I noticed in looking at some articles that there are a large group of articles about aviators that use (aviator) in the title and another large group that use (pilot) for the same function. I have provided a collapsed list for comparison below. I don't see any distinction between the kinds of articles that use one or the other.
First of all, I think that we should use the same term for all articles about aviators, and secondly I think the term to be used should be (aviator). After all, a pilot can be someone who plots a course for a ship through local hazards, or even someone who steers the type of spaceship where no avionics are involved. Secondly, in terms of avionic flight, a pilot is more typically someone who flies an airliner on a chartered route, while an aviator is someone who chooses their own flight plan and destination. Airlines have pilots; organizations like the U.S. Navy have aviators. Plus, the name of this project is WikiProject Aviation, not WikiProject Piloting.
It is also worth noting that the first episode of a tv show is typically called a pilot, so (pilot) could be used to identify those as well, for example Adventure Time (pilot) and Dirk Gently (pilot episode). I think that we should make (aviator) the standard and retitle all the (pilot) titles to (aviator) titles, unless of course the (pilot) title is about something like a tv pilot or a maritime pilot. Thanks! - WPGA2345 - ☛18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Might there be some national variations? For example someone in Fooland might be described as a pilot, while in Baria they might be seen as an aviator. Should we then respect the nationality of the individual concerned? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@MilborneOne:, true, not all aviators are pilots, but there are several kinds of "pilot" that don't have anything to do with planes at all. I believe that (aviator) used in titles would be understood to mean people who fly airplanes. @Steelpillow:, I have looked at a bunch of the articles on these lists, and they're almost all people who either flew fighters in combat, or flew test planes, but there aren't national variations that I can see. These seem to be, in both lists, almost all people from the U.S., UK, and Germany, with a smattering of other countries. Since there is no clear dividing line between the kinds of names on the list, the division seems very arbitrary. If there's a reason for some to have one or the other, great, let's figure out what that reason is, but if not, let's think about getting these on the same page. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛04:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
To me the term "aviator" seems rather old fashioned - people who flew when "flying machines" were biplanes with open cockpits were "aviators", these days "pilot" is the standard term. However, I am aware that the US Navy is consistent in using "aviator", but not sure if they use it for only pilots or are other aircrew also included under that label? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
My question is: How many bio articles does EN.WP have that use the disambiguator "(pilot)" that are about pilots other than aircraft pilots? I'd honestly be surprised if there is even one such article, but I could be wrong. (Non-bio articles about TV series pilots should probably be re-titled anyway.) I concur with Dodger that aviation seems more old fashioned. As far as I know, Naval Aviator is only used for pilots in the USN. Non-pilot officers are Naval flight officers. However, future confusion could arise from the fact that "Aviator" is, from April 2015, now an enlisted rating/other rank in the RCAF for OR-1 through OR-3 in place of Private. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Henderson (pilot) was maritime. I do not think we can be sure that others may not gain articles. However, we use (pilot) to disambiguate names, so unless there was also a notable aviator called Joseph Henderson, this is not going to be a problem. If "aviator" is becoming a rank then that would at worst lead to article″ titles such a "Aviator John Doe", so I do not see that as a problem here. There are notable aviators who were not pilots, such as Jimmy Rawnsley, but possibly none has yet needed their name disambiguating. @WPGA2345: my question over national variaions was not aimed at what Wikipedia currently does but what it should end up doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bill, the RCAF as messed this issue up totally, by changing "private" to "aviator" on the basis that the traditional term for an air force private was "aircraftsman" and "aircraftwomen". Apparently they wanted a gender neutral term. So in Canada now this designates a person who fixes aircraft, not flies them. See here for discussion in the press. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware that the RCAF had done that, but I highly doubt that will change what people generally think "aviator" means. When Scorsese made his Howard Hughes biography, they didn't call it "The Pilot"! I don't know what regional variations might be, but there just does not seem to be any rhyme or reason for why one article about an English flying ace is Charles Darwin (aviator) while another English flying ace is Valentine Baker (pilot). There's also some consideration of the numbers. 99 articles use (pilot) and 174 use (aviator), so if some process needs to be done to review all of them for a possible move, it's less work going through the smaller number. If there is a preference for (pilot) over (aviator), I still think we are better off picking one and sticking with it. Thanks. - WPGA2345 - ☛05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Notification of Good Article reassessment
Boeing 787 Dreamliner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Today's accident at Istanbul would appear to meet the criteria for an article. Details already added at airline, airport and aircraft articles. It's a bit near my bedtime, so would someone like to start the Turkish Airlines Flight 1878 article?
