Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:02, 7 March 2007 editTrevor MacInnis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users74,493 editsm {{archive box|/Archive 1}}← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:18, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,663 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 24) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="margin:3px; border: 1px #DD4444 solid;padding: 10px;background: #FFEEEE;color: #4F0000;font-family:Arial,Lucida Grande,Helvetica;" align="center"
{{archive box|]}}
|-
=Initial Project proposal=
| style="width: 60px;" | ]
The following has been copied from ]. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
|WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Misplaced Pages'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:
*] for an article about an aircraft
*] for an article about an airline
*] for an article about an airport
|}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WPAVIATION Announcements|mode=collapsed}}
{{talk header|search=yes |wp=yes |bottom=yes |sc1=WT:AV|sc2=WT:AVIATION}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-08-09/WikiProject report|writer=]||day=9|month=August|year=2010}}
<div style="clear: right; float: right; width: 320px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">
{{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Navigation}}
</div>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 24
|algo = old(45d)
|minthreadsleft = 4
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Reliability of ] ==
== Major proposal: WP Aviation ==


What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability of ], , as a source? I've corresponded with Paul Freeman in the past, and he seems sincere about factual accuracy. ] (]) 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Misplaced Pages has no ]. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as ], and ]) don't follow our stated ], and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to ]. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* ] ] <small>(])</small> 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
: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/ ] (]) 13:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:That certainly is an interesting idea. Under the "Related Wikiprojects" there are several that would naturally fit as sub-projects under an Aviation umbrella. Maybe some feelers over on those talk pages might be an idea, too. Of all the wikiprojects I've seen, AIR is by far the best organized and has the most extensive resources (a subtle tip 'o the hat to all those involved in making it so!), so we have a lot to offer other related projects that might "come under our wing" if this were to happen. ] 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::I have suggested we start a wiki] 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::If nobody draws it up, i would not mind drawing up a proposal to create wp:aviation, and how each part would fit into it and then get feedback on the proposal. I really like this idea. ] 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Trevor, I like your outspokenness! I disagree that WP:Aircraft needs to be renamed as WP:Aviation, I do, however, agree that a WP:Aviation would benefit the entire Aviation portion of the encyclopedia. I would say that WP:Aviation could be the parent for WP:Aircraft and WP:Airport and WP:Airline or even WP:Air-anything. I'd be perfectly content, however, to continue to participate as a member of a task force that belongs to WP:Aircraft. The only question is what would WP:Aviation's goals and scope be, and would it attempt to ecplipse any current project's goals and scope? --] 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Pardon me for jumping in the middle here, but I wanted to respond directly to the questions above. I believe one of the primary goals is to bring the complex and well-thought-out infrastructure that we have to the other areas of aviation on the encyclopedia. As I've stated before, I believe that Aircraft is probably one of the best set-up projects around. The result is a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines, and a dedicated group of editors who make these guidelines stick, even when the going gets tough. What we need to do is to clone our project up one level, so that the comprehensive guidelines are consistent throughout all aviation articles. Right now, the subject is quite fragmented by the various projects. For instance, I've done editing in aircraft crash articles, and some are covered under the Airline project, some are left floating out there with no one except ] covering them (if this gets going, I can even see the place for an "Aviation Safety Task Force" to cover accident articles). One of the hallmarks of a world-class encyclopedia is seamless consistency, which is probably the most important thing we can bring to the table. ] 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== MEA Flight 444 article ==
::::::Isn't that an oxymoron, an Aviation Safety task force covering articles about accidents? I'd prefer ''Aircraft Accident task force'', something that doesn't tie ''"safety"'' to crashing, especially since very little in those articles about crashes meets the intent of what an accident investigation is really for.


