Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

A-Class review for IFF Mark II needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for IFF Mark II; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Airline destinations

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines), the naming convention says that airline destinations should be in the (Name of airline) destinations format, for example American Airlines destinations. I think the naming convention should be changed to List of (Name of airline) destinations format, for example List of American Airlines destinations because the articles are more of list articles. 2601:183:101:58D0:C0FF:73FC:F9F6:D893 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The place for that discussion is the style guide's associated talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines). If you wish to start it there, please also drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, as the Airlines WikiProject will need to be involved. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

IP warrior

Could use some help at Blohm & Voss P 208, Blohm & Voss P 209, Blohm & Voss P 212. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I did my best, but the chap re-reverted almost instantly and without any discussion. In spite of all my politeness! I suggest initiating the procedure for a block. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP address changed in the middle of it all, but the behaviour pattern did not. However they seem to have quietened down. Would someone mind reverting their latest edit at Blohm & Voss P 208‎‎ once more, as if I do I will be in breach of WP:3RR? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in aviation articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the "Summary of Dubai International Airport Masterplan" tables. Looking at the preview, they don't look the same. Removing the highlighted wikitext code should make them look the same.

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is stray HTML span tags in ref 141 by David Rose (from iasa.com.au). I'd probably remove those tags, which would probably fix the date error in that citation.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I just sampled some of these pages, and seen none where the display is affected. While some obviously have code errors, others appear to be harder to pin down. The examples singled-out below each illustrates an issue which appear in multiple pages.

Please bear in mind that nested tables can be a great convenience to the manual editor. For example removing the nesting at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89732162 would produce an unintelligible nightmare of colspan tags and it is unreasonable to expect manual editors to struggle with that when it is not a practical necessity. Also, the use of templates with table code in them can mess up HTML parsing: if done before transclusion, each page may have broken code fragments which are intended to come together in the merged output, while if done afterwards the origin of any remaining errors may be lost - was it in the main page, the transcluded template or the editor's attempted carve-up between the two?

A more bizarre issue is shown in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_40?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79782757, where virtually the whole article is highlighted, beginning in the middle of an HTML comment tag. It appears unrelated to the presence of any table. Meanwhile https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Albastar_Apis?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=87973219 highlights 100% of the page wikitext!

@Steelpillow: See this diff for the fix. There are other pages with similar errors. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was merely drawing to your attention the fact that the highlighting was borked. FYI I have no urge to fix hundreds of identical systemic page errors when a parser or a bot can do it more reliably. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Without going into too many technical details, that error means that the parser doesn't know where to close the table, and so flags the entire page as being affected. I'll let you all figure out how you want to fix these pages, but where the # of errors are in the 10s of pages, botting might take more time and effort than fixing the pages. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving on to "stray span tags", the code highlighted in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/RAAF_Base_Rathmines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=46956512 contains none, though it does contain nested templates.

I have to wonder whether there might be a limited sophistication in template handling, and perhaps some other bugs, in somebody's parsing and comparison/highlighting tools, and also whether somebody might still be taking the archaic W3C mantra of "no nested tables" too seriously (in practice, div positioning which fails to respect "normal flow" cause far more problems).

Thank you for this chance to check and comment, and I should perhaps repeat that I have seen nothing outside the "no immediate worry" class for this Project. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Misnesting in this context means something like <table><table>... or <table><tr><table>..., which is invalid HTML, rather than the correct <table><tr><td><table>.... So no, this is not about using tables for presentation, nor about removing embedded tables (though we should indeed avoid these things, that's not the point of the error). --Izno (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I am glad to hear it. The issue still remains of diagnosing the source of the mis-coded nesting where templates occur in the middle of it all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

For the misnested tags in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/RAAF_Base_Rathmines?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=46956512 my first guess would be that the line break in the |name= is the source of the problem. Many infoboxes wrap parameter content in span tags, and span tags aren't supposed to go across multiple lines.

From my POV, the immediate need is just to make sure that these articles won't be turned into an unreadable mess next month. If things look okay, then fully compliant HTML can be worked out later. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that seems likely. It looks like somebody is abusing the template variable, some people love to stick flag icons everywhere. But as it's really a WP:MILHIST template, I'll let them sort it out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the first 6 articles listed under misnested tags. Perhaps other users can review those edits and learn from them. I hope nobody minds that I violated the general rule not to edit other people's comments, where I marked on 6 lines "(Fixed by Anomalocaris)". Whatamidoing (WMF), if you object to this, feel free to remove my changes to your original posting. LintHint is easy to install and easy to use. It identifies the lint errors in a page. When it localizes an error to a large block, often, the block begins with a double brace opening a template. Temporarily inserting a space in the double brace ({ {) and re-running LintHint will often localize the error more tightly. Don't forget to remove the space in the double brace after you've fixed the lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to have you edit the list, including adding strikethrough, marking errors done, removing some, or anything else that works for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating a Civil Aviation Authority

Hi,

We need to update the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority on this page - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_civil_aviation_authorities

It is no longer the Department of Civil Aviation, it is now called 'Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority' and the website is www.bcaa.bm

Thanks! OrangePapaya (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Done Sario528 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions

There is a discussion on right here regarding changing naming conventions. Thank you. 2601:183:101:58D0:AC27:AAD6:5E1A:9FDD (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages

I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the potential deletion of thousands of USAF/RAF pages. In 2013 a CCI investigation was started of User:Bwmoll3 here: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819 who created/contributed to over 5000 articles largely focussed on USAF bases and Squadrons and RAF Bases. Only a small number of these have been checked for copyvios to date. The CCI instructions state that: “If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.” I first became aware of this issue in April 2016 when Da Nang Air Base disappeared and I then had to completely recreate it. More recently Admin User:Buckshot06 has deleted Tuy Hoa Air Base and Nha Trang Air Base, when I asked for an explanation of this User talk:Buckshot06#Tuy Hoa Air Base advised that “My method is when I see a large article filled with generally obscure USAF facts, that I go to the history section and see how much it has been written by Bwmoll3. If it's 80%+ his work, all the text gets deleted- because it's almost certainly all copyvio from the books listed at the bottom.” So no copvio check is necessarily being carried out, rather entire pages are being “presumptively deleted” (User:Buckshot06’s description) based on the fact that User:Bwmoll3 wrote a substantial amount of the relevant page. I don’t believe that deletion of entire pages is what is intended by the CCI policy of removing a CCI violator’s edits indiscriminately and it is unclear if any account is taken of intervening edits that may have rendered the text not a copyvio, or that sufficient efforts are made to "avoid collateral damage". Given the vast size of the investigation I would like to see a more transparent and orderly process of tagging problematic pages so that interested editors can rewrite/source them rather than pages randomly disappearing. Your thoughts below please. Kind regards. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a "baby-bathwater" issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have very aggressive anti-copyvio policies (much like the ones about biographies of living people), and arguably rightly so, in this age of ever present risk of litigation. I'm not sure we can fault that admin for basically enforcing such policies. The blame for losing those articles ultimately lies with those users who fill Wikipedia with copyrighted material. They're not helping the project; they're harming it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I agree, we should delete copyright vios on sight, but we should also take the time to confirm that they are in fact copyright vios before deleting them. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is that this vast CCI has been ongoing for an awfully long time with very little being done to fix it - with CCI being the proper process to tag problematic pages "so that interested editors can rewrite/source them". Ultimately, given the industrial scale of the copyright problems posed by the original editor, then some sort of presumptive deletion is probably necessary where it isn't clear whether the there is a copyvio and it doesn't appear to have been copied from public domain sources (which many of the editor in question's articles were.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Apron vs. Ramp vs. Tarmac