We do not know with certainty the fate of the aircraft. ASN says damage to the aircraft was "substantial"; it does not mean "written-off". Nevertheless, the article has been created. I was about to PROD it, but will wait either for someone else to do it or for the upcoming news to confirm the damages experienced by the airframe.--JetstreamerTalk23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
A aborted landing which pushes an undercarriage leg through the top of a wing and starts a fire, followed by a second landing in which the aircraft departs the runway due to said damage and is followed by an emergency evacuation equals an accident worthy of an article to me. Give me a chance to improve it and the case for notability will be clearer. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Rumour is that wake turbulence from a 787 that landed before the 320 is a strong possibility. It's not in the article yet because no RS has said it. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Overspill from offwiki USHPA dispute - please keep an eye out
There seems to be some kind off offwiki dispute regarding USHPA which is overspilling to that Wikipedia article and onto the user page of an inactive user User:Bob Kuczewski. As far as I can tell everything to date has been reverted, but it might be handy if y'all keep an eye out on whatever hanggliding related articles might be affected. Note the discussion at WP:ANI#Inactive user page a vandalism target. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A summary of the lead section of Boeing 757 will appear on the Main Page soon, and the nominator of the article at WP:FAC may no longer be active. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that you guys would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again Dank! I think the summary is quite excellent. On a side note, it's true I have been "very busy in real life" for some time now, but try to contribute from time to time (including trying to maintain the quality of aircraft FAs). It's been a privilege to work with many of you all! Hopefully there can be more aircraft FAs in the future! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Is a navbox "aviation lists" relevant in articles about disasters?
I had removed navbox {{aviation lists}} from TransAsia Airways Flight 235 and similar articles about disasters, because WP:NAV clear says, only articles listed on a navigation template has the template placed on its page. But my edits were reverted. Is it a correct tranclusion of this navbox in articles about disasters? 46.200.35.170 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No it is not. In general, WP:NAV applies. Too much clutter of navboxes slows Wikipedia down and we don't need it. AFAIK the Project has not made an exception in this case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
[Update] Looking at the history of TransAsia Airways Flight 235 I see that some Project members disagree with me. It is surely absurd to template every single article relating to aviation, that is not what templates are for. What is our criterion for the use of this particular template? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Detailed info has been added to Piper PA-32R,all unsourced. I haven't seen anything yet with these details, or which variant of the PA-32 it is. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Not to be picky, but as described in it, WP:AIRCRASH doesn't apply to stand-alone articles, just the inclusion of crashes in aircraft type articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, two people who would be notable enough to sustain an an article on en-Wiki were killed. That alone should be more than sufficient for a stand alone Wikipedia article. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the parameters in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence has been bothering me for quite a while, that being tail number, which as we know displays as "Registration". This doesn't take into account military serial/tail/Bureau numbers, so I propose there be another parameter - perhaps military serial - added to the infobox to allow such military numbers to not be displayed as registrations. YSSYguy (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably a good idea, if I remember it originally displayed as "tail number" when a registration was used which just looked wrong, but as you say it still looks wrong when you have a military "serial number, so I dont have a problem with an additional field. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Red Arrows userbox
I don't know if somebody already made one for the Red Arrows but I did, to get this on your talkpage just add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}}
Thanks. Personally, I never use the navabox to navigate, but others may. Is there a way to track if the box is actually used for navigation by users? If not, maybe would should get rid of it, or at least make substantial changes to it. By the way, the user behind the RFC is a member of the film and TV projects, and he and his cronies rule those projects with an iron hand. I've had several run-ins with the user in the past. In particular, it took several years to force the Film project to "allow" articles on films which had not actually begun filming, even if they otherwise met all other requirements for GNG,, and even now they'll try to get all such articles deleted. It's quite funny to see him trying to enforce a minor guideline when he regularly ignores major ones! - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If I remember the template was created as a compromise due to earlier objections to the way we did see also and the Template:Aircontent. I think I would be more open to critical coments about the way the project works with navboxes and templates when they remove the exemption for some projects not to use infoboxes against a shed full of objections, appears we dont have a level playing field. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Could we find and link to some of those discussions? It might be helpful in making the case that the navbox is basically grandfathered in. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, if there is another template then it is OK to remove this one when the article is not mentioned in this navbox. We have too many templates in some articles. While not needed, and it is the only template, I favor removing it. But if someone really wants to keep it, I'm not sure how hard I would object. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My objection is really on principle for a template that has been used for many years without raising a particular problem, I dont have a problem with using Template:Aircontent for the lists but like all these flyby raised issues they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