'''Hi WikiProject Aviation'''
::::::Anyways, I think we're puffing WP:Aircraft into something more than what it is, a project that covers the articles about aircraft. Aviation is as much about the infrastructure as the aircraft that operate within that infrastructure, and we don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. Aircraft are popular, but dictating to the few people who do write about the other aspects of aviation has a risk of ostracizing or even chasing off editors who are working to improve the encyclopedia just as we are, and in areas we really don't care about (if we did, we'd be writing in those areas). If we were going to adapt to their guidelines and standards for their subjects, that would be fine, but I wouldn't want to start making all of Aviation look like Aircraft simply because we have numbers and we're organized and we like what we come up with. If we take it that far, you can mark my words that the project will mostly be fighting everybody just to maintain guidelines and accomplishing very little.
<p></p>
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 - Misplaced Pages
<p></p>
Thanks,
---- ] (]) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


:Courtesy link (so people can click easily): ]. ] (]) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Also, keep in mind, that you're talking about expanding the scope well beyond WP:AIR's scope and when you do that, you will dilute the organization and strength that you are counting on right now. It would be more beneficial to gain concensus within each of the projects to have their say in what WP:Aviation will be and then to work within all the groups to achieve common guidelines or whatever you think the goal of WP:Aviation should be.
::Thanks for putting that there
::—— ] (]) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@], while you are here, I see the draft says "The search operc" so it appears the sentence got cut off. ] (]) 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Conversation on Vital Articles about adding and removing several types of military aircraft. ==
::::::My $.02. YMMV. --] 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Some excellent points. With the "safety" thing, I was hoping in the back of my mind that maybe, since this is an encyclopedia, accident articles could be nudged to be more than just a news story of aluminum hitting rock, and relate what was learned from it, how things in the industry were changed by it, etc. Just a pipe dream. I do hear you about the danger of ostracizing others. You mentined adapting to their guidelines in their areas, I guess what I was getting at is that in a lot of areas, both covered by another project and orphaned areas, there's a distinct lack of guidelines and organization. I don't mean any disrepect to the other projects (I belong to a couple of them, too), but there is a lot of room for growth there, and we already have the standards set up. I was envisioning it more of us offering the infrastructure to them rather than marching in and taking over.] 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


I have created a discussion on ] 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. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces. There is alot of stuff, related to aviation, that falls outside of aircraft and airports project currently that are getting stretched to fit in it. ] 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:If you look at the ] template on the ] page, you will see that Aviation is the only black link on the list. So creating this would bring Aviation in line with all the other projects on the portal. I just created ] and it would fit in under Aviation as a sister project to Aircraft. ] 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== Aviation-safety.net reliable? ==
::That might actually be a good way to start, but in the end I think we'd want Aviation out from under Transport as its own parent project. All the other sub-projects under transport are much narrower in scope, with several focusing on narrower aspects of ground transportation.
{{u|Aviationwikiflight}} has been completely removing sources from primarily Russian plane crashes and leaving them entirely unsourced, such as 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? ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 17:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's listed at ], that could be used to restore the content. ] ] 18:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
There has been a previous discussion of airdisaster.ru at ]. 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 02:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


:It's a pretty interesting problem, though, isn't it? It's a pretty important source for historical Russian air disasters, and clearly passes ]. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 08:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::TO begin with, we might start an Aviation Task Force to put together the proposals, and to give a place to begin organizing the various orphaned articles. We also ought to coordinate with the Airlines and Airports projects, and get their participation on putting the parent group together. To be honest, Gliding should really be a Task force under another project, one that might include aother aspects of aviation-related sports and activities, such as airshows, private plane interests, etc. - ] 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 08:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


