Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WPArkansas Bot

I have just stopped User:WPArkansas Bot which appears to be removing all the assesment data from WP:AVIATION pages. It is changing the article status to Stub if it has a stub tag on the article but is also removing all the sub-project data. As the talk page assesment is the most accurate it should I think be removing the stub tag from the article not resetting the talk page. A lot of work to add back the sub-projects etc. anybody understand bots or know where this was discussed? MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bot run appears to have been requested by User:NativeForeigner on 30 December 2009 probably without the knowledge of the damage it has inflicted! I have informed the user (who does not appear to be a member of the project) and have asked them to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of the project under Redskunk, but I had a user name change. Thank you for the notification, I'll deal with that. I'm sorry. This was discussed years ago, and i took that discussion out of context. Additionally I was under the understanding of Coffee that it would only change unassessed to stub. Thanks. I will immediately start going down and fixing the tags, per approval. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take full responsibility for it, but I hope you AGF. I was trying to help, and didn't realize the full scope of the issue. I'll go about rectifying it I suppose. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot was assessing per the stub tags on the article page, it wasn't malfunctioning. The reason it assesses those articles even though they have an assessment, is it is more likely that the stub tag on the article is more accurate, otherwise it would have been removed. If you want to you can revert those particular changes, but to me it looks pretty accurate. This was rated start, but it is indeed a stub class article, an article like this could go either way, but again it had the stub tag. I'm unblocking the bot and moving on to the other part of Task 2 for this project, where it won't erase other assessments. Again feel free to revert it's changes where it removed another assessment. Cheers, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK on the assessment part, but why is the bot removing the taskforce fields, like "|Airlines-project=", "|Aircraft="? The latter is unhelpful and the main problem here. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no easy way for it to replace those when doing the assessments (remember we're talking about AWB), however it only made 251 edits where it removed that so it's not a big deal. Basically it wouldn't have even removed those if the articles had been assessed correctly, it's not that hard to remove the stub tags after you assess an article you know. But to be honest it looks like a lot of misassessing was done, as quite a few of those should have stayed stub-class. It seems like something you need to fix in your assessment project. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Again the stub/start class thing is not the problem. It is the removing the other fields that is. It takes users to decide which task force an article falls under for WP:Aviation. The bot can change the class field, but should leave the task force and other fields in the banner alone. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee sees the problem and is working on the bot to resolve it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I had assumed it was done in good faith, but I had to stop the bot as I had a concern about the removal of sub-project data and in some instances the b-class checklist has been removed. I appreciate any efforts to straighten things out but please appreciate that it was stopped to protect the project work that was being deleted. I am still concerned that a destructive bot was let loose without testing. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It was tested and approved, however I've fixed the regex problem, it should only replace the class field now. I'm rerunning it on this project, without auto-save, so I'll have to approve the edits. Once I'm certain it's totally fixed I'll let it loose again. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's back to working order: [1]. I'm not going to continue to run it here if you don't want it here. It's going to rate everything stub, that has a tag on the article page, if you think those tags are misplaced then I'll discontinue running it on this project. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • At this point there are too many incorrectly stubbed pages for it to continue. (And I removed a ton of them a couple days ago) I might postpone it for now. Also, it might be good to have a feature so it doesn't change C or B articles to stub without human confirmation. Also, it would be great if the bot would output a log. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While it may be a good idea to remove the article page stub tags while assesing articles, the simple fact is it seems to have been overlooked by many assessors. So rather than changing the assesment to match the article, or even vice versa, is there a way to have the bot raise a flag somewhere to let it be known that the article tag and assessment don't match? I haven't a clue how this would work, but it would let someone know about it anyway. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be extremely easy, all you would need to do is create a template that had a category embedded specifically for incorrect assessment matches. The bot would then add the template to the talk page after finding the stub tag and a different assessment on the talk page, therefore adding it to the category. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A-class Review for Petlyakov Pe-8

An A-class review has been opened up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Petlyakov Pe-8. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Book-class

Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that a couple of Wikipedia-Books are aviation-related, could this project (and other aviation projects) adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Aviation people can oversee books like Fighters and Bombers of World War II much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for/against this? Milhist adopted it, and WP:SHIPS will as soon as they find someone to edit their banner. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we have any discussion on this? Seems like a decent idea on the face of it.... -SidewinderX (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the discussion. Both MILHIST and WP:SHIPS have adopted it. I'd make the changes to the template myself, but its non-standard (and probably protected). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour. I'd also appreciate help at WP:MILLS in creating the category for Book-class articles rather than having them rated as NA-class. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done (WP:MILLS). 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Aircraft upset

Hello, there has been a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and uncivil behaviour (WP:CIVIL) on Aircraft upset and it's talk page.

There don't seem to be any other editors participating in this article recently, making it hard to find NPOV with only two active editors.

Any tips/feedback/help would be much appreciated!

Kind regards, PolarYukon (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly needs a look over, a lot of mechanical failures in there which I don't think is the idea of the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction nominated for AfD

User:Canterbury Tail has nominated this article for deletion. Interested members of this project are encouraged to participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft in fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft went subsonic twice.

Hello. The "Variants" section in DFS 346 states that an aircraft "twice went subsonic." To my understanding, any aircraft that does not exceed the speed of sound is subsonic. This ia a problem. I am passing this problem over to you because I'm exhausted and have no experience with editing aircraft articles. Please do what you can, or alternately tell me off. --Kizor 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have changed it to transonic although it is not quite clear what Mach number the aircraft reached. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was loath to change the article by myself because I assumed that the DFS 346 flying at trans- or supersonic speeds might conflict with Chuck Yeager's achievement. On further examination, this appears to have been dumb. --Kizor 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs, the German wiki article on this aircraft supports transonic speeds so we are on the right lines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 now open

The featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class Review for Alexander Pentland

An A-Class review has been opened up for Alexander Pentland. All interested editors are invited to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Essex County Airport

The best written wikipedia aviation project for any airport in New Jersey, very informative, good photos, updated information, just look at the difference between other airports in NJ. It belongs on the upper echelon of WikiProjects, grade it higher!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2k02 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The grade of C would seem to be correct. There are many unreferenced statements. The article cannot progress higher until this is attended to. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually this was a pretty awful article, almost unreferenced and full of promotional peacock language and gratuitous spam. I have gone over it and cleaned it up somewhat, but it really needs some serious work, especially refs added. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, the article is roughly the same size it was before Gomez2k02 (talk · contribs) expanded it. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left Gomez2k02 a welcome notice. Hopefully he'll read it and learn from it where he has been going wrong. I notice from his talk page a lot of past problems with his editing, which appears to have been in good faith but due to a lack of knowledge of various policies. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He is also the airport manager which explains the WP:COI problems there. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointed towards WP:COI too. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for User talk:Cdwops as well, since he indicated on the talk page that he is the airport ops manager. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lavochkin La-7 article, needs some attention

Hi there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7 could do with a couple of edits, in the opinion of humble self:

1. The second paragraph at the top of the page states "By late 1943 the La 7 was probably the best dogfighter in service in the world,..." which doesn't seem possible if the sentence "The first production La-7 entered service with the 176th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment in July 1944" in the section Operational history is accurate. If the first production aircraft of this type entered service in July 1944, it can't possibly have been the best dogfighter in the world in 1943.

2. The second sentence in the section Operational history asserts that "The La-7 was 44 mph faster than the Fw 190" but doesn't indicate which version of the Fw 190 this comparison is being made against. As such, the statement is of dubious value to a researcher and would appear to be in conflict with other references. The Performance section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7 indicates a maximum speed of the La 7 as 680 km/h (at an unspecified altitude) but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190 states speeds of 685 km/h at 6,600 m, 710 km/h at 11,300 m for the D-9 variant of the Fw 190.

I haven't got access to the references listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7 unfortunately, perhaps someone else is in a position to elaborate? Yarrumevets (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Combustor Peer Review

I have opened a peer review for the combustor article. I've spent a fair bit of time researching and rewriting most of the article as the first step in my wiki new years resolution. I'm hoping that this article will become a model for engine component articles, and I need ya'lls thoughts on how I've done so far! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First impression (cursory look) is that this is excellent, i.e. in terms of layout, number and quality of images and diagrams etc., which make it easy on the eye and very legible. However I do have a few comments on the referencing style (using the 'rp' template, which I haven't noticed before): it separates the page numbers being referenced (which appear as superscripts after the reference in the text) from the source which is being cited (I think that it's better to have them together); this method can also lead to a long string of 'up-links' from the single footnote back to the text, which I find awkward-looking; I prefer to have one ref entry for each page/block of pages, along the lines of "Miller (2009), p.45", where "Miller" is in the bibliography following the footnotes. Since there is a template which provides this facility there must be arguments for it, but I'm querying it because it's new to me and there seem (to me) to be more cons than pros. This is probably (almost certainly!) not the place to discuss this template, but I was unable to find anywhere more appropriate. A pointer to the right place for this discussion would be useful - thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the first pass look. If you have more detailed comments, please leave on the peer review page, linked here. Ass for the rp template, I thought it might be a convenient way to keep the ref list from becoming unwieldy. That said, I see your point, and I'll see what other say in the peer review. If you want to talk specific about the template, and not just my use of it, maybe try Template talk:Rp?

