Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

BREAKING NEWS: The Aviation Safety Network are reporting on Twitter that China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 has crashed. The aircraft was carrying 133 people (English translation of Chinese news source). Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Total Linhas Aereas Flight 5561#Requested move 19 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Total Linhas Aereas Flight 5561#Requested move 19 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Type identification needed - single-engined bomber (?), France, 1940

• 
• 

Any ideas? Looks like a Fairey, but apparently it's not. TIA, Retired electrician (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Fairey Battles

The "QT" code makes it from No. 142 Squadron RAF, which flew the Fairey Battle during that period, but it doesn't look like a Battle to me, check the fin and rudder especially. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a Battle in RAF markings. The rudder is deflected to the left changing the profile, it looks like the serial number has been cut out of the rudder fabric as a souvenir. The engine appears to be a Merlin with ejector exhausts and a distinctive feature of the Battle is no propeller spinner, the variable pitch hydraulic cylinder is exposed. The gunner's glazing is hinged up in the same position as the Battle in the RAF Museum. The armour plate behind the pilot, the windscreen and structure around the engine is the same as this image. The rudder trim tab and two elevator hinges per side are the same as this image. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds all plausible to me. Any thoughts on the lack of glazing between the seats? - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, this image of a sister aircraft shows blacked out glazing. The aircraft has the wider fin flash. The bomb aimer occupied the centre crew position, the glazing could have been blacked out to protect night vision. The unidentified image appears to come from a German army soldier who probably didn't know the difference between French and British roundels (colours are reversed and no yellow on the French markings). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The images come from this album page. There is German handwriting next to it which reads 'Abgesch Engl. flieger bei le Hocquet' which is shortened slightly from 'abgeschossen' (shot down) and Englisch (English), 'bei' is at. I cant find the location but a German writing 'le' is very likely a place name. It's in a Russian album but is probably Northern France. The other aircraft there (upside down in a field) is captioned 'Franz jäger' which is shorthand for 'Französisch' (French), 'jäger' is fighter (aircraft in this case but also means a huntsman). The photographer did correctly identify the aircraft nationalities. It's possibly a Dewoitine D.520. Might have a browse through his albums on Commons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Now this all comes together. Linder (a radio operator with an Army-level HQ) was following the advancing troops from Belgium to Reims - Auxerre - Clamecy, south of the Paris route, gradually turning south and then south-east. Berry-au-Bac and then Vigneux-Hocquet ("Le Hocquet") are exactly on this trail, some 40 kilometers apart. Retired electrician (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This may be K9259 which was damaged on 12 May 1940 "Badly damaged by bomb fragments 0730 during an air attack on Berry-au-Bac airfield." and according to https://www.aviation-safety.net/wikibase/17608 "five battle-damaged 142 Squadron Fairey Battles abandoned at Berry-au-Bac when the remnants of 142 Squadron withdrew to Faux-Villecerf aerodrome on 17 May 1940." MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That would fit! - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this aircraft was shot down and forced landed, the undercarriage is up (normal for forced landings on rough surfaces or collapsed), the propeller tips are curled backwards (engine producing power at touchdown) and the engine thrust line seems to be bent upwards. It is a very valuable collection of photographs. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the bullet holes! - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A Battle pilot's lot was not a happy one, sending them to France wasn't a particularly good idea but it was all a learning process for the air staff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

True, but the air staff weren't slaughtered by Me-109Es. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I took the liberty to re-categorize and rename the photos, please review. Retired electrician (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Recovered Bayraktar TB2 drone reveals interesting details

When a Baykar Bayraktar TB2 crashed in Armenia, photos of the wreckage lead to some interesting results. News of the restricted Canadian camera turret with laser designation lead to a switch of suppliers which is already covered in the article. There was also a Garmin GNC255 nav/com, Timble GPS, more. Powerplant appears to be a Rotax 912 iS. The avionics section currently is written poorly with a promotional tone and with a single source. Garmin, Timble and Xytel publicly denounced the use of their products for military use, but these are off the shelf items and there’s little they can do to prevent them from sourcing them from retailers.

It seems like the drone can deal with GPS jamming with inertial guidance, but that’s only enough to get it back into the vicinity of an airfield. I’m guessing it can use the Garmin to pick up VOR and ILS along with radar altimiter to land. This Garmin model doesn’t have DME capability BTW. Being able to navigate without “any external sources” seems like a magical claim. More eyes needed.

PS I found a visual breakdown of found parts with part numbers (reliable source?)Technophant (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion - Piccard balloons into Don Piccard

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion at Talk:Piccard_Balloons. Thanks! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Gogetair Aviation

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/Gogetair Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge Viking Air and de Havilland Canada?

Viking Air, Longview Aviation Capital, Pacific Sky Training and De Havilland Canada have all been consolidated under the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada name. Should they be merged? Discussion at Talk:de Havilland Canada § Merge with Viking Air?. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 2 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 2 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A notable GA accident?

Members of this WP may be aware of a filmed crash of a GA aircraft last November. Turns out that it was a stunt for publicity purposes. The FAA has revoked the pilot's licence. Given the unusual circumstances, I feel that the threshold of notability may have been reached. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

At a first glance, notability will not reach beyond the country where the incident occurred. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Two points on this one: first it is already at Taylorcraft_B#Notable_accidents_and_incidents and second, like 9/11, this was an intentional act and not an accident (which by definition is an unintentional act). That said, it still may be a worthwhile subject for a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems we also have a bio on this person: Trevor Jacob, which extensively describes the event. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I deliberately avoided using the word "accident" because it clearly wasn't one. That we have an article on the perpetrator adds to the case for notability, because the event involves a Wikinotable person. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I just mentioned the use of the word "accident" because it was in the section title and thought it was worth clarifying that.