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 ] was limited, the issues regarding its reliability still stand, and I don't think that ASN citing airdisaster.ru makes the website reliable. ] (]) 11:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::What, we're thinking all the other Aviation related projects will just become task forces? I don't find that realistic. --] 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
: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.--''']'''&nbsp;''{{sup|]}}'' 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 21:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::Aircraft, AIrports, and AIrlines would all be projects under a parent project, as they are now under Transport, but instead would be under Aviation. I just meant the Gliding would probably be better as a task force under another project, perhaps Aviation Recreation, which would cover similar topics not currently under a project, or now under various other non-aviation projects. - ] 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::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." ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 22:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Bill, I guess it was really more a question to Chris in re: to his, "I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces." I mean, that's where I got the idea for Rotorcraft task force, but it blends. Aircraft and Rotorcraft, it was kind of like a no-brainer to cover a subgroup of the project without needing to be its own project. I can see Aviation as a parent group, but having it come out from under Transport? I don't see that. It still fits and belongs, especially the way the encyclopedia is constructed right now; Aviation is a form of Transportation. Once again, I'm devil's advocate because I am not against WP:Aviation. --] 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Other than ASN, what other reliable sources cite airdisaster.ru? Additionally, as 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. ] (]) 10:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::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. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::The linked article above was published on 23 February 2017, and looking through the ], of the , dated from 24 February 2017, does show that the entry did not cite any sources for its information until 2020-2021 judging from 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. ] (]) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, "use with caution" would add a third step on the ladder of reliability of information sources, a 50% improvement! ] (]) 18:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
: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. ] (]) 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::I may have misunderstood the origianl proposal to mean coming out from under Transport. I do see the whole topic of Aviation as being much more than just a sub-set of Transportation. I can see reasons for doing so, but I was only advocating for what I though was being proposed. It does not bother me either way which way we go. As pointed out above, WP:AIR is under the Aviation topic under Transport, so it makes sense to just make it the parent of AP:AIR under the Transport "grandparent" project. WOrks for me. - ] 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Repeated removal of sourced content at Shenyang J-35 ==
I created ] primarily to bring people from the ] community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the ]. The scope of the project includes ], which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:
* Articles on ], ], ], ] etc.
* Articles on ], especially ]s, ]s, ], and aircraft systems,
* Artilces on ], especially gliderports
* Articles on ]s
* Articles on ], especially ] and soaring weather phenomenon.
* Articles on ], especially ] and ]
* Articles on ], especially pertaining to soaring sites, and geographic features that support cross-country soaring.
* ] articles pertaining to ] related to gliding, and ].


Several users have been attempting to remove sourced content about the J-31B from the ] article without providing sources to challenge the existing sources. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. ] 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


== Good source for time zones for airports ==
===Proposal outline===
Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:


] says the offset is UTC+6 but ] 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? --] (]) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*]
: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 ] 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. ] (]) 21:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
**]
***Scope
****Aircraft technologies, eg aileron, jet engine
****Categories of aircraft, eg airliner, interceptor aircraft, helicopter
****Government agencies, companies
***Sub-projects
****Aviation accident task force
****]
****]
****]
*****Scope
******Specific Aircraft articles
*****Subtopics/task forces
******]
******]


