An editor has opened up a new sectionand modified the show's template. The only problem is- I've found no independent confirmation for the new episodes this editor has listed.
I think the Season 8 entries should be deleted till some confirmation is received. Anyone agree or disagree with me? Please give me some input. I'm willing to revert the entries and take resulting heat but prefer to have editorial consensus first.- William18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just been watching a bit of No Highway in the Sky (1951) depicting a commercial jet airliner with a huge, continuous strip of windows like in a tour bus. The film is more than a little absurd, but I've seen such things before in the old movies. Someone at that article suggested it was based on the de Havilland Comet, which from the photos seemed to have nicer windows than current planes, but not to that extreme. I'm curious how large windows did get in the early days of commercial aviation. Wnt (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's all to do with pressurization. If the aircraft is unpressurized, then the windows can be quite large. With a pressurized aircraft, the windows are a lot smaller. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Before the list is deleted it might be a good idea to have a look at each article linked on it, to see whether any of them should be deleted as well. YSSYguy (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay I have been though the list. Right now some are university and military schools which generally make notability. The following currently don't make notability. Any objections to sending any of the following to AfD?
Oxford is possibly the largest school in the UK and has been operating under different names for 40 years or so. One way of looking at this problem that just occurred to me is that they are all companies and should be dealt with under WP general company notability guidelines, I assume that we have some. It would save us from forming a new flight school guideline at least. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think we have pretty much settled on staying with WP:CORP for notability requirements for air carriers. Most of these schools above are fairly large and old ones and I am sure refs could be found for most if an effort was made. I will start off tagging them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's the way to go. The problem with the Oxford one is that the lead is far too short and does not explain the history or the fleet size. Never heard of any of the others so you can delete them! They may well have the same problem, as editors we only look at the lead and any important facts that are missing from the article we just don't know about. Plenty of non-notable articles at AfD instantly become very notable when someone says 'hang on a minute' and adds a ton of good notability refs. If (and it's a big if) articles were created properly we would not have this problem and all the work trying to sort it all out. It's not going to happen though. Yours (optimistically!) Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I have finished tagging them all for notability and refs as applicable. I have found that AfD is actually a very good way to make the encyclopedia better. In general poor quality articles articles taken there get either improved quickly or deleted, which in both cases improves the encyclopedia. In some cases I have taken a poor article to AfD and had everyone say "keep" as a worthwhile topic but no improvements are made. In that case I usually reduce it to a stub article as a way of starting over. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It should not be that way though, I don't get involved in it but the patrolling of new articles should be tightened up considerably IMO, a bot lists the possibly aviation related ones and I look through them sometimes, an overwhelming amount of dross gets missed. Now if I was paid full time to sort it out that would be a different story!! We really have got much more important things to do with our (often very limited) time in here. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
First, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - any sources that cannot be reliably sourced are liable to be reverted. Personal records, logbooks etc generally don't count as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Secondly, when you find some WP:RS's to back up what you want to say, take care in carrying out your edits - assuming that you were the IP editor that contributed to William Frederick James Harvey on the 14th, many of your edits were poorly written and broke formatting - please use the preview button to check that what you are adding doesn't break anything, or discuss thingts on the article talk page first.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of the IPs additions were appropriate (for example he was born in Hackney not Portslade) although it needs a reliable reference. Main problem is the IP made such a mess of the code with his/her edits that I would suggest it may be better for the IP to seek help and discuss the changes needed and the reliable sources on the article talk page until they gain experience in editing articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
What I would like to see page patrollers do is fix those newbie mistakes, rather than revert the newbie. Show how to fix the mistake, not tell the IP to do it (obviously the IP does not know how), nor smack down the IP for the mistake. Less gatekeeping, more helping. A newbiew has no clue; page patrollers such as User:Docboat are supposed to be experienced editors, thus capable of fixing mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.43.31 (talk)
If you read what I said above, that is is bring it up on the talk page and people will help do the edits until the IP learns. This project has nothing to do with new page patrollers but some of them do not have time to fix all the errors they come across. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
G'day all, just came across Flight inspection while looking for a general article about aviation navaids (there is a nautical-focused article navigation aid that mentions aircraft in passing). First of all, any suggestions as to what to do with the flight inspection article? Second, assuming one doesn't already exist that I haven't found, should we have an aviation-focused navaid article? Do we just expand the existing navigation aid article? YSSYguy (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would think that radio navigation would be the main general article to cover all the aviation navaids. Calibration of the different aids will be specific to each one, the best place to cover calibration is at each individual navaid type and it is mentioned in some of the articles. The title 'Flight inspection' seems a bit misleading to me, is that what the process is called in the US? Difficult to see a use for this article as it is at the moment, it could possibly be expanded by adding companies or organisations that operate calibrator aircraft. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)08:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be about navaid calibration. The two King Airs used in Australia for these duties have Flight Inspection titles. YSSYguy (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The AAIB have released a Formal Report into an incident at St Kitts on 26 September 2009 in which take-off was initiated from the wrong position. Currently, the report on the AAIB website won't open for me, but it is also reported by the Aviation Herald. Is this incident significant enough to be mentioned under the Airline, Aircraft and Airport articles? If so, would it also be notable enough to sustain an article of its own? Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That looks to be non-notable to the aircraft (Boe 777). But is more of an issue for the airport due to poor signage/markings for taxiways. The airport article is the most relevant place for that be mentioned. -fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, it it is notable enough to be mentioned at one, then it should be at all three IMHO, the relevant section being titled "accidents and incidents". Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The incident did not damage or even affect the aircraft, so there's no justification for mentioning it in the aircraft's article. -fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The incident could be mentioned as a point on the performance of the 777 in taking off safely from such a short take-off run. However, the neither of the 2 FlightGlobal stories on it today mention that aspect of the incident, so we'd need another reliable source that pointed it out. Beyond that, I don't see it as notable to the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting report. Is WP:AIRCRASH still a beta only guideline? It might help if it was finalised and add something to cover how best to deal with an incident like this. Reading the report the 777 performed as it should (not notable), the problem was apparently with the airport management (notable) and the crew (probably not notable as no damage/casualties). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, WP:AIRCRASH is still a beta-only essay. See my post further down the page. I've outlined my thoughts on a sub-page of my User page and invite comments on that page's talk page. I'm trying to get it as simple as possible whilst covering all major points in WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (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.
Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to be detecting a pattern in who is nominating recent articles for AFD. Is there a history behind this we might ought to look into, or just another deletionst with time on his/her hands? - BilCat (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. So, you were complaining to me the other day about people not being CIVIL in Afd discussions. Does you admin training tell you that the direction this little discussion here is taking, is civil, or not civil? Or is it just OK because you haven't actualy said it at the nominatoin page? Good luck with convincing people you are someone worth collaborrating with in good faith on a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is civil. A question was asked, without resorting to swearing, or questioning the editing capabilities of the editor being talked about. It was suggested that maybe there was something worthy of further scrutiny, and I gave my opinion that nothing untoward seemed to be taking place, just a straightforward deletionist nominating articles in good faith so that the community may give their opinion of the merits of keeping or deleting the article, which they are doing. The placement of the neutrally worded notice at this WP is perfectly reasonable, it does not suggest to editors that they should vote one way or the other. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Mick, I was just making an observation. I could have added a bad-faith nomination comment to the AFD page, but I didn't, as I don't have any evidence of that. It's just a gut feeling without any real substance, but I wanted to get another's opinion on it, and see if they knew of any history. I got that, and he's probably right. End of discussion, barring further evidence. As to the UPS AFD itself, if you spend much more time on air accident AFDs, I think you'll develop your own sense for what is notable or not, and realize that this one has all the hallmarks of notability. And then perhaps you'll understand why I asked the question here. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Calling people deletionists is a bad faith comment in of itself, and is most definitely an incivil way to be discussing other editors, and definitely when done behind their backs. And I already have a good idea of how these debtates go, and I'll be testing their general logic at VPP quite soon, because I think that if the issue gets some exposure to a wide range of editors who deal in all sorts of fields, all with the common goal of writing an encyclopoedia adhereing to WP:NOT and WP:5P, rather than operating a news aggregation service for 'serious' crashes, then I think things might look very different. MickMacNee (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Inculsionist and deletionist are standard terms used on WP, and I stand by that as good faith usage. As far as being behind the user's back, if you found it, so could he. He's welcome to comment here. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Further, statements such as "I think that if the issue gets some exposure to a wide range of editors who deal in all sorts of fields, all with the common goal of writing an encyclopoedia adhereing to WP:NOT and WP:5P, rather than operating a news aggregation service for 'serious' crashes, then I think things might look very different" are not assuming good faith in ANY way, but entirely typical. The fact that you apprear to actually believe it speaks volumes, since anyone who has actually read the aircrash AFDs from the past few years could easily disprove it. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that's enough, this is not productive; everyone should just move along (these are not the droids you are looking for...) FWiW (LOL), the AFD is now becoming extremely vexing... Bzuk (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a standard term at all, and in the accusatory way it is being used here, it is most definitely incivil. And if you think that, then feel free to disprove it with some links then, they will be useful at VPP. Although I suspect that you haven't quite understood what I meant by serious accident as it is being bandied about at Afd currently, and are about to link me up to some past Afd's that are not remotely relevant to the current issue, which is the automatic aggregation of the news reporting on all loss accidents of 'big' planes, (and even little ones if it's still an 'airliner' and a few people died) just because we can, and not because it does not violate NOT or 5P. MickMacNee (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS has existed for a long time, and many accidents and incidents have been added over the years that fail that guideline (and the others), and most of them have been deleted. Perhaps you would have voted to delete in every case, perhaps not. But you have declared them irrelevant before even reviwing them. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know... I am having a hard time keeping a civil tongue in the AFD "string" as it is getting to the point where an admin has to be called in. FWiW, isn't this a useless waste of time for all involved?!! Sorry for not making a funny quip, but I am rapidly losing my sense of humour (note I still write in Canajan) ... Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to get too technical here, but for the purposes of CIVIL, there is a world of difference between self-identifying as a 'deletionist', and being labelled by someone else as a 'deletionist'. I won't even bother commenting on being called a troll and the other nonsense. As they say, the best way to deal with incivility when it's directed at you, is to ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not quite the case, I admonished you not to engage in "feeding the troll," namely, not to poke sticks at an editor whose comments are meant to inflame or create animosity. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
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.
WP:AIRCRASH does not seem to have as much support as it used to do. It also has a couple of gaps which I have unsuccessfully tried to fill without success. Therefore, I've put down my thoughts on the notability of aircraft crashes at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents. I must stress that, at the moment, these are just my views. I would ask editors to discuss any issues they have on that page's talk page rather than editing my views (I've got the page watchlisted).
I'm trying to simplify WP:AIRCRASH using aviation industry weight bands. I have specifically avoided lighter-than-air craft as I believe there is little dispute over notability for accidents involving these aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we need to rethink the whole idea of the AIRCRASH guidelines, and if they are even "wanted" by the general community at all. The current DRVs at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2#Filair plane crash and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2#Agni Air Flight 101 give some insight into the community's views on the guidelines. For the most part, they are just ignored as being "essays", with no thought at all put forth that they are valuable in any way. With this attitude, I can't see us ever getting them to guideline status this way.