Do we need an article on the event when it is all in the bio, or should we start a new article on the event and then just have a summary in the bio and link to the event article? At this point the event seems to be over, unless there are charges laid, so the description may not get much longer than it already is. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a standalone article as warranted. All the info can easily fit into Jacob's bio, and indeed without that stunt, his bio would be pretty short! --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Deeday-Uk....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

So do I; with the additional reserve that we ought not to over-document reckless bravery. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm kind of torn on this, mainly because I don't think that an article on Trevor Jacob is warranted. Prior to the crash, his article could have been PRODed and would not have likely survived an AFD. He wouldn't have met WP:NOLYMPICS as he didn't medal and even with new information added about his athletic career, his "best finish of 5th place" at the 2016 Winter X Games doesn't mean much of anything. If you take out the crash section, there's not much there. So, he's really starting to fall into WP:BLP1E territory right here. Does this mean that a separate article is justified? Or should the Taylorcraft_B#Notable_accidents_and_incidents just be expanded? I don't know. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think those are excellent points made User:Jauerback. I support User:Jan olieslagers concept that we shouldn't be giving too much recognition to this aircraft-destroying stunt. We certainly don't want to encourage that sort of thing with too much PR. Perhaps it would be best to just leave a short description in the Taylorcraft_B and PROD the bio as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the whole thing is just a minor stunt. It was also highly irresponsible, but the argument that we therefore ought to censor it tastes very bad, we are not net nannies here. Nevertheless, its trivial and ephemeral nature mean that it certainly does not warrant its own article. I would also suggest that it be deleted from the Taylorcraft article as not sufficiently notable. As for the BLP, I'd let the biography specialists worry about that one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating censoring it, just that it shouldn't be given an WP:UNDUE amount of coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

In reading the current version of the event at Taylorcraft_B#Notable_accidents_and_incidents, I think that covers it very well, barring any future legal developments. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However I still question its notability, so I have now opened a deletion discussion at Talk:Taylorcraft B#Jacob's antics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think the accident warrants its own article, because it's adequately covered in the article about Jacob, and the controversy really centers around his actions, not the specifics of the accident itself. Besides, my calculations indicate that the general public is about 852% more likely to search for Trevor Jacob than for 2021 Los Padres National Forest Taylorcraft BL-65 crash. Carguychris (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly object to being called a "net-nanny" (whatever that may mean) and still more to being accused of "censoring" merely because I stated we should not over-document. A bit of nuance would seem appropriate. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I like to think that we are all friends here and that a little colourful language to illustrate a somewhat milder point will be taken with the same light heart with which it is offered. My apologies if this was not clear enough. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies cheerfully accepted. Myself prefer the other way round - a smile on top of a sometimes rather rigid comment - remember Mary Poppins and her spoonful of sugar? Then again we do not need to be friends, we do need to be pulling the same rope the same direction, and I feel confident that such is the case here and now. How's about a pint o'bitter? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, and to think I just poured myself a tequila and soda because it looked so much like the whisky bottle! Not bad, actually. If you are ever near Upton upon Severn or Hanley Castle, we can go down the Three Kings and check whether their draught ale is still up to scratch. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Help appreciated

I cleaned up the section in the Taylorcraft B article but it was reverted by another user. More eyes on those changes would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The wording seems OK to me. The event did appear to be engine failure in Nov. 2021. The later April 2022 text clarifies with the FAA's position. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Over taken by events" - it seems that the section has now been stubbed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I just did that, based on the examples proffered; they showed that if the incident is irrelevant to the type and covered elsewhere, then a bulleted link to that is sufficient. I would not be surprised if it gets reverted in the present instance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with how it looks now. The event is mostly about the person and not the aircraft type and so the write-up in the bio article, with a link from the aircraft type, is a good solution. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It needed to be referenced in the Taylorcraft article. Don't worry, I did that already....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peshawar Flying Club

The article Peshawar Flying Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Flying Clubs are rarely of note and nothing to show this one is worthy of a stand-alone article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Red Bull Plane Swap - notability and article name

Failed stunt has made the news on CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, myriad other mainstream news sources. I think this now clearly meets WP:RS for a standalone article; it's virtually inevitable that the investigation will yield future coverage. Second, the article name: although community guidelines suggest 2022 Eloy, Arizona Cessna 182 crash, I suggest Red Bull Plane Swap per WP:COMMONNAME. Comments? Carguychris (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for being negative overall. As for the notability: that should not be determined by commercial news channels - those are about sales figures, not about long-term relevant information. As for the naming: I have always disliked the WP:COMMONNAME directive, it is more appropriate for a tabloid newspaper than for a dictionary. At the very least, the title should mention the year 2022 and also "incident". Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

While Red Bull plane swap seemingly passes WP:COMMONNAME, the title would not directly reflect the article's topic, which would be the crash which resulted from the attempted plane swap stunt. A more fitting title would be Red Bull plane swap accident or 2022 Red Bull plane swap accident. As for notability, I disagree with Jan's reasoning because, while the provided sources are commercial news channels, they are generally accepted to be WP:RS. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I like Red Bull plane swap accident. I think it's adequately unambiguous without including the year; hopefully there won't be another subsequent Red Bull plane swap accident! Carguychris (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing for learning curve there! I think if there is a second one we can always move the original article so as to include a year. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability policy at WP:SBST is relevant here; "It takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. ... In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering." Nobody has offered any evidence here that this topic passes these criteria; I'd suggest that at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The crash is certainly getting both reports and analysis in the aviation media and there are indications that charges will be laid:

• Plane Swap Gone Half Bad; FAA Not Amused
• FAA Investigating Failed Plane Swap
• FAA Investigating Failed Red Bull Airplane Swap - Agency says it had denied organizers’ request for permission to perform the stunt.

- Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the case of publicity hounds. Don't give them more with an article. No reward for being law breaking idiots. Pardon my French....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Law breaking idiots get articles all the time. It's not a reward to have an article on something stupid someone did, and we shouldn't treat it as such. WP:DENY doesn't apply to off-wiki idiocy. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with ZLEA. Ironically, if the stunt had gone according to plan and there had been no FAA investigation, I would readily argue that it doesn't deserve an article; however, I think the accident and subsequent investigation have generated notability. Carguychris (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, if it had succeeded it would have been just a meh stunt. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to follow up here the aviation press is reporting both pilots had their certificates revoked: FAA Revokes Pilot Certificates For Red Bull Plane Swap Stunt - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tromsø Airport, Langnes#Requested move 10 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tromsø Airport, Langnes#Requested move 10 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trondheim Airport, Værnes#Requested move 10 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trondheim Airport, Værnes#Requested move 10 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

More comments needed

These two requested moves cover about ten articles in all, but are having to be relisted through lack of comments. Please join in if you can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support needed at Wikimedia Commons

Hi all. Over two years ago I tried to move the Commons category for Heathrow Airport from "London Heathrow Airport" to "Heathrow Airport", correcting an obvious error as the name of the airport is Heathrow Airport, not London Heathrow Airport. However, as is often the case with the Commons, due to lower traffic levels, obvious mistakes do not get corrected and this discussion died down. Could some people from here perhaps go over and support with this move?

The discussion is here.

Thanks Elshad (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Move corrections needed

Please see the discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This has now got in a real mess - partly my fault. It involves the name change from United Air Lines to United Airlines. More comments sorely needed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision

Has been nominated for deletion. Please join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Aviation films

Shouldn't there be a workgroup for aviation film (or aviation media)? Like there is for War Films at WP:WikiProject Military history ? To cover such as Sully, United 93, Wings, The Right Stuff, Piché: L'atterrisage d'un homme, Aeronauts, ... -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty much all in one article at Aircraft in fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it's in a very large number of articles. Like Flight 93 (film), United 93 (film), Wings (1927 film), The Right Stuff (film), The Aeronauts (film), Sully (film), etc. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few editors in the past who worked on aviation film articles, but most of the current editors haven't shown much interest in them. I watchlist a few of them, but for the most part, editing film articles isn't very satisfying, as with most pop-culture subjects. Too many drive-by IPs, socks, edit warriors, SPAs, etc. We get enough of that on aviation articles already, but film articles are much, much worse. (And TV is even worse than film!) BilCat (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion

Is Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion really notable enough for its own article? Seems newsy to me. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to fall under WP:Run-of-the-mill to me. (And it has been tagged with {{notability}}.) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I just nominated[1] for deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Even better, thanks William ! -Fnlayson (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! BilCat (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion

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/Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiEagle canceled

I regret to inform the project that I am unable to continue the WikiEagle newsletter. I am not leaving Wikipedia or this project, but I do not expect to have much time for writing newsletters in the foreseeable future. If someone wishes to continue the WikiEagle now or in the future, please feel free to do so. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this! - Ahunt (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me also. It was a good effort, but I understand about not having the time to do it, as I don't either. BilCat (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Jet Age

Category:Jet Age was created today by User:Dimadick, and is being added to a wide range of ariticles. I can understand its inclusion on articles such as Boeing 707, but it has also been added to articles as diverse as Accidents and incidents involving the North American P-51 Mustang, Messerschmitt Bf 109, Chrysler IV-2220, Commencement Bay-class escort carrier, Rocky the Flying Squirrel, and M45 Quadmount! The only apparent requirement is that the article Jet Age is linked to from those articles. I don't generally get involved with categories, as I find them utterly useless, especially when I actually try to use them find something. I'm not planning on taking any further action, but wanted to let others know of this. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted one addition. I think the game will have to endure the death of a thousand cuts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Now removed all WWII piston-engined types and started a discussion on the category's talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on the conversation, and partipate if warranted. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Binter Mediterraneo#Requested move 6 July 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Binter Mediterraneo#Requested move 6 July 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft images in airline infoboxes

An IP editor is telling me (first revert, second revert) that there is a consensus not to include aircraft images in {{Infobox airline}}, yet the infobox has a parameter image2 for "Main headquarters, ticket counter or an aircraft to demonstrate livery (optional)". (Until a recent edit by CambridgeBayWeather, the doc for this param was simply "Possibly an aircraft to demonstrate livery.")

