Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a quesion or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects: WikiProject Aircraft for an article about an aircraft WikiProject Airlines for an article about an airline WikiProject Airports for an article about an airport

Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section

Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks watch · edit · discuss
Articles needing attention • Article reviews • Assessment • Maintenance • Writing contest
Volunteer at the Outreach department, help sign up new members and distribute the monthly newsletter! The collaboration and review departments are open. Please visit and nominate or help review articles! There is a new project banner {{WPAVIATION}}. It will replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses.
Featured article candidates  Iloilo International Airport • American Airlines Flight 11 Featured content candidates  Peer review  Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Helicopter • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/JAS 39 Gripen • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/F-104 Starfighter • EasyJet • UH-1 Iroquois A-Class review  Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Morotai Mutiny • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Erich Hartmann • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Powered hang glider • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 737 • Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol • Chicago Midway International Airport	Featured article review  Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II •Wikipedia:Featured article review/Civil Air Patrol Collaboration  B-52 Stratofortress Articles needing attention  ...to referencing and citation • ...to coverage and accuracy • ...to structure • ...to grammar • ...to supporting materials • ...needing B-class review • Needing infoboxes • Unassessed
View full version (including requested articles and task force lists)

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ New articles (archive)	talk
Assessment department (Log)	talk
→ Featured articles (15)	talk
→ Good articles (54)	talk
Collaboration department	talk
Peer review department	talk
Contest	talk
Showcase
→ Featured picture gallery	talk
Portals
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Airliner accident infobox talk  → Mid-air accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk Featured article advice
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents 1 Air Navigation Service (ANS) providers are missing 2 FAR of Civil Air Patrol 3 List of nicknames by nickname? 4 Boeing 737 A-Class Review 5 Frequent Flier Program 6 Article quality standards 7 Advanced Flight Simulation devices 8 RfC on missilry and rocketry 9 Spamming 10 Category:Airport disambiguation 11 Pelikan tail vs V-tail 12 Should we add the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat to your style manual? 13 US Airline Pilots Association 14 2008 Farnborough plane crash 15 British Airways Flight 38 16 BOAC Flight 712 17 Project AfDs 18 Z-plane 19 US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input 20 Korean Air Line Flight 007 21 New Barnstar Image 22 Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open 23 New article 24 Update to project banner 25 RFC

[edit] Air Navigation Service (ANS) providers are missing

I think that it should also be considered to add a description of this part of aviation. Think about Skyguide, NATS, FAA, etc.

[edit] FAR of Civil Air Patrol

Civil Air Patrol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs)

[edit] List of nicknames by nickname?

Is there support for a List of aviators by nickname? Trekphiler (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticing no objection, you may find it here. Trekphiler (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 737 A-Class Review

I've submitted Boeing 737 for an A-Class review. Inviting all to review and share your comments. Trevor MacInnis and others have done a lot of work. --Born2flie (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frequent Flier Program

I notice that Frequent Flier Programs are included with the respective Airline article. Are there any exceptions?--Novelty (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to ask WikiProject Airlines --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality standards

I'm putting this here, because if I put it on the assessments talk page, it will be weeks or months before someone reads it. Okay, I must've been sleeping or misunderstood. Why is A-Class a higher quality than GA-Class? I didn't look to see if it had changed, just apparently I have misunderstood. A-Class is the highest internal to the project. Why do we go external to the project to get a consensus rating for GA-Class and then go back inside the project to rate it an A-Class? In my opinion, quality assessments internal to the project should be listed as subordinate to the community-wide assessments. If the goal is get an article to GA-Class, A-Class should be the last internal step to getting there. From there, the project works with and to meet the rest of the community's expectation for FA-Class. Just my two cents. --Born2flie (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you raise this know as I was about to post something related here myself :)

My take is that assessment is about the number of people scrutinizing the article rather than whether the review is internal or external. For instance:

• B-class - can be self-assessed (but many people prefer to ask someone uninvolved to do it for them).
• GA-class - a single uninvolved editor assessed. This can be as thorough or cursory as they conscience allows. The major criticism of GA is that the reviewer often knows nothing about the subject and the decisions are sometimes eccentric. It is also often perceived as a way of encouraging editors to improve the article in small easy steps.
• A-class - project-wide; at Milhist, the article needs to garner three uninvolved supports in four days with no opposes on significant grounds (ie breaches of policy etc). There is nothing to prevent non-project editors becoming involved. In theory, an article passing A-class has had a specialist internal review, almost to FA standard.
• FA-class - community-wide; consensus for support with no significant opposes.

