Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

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

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
Articles for review



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

New categories involving aviation accidents

[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Aviation,

An infrequent editor just created some new categories under the parent category Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by type. They include Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by clear air turbulence and Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by metal fatigue. They are not well populated and I hope by posting this message, those editors who are knowledgeable about aviation accidents can either help populate them with appropriate articles or nominate the categories for deletion or merging at WP:CFD if they are redundant to existing categories. Thank you for any help you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the user's category creations, I believe these are all their recent aviation accident/incident category creations:
A lot of these seem oddly specific and unlikely to be useful, so I would not be opposed to CfD. - ZLEA T\C 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've XFD'd the "shootdowns" and "auxiliary equipment" categories, and someone beat me to the punch with the "navigation system failure" category. Carguychris (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've also XFD'd the excessively specific airliner bombing subcategories. I don't think this category will ever grow large enough to warrant subdividing, and the Soviet Union subcategory is of course permanently capped by certain historical events in 1991. Carguychris (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Wembo Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wembo Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Matsieng Air Strip#Requested move 22 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matsieng Air Strip#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Surviving Aircraft Articles

[edit]

@Airbus A320-100: has moved a number of articles in the lists of surviving aircraft category from "List of surviving X" to "List of preserved X" with the comment "fix grammar". I'm not entirely sure what the grammatical error was, but it is presumably in reference to the issue of how to refer to static display aircraft when other examples of the type are still in active service. I'm not sure which format is better. I lean more towards "surviving" because it matches the "surviving aircraft" nomenclature used in main articles. However, I am of the strong opinion that whatever phrasing is used, it should be applied to all articles of the type for uniformity, which has not been done. Does anyone else have any thoughts? –Noha307 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noha307. This is because "surviving" is a term used for organic beings. But even if it is used for objects, it looks like it is stylized in a fan's Point of View as per WP:POV. Whereas preserved is used for objects in a neutral Point of View. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Airbus A320-100: Surviving (or survivor) is a term that has been used for a long time in main aircraft articles to refer to aircraft that are no longer in active service and the objection you raise seems to be a minor issue. I could see "preserved" being a slightly more neutral term, but then you run into the problem that it can't be used to refer to actively flying aircraft since they are technically not "preserved". I'm not entirely sure how "surviving" is stylized or POV, possibly along the lines of raiding career for U-boats. However, I am somewhat skeptical that this is a problem.
Might I suggest reading through the dedicated talk page to review previous arguments, as this is a subject that has come up repeatedly. –Noha307 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to very strongly advise against deleting talk page sections as "unnecessary". This is moving into disruptive editing territory. Please do not repeat this. –Noha307 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't let anything worse happen Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for you Airbus: Is English not your first language? –Noha307 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English is my first language. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrasing seemed a bit unusual and I thought it might be indicative of someone who was unfamiliar with the language. No criticism or judgement intended, just wanted to make sure nothing was being lost in translation. –Noha307 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to reverting the undiscussed moves back to their previous titles. If Airbus thinks "preserved" better describes the topics, then they should seek consensus first. - ZLEA T\C 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be moved back immediately. The title formats are by WPAIR consensus, and no dubious claims of POV can override that. I count at least 30 that have been moved. A320-100 needs to move them back immediately. I can do it if necessary, but it's a lot of work to clean up someone else's messes. BilCat (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with @ZLEA. Sorry @BilCat, but @ZLEA is much more persuasive than others in this thread. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Everyone agrees that your changes should be reverted. Please do so as you clearly don't have consensus for that change. --McSly (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. BilCat (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat did say he could do it and I'll let him Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat you don't have to do that. I'll go ahead and move them. - ZLEA T\C 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even @ZLEA agrees to do so and I'll let him do that too. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. I'll also advise you to not close discussions which you are actively involved in, especially if you were not the one to start them (per WP:CLOSE). - ZLEA T\C 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Airbus A320-100 has opened Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to add to the Village Pump discussion, it already has more content than the whole sorry story merits. But I do wish to express my respect and gratitude and support to all who have kept our dictionary on the right path (in my consideration), BilCat and ZLEA and Noha307 to name but the most prominent. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:02, 4 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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1255758998"