The oringinal AATF guidelines were created because some editors reviewed reviewed (that was the idea anyway) the AFDs, and drew the guidelines from them. Now we are trying to be proscriptive, laying out what we think the guidelines should be. I think we need to go bak to the intuitive approach, and find several "hallmarks" of notability in the Keep articles, and list those. These should be as few as possible, and basically be illustrations of how to apply the existing policies and guidelines of WP:N, WP:V, W: NOTNEWS, and the others to the articles. Then we can submit these directly to WP:N for consideration. There may be other ideas that would work to, but I don't think we can create them in a vacuum any more and then expect the community to accept them, not with the current attitude being against project guidelines. It has to be done with broader input this time, or it will fail again. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with you Bill way back I did suggest Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability/Archive_1#New_10-passenger_idea - which basically said accidents with more than ten passengers was notable, those with less may be. All Incidents are not notable but some may be. Little bit more explanation needed to explain the may be section, a bit shorter than the current suggestion! But as you say all we should be doing is supplementing the general guidelines with some advice particularly to aviation, not trying to re-write the WP:N etc guides. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The essay is already pretty good, I don't think there is a discrepency between it and NOT#NEWS at all, except when it is being used for tiny airliners or tiny airlines, where common sense is going out the window a lot. The reason it has lost the respect it might have once had, is that people are actually constantly mis-quoting it, either out of simple ignorance or assumption having not read it properly, or worse. People are now claiming it automatically allows articles for hull losses, or for meeting just 1 criterion, or for deadly airliner crashes if on scheduled flights - when all of that is just flat wrong when you actually read the essay. Combined with people now often simply hand waving to the GNG about news coverage for 'serious' crashes, with the definition of serious changing daily, and bizarrly claiming that investigations are not routine and a sign of significance even before they are published, then you have a real problem convincing the outside community you actually have a handle on things. MickMacNee (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Some good points MickM but the problem could stem from the fact the essay has to many criteria (which is where the ten or more idea came about) as you say it is unlikely that smaller losses are really notable without other factors. You also have to remember that a lot of editors have been through a lot of AfDs and can normally tell quickly if it is notable enough for a stand-alone article or not without quoting essays or guidelines. So as Bill suggested is it really neeeded, if it is then it has to assist AfDs in coming to a conclusion not confusing everybody. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to claim an accident has no lasting notability before the accident investigation report comes out. It involves a bit of prognostication whichever view you hold. Some cases are more obvious than others. The minor incidents are probably never going to be notable The really major ones (300 people being killes, planes flying into buildings, and so on), are instantly recognizable. But just because it isn't instantly recaongizable as a major incident doesn't mean it never will be. A lot of that does depend on the result s of the investigation,a nd that cannnot always be predicted. But one can look at an incident and say that it looks more notable or less notable. We here tend to keep the ones that look notable until the results of the investigation come out. If it proves not to have lasting notability, then it should be deleted. But is't quite sill to toss everything out before we know even know the actual outcome, and in most cases, Mick, that's what you're advocating. You're also painting the prohject with a very broad brush, and that's not logical or smart. We are all individuals, and the majority of here have disagreed with one another on may occasions. We have peopel who lean towards Deletionism, including myself, and people who are more Inclusionist. Yet you only see us as a group of insiders who think in lock step and are damaging the project by "killing Wikipedia as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia". That's logical nonsence! You really think less than 100 articles on aviation crashes out of THREE MILLION ARTICLES is going to damage WP permanently??? Trust me, there's a lot of garbage out there on WP, and these crash articles are the least of them. Yet this is what you spend your time on? You aren't the solution here, Mick. Your DRVs are being rejected as not representing consesnus. SO please, you're not convinincig anyone else that you actually have a handle on things here. We may not be perfect, but we are trting, we are working together in spite of our disagreements to form a compromise that will achive acceptance by the commiunity. PLEASE STOP treating us as if we're the enemey here - We all want to improve WP - you don't have a monopoly on that. You've been AFDing accident articles long enough now that you're no longer an outsider on the issue. That's not going to hold water anymore, assuming it ever did. Realize that not evceryone who disagrees with you is stupid, even if they don't express themselves in a perfect manner to suit you. And realize that no one ever totally gets there way in a consesnus-driven group. Start working with us rather than against us. Please. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Even though it was withdrawn, I wanted to respond to this. I am absolutely not advocating tossing everything until the investigation - the AIRCRASH essay if properly cited is actually good at spotting likely factors which will lead to lasting notability. Knowing what it actually says, I've never actually nominated something that meets it, and have even voted keep based on it, and I've certainly never nominated for deletion any article with hundreds of dead, or even more than 20, where it really is just 'obvious', rather than just of interest. But if you guys are routinely keeping all such incidents just to wait for the report, without any RS proof whatsoever, not even a shred, that it might be historically significant, that is just flat wrong, and not in step with the rest of the pedia. If you have good, historically robust, hunches that you all agree on - then put it into a Guideline, or get AIRCRASH approved. But by just playing hunches without that, you are making it so much harder to enforce NOT#NEWS, because other people see these votes, with no arguments except news Ghits and prediction, and think that really is all AIRCRASH notability is about, and thus they think in future that simple vague hand waves to news coverage are just acceptable votes for these things, which are WP:EVENTS like anything else, subject to CRYSTAL and NOT like anything else. They have no idea that you intend to reconsider it later after the report, and you will always get people then resisting an Afd thru NTEMP, if it turns out to be non-notable, which they of course will have a case on, because everywhere else, we don't do speculative keeps. And it doesn't matter what ratio of articles air crashes are to the rest of the pedia, my comment relates to the quality of the project as a resource for people actually looking for significant aircrashes, which is not helped by effectively advocating a database of newscruft. You only have to look at this list to see the massive recentism problem that has already developed. I do not tend to treat people as a group, but frankly, some of the attacks and circling of wagons that has been going on at Afd makes it hard not to do so. I simply cannot fathom how so many knowingly false statements made about AIRCRASH are allowed to go uncommented on in Afds, if it is not down to some sort of Avi-crash loving groupthink, certainly not if there are actually 'deletionists' in this project, as is claimed. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Mick, your an arrogant asshole. Everyhting you've written above is an absolute lie!!!! That is far from the truth of anything you've said at the AFDs. ZYou treat everyone who doesn't rise to your standards as trash. You make condescending statements that are highly insulting to others, and you excecpt us simply to remain civil? Sorry, I have had enough from you. I'm not here to destroy WP,and voting Keep on a few crash articel will not make it irrelevant. You have thown away your right to any respect a long time ago. Go to hell. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You are a pice of shit, Mick. You have never once tried to treat me or anyone else on this project with a modicum of respect, and we have been very longsuffreing with you. You are a disruptive presense on WP, and you ought to be banned, Go ahead and file an AIN against me. Make my day, because I have so much more eveidce against you. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the following using some of Mick's only vocabulary that he regualrly uses, combined with his own highly insulting tone, since he's evidently not capable of comprehending normal civil English. I hate stooping to his level, but being nice only makes him more arrogant and insufferable. WHo knows, maybe this will work? I'm not holding my breath. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the words above out of anger at Mick. I am still angry about his lying and bullying, but that's no reason for me to be uncivil, and I will accept any fair administrative action against me. Yes, Mick does regularly use profane language and belittling comments, but I don't. As a Christian, I believe it's wrong for me to act this way, and I apologize for that behavior. I am going to take some time off of WP to cool off. When I do return, I will consider persuing administrative action against Mick for his bullying tactics and uncivil comments at the AFDs and other discussions, whic are clearly against policy. I should have done that weeks ago, and by not doing it, I've allowed my anger to boil over. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
BilCat, go sit on the naughty step for 10 minutes! Seriously, you were clearly suffering from wikistress and this is out of character. Let's not have a repeat of it and there will be no need to take it any further. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
??? Just seen this. All I can say is, this is Wikipedia, it's a website project to build an encyclopoedia. I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to work. I take it far more personally if someone alleges I have misunderstood policy, than if someone calls me an arrogant asshole. I won't be taking any action for something that was out of character, but I will strongly defend any outrageous accusations that I am a bully, as this is simply pure bollocks. Much like the term harrassment, bullying is an extremely serious accusation, which in real life evokes ideas of extremely serious behaviour. I will not stand being accused of it anywhere, not in real life and not here, so if you want to take any action against me that makes such allegations, you better have a water-tight case. Other than that, chill the fuck out, and stop drinking while editting maybe? MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Several disambig links to "Dive" are from articles describing the dive of an aircraft. There is no correct link to point them to, but an article on diving as an aerial maneuver would fit in with other existing articles on aerial maneuvers. Can anyone put one together? bd2412T20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a redlink Dive (aerobatic maneuver) at the Aerobatic maneuver page but creating an article on it would not be much more than a dictionary definition. It's described there as an extreme nose down attitude (not necessarily vertical), resulting increase in airspeed, and descent rate which is about all there is to it. A dive is not necessarily an extreme aerobatic manoeuvre either, just a way to describe the flight path of an aircraft (similar to 'climb' or 'turn'). There is a 45 degree down line at Aresti Catalog but aerobatic pilots don't usually call it a dive. Tricky one, cheers. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nimbus, any article would be limited to a dictionary definition, plus maybe a photo of a Stuka. A better solution would be to remove the redlinks, before someone writes the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not the redlinks, it is that we have articles such as Dive bomber and Tailslide that link to the disambiguation page, Dive, and have no ready fix. If an article would be too short, is there an existing article on basic aerobatic maneuvers to which this could be added and the redlink redirected, or section-redirected? bd2412T03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at those articles and the Stuka as well to see how it is done there. I would agree that as there is no article and the blue links go to a DAB page that the term should just be unlinked, 'dive' is a common enough word that most readers would understand. The Stuka article has a good description of how it operated at the 'Diving procedure' section where dive has not been linked, it's just in plain text. The term could be linked to 'Dive' at the Aerobatic maneuvers article but I would unlink that red link as it would most likely get deleted soon after creation (unless someone can come up with a notable, creative and well referenced definition of the term). That's how I would fix the problem anyway. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)09:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm a bit confused. What exactly is a "dive"? The Aerobatic maneuver page seems to define it as an "extreme nose down attitude (not necessarily vertical), resulting increase in airspeed, and descent rate". How close to vertical must the aircraft be going before it is an a dive? Is it necessarily a controlled maneuver, or is it still a dive if it is out of control? Does the aircraft need to traverse any particular distance in this mode, or is an aircraft doing a loop in a dive for those few moments when it is on the downside of the loop? We might not need an entire article on the topic, but where in the encyclopedia can a novice find the answers to these questions? bd2412T13:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a very good point. Whether the definition of a dive is given by the FAA or any other aviation authority I don't know, we can look for it though. The definition given at aerobatic maneuver is uncited, in other words it is either someone's own definition or it has been taken from somewhere and they have not said where, I would not take that definition as gospel. My own use of dive as a pilot would just indicate a deliberate control input (forward stick to pitch the nose down and perhaps with some power added) to increase airspeed for some reason (usually to perform an aerobatic manoeuvre or to attain the maximum speed as part of a routine airworthiness flight test). I could say that 'I dived to avoid a collision' (done that a few times!) or 'I dived through a hole in the clouds' (quickly descending to avoid being stuck above them to keep the ground in sight). Hope those examples of colloquial use help, we'll look for an official definition and if there is one we can adjust and cite the existing one at the aerobatic article. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Janes > Dive - a steep descent with or without power, dive bomber - aircraft designed to release bombs after a steep dive. All seems to general for an article might we worth a para at Descent (aircraft). MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Well there it was all along, only been there since June 2004! Could do with some diving bits added and linking to more articles so that we know that it is there, a descent is a known portion of a planned flight path, you're even supposed to work out a descent rate to hit the ground exactly at your arrival point, clever pilots do this, I don't!! I thought it said 'decent aircraft' when I first saw the link!! Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Aviation articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Aviation articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Just came across this by "random article" clicking, and I'm questioning whether it's appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not my area of expertise, so I thought it best to raise the issue here rather than list it for deletion. A similar list was once deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Airbus orders and deliveries. It looks like just raw data to me, not an article, and data that is too prone to change; it's a list of customers who have ordered a product, and whether or not that product has been delivered. Whether the order has been filled is too transitory, and that the order has been filled seems to be a very indirect way of saying that a given airline now has this aircraft. So the only encyclopedic element I can glean from it might be which airlines have Boeing 737s in their fleets, but we already have that in List of Boeing 737 operators. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at it. My assessment is that it is unreferenced, out of date and most likely fails to meet notability requirements (the lack of refs is a give-away), probably inherently non-encyclopedic as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Orders articles have been created for new/upcoming aircraft sometimes to separate a lot of early order activity. But there's no real need an orders list for the Boeing 737. -fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say you have enough input here to take it to AfD. If you would like to do the honours, then please post a note here and that will get some input at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Really need some help here, as an image is being challenged, albeit, IMHO, it is historically significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
Jat Airways
I've reverted the Jat Airways article to what I think is the last good version after an IP removed ⅔ of the content overnight. I've also semi-protected the article for a week. If any editor feels that they can improve the article or that it should be reverted to a different version, please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The article has now been PRODded as not asserting notability. The company seems to be failry large per its website, so finding third-party sources shouldn't be difficult if that's true. - BilCat (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
For it to be an aircraft article, it needs more info on the aircraft project, like when and how it started and so forth. Some of the minor details on the record should be left out or presented differently. For example the part about FAI representative being present should just say the record was certified/witnessed by the FAI instead. See WP:Air/PC for aircraft layout guidelines and examples are at GA articles category. -fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get it to GA status, I'm trying to get it to stub status, since it is being rejected to become an article. (WP:AFC requires a minimum of making stub status to become an article that isn't deleted via a WP:CSD criteria, and would stand a fair chance of surviving a WP:AFD) Though GA status would be nice. It isn't yet an article, since it was rejected for becoming an article. I'll see if I can present the record flight in a different manner. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not say anything about making it a Good Article. Those are just examples for layout and such. The two sections you have is plenty enough to be stub length. -fnlayson (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Only aircraft that received RLM designations got the 'company prefix', as I recall. And I've never seen 'Ar E.###' for any Arado products elsewhere. So I've gone ahead and done the deed. :) - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed04:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note the angry and disruptive editing of the following record. It involves an opinionated but unverified set of changes. Can anything be done? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
I recently met a guy who was in this this incident. One of Tony Blair's children was on the flight. The way he tells the story, the plane dropped 11,000 feet... this BBC article says 300 feet, but it was at the moment of the incident, so maybe there was more information available later. The guy told me it was BA016 Brisbane to Singapore, I think. Anyway, I bet him Wikipedia had an article (not really a bet, but just you know "I bet Wikipedia has an article") and it seems we don't! So I figured you folks would be the right place to ask about it. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Good question, Jim. May I ask why you would think this incident would be notable enough for an article on WP? The answer would be informtive in light of a continuing dispute within the project over the notability of aviation accidents and incidents. The dispute has resulted from several very contentious AFDs within the last few months. There have been several attempts to craft guideliens for the project to help determine the notabilirty of these incidents, but recent efforts have failed miserably! See WP:AIRCRASH for the most recent version of the guideliens, one that some editors feel is far too complicated and restrictive. Any insight you could give on this issue would be greatly appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
To comment on your question directly, I doubt the article meets the WP:N standard of lasting notability. While a child of a national politician was involved, there was no loss of life or airframe, and to this point there seems to be no consequences that resulted from the incident, such as changes to airline rules or regulations, that would impart lasting notability by virtue of singifican coverage in reliable sources. If the incident had occured within the last 4-5 years, an article would likely have been created. The longer WP is here, the more we get people who create articles on every minor incodent reported in the news somewhere, but most of them get deleted per NOTNEWS and WPN. I have a feeling that htis one would also be deleted, especially if there is no lasting coverage on the incident. Again, this is a very contentious issue, with the usual "sides" of deletionism and inclusivism clashing quite noisily. The reason I asked why you might think this incident was notable is because from the person's description of the incident, you must have thought it was notable enough for an article on WP for some reason. Knowing that reason would be helpful in crafting acceptable guidelines for the issue, and hopefully having them accepted by WP as a whole this time. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo, thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, Kathryn Blair is not a Wikinotable person (Being related to a Wikinotable person does not make that person Wikinotable themselves). WP:AIRCRASH does not enjoy the support amongst editors that it once did. Personally, I would consider the accident to be non-notable. The injuries suffered by the passengers were to some extent self-inflicted because they were not wearing their seat belts. Had all passengers been strapped in, then there would probably not have been any injuries to the passengers. Aircrew are aware of the risks and accept them as part of the job. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Nobody was killed, and the incident seems to have received news coverage and then faded away. WP:NOTNEWS, probably fails the general notability guideline. Also, this was back in 1999, and in those days people were not dashing off to their computers to create Wikipedia articles in response to stories in the news, which happens nowadays. Kathryn Blair redirects to Tony Blair, apparently per WP:BLPNAME.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I should be clear - I don't know anything about standards of notability for air incidents, nor whether this incident should have an entry, nor do I have an opinion about it other than my usual general opinions. It sounds like, based on the factors people have listed here, that we probably should not have an article about this incident. But this is not an area of expertise for me in any degree. I just met a guy who was on this flight is all. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Jim(bo), I reluctantly have to concur with the majority opinion here as the incident is relatively minor and not surprisingly, almost a daily occurrence in commercial flying. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC).
