Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Hello, WikiProject Aviation,

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

Going through the user's category creations, I believe these are all their recent aviation accident/incident category creations:

• Category:Airliner bombings by country
• Category:Airliner bombings in the Soviet Union
• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by navigation system failure
• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by clear air turbulence
• Category:Mid-air collisions in Germany
• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fighter aircraft shootdowns
• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by missile shootdowns
• Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by metal fatigue
• Category:Accidents and incidents involving Italian Air Force aircraft

A lot of these seem oddly specific and unlikely to be useful, so I would not be opposed to CfD. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've XFD'd the "shootdowns" and "auxiliary equipment" categories, and someone beat me to the punch with the "navigation system failure" category. Carguychris (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: I've also XFD'd the excessively specific airliner bombing subcategories. I don't think this category will ever grow large enough to warrant subdividing, and the Soviet Union subcategory is of course permanently capped by certain historical events in 1991. Carguychris (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 7 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Liviu Librescu has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I want to de-upgrade the Relevance in NATO designations in articles with soviet technology, including Aircraft, Missiles and Submarines, i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles and put these western designations in a second-plane chart. MGXD11 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles Per WP:AIRNATO, The original designations are already present in the first paragraph and are predominantly used to refer to Soviet/Russian aircraft within articles. It is customary to include common alternative names for topics, including those originating outside the country of origin, in the first sentence of an article. NATO reporting names are no exception. Had the USSR assigned standardized reporting names to NATO aircraft, we would have included them in their respective articles as well. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, it is common established Wikipedia practice to include alternate names for all sorts of things – not just Russian and Soviet military hardware – in boldface in the first or second sentence of the lead. NATO reporting names are commonly used in secondary sources to refer to Russian or Soviet materiel; a quick Google search for "flanker" or "fullback aircraft" bears this out. As ZLEA points out, WP:AIRNATO already specifies that original designations be used in the title and article body, which I feel is adequate emphasis. Carguychris (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI HIALS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion at RfD -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Frederick E. Humphreys#Requested move 8 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to update the Anatoly Kvochur article with a note about his injuries following his spectacular ejection at the Paris Air Show. Currently, the article (and the relevant reference) doesn't say. TheAviationGeekClub says "cuts and bruises", but I'm not convinced that is a reliable source. Aviation Week has a story (following Kvochur's death) here, but it is behind a paywall. Does anyone have access to AWIN/Aviation Week's paid service? I'll also ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022 Southwest Airlines scheduling crisis#Requested move 14 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading of Beans 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

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

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matsieng Air Strip#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

@Noha307. This is because "surviving" is a term used for organic beings. But even if it is used for objects, it looks like it is stylized in a fan's Point of View as per WP:POV. Whereas preserved is used for objects in a neutral Point of View. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Airbus A320-100: Surviving (or survivor) is a term that has been used for a long time in main aircraft articles to refer to aircraft that are no longer in active service and the objection you raise seems to be a minor issue. I could see "preserved" being a slightly more neutral term, but then you run into the problem that it can't be used to refer to actively flying aircraft since they are technically not "preserved". I'm not entirely sure how "surviving" is stylized or POV, possibly along the lines of raiding career for U-boats. However, I am somewhat skeptical that this is a problem.

Might I suggest reading through the dedicated talk page to review previous arguments, as this is a subject that has come up repeatedly. –Noha307 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to very strongly advise against deleting talk page sections as "unnecessary". This is moving into disruptive editing territory. Please do not repeat this. –Noha307 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I won't let anything worse happen Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A question for you Airbus: Is English not your first language? –Noha307 (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

English is my first language. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your phrasing seemed a bit unusual and I thought it might be indicative of someone who was unfamiliar with the language. No criticism or judgement intended, just wanted to make sure nothing was being lost in translation. –Noha307 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would not be opposed to reverting the undiscussed moves back to their previous titles. If Airbus thinks "preserved" better describes the topics, then they should seek consensus first. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

They need to be moved back immediately. The title formats are by WPAIR consensus, and no dubious claims of POV can override that. I count at least 30 that have been moved. A320-100 needs to move them back immediately. I can do it if necessary, but it's a lot of work to clean up someone else's messes. BilCat (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am agreeing with @ZLEA. Sorry @BilCat, but @ZLEA is much more persuasive than others in this thread. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? Everyone agrees that your changes should be reverted. Please do so as you clearly don't have consensus for that change. --McSly (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. BilCat (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BilCat did say he could do it and I'll let him Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

BilCat you don't have to do that. I'll go ahead and move them. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

even @ZLEA agrees to do so and I'll let him do that too. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's done. I'll also advise you to not close discussions which you are actively involved in, especially if you were not the one to start them (per WP:CLOSE). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Airbus A320-100 has opened Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not going to add to the Village Pump discussion, it already has more content than the whole sorry story merits. But I do wish to express my respect and gratitude and support to all who have kept our dictionary on the right path (in my consideration), BilCat and ZLEA and Noha307 to name but the most prominent. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

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

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability of Abandoned and Little Known Airfields, [1], as a source? I've corresponded with Paul Freeman in the past, and he seems sincere about factual accuracy. Carguychris (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems the deleted category from this discussion has been recreated at Category:Pilot intake jet fighter. I've nominated the new category for WP:G4 speedy deletion, but given the different name, I am not confident that the reviewing admin will recognize the category as a recreation. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The Categories for discussion tag at Category:Pilot intake jet fighter should make that clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully, but someone unfamiliar with aircraft layouts might not immediately recognize a "nose-mounted intake" and a "pilot intake" as referring to the same thing. If it weren't for the articles in the category, I probably would have assumed "pilot intake" was supposed to mean something like this. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Fair point, thanks for explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it's been created by the same editor they are using a different account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which I would have noticed had I visited their talk page! I think the intended word was 'pitot' not 'pilot' as that was how I described it at the last deletion discussion (which the creator read and agreed it was a bad category). Re-creation of a bad category with another incorrect term, and suspected socking, it's not looking good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The editor has contested deletion. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CFD is the next step (again!) or a proven WP:SPI would delete all contribs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure on policy: is there anything preventing the addition of this gibberish category to multiple aircraft articles being reverted immediately? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily, but I decided not to as I was not 100% sure an admin would agree with the CSD. With the CSD now being contested, I'm not sure now is the best time to do that, either. I won't oppose anyone who wants to remove the category from the articles, though. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It can be removed from the articles for failing WP:CATDEF. Not defining and not supported by references in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A bot will automatically delete the categories from articles as I discovered last time, I was half way through removing them manually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I use Cat-a-lot a lot (no pun intended) on Commons, and the deletion of the category gave me the perfect opportunity to test it here. See Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Categories 2. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated it as a category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 15#Category:Pilot intake jet fighter. This editor is causing extra work and it needs to stop. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The category has been deleted. I've added all articles from the category to my watchlist to more easily catch any further recreation attempts. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've created an RfC on listing the officially determined causes in the summary field of the Infobox accident occurrence template. It can be found at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply