Talk:Aircraft pilot/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Aircraft pilot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Gender gap figures
while checking the source, I ended up at http://namesorts.com/2014/08/04/ggg-the-airman-directory-a-making-of/ and found the phrase "NB/ this table was uploaded on Wikipedia to facilitate sharing of alternative statistics, actual gender gap disclosures by major national airlines."
I think someone has mistaken the purpose of Wikipedia, and might be flying (if the pun be pardoned) close to original research. Certainly, Wikipedia is not a research notebook for collating data. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The methods used to determine males/female doesn't.seem that reliable, and the site isn't really neutral either. I think the table should be removed. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The full table seems undue. A sentence to the effect "that an estimated n% of airline pilots are female" would not be out of place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree it's undue weight, and one sentence would suffice, assuming the existing source is considered reliable. - BilCat (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pilot_(aeronautics)#Female_aviators is interesting in itself and could be spun off into its own article. And then this can have a relevant paragraph with link. Then that article's editors can decide about the table. Want me to do it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Is there anything to establish significance to it, e.g RSs saying it was important to women's rights, the current section is just a list, and an article that replicated that would be a complete waste. HalfHat 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Pilot_(aeronautics)#Female_aviators is interesting in itself and could be spun off into its own article. And then this can have a relevant paragraph with link. Then that article's editors can decide about the table. Want me to do it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I have tagged the section as trivia because it is currently written as just a list of firsts and names a few notable female aviators. I agree that this section is better served by a separate article, which can be given a short WP:Summary style overview in the "History" section of this article. The section does have a bit of useful information in it that could be used to start an article on the subject of women in aviation, which I think would be a better term for an article than female aviators (although the latter term is better for the section in this article). AHeneen (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think spinning off into its own article is a good idea - if spun off into its own article, that article could contain some opening discussion about the significance of women in aviation, and be more than just a list as the present section is, and thus be a useful/meaningful article. As is, it just kind of seems out of place, and makes up about half of the article already. I can work on drafting something for the intro to the article, if that seems useful. The Human Spellchecker (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, everyone seems to be in favour, so I went ahead and made the split. Women in aviation could do with expansion, especially a better lead section than the one I've added. And I'm not sure about the country-by-country structure. But it's certainly better as a stand-alone article. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)