Did Transamerica Airlines (Trans International Airlines) ever operate or lease a Lockheed Tristar? Why I ask is that I distinctly recall seeing such a plane in TIA colours at Vancouver Airport (YVR) on the night of July 6, 1979 while waiting to board another flight.--Davidjsc (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Gliding articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Gliding articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.
Working on an article on airline scope clauses. Not having much success with finding reliable sources. If anyone wants to help the article is in my sandbox. N419BH05:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The future of aviation, as seen in 1911 by Claude Grahame-White and others
For anyone interested in the views of one of the most prominent of early aviation pioneers, Claude Grahame-White, see his book "The Aeroplane; Past, Present, and Future" (1911). Large sections of the book are available online via Google books. Grahame-White's views about the future of aviation, as well as those of other notable characters of the time, are towards the end of the book, and they make fascinating reading almost 100 years later. --TraceyR (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Categories on transportation accidents are hyped up to "disasters" as you go up the line in categorization. I have recategorized CSX 8888 incident and Category:Maritime incidents so they roll up into categorized "incidents" all the way up the line. Before, it rolled up into "accident" categories, which, in turn, rolled up into "Disaster" categories! While I have changed it for these few incidents (for CSX for 2001 only, for example), many other categories need to be defined to replace ones that wrongly promote into worse-sounding categories.
Note that Aviation was particularly careful in defining its categories to "accidents and incidents" (see for example [1] Category:Aviation accidents and incidents but nonetheless, these too are rolled up into "disasters" further up the line. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It is requested that members of this Wikiproject please involve themselves in this AfD. Their expertise in the proper uses of WP:AIRCRASH would be invaluable in the discussion. SilverserenC10:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a general comment regarding navigating around the various Aviation WikiProjects and subpages: it's difficult. Have other people found it difficult, or is it just me? For example, some (but not all) project pages use the Tabs header (either {{WPAVIATION tabs}} or {{WPAVIATION task force tabs}}), which includes the inter-project links below the tabs, as well as transcluding the navigation box {{WPAVIATION Navigation}}. Many tabs don't actually have subpages to which they correspond, and the number of distinct talk pages which occur under the WP:Aviation umbrella is surprisingly large - this might make it unclear to some editors where to ask questions. To add to the confusion, some entire pages transclude other pages (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content), apparently to make the Tabs template work.
My understanding is that most of the layout was done by Trevor MacInnis in mid-2008. I think this navigation system could be simplified, which could improve the accessibility of these projects. So my question would be: Is there a desire to change the current system? Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, it does no harm to make things easier, particularly if people new to the project find it difficult to follow then it gives a bad impression of the whole project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, firstly I was thinking about modifying the Tab header; at the moment each of the following use a variation of the {{WPAVIATION tabs}} header.
WP:Aviation
WP:Airlines
WP:Defunct Airlines (inactive?)
WP:Aircraft, and its task forces Rotorcraft and Engines
WP:Airports
WP:Gliding (inactive?)
Aviation accident task force
Air sports task force (inactive?)
Aerospace biography task force (inactive?)
Also, WP:Aircraft, and its task force Rotorcraft are included in the navigation system, but their main pages use a completely different format (also introduced by Trevor MacInnis, this time in 2009); as does WP:Aviation's main page. And the joint Military Aviation task force is formatted in the Military History style.
I think a more common system of tabs could be used. Here are some specific ideas:
Include links to the main subprojects (Airlines, Airports, and Aircraft) in the tabs, as well as their talk pages; and include the tabs on all their main pages and talk pages, to allow easier navigation between them.
"Page content" and "Notability" could be combined into a single tab called "Guidelines", (maybe common to all projects), which lets editors navigate the many pages in Category:WikiProject Aviation guidelines.
The (manually updated) tabs "Categories", "New articles", and "AfD record" aren't doing much good, at the moment, and could be removed; some are linked from the navigation side bars, and they could also be linked directly from each WikiProject's main page, if desired. (btw, isn't there a bot that tell you the new articles?)
The way I see it, the tab system makes one think there are 2 dimensions worth of pages: on one axis there are projects (airports, airlines, etc) and on the other axis the projects' subpages (participants, page content, discussion, etc). But in reality, most of these pages are either non-existent, or haven't been edited (or even looked at, in some cases!) in a long time. Maybe it would be good to try and decide on some new Tab headings that could be used across WP:Aviation (+subprojects). Example: (Main / Participants / Guidelines / Airports (Talk) / Airlines (Talk) / Aircraft (Talk) / Discussion). Other links could be moved to the navigation side bar (many are already there anyway). Also, I like the image on the main WP:Aviation page; maybe a modified version of this could be included in the tab header; including (some of) the subprojects as well. Mlm42 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree that the whole system needs looking at. The tranclusions are very confusing as is noted. Trevor's system is/was probably good but without him being around to ask it gets difficult. There are lots of questions such as why is gliding a project but engines a task force? Rotorcraft seems to be dead. I set up the tabs at WP:AETF by copying another task force. I'm all for streamlining the navigation, if seasoned members can't understand it then other editors will surely struggle. Might well need a dedicated page to discuss solutions. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Generally dont have a problem with some of the ideas but as Nimbus suggested perhaps we need to discuss the detail away from this page, perhaps the discussion page for the project presentation could use a dummy of some of your ideas Mlm42 so it would make it easier for us to understand if it was visual. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I need a TAF translated please - EDDH 101200Z 101322 31010KT 9999 FEW025 TEMPO 1320 29020G40KT 3000 TSRA BKN013CB
Tempo 1922 4000 RA BKN014
Ta muchly. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem!
