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
Peer review 
Curtiss Thrush

"Space program"[edit]

Space program has been nominated for discussion at RfD -- (talk)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Green 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/2016_July_11#Template:Green_aviation. - ~

Notification of nomination for deletion of A.I.R Engineer[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:Articles for deletion/A.I.R Engineer. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


A user recently en-masse started changing "Aviatrix" to "Aviator" or "Female aviator" in a large number of aviation articles. I don't believe there is consensus for this and have, accordingly, reverted the changes as controversial and invited them here to discuss if this is a change that should have consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. WP:MOS says to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision", and WP:GNL specifically mentions "aviatrix" as an uncommon gender-marked term to be avoided. Moreover, past discussions at WT:MOS seem to make clear that "aviatrix" is considered archaic. All of this seems to support my edits, and I did not expect them to be controversial. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I have left brief messages at WT:MOS and WT:GGTF to notify other potentially interested editors of this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that MOS:GNL provides that "gender-neutral language" be used "where this can be done with clarity and precision", I'm not sure why you believe there to be a lack of a consensus for these changes. If there is existing consensus for a widespread exception to MOS:GNL with respect to the word "aviatrix", could you provide a link? I was unable to find anything.
Moreover, I fail to see what the justification would be for the use of this archaism rather than using the term most commonly found in modern sources. Graham (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mr. Granger on this matter. Personally, I find the word somewhat charming and evocative in the context of 1930s usage and culture. But those days are gone. It is now 2016 and we should use gender-neutral language in all practical circumstances. Let's restrict "aviatrix" to quotations from the past. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) It is entirely unclear to me why a minor change like this in non-aviation related articles would require formal consensus be established at this WikiProject. Furthermore, while I assume good faith, I am bewildered how such a change could be considered controversial by any reasonable editor—this is not 1916.

No matter: the change is already supported—if not mandated—by established consensus in the Manual of Style guideline, which instructs us to "[u]se gender-neutral language where it can be done with clarity and precision." Manual of Style § Gender-neutral language. That section references Writing About Women, a popular essay, which says: "Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions: actor, author, aviator, bartender, chair, comedian, firefighter, flight attendant, hero, poet, police officer. Avoid adding gender (female pilot, male nurse) unless the topic requires it." Writing about women § Gender-neutral language (bold-face added). Rebbing 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been left at WT:WOMEN. Graham (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with other commentators. Replacing "aviatrix" with "aviator" is fully in line with the Wikipedia-wide guidelines, and is specifically called out as a term to avoid. Indeed, there is already existing consensus for these changes. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: An editor at Katharine Hepburn has requested that consensus for this change be established on that talk page. I cordially invite everyone here (The BushrangerMr. GrangerGraham11Cullen328) to share their views at Talk:Katharine Hepburn § Should "aviatrix" be changed to "aviator"?. Rebbing 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As a default, go with the gender-neutral term. Same goes for "comedienne", "actress", etc. I could see making an exception, on anachronism grounds, for female pilots who were in their own lifetime almost exclusively referred to as aviatrixes/aviatrices (depending on how you like to treat Latin loanwords in English), and used "aviatrix" themselves, e.g. Amelia Earhart. This would be consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY. The general non-neutral term could even be used for modern BLPs, given evidence that the subject prefers it (as may be the case with actress and comedienne in some cases), as long as reliable sources often go along with it. I.e., do not use, except in quotations, silly self-identifications that are not normal English and which RS do not go along with, such as "doctress" or "policewomyn".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with your analysis. I would likely consider the case you described—a subject who was frequently described both by herself and by reliable sources using a dated but still recognizable term—to be a legitimate exception to the guideline.