Thanks for the link to the template talk page - I was just looking at it and wanted to let you know that I had found it! The subject has been discussed there at length and my objections (and others) have been aired there more eloquently than I have done here. The view has been expressed that the 'rp' template should be used sparingly, if at all - it seems to be a system invented by the template programmer, who its only champion! I'll have to read the talk page a bit more though to get the full picture. It would be a lot of work to convert the article to use a more user-friendly system, so I hope that it gets through the review without objection on this point. --TraceyR (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From the template page:

Warning:This template should not be used unless necessary. In the vast majority of cases, citing page numbers in the <ref ...>...</ref> code is just fine. This template is only intended for sources that are used 'many, many times' in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in <references /> or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read, and is likely to be reverted by other editors. Used judiciously, however, it is much less interruptive to the visual flow than full Harvard referencing and some other reference citation styles.

(my emphasis on 'many, many times'). I see that there is only one reference in Combustor with 'many' citations (16), some of which refer to the same page numbers (e.g. 110-111), so maybe the normal "short reference" system would be more appropriate. However, this discussion should be either on the article talk page or the review page, so I'll make this my last entry here. Good luck with the review. --TraceyR (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to encourage anyone looking at this to head over to the peer review page and contribute to this discussion and the overall peer review. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Government Air Service

An IP user and now a new user keeps adding a biography of Captain Vic Spencer to the Falkland Islands Government Air Service article some of which is a large direct quote from a newspaper. I have removed it twice be nice to get somebody else to have a look at it. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do! - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AFD nomination Take Off magazine

This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off magazine. - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion notifications

Is it time to turn on article alerts for automatic notification of deletion candidates as long as the articles are tagged as a part of this project? One example report is here. Do remember that the list is dynamic and a good example today, could be empty tomorrow. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's already the {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} template, which is linked at the top of this page, collapsed. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes it is necessary to alert editors of an AFD debate. A simple notification like the one above is a good way to do this. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We could do, although I actually prefer to add them manually as I did above, just to add some discretion to the process. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines

There is a dispute over this article, currently at FAR. I've fully protected it at the wrong version for 24h. Fresh eyes on the dispute and fresh input would be welcome on the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A-class Review for Yermolayev Yer-2

An A-class review has been opened up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Yermolayev Yer-2. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación Flight 310

The Cubana de Aviación Flight 310 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The AfD debate was closed as "keep". Article is currently rated at start class, but I think it should be higher than this. Would anyone care to reassess? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft/airline incident article titles

I'm not a regular participant to this project, but for whatever reason I've recently been noticing all of the various aircraft/airline incident articles that all seem to be titled with whatever happened to be the flight number at the time. I assume that this is an intentional choice of this project, which I guess that I can sort of understand from a certain perspective, but... what is the actual rational for this choice? Is there really no better alternative, or at least a better alternative for some? Using <Airline> <Flight number> just seems so... random, I guess. It's a practice that frankly strikes me as weird, and honestly seem a bit amateurish. Not that I'm trying to throw stones here, I'm just trying to be upfront in the hopes of having a reasoned discussion about the issue.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Accidents are commonly known by their flight number, such as Air France Flight 447 google search. Project guidelines suggest that at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A potential problem I can see with this naming convention is that "Airline, flight ###" is almost never a unique event. How many times has a flight by the same airline using the same number occured without anything notable happening? Out of all those (hundreds or even thousands) only one is notable - I think we should at least append a date or some other way to single out the specific single instance of the flight. What happens if two (or more) flights with the same designation are/become notable? Roger (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of major accidents/incidents, most airlines retire the flight number. Theres no real need to disambiguate the titles unless there are duplicates, in which case the year would probably be appended. - BilCat (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so may I suggest that "Disambiguate flight incident article titles with a date when necessary" becomes a policy of this Wikiproject. Roger (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont think it is needed it is a rare occurence and we dont need to have a guideline for an occurence that might be only one or two articles out of thousands at the most. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, apparently it is an intentional choice. One of my main concerns is exactly what Roger just brought up above, and the response that most airlines retire flight numbers is a stance based on a very unfounded (and, largely, inaccurate) assumption. The thing is, most coverage of these incidents comes from news sources who are predominantly very close to the event. As coverage gains some distance from the event, authors tend to refactor the name of the incident to be more descriptive, which is something that I think we should do here on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a news source/service" after all, and we should generally favor content which is more distant from the event when it is available (within reason, of course).

Aside form all of that though, the current naming convention here creates an issue. I know that I would personally find either a series of separate articles, or stand-alone list articles, about historic, current, and planned regularly scheduled airline flights to be immensely useful (not so much timetables, which are available on Orbitz and whatnot, but just general information about flight routes). Such articles would be almost impossible to create on Wikipedia currently, due mostly to the practice here of using flight numbers as article names for incident articles. There must be some logical way to organize this better, which nobody would really object to.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving the accident articles so a series of articles about flight numbers would not help as none of them would notable and very unlikely to be created, so not really a problem in leaving the accident articles as they are. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a logical way to organise accidents - Categories, such as Category:20th-century aviation accidents and incidents and Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

SKYbrary

User:Timo Kouwenhoven has been added templated links to SKYbrary on aircraft accident articles, as SKYbrary is a wiki it should not be considered a reliable source. I have reverted a few of the links but I was looking for a wider comment. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear all,

I have indeed added links to several articles. These links refer to www.skybrary.aero which is indeed a website based on the mediawiki platform. This does not imply that it is an open for all editors wiki environment. SKYbrary is an initiative of several recognised bodies in the aviation realm. None of these have commercial goals. SKYbrary's goal is to offer validated factual (NON journalism) information to all employed in the aviation safety domain, both controllers and pilots. All editors behind SKYbrary have a long history in aviation safety. Our intention is certainly NOT to flood wikipedia with links that have no added value whatsoever. MilborneOne is kindly requested to undo his alterations, if agreed by others involved in this project. Best regards, --Knowledge Hunter (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with User:MilborneOne. This seems like useless addition of linkspam. If there is any added value with demonstrated reliability, I haven't seen it. I think you should desist in this linking activity unless there is consensus for it. Crum375 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite discomforting to be misjudged I must say. Crum375 is kindly requested to elaborate on his method for judgement about the "..added value with demonstrated reliability, I haven't seen it.." I am in a total mist. --Knowledge Hunter (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a wiki that any registered user can edit which is not considered a reliable external link. I am also a bit concerned that in a few articles a link to Skybrary has been added to text which already has a a perfectly good source already which looks like link spamming. Also concerned that user Timo Kouwenhoven connection with Skybrary he has a conflict of interest and really should not be adding links. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Timo, can you please provide one specific example of useful information from the links you are posting which is reliable? For this one sample case, please describe the new information provided, what you believe it adds to the article, and why you believe it meets WP's standard for reliability. Crum375 (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne you state: "It is a wiki that any registered user can edit which is not considered a reliable external link." Which is not true. We have a very limited amount of experts writing articles. See our who is who page.--User:Timo Kouwenhoven (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crum375 Although you didn't answer my question, I'll politely answer yours. Our Accident and Serious Incident reports are elaborately reviewed summaries of official reports by investigating bodies. We are focussed, based on our expertise to relate probable causes and reported consequences to operational issues, their generic effects (consequences), their defences (mitigations), scenarios to recover from them, contributory factors and solutions.

An example is: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/B752,_Uberlingen_Germany,_2002_%28LOS%29 and the probable cause: http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Loss_of_Separation All articles published on SKYbrary are strictly factual. Our opinion is that we might have added value to Wikipedia's accident reports. If you are the authorative body evaluating our articles, please come forward. Crum375 is most probably not your real name. --Knowledge Hunter (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Timo, your first example is simply (or mostly) a verbatim copy-paste of the accident investigation report. I fail to see how that adds any value to a Wiki article. As to the second, it is an article by anonymous people, which is similar to WP, except we try harder to provide inline citations. You have failed to answer my question: What makes that source reliable? Who is the publisher? What kind of editorial oversight is there? What are the qualifications of the contributors? And to answer you question, any Wikipedian is obligated to evaluate the quality of sources or links, and their personal details are irrelevant. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, Most of your questions are answered: SKYbrary is an initiative of Eurocontrol, ICAO and FSF. Editorial oversight: Eurocontrol. Our editor is available to answer any question you have regarding article quality. Next to that, I've observed that Aviation Safety Network is in the external links for many many articles part of this project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Aviation_Safety_Network). Why aren't they considered link spammers? I have nothing against their work, I appreciate it. Please advise? --Timo Kouwenhoven 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timo Kouwenhoven (talk • contribs)

Well, for one thing, Aviation Safety Network do not have their agents going around spamming links to their site into all aviation articles. They let editors carefully evaluate them and make their own decision when to use them. I get concerned when a product of any kind gets shoved down my throat. Crum375 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, be my guest to evaluate SKYbrary and decide where it might add value. But please, do not consider it a product, for it isn't one. --Timo Kouwenhoven 21:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the website funded? I see it has a marketing manager. Is this website intended to replace EASA and company safety directives and be used as a reference by aircrews and air traffic controllers? The whole concept worries me to be honest. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It worries you? Why, because knowledge people put a lot of effort in accumulating knowledge on one trustworthy site? Having a marketing manager doesn't mean we are some commercial body. As you probably know, it takes effort to reach an audience, hence the need for such role.

