Revision as of 10:54, 7 July 2013 editSteelpillow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,153 edits →Notification: Closed already. You have my sympathy.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:24, 7 July 2013 edit undoHuon (talk | contribs)Administrators51,324 edits →Assessment and template: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
==CYYC from south.jpg== | ==CYYC from south.jpg== | ||
] has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 05:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | ] has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 05:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment and template == | |||
There's something seriously wrong with the "class=" parameter in the assessment template. For all I can tell, it's ignored completely in favor of , which amounts to a counting of B-class criteria. The mere fact that an article hasn't been assessed for B-class yet dooms it to Start-class (see ] for an extreme example) while conversely a grammatically-correct one-line stub with an infobox and an inline citation for its meagre content would be considered C-class. Now this suggestion via the number of criteria is surely nice, but is it really meant to override manual assessment and render it meaningless? If so, it should be better-documented that for this WikiProject a C-class article is one that fulfills three or four of the B-class criteria, no more and no less. Having just wasted the better part of an hour on figuring this out, I'd strongly advocate complying with how the rest of Misplaced Pages handles the class= parameter and allowing it to override the B-class criteria count. ] (]) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:24, 7 July 2013
ShortcutsWikiProject: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 • Add new section |
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
| |
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. |
|
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 |
Aviation WikiProject Articles for review |
|
Aviation WikiProject |
---|
General information |
|
Departments
|
Project organization |
Templates |
Sub-projects
|
File:A scaled down model of Brahmos-II at Aero India 2013.jpg
File:A scaled down model of Brahmos-II at Aero India 2013.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hermann Neuhoff, Nazi German Luftwaffe Ace.jpg
image:Hermann Neuhoff, Nazi German Luftwaffe Ace.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
BA Heathrow incident 24 May
Can we have a discussion re the notability or otherwise of this incident? I notice that it has been added and removed from the BA article, with one editor adding the incident in good faith as notable enough to mention, and another removing it in equaly good faith as non-notable.
Given that the incident appears to have affected both (i.e. all) engines, I'd say that the incident is notable enough to cover under the articles on the airport, airline and aircraft type, per the WP:AIRCRASH guideline. I'm not yet conviced of the case for a stand-alone article, but that may change as more facts become known. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article on the incident is well on its way to snowy delete right now at AFD. It's not a hull loss, so it doesn't merit a mention in the BA article IMHO....William 13:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- And so it was. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe we'll have to wait until the AAIB report comes out to assess the true seriousness of this one. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Initial report
The AAIB have released their initial report. I believe that it shows that the accident is serious enough to be covered, but not by a stand-alone article. Please read the report and comment on the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- That easily justifies an entry in the aircraft article. Looks like that article already has an entry at Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family#A319. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Pull up (aircraft)
G'day all, I have just PRODded Pull up (aircraft), which is a bunch of OR describing a go-around. YSSYguy (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good call! - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pull up has now descended into a deep gully! sigh, perhaps needs a climb into AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah this is getting silly, please do send it to AfD! - Ahunt (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)I think redirecting to Ground proximity warning system might make sense. Everybody who has seen the "Air disaster" genre tv documentaries that seem to be very popular on certain channels, has heard the "Terrain, pull up!" voice and some might come looking for information about it here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Trouble is, there are lots of ways to get in a situation where you need to pull up. GPWS is only one. If anybody can find sufficient encyclopedic material, an article on Pull up procedure (aviation) or similar might be worth creating, but "pull up" itself is just ordinary language, like say "turn to port". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)I think redirecting to Ground proximity warning system might make sense. Everybody who has seen the "Air disaster" genre tv documentaries that seem to be very popular on certain channels, has heard the "Terrain, pull up!" voice and some might come looking for information about it here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Notification of nomination for deletion of Pull up (aircraft)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pull up (aircraft). - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hvnaerial112011.png
image:Hvnaerial112011.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Flightpath Charter Airways Inc. Logo.jpg
image:Flightpath Charter Airways Inc. Logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed - no need to delete this as it obviously fails the required threshold or originality for copyright anyway. I just fixed the tagging and it can now be moved to Commons if required. - Ahunt (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
USAirwaysA330.jpg
image:USAirwaysA330.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Notts Aero Club DH.60 Moth.jpg
image:Notts Aero Club DH.60 Moth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
"Jetliner"
The usage of Jetliner is under discussion, see talk:Jetliner (disambiguation) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tipoff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
William pogue.jpg
file:William pogue.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
WWI questions at WPMILHIST
See WT:MILHIST where someone is asking about File:Balloons (WWI).jpg and File:Blimp with airplane.jpg -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Patrouille Suisse
Could someone swing by Patrouille Suisse please, there's an editor insisting on adding unreferenced and badly-written info which I believe doesn't belong. If course if you think it does belong, feel free to leave it in, but please tidy it up. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Its probably the same guy who trashed the Swiss Air Force article which is reaally bad nobody so far has the time and effort to sort it out! MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- and Flieger-Flab-Museum, but we got that one sorted out on the talk page. He is Swiss and by his own admission doesn't speak much English, so it seems to be at least partly a language issue. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Problems at the EFW N-20 article also, I was led there by chance following some newly uploaded engine images that need identifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've suggested to the user (on his talkpage) that he seek assistance from a German-language volunteer at the wp:Local embassy. He's a Swissgerman speaker with a little English and less French. He should be able to work on the .de articles, and then a volunteer can translate from there. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Problems at the EFW N-20 article also, I was led there by chance following some newly uploaded engine images that need identifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Have tried to remove some of the bloat and tidy up Swiss Air Force but I suspect it will be reverted! some sections still need to be re-written into English and it repeats the same text in various badly translated versions, any help keeping an eye on it appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Kamov Ka-50 & 52
See WT:MILHIST where a notice about the 50 and 52 is available. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
For Wikipedians in Moscow: Edward Snowden's airplane to land at SVO Airport at 5:15PM Moscow time
Are there any photographers who take pictures at Sheremetyevo airport? Edward Snowden's plane is landing at Sheremetyevo at 5:15PM Moscow time: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1267261/snowden-leaves-hong-kong-commercial-flight-moscow - I'm not sure if that would be helpful to articles about Edward Snowden, but anyone thinks so, there's the hint: you can photograph Snowden's airplane as it lands
It's Aeroflot Flight#213 (as stated by the Hong Kong news article) - Aeroflot's website says
- SU213: Hong Kong - Hong Kong International (HKG-1) Moscow - Sheremetyevo (SVO-F) 10:55 (UTC+08:00) 23.06 Departed
The aircraft should be an Airbus A330-300 as that is the equipment Flight 213 usually uses. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Edward Snowden's flight is being tracked here: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su213 - Thanks to User:Sealle for finding this! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- At 12:56 PM British Time the Guardian said that Snowden's plane will land in about 90 minutes http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live WhisperToMe (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Guardian said at 1:25 BST that the plane should land in Moscow in about 45 minutes. He will be in the transit section of the airport (SVO-F) as he does not have a Russian visa. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Snowden jet is registered VP-BDD according to Flightradar24 WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Snowden's airplane VP-BDD has landed (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live ) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live - He is in Terminal E at the airport. An Aeroflot source said he took a small overnight room WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- If Snowden takes the flight to Cuba, it will be Aeroflot Flight 150, an Airbus A330-200, leaving Moscow at 14:05 local time.
- The Aeroflot record says: SU150/CU6150 Moscow - Sheremetyevo (SVO-D) Havana - Jose Marti Intl (HAV-3) 14:05 (UTC+04:00) 24.06
- It would be tracked at http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su150
- WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Bambini-code
Hi, I have started a discussion on the notability of the Bambini-Code article and its content at Talk:Bambini-Code#Notability. I am concerned that much or all of the present content is not notable. Hoping you can contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
403SqnBadge.JPG
image:403SqnBadge.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: resolved - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Planebassford.jpg
File:Planebassford.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report}}
Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems like it would be redundant to some more generic sport template? Also, the articles that use this template seem to be a particular year edition, but occupying the non-year race article location. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Grounded airplanes at Halifax International Airport on September 11, 2001.jpg
image:Grounded airplanes at Halifax International Airport on September 11, 2001.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Second opinion on tag
Whaam! got tagged with {{tone}}. Do people agree with this? Please get involved at either Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! to help sort this out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images
I apologize for not getting other projects involved in this, but I thought consensus would be reached at WP:WPVA, but it has not. The debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Okay_Hot-Shot.2C_Okay.21_source_images seems to be unresolved regarding fair use images at Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!. Please come by and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Aviastar.org
Hi all, could someone please refresh my memory about whether www.aviastar.org is kosher or not? IIRC it is one gigantic copyright infringement, or am I mis-remembering the situation? YSSYguy (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Another User has in the last few minutes been copying material from aviastar.org and pasting it in List of Sikorsky S-70 Models, so some prompt input would be most welcome. YSSYguy (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:AVIASTAR. In short, kill it with fire. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Bushranger, your memory is better than mine - perhaps I'd better stop remembering stuff related to aircraft maintenance and start remembering WP-related stuff errmm, perhaps not...
- I have done a search, and there are 184 articles and 13 User sub-pages that contain "aviastar.org", see this list. One article (List of aircraft (B)) uses the site as a source more than 100 times. YSSYguy (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is an brief page on the subject Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft/Aviastar (WP:AVIASTAR) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- WP:AVIASTAR. In short, kill it with fire. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Observation Balloon demonstration - Coblenz Air Show - April 1919.jpg
There is a query about this photo at WT:MILHIST -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Notification
A administrator has accused this project of WP:OWN. I've taken the matter to ANI here. Feel free to express yourself there....William 02:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed already. And a bite back at you personally by another involved party, which if coincidence is remarkable for its timing. You have my sympathy. Do let us know if you still need a hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
CYYC from south.jpg
file:CYYC from south.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Assessment and template
There's something seriously wrong with the "class=" parameter in the assessment template. For all I can tell, it's ignored completely in favor of this, which amounts to a counting of B-class criteria. The mere fact that an article hasn't been assessed for B-class yet dooms it to Start-class (see Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport for an extreme example) while conversely a grammatically-correct one-line stub with an infobox and an inline citation for its meagre content would be considered C-class. Now this suggestion via the number of criteria is surely nice, but is it really meant to override manual assessment and render it meaningless? If so, it should be better-documented that for this WikiProject a C-class article is one that fulfills three or four of the B-class criteria, no more and no less. Having just wasted the better part of an hour on figuring this out, I'd strongly advocate complying with how the rest of Misplaced Pages handles the class= parameter and allowing it to override the B-class criteria count. Huon (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)