      As an aside, is "actor" (in the sense of being an entertainer) commonly accepted as a gender-neutral term now? As with "waiter," I've never seen or heard that word applied to a woman. Also, looking through the "Media biographies" featured article category, "actress" seems to be the unanimous choice for both current and historic women actors. Rebbing 06:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

      • This is not a discussion about gender neutral terms for professions outside aviation. That being said, the gender neutral term for "waitress" is "server". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think we should make an exception for pilots who lived back when "aviatrix" was commonly used. We should avoid outdated terminology, even when referring to people from the past. We wouldn't use the word "negro" in Wikipedia's voice to refer to Harriet Tubman, even though she referred to herself that way. Likewise, we should avoid using the word "aviatrix" for Amelia Earhart, except in quotations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh. Your point is well taken. For whatever it's worth, it doesn't appear we ever describe Ms. Earhart as an "aviatrix." Rebbing 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a bit of an old-fashioned person I much like the word "aviatrix". It brings a bit of colour. Also, I resent the requirement to avoid indicating people's gender, in a kind of political correctness, as if there were something wrong with being female (or male). Most other languages usually make the difference, French and German for the examples I know best, yet women in those countries seem not to feel any less happier. A striking example is Frau Merkel, always named the Bundeskänzlerin in German. But all this argument does not really belong here: if WP:whatever requires us to avoid gender-specific descriptions, so be it. I'll grudgingly oblige. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd suggest that it's a matter of degree. Banning "she" and "he" in favour of the gender-neutral "it" is patently absurd. The criterion has to be, is the gender-neutral word used much nowadays to describe the female practitioner? For example, on the one hand the phrase "madam chairman" is used often enough so the term "chairwoman" is not acceptable, while on the other hand one also comes across the occasional "male midwife" in a maternity ward, so "midwife" is well preferable to "midperson" or whatever. Much as I love the literary merits of "aviatrix", it always had an aspect of contrived humour and I don't think it has similar encyclopedic merits in the 21st century. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tend to think that for Earhart and contemporaries, we note them as having been pioneers of the female sex in that role. They were much rarer than their male equivalents and that is part of what makes them interesting to both contemporary and modern readers. We can't ignore that fact, unless we want "suffragette" to become the near-meaningless "voting rights activist". LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't use aviatrix, and replace uses of it. It's now anachronistic. All other considerations aside, it's now a rare word, and we avoid rare words when possible -- this is a general-readership encyclopedia, your next reader will be a 13 year old in Bangalore. And no, we don't use anachronisms to match the era -- we don't say "In 1853, the ship struck a torpedo" (instead of "...struck a mine") and so forth. We don't write about Shakespeare using Tudor English. "Actress" is different since that is still common, for now. FWIW I also much like the word "aviatrix". It does brings a bit of color. Doesn't matter. Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    Though I wouldn't complain if we were to start using exclusively Tudor English in Shakespeare articles… Face-wink.svg Graham (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A few days have passed with no new comments, and the consensus in this discussion is clear, so if there are no objections, I'll resume changing "aviatrix" to "aviator". —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No comments because we are probably tired after years of the revisonists trying to change a perfectly good word because they are on a mission. You can only state the obvious so many times which is not a defence against crusades. Strange but removing the word somehow makes the pioneering efforts of these ladies into something of less value "just another aviator" was clearly not true for these brave women. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just added a link to this discussion at Talk:Women in aviation#Aviatrix. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly changing the name of the article in the introduction of List of aviatrices to "List of women aviators" without changing the article title looks a bit daft. Also in the political correct world I would have thought that "women aviators" is just as bad as aviatrix. Sigh. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
"Women aviators" is discriminatory, unless we change all male aviators to "male aviators". It is still singling women out by sex and making them look exceptional or different somehow. In fact noting women's accomplishments in aviation, or any other field of endeavour, is discriminatory. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: I agree that the article title should be changed as well, and I've already placed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests‎ to move it. @Ahunt: I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but if you feel that we should avoid singling out female aviators with an article listing them, I think the way to address that would be to nominate List of aviatrices for deletion or merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure "Uncontroversial" move request without a debate is the right way to move that article, I still cant see a clear consensus about the term and as Ahunt as said it probably makes matters worse. I have moved the request into contested. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Accordingly, a discussion has been started at Talk:List of aviatrices#Requested move 26 August 2016. I invite everyone from this discussion to participate there, if you are interested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