Now a curious thing happened earlier this week. In a good-faith misunderstanding, Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol was sort of passed for A-class in the mistaken belief that A-class was superior to GA, which the article already has. Then an anon IP upgraded the template to A-class pass and a couple of minutes later the principal contributor updated the class to show A-class pass for all wikiprojects. So, the big question I suppose is: is this article A-class or not?

Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the section: "Further Reading" when it is obvious that the author has used selections from the books when a specific page number is given. This is a list that should be incorporated into the endnotes and if a full bibliographical notation is required, then a "Bibliography" should be provided. The use of two different date standards, ISO and m-d-y is also problematic. We also have to fix that template for use in periodical citations, it places the date of the article instead of with the source but with the author, as in book title in APA style. On the other hand, the article is well-written, extensively cited and provides an interesting layout. I would question the minor points of formatting for a lack of consistency that usually is addressed in a review, otherwise it is a GA candidate, A-class, not yet. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

That article was the catalyst for my realizing my error. I will fix the error today, but I was looking to get a better idea of the process in the first place. A-Class then would, in essence, be the respective project's statement that the article is ready for FA-Class assessment? Kind of seems backwards, why then would we even want an article to be GA-Class if the opinion of the process is so low? We could just eliminate the GA-Class from the project quality standards and allow the rest of the Wikipedia to assess articles as GA at will. --Born2flie (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the theory but it depends on how thoroughly individual projects undertake the A-class review process. The Milhist one (sorry to bang on about Milhist but I'm a coordinator there so it's close to my thoughts) is usually rigorous. Indeed, SandyGeorgia - the deputy FAC director - has mentioned on several occasions that if an article has Milhist A-class it will have ticks in all the right boxes. GA-class has its uses: many editors like to display GA-graphics on their user page and it clearly provides a sense of achievement. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanations. Sorry about the slip-up with the article. --Born2flie (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Flight Simulation devices

I came across Advanced Flight Simulation devices and added it to your project. I feel it needs some attention from experts in this field. Apart from needing wikifying, I have concerns about potential bias and spam. Most of it seems to have been written by one new editor. Images have been flagged for deletion. I think it either needs to be merged with Flight simulator or some explanation added of why it is 'advanced'. Anyway, I will leave it in your capable hands. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be based on a limited range of company products and ignores the second biggest simulator company Thales Training & Simulation. Agree it needs a some work and is probably better merging most of it with Full Flight Simulator. Advanced is just a marketing name and has no real meaning. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on missilry and rocketry

There is an open RfC on the naming of missile and rocket articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

68.187.153.197, has been adding [1] to various articles as an external link, typically at the top of the list of external links. This practise may be considered spam. Please comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Category:Airport disambiguation

The template {{disambig}} typically is used to categorize the disambiguous page itself. Also, WikiProjects normally categorized Disambiguous pages via the disambiguous talk page. Category:Disambig-Class aviation pages and Category:Disambig-Class airport pages contains such talk page categorization. However, WikiProject Airports and/or WikiProject Aviation also categorizes the disambiguous page itself. See Category:Airport disambiguation. Is there really a need to segment Airport disambiguous pages from Category:Disambiguation? If not, please consider changing {{Airport disambig}} to {{disambig}} on the so tagged disambiguous pages. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg - this has nothing to do with WP:Aviation - WP:Airports is the place to take this us. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pelikan tail vs V-tail

Can you guys come to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelikan_tail and opinate on whether Pelikan tail is different enough from V-tail to have its own separate article? There is also some discussion at Talk:Pelikan_tail --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend you also post at WT:AIR, as that is the project that deals specifically with aircraft and their components. I'd copy it over for you, but I thought I'd give you a chance to do it yourself, in case you wanted to edit or rephrase your comments. Btw, it's not "wrong" to post this type of comment here, but you'll get more coverage in WP:AIR for this item. WP:AVIATION is the parent project of WP:AIR, but it's only about a year old. WP:AIR still has more members, and many of the older ones don't watch this page as yet. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat to your style manual?