It seems that we're seeing some culture clash here. Timo, it appears that you just don't yet understand that accepted editor behaviour on Wikipedia precludes inserting WP:LINKSPAM, especially by editors who have a WP:conflict of interest on a given topic. You've done the right thing by declaring that conflict, but the declaration is not enough. Conflicted editors should be very circumspect about editing in the mainspace: you'd be far better off to suggest edits in talkspace instead and allow others to decide if they are appropriate for use in the articles.

Please be aware that WP:CIVIL behaviour does not include challenging other editors to reveal their identities, even if you have chosen to do so. Pseudonyms are carefully protected here for very good reasons and the vast majority of editors here use them.

It remains quite possible that, when examined, Skybrary will turn out to be an excellent resource for us to use, but what you have been doing is liable to result in the site being wp:blacklisted instead. Please don't make that happen. Have some patience and allow the discussion to work itself out here instead.

The credibility of WP depends on the citation of reliable sources. Would you cite for us some expert sources (independent from your website) that consider Skybrary to be reliable? LeadSongDog come howl 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LeadSongDog. I appreciate your effort to explain the way of working over here and last but certainly not least your tone of voice. SKYbrary nor I have no intention of spamming. Our single role is share reliable information geared towards aviation safety and safety awareness. I will most certainly accumulate sources that I may site to justify SKYbrary's reliability.--Timo Kouwenhoven 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timo Kouwenhoven (talk • contribs)

Yes, thanks LeadSongDog for an excellent summary of the issues involved. I think "culture clash" is a really useful way to understand what's happening here.

If I can suggest one more aspect of that clash -- Timo, please be aware that when people are questioning the "reliability" of SKYbrary, they're using this word in a highly specific way, as it relates to policy and practice here on Wikipedia. It's not a slight against the trustworthiness of the site itself. Wikipedia is, as you know, built out of the pseudo-anonymous contributions of multiple editors, mostly amateurs. Therefore, Wikipedia is extremely conservative about the sources of information that it deems "reliable"; put simply, we claim no "authority" for the information that's presented here -- the authoritativeness of what we present rests entirely on the sources that we cite. You can read the policy itself here. It goes hand-in-hand with Wikipedia's verifiability policy — note in particular that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability, which rests on "reliable sources" (in the Wikipedia sense of the term).

With reference to SKYbrary itself, the problem (as I see it) is that information presented by SKYbrary users does not appear to undergo an editorial review before it is posted; therefore, we have no way of knowing whether it has undergone the fact-checking that material in a more traditional publication has undergone. This is itself, I guess, another clash — SKYbrary is concerned with delivering important safety information in a timely manner; Wikipedia requires sources that have been through some kind of review process. Put another way, we can wait a couple of years if necessary before publishing information; this is at odds with SKYbrary's whole reason for existence!

FWIW, I personally question whether "Aviation Safety Network" actually meets our criteria for a "reliable source", and I would never cite it as a source for material in any Wikipedia article. I guess that the difference here is (as Crum375 suggested) that the information on that site has proved so valuable to Wikipedians writing articles about aviation safety incidents that they have cited it themselves. Really speaking, the only way to ensure that SKYbrary is linked to as regularly is to make the site as valuable and informative as Aviation Safety Network is. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS -- note that Wikipedia does not consider itself a "reliable source" for the purposes of citation!

Thank you Rlandmann for putting things in perspective. I do not doubt Wikipedias editors' effort to preserve its quality standards. As I understand SKYbrary lacks a demonstrated editorial review of its articles. There is a rather strict editorial process in place: selected authors write articles and submit them to a "work in progress"-area, only after a thorough check by our editor articles are moved to the public area. Next to this we have a validator who checks series of articles and reports his findings to the editor. All involved are professionals with a background in civil or military aviation as either pilot, traffic controller, tower management, safety management. Being a shared initiative of Eurocontrol, ICAO, FSF, UKFSC and EASA/ESSI isn't merely window dressing. Articles refer to official documents (SARPs, JAR-OPS, EU-OPS, ...) and Reports publicised by official investigating bodies (AAIB, NTSB, etc). Our goal is not to compete with Aviation Safety Network, we will only publish accidents and serious incidents regarded "useful" for learning. We do not aim at being the most complete collection of incidents and accidents. We do not aim at competing with wikipedia's collection either. We aim at being a reference for aviation safety knowledge.

Stating this does not prove our articles being reliable / valuable / informative. The proof lies in the fact that it is used by aviation professionals worldwide. How can we facilitate you in ascertaining our articles reliability? Could you shed a light on this matter? --Timo Kouwenhoven 15:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Timo said "The proof lies in the fact that it is used by aviation professionals worldwide." Well in that case we would soon be seeing Aviation publications that already have an established track record for reliability quote your publications in theirs. That is how a publication (in the broad sense - a website is also a type of publication) establishes its reputation. So in short there is nothing that you can do as such, it is up to other already established publishers to start quoting you as a source. When that happens its almost inevitable that it would come to the notice of Wikipedia. Roger (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Timo; can you please confirm that the fact checking process that you describe applies to every piece of content that appears on SKYbrary? In other words, when a user hits "Save page" in the MediaWiki interface, the text is not visible to the public until it has been scrutinised by your editorial team, and that every piece of content that appears on the site is scrutinised by your validator?

Assuming this to be the case, would SKYbrary be prepared to post a message to that effect on the site itself? That would certainly settle the question of "reliability" (in Wikipedia terms) beyond any reasonable doubt; if anyone still questioned the "reliability" of the source, I think that the onus would be on them to show that the editorial review process was not as stringent as the site claims.

That said, it would still be a Conflict of Interest for SKYbrary employees or contractors to insert links to SKYbrary into Wikipedia articles. However, we have long-established procedures for working with other organisations under such circumstances and I'm sure that if the "reliability" issue could be settled, we could easily find ways of working together.

Thanks for your ongoing patience and demonstrations of good faith; hopefully we can put a shaky start behind us. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SKYbrary shall include a page stating its editorial process and validation cycle. I will get back here, as soon as taken care of. All the best. --Timo Kouwenhoven 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timo Kouwenhoven (talk • contribs)

Notification of WP:AFD nomination IndUS Aviation

This article about an aircraft manufacturer, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated by User:Andy Dingley for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndUS Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Garrison

I found an article on Peter Garrison languishing on a list of unreferenced BLPs (tagged as "unsourced" since May 2009). I've added one reference (bio in Flying Magazine) and changed the template to "article issues". I'm hoping that editors in this Project will consider getting the article into better shape, since you are the experts.--Plad2 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

BUMMMFITCHH up for deletion

FYI, BUMMMFITCHH has been nominated for deletion at AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don Kendell

I've added Don Kendell, the former chairman of Kendell Airlines as an article you may be interested in. Hope that helps! Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Southwest Air Lines Flight 611

I edited the Southwest Air Lines Flight 611 article earlier; it is obvious that the source for the article is incorrect as to the departure airport of the accident aircraft (runway orientation wrong, runway too short for a 737, flight timeline not matching a flight of over 1700 miles distance, accident involving a Domestic carrier), so I changed the information in the article. However, does this constitute original research? The only other website that I could find, that gave the origin as Indonesia, also stated that the final destination was Puerto Rico. What does one do when a source is clearly inaccurate, and is the only source for the article? YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

One could always search in Japanese, for example "南西航空 1982 石垣空港". This link is one that can be used as a ref. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source is correct; but the article has the wrong airport - Naha Airport, Japan instead of Naha Airport, Indonesia. Mjroots2 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrub that, I'll see if I can find any further sources when I'm back on my own computer. Mjroots2 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference I have is just a summary and doesnt mention the departure point. It doesnt mention weather being a factor either! The article in the London Times says it was a domestic flight. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting to get to the bottom of the confusion. Aviation Safety Network give departure as Naha Airport (NAH) and arrival airport as Ishigaki Airpot (ISG / ROIG). Airfleets gives departure as Naha Airport, Indonesia (NAH / WAMH) and arrival airport as San Juan, Puerto Rico (SIG / TJIG), with the accident occuring at Ishigaki, Japan on landing there.