Which term to use for the "aircraft parking" area at an aerodrome? As I understand it, "tarmac" is incorrect (because it indicates the material rather than the place), "ramp" is the common word in the USA, and "apron" is most common in UK English. However "apron" in this encyclopedia indicates only the garment, I think a disambiguation page needs to be added. Also, Tarmac (disambiguation) does mention the aviation connotation, but does not state it as incorrect as the Airport page does. Quid? Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At least in Canada those three terms are used interchangeably to indicate the main parking area on an airport, usually in front on the terminal building. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So you do not consider "tarmac" wrong in this meaning? Yet the Airport article does state so. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, at least within a Canadian usage, the Airport article is incorrect. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers, have you checked out Apron (disambiguation)? It already lists Airport apron. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, you countered all my remarks, and very fittingly too. Can only suppose I wasn't really awake when creating this paragraph. Sorry indeed! Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Breaking: B737 accident, Cuba

As luck would have it, I'm out this evening. Breaking news is that a B737 has crashed on take-off from an airport in Cuba (Tweet in Spanish). Initial indications are that it will be serious enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 is up and running. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent ground collision at Istanbul

Pinging Jetstreamer, 150.101.100.140, YSSYguy, Andrewgprout, WilliamJE, 47of74, 182.253.163.19, and 2601:584:c301:ca56:d88:8996:6073:f512, all of whom have edited the articles in question.

I'm seeing what can only be described as an edit war across the Asiana Airlines, Turkish Airlines and Istanbul Ataturk Airport articles. One editor in particular seems to have stepped over the WP:3RR line and should count themselves lucky I've not blocked them already.

As I see it WP:AIRCRASH is met for both airline articles and the airport article, because both aircraft sustained "serious damage". The incident does not warrant a stand-alone article, but it is notable enough to be mentioned in the articles on the airlines involved and the airport when the incident occurred. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it is not that noteworthy for inclusion in the airline articles as the aircraft are not that badly damages and tail/winglet collisions are becoming common. That said probably enough incidents for an article on tail/winglet and winglet/other objects collisions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An aircraft with its tailfin ripped off "not that badly damaged"? Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope doesnt appear so, it all depends on if the fuselage was damaged the tail can just be bolted back on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Badly damaged does not mead written off. I'd say wait. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWS, and temporal coverage does not mean notability.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think that such an incident as this has no real lasting effect or interest on the airlines or the airport unless there is some continuing story involved with it, will someone (and I'm not talking airline geek here) in 10 years consider this incident important enough to include?, probably not in my view. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Singapore Airlines destinations, over whether or not Kong Kong is a country. YSSYguy (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

New aircraft article

All--I managed to snap a photo and started an article about the Alder & Derryberry A. I admit my research in this area is limited, so I was hoping the team here could take it and run with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:1985 Teterboro collision

Another editor started Draft:1985 Teterboro collision and I expanded it a bit. Could someone take a look at it any make any improvements that are needed? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done some work on it. DonFB (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Aerospaceweb

Is aerospaceweb.org a reliable source? The individual contributors are all "engineers or scientists within the aerospace industry" and their careers are summarised. Do we need to know whether they submit their material to each other for peer review, or can we take it to be as much a reliable source as any other publication? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It was interesting that the professional qualifications of some of them dont directly align with the subjects, the articles are well sourced but it appears to be a wiki type site with known authors collecting the information and presenting it. Possibly better to use the original sources if you can. MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Especially on contentious topics, I guess. Thanks. Trouble is, they don't tend to cite their sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cyclogyro

Eyes on cyclogyro would be appreciated. Six years ago an IP warrior fought to keep it a mess, outlasting page semi-protection, see the talk page. After another brief flurry with the present IP address last year and a recent cleanup of mine, they appear to be back as vehement as ever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for watching out. To me, myself and I, it seems the subject is so obscure that we cannot really be bothered. If you really want to have it right, there are not many options except blocking the article and/or blocking the IP. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The alternative to being a cyclogyro botherer is to put it up for AfD or for merge with the more general cyclorotor article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough a subject to stand on its own, but it needs to stick to what can be referenced and avoid the sort of fancruft that was accumulating before you cleaned it up. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this, it was a mess of fan stuff stuff without many refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Would the article benefit from long-term semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that might help. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the IP blocked, if it proves necessary. Checkout the edit history of 84.94.90.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it has been static for a while. Other IPs have made valid contributions and it is unfair to force them out. My guess is that the earlier IP warrior was this same person who has since moved location. We can tolerate a moderate amount of this as long as they take a long break between bouts of stupidity (defined by some as repeating the same action over and over in the expectation that next time will be better). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Auric Air

Could someone take a critical survey of Auric Air, please? Most recent additions are by one single person, who seems to be closely involved with the company to say the least. I believe in good intentions, still some phrases balance on a thin line. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:AIS Airlines

Hello, I would like some people's opinion about a discussion at Talk:AIS Airlines relating to AIS Airlines and their flight academy aircraft. I have also posted at WP:Airlines but that seems less active. Thanks. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has the space for it in their watchlist I would like to get some eyes on the talk page due to repeated vandalism of my comment if possible. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Using a bot?

Hello, though not a member of this WikiProject I have an idea related to its scope. There are around 300 inductees into the International Aerospace Hall of Fame, many of whom do not have that information present on their pages. Would it be practicable (and is there consensus) to implement a bot to scan through these pages, check if the information is there, and if not add it? My chief source is: Sprekelmeyer, Linda, editor. These We Honor: The International Aerospace Hall of Fame. Donning Co. Publishers, 2006. ISBN 978-1578643974.

Thanks,

Washoe the Wise (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It might be safer to do it by hand. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

TechHaus Volantis

TechHaus Volantis is the only Artpop-related article in a proposed Good topic about the album, apart from the parent article itself. In other words, this series of Good articles is close to reaching Good topic status, but this aircraft article is a bit outside the Lady Gaga realm. WikiProject Lady Gaga members could use some help from WikiProject Aviation / WikiProject Aircraft members, if any editors are particularly interested in expanding and improving this article, with the ultimate goal of achieving Good article status. Or, if anyone has feedback or suggestions for further improvement, all recommendations are welcome on the talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have managed to round it out a bit more now, though reliable sources are scarce and I do not think that much more can be said. Would anybody be able to reassess its status? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Jet engine merge proposal

Hi, there is a proposal here to merge Airbreathing jet engine into Jet engine. The discussion is getting a bit bogged down, so more votes would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion could do with closing now, by an uninvolved editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FAR listing for Werner Mölders

I have nominated Werner Mölders for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Aviation Halls of Fame

Recently I have seen several biographies adding people to the "Aviation Hall of Fame" (sic), which now redirects to the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in San Diego, ca. Some questions:

Recensore256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone wild adding it to aviator biographies. Should they be stopped ASAP while we discuss this?
Is the honour significant enough to include in biographies and other inductee pages?
There are shedloads of special interest Aviation Halls of Fame. Should Aviation Hall of Fame be made a disambig page or similar?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) [updated 13:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)]

Aviation Hall of Fame should definitely be a disambiguation page. There are many aviation halls of fame that we have articles on, including: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(response to #1) I think Recensore256 (talk · contribs) should probably get/have gotten some consensus before making a large amount of changes like this however seeing that they are a new editor they might not have known any better, it seems to me like a good idea asking why they made these specific edits to get their point of view. Pinging @Recensore256: May I kindly ask why you made these additions?. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hello Steelpillow (talk · contribs), Ahunt (talk · contribs), and Redalert2fan (talk · contribs) -- my apologies for causing any confusion. I volunteer at the Air & Space Museum (which contains the Hall) and, as an editor over at Washoe the Wise (talk · contribs), the poor quality of Wikipedia's coverage dismayed me. After a few edits I planned to use a bot to rapidly connect the inductees (see above), but when advised to do it manually I created an alternate account to avoid seriously compromising the other's focus. I only thought to ask about consensus when considering the bot, as I was following Wikipedia's help pages for creating one -- an oversight for which I apologize; I assumed the lack of information on many of the inductees' pages was the product of neglect. I did not create the mentioned redirect, which seems a definite error given Aviation Hall of Fame much more closely resembles the National Aviation Hall of Fame than the International Air & Space Hall of Fame. My impulsive response to the question of significance is that it depends on the inductee; for the Wright brothers the induction may not constitute a significant development, but for John and Martha King it likely does. By the way, I'll probably continue using this account for aviation-related edits (Draft:Frederick H. Rohr), and I also hope to ultimately clear the International Air & Space Hall of Fame page of its templates, with which I would dearly appreciate assistance. Thanks, Recensore256 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for replying so fully and openly. first, I think it will help you if I outline some important matters of Wikipedia etiquette, which need to be observed to avoid the wrath of the Gods:

Creating alternative accounts without explaining them is deemed sockpuppetry and usually earns an instant and permanent ban. You have explained your usage to us, which really saves you, hooray, But you do need to explain on each of your associated user pages which accounts you have created and why.
The fact that you are attached to one particular Air and Space Museum, among so many, creates a conflict of interest between the good of the Museum and the good of Wikipedia. It is strongly advised that in this situation you edit with caution, as perceived editing from your point of view (even if that is not the case) is likely to earn similar sanctions.
Since you have been editing for over eighteen months, you might be expected to know most of this already. The question must arise as to why you need reminding. Also, the fact that you abandoned you bot idea due to a lack of consensus must raise the question as to whether you chose the manual route in order to try and evade the need for such consensus. Another reason to tread with caution.

Right, with that out of the way, let's look at the content issues. Yes, you do need to ensure consensus for such a wide-ranging set of edits. Your "impulse" that it is significant for some inductees but not others is probably correct, but it needs substantiating from reliable sources or it risks being summarily deleted by editors who disagree. Also, your adding of it to articles on iconic figure such as Alexander Lippisch rather undermines your explanation. Consistency is important here, or your words will be mistrusted.

All in all, I most strongly advise you to hold off any further edits on this topic until this discussion, or another, has reached a consensus on the way ahead, and even then to proceed with caution and due regard to discussing an edit before you make it rather than afterwards. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for not calling down the wrath of the Gods upon me, and in the following I address your concerns. I am eager to resume editing (I'm gathering research for a revision of Non-scheduled airline), so I hope this can be resolved without too much difficulty.

Done, although my usage does not strictly align with the predefined valid cases. It may be simpler to abandon the alternate if it will cause problems.
The undertaking has been independent, but I accept the presence of a COI when editing information about the Hall.
The consensus requested was for implementing a bot to perform a job I assumed was uncontentious; Ahunt (talk · contribs)'s response reflects this (the bot would require some finicky logic to identify a suitable place to insert the line, for example, making it safer to do by hand) and gave me no cause to consider that the inductees should not have the information added to their pages. It was only after you questioned the significance of the honor that I reassessed the issue, hence the apparent inconsistency (and the use of 'impulsively'). I'm happy to discuss in further depth which articles should be linked, as I was not aware there existed a 'shedload' of Aviation Halls clamoring for undue recognition. Finally, I have not familiarized myself with Wikipedia's code of conduct; the 'eighteen months' is perhaps better represented as the drafting of three insular articles amid random spurts of copyediting -- I fully accept the charge of negligence in this matter, but not purposeful malevolence.

I appreciate your taking the time to clarify the situation, and am willing to take whichever next steps are deemed necessary to resume normal activity. Thanks, Recensore256 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think your replies have cleared the air nicely. Your description of using different accounts for different activities is a fairly typical one, you don't need to worry about that. And there is no restriction on your editing topics which are unrelated to your Hall of Fame connection. On the matter of significance, I think that is best dealt with in a sub-thread, which I am therefore opening below. You are welcome to contribute to it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Significance of Hall of Fame inductions

There are many Aviation Halls of Fame: most US states have one, the US also has a national and an International one, Canada and Australia have them, special interest groups such as sport aviation and women have them, there are plenty of others, see for example Category:Aviation halls of fame. Some halls induce other entities, such as the Skunk Works, as well as aviators. Which if any of these should be mentioned in the article about the inductee? Options seem to be:

Add every verified induction to every inductee article, possibly as a collapsible navbox.
Include only certain high-profile or approved Halls of Fame, or where it is significant to the inductee, or other criteria to be agreed.
Make no mention of any, partly in order to avoid the "mine is as important as yours" type issues.

Comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Another option is a "List of inductees into the Foo aviation Hall of Fame", with all entries having a verifiable reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are so many of these halls of fame, that I am starting to come around to the idea that being named to any of them may not be that notable. Basically "insignificance through dilution". - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of their pages here already have lists of inductees. To me that's a bit like listing all the exhibits in a museum, it's not what Wikipedia is for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If a hall of fame anywhere has its own WP article because this community deemed the hall notable, then a list of its inductees within the article seems quite appropriate. If an aviation person is sufficiently notable to have a WP article, it seems fair to include within that article the names of the halls in which he/she was inducted, even if a given hall does not have a WP article, but is a legitimate organization. The recent action by Recensore256 did appear somewhat spammy due to the mass additions, but taken individually, each mention in an article looks appropriate and not particularly promotional. With respect, Ahunt's comment that being named to a hall "may not be that notable" is not a correct use of the Notability concept, which applies to an article topic, not a specific piece of information within it. DonFB (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record I was speaking of "notability" (small "n") in the general English use of the word, not WP:N, which obviously applies to article subjects. To be more clear: with dozens of various aviation halls of fame in existence, it may not be worth mentioning that aviator "X" was named to a long list of halls in the bio for aviator "X". I have no objection to an article on any given hall to list its inductees. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, small n. I don't know if any WP article on an aviator is overflowing with hall of fame names. I suppose if some editor scoured the web and stuffed such articles with seemingly insignificant mentions, it might be a problem, but I'm not aware that's been happening. One way to handle the issue—if it is an issue—would be a summary statement, like "X has been inducted into aviation halls of fame in a majority of U.S. states and more than a dozen foreign countries." Encyclopedically speaking, especially for one that is not paper, I see no harm in specifying all the actual names; if we ever face such a dilemma, a collapsed text box is a good suggestion for keeping such material from being obtrusive. DonFB (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the scepticism(sp?). If there were anything official and/or measurable/quantifyable about them, they could have some encyclopedical value, but none of that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Martha McSally

There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Congo Airways to Moanda

I added a paragraph to the (hitherto empty) talk page of Congo Airways; comments and actions welcome. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Aerospace Industries Association has recently put its archives online.

I thought this WikiProject would be interested to know that, in preparation for its hundredth anniversary, the Aerospace Industries Association has been digitizing its archives and placing them online. Particularly notable as potential sources are the Aircraft Year Books, published annually starting in 1919. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, many thanks for the tipoff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of Non-scheduled airline

I refer interested editors to the talk page of Non-scheduled airline, where I've added a section regarding a planned expansion of the article. I would appreciate any input on the upcoming revision. Thanks for your help, Recensore256 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

Are aero engineers scientists?

Another editor is insisting that J. W. Dunne was a scientist because he was an aeronautical engineer, and is adding Category:Wikipedia categories named after scientists to Category:J. W. Dunne. I have been engaging in discussion at user talk:Dimadick#J W Dunne but we cannot agree. Contributions on their talk page would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Engineering and science are related but different. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the article, I think Mr. Dunne is hailed as a scientist for his activities after his aeronautics carreer, when he actually did some limited research, and published on it. Those activities might be considered pseudo-science or worse by some but that is not the point. I can never see a claim "was a scientist because he was an aeronautical engineer". That said, I never saw any reason for the existence of these "categories" - in my opinion they might be altogether removed, for lack of relevance. But that also is outside the present discussion... Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify accepted usage. His later career was as a fly fisherman and as a philosopher specialising in parapsychology. None of those is a scientific discipline, however scientifically one tries to go about them. We don't treat any other proponents of these fields as scientists, we cannot treat Dunne differently just because some editor feels like it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Qatar Airways fleet

I have been making an article as Qatar Airways fleet but Jetstreamer and Mjroots keep deleting it. They want to cause problems over it, and if I could, I would request them to lose adminship. I would like this to end, or else I will email the Wikimedia Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.111.2 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts! It is a pity we cannot see what you published. The right way to proceed is to create the article in your own sandbox, then invite some comments. If these are sufficiently positive you can then - and only then - publish in the main space. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As an anonymous "IP" editor you may find it difficult to create a stable sandbox for yourself. You can create a user account very easily and your new user page will have a link at the top to create your sandbox. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just blocked this IP for a while as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bro Dude51. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing of 5th freedom flights

There's a discussion at Talk:Freedoms of the air#Remove list of 5th freedom flights that I would like other editors to join, as right now it's just me (opposed to adding a list) vs. the editor who started the list. It would be nice to have other opinions. AHeneen (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I could use a few opinions

Disussion is at: Talk:List of missing aircraft#Scope of this article Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States

I have started a discussion about the naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States, specifically about whether or not to include the name of the state, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States. As this proposal includes articles related to incidents relevant to this WikiProject, your comments are invited. Please comment there rather than here to discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

G'day all, a RfC has been started on the Milhist talk page regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, a daily broadcast about the activities of the Wehrmacht during WWII. Your input would be welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Could use some extra eyes on the "Skylab mutiny" page. Thanks - wolf 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Patterson & Francis Aviation Company

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterson & Francis Aviation Company. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations lists in airport articles

Inputs would be extremelly appreciated at a discussion taking place at Talk:Sofia_Airport#Moving_forward,_part_II. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Was the airplane in Japan Air Lines Flight 123 a Boeing 747SR-46 , a Boeing 747SR-100, or both?

This isn't really a Wikipedia content issue at all, but a curious question about the aircraft type. It might be more of a reference desk thing, but I thought to ask it here anyway.

I read page 234 from Dealing with Disaster in Japan by Christopher P. Hood. It's not a reliable source in terms of science (Hood is a lecturer of Japanese studies) and I'm not advocating that any portion of his book making statements or critiques about the technical investigation be even considered for inclusion on Wikipedia. However I'm a bit confused about the statement: "a The AAIC report (197b:6) incorrectly identifies the plane as being a 747SR-100."

The Wikipedia article does describe the aircraft as being a "Boeing 747SR-46". However when I read the section about the Boeing 747SR, it only mentions the "SR-100" and "SR-1XX" types. I'm wondering if it was both an SR-100 and a SR- at the same time?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not my specialism, but ISTR that Boeing have a two-digit code for each of their customers. It sounds plausible that 46 could be their code for JAL, in which case their designation would have been B747SR146. If they sold an identical B747-100 to an airline coded "29" by them, it would be a B747SR129. There are websites specialising in this kind of subject, search the www for "airlines" "fleet" and such. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{ec) The aircraft in question was an SR-46 according to Peter M Bowers' Boeing Aircraft since 1916 (1989), with the -46 being a customer specific model number of the SR, 7 of which were built for JAL, which was based on the 747-100 (which explains the "SR-100" designation). JAL also purchased three SR-146Bs, with the differences between the two types unclear, and four SR-346, based on the 747-300 with the extended upper deck.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And see List of Boeing customer codes. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you were too quick for me, @BilCat. I had a suspicion such an article might well exist, and was on my way to finding it... :) Cheers! Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! "46" is indeed Japan Airlines's customer code. Aviation Safety Network identifies JA8119 as a "Boeing 747SR-46" So it is indeed both an "SR-100" and an "SR-46" at the same time WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really, if I understand things right. "SR-46" is not correct in my interpretation, so it might be our article mentioning that could do with a little update. In fact I understand that any recent Boeing airliner designation ends in a group of 3 digits, the final two indicating the original customer. There is a long tradition of (slight) errors being copied from one "authority" to the next, until they become canonical. But, again, this is not my specialism. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I see! In that case, the error would be at the Aviation Safety Network and in Hood's book, while the Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission report would be correct. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The first digit is for the variant and the last two digits are the customer's code, such as 747-146, a -100 for Japan Aurlines. This is complicated by the SR and other specialty version designations. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The correction designation for the aircraft involved is a "Boeing 747SR-46" or without the customer code a "Boeing 747SR". It is based on the 100 series but like the 747SP they only add the customer number, refer to the Boeing 747 TCDS. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I suppose you are right, guys, mind you I always said this is not really my cup of tea. Still I cannot but be annoyed at the confusion some people and some companies - especially from the US - love to spread. The opening question has been duly answered, though, and that should be our main concern. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to get further information I wanted to see if I can find the TCDS for the Boeing 747. Is this document it? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a Type Certificate, but as its the European one, probably not the appropriate one for the -SR, which was only operated in Japan - an initial scan doesn't seem to mention the SR. This may the appropriate FAA TCDS, which does mention the SR.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The EASA doesn't seem to mention the SR...

As for the US document it mentions on page 6: "Model Eligible Serial Numbers 747SR -46 20781- 20784, 20923, 21032, 21033" and "747SR-81 21604- 21606, 21922- 21925, 22291- 22294, 22594, 22595, 22709- 2271"

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I should have linked the FAA TCDS when I first mentioned it, the aircraft is "20783". MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Version 2 EAD Airframe

Please see Version 2 EAD Airframe. It is my first aircraft start and I am not sure how to do the infobox properly. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A good effort! I miss the "Specifications" section that aircraft articles usually have - but in this case it would be a bit queer. I think we should ideally have a separate article about ion propulsion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A great start, congratulations. I was about to change "airplane" to "aircraft" but then I spotted this extract from Popular Mechanics (August 1964): beaten by a bladeless helicopter over half a century ago! I don't have time right now to do the infobox, so hopefully someone else can pick that up. Meanwhile, if you copy-paste a suitable example and adapt it as best you can, someone can come along and tidy it up later. Was how I learned them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Air Kasai fleet

Could someone more knowledgeable than myself take a look at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Air_Kasa%C3%AF&curid=2341895&diff=870217008&oldid=865052900 ? It looks suspectly unlikely, might well be a kind of vandalism. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

For lack of any reaction I reverted it myself, hope I did well. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. There is no place for Chinese text here, unless it has both context and translation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of List of Fifth Freedom Flights

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fifth Freedom Flights. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Piasecki Aircraft revert war

May I gently query for a bit of support at Piasecki Aircraft - one single IP user seems set on disrupting the bare sad facts. Or I should have missed something, perhaps, of course. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow! First time I ever weighed in on the side of an IP warrior! Claims of inactivity need verifying just as much as any other claims do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

JP233

Just removed the addition of weapons to the Category:Panavia Tornado as it is something we dont do, bit of resistance at the JP233 article on the grounds that it is only carried by the Tornado. I cant see why this would be an exception and have commented on the talk page. As a sanity check any thoughts from the project on why or why not JP233 should be an exception, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

New weather symbols template

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#Station model symbols template.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Pobeda destinations: country flags?

Don't I remember we agreed to have no flag symbols in aviation-related articles? Yet there they are: List of Pobeda destinations If I remember right, what is the correct way to remove them? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember that as well. As far as removing them, replace the {{Flag|Country}} with [[Country]] would be best, I think. Sario528 (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Flags are not supposed to be in Infoboxes and main sections of articles, though use in the Operators section has been considered acceptable. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The flags must be removed according to WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to all for support. I did a fair deal, a painful manual task. Why cannot I use sed or such for such a mundane task? Would be nice if someone would do the remainder, I think only Russia remains to be done. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a feature to replace text. First you press Ctrl-F, then you put the flag template's wikicode in the "find field", and the link you want to replace it with in the "replace" field, and click "Replace All". I only know that this works in source editor. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Just did the remainder using that technique, it took less than a minute. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Also an editor may need to select/activate the Advanced toolbar above the edit screen for searching & replacing. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Country Flags for Airline Alliance Tables

I have had a disagreement with another user regarding country flags in the airline and airport tables on the Oneworld page. The disagreement regards this policy W:MOSFLAG. He claims "Airlines do not represent or belong to countries". Yet since airlines do fly their national flag on the body of the aircraft, I believe it is acceptable under appropriate use. This also is only a problem on the Oneworld page, and has not been an issue regarding SkyTeam or Star Alliance which leads to discrepancies between the pages. Therefore, I wanted to bring this issue to the Wikiproject page to see if we can find a consensus. --Ncchild (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For notes on the particular application of flags to aviation articles, see WP:AVISTYLES. Especially, "Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?" Usually I dislike the use of flags, however due to the nation-to-nation nature of the flights used by oneworld customers, I think there is a good case for using them there. While technically most "Airlines do not represent or belong to countries", some effectively do and an airline's hubs are invariably in its country of registration. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Many aviation articles tend to ignore (or severly bend) MOS and other documented advice - the fact that other artcles have a different result is not a valid arguement nor is the argument for consistency - there is no overarching policy for consistency in Wikipedia - in reality exactly the opposite is encouraged.

WP:MOSFLAG says"Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative." and "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. In my view adding the flags are extremely distracting and add almost nothing to the content of the article except clutter.

The link between airline and country is not as clear as is being made out above the concept of flag carrier is a very 1960s concept - this is particularly true in Europe and Australiasia where open sky agreements and liberal ownership rules mean airlines based in one country operate as local airlines in another. This article is about an airline alliance it has nothing or very little to do with the countires particular airlines are based and are or owned. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

While those are valid points, I would claim that the icons actually do serve an encyclopedic purpose and are not merely decorative as you suggest. A hypothetical reader, who is learning about the alliance for the first time, may not know a lot about airlines. Yet the flags give them some context as they help to point out that British Airways is a UK based airline, Qantas is an Australia based airline etc.

At the same time, while I see your point revolving around the link not being clear, airlines still are registered and by-in-large operate only out of their home country. The main exceptions to this rule are airlines such as Ryanair and EasyJet which operate across Europe, yet neither are members of any airline alliance. In terms of Oneworld, the only airline that could be called into question would be LATAM. Yet LATAM as a holding group is based in Chile, and through its affiliates, operate flights across South America. Yet those affiliates such as LATAM Brasil are registered and solely operate out of their home country. All other airlines within Oneworld operate solely out of the country in which they are registered in. American Airlines operates flights solely within and to/from the United States, Iberia operates flights within and to/from Spain, etc. At the same time, as I said earlier, these airlines wear the flag of their home country, which in the case of LATAM Brasil, can be seen in front of the front doorway. Therefore, I don't really think your third point is valid in regards to Oneworld, or chiefly to the airline alliances in general as I'm not sure if there are exceptions to that rule (Air France and KLM are separate members, Lufthansa uses its affiliates in STAR etc.) --Ncchild (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