Translation: Terminal Area Forecast for Hamburg Airport issued on the 10th of the month at 1322 1200 Universal Time and valid from the 10th of the month from 1300 Universal until 2200 Universal, wind 310 degrees true at 10 knots, visibility greater than 10 km, a few clouds at 2500 feet, temporarily between 1300 Universal and 2000 Universal wind 290 degrees true at 20 gusting to 40 knots, visibility 3 km in thundershowers, ceiling broken at 1300 feet, thunderstorm, temporarily between 1900 Universal and 2200 Universal visibility 4 km in rain, ceiling broken at 1400 feet.
issued on the 10th of the month at 1322 Universal Time - shouldn't that be issued on the 10th of the month at 1200 Universal Time? Thanks for the translation, I want to get this one right first time when the article hits mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Over a thousand is actually 2,304 categories or all our aircraft year categories. I have opposed the change (if you can oppose a speedy change?) changing the hyphen to an en-dash is a bit trivial and not really needed nobody in the real world would notice the difference. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Marry Christmas from it.wiki
...for those who were asked what he bartered with the reindeer and sleigh......but let's not angry ... What I found is made by its arsenal...
Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *YES!16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A tour of English air museums
I'm touring England in early May with the wife, and as a first-time visitor to the UK and a life-long WWII history buff I intend to see a few of England's finest war museums such as the Imperial in London. Another obvious choice is IWM Duxford where a great collection of antique aircraft can be found. What other locations are worth a stop? Any old air bases or Chain Home stations kept up? Is Bletchley Park a good day trip? Are there any preserved bits of Hugh Dowding's Fighter Command control center? Is there really nothing left of Castle Bromwich? Will the RAF Radar museum in Norfolk be re-opened by May?
To prevent mental whiplash, we will limit our visit to mid- and south England, saving the North and Scotland for some future time. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Duxford and the IWM are good choices have you considered the RAF Museum at Hendon? Bletchley Park is interesting but not sure it would take up a day more like a few hours. RAF Museum at Cosford is good but not sure how far North you would want to go. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While in London, there is also the Science Museum which has a few aircraft including the Gloster E28/39 and is (currently) free to enter. I would definitely recommend Hendon for WWII stuff. Cosford has more later and experimental stuff. Duxford is good. As to the radar museum - I'll drop a note on your talkpage. Avoiding mental whiplash is good but don't forget that although the UK is small it can sometimes take a long while to get somewhere.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like de Havilland at Salisbury Hall is somewhat close to Potters Bar where I may have an appointment with Soundcraft, a mixing console manufacturer—I have some career-related audio engineering contacts to make. Perhaps I will see the first Mosquito! Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll drive, just don't let go of the map guys! A very nice day out is flying in and out of Old Warden, a 25 minute flight each way and the £10 landing fee covers one entry into the museum (the other person has to pay, buy the coffees and operate the magneto switches!). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
By all means qualify Royal Air Force, but not by adding British in front, it is a nonsense akin to calling The Open the British Open. In any case all other uses of Royal and Air Force are qualified in the title, which Royal Air Force does not require!Petebutt (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is the point we all know the Royal Air Force is British but we should not assume that the reader does. I am sure you will find the usage of British Royal Air Force in other parts of wikipedia when it is not clear which air force it is. Note we are not saying the British Royal Air Force but just including British in front as a description. We dont say Government (of the United Kingdom but British Government. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"British Open" is how it is always referred to in the Yankee States. I don't see the problem of modifying Royal Air Force with British just to get it clear the first time, especially if there is the air force of another monarchy or one of the Commonwealth in the same article. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I've known the event to be referred to as the British Open on this (British) side of The Pond if only so as to avoid confusion with the French Open and US Open (tennis). GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't believe a disambiguator is needed. "Royal Air Force", without any clarification, should automatically mean the UK's air force. But if it is needed, "British" would be best. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the addition of 'British' is unnecessary. It'd be like titling the article on the USAF as the "United States of America Air Force", as after all there is not just one country that starts its name with "The United States of..." with an air force, even though we know who the 'main one' would be. If USAF can be taken at recognisable face value, so should RAF; those people who are confused as to what nation it refers to will simply have to read the article's introduction to clarify. Kyteto (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
According to this artile [2], the main runway is closed for repainting, its runway designation will be changed. How should we accomdate the change? SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This actually happens to all airports on a regular basis as the variation shifts (angular difference between the north magnetic pole, which shifts and the north geographic pole, which doesn't). I would just suggest that the article data be changed to reflect the new numbers. It probably isn't notable enough to add the fact that it changed to the article text unless an accident report or other similar incident referencing the old runway number is a factor. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Possible hoax?
Ayaks "a hypersonic aircraft program started in the Soviet Union and currently under development in the Russian Federation". Is this credible? Sources are in Russian, so we need either a Russian speaker or someone with some technical knowledge.--Scott Mac20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. It isn't my field, so just flagging it up with people who might be able to review and deal with any issues.--Scott Mac21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Please access Template talk:Infobox airline if you know what the "Bases" entry in the infobox is intended to designate. (Maintenance bases? Moon bases as depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey? An airline's favorite high pH chemicals?) More commentary there. Please respond there, not here - that page isn't too highly trafficked and I was concerned nobody would see my question for weeks if I didn't go begging for help on this page. Thanks. Ch Th Jo (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Flightglobal.com
Flightglobal.com has beed tagged for speedy deletion if anybody can help with references as to its significance and importance to the aerospace industry then your help would be appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.
Added "Aircraft Component Manufacturers" task force
I added an "Aircraft Component Manufacturers" task force to create articles about companies who manufacture aircraft components.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This should probably be under the WP:AIR aircraft project, rather than the parent WPAVIATION. However, I'm not sure what the interest level will be for such a Task Force. we don't even have one for the aircraft manufacturers, so that may be the place to start. We actually do have a task force for one type of aircraft component - the Aeroengine Task Force, so perhaps that taks force could be expanded.- BilCat (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No we don't, but it would be useful to have! I have a bunch of on-line sources that I could contribute to such a list. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, each of the many list articles in those examples has its own Talk page, which often makes it a bit difficult to have a cogent Talk page discussion about article improvement since the discussion must necessarily take place on a single Talk page that that may not be monitored by many folks.
The Wikipedia-supported method that could potentially improve on this is to basically to select one page as the central Talk page for a group of articles, and then redirect the several other Talk pages to that central page.
1. I think it would be useful for the Aviation WikiProject to consider this idea, in general. Comments on the idea probably should go here on this Talk page.
2. To start the process off on one particular set of aviation list articles, I have made a proposal that we consolidate the Talk for all dozen or so of the "List of Aircraft ..." Talk pages to the main list page: "Talk:List of aircraft". That discussion is going on at Talk:List of aircraft; please comment there if you support or oppose this initial trial of the conversion to a single talk page for divided "list of" articles.
Per the above consensus, I have attempted to make the various changes that centralise discussion for the dozen or so "List of aircraft (...)" articles. Please feel free to look it over to see how you think this is working. Remember, this is a trial project. If it works well here, others may wish to do the same with other large lists in WikiProject Aviation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Etihad incident
Today, an Etihad Airways flight was escorted into Stansted by the RAF due to an unruly passenger on board. There are rumours of a bomb threat being made. My addition of this incident to the Etihad Airways and London Stansted Airport articles has been reverted. The reverting editor is of the opinion that it is not notable enough to mention. Whilst current reporting indicates that the incident is not notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article, I believe it is sufficiently rare enough to be worth mentioning, due to the RAF escort. Without the latter, then it's just another operational hiccup. Opinions please on the notability or otherwise of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but when it results in the RAF sending Typhoons to escort the aircraft to a different airport than its intended destination, the incident becomes more serious. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but they probably wrote it off as training hours anyway. Can we observe how the incident evolves over 24 hrs and see if that was justified or just a knee-jerk reaction? - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No objection to waiting to see what develops. You can bet that Cameron is personally writing out the invoice to Etihad for services rendered though, given the current economic climate! Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is in not on the page? it is a significant incident. It brought the airport to a stop. I know it is not a featured incident in aviation wikiproject, (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that this is not official policy? Maybe we should have a vote on the discussion page? Thomas888b (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Bomb threats aren't that rare. What is rare (in the UK at least) is the reaction in this case, it's not everyday that the RAF escorts an airliner into an airport. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I dont think escorting airliners is that rare I am sure it happened before in the last few months. And Stansted is the nominated UK airfield for all such incidents so it is not rare for these incidents to be at Stansted as they are normally planned that way. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Next Objective was built at the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Plant at Omaha, Nebraska, as a Block 35 aircraft. It was one of 10 modified as a Silverplate and re-designated "Block 36"
The 363d TFW flew F-16A/B Block 10 aircraft until 1984 then converted to Block 15s; F-16C/D Block 25s in autumn 1985 and Block 42s in late 1991.
What does it mean to say that an aircraft has a block number of this kind? Is this something worth having an article on (or do we have one that I have missed)? Cheers! bd2412T16:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the number of articles mentioning block numbers, it seems there is enough information to support at least that. bd2412T16:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since this doesn't quite fall under the umbrella of any specific subproject, I thought I'd ask here. I've got two notability questions with regards to two articles I just stumbled upon.
First: what is the notability policy with regards to a specific flight route/path? Specifically I am referring to Singapore Airlines Flight 21. (No, it's not an accident, incident, or otherwise; it's just the longest non-stop flight in the world at present.) Frankly, why this route has its own article baffles me. I mean, if SQ21 gets an article, shouldn't the first regularly scheduled passenger transatlantic flight route get its own article? Transpacific? Transcontinental?
Second: Singapore Airlines Flight 380. The inaugural flight of the Airbus A380. Does this pass notability specs? (I will refrain from grandstanding like I did in the previous paragraph.)
Looking at the second item (Flight 380) - having read through it and then read it skipping what I would classify as trivia, you've got nothing of any note. What is important about this first commercial flight is already in the A380 article. PROD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've now read Flight, it was not clear until the end that its the longest flight in terms of time taken, (Flight 22 is the return route and 15 minutes quicker) when it was introduced nor why. Then when I go to look up some context I find the useful info and the missing info from the article is already present in non-stop flight#longest flights. Another AfD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
British Military Designations/Mark numbers
Now, just to start this off, there is a bit of confusion as to when the RAF began to change its military designations as evidenced in the recent hubbub over the English Electric Lightning and Folland Gnat articles. I recall that the topic has been brought up before and the "standard" of Mk.1 and Mk 1 is now co-existing in a melange of formats in many articles, without a clear indication of when to use one or the other designation. The RAF now (since ?) is using a simplified system that eliminates the "dot." The "FG.1" has become the "FG 1" or "FG1" across the board, including back-dating some illustrious types such as the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Avro Lancaster in all their current literature. I have an extensive collection (my wife isn't reading this, is she?) of Aeroplane, Air Pictorial, Flypast, RAF Flying Review, and numerous other Brit magazines. Many of these were perfect barometers of the time and mirrored the current terminology. In and about 1968, the articles seemed to be diverting from using the "dot" and by the early 1980s, the "dot" was no longer to be found in RAF designations. I mark the change as 1983 in Air International and there was no diversion from that point on. This background is just to set the theme for the fun and frivolity that will surely ensue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