I'm making no comment as to which (if any) is correct. Questions are: 1) did Southwest operate between Indonesia and Puerto Rico? 2) Would such a flight have involved flying over Japan, and if so, would the expected rout take the aircraft anywhere near Naha Airport, Japan? Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Southwest is a U.S. domestic carrier, as can be seen by http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html Georgejdorner (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the same airline see Japan Transocean Air. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the references in that article are poorly formatted... i.e., the links in the references should take you to the reference, not to another wikipedia page. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Flight International has Southwest Air Lines (or Nansei Koku KK) (as opposed to Southwest Airlines, who are the American bunch) flying out of Naha Okinawa to Ishigaki Jima here and has the 26 August accident happening to a Nansei Airlines B737 (JA-8444) at Ishigaki Island airport here, so it looks like an internal Japanese flight between Okinawa and Ishigaki Island.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AFD nomination Centre stick vs side-stick

This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre stick vs side-stick. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION creator/Airport/content

FYI, {{WPAVIATION creator/Airport/content}} has been nominated for deletion. This appears to be the preload substitution template for Template:WPAVIATION creator, your article creation wizard. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tybee Island B-47 crash

Could an admin please rename this article back to its original name so that it once again follows this project's naming scheme. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Aviation flight category

Can someone make this article encyclopedic? Thanks. --  Denelson83  04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it! Many different airlines and military organizations use these sorts of weather categorizations, but they are all different. Without refs this is non-encyclopedic in nature. Do you have references for this? - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have this, this and this. --  Denelson83  07:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the first link you gave doesn't mention colour categories and the third is a duplicate of the first on the same NOAA website, so I would say you have one ref there. Even given one reliable ref the article is just a single table and nothing else - it doesn't explain why this is important and there isn't much chance of it being expanded beyond just a table. I think it really should be incorporated into a larger article, but I am not sure what as there is no article on Aviation meteorology. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but there is an article on aviation meteorology. It's called METAR. Perhaps I should just merge that flight category table into METAR. --  Denelson83  07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this relates to observations and not forecasts that would probably be a good place to merge it into and redirect the page to afterwards. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor removing content from aircrash articles

82.1.62.101 (talk · contribs) is removing a fair bit of referenced content from aircrash articles. I'm not saying that this is vandalism, but I think that the IPs contribs may bear looking over by other sets of eyes. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Combustor A-Class Review

I have opened an A-class reivew for the Combustor article. Please stop by and take a look when you get a chance. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Super Tucano article name

I'd like to suggest that the page for the EMBRAER Super Tucano, currently at Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano, be moved/renamed to A-29 Super Tucano. A-29 is both the Brazilian designation and, now, officially, its U.S. Mission Designation Series designation, so it would seem to make more sense, I'd think. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to move it just because it has a military designation none of the other Embraer aircraft apart from the specialist R-99 use the company designation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The key thing is not the article name, but whether the article can be easily found and that is more a matter of good redirects. I would say leave it where it is, however make sure that there are redirects from A-29 etc. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, A-29 Super Tucano is a less common name than the others at this point. We're supposed to use the more common name for article names. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Hi everyone! I don't know if this project was ever notified (I can't find a record of it if it was), but Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is up for featured article review at WP:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1. The review has moved to the FARC section, where declarations are made for keeping the article as a FA or delisting it from that status. No declarations have been made since the FARC began almost a month ago, and so we need to get a few more eyes on this review. Any comments from interested editors, especially experts in this field, will be welcomed! Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has a long list of all 154 victims of the accident, as this I believed is not normal practice I removed the list and made sure that it had an external link to the list at source. I understood current practice was to only list notable victims (those with a wikipedia article) and then provide a summary of victims by nationality. The list has been hidden but in my view it is not encyclopedic, my change has been reverted on the ground that it has passed a featured article and does not violate any rules. Comments from others welcome on talk page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

...and WP:NOTMEMORIAL - I have added a note on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed on the article's talk page, so we don't fork the discussion. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Do we have a userbox for members of this WikiProject to display? There is none listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Aviation. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

European Airports

Taken from [2]:

“ I don't know where to put this information or who to tell but I have been able to download a large amount of data from Eurostat that I think might be a nice addition to some of the larger European Airports (someone has already done this for some of the Mexican ones) that is to put a table with the following information some where on the page- the data ranges from 2000 to 2008 for full year information. It also includes total seats (from which load factor can be calculated) and total annual flights.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/data/database

OriginNm DestNm AnnualPAX ABERDEEN AMSTERDAM/SCHIPHOL airport 289331 ABERDEEN BERGEN/FLESLAND airport 52686 ABERDEEN BIRMINGHAM airport 146467 ABERDEEN DUBLIN airport 71376 ABERDEEN KIRKWALL airport 44297 ABERDEEN KOBENHAVN/KASTRUP airport 51962 ABERDEEN LONDON GATWICK airport 147997 ABERDEEN LONDON HEATHROW airport 654913 ABERDEEN LONDON LUTON airport 139025 ABERDEEN MANCHESTER airport 132554 ABERDEEN NEWCASTLE airport 61415 ABERDEEN NORWICH airport 65546 ABERDEEN OIL RIGS airport 519171 ABERDEEN PARIS-CHARLES DE GAULLE airport 115272 ABERDEEN SCATSTA airport 132170 ABERDEEN STAVANGER/SOLA airport 155171 ABERDEEN SUMBURGH airport 73517

My apologies for not knowing where to put this information but I have it for over 300 airports in the E.U.

Could I get some one to email me at nok775@hotmail.com and let me know if this would be of use and if so then how I should go about adding it, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

nok775

”

—Airplaneman— 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

1964 Savage Mountain/Cumberland B-52 crash

This article has been the subject of a naming dispute. Virtually every reference I've come across refers to the incident as the "Cumberland" crash (after the name of the nearest large town), and this is the name that the US military uses exclusively to refer to the incident. However there appears to be a local who insists on using the name "Savage Mountain". Google books has 613 hits for "Cumberland B-52" and two for Savage Mountain B-52. What's the best approach here? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The aviation accident task force will be able to help you with the specifics of how these incidents are named. The Google searches that you've linked are not particularly helpful, because you've searched for words rather than phrases and therefore most of the hits are to unrelated topics. With a bit of digging, though, I find:

• only one source that gives this incident a "name" as such, and calls it "The Cumberland Crash" [3]
• two sources that locate the crash at Big Savage Mountain: [4] and [5]
• eleven sources that locate the crash near Cumberland and do not mention Big Savage Mountain at all: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
• another two sources that seem also to locate the crash near Cumberland, but I can't see the precise section of text in Google Books, so the evidence is less clear: [17] [18].

No-one is questioning that Big Savage Mountain is the more precise location of the crash; however, based on the sources above, it seems far more likely that the incident is more generally associated with Cumberland than with Big Savage Mountain. The relevant general policy here is WP:TITLE which tells us "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." I would say that the onus is now on the "local resident" to show that reliable sources locate this crash on Big Savage Mountain. In this instance, as in many others, local knowledge is actually a disadvantage here. Sure, everyone in the locale might know where and what "Big Savage Mountain" is, but it seems that relatively few other people do. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive and thoughtful reply - I agree 100% with everything you've said. My previous attempts to engage this person have proved unsuccessful, as he appears to hold the opinion that I am not acting in good faith; I've therefore taken a step back to avoid confrontation with him. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The user appears he**-bent on discrediting any opposing view and its user. Did you ever try WP:ANI? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there was a cut-and-past moved involved here, with 1964 Cumberland B-52 crash having the earlier content, and 1964 Savage Mountain B-52 crash several cut/paste attempts. Quite a mess!. Can we do a hist-merge? - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP user is considerably aggressive and I would not attempt communication with him, he seems that much a a troublesome individual, I'd dare say he might be trolling for his own amusement. I am disheartened that you had been so viciously insulted by him, he has done neither himself or his point any service. I agree that the Cumberland name is the one used on official reports, the majority of academic books, and thus that is the correct one to use. If he returns and continues this tirade, I would go to a adminstrator at once, he is interested in nothing but achieving his own way for whatever personal reason, and appears to lack any patience or place any value in anything we as fellow users have to say. Kyteto (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the cut-and-pastes, BilCat -- I've merged the histories. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, RL! I concur with Kyteto's assesment of the IP user. That IP apprears to be innactive, so if he's not already on another IP address, he might be gone for now - I hope! He is definitly POV, tenditious, and has shown no signs of cooperating on this or any of the other articles he's edited on. To be safe, we should probably run a formal move proposal on the article's talk page, and see if we can keep a consensus for the current title. If the user reappears in any form and tries to move the page again, we'll have a consensus that any admin should support, and should be able to quickly undo his moves and protect the page if necessary. I'd recommend a move protection on the page anyway, even though that doesn't prevent cut-and-paste moves. Perhaps a full-protect on his preferred title would be good too! - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-3 now open