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - ] ] <small>(])</small> 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:I personally think breaking aircraft down into to many "task forces" is a bit far out there. I think they all fall under aircraft and breaking it down too far will just spread the project out to far. I dont know what it means above when Aviation is under transport. I think aviation should stand by itself though. Aviation is used to fight wars, so the argument could be made that it should be a subset of military history. (Although, I am not making that argument, it is just to show that I dont feel viation falls under transportation). ] 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)`
::I also think the scope of aviation should be expanded to include
::*Famous individuals in the world of aviation such as the wright brother, clyde cessna, or other famous aircraft desingers
::*aviation specific terminologies and such (there is actually a categtory for aviation terminology)
::*Any articles related to the history and or development of aviation.
::I think that these are important (and hope that it is not a bad case of scope creep). ] 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== UAP studies? ==
:::I agree with you for the most part, especially on WP:Aviation not being part of WP:Transportation. But for now, your outline looks good to me. I see no problem starting out under tranportation for the time being, esp since WP:AIR is already there. We don't have to fight for our independence today! :)
:::As to a FIxed Wing task force, I think it works fine as it is. We can use the taks force for things which need special attention, such as Rotorcraft, as outlined by the originator of that idea, Born2Flie. ANother group which might benefit from a Task force might be Airliners. As the recent discussions on the Airliner specs have shown, they have their own unique requirements, and some editors spend most of their time in that sub-group anyway. Just a thought, but again, it doesn't have to be fought now. - ] 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::There is actually already a project for airliners. ], not sure if you were aware of that. Has anybody posted to the other projects that are related (] and ] to see if they want in on this discusison? ] 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages's algorithm has directed the ] 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 ]? 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. ] (]) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I know there is a WP:Airlines, but the link you gave is red, and a quick search and parousal of some airliner talk pages turns up nothing. If they do exist, they aren't doing a very good job of advertising their existence, or on the airliner pages either! But yes, I agree we need to talk with the other projects on this. - ] 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::That was my bad, I was thinking of ], not airliners. oooooops. ] 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I still think however that airliners beongs under aircraft. The argument can be made that there are many different models and verios with different specs and such but the same could be argued for regular aircraft. the differents might be more sublt but fo rexaple, there are many many verisons of the Cessna 172 )I am not aware of how they are all different). The same could be said about many other aircraft as well. ] 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my suggestion. Yes, Airliners should be under WP:Air, but just like Rotorcraft, they might benefit from a dedicated task force. But it's just a suggestion. - ] 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh! I gotcha now. yea, I would not be adverse to having a task force for that. So, what is a propsoed list of task forces? ] 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, I went and read through WP:Airline's project page. Other than major accidents and fleet listings, it seems that this project is more geared towards the airlines as companies rather than airliners as aircraft, so I don't think there would be conflict. That being said, the airline company aspect seems like it would naturally fit under the WP:Aviation umbrella as well. ] 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Listing the Airline project under Aviation sounds like a pretty good idea. As for conflicts, I agree that there wouldn't be any. Our coverage of aircraft just extends to organization of fleet info on airlines, not details about the planes themselves. ] (]) 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Can somebody please source this stub? It’s part of the November citation drive. ] (]) 04:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
=== Proposed Task Forces ===
I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. ] 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{opposed}} I don't believe that WP:Aviation should replace WP:AIR, so there should not be any aircraft related task forces under WP:Aviation, since they would all fall under WP:AIR. --] 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== Post-RfC discussion ==
*'''Wikiproject Aviation - Proposed task forces'''
{{Moved discussion to|Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Post-RfC discussion|2=] (]) 11:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}
**Airliners
**Rotorcraft
**Gliders (or Gliding)?
**Fixed wing.
==== Airliners ====
*'''Support''' I support the inclusion of an airliners task force. ] 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Rotorcraft ====
*'''Support''' - I support the inclusion of a rotorcraft task forces. ] 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
====Gliders or Gliding ====
*'''Support as Gliding''' - I support a task force dedicated to this but think it should be named the Gliding task force as opposed to Gliders. ] 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a joint task force on ] between the Aircraft and Gliding projects to, among other things, standardize article format. ] 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


==List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft==
====Fixed Wing====
I have proposed that the ] is split into two new lists. Please feel free to join ]. ] (]) 06:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I think this will be the bulk of the project and creating a task force for it will be redundant and un-necessary. ] 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Misplaced Pages organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- ] ] <small>(])</small> 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:I am not aware of a gliding project? Do you have the link to it? ] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
::]. - ] 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Isent gliding a subet of aircraft? Like rotorcraft? If rotorcraft were a task force (which I feel it should be), then i also feel that gliding should be as well. Would it be too much to create one for each group recognzied by teh faa (would that be to north americancentric). The ones I am refering to are fixed wing aircraft (the bulk of the porject as i am assuming), rotorcraft (should be a task force), gliders (should be a task force) and maybye lighter than air (another possible task force). DO you think the gilder project would be extremly adverse to being a task force/subset of the aircraft project? ] 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
::One of the users above mentioned that he had created the Gliding project. I think he did this on his own without consulting any other project. RIght now there are only 5 names on their participant list. THey may have a larger vision for their project in mind, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them if being on of our task forces might be better for them, in the short run anyway. - ] 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I will go ahead and do that. I guess i see gliders as a subset of aircraft like a caboose is a subset of a train. You wwouldent have a seperate wikiproiject cabooses (as far as I know) that made sense. It would make much more sense to have it in a hierarchical order. ] 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Gliders are a category of aircraft, like airplanes/aeroplanes, rotorcraft, balloons, etc. But the ] has a much broader scope (see above). ] 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I just created ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::I understand that, but right now you are a very small project. It might make sense to start out as a task force, or at least have a Glider task force under WP:Aircraft to handle gliders for you, but which is also a task force under the Gliding Project. Which ever way you decide to go is probably fine with us. We just didn't want to leave you out entirely of the discussion. the Aviation Project will have a broader scoope than WP:Aircraft, which will remain a project under Aviation. So having the Gliding Project under Aviation (not AIrcraft) is probably best for the scope you have in mind, with or without a Glider Task Force under WP:AIR. - ] 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
: ...pretty sure this is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::It’s been getting widespread press for over two weeks. I think it passes notability. I’ll hunt for more good sources. ] (]) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