D. Napier & Son[edit]

The article for D. Napier & Son Limited is currently titled Napier & Son. The company is typically referred to as just "Napier", as in the Napier Lion and Napier Sabre. Is there any objection to moving it to D. Napier & Son? Please reply at talk:Napier & Son#Article title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD nomination[edit]

I nominated Template:Learjet_aircraft for deletion. The dsicussion can found here. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Quest Kodiak[edit]

Could someone please throw a critical eye at the latest change to Quest Kodiak? It looks too much like a commercial, but I am unsure whether to correct it or to simply revert. There does seem to be some verifyable fact. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed it and reverted it. None of the information that was added and was actually sourced was about the aircraft, but instead was about the company and is already in the company article, Quest Aircraft. The additions that were about the aircraft were not mentioned in the sources cited. The additions looked very promotional and spammy as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks (also for your subsequent defense), I knew I could count on you! :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreign language references[edit]

How reliable do we consider references in foreign languages? For one example, Bayraktar_Tactical_UAS has a good many. Not knowing my way among the numerous WP:xxx guidelines I am reluctant to contest any content, far less will I remove it arbitrarily. Advice welcome! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem as far as policy is concerned I believe, I do suspect that most of the content was added by a COI editor so in this case it would be better to find some English referencing for some of it and it doesnt really need three to four references for each "fact". I have culled some of the images and tagged them at commons although some I have left alone as they are OTRS refs which I cant check. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Continental Express[edit]

I would appreciate it if folks from the WikiProject Aviation community could weigh in on an issue regarding Continental Express Flight 2286. The page was previously titled Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, and I moved it to its current title/location for the following reasons:

  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, because the flight is commonly referred to as "Continental Express Flight 2286" or a "Continental Express airliner" in most ordinary English-language sources, including contemporaneous and retrospective articles written by the Associated Press and UPI and published by reputable newspapers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. (This rule is why we have Gimli Glider, for example, instead of "Air Canada Flight 143".) It is important to remember that Wikipedia is a resource for the general public, not just the aviation community.
  • It is consistent with the executive summary and overview of the resulting NTSB report (which describes the flight at the outset as "operating as Continental Express Flight 2286").
  • To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles such as Continental Express Flight 2574 (another flight commonly known as a "Continental Express" flight, even though it was operated by a different company with its own callsign).

The move was challenged, and I admittedly became frustrated while discussing on the Flight 2286 talk page. This shouldn't be about me, it should be about what is best for Wikipedia, so I would appreciate if others could help form a consensus, one way or the other. However, if we do not keep it as "Continental Express Flight 2286", then for consistency we will need to rename a number of other pages (such as Continental Express Flight 2574). That's not a task I look forward to. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 29 September 2016[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Vietnam Air Force#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sonicblue Airways Flight 604[edit]

Noitced that Sonicblue Airways Flight 604 has been nominated for a Good Article Review but first thoughts are that it is not actually notable for a stand-alone article, as somebody clearly has worked hard on this I was looking for second opinions rather than nominating it for deletion or such like, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is less notable than 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash which was deleted over 4 years ago and had 4 times the victims....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Definitely not notable.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion. Here is the AFD[1]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment[edit]

The article Joachim Helbig, that is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for community GA reassessment as per WP:GAR.

The discussion will take place at GAR:Joachim Helbig, with the goal to reach a consensus whether the article satisfies the good article criteria. Any input would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help to select files to be donated[edit]

Hi, everyone.

I have contacted the Brazilian Air Force in order to ask them to change all their files to a free one accepted by Wikimedia projects.

They kindly answered and told me that they won't change the license for all files, but told me to select files to be donated to us. They didn't mention a number of files to be donated; just told me to ask with a reason and they will see what to do.

So, I am asking help to select which files we can ask them.

This is their Flickr gallery from where we can choose the files.

Anybody willing to help me? I will be adding files in this page. Please, feel free to use talk page for leaving any considerations or even add files from that gallery. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 21:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)