I spoke too soon. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox aviation[edit]

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:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Infobox_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[edit]

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:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#Template:Ibis_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the Belgian CAA and Belgian Federal Office for Transport articles be merged?[edit]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgium#Should_these_aviation-related_articles_be_merged.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is a navbox "aviation lists" relevant in articles about disasters?[edit]

  • I had removed navbox {{aviation lists}} from TransAsia Airways Flight 235 and similar articles about disasters, because WP:NAV clear says, only articles listed on a navigation template has the template placed on its page. But my edits were reverted. Is it a correct tranclusion of this navbox in articles about disasters? (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No it is not. In general, WP:NAV applies. Too much clutter of navboxes slows Wikipedia down and we don't need it. AFAIK the Project has not made an exception in this case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
[Update] Looking at the history of TransAsia Airways Flight 235 I see that some Project members disagree with me. It is surely absurd to template every single article relating to aviation, that is not what templates are for. What is our criterion for the use of this particular template? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
User seems to have raised a similar request for comment at Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235 which see for related comments. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Atlanta PA-32 crash[edit]

See 4 dead in plane crash on I-285 near Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. Likely to have extensive coverage, so we should probably get something started somewhere. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Detailed info has been added to Piper PA-32R,all unsourced. I haven't seen anything yet with these details, or which variant of the PA-32 it is. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a general aviation crash and most of those are not notable....William 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that indicates it makes WP:AIRCRASH for inclusion, including whether it was a PA-32 or PA-32R. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

Military crash, fewer than ten deaths, some foreign nationals involved, yet none (so far) with articles. I have nominated for deletion per your WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but as described in it, WP:AIRCRASH doesn't apply to stand-alone articles, just the inclusion of crashes in aircraft type articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Leif Holger Larsen now has an article, fwiw. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, two people who would be notable enough to sustain an an article on en-Wiki were killed. That alone should be more than sufficient for a stand alone Wikipedia article. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash has been closed as "keep" for just that reason. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It meets WP:GNG, so whatever AIRCRASH says doesn't matter, as it meets the greater notability standard as an event. -- (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read above it clearly says the AIRCRASH doesnt apply so I am not sure what your point is ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence[edit]

One of the parameters in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence has been bothering me for quite a while, that being tail number, which as we know displays as "Registration". This doesn't take into account military serial/tail/Bureau numbers, so I propose there be another parameter - perhaps military serial - added to the infobox to allow such military numbers to not be displayed as registrations. YSSYguy (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a minor issue, but probably worth addressing. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably a good idea, if I remember it originally displayed as "tail number" when a registration was used which just looked wrong, but as you say it still looks wrong when you have a military "serial number, so I dont have a problem with an additional field. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aviation lists[edit]