The A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Full stop

After a glance here, I'm seeing F 1, F.1, & F1 in the various incarnations, & I'm wondering if this isn't also happening on other Brit aircraft pages. Can we get agreement on how the marks are to be identified? (If there isn't already; I haven't read enough pages to know.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Previously, for aircraft in service now, it was sorta agreed to leave off the periods since the UK MoD has dropped them. But for older types to keep the periods since they were in use at the time. For the ones in between there may need to be an agreement at a article level. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairly sure that the Royal Air Force currently does not use any punctuation in the serving aircraft types. It's certainly been discussed before, I suppose the main thing is consistency across a related set of article titles then consistency within article text. I think we have some Rolls-Royce 'RB' engines (Rolls-Royce RB108 as an example) that were often punctuated (RB.108 in this case) but sometimes not!!). Probably depends on what the majority of the reference sources use, it's not always clear. Ideally the form used in the text should not disagree with the title otherwise questions will get asked. I believe that there is a wiki guideline somewhere about not using punctuation in the article title (might only have been forward slashes though), to do with download performance I think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was this guideline that I was thinking of: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mark Number for aircraft is rarely used as an article title. Just added this comment on the Meteor page but as it is being discussed here I will repeat my comment - It depends on the source they all can be right! the modern version is F1 but it is not contempary with the Meteor. Problem is it is a short form of F Mark 1 which can also be F Mk 1, F Mk.1, F.Mk.1, F.1, F1, Mk 1, Mk. 1 and sometimes just Meteor I depending on who shortened it! although the version used in this article with a gap is not one of the normal contractions. I prefer to use the current format which would be F1 but not everybody agrees! MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to use the style that was in use at the time. For example - Hurricane Mk II, Seafire FR Mk 47, Hunter FGA.9, Tornado GR4.

At least, even with the change of formats (and IMHO degration, the "(type).(number)" format was to me the best, at least in appearance), the British designation system hasn't become the disgusting mess the US one has... - The Bushranger (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lester Brain now open

An A-Class review for Lester Brain is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aviator

Hi all, I'm making use of this infobox for the first time and it appears not to recognise an alt text parameter. Does anyone around here look after this template and could advise? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This [19] was the fix for the same problem in the aircraft infobox, perhaps it can be applied the same way? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class aviation articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing aircraft topics

I've updated my list of missing vehicle topics, including the aviation section - Skysmith (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

I'm trying to push this to GA status. It is in need of a copyedit. Are there any members of this WP willing to have a go at this? Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal of List of aircraft of Imperial Airways

Please discuss at Talk:Imperial Airways#Merge proposal of List of aircraft of Imperial Airways. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 04:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you go

Hello,

When I was working over at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, I created stub articles for two analogous accidents (2006 Nigerian Air Force Dornier 228 crash and 2001 Sudanese Air Force Antonov AN-24 crash) and added these to the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present), which is cited in the ==See also== section of the polish crash article. Another editor added these articles to your wikiproject and to the aviation accidents taskforce.

I'm just mentioning these articles here in case you'd like to do anything with them. I won't be returning to them again. JD Caselaw (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft histories

What is the consensus for covering aircraft histories in article on aircraft accidents? My opinion is that a full history of the aircraft involved should be included if at all possible, subject to the usual rules on WP:V via WP:RS. Some editors disagree with this. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point myself. This edit of mine appears to have prompted Mjroots' initiating this discussion; I just think it is not encyclopaedic to mention every airline that has ever operated a particular airframe. The chances that an aircraft flying for X airline caused it to crash when in service with Y airline are slim in my opinion, and if this is the case (and I can't think of any such cases off the top of my head) it can be mentioned in the article as a contributing factor. YSSYguy (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:YSSYguy - only mention it if it is relevant to the accident, otherwise it looks more like trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing previous operator could imply they were somehow at fault. Previous owners of the aircraft should only be mentioned if it is relevant to the accident, imo. However an article covering the history of an aircraft such as Gimli Glider would probably need such background info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont see the need to list the history of the aircraft unless relevant to the accident. Normally first flight/age and how long with current operator is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Prior accidents or maintenance history, if related to mechanical failures, would seem to be relevant irrespective of who was operating the aircraft at the time they ocurred, particularly in some poorly-regulated third world operating regimes. The idea that the mechanical state of an aircraft is wiped clean at the time of sale or lease seems preposterously optimistic, even with very thorough inspection. Metal fatigue doesn't vanish because someone signs a piece of paper. User:LeadSongDog come howl 19:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree, in that sort of case the aircraft's prior history would be relevant, particularly if it were poorly maintained, but I don't think this sort of info should be included unless it is relevant. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The official accident report (when they are available) will indicate the relevance of the aircraft history, if it is there it would also be expected to be in an article at Featured Article Review level (known as 'exhaustion of sources - Criteria 1(c)'). If it is not there then the investigators have attached little or no importance to it, in cases of very clear pilot error they won't spend much time digging through the history. In that instance extra history detail would fail criteria 4, Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. According to that each aircraft accident article should have a different level of history detail depending on the circumstances. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 Free Airlines L-410 crash is one such case. 1996 Air Africa crash is another. Sorry, no official report is available. In the DRC the track record for publishing formal accident investigations leaves (ahem) a bit to be desired. There are reasons why the whole country is categorically excluded from European airspace. However, it is clearly premature to be looking at the prior service history for this AeroUnion a/c. There's no report so far of mechanical issues. User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Closure of UK airpsace

Should the disruption caused by the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull be mentioned under each airport affected in the "accidents and incidents" section of each article? Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something specific to say regarding that particular airport, then no. If we had a general {{Aviation in the United Kingdom}} template then it would definitely be worthy of inclusion on that. Perhaps we ought to create one, linking to articles about this, airports in the UK, airlines in the UK (generally, and perhaps also British Airways, British Midland and BOAC specifically), NATS, aircraft building in the UK, UK military aviation as well perhaps. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it notable, if for every eruption, one of the side effects is the closing of airspace? It might make sense to include the duration and the size of the restriction in the article on the eruption. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say "no", unless it caused a specific problem for which there is a reliable ref that can be cited. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The closure (which incidentally is only of Controlled airspace according to someone from NATS on BBC radio today), is already discussed extensively in the article 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Historically, volcanic eruptions did not cause widespread closure of airspace. That changed after British Airways Flight 9 in 1982. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption is up, it seems. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article so far - I think that should suffice for this event. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Lester Brain now open

The featured article candidacy for Lester Brain is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

aircraft categories

Several aircraft categories have come up for speedy renaming. Atleast some of them appear to be based on English grammar rules instead of actual aviation usage. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy

70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I've nominated them...all of them have been nominated based on actual aviation useage, actually. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gliding FAR

I have nominated Gliding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 747/Image Gallery deletion

I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 747/Image Gallery for deletion. Your comments are welcome. Airplaneman ✈ 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it got "speedied"!! - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed recategorization of "airline flight" categories

I have proposed renaming all the various airline flight categories to reflect that the articles in question are actually about airline accidents. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 4#Category:Airline flights. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD of 2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash

The 2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A-class symbol on articles?

There is a discussion and !vote regarding the placement of A and GA symbols on corresponding mainspace articles (similar to the FA stars) here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page? As this is one of the few projects that maintains a formal A-class review system, participation from this project would be helpful. Thank you, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Flight 182 renaming

It has been proposed that Air India Flight 182 be renamed; see discussion at Talk:Air India Flight 182#Requested move. Opinions would be appreciated. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771

We are going to need a cached url or whatever it is called on this article. I doubt the Airbus statement is going to remain live for very long. Can anyone sort this? Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Category addition to template

I've reverted a recent addition to {{Infobox Aircraft occurrence}} which added an uncreated category to articles if the number of survivors was 1. I'm not sure that the category is useful, and feel that this issue needs discussion to gauge consensus. I'll let Heymid know of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is one of those things that sounds reasonable at a glance (rather like Category:Biplane aircraft...), but once you consider the implications, you realise it won't work. In this case, the immediate problem that comes to mind is that an aircraft carrying a single person, that crashes, will register as a "crash with a sole survivor", which while semantically and technically accurate, would be agreed, I'd think, as being a bit silly. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, probably well intentioned but with unintended consequences. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that except in rare cases templates would be better off not adding categories. Even when well intentioned, these categories can wind up being over categorization as articles are manually categorized in the proper categories. It can also cause extra work when categories are renamed since changes are manual and not by bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, anybody like to add all the single-seat fighter pilots that have survived being shotdown or fallen out of the sky to List of sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents! MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Short final

Someone created Short final recently. It could be speedily deleted, completely rewritten, or redirected somewhere that is appropriate. I'm not a member of this project, but hopefully someone will take the initiative to get this article straightened out. Thanks! — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not even about "short final", but rather, "short ILS". Should be merged into and redirected to Instrument landing system, I think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually...I don't see how that could reasonably be merged. IMHO the content should be deleted, and the page redirected to Airfield traffic pattern. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That was some of the worst trash I have seen on Wikipedia in a while. I have gone ahead and redirected it to Airfield traffic pattern. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

After discussion I have nominated this for WP:PROD and also another article by the same author Rolling departure‎. Seconds for the PRODs would be welcome!! - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this "incident" notable?

