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 13:31, 3 November 2024 editZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,335 edits →Good article reassessment for International airport: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:18, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 24) (bot 
(77 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
}} }}


== Reliability of ] ==
==New categories involving aviation accidents==
Hello, WikiProject 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)
An infrequent editor just created some new categories under the parent category ]. They include ], ] and ]. 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 ] if they are redundant to existing categories. Thank you for any help you can supply. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:50, 20 August 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/ ] (]) 13:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
: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. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::I've XFD'd the "shootdowns" and "auxiliary equipment" categories, and someone beat me to the punch with the "navigation system failure" category. ] (]) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== MEA Flight 444 article ==
== NATO Reporting Names degrade in relevance in Russian / Soviet Aircraft ==


'''Hi WikiProject Aviation'''
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. ] (]) 01:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
<p></p>
:{{tq|i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles}} Per ], 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. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
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
:I disagree. Per ], it is common established Misplaced Pages practice to include alternate names for all sorts of things{{snd}}not just Russian and Soviet military hardware{{snd}}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 ] points out, ] already specifies that original designations be used in the title and article body, which I feel is adequate emphasis. ] (]) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 - Misplaced Pages
::Sorry I missed this earlier, but the OP should be aware of ]. 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 ] for another similar discussion. ] (]) 00:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
<p></p>
Thanks,
---- ] (]) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


:Courtesy link (so people can click easily): ]. ] (]) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== Anatoly Kvochur ==
::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. ==
I'd like to update the ] article with a note about his injuries following his spectacular ejection at the Paris Air Show. Currently, the article (and the relevant reference) doesn't say. says "cuts and bruises", but I'm not convinced that is a reliable source. Aviation Week has a story (following Kvochur's death) , but it is behind a paywall. Does anyone have access to AWIN/Aviation Week's paid service? I'll also ask on ]. -- ]'''··–·'''] 16:03, 21 September 2024 (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)
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)


== Aviation-safety.net reliable? ==
== Requested move at ] ==
{{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)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:02, 29 September 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)
== Requested move at ] ==
::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)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 04:52, 29 September 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)
== Requested move at ] ==
: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)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:05, 29 September 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)
== Names of Surviving Aircraft Articles ==
::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)
{{Ping|Airbus A320-100}} has moved a number of articles in the ] 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 "]" 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? –] (]) 01:20, 30 September 2024 (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 ] ==
:@]. 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 ]. Whereas preserved is used for objects in a neutral Point of View. ] (]) 01:23, 30 September 2024 (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 ==
::{{Ping|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 {{Diff|German submarine U-88 (1941)|prev|749074005|raiding career}} for U-boats. However, I am somewhat skeptical that this is a problem.


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)
::Might I suggest reading through the ] to review previous arguments, as this is a subject that has come up repeatedly. –] (]) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Good source for time zones for airports ==
::I'm going to very strongly advise against {{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation|prev|1248536478|deleting}} talk page sections as "unnecessary". This is moving into ] territory. Please do not repeat this. –] (]) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I won't let anything worse happen ] (]) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::A question for you Airbus: Is English not your first language? –] (]) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::English is my first language. ] (]) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. –] (]) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::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. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I am agreeing with @]. Sorry @], but @] is much more persuasive than others in this thread. ] (]) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:::::What do you mean? Everyone agrees that your changes should be reverted. Please do so as you clearly don't have ] for that change. --] (]) 03:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC) ] 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)
::::::Exactly. ] (]) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] did say he could do it and I'll let him ] (]) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|BilCat}} you don't have to do that. I'll go ahead and move them. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::even @] agrees to do so and I'll let him do that too. ] (]) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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 ]). - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': {{u|Airbus A320-100}} has opened ] <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue"><sup>~</sup>]<sup>~]~</sup></span> 03:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: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), {{u|BilCat}} and {{u|ZLEA}} and {{u|Noha307}} to name but the most prominent. Keep up the good work! ] (]) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Requested move at ] ==
] 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)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


== UAP studies? ==
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (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)
== Reliability of ] ==


== ] ==
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)

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


== Post-RfC discussion ==
== Category:Pilot intake jet fighter ==
{{Moved discussion to|Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Post-RfC discussion|2=] (]) 11:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}


==List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft==
It seems the deleted category from ] has been recreated at ]. I've nominated the new category for ] speedy deletion, but given the different name, I am not confident that the reviewing admin will recognize the category as a recreation. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed that the ] is split into two new lists. Please feel free to join ]. ] (]) 06:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
* The Categories for discussion tag at ] should make that clear. ] (]) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (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)
::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 ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::* Fair point, thanks for explanation. ] (]) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
:::If it's been created ] they are using a different account. ] ] 08:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
::::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. ] ] 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The editor has ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


I just created ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] is the next step (again!) or a proven ] would delete all contribs. ] ] 14:39, 15 October 2024 (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)
:::::::Not sure on policy: is there anything preventing the addition of this gibberish category to multiple aircraft articles being reverted immediately? ] (]) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It can be removed from the articles for failing ]. Not defining and not supported by references in the article. ] ] 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A bot will automatically delete the categories from articles as I discovered last time, I was half way through removing them manually. ] ] 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I use ] a lot (no pun intended) on Commons, and the deletion of the category gave me the perfect opportunity to test it here. See ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} I've nominated it as a category for deletion at ]. This editor is causing extra work and it needs to stop. ] ] 19:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:The category has been deleted. I've added all articles from the category to my watchlist to more easily catch any further recreation attempts. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Infobox aircraft occurrence template usage proposal ==
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


I have opened a ] for the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template. -- ] (]) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== Request for comment ==


== Lists of airports and Airline destination list links ==
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 ]. ] (] - ]) 09:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


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)
== Destroyed Survivors ==


== ] ==
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 {{Diff|Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress|prev|1253166492|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 ], but didn't at the time because I didn't want to seem like I was piling on the user. Based on a ] 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? –] (]) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


I just created a stub for ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] 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. ] (]) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


== Aviation accidents/incidents template splitting? ==
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (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.
== ] has an ]==


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.
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' 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 ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. –] (]) 23:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


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)
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 12:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] == == Good article reassessment for ] ==
] 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. ] (]) 13:31, 3 November 2024 (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, 18 December 2024 (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)