As an option, we could covert the navbox to a list article. As to adding the link in the See also section, there might even be a way to automatically include it in {{aircontent}} so it is automatically added to articles that use it, as that isn't substituted in all articles that use it (mostly aircraft and aircraft engine articles). - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that if an all encompassing list is added to the see also section of large numbers of articles, then the same people who want to delete the navbox will want it removed for the same reasons Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably true, but I don't believe there is a bi-directional "requirement" for links in See also sections, so that should be to our advantage. To be frank, I don't think we're going to be able to keep the navbox, and if it is kept, we'll probably face the same opposition in a few months. As such, I think we should be prepared for other options. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
What most projects do when this has happened in the past was to create and index or outline article (that dont get nominated by deletionists anymore ) Outline of Aviation and/or Index of Aviation-related articles ...dont make List of Aviation-related topics these get deleted because many think the title is to broad and leads to random article getting listed. Then just add one link to see also section instead of template spaming....yes it sucks when an outsider tells you all whats best and makes the group work off content for a bit...but just move forward ...build an index/Outline that is better then the template ever was. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It's in the Portal, though collapsed. So worth checking that aviation pages do have the portal in their "see also" section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If we are forbidden to link to the content via a navbox because it isn't closely related enough, then it is likely that we will also be forbidden from linking to the content via See also sections or Portals. Is there any point in maintaining any of the lists if no one is allowed to link to them, or will they be deleted as part of the same campaign?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
They can try that, but WP:BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't apply to See also links. That's the primary bludgeon being used in this case. That doesn't mean they won't find one, or make a new one up, given WP's tendency to increase guidelines by the shipload every year, but a link should be more defensible anyway. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
To follow up on MilborneOne's comment "they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles." If that is the case, the outcome of the RFC will be ineffectual - unless we feel honour-bound to carry out the determined wisdom of the RFC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The manufacturer themselves make this claim on their website. I have added a direct ref to it to the article and provided more details on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking onto the matter; yet I regret you failed to convince me. Even if the manufacturer's website is to be taken encyclopedically (you are only citing the commercial blurbs, not the "facts" page - and from certain countries or regions or cultures even the "facts" pages are to be taken with some reserve) still I only read that "the wing bases upon that of the Storch" and also that "the design makes use of experience gained with the seagoing version of the Storch" - but no claim of direct descendance. So I am still not taking it, that the Catalina was developed from the Storch - it seems too much a different design, even a different basic concept, carrying its engine above the cockpit rather than before it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Panel two of the manufacturer's website says "The Catalina NG project evolved from the Storch amphibious aircraft experience". If you don't take the manufacturer's word for it, then I am not sure any other ref would convince you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
From the experience, yes yes, I stated as much. But not from the design. And again: all that is only commercial peptalk - I can well imagine they want to give this two-stroke powered plaything credibility by making it a descendent of the much more solid four-stroke engined Storch (a very nice plane to fly, indeed!). But not even the manufacturer makes any such statement on a "facts" page. No, I will not take a single word from an advert as encyclopedical. Not even from Germany or Scandinavia; much less from Italy. I suggest the "developed from" stance be removed from the infobox altogether, since no encyclopedically sound source is available. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, well since we have a reliable source, I'll move it to the article text instead to give it some more context. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I still don't consider that source reliable, but will not go to war over such a petty detail either. Thank you for discussing openly and politely, and for bringing up an acceptable compromise. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article on the GAF Nomad mentions a restart of production in 2013-2014. It would be nice to have the actual state of matters mentioned: did this really work out? Are any newly-built samples flying? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
GippsAero's website mentions that they plan to bring the GA18 (i.e. Nomad) to market in 2015 after an extensive development, testing and certification programme. The website has no news of flights etc. of new-built GA18s and interestingly, only shows computer renders rather than actual photographs, which strongly suggests that they may not have cut metal yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I've done a revert of him in an airline/destination article. He did a lot of airport route statistics table too, but I can't find any WT:AIRPORT discussion against it. (And it's tolerable to me, especially if country names are removed from the table.) HkCaGu (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe that we are not using flags on the statistics table for USA states. I am not sure about international routes but many of the European airport pages have flags on their statistics table. However, per WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST and MOS:Flags no flags in the airline destinations page. Citydude1017 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll assume it just means "a cover of an electronic component" - I'll try to find a Chinese person to translate the legend so the Chinese version can be made. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Pretty easy, really. I have found and added a reliable ref (the operators manual) and then adjusted the text to conform to the cited ref. Any changes that contradict the cited ref are basically vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
New aerospace engineer Bio at Draft: Maurice Brennan