American Airlines Flight 614. At the very least the extensive quotes should be cut, but is the "incident" notable enough for an article at all? The-Pope (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Does not appear to be notable and the full quotes should be removed as copyright violations. Extracts would be allowed but not the full text. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have proded the article and removed all the quotes as copyright violations as well as NPOV and also appears to be soapboxing. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The PROD was removed by the original writer, but subsequent edits have rendered the article worthless. I'll redirect it to American Airlines, but perhaps other can keep an eye on it and see what happens next. I agree that it looks like a WP:SOAPBOX issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected it per your suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Crum375 beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

FAA radar station in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania

I was wondering if anyone here knew of any reliable source(s) on the FAA radar station in Colley Township, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania in the US, within the northern part of Ricketts Glen State Park, which we are trying to get to FA. My guess is that there would be a few sentences on the station in the park's article (plus a few more on Benton Air Force Station and the Red Rock Job Corps, which is on the site now). Our only sources on the air force station so far are the USGS GNIS entry and the USGS topographic map. I know it was a radar site established in the Second World War to watch for low flying aircraft approaching across the Atlantic Ocean. Any additional information / sources would be greatly appreciated. The FAA site is probably known as North Mountain (or perhaps Red Rock or Benton). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Short final

FYI Short final has been prodded for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Final approach (aviation). Airplaneman ✈ 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Er...see the discussion third section up? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aviators

An old article List of aviators which lists a few aviators, would be a lot bigger if it had them all. Is it needed as we have aviator categories that cover the same ground? MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Final approach (aviation)

FYI Final approach (aviation) no longer exists. The problem is that this is now a circular redirect, where it redirects to the article that links to it.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Circular re-direct removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Holders of the Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates

Over the past weeks I have been amassing information about early aviators in the UK, specifically those who were awarded their Aviator's Certificate by the Royal Aero Club. It has got to a point where I would like to create a List article, although there is still a lot of work to be done. Currently it lists the early aviators in certificate number order and in tabular form, and provides references to the appropriate R.Ae.C. announcements in Flight magazine. So far I have listed the first 250 names, with Flight references for the first 231 certificate numbers; the remaining numbers (currently ###) can be added when the references are added. The table comprises 4 columns (cert. no., name, date and comments) with many (but no means all) wikilinks and references to other events where appropriate. Where a pilot is known to have died flying, the name cell is shaded, as on other similar pages, and the circumstances noted under Comments. Where a pilot is known to have died and I have not yet found a reference, I have put an asterisk next to the certificate number. The current state can be seen in my sandbox.

This is a request for comments and ideas, e.g.

1. What would be an appropriate subdivision (currently grouped in tables of 100 names, each with a show/hide function)?
2. How far should the list go - one possibility would be to cover the same ground as the Early Birds of Aviation, i.e. all up to and including 1916 - I have no idea how many that would be, but given the rapid growth with the onset of WWI that might be a very large number. Perhaps all certificates awarded pre-WWI would be more manageable.
3. What should the page/pages be called? Would List of R.Ae.C. Aviator Certificates pre-WWI be suitable? Or e.g. "List of R.Ae.C. Aviator Certificates 1-999"?

Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Something I was thinking of doing myself after I created an article this week for #4 Cecil Grace the lowest number without an article! - a good start perhaps something like List of Holders of the Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates 1910-19** using the years as as a discrimanator. The RAeC record cards for each holder are available on Ancestry.co.uk with a subscription.MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

May I point out that this list, when established, will extensively correlate with World War I fighter ace bios? It was common then for eager impatient patriots to qualify for a private license so that the RFC would accept them as pilots. The cross-linkage would illustrate this, as well as lead interested readers to bios of these pioneer pilots.

If that is taken into consideration, I believe you will not find too many, if any, pilots (or observers) qualifying for the military in this matter after 1916.

Incidentally, my spot check shows me that over 600 certificates had been issued prior to World War I. You may be looking at establishing a linked series of lists, a la List of World War I flying aces, if only because of length considerations. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that seems like a good idea. Do you prefer the idea of blocks of e.g. 100 entries or one list per year? With a linked series of lists it would be more manageable than my current show/hide tables all in one article. There wee 826 certificates by 26 June 1914; Franz Ferdinand was shot two days later. By August there could well have been 900+.

If no further ideas are forthcoming, I'll follow MilborneOne's suggestion of one list per year (e.g. "List of Holders of the Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates (1910), ...(1911), etc") and link to them from a main article called e.g. "List of Holders of the Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates". OK?--TraceyR (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the criteria for highlighting those certificate holders who died flying? As it stands, only those who died in accidents are highlighted, since the time covered extends to 1912/1913. In 1914 war casualties will come into play: should pilots killed in action also be highlighted (perhaps in a different colour)? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with separate highlighting for death due to an aviation accident. You have a notes column in the table for that. I would be more interested in knowing the notability of the individuals and where they (if they do) fit in with aviation developments. Are there any on the lsit who ought to be redlinks? On a related matter, does the Royal Aero Club article explain the notability of holding a certificate? Was it the only way to be allowed to fly in the UK?

Emirates Flight 530 Nomination for Deletion

This is to notify interested members of this WikiProject that Emirates Flight 530 has been nominated for deletion. Editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

London Biggin Hill Airport Mid-air collision deletion nomination

This is to notify members of this WikiProject that London Biggin Hill Airport Mid-air collision has been nominated for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 614 Nomination for Deletion

This is to notify interested members of this WikiProject that American Airlines Flight 614 has been nominated for deletion. Editors are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As readers will note from the redlinks this article was moved to WP:CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CFM International CFM56 FA Nomination

Hey everyone, I just wanted to leave a note that I have gone ahead and nominated the CFM56 article for featured article. Feel free to drop by the discussion! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

USAir/US Airways

According to the history section of US Airways, this airline was known prior to 1996 as USAir. So shouldn't articles on USAir incidents up until this date remain at their original titles, such as USAir Flights 405, 427 and 499? Jared Preston (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would sure seem fine with USAir for those. But some people want to try and revise history. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, the NTSB accident reports use USAir. He's made a bit of a mess there hasn't he. YSSYguy (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would someone mind sorting it out? Jared Preston (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was able to move all 3 articles back without having to get redirects deleted first. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Jared Preston (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1910 London to Manchester air race

Hello. I've written this article, but I'm struggling to find a half decent source for Louis Paulhan's biography. Without it, I won't be able to nominate for GAC or FAC.

Can anyone help fill in the blanks, and get rid of that cite request? Parrot of Doom 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Flight Level Aviation deletion nomination

This is to notify members of this WikiProject that Flight Level Aviation has been nominated for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New Naming conventions(aircraft) proposal

There is a proposal to revise the Naming conventions for aircraft at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Naming convention proposal 2010. Further comments are welcom at this time. Please review the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) if you aren't familiar with the current standard. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aviation announcement template

The aviation announcement template does not appear to be updating, article alert bot is down for an indeterminate time. I think it is a good idea myself. I tried editing Template:WPAVIATION Announcements but the content is actually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts if anyone would like to update it manually. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I think it'd take several editors to keep that page up to date. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It surely will! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

British European Airways Flight 548 FAC

A featured article candidate review has been opened for British European Airways Flight 548 (the Staines Disaster), comments/supports/opposes welcome at the usual place. Thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War is open since February. Since now we had only 1 reviewer. Anyone else who would like to review it? Help is appreciated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Article has now 2 supporters. Can someone help us to close it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Staten Island Air Show incident

I nominated 2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Staten Island Air Show Disaster. This is a very minor event and fails to meet the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Please provide your opinions on the deletion page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald W. Usher old Merge tag

There's an old proposed merge tag on Donald W. Usher dating from July 2008 proposing a merge into Air Florida Flight 90 and the discussion link goes to the Talk:Air Florida Flight 90 page where there doesn't appear to have been a discussion (unless I'm just not seeing it). This is not my area of expertise and I wondered whether someone here might like to take an interest in making a decision about the proposed merge and either doing it or deleting the old tag. Donald W. Usher was on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Unreferenced BLPs list. I've added a reference and deleted the "unsourced" tag but if it is to remain a stand alone article, I guess it will need more than that.--Plad2 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that no one replied immediately, I have just looked at this. You did not miss the discussion because it never took place, someone put a merge tag on it but did not start a discussion on the reasons why they thought it should be merged. If he meets the article notability guidelines (probably does at a quick glance) then he should retain his own article. It does need a cleanup however. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag. There has been no support in almost two years for a merge. Nominator did not give a reason to merge. Reading the talk page of the target article, it is clear that there is no consensus to merge any of the people involved into that article. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice on another non-notable article please