I can't find any mention of this prohibition in the airline article style guide, nor have I found anything in searching this WikiProject's talk archives. Can anyone link to a discussion where a consensus was reached not to include aircraft images in this infobox? Ibadibam (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt you will find any such consensus as it would have resulted in changing the template documentation. I think the IP in question just made it up. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted the IP and responded on the article talk page at Images in infoboxes. Eyes welcome, I am off to dinner. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been through the MOS there, the archives and discussions and not come across a single mention of such a thing. As mentioned the infobox supports and specifically calls this fields out as a valid use for it. It seems that they're making it up to get their preferred look and feel. I must admit I didn't realise they've gone through most country's airlines articles removing the images to their preference like that. That's some large scale WP:OWN and disruptive editing right there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus to ban or remove second images from the infobox. It matches the {{infobox airport}} which has support for a logo and an image. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Animated Interrupter Gear on Wikimedia Commons Graphics Lab

I made a request request the other day to have the interrupter gear diagram animated. I included a link to an explanation of the three stages of the process, but it may not have been sufficient to explain the device's operation. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the subject, so if any experts want to jump in with input, it would be helpful. –Noha307 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no! If there is one thing I cannot bear on t'interweb, it is movey-slidey-animatey things. They do my head in, in a bad kind of way. This has to be stopped. Per WP:IUP#ANIM: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned elsewhere on this page." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you may not be a fan of animated images and I can appreciate that. However, just because you do not like it does not mean that it should not be included. Furthermore, this is a situation where an animation will definitely benefit reader comprehension as it is difficult to comprehend how the device works with just a static image. WP:IUP#ANIM states Inline animations should be used sparingly [emphasis mine], not not at all. This will be the only animated image on the entire page, which definitely fits the definition of "sparingly". (To be clear, the page currently has two very similar versions of the same file. I do agree that only one is likely needed.) –Noha307 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to add my name to the list of editors who think that animations on article pages need to be used very sparingly, too, as I find them just distracting. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree that they can be overused. I can foresee a situation where an article with multiple animations on a page can be distracting and overwhelming.

However, this particular instance is a case of where an animation will significantly increase reader understanding of the subject of the article and the usage is very limited. We have two animations (1, 2) of comparable purpose and design on the rotary engine article. –Noha307 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft maintenance personnel

The fuss about which articles on the AMT, AME, etc. to merge and/or capitalise, or not as the case may be, has blown up again. At least two independent but overlapping proposals are under discussion. Any input would be welcome:

• Talk:Aircraft_maintenance_technician#Merge_with_Aircraft_Maintenance_Engineer?
• Talk:Aircraft Maintenance Engineer#Requested move 26 August 2022

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

SWA1380 contained failure or not?

The lead sentence of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 says the engine failure was "contained" and has a related footnote. However, the lead section, 2nd 'graph of Tammie Jo Shults says it was uncontained. A quick look at the NTSB report doesn't turn up a clear statement of either. Can someone familiar with the subject correct whichever needs it please? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:RSN

The following discussion and RFC on WP:RSN might be of interest to members of this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Military fansites. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Also this one just started: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#globalsecurity.org — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have started a more aviation-focused discussion on our project Resources page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines fleet

So, I've been working on Turkish Airlines fleet for a while and I wondered if this is actually a list or not? Several articles in Category:Lists of aircraft by operator are classified as a list, while others have the regular Stub, Start etc. The two FLs in that category, Braathens and Scandinavian Airlines, differ quite a bit in style and scope, so it got be confused. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a list article to me! - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Electronic conspicuity

I've noticed there appears to be no article about electronic conspicuity. Airborne collision avoidance system confusingly lists some of them (confusingly because ACAS itself is a specific type of EC system - https://www.eurocontrol.int/system/acas - which refers to the same system known as TCAS).

The term appears to be mostly used by UK CAA and EASA.

Is it possible that the article exists under some other term I'm not aware of? There seems to be Category:Aircraft collision avoidance systems, but no article.

Sources:

• https://www.caa.co.uk/consumers/remotely-piloted-aircraft/our-role/electronic-conspicuity/
• https://www.gaac.org.uk/electronic-conspicuity-ec/
• https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electronic-conspicuity-specifications/electronic-conspicuity-specifications-enabling-interoperability-between-airspace-users
• https://www.caa.co.uk/consumers/remotely-piloted-aircraft/our-role/electronic-conspicuity/
• https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/01/CAP1391-DEC16.pdf
• https://www.easa.europa.eu/research-projects/interoperability-electronic-conspicuity-systems-general-aviation
• https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/electronic-conspicuity-devices/

PaulT2022 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The closest page is probably Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast which is a specific type of "Electronic Conspicuity". Scare Quotes as, speaking as a pilot and flight instructor, I've never heard the phrase before today. ADS-B is a specific technology though, while your links appear to describe the class of all electronic aids to conspicuity.

Between TCAS, ADS-B OUT, and primary radar, that basically covers the range of current technologies for "EC".

I guess I'd start wondering whether it meets the criteria for a new article - is it WP:N, WP:V, to start with.

It's a rapidly advancing field, driven in large part by the mass deployment of drones into airspace shared with aircraft. Technology and terminology is working to catch up. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice that all the sources for "electronic conspicuity" are British, hence this may be a British English term for something known by a different name on my side of the pond. @Ahunt: have you heard anything about this term? BilCat (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the term is not used often in North America. This British CAA item pretty much covers the subject. The last section "What is Electronic Conspicuity?" gives an overview. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there an American term that covers ADS-B/ACAS/FLARM/etc? PaulT2022 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any similar blanket term here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Up until very recently, we haven't really needed a blanket term for them. ADS-B is still being introduced and many aircraft don't have it. TCAS is pretty much airlines only. I'm suspecting that an Electronic Conspicuity article might be too soon. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks everyone for the feedback. I've removed split template and instead added sections to Airborne collision avoidance system to eliminate confusion between ACAS and other CASs, as well as added a brief passing mention of the EC term. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2022 Longmont mid-air collision