KreyszigB (talk·contribs) has produced Draft:Maurice Brennan. Brennan was a British aircraft designer, he worked at Saunders-Roe on helicopters and then the SR53 and 177 mixed power interceptors. He took over at Folland after Teddy Petter left then later worked at Avro and Hawker Siddeley. Could someone look it over with a view to promotion to article space - it seems good to me (some fettling needed but only stylistic issues) but I'm not acquainted with the process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Only if they are spelled in the manner in which I wrote them, and if they're not covered in some other article as parts of a section who no one created redirects for. Since there are US and Chinese articles, I'd figure that Russia would have gotten attention as well. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In some cases I suspect that typos might be at fault "coaxil" not being a word I am familiar with. Even if the link would produce a non-notable article, the item would still need to be listed GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
edcoatescollection.com removed from External links section of Western Air Express Flight 7, due to appearance on SURBL blacklist.
Western Air Express Flight 7 used to have an external link to a page on the crashed aircraft on Ed Coates photo archive site, edcoatescollection.com. This was removed a few days ago because the site now appears on SURBL's malware list, even though the site still appears to be up in its normal form. Does anyone know anything about the reliability of SURBL's malware reporting or whether Ed Coates should be informed of this? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing this out. These are just generic lists, there are no special guidelines. The semicolon format is intended for Q&A formatting (e.g. FAQs) and not for minor subheadings, so you are right, it should not be used here. I think editorial judgement needs to be made for each case whther it is better to change to the properly-headed
===United Kingdom===
*Bar
*RAF
**RAF Valley
or to the plain
And in the United Kingdom they include:
*Bar
*RAF
**RAF Valley
For lists of aircraft types, they can - and probably should - be expanded to table format per WP:AVLIST. Note also the discussion above about lists of aircraft for individual air forces.
What is the specific Wikipedia policy/guidelines on this? And what are the errors or issues caused by semicolon in the list formatting? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
";" is part of a "definition list"; and WP:LISTGAP says "do not switch between list marker types". [[]] says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. ". In both cases, these are accessibility issues, affecting people (for example whose with sight disabilities) who navigate pages by having them out loud by assistive software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And for where and how to use the semicolon system, see MOS:DEFLIST. See also MOS:BULLETLIST where it explains the optional use of section titles to head a bulleted list. MOS:LIST also includes the gerneral remark, "Use proper wikimarkup- or template-based list code" for bulleted lists, which by implication precludes the use of Definition List markup for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I dont think that anybody has really paid much attention to the construction of these lists other than the recent aircraft list/table discussion. That said all we need is somebody to tell us what is best without having to read all the guff so we can help change and improve the articles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yea, saying something is all wrong and needs to be fixed should be explained better up front to get wide support, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Where is the consensus for removing flags from operators list as here, and delisting the list in the next edit? Flags in Operators list is a standard part of both WPAIR and MILHIST articles, and needs major discussion before wholesale changes are enacted. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
On the flags, I now realise that it was my bad. I had assumed something different (doesn't matter what). On the lists, it was a matter of removing the MOS:DEFLIST markup from bulleted lists as discussed here. It seemed silly to create a load of headings for lists with only one entry each, so I took the "plain text" option - also as discussed here. What do others think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
I believe the consensus is only about omitting flags in Infoboxes, which I an in full agreement on. I agree on not creating excess section labels for one (or a few) entries. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Changes to air crash infoboxes
G'day all; User:Hmdwgf has popped up in my watchlist several times today as he or she has made a fair few edits to air crash article infoboxes along the lines of this. Could we have some eyes on this person's edits please. YSSYguy (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted a few more today and left a note on his/her talk page to come here if they want to change how the summary field is used, certainly not for listing every available factor in the accident, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of these descriptions are too simple, i.e. not descriptive enough. If I went overboard, I apologize, but a number of these summaries need to be changed. There has to be a simple conclusion in the description box as to why it happened. That may defeat the purpose of the article, but I still think it should be included. It can't just be something like "pilot error" or "controlled flight into terrain". I feel as though it looks incomplete and unprofessional. --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. Again, the infoboxes should be simple, but some are so simple that it looks unprofessional. Also- deleting the above user's comment was an accident, he saved the page before I did, and I made a mistake in saving my comment and the page deleted his comment because it didn't exist while I was editing mine. --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be something like "pilot error because of/aggravated by bad weather", not just "pilot error". --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the infobox causes need to mirror the official investigation conclusions, but they also need to be brief and described on more depth in the text as required. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hmdwgf: - If you think that a change needs to be made, why not flag it up here for discussion. You're obviously making these edits in good faith, but consensus generally would seem to be against you. Not saying that all infoboxes are perfect. There may well be a case for altering some of them if consensus can be gained to do so. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with Jetstreamer and Milborne. The infoboxes are for a brief summary. Details go into the heart of the article....William23:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disagreement over an appropriate aircraft image for an accident article.