Just for information a request for comment has been raised that effects a project template at Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles.3F. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, I never use the navabox to navigate, but others may. Is there a way to track if the box is actually used for navigation by users? If not, maybe would should get rid of it, or at least make substantial changes to it. By the way, the user behind the RFC is a member of the film and TV projects, and he and his cronies rule those projects with an iron hand. I've had several run-ins with the user in the past. In particular, it took several years to force the Film project to "allow" articles on films which had not actually begun filming, even if they otherwise met all other requirements for GNG,, and even now they'll try to get all such articles deleted. It's quite funny to see him trying to enforce a minor guideline when he regularly ignores major ones! - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If I remember the template was created as a compromise due to earlier objections to the way we did see also and the Template:Aircontent. I think I would be more open to critical coments about the way the project works with navboxes and templates when they remove the exemption for some projects not to use infoboxes against a shed full of objections, appears we dont have a level playing field. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we find and link to some of those discussions? It might be helpful in making the case that the navbox is basically grandfathered in. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point, I will have a search around later to see if I can find it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, if there is another template then it is OK to remove this one when the article is not mentioned in this navbox. We have too many templates in some articles. While not needed, and it is the only template, I favor removing it. But if someone really wants to keep it, I'm not sure how hard I would object. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My objection is really on principle for a template that has been used for many years without raising a particular problem, I dont have a problem with using Template:Aircontent for the lists but like all these flyby raised issues they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
As an option, we could covert the navbox to a list article. As to adding the link in the See also section, there might even be a way to automatically include it in {{aircontent}} so it is automatically added to articles that use it, as that isn't substituted in all articles that use it (mostly aircraft and aircraft engine articles). - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that if an all encompassing list is added to the see also section of large numbers of articles, then the same people who want to delete the navbox will want it removed for the same reasons Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably true, but I don't believe there is a bi-directional "requirement" for links in See also sections, so that should be to our advantage. To be frank, I don't think we're going to be able to keep the navbox, and if it is kept, we'll probably face the same opposition in a few months. As such, I think we should be prepared for other options. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What most projects do when this has happened in the past was to create and index or outline article (that dont get nominated by deletionists anymore ) Outline of Aviation and/or Index of Aviation-related articles ...dont make List of Aviation-related topics these get deleted because many think the title is to broad and leads to random article getting listed. Then just add one link to see also section instead of template spaming....yes it sucks when an outsider tells you all whats best and makes the group work off content for a bit...but just move forward an index/Outline that is better then the template ever was. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's in the Portal, though collapsed. So worth checking that aviation pages do have the portal in their "see also" section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are forbidden to link to the content via a navbox because it isn't closely related enough, then it is likely that we will also be forbidden from linking to the content via See also sections or Portals. Is there any point in maintaining any of the lists if no one is allowed to link to them, or will they be deleted as part of the same campaign?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
They can try that, but WP:BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't apply to See also links. That's the primary bludgeon being used in this case. That doesn't mean they won't find one, or make a new one up, given WP's tendency to increase guidelines by the shipload every year, but a link should be more defensible anyway. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
To follow up on MilborneOne's comment "they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles." If that is the case, the outcome of the RFC will be ineffectual - unless we feel honour-bound to carry out the determined wisdom of the RFC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fly Synthesis Catalina[edit]

According to its Infobox, the Fly Synthesis Catalina is developed from the Fly Synthesis Storch - this takes some imagination. Wouldn't it rather be developed from the Fly Synthesis Wallaby ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The manufacturer themselves make this claim on their website. I have added a direct ref to it to the article and provided more details on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking onto the matter; yet I regret you failed to convince me. Even if the manufacturer's website is to be taken encyclopedically (you are only citing the commercial blurbs, not the "facts" page - and from certain countries or regions or cultures even the "facts" pages are to be taken with some reserve) still I only read that "the wing bases upon that of the Storch" and also that "the design makes use of experience gained with the seagoing version of the Storch" - but no claim of direct descendance. So I am still not taking it, that the Catalina was developed from the Storch - it seems too much a different design, even a different basic concept, carrying its engine above the cockpit rather than before it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Panel two of the manufacturer's website says "The Catalina NG project evolved from the Storch amphibious aircraft experience". If you don't take the manufacturer's word for it, then I am not sure any other ref would convince you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
From the experience, yes yes, I stated as much. But not from the design. And again: all that is only commercial peptalk - I can well imagine they want to give this two-stroke powered plaything credibility by making it a descendent of the much more solid four-stroke engined Storch (a very nice plane to fly, indeed!). But not even the manufacturer makes any such statement on a "facts" page. No, I will not take a single word from an advert as encyclopedical. Not even from Germany or Scandinavia; much less from Italy. I suggest the "developed from" stance be removed from the infobox altogether, since no encyclopedically sound source is available. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, well since we have a reliable source, I'll move it to the article text instead to give it some more context. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I still don't consider that source reliable, but will not go to war over such a petty detail either. Thank you for discussing openly and politely, and for bringing up an acceptable compromise. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the article of EADS into that of Airbus Group[edit]

I've proposed this. Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"air traffic" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect air traffic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

National Board of Study and Aerospace Research listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for National Board of Study and Aerospace Research to be moved to ONERA. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)