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/2022 Longmont mid-air collision. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Discussion at Talk:Advanced Landing Ground - Merge Advanced Landing Ground in Advance airfield

I propose merging Advanced Landing Ground into Advance airfield. I think the content in Advanced Landing Ground can easily be explained in the context of Advance airfield, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Advanced Landing Ground.  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Advanced Landing Ground. --Bero231 (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Concensus on stating / removing routes between the EU and Russia

Hello everybody, I've noted that there are ongoing edit wars regarding the removal of routes between Russia and the EU the reason being their full suspension due to EU sanctions since March 2022. Now there seems to be no concensus how to handle this and the content is currently inconsistent:
1) some of the routes have been removed entirely (e. g. after Aeroflot publicly stating to not expect their resumption anytime soon)
2) some are still stated as operating (which is the worst of the three possibilites in my opinion) and
3) some are still stated with a "(suspended)" remark.
For the sake of consistency would it be possible to reach a concensus here how to display these? The same applies somewhat for routes to Ukraine which have been suspended as well. Best regards. 2001:A61:105E:1201:D22:CF02:5A08:5329 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Questionable sources

We have a growing list of questionable (i.e. unreliable) sources for aviation on our Resources page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. I have posted an update on the state of play and would appreciate any help in purging the remaining cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a move request at Talk:Shahed 149 Gaza#Requested move 4 October 2022. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft

A row has erupted over our list formats, specifically what to include in each list. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft which needs more contributions to make the WikiProject's position clear and assess some proposed changes that would affect many of our lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no 'row over list formats'. Instead there is a row over whether WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV apply when describing a non-flying machine (per mainstream RS) that pre-dates the Wright brothers as a 'flying car'. AndyTheGrump (talk)

See what I mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See also the discussion at WP:FTN, [2] where "There is no policy that forbids it" has seriously been offered as an argument for including such policy-violating nonsense. And see here [3] for what the motivation for it appears to be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a fringe perspective rejected by mainstream historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Load Classification Number

Load Classification Number redirects to ACN-PCN method, but the phrase is not mentioned in the latter article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that is fine, it is an alternate term for "Pavement Classification Number". - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Then the article should say so. I've added that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Vertihub

A new article on large VTOL operating sites has been created at Vertihub. I think this topic is too soon, too predictive and too much liker a dictionary definition, so I have PROD-ed it. You may want to respond. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Both this article and the one in the discussion above were created by the same user. They've been around awhile, but not done much. BilCat (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Transition (aviation)

A new article on the transition between vertical and forward flight has been created at Transition (aviation). I think this topic is best discussed within the main article on VTOL, so I have PROD-ed it. You may want to respond. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I seconded it, as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Make Transition (aviation) redirect to VTOL (or other article). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disagree: as has been pointed out, "transition" may mean many things in aviation, we should not link the generic term to any single of them. To me, it mostly indicates the transition between expressing altitude in flight levels versus feet; others may have other prime interpretations. Making the present page into a disambiguation page might be a better idea. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It is most often used in IFR flight referring to the transition from en route to approach (like this) and in helicopter flying for the transition from the hover to forward flight (through translational lift, just to add more terminology confusion). I am not sure that we have all the articles to point a disambiguation page to. Perhaps we need to create a list of aviation uses and see if we have any links? - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hm, if I were sufficiently motivated and idle - I am neither, presently :) - my approach would be to create the disambiguation page, over what exists now, and improve its contents teamwise and over time. There's every chance that we do not have an article to point to, for each possible use of the term, but that should not restrain us to do nothing. Better begin with a less-than-perfect disam page, which can then be improved upon. Neither Rome nor Wikipedia were built in one single day... Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers:: I would support that transition. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Did they ever tell you you are quite good at forcing people's hands :) ? I made an effort - feel free to revert, or, even better, to improve. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I did my modest best to make it a disambiguation page, leaving much room for improvement. Now how to handle the request for deletion? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So I PRODded it again, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If it were to be kept, as per our agreed practice it should be Transition (aeronautics) anyway; better to blast it and think again than keep fiddling without consensus like this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll not meddle any further. Do your best. Especially in discouraging well-meant effort. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If effort appears to be mistaken then it should not be left unchallenged, no matter how well-meant. I notice you have been happy to discourage my own well-meant effort. By all means argue the case for Transition (aeronautics), if you think it will improve Wikipedia, and we can take it from there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You did not leave me in a mood to argue anything - rather the contrary - have it your own way! And by the way, you might wish to check your happiness detector. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to further muddy the waters, but I have removed the second PROD. as per WP:DEPROD: "If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled" and also "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time." I have added to, expanded and corrected the entries. The page now has some value as a disambiguation page. At this point it can be merged and redirect into the disambiguation page at Transition, sent to WP:AFD or perhaps a consensus can found here to keep it as it now is or even move it to Transition (aeronautics). - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see it has now been sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition (aviation). - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Transition (aviation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transition (aviation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition (aviation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Ghost plane

Could you help to disambiguate links to Ghost plane? There are several articles listed here which link to the dab page and I am not always sure from the context which is the correct link.— Rod ^talk 12:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Texas Raiders

A discussion is open at talk:Texas Raiders#Categories re the addition of three categories to the article. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Military unit template

There are civil aviation teams, they are not military unit.For example: P-3 Flyers How correct is it to use the military unit template? Is there a replacement for this template? thanks. Bikar Orxan (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It is certainly an "adaptation" of that template for that use, although it seems to be standard, see Baltic Bees Jet Team and Flying Bulls Aerobatics Team. As far as I can see we don't have a Template:Civil aerobatic team or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Шаблон:Пилотажная_группа i think you need to translate that one. Bikar Orxan (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL. It might be easier to write a new one based on the existing one. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Lund Airport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lund Airport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lund Airport until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fermiboson (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at Turkish Airlines fleet

So I've been in a content dispute with an IP for a while at Turkish Airlines fleet. Very shortly, the problem is about including the aircraft of AnadoluJet in the article. They also removed some MOS:DTAB code from the tables (eg. scope="row"), but I haven't seen them object to that specifically so I think it got lost in the reverts.