To me - but that's just me, of course - the flags are indeed decorum and nothing more. On the one hand they add no value to an airline called "Royal Jordanian" or "British Airways"; on the other side none can be set for LATAM which is supranational. I see no reason to deviate from our general principle to not use country flags. I also reject the argument "airlines do fly their national flag on the body of the aircraft": some do, others don't. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The arguements above basically sum up what I was going to say. Flags do not help the reader gain an understanding of the topic and to say they do is a stretch. The average person knows very few flags, and unless you recognize the flag beside the airline, it's purely decoration and is not helping the reader understand the topic. Garretka (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by OrbitalEnd48401

Can someone please take a close look at the recent edits made by OrbitalEnd48401 (talk · contribs)? They keep modifiying the summary field of infoboxes in accident articles at their will, without following the sources in the article or directly falling into original research. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Old it right there. Firstly buddy the research I commit I.e final reports come from the ASN which replies on the final report and cannot be edited because the website is the main database so stop with that rubbish seriously. I don’t go into some untrusted website unless the information is legit. I do my research by lookibg at other databases as well. Plus the fact that my father is an aerospace engineer so he also assists me in these edits. Just stop trying to make me look bad. And I don’t fully rely on websites, I look at what’s already included in the investigation section on wikipeida? To say I’m making worthless silly edits? Well done

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to this place, OrbitalEnd48401, and thanks for your efforts. That said, allow me to suggest you should take better care of your writing - I see plenty of typos, missing punctuation, and what not. Do not forget we are writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. And of course one can commit errors, now and then, but one can also correct them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: could you perhaps point to an example of edits of hers/his that you consider inappropriate? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401 has mentioned source(s) in some edit summaries but not added citations directly in the articles that I can tell from recent edits, such as [1], [2]. Not putting sources in the article with text changes makes Verification very difficult. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Here's one of them [3].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  - And another one [4]. Pilot error is completely different from an untrained minor at the controls, mostly considering this change was in the infobox of one of the most notable accidents in the 1990s decade.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you seriously have a problem with me? I do my reserch buddy I'm not sure if you read over 20 pages in final reports but I assure you I do that. You honestly think I'm messing around being here?? Im sorry if this is a breakthrough to you but I have autism so I do admit that I struggle with understanding things in genral OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No one said what you have added is all wrong or anything. Per Wikipedia polices, sources need to be added with the text to support it so other people can Verify that the text is correct per the source(s). Trying to check old edit summaries is very difficult or does not work. WP:Plain and simple may help explain how this works better. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is becoming disruptive [5] and we should consider WP:COMPETENCE here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You really don’t understand me do you. Like I said my disability affects the way I make edits, If it’s that much of a problem to you at least talk to me nicely as I feel like I’m being ganged up upon mainly by you.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And to clarify about me referencing I suck at it plain and simple, I’ve tried but to no avail. So I include the links instead, it’s better then nothing. Bur like I said I’m fairly new here so I am getting used to all the polices. If possible could my profile note my disability, if I need any proof of my disability please message me directly.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note this [6]. The user removed my last warning from their talk page but they cannot prevent from it being posted here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401, editing Wikipedia seems to be a source of frustration to you, and this attitude of yours ("stop with that rubbish", "Do you seriously have a problem with me?" etc.) is only likely to make things worse. I don't want to sound rude, but have you explored alternative ways of employing your time other than online collaborative writing? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not therapy and ultimately it doesn't need you (it doesn't need me either, of course). --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

OE48401 is free to remove warnings from his talk page. The significance of doing so has been explained to him. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The quantity and quality of the user's recent edits really makes me wonder about WP:COMPETENCE issues.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jetstreamer, Please see Aeroperú Flight 603. - Samf4u (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Also agree Andrewgprout (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll start a thread at WP:ANI regarding this user over WP:COMPETENCE issues. They are clearly becoming disruptive.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead! Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Erich Hartmann, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke RFC

Hello,

The above article has been listed for an Request For Comment. There is a pending question upon Boelcke's legacy. All interested editors are invited to join in at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Oswald_Boelcke#Request_for_comment:_Boelcke's_legacy Georgejdorner (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion notification

A proposal has been made to merge Aerodyne Jumbe, Aerodyne Shaman, Aerodyne Totem Bi, Aerodyne Yogi into Aerodyne Technologies. Interested editors may participate in the discussion at discussion at Talk:Aerodyne Technologies. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Constant torque on take-off

Hello! In the course of weeding through Category:Orphaned articles, I came across Constant torque on take-off and couldn't figure out what to do with it. I was hoping someone here could help point me in the right direction. First, is it notable enough to require its own article, or could it be merged somewhere? If it is notable, where could I link to it to de-orphan it? I'm happy to do any necessary legwork, I just need to be pointed the right way. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not at all clear what on earth that is about, I have never heard of it. No refs. No way to check or expand. I think it should just be WP:PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like some proprietary feature of certain engine control systems. I'd agree with a prod for both it and the redirect to it at Constant Torque On Take-off (capitalised). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ya'll work fast! Thanks very much :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We do our best to be prompt here! - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This CTOT thing appears to be a feature of the General Electric CT7 turboshaft engine equipping the Saab 340 and other types, as it transpires from these AAIB and NTSB documents: [7] [8]. There is an unofficial description of the system here. Perhaps we should merge the current CTOT article into the GE CT7 one? --Deeday-UK (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to merge, by all means I'm happy to have that rather than deletion. But I'd rather not attempt to do it myself since I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If there were any references, a merge could be considered, in fact I would be favourable. There are none, however. So down the drain let it go. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections to deleting the article, mainly because of its limited encyclopaedic relevance. In the world of aircraft there are countless design features that are given a name and an acronym (Constant Torque On Take-off, Automatic Power Reserve and Automatic Flight Idle Stop only for this particular engine, but there are countless more, such as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System recently involved in the crash of Lion Air Flight 610), and I'm not sure an encyclopaedia should be that granular; that stuff belongs more to operating manuals. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The PROD has now expired and the article deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ionocraft move discussion

Comments welcome at Talk:Ionocraft#Move suggestion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon procurement

Would very much appreciate more eyes/hands at Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. Following an AfD decision to keep the article I started deleting minor entries, such as failed bids, but others are now adding them back in, especially Canada, Malaysia and Greece. Should they stay or should the go? Any replies, please post to thread at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Alignment of dates in aviation accidents and incidents navboxes

Please see for yourself and discuss at Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents#Alignment of dates. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment (Helmut Wick)

Helmut Wick, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Collaborator offer

I am currently engaged in researching aviation hijacking incidents. Although I have neither the time nor desire to create the Wikipedia articles, I am perfectly willing to share the source documents I gather with someone who is interested. I currently have coverage of over 800 incidents from 1931 to 1981 (work in progress). Source documents include both government and public data. Images of newspaper articles. Lots of translations of foreign documents, most including links to source. Includes some incidents not covered in ASN like private charter, general aviation, and helicopter hijacks. Almost everything is in .pdf format, and files on incidents since 1960 or so have filenames formatted "YEAR MO DA Airline additional info.pdf" (example "1980 01 25 Delta Hijack Ingram CSM 012848.pdf" or "1979 10 16 Libyan Hijack DoS Cable 4 names and weapons.pdf") Not sure if it is OK to post an email address to this page, or how to establish contact. I'm hoping anyone interested can offer guidance on how to do that within the proper Wikipedia etiquette. Appleidiot (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Empennage?

There has been a discussion on whether to rename the empennage article. It seems to have stalled lately, with a slight consensus for change but none as to what that change might be. Any further contributions may be made at Talk:Empennage#Suggested_move. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rotax 915 iS : update request

The article Rotax 915 iS still reflects the 2017 situation, and much has happened since. An update seems in order - thanks in advance! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What needs to be added? - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

At least the phrase "Availability was expected for second half of 2017" is out of date - either certification has been achieved, or is still being aimed for but then in 2019, at the earliest, or is no longer being sought at all. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Nothing but a double helping are your answers" as it reads in JRRT's Lord of the Rings :) Many thanks! Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad that you think that is an improvement! Please do bring up any articles that you think need updating and that you can't do on your own. Collaboration works. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Delisting of article

G'day all, Helmut Wick has just been delisted as A-Class at Milhist, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmut Wick. You might want to check it against your own A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Landing Zones 1 and 2

FYI, this Florida spaceport article is proposed to be renamed and conflated with the California site (LZ-4). You might be interested in the discussion at talk:Landing Zones 1 and 2. As the landing sites are subject to NOTAMs, you might be interested in the discussion. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Defunct airlines AFDs

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Area control center#Requested move 2 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

35 articles

Hello!

I have recently reviewed 35 articles submitted by the same user, mostly stubs, regarding aircraft. I have tagged them as stubs. I do not know whether they all meet notability guidelines so I am leaving a message here to notify members in case anyone wants to take a second look. The list can be found at Special:Diff/885808590.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Garand Kalan Indian Air Force Mi-17 crash

Is 2019 Garand Kalan Indian Air Force Mi-17 crash really notable for a stand alone article? MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not by our normal standards, also WP:RECENTISM. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have given it a prod bit due to the location and high emotions on anything remotely connected with recent events I suspect it might need to go to AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I seconded it. I guess we will see. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer to move text to the aircraft article and tag with {{importance inline}} there. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category split?

Is it time that Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 was split similar to the articles on the Boeing 737 (737 Original, 737 Classic, 737 Next Gen, 737 MAX)? Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to split along article lines with so many accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done - I've left the list in the original category, rather than add the four new ones. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR Notice: Hans Philipp

Hans Philipp, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently fully protected because of POV pushing an edit warring. The fight continues in the form of edit requests on the talk page. I am completely ignorant about anything having to do with the military of Pakistan and India other than hoping that they don't nuke each other, so I would really appreciate it if someone else would look at the page and evaluate the edit requests. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the edit requests need consensus before they can be done, I have tried to propose a neutral set of words but it is being drowned out by edit requests. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Planespotters as reliable source

Hello, I invite discussion if Planespotters should be taken as a reliable source for aircraft details of an airline. I have been using this website for research purposes (non Wikipedia) and find the data very credible. However, I keep on hearing contradicting views on Wikipedia; hence this topic. Best to my knowledge, the data is not user editable and is collected from independent sources. Comments invited please. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, planespotters is not a reliable source, apart from stating that a certain airliner wore a certain livery (e.g. a special occasion livery). Aircraft history can and should be sourcable from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's more input regarding this at WT:AIRLINE [9].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mjroots & Jetstreamer, I checked the archive and can see that few times it has been mentioned that Planespotters is not reliable but no reason has been given. I checked the Planespotters source and it sounds pretty reliable (ex FAA, CAA (UK), DGCA (several countries), Transport Canada etc). In almost all the discussions, I noticed only few users have repeatedly stated that the site is not reliable; but no concrete reason given. Kindly help me understand where on Wikipedia was it established that Planespotters is not reliable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It is explained at the WT:AIRLINE link provided above. See WP:SELFPUBLISH for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically SELPUBLISH applies. If planespotters are using such sources as FAA etc, then it shouldn't be hard to go to those sources and get the info from them. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the Planespotters Terms of Use make it clear that its content is sourced and self-published by individual users. Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources is that they are "largely not acceptable as sources". Therefore, we regard planespotters as largely not acceptable as a source. Is that clear enough for you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello All, few things;

Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources comes into effect when someone is writing about himself / herself. Quote "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Unquote. Planespotters, like any other source (like The New York Times) publishes about third parties (in this case aircraft and airline) after referring to reliable sources (I quoted above). They do not write / make claims about themselves and hence the question of SPS does not come. Moreover, if we have to term it as "self-published sources", then ALL articles on Wikipedia cannot take reference from anywhere since everything has been "self-published" by someone or some company.
Terms of use, does NOT use the word "self-published" or "self" even once. Site clearly states that and I quote, "After signing up for a free membership account, members can upload and share their own aircraft photos on the website" Unquote. Please note, members are permitted to contribute only the aircraft photos and can make suggestions (corrections) in case an error is noticed. That does not mean that users are actually contributing to or making direct edits to the site.

Neither of the two points mentioned justifies Planespotters being classified as a "self-published" source. Kindly consider since the data is very reliable and is credible. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's because you took one quote as being the entire content on self-publishing in your first point (it wasn't), and only focused on finding the word "self" in your second point. You're also taking the term "self-publish" very literally and to an absurd degree, and ignoring what the guidelines actually say on the topic. You asked a good question, but totally ignored the answers, apparently because they weren't what you wanted to hear. I briefly read the guidelines and the TOS, and came to the same conclusion as everyone else here, that Planespotters is not acceptable as a reliable source. You're obviously a fairly intelligent person, so try reading them again more slowly carefully for full comprehension. I think you'll realize that your initial conclusion is mistaken. - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

BilCat is right. The data is NOT reliable and is NOT wholly credible, no matter how many times you claim that it is. You have not approached the documents in the round and understood their intent but have instead just been picking and choosing words to try and get your own way. One trusts that in your heart you are better than that. Learn from BilCat. Your abilities would be better employed improving other aspects of our encyclopedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow says "Specifically, the Planespotters Terms of Use make it clear that its content is sourced and self-published by individual users." This is UNTRUE. Those terms refer solely to photographs and their text, not to the database. Wrong statements don't help to dismiss the source's credibility. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that some of the sources of information listed under "Unofficial" includes some that would not be acceptable here if used directly. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

On several occasions I have looked up an airline's information at Planespotters, CH-Aviation and Airfleets and found three different sets of numbers. Which is correct? Is any of them correct? Who knows? YSSYguy (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger of Template:Aerospecs and Template:Aircraft specifications with Template:Aircraft specs

Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 14:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

These have been a perpetual nightmare. Further comments would be much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [Updated 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)]

Single-purpose editor for Bangladesh?