I'm going through all the pages in WP-space today that use the "Style" sidebar, trying to get a sense of whether these pages appear to be style guidelines. I know that you guys have put a lot of thought into style, language and format issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide looks like a nice page, but I'm wondering why it doesn't have a talk page; are you just getting started on this particular version? Do you want to hold off on marking it as a style guideline? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That style page is relatively new. Was started in Jan. 2008. Specific details with it can and should be discussed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Airline Pilots Association

Hi there. Are there any project members here who are willing to provide some POV editing for the US Airline Pilots Association article? There appear to be two opposing points of view present in recent edits to this article, and the article looks headed for an edit war. I started to remove a few inflammatory editorial comments, but have decided that I'm well out of area of expertise to clean this up any further. Perhaps the article warrants separate sections for opposing point-of-views. Any volunteers? -- Tcncv (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Farnborough plane crash

An AAIB initial report has been released into the accident. I'm unable to access it as it's a PDF file. Link to the report is on the talk page. Anyone care to take a look and expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Airways Flight 38

A new Special Bulletin was released yesterday into the British Airways Flight 38 accident. From news reports it looks like fuel temperature is a major factor in the accident. Link to access the PDF document is posted on the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BOAC Flight 712

I've rewritted and expanded this article, it needs reassessment as I don't think it's stub class anymore. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a bit more than a "start" article and I would rate it as well on the way to a "B" class. Good work, consider using citations/endotes as well as a bibliography. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Not sure exactly what you mean there. Everything is referenced/cited. I've put the article up for a DYK. It's been assessed as B class now :-)). Mjroots (talk)

[edit] Project AfDs

I originally posted to WP:AIRCRASH, but after low response from project members there I have decided to post here as well for furhter 'expert' opinions before a couple of AfDs close. Please read 2008 Cessna Compton crash and 2008 Cessnas collision and comment on their respecive AfDs. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Z-plane

Z-739 is up. Looks insuficiently notable. Merge? Trekphiler (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an issue for WikiProject Aircraft, where it's being discussed. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tagged the page for merge anyhow, that ought to do it, one way or another. Trekphiler (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input

Hello. I'm soliciting opinions regarding the controversy surrounding the formation of the US Airline Pilots Association. Please see Talk:US Airline Pilots Association#Controversy and add you opinion. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Korean Air Line Flight 007

A user with a personal connection with the flight has been adding links and data to a number of aviation articles. I have just removed some external links and comments from Boeing 747 and a I have removed a large chunk of text out of the Air navigation article which completely unbalanced what is a general article on the subject. I have no opinions on the subject matter just the inappropriate placing of text and links in related articles which should be covered in the accident article. As it is always difficult when dealing with users with a personal link just checking for other opinions on the matter. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur absolutely. The additions meant that a full 1/3 of the air navigation article turned into an analysis of KAL007 incident! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Barnstar Image

What do you think? ElectricalExperiment 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open

The FAC for American Airlines Flight 11 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Just dropping a line to announce the creation of a new article; General aviation in the United Kingdom. Start class at the moment, I have outlined my plans for its future development on the talk page. All input welcome. --FactotEm (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update to project banner

I've updated the banner, hopefully improving it and automating a few things.

1. You can still rate the article however you please, but the template won't accept a rating higher than start in some cases:
   1. If you rate it A-class then you must also use "|A-Class=yes"
   2. If you rate it B-class you must also complete the B-class checklist, and all items must be "yes"
2. The sub project parameters can be shortened to "|Aircraft= , |Airports= , |Airlines= , |Gliding= , |Rotorcraft= , |Air-sports= , |Defunct= , and |Accident= ; but the old forms still work.
3. Every article B-class and below that hasn't had a checklist completed is in the new category: Category:Aviation articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
4. Banners placed on pages in the Wikipedia or User space are automatically tagged NA-Class
5. Banners placed on Template, Category, Image, or Portal pages are automatically tagged with the appropriate class.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Also, if you complete the B-class checklist and all are yes, then the article automatically gets a B-Class rating, that can't be downgraded unless you change one of the checklist items to either "no" or blank it. This will help to identify where articles need improving. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I've just listed an RfC for a dispute occurring on Talk:Arrow Air Flight 1285 over the use of a CG image to illustrate an incident. The policy implications are broader than just WP:AVIATION, which is why I've listed it there rather than here, but anyone with any insights on how this may relate to Aviation-specific articles (or in general) should chime in. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)