So when I created the article, I included those aircraft because AnadoluJet is a brand operating under the AOC of Turkish Airlines and isn't seperated in any way. The aircraft of AnadoluJet are technically a part of Turkish Airlines. Another thing is that reliable sources use them together. 380 recently, 362 back in 2021. There is no way of knowing what exactly AnadoluJet uses because the own site of Turkish Airlines lists them combined. Meanwhile AnadoluJet themselves say that they only have 737s, so they haven't updated that for a while. The only sources that do split them are airfleets.net, which I haven't found a discussion about, and planespotters.net, which is considered to be unreliable. So currently the article says 388 aircraft, 92 737s (more than half are of AJ), but I'm not allowed to add the 3 A320neos or "Includes aircraft of AnadoluJet" as text because it keeps getting reverted. A different IP then proceeded to change the numbers based on planespotters.net but that was an abvious revert. Need more opinions here. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of AIN Online

There is a discussion here as to whether AIN Online is a reliable source. Your comments would be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Boeing customer codes AfD

The list of Boeing customer codes had been nominated for deletion a third time. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at HAL Tejas

There is a discussion at Talk:HAL Tejas#Bids dispute. One of the editors involved is throwing around accusations of "running propaganda". - ZLEA _T\^C ZLEA _T\^C 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with edit request

Hello WikiProject Aviation editors! I posted a request on the ATP Flight School Talk page about getting the infobox updated with the correct number of flight school locations. I work with ATP so I'd rather not make the update myself. Can someone please take a look at my request? Thanks. Addison at ATP Flight School (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have answered your edit request @Addison at ATP Flight School. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

TFM for an infobox

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Template:Infobox aircraft begin for a discussion about a series of infobox templates in the purview of this project. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Boeing 747
2. Sophie Blanchard
3. Winter service vehicle

Requested move

There is a move request at Talk:TBM-3E "Avenger" Torpedo Bomber Warplane#Requested move 2 February 2023. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Flybe listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Flybe to be moved to Flybe (2022-2023). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

FAR

The article 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash is currently under featured article review. You can leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash/archive1. Desertarun (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Designer in the infobox

There is a discussion about the use of the Designer parameter in the aircraft infobox, at Template talk:Infobox aircraft type#Designer field. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Montana object detection"

FYI, the primary topic and naming of 2023 Montana object detection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion; as that title is an aviation topic, I thought you'd might like to be informed. See Talk:2023 Montana object detection for the discussion -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Zeppelin aircraft

There is a discussion at Template talk:Zeppelin aircraft#"ZMe" aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Thanks for info! Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2023 Isabela Cessna 206 disappearance

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/2023 Isabela Cessna 206 disappearance. - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TF-RÁN (II)#Requested move 25 February 2023. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of United Airlines N7431

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/United Airlines N7431. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IATA article lead section

• International Air Transport Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the last year, several editors, many with minimal contributions, have tried to change the emphasis of the lead section of IATA. I've reverted many of these changes, but I would welcome scrutiny by other editors. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• The other editor, User:M.M.Kargan, has been blocked as a sock likely engaged in WP:UPE. Please consider adding IATA related pages to your watchlists. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Vanila unmanned

Hi everyone. I started a New article for a small uav builder, notable for their record endurance. Details seems too scarce to start an article for each aircraft, they look like an modified version but I can't be sure. It was moved to Draft:Vanilla Unmanned, was rejected and will be deleted in 6 months if not updated. Feel free to enrich it. Cheers, Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Help with Reference Desk query

Informed assistance required please at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Correct naming of an individual aircraft of a specific type, which is about the right format for labelling an aircraft image on Wikipedia. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Now sorted, many thanks for your input. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Years in aviation - worst disasters in lede

Recently there seems to be a spate of adding the worst air distaster that took place in a year to the lede of years in aviation articles - for example [4] and [5]. Why just add this rather sensationalist factoid to the lede rather than anything else that happened during the year - is there a consensus for this?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, no! What are we now, the National Enquirer? - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

LH469

What do others think regarding notability? Thankfully no one was killed, but a 4,000ft drop, seven passengers hospitalized with injuries, an FAA investigation, and global coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as examples. Unsure if there is any damage to the aircraft and am not convinced this is sufficiently notable, especially considering WP:RECENTISM, but curious to hear opinions. Ppt91^talk 01:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No we shouldn't have an article on that. Turbulence injuries on an airline flight are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and the event has no WP:LASTING effects. This is just WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

When/if some serious newspapers look into what happened this could be a bigger than it seems.

Lufthansa claim CAT as the cause, but passenger (i was one of them) says skies at march amtitude that is not something you experience with CTA.

we where flying in dark clouds many minutes (not sure on time) and then after the first frop the plane was in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Something is not right here. CAT, but 1000feet (approx first drop) below is a huge thunderstorm???

This could be something different than what Lufthansa claims it to be.

If so. Where passengers put in a dangerous situation unneccessarily? Did the plane hit bad weather or was the storm already there and the plane flew into it anyways?

A wiki page could attract other passngers with their take and info on it. And could help clear ip what happened and atleast challenge Lufthansa on their handling of it. 84.52.228.72 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

If there's something off about Lufthansa's claims, then we'll have to wait for reliable sources to cover it. Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

84.xx, you might think about contacting a reputable investigative reporter in Norway or Germany with your story, and see what happens. But Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. BilCat (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Collaborative combat aircraft > Loyal wingman

There is a proposal to rename the Collaborative combat aircraft article to Loyal wingman. An alternative is to fork the article. The discussion at Talk:Collaborative combat aircraft#Proposed name change has now stalled, with just two editors disagreeing. More contributors would be really helpful, thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

New Website: Warbird Philosophy

I just wanted to let everyone know that I now have a personal website called "Warbird Philosophy". Being a self-published source, it by no means meets WP:RS, but aside from being a place to post articles on various aspects of aviation history, I am hoping some of the lists might be a useful resource. Otherwise, I thought might be of general interest to some of the people here. I am always open to constructive criticism, so please let me know what you think! –Noha307 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Good deal! It is nice to see the enthusiasm. The underlying software looks vaguely familiar, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean? It looks nothing like Wikipedia. Everyone knows that website now has a far "superior" user interface. All jokes aside, thanks. –Noha307 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Beats WordPress at least! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Antonov An-225 Mriya destruction (again)

It seems a year old discussion about which side destroyed the An-225 has been restarted. The other editor seems to be POV pushing, and is trying to get content removed because it is sourced from "anti-russian reliable sources". If anyone else wants to chime in or keep an eye on the discussion, that would be great. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the Merger of Infobox Aircraft Engine into Infobox Aircraft

Dear editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to draw your attention to an important ongoing discussion regarding the potential merger of {{Infobox aircraft engine}} into {{Infobox aircraft}}. While a previous merger discussion resulted in the merger of this Infobox, there have been concerns raised about merging an Infobox related to engines with a Infobox about aircraft.

I would like to invite all interested and willing editors to participate in the ongoing discussion and lend their expertise to help us reach a conclusion that ultimately results in the successful completion of the merger. Your valuable contributions are greatly appreciated. Prarambh20 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of United Airlines Flight 1722

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/United Airlines Flight 1722. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

1966 Flying Tiger Line Canadair CL-44 crash

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but is anyone able to locate the full accident report? I might have to file a FOIA request or an LOC catalog search as this material is likely previously classified due to the cargo of the aircraft and the circumstances surrounding it, but I was only able to draw the article (when I created it) from sources that weren't the accident report, just ones that summarised it, but if anyone is able to come across a copy of it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Cutlass^Ciera 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

AFD on 14 lists of airline destinations

See here for the discussion. FOARP (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lester E. Holt

The article Lester E. Holt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the notability guideline. Currently cited to two sources: (1) Find a Grave, in contravention of WP:RSP#Find a Grave (2) A hand-waved collection of 30 newspapers, seven of which repeat the same information that amounts to "airplane tester died in crash".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines Flight 8124

Today, there was an incident during the flight of Asiana Airlines Flight 8124. An emergency exit was opened in flight. The aircraft landed safely with at least 6 people hospitalised.

Seeking opinions on whether or not we have an article on this one. On the face of it, 6 of approx 200 people injured would suggest not, but the fact that an emergency exit was able to be opened in flight is a) highly unusual, and b) something that should not have been possible.

Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My first reaction is that it is WP:TOOSOON for this to be worthy of a standalone article. As the story stands today, it is not even notable enough to be added to the airline, airport or aircraft articles, per WP:AIRCRASH, though it might be suitable for adding later if it subsequently results in changes to procedures, regulations or processes. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

More something for addition to article on aircraft emergency exit, than an article-worthy incident in its own right. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, minor incident, not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Certification Review item

I ran Earwig's copyvio detector on Certification Review item today and noticed that the article is half copied from here and half copied from an FAA document. Given the FAA doc is a US Government work, the article can't be deleted per G12. I am not too familiar with aviation regulation (and the article has {{Technical}}) so I do not know how to rephrase the material copied from the copyrighted source. If the copyrighted material is simply removed, the article will probably be less understandable. Can someone more knowledgeable than me take a look? ~UN6892 ^t_c 02:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The article was written two years before the date of the blog post. Pinging User:Marthy49 --PaulT2022 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• So the web article is likely copied from the Wikipedia page or maybe other source. FAA documents are a work of the Federal government and are public domain. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Vintage NYC seaplane port photo

Hi, I've found a very interesting photo of a seaplane port in New York City from the 1940s. Unfortunately, I've never even been to NYC, much less know enough about it to track down where this was. It's possible that it is the New York Skyports Seaplane Base, but the article is extremely short on history. A G-search didn't turn up much either. A Mapcarta site mentions a "Pier 11 - Wall St Seaplane Base", but I can't tell if this is the same base as our article. (The site is blacklisted, so I can't link to it.) If we can confirm that the photo is in the same placeas the current base, I'll upload the photo and add it to that article. Thanks. BilCat (talk)