It looks like User:STRATOHORCE edits Wikipedia solely for the purpose of adding/promoting Bangladesh where ever possible in aviation articles. While that on its own is not direct against Wikipedia rules I would still like to notify this project about it. Several edits have been reverted already because they were incorrect, against article conventions or otherwise not good. --mfb (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System

It seems to me that Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System would be best merged into Boeing 737 MAX#Design. Thoughts? Should the content just be boldly transferred (leaving a redirect and cleaning up incoming links, of course), or does this need an AfD? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just make a bold merge and redirect. This whole topic needs a massive cleanup. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Only if you assume that MCAS is not installed on another model. It is possible (but not now known to me) if it is installed on the new 777. Ins't this conversation better conducted on the article's talk page, where more editors would likely chime it? Rhadow (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I deliberately suggested discussing it here, where it would be noticed by experienced aviation editors – but with a note and a pointer on the article's talk page (I could have done it the other way round, I suppose, but I can't see that it makes much difference). In any case, the MCAS page has fewer than 30 people watching it, whereas this project talk page has over 250.

Do you have any evidence that the same system might be used on the 777X? A quick search didn't turn up anything relevant... Rosbif73 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If the MCAS is unique to the 737 MAX, then it should be merged in there, but we should confirm that if possible. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not expect it to be a common system: I had a fairly representative search of t'Interthing and found nothing to connect MCAS to the 777X. But proving a negative is often impossible to confirm. The MCAS was developed to try and maintain the "feel" of the MAX 8 compared to previous variants of the 737, due to the repositioning of the engines affecting the handling and similar issues. The 777X has more far-reaching changes, with a different wing and different length. Trying to mimic the feel of the earlier variants would seem bizarre, and even if Boeing did then the anomalies the system needed to address would be very different and it would in effect be a wholly different system. Of course proving this negative, that the system name is not common, will be impossible until the relevant flight systems information for the 777X is published, but we cannot wait for Godot. The burden of proof lies with any editors who claim such commonality and unless and until then we must build our encyclopedia on the basis that there is none. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I merged about half of it across, the rest was a poor duplicate of stuff already in the crash subtopic article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempted restoration

Could folks please keep an eye on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System redirect page. Another editor tried to restore its deleted content, "in anticipation of a long story about criminal fraud probe", which goes against WP:CRYSTAL. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Would semi-protection of the article be of benefit? Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It died down once challenged, I'd leave the redirect page alone for now. I can't speak for the related articles though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am that "another editor." I have observed that the MCAS story continues to grow, leading to an investigation of the FAA's certification practices. I made no prognostications reflected in the article, I only anticipated growth of the article. That's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation. It's a matter of judgement whether this story should be reflected in its own article, or should be added to the airframe article, which is reaching the limits of reasonable length. Given that there are a bunch of survivor lawsuits, an auditor general probe, and criminal subpoenas, I suggest that the topic is substantial enough to stand on its own. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The main thing is that the MCAS is unique to the 737-MAX series, so not a distinct topic on its own. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed - as long as it remains so. Which it well might, for a good while, given the "lack of success" (apologies if that sounds like black humour). Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rhadow:, thank you for coming here and being reasonable. The MCAS section is quite short and does not materially affect the article length. While the investigations continue and the litigation takes shape, some of it all may prove more relevant to the article on the grounding, which is obviously too large to be merged back. It is not possible to foresee the extent to which the MCAS section might grow. By all means expand it with verifiably relevant and significant content (it is always possible that I trimmed a little too much during the merge). If it does eventually grow too big then we can always revisit. Alternatively, it might prove more convenient to move the bulk of the section across to the groundings article, since this is the main reason anybody cares a damn about the software. But for now, I do not think that the case is made for any such surgery. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ababeel (missile)

There is endless back-and-forth warring on Ababeel (missile) and we should try to find some agreed resolution for this.

Ababeel is a MIRV missile. Or will be. As yet though, it has been test-launched (Jan 2017) with an enlarged aeroshroud, but has not (from public records of known tests) demonstrated any MIRV capability. Thus we should be cautious in decribing it as such.

This is complicated by a misleading US military report March 6, 2018, "In January 2017, Pakistan conducted the first test launch of its nuclear-capable Ababeel ballistic missile, demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload". However that US report is either misleading or even as much as untrue. The Jan 2017 launch (widely reported) did not demonstrate any payload, MIRV or otherwise. This may be careless wording by the US military, or simple exagerration of a threat - for which they do have a long history.

Given the India / Pakistan tensions, there is persistent international rivalry on this article. But we should not let that allow false claims to creep in.

This was raised at WT:WikiProject Military history/Archive 150#Ababeel (missile), but there was no response.

So, how do we proceed? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It really has to be solved on the article talk page, but if there edit warring persists I would suggest asking for page protection. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring has continued despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So far it seems to be just one user who is continuing. I have joined your conversation on the talk page of the editor concerned. We shall see if he calms down. If he does not, then one of us will have to take it to WP:AN/EW. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

List of ICAO aircraft type designators

A couple of editors have added a few deprecated codes to List of ICAO aircraft type designators and mentioned the possibility of adding hundreds more, whilst also pointing out in their edit summaries the need for consensus to do so. I've started a discussion on the corresponding talk page... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-204 Introduced date

Hi all, I have been working on the Tu-204s page today when I noticed that the introduction date was missing the the day and month, so I added them in. So I did a lot more digging to see which airline was the Launch operator, I found out it was Cairo Aviation back in 2 November 1998 (Source:https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/tupolev-tu-204-tu-214/377 and https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-tu-204s-delivered-to-air-cairo-44861/).

I was wondering do we keep the introduction date at 1995 or to 1998 when the launch customer bought the first 3 Tu-204's? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I don't fully understand the question. But introduction is when an aircraft enters service or is fielded (for military aircraft). Introduction follows orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you check the page, theres a citation next to te introduction date click that. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. See Template:Infobox aircraft type for Usage info on what Introduction is meant to be for the Infobox. According to ref 1 in the Tu-204 article, this should be 23 February 1996 as the first revenue flight. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Quick notice! The issue has been corrected pending a discussion on the aircrafts talk page. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, good deal. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks though, there was a mix up on the referencing and the first revenue flight. Turned out it was Aeroflot in Jan '96 OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Trefftz plane

Hello! De-orphaning articles and came across Trefftz plane, a single-line stub. Is it something that should have its own article, or can I merge/redirect it elsewhere? If so, where? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:DICTIONARY definition only to me, no context, not encyclopedic as it stands. I would WP:PROD it and see if anyone objects. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep. It has a seventy year history as a conceptual simplification in some aerodynamics calculations. Being obscure and specialised isn't the same thing as not being notable. There's plenty of sourcing for this, although it's hard work to plough through and the best needs university library access.

As to a DICDEF, that's (as always) a singularly unhelpful comparison. How many single-word topics in an encyclopedia aren't also going to appear in a dictionary? Nor would a dictionary definition, rather than an explanation of what it is and how it's used, be of the slightest value. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)