(In a blond moment I posted this on WP:Aircraft earlier today but have moved it to here) G'day all; just over a week ago I PRODded 1993 Norwich Airport G-OBWD incident. The PROD tag was removed earlier today, by a User who has now been indefinitely blocked for Sockpuppetry, and the article merged to the BAC One-Eleven article. I could start the AfD ball rolling, but I think that WP:SNOW applies in this case - the article is about an aircraft incident so utterly non-notable that the AfD process would be a foregone conclusion. So, given that the PROD tag was removed by a now-blocked User, is it possible to act as if the PROD tag was not removed, or does the article have to go through a process that I think would end with the same result anyway? At any rate, I have undone the merger in anticipation of it going to AfD or being deleted via the PROD process. YSSYguy (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that AfD is the way to go. If I recall correctly, this was the accident that befell the Norwich City Football Club's flight back from Europe after they had beaten Bayern Munich. If it is that flight, then it may just be notable due to the amount of Wikinotable people on board. Accident should be mentioned under the aircraft, airline and airport articles in any case. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It still doesnt look notable even to mention in the one-eleven article almost no damage or injuries it just ran onto the grass. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just read through the AAIB 2/94. If there is any hope of notability it would be in connection with the surprisingly low coefficient of friction (even below hydroplaning speed) on the wet ungrooved concrete aprons, implying a merge to the Norwich International Airport article. Was the runway changed based on this observation, or not? That should drive the determination.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Those interested can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Norwich Airport G-OBWD incident. YSSYguy (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unusual runways

FYI, Category:Unusual runways has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Alaska Central Express Flight 22 deletion nomination

For those interested, I have nominated Alaska Central Express Flight 22 for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Foreign object damage

Could someone have a look at Foreign object damage please, I believe it is beginning to look like advertising rather than an encyclopaedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

All the embedded external links have to be turned into cites or removed, there are two list sections advertising anti-fod products for free and a slightly more subtle advert earlier for the 'taxibot' but it is cited. The lead is backward to me, FOD is the object that causes the damage (the second definition, Foreign Object Debris) what results is just damage. This is the British way of defining it at least (I see lots of 'planes' there!!!) Is a bird a foreign object?! Hail? Ice? Loose nuts, bolts and rubbish left on airfields and falling out of the intake skins and forward panels is what this article should be about (lost tools, maybe, but this was not classed as FOD exactly in my time of not leaving them in the cockpit (your honour), just poor engineering practise. You are right to flag the advertising, needs removing or toning down. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Should Airline destinations article format be changed

I reverted the Air India destinations article because User:Inspector123 had changed the format as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_destinations&oldid=367700781

Should we keep it like this or stick to the old format? (Kshitij85 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Read this section [20], there was some agreement to convert some lists to tables provided it is referenced and sourced. 2 of the articles that were converted to the table format (List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations met the featured list criteria for lists, and is one of the project's best lists across the entire Wikipedia project. Sb617 (Talk) 11:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Any further discussion of destinations list should be taken over to the WP:Airlines discussion page. Sb617 (Talk) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Or WT:WikiProject Airlines ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Opinions please. Alaska Central Express Flight 22. KzKrann (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the AFD closes today. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tupolev SB or Tupolev SB-2?

A new editor has made massive changes to every article featuring the Tupolev SB-2, changing them all to Tupolev SB. I thought that SB-2 was the more commonly used name? FWiw Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

SB is the proper designation since there were not any other Soviet fast bombers under that designation system, unlike DB (long-range bomber) which had two prototypes and one major model in service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Check for COI on the AirTran Airways page from User:Airtran371

Lots of recent edits from this user, most of which is copied straight from the AirTran website and sounds like advertising. I've removed all of these edits for now and tried to make a few things (such as the livery) usable. The awards section needs to be checked also, but I can't do that myself. Werecowmoo (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Above mentioned contributor has almost completely rewritten article beginning may 2010, editors may want to begin there. Werecowmoo (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A-class and peer reviews

An WP:Aviation A-Class review was opened for British Airways recently. All editors are invited to participate. There are also other A-class reviews and Peer reviews ongoing at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review. Thanks in advance for review comments or help with these. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable article

A user has created FAA Order 7110.65 as part of his efforts in editng the Marine One article. Is this article a good idea? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to pass final judgement, but it seems like a fine article to have. (That judgement is only based on the content of the created article). -SidewinderX (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK, but Wikisource is the better place for that, probably with the full document text. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Marine One article which was using the article as a reference and changed it to a USMC one. The url appears to be fixed to show the latest version without changing which does not help when a particular issue is referenced. I am not sure if FAA Order itself is notable for an article nothing in the article to show notablity it could with some secondary references. On a related matter the Marine One article appears to be a bit disorganised it cant decide if Marine One is a callsign, an individual helicopter or correctly a callsign used by any helicopter but normally one from HMX-1. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

'Marine One' would be exactly the same as 'Air Force One', only...well, a Marine aircraft, as opposed to a USAF one. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Canley Vale Airtex plane crash

Okay, there is a bit of a situation that has developed with Canley Vale Airtex plane crash which I PRODded the other day (see above). ~Six hours ago an IP editor removed the PROD tags and added a whole bunch of Youtube and other media links; these edits were reverted by a Bot, then the article creator Channel11australia has made this post on the article talk page and then added the media links back again. I think that Channel11australia is a relative of the pilot killed in the crash - s/he certainly appears to know him. I must say I am at a bit of a loss as to what to do here; there is clearly a COI, but this is not a typical COI situation. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but Channel11australia and RotMS appear to be the same person. YSSYguy (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If a PROD is removed, and the article appears non-notable, an AfD is the way to go. In this case, it seems to me the article fails WP:AIRCRASH, unless I am missing something. Crum375 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have AfD'd it for failing WP:AIRCRASH. Crum375 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that started. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

I hate to rush you guys, but this is kind of urgent. Can I please have a yes or a no in the next day or so. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be up for an interview, although I'll admit that I'm an active but not senior member of the project. I suggest you also cross post this request at the Aircraft subproject page... a lot of people watch that page as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

C'mon people, make your views known here. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ya talked me into it! - Ahunt (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added my responses! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Grumman F-11 Tiger or F11?

Now I am totally confused, is it F-11 or F11? the article mixes the two designations throughout while I thought that the US Navy still used the F-11 designation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aircraft-related question, this is better asked at WT:AIR. To answer anyway, "F11" has never been correct: It's either "F11F" (pre-Sept 1962), or "F-11" (post Sept 1962). Hope that helps! - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Nomination Asia Pacific Flight Training

This is to notify the members of this project, within the scope of which this article falls, that Asia Pacific Flight Training has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Project members may note that this article, currently under AfD, has been re-listed to gain more input. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training. - Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

1906 in aviation

Input from an editor experienced in early avaiation would be welcome in this discussion on Traian Vuia. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

B-17 Flying Fortress not up to scratch

I believe that several sections of the B-17 Flying Fortress FA-class article are not of an appropriate standard. Many sources do not meet the requirements stipulated by WP:RS, and there are gaps in the referencing noticable at a simple glance. It is currently a featured article, but shouldn't be under current standards, the inappropriate references should be stripped out. As I don't particularly want to see the article de-listed, rather simply the problems patched up, I'm leaving this note here to see if somebody with the relevant knowledge or access can do a finer job of it. If not, after a while I'll remove the bad content myself, and do my best to patch it up, but at this moment I am monitoring two articles of my own, each going through GANs, not to mentio nfree time is not exactly in abundence. Kyteto (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just initiate the review process which does not lead necessarily to delisting but into the improvements you think are warranted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt it more appropriate to leave a notice of my intent here, as has been requested by other users in the fact, both to serve as a gentle and informal push, to give them a chance to respond without the pressure being on, and to keep the community in the loop about what would be a pretty major delisting if it did go through. Of course, if there are no attempts to repair the damage, proceedings will indeed begin, but I find it needlessly destructive if the same can be accomplished via a light word in the right place rather than putting its fate on the clock at the beginning. I am fairly certain that sources aren't compliant with WP:RS, some were outlined on B-52 Stratofortress's talkpage as being non-RS already, but others are fairly obvious candidates as well. They shouldn't exist in GA-class articles, let alone FAs that are higher. Kyteto (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

the fifth step of initiating a FAR is to notify relevant parties (individual editors and projects) so it wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Here's the original FAC review for interested parties. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight it seems I should have nominated it for review as it has now made todays featured article. complete with citation missing tags, and currently some sort of ref error. Perhaps a review flag would have prevented this until the article was fixed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Ref error tags were due to vandalism - now fixed. Part of the problem is that no-one seemed to give any warning that the article was immenently going onto the main page, which would have allowed any concerns to be raised.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a warning would have been real helpful, seeing as this issue of the article needing reworking was not just in discussion but actively being undertaken. I've been chipping in a bit as well, mainly thanks to efforts by Nigel Ish the proportion of non-RS refs is going down. It's getting there, but it really shouldn't have been a front page article during such reworking, how do they select those anyway? Was it pure random luck? Kyteto (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not random luck - WP:TFAR. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Having skimmed back through the history of the TFA requests I didn't see any mention for the Fortress, so perhaps it was misfortune. The selection of TFA is in the hands of a single editor so they might answer the question "why the B-17, why now?". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed up half a dozen references in the last three days, however by my own count 18 bad references are still being used. This is not to belittle the progress made however, it has already been noticable, and I am glad the notification has been taken onboard by the editors concerned with this article; I am sure that we'll be able to patch it up to meet the higher standards now required of it. Kyteto (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Progress seems to have ground to a halt. While nearly all non-RS refs have now been pulled from the article, I can spot less than five now out of 149; there are cleanup tags on some sections and the minimum level of referencing per paragraph has not been met. If this informal process does not continue to yeild results, I shall go through with the FAR process, it'd be a pity to delist this article as it is of great importance and has had some obviously passionate editors working upon it, so I hope that efforts are made in the coming weeks to regain momentum. Kyteto (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think it meets FA, it should be FARed rather than let it linger in the hope that the problems will disappear. If it's not the best that wikipedia can offer then it shouldn't be passed off as such. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The option is there, and I am prepared to use it. It is just my experience that the informal process beforehand can make significant contributions, perhaps enough to swing the article away from an auto-fail. We've already created more change in the article than has happened in the last tweleve months, 15 bad references gone and 40 good ones added in a rough count of my own. That alone encourages my faith in the informal in addition to the formal, hence I am allowing both to play out for a while. I'll more on to the FAR stage quite shortly, I'm sure. As long as the article is improving significantly and quickly, Wikipedia is winning rather than losing out. Kyteto (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (México)

The agency Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (Mexico) needs an article in English (Spanish article is at es:Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil (México)) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an easy job to translate the Spanish article and put it up here on English Wikipedia, but that article has no refs or footnotes cited. We do have an article on the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Mexico). It seems that that article covers the parent organization of the one you are requesting. Would it be better as a section in that article? - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Alaska Seaplane Service

The Alaska Seaplane Service article is facing its third AFD. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for aviation companies

I think it is high time a workable, comprehensive and as-far-as-possible-consistent set of guidelines is developed for the notability of aviation companies, by which I mean airlines, air charter (including aerial work) companies, leasing companies and flying training organisations. I see a large number of articles where the organisation is described as an airline, when clearly it is an air charter company or a leasing company, sometimes with just one aircraft. I have put some of these up for deletion via PROD or CSD, and I am told they are notable, for example Air Bahia (which apparently is notable because it was mentioned in a book), SwiftJet Inc. (which looks like it was created by someone involved with the company and is merely touting for business) and Air Leasing Cameroon (which has as its one reference the in-my-opinion unreliable ch-aviation website). Then there is the company involved in the AfD discussion mentioned in the section above, which is an actual scheduled airline, albeit one operating small aircraft, and apparently it is not notable. Then there are the recent AfD discussions some of us have been involved in over the Malaysian flying school and other flying training organisations; what is a notable flying school? Moncton Flight College is deemed to be notable, but why; is it because it has been around for so long? There are bigger flying schools out there. Then there are articles about airlines which never even got off the ground; someone starts an article with "Air XYZ is a startup airline that is going to fly two Scruggs Wonderjets between A and B", nothing happens, someone else comes along and changes is to was and notes that the airline failed before it got off the ground and that's where the article stands. What makes these notable?

OK, rant over. As a starting point, I offer the following questions:

• Does the offering of scheduled services automatically confer notability?

• Should we have a size-of-equipment cutoff point for air charter companies?

• Should we have a size-of-fleet cutoff point for air charter companies?

• Should we have a size-of-equipment cutoff point for airlines?

• Should we have a size-of-fleet cutoff point for airlines?

• Should we have a size-of-equipment or size-of-fleet cutoff point for for flying training organisations?

• Does the operation of turbine aircraft automatically confer notability?

• Is mention in Flight International sufficient to confer notability for an airline?

• Is mention in Flight International sufficient to confer notability for an air charter company?

• Is an article about a failed start-up that doesn't get airborne an automatic delete?

Someone might like to suggest more questions or a more appropriate forum, so I will offer my answers to these and any other questions later on. YSSYguy (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An excellent subject - I am glad you have started this discussion. No matter where we go with this we need to start with the general notability standard for companies (since these are all companies), which is WP:CORP. It starts off with some very good words: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Another good example of a similar guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). As can be seen it starts with the general guidelines and then adds much specific information from there, narrowing it down and raising the bar. I think if we get a good debate here we can put together a solid set of easily usable guidelines, something equivalent to the inclusion standard for aircraft accidents in aircraft type articles. Okay I was involved in how that looks, but the key thing is that it is very specific and easy to apply as a checklist. I would like to see something similar here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a previous discussion on this topic here, but it did not produce any real results. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, grasping a few nettles here. Airlines that do not get as far as actually operating a scheduled service should generally be considered non-notable. Airlines generally should not have articles until such time that a service actually starts. I know that this issue came out of the Alaska issue, but we need to be thinking globally here. Perhaps a "bright-line" threshold would be that any airline operating aircraft over 5,700kg MTOW or with seating for 10 or more passengers is automatically judged to be sufficiently notable to justify an article. For airlines in operation pre-WWII, perhaps a lower threshold may apply (e.g. operation of scheduled flights with a twin-engined aircraft or carrying 5 or more passengers at once) For smaller operations, these need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Operation of scheduled passenger services would add weight to the case for justifying an article, as would remaining in business for a long period of time (say 20-25 years). A smaller airline that suffered a significant accident (meets any of WP:AIRCRASH section A) would also have a stronger claim to notability. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Further thoughts - for cargo-only operations, size of aircraft and longevity of operation should probably be the deciding factors. Operation of scheduled cargo flights rather than purely ad-hoc flights would also strengthen the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Any reason to treat cargo charter airlines any different to passenger charter airlines? MilborneOne (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved Mjroots questions over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability to continue this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash deletion nomination

G'day, I have nominated 2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash for deletion following a declined PROD. YSSYguy (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Euroradar CAPTOR

I would like to direct everyone's attention to the "edit-war" that an anon and I are involved in. The anon in question is a sock of the banned user Yattum. I've requested temporary protection although no one has acted on it. The source of contention seems to be that for whatever reason, Yattum has changed the order of countries (not something I personally care about), just that I don't think blocked users should get the chance to edit. Vedant (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Vedant is making random anti-British edits which are revenge editing for past disputes, something which is not allowed on Wikipedia. 88.106.127.218 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These lists are in alphabetical order. Your edit warring over this constitutes vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - this is no justification for your edit warring - if you want to change this then gain consensus on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A good guy passed on

Perhaps we could improve this article: David Warren (inventor), never heard of him before but he was surely notable. Project navbox, categories, talk page headers and anything else that might be relevant or interesting could be added. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for lists of accidents per aircraft type

Should lists of accidents that cover a specific aircraft type be added to the relevant categories for aircraft accidents and incidents per year? I recently added a load of cats to the List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount, but another editor removed them. As this also affects the DC-3 lists (and others), I'm throwing the question open to members of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No I dont think it is what the year categories should be used for. The categories are a finding aid and having long list items in the category does not really help find anything. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MilbroneOne. The lists shouldn't link to a category for aviation incidents in a particular year.- William 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cats removed from the DC-3 lists. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

USAir Flight 405 FAC

Hi all -- User:Wackywace has nominated USAir Flight 405 as a FAC. If anyone is interested in reviewing, please take a look over there. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvios

For a little while now, I've been monitoring the contributions of Jojo7727644it and I've noticed that most of the time, the user copies sentences (and sometimes paragraphs) from copyrighted sources and places them in various articles. I have repaired most of the damage and I have warned the user about WP:COPYVIO and instructed him to review WP:COPYRIGHT but I would appreciate if others could keep an eye on this user as well. I have no reason to not AGF but that doesn't mean that users can continue editing simply on the basis of not reading policies. Vedant (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just created Sikorsky Firefly

I saw an article about this new, experimental, all-electric helicopter in my local paper, so I used that as a source to create the article. My interest in this is pretty limited (and not being an expert, I could have made some mistakes or repeated a mistake by the reporter), so if anyone would like to look it over and perhaps improve it, please do. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article. I'm a better editor than writer, so it's good to have something to wotk with than starting from scratch. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solairus Aviation

Just for information Solairus Aviation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solairus Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

More AfDs

A number of aircraft accident articles have been nominated for deletion overnight. They are in Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation). Quite a few of the articles have a redlinked AfD debate link, although the debate is live. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)