:I also created a related article: ]. Contributors welcome! – ] 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal Recap ==


== Infobox aircraft occurrence template usage proposal ==
Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:


I have opened a ] for the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template. -- ] (]) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
*''']'''
**Scope
***Famous people:
**** ] (])
**** Designers, (])
**** ] (])
***], e.g. ], ],
***Aviation technologies '''not''' part of an aircraft, e.g. ]
***Articles about aircraft types, e.g. ], ], ]
***Government agencies, companies e.g. ]
***]
**Sub-projects
***'''Aviation accident task force'''
****Scope
*****Aviation accidents and safety
***'''] perhaps change to Red Bull Air Race World Series task force'''
****Scope
*****Red Bull Air Race World Series pilot/races/aircraft
***''']'''
****Scope
*****Airline companies eg ], ]
*****Airline destination articles eg. ]
****Subtopics/task forces
*****'''] perhaps change to Defunct airlines task force'''
***''']'''
****Scope
*****airports, eg ]
*****airport services and technologies, eg ], ], ]
***''']'''
****Scope
*****Specific Aircraft articles, eg fixed-wing ], lighter-than-air ], anything not covered by a task force
*****Aircraft lists
****Subtopics/task forces
*****''']'''
******Scope
*******specific Rotorcraft aircraft articles
*****''']''' Joint TF With WP:Gliding
******Scope
*******specific glider aircraft articles
***''']'''
****Scope
***** Articles on ], ], ], ] etc.
***** Articles on ], especially ]s, ]s, ], and aircraft systems,
***** Articles on ], especially gliderports
***** Articles on ]s
***** Articles on ], especially ] and soaring weather phenomenon.
***** Articles on ], especially ] and ]
***** Articles on ], especially pertaining to soaring sites, and geographic features that support cross-country soaring.
***** ] articles pertaining to ] related to gliding, and ].
****Subtopics/task forces
*****''']''' Joint TF With WP:AIR
******Scope
*******specific glider aircraft articles


== Lists of airports and Airline destination list links ==


I recently noticed that pretty much every ] has a link to a page (or subpage) on this wikiproject, ], having been added in 2010 by {{u|Zyxw}}. However, ] says "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Misplaced Pages itself". Should these links be removed? ] (]) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? - ] ] <small>(])</small> 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think its good. However in the future, i would not be adverse to adding a lighter than air task force under the aircraft project. ] 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::I've added in the Gliding Project under Aviation, and included the Joint Glider Task Force with WP:AIR. - ] 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd just like to confirm: the items under the scope of the gliding project refer to articles specifically related to gliding. The list seems to me to be a little too broad. For example, its written that airports fall under the scope of WikiProject Gliding, but I don't thing that that should be so. Airport articles are not considered to be part of the scope of WikiProject Aviation, even though airplanes need them to take-off and land. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I personally like the joint task force idea for the gliders. I think that is a great way to do that. ] 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:Might it be worth making rotorcraft into a project rather than a task force? --<font color="#116655">'''GW_Simulations'''<sub>] | ]</sub></font> 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:I wonder. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to deal with all these projects, and the likely addition of others, such as the aviation accidents project/task force. Where do we draw the line between what requires an entire project, and what can be done as a task force? - ] ] <small>(])</small> 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::I think the question needs to be asked. If this taskforce/proposed taskforce were to be completly held by the project it is a part of, would that be acceptable/ I.E. the rotorcraft taskforce, could not exist and rotorcraft would still be covered by the aricraft project. ] 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::For specific guidance on task forces, see: ]. I think the various categories of aircraft should be task forces under ]. The glider task force will be joint with ]. We could also propose a joint task force for military aircraft with ].
As part of the discussion below, each project's scope may need tweaking, so that the project templates can be used effectivly. Does anyone see any problems with the list above? Are there areas that are overlapping than can be fixed? For example, currently ] is tagged with Airports, and Aircraft project tags, but I think it falls under, and only needs, the aviation project tag. And ]? It involves both the airport ground equipment (transmitter) and the aircraft equipment (receiver). So should it be tagged by both projects? What if we modify the aviation tag so that if it falls in a sub-projects scope as well as the aviation projects, it will tag and categorize it for both. Sort of how the military history project does it for its task forces. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