If its a livery argument about the picture in the infobox, the livery that the plane was painted in at the time of the crash would be most suitable. RMS52 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest try bringing the user here, so he/she can debate too. Also, even if another photo looks nicer. What does it have in relevant to the incident at the time? A photo of the livery at the time of the crash would be better, I agree with Colin. RMS52 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I gave my reasons why I brought back the previous photo on that talk page, but I think they should be included here too:
I'm sorry but I have to disagree that your change in photos constitutes an improvement to this article:
a) While you claim that a livery design change was made in 1958, to all of UAL's planes, I see no citation to support that OR statement. You are aware that OR editing is against Wiki rules, aren't you?
b) When I compare the two livery designs, I cannot see much that makes them very different, in any significant way which would be relevant to the factual issues and purpose of this Wikipedia accident article. That is especially true, since the livery in your replaced photo is NOT in color, it is of a much lower resolution (FAR less pixels) AND it is a photoshoped picture that was uploaded by a Commons editor that has since been banned. We have no way of knowing how much that photo might have been altered, and in what way, from the original, un-retouched photo.
If you will check around you will find that Wikipedia generally favors color photos, AND ones with much higher resolutions, over B&W photos of lower resolution. If you could show how the very slight difference between the two liveries would change any of the important facts in this ACCIDENT article, then you might have a case for the change you made. However, this article is about that historical accident and WHY it happened. It is not an article about the history of UAL's different liveries.
While I think your edit was in good faith, I don't see that it improved the article at all, so for the reasons stated, I am going to restore the other photo. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree that a low-grade B & W photo displays a livery that the plane was "painted in at the time of the crash " The livery at the time of the crash was in COLOR, not in black and white. The difference between those two liveries, when compared in COLOR mode is rather slight and I see nothing in that difference which adds to the subject matter and issues presented in the article, namely that the crash happened and WHY it happened. EditorASC (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course the livery was in colour, but the image IS NOT in colour, I suggest any replies should be made to the talk page. Thus, I am going to close this disscussion. RMS52 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In early May, it was revealed that the electronically-scanned array radar-equipped J-11D had made its first flight. At the same time, there were unconfirmed reports it featured a new variant of the Taihang, with improved reliability and thrust approaching that of the AL-31F-M1; or more than 13t.
Would it be accurate to say that, according to Fisher, the thrust of the WS-10 variant described is more than 13t and less than that of the AL-31F-M1?
If so, would it be fair to say exactly that in the WS-10 article? Or would WP:NEUTRAL require the information to be phrased like "the variant reportedly had improved reliability, and a thrust approaching the AL-31FM1" (avoiding the word "less", etc.)? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Many maps related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 are being translated into Chinese.
User:Cerevisae is doing an excellent job preparing the translations for these maps. He, along with User:李4, User:CFSO6459, and User:Antigng also translated the commons image gallery: Commons:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. (Cerevisae also added Malay translations for the gallery) - They are all helping our Mainland Chinese friends better understand the MH370 accident.
In the future when accidents and incidents happen we can help ensure Wikimedia content is translated into the relevant local languages. It may mean outreach to other Wikipedias or other persons.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