== Page top tabs == == ] ==


I personally like the page top tabs located at ]. anyody have feelings about useing them here too? ] 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I just created a stub for ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Aviation accidents/incidents template splitting? ==
:I like them too. I'm for copying pretty much everything from WP:Air, and adapting it to our broader scope here, esp as the primary purpose of this project is to extend WP:AIR's standards to Aviation as a whole. - ] 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


So the aviation accidents and incidents template for several countries (namely the ], the ], and ]; arguably also true for ]) are getting too large to navigate properly.
== Wikiproject Red Bull Air Race World Series ==


In the case of Soviet aviation incidents, using small text and standard width on a 1920×1080 screen only displays two thirds of the template (1930s to 1970–1974). The same setting also only displays ~60% of the British aviation incidents template (Before 1910 to 1960s). And for French and Russian aviation incidents the template occupies almost the entire screen.
Hi ]. I appreciate your proposal to take the ] under the ] umbrella, which has already been done. I believe that the deep knowledge of the members of various task forces within the parent project will surely contribute to the enhancement of the articles related to ].


I've set up a draft in my userpage to split up those nations' aviation templates but I would like your opinion here. ] (]) 06:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe in some time, a ] can be established, being the immediate parent project of RBARWS project and comprising similar other aviation events. ] 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Military aviation task force ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but I’m coming into this change a bit cold. I see a “Military aviation” entry under the “Task forces and sub-projects lists” drop-menu. I presume this refers to the ] of ], and I’m wondering what the relationship will be. Does it remain with WP:MilHist or move to WP:Aviation or does it somehow become a shared task force? ] <small>]</small> 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, this is the Military history task force, and it will remain under their project, but I just though a link to it would be appropriate. I haven't contacted them about this or the idea of it becoming a shared task force. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::It's now a joint task force. :-) ] 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

=Discussion=
== Project tags ==

I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.
#Some articles are already tagged to one or more child projects. I suggest that if a page falls into more than one child project, it should be re-tagged for the parent aviation project. So pages that were tagged to Aircraft and Airports would be re-tagged to Aviation (with the same assessment).
#Articles that deal specifically with one project should be tagged to that project. So aircraft and parts of aircraft should be tagged to the Aircraft project (e.g. ]). But terms relating to operation of the aircraft should be tagged to aviation (e.g. ]).
--] 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm ok with this, to a degree. An article tagged to both Airports and Aircraft, but that does not relate directly to either one, should be re-tagged to the more general Aviation project. One example is ], currently tagged as an Airport project page, but I think that this more properly belong under Aviation projects scope. But articles such as ] belong specifically to the Airports project. Its all dependent on the scope of the projects. If there is some sort of overlap, it should be corrected. If the overlap is required, we could deal with it in the same way the Military history project does. Use the main project template, with an added parameter identifying other involved projects, which would then categorize them in both projects. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
::Your examples on IFR/ILS make sense to me, but seem to be inconsistent with the argument you make about aircraft engines and aircraft. If the ILS should be included in the Airport project because it is part of the airport, then aircraft engine should be in the Aircraft project for the same reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, except that whatever we decide it should be easy to explain and most importantly consistent. My initial thought is that we should try to push things down to the child projects as much as possible, and only use Aviation to cover the gaps and overlaps. But I'm open to other opinions. 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Let's verify the scopes in the Recap above. This should help decide where everything belongs. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::::PS. Just be thankfull our pages don't generally fall under too many non-aviation related projects, or we'd end up dealing with a situation like on ]. Six different wikiprojects! - ] ] <small>(])</small> 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Disambiguation (parenthesis) ==

There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in ]. For example:

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. ] 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:Good point. I would think that things having to do directly with aircraft, especially parts of an aircraft, ought to say "(aircraft)", and terms relating to more general things such as air-traffic control should say "(aviation)". I also think "(aerodynamics)" would be useful for dealing with principles of flight, such as lift, drag, that would be more specific than aviation. - ] 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== Projects goals ==

I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on ] with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? ] 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects ==

I've created a project banner at ]. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{tl|WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at ], and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at ] ''and'' when tagged properly, in their respective ], etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- ] ] <small>(])</small> 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:I couldn't tell what the image was until I clicked on it to review the source page. It might need to be a little larger. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::I increased it to 100px, but its still not that clear. I don't think it should be any bigger so maybe another picture should be used. Any suggestions? - ] ] <small>(])</small> 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

== Assessing articles ==

Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.

# The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
#The content can be classed by a rigid scale, ], to explain
##Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
##If someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in ], and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
##If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in ]
##No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a ].
##No article should be rated A class unless it has had an ]
##No article should be rated FA unless it is an ]
With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:18, 22 December 2024

WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Misplaced Pages'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
 Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

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

(4 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Aviation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
WikiProject Aviation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 9 August 2010.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review
Peer review



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

Reliability of Abandoned and Little Known Airfields

What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability of Abandoned and Little Known Airfields, , 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)

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)

MEA Flight 444 article

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 - Misplaced Pages

Thanks,

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

Courtesy link (so people can click easily): Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444. Commander Keane (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that there
—— Mangoflies (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@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)

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

I have created a discussion on Misplaced Pages 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 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Aviation-safety.net reliable?

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)

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

There has been a previous discussion of airdisaster.ru at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)
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)

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)

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  13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Good article reassessment for Neal Boortz

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)

Repeated removal of sourced content at Shenyang J-35

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\ 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good source for time zones for airports

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)

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)

Good article reassessment for John Glenn Columbus International Airport

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)

UAP studies?

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Pneudraulics

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

Post-RfC discussion

Moved to Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence § Post-RfC discussion – Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

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)

Good article reassessment for Kamloops Airport

Kamloops 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) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 New Jersey drone sightings

I just created 2024 New Jersey drone sightings. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...pretty sure this is WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s been getting widespread press for over two weeks. I think it passes notability. I’ll hunt for more good sources. Thriley (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I also created a related article: 2024 US air base drone incursions in the United Kingdom. Contributors welcome! – Anne drew 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence template usage proposal

I have opened a discussion on tweaking the usage guidelines for the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Lists of airports and Airline destination list links

I recently noticed that pretty much every list of airports has a link to a page (or subpage) on this wikiproject, Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists, having been added in 2010 by Zyxw. However, MOS:LINKSTYLE says "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Misplaced Pages itself". Should these links be removed? Kdroo (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

PteroDynamics

I just created a stub for PteroDynamics. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Aviation accidents/incidents template splitting?

So the aviation accidents and incidents template for several countries (namely the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and Russia; arguably also true for France) are getting too large to navigate properly.

In the case of Soviet aviation incidents, using small text and standard width on a 1920×1080 screen only displays two thirds of the template (1930s to 1970–1974). The same setting also only displays ~60% of the British aviation incidents template (Before 1910 to 1960s). And for French and Russian aviation incidents the template occupies almost the entire screen.

I've set up a draft in my userpage to split up those nations' aviation templates but I would like your opinion here. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Melbourne Airport

Melbourne 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) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)