There were originally two seaplane bases in Manhattan on the East River in the mid-1930s. One was the Downtown Skyport at Wall Street. The other was the Midtown Skyport at East 31st Street. The photo you found looks to be the one at Wall Street based on the labeling. Both of the seaplane bases had turntables that allowed planes to quickly turn around, which is likely the circular object on the ramp. Here is a photo of the other seaplane base at East 31st Street: East River - Pier 79 - Midtown skyport. The New York Skyports Seaplane Base was another seaplane base that later opened on the East River at East 23rd Street. I recently expanded that article and now it mentions the presence of the other two seaplane bases that were on the East River at Wall Street and East 31st Street. Transpoman (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!And good work on expanding that article. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The photo you found intrigued me, so I ended up doing some more research on the former seaplane bases in Manhattan and created a new article for the Wall Street Skyport. I was able to find one photo of the original seaplane base and included it in the infobox, but feel free to add the other photo you found if you think it could be helpful. By the way, I also found a video of the turntable at the Downtown Skyport in use. Transpoman (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that photo intrigued me too. Thanks for the video link, which was very interesting. From your userpage, I see your primary interest is in improving transport related topics in the NYC area, which is exactly the kind of editor I had hoped would see my initial post. I appreciate the work you did on this. I've also added the photo to the article. The photo, File:Bilstein 00336 Wall Street Seaplane Landing in Lower Manhattan New York City.jpg, still.needs more specific categories added. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LANSA Flight 502

LANSA Flight 502 has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion on "year in aviation" lists

FYI, I've started a discussion at Talk:2023 in aviation § Criteria for inclusion on this page. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Airline service lists

Over the past month 15 AFDs related to 32 different airline service list-articles have been closed as "delete". The DELREV on the last and largest of these discussions has also been closed as overwhelmingly endorsing the deletion of the articles concerned. This shows that the result of the 2018 VPP RFC that these airline-destination lists are not suitable content for Wikipedia, as modified by the 2018 AN discussion saying these articles should be AFD'd in orderly fashion, remains the community consensus. Deleted lists of airline services included the lists of services of flag-carriers, and the list of services of a member of the Star Alliance.

Whilst there were relatively few keep !votes in the AFDs, a number of those that did !vote keep mostly expressed the view that they would like the chance to preserve this information somehow. It would therefore make sense to have a decent pause before doing anything further on this to discuss what to do next about the remaining ~420 airline-destination list articles. Particularly, it would be a good idea to discuss what alternatives to deletion could be used rather than simply going ahead with further AFDs. For example, rather than going on with AFDs these articles could be moved off-Wiki (e.g., to Wikitravel or to a fandom Wiki), or they could be redirected en masse to their parent articles, or somehow dealt with in another way. I think this project is as good a place as any to ask people's thoughts on this. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be on https://deletionpedia.org! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Darn looks like it died: Deletionpedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess somebody must have deleted it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

My irony limits have been exceeded... - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If they are not deemed notable enough to exist in their own articles, I doubt they would survive as subsections elsewhere. A sister wiki does seem to be the best answer. Wikitravel appears to have lost its community, while we have a sister wiki in Vikivoyage. I got as far as their portal article on Flying, so that might be worth exploring. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Polonia destinations and 6 other airlines to the discussion. The airlines nominated on this page are largely defunct, unreferenced and 2 of those are defunct sub-brands of a parent/mainline carrier. Coastie43 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Berlin destinations and four other defunct airlines has been added to the discussion. Coastie43 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Mount Tom B-17 crash

I found a new air crash article, Mount Tom B-17 crash, and I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG. It seems to fail WP:AIRCRASH, as it did not result in the death of a person of sufficient individual notability, nor did it result in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations. I'm curious to see how everyone else feels about this. Pinging Hirolovesswords. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT and especially WP:LASTING. - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Accident received significant coverage at the time [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and has continued to receive coverage [11] [12] [13] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The line must be drawn somewhere between notable and not (sufficiently) notable. Our criteria have been defined, after due discussion, and referred to. Conclusion: this article is not sufficiently notable. Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it made the news but had no lasting effects of any kind proves my point that it fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT and especially WP:LASTING. That said, I am sure if you send it to AfD that many editors will suddenly appear and claim "an airplane crashed, we have to have an article on that". - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dholera Airport#Requested move 21 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dholera Airport#Requested move 21 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kerosene tax#Requested move 28 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kerosene tax#Requested move 28 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Formatting the list of electric aircraft

There are some discussions at Talk:List of electric aircraft. More voices appreciated, as we have a budding edit warrior ignoring WP:BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Autonomous air taxis

What role should we classify autonomous air taxies in? There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#Autonomous_air_taxis. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Robbins Airport (Illinois)#Requested move 10 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robbins Airport (Illinois)#Requested move 10 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

New article Charlière

An article on the Charlière balloon flown by Jacques Charles in 1783 has recently been created. Could Wikiproject aviation regulars perhaps take a look at it, and see if they share my opinion that this article unnecessarily duplicates material already found in the existing Jacques Charles biography? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As the author of this article, you can see my reply in Talk:Charlière. I placed it there (instead of here) so as not to duplicate the discussion. Ae-a (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have replied there, and others should do so too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is now at Draft talk:Charlière. Ae-a (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

AFD notification

A discussion has been opened regarding the deletion of 82 airline destination-list articles that can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Midwest destinations. FOARP (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

High altitude breathing apparatus

If anyone here is interested in contributing either directly or by suggestions to High altitude breathing apparatus it would be very welcome. Please ping with replies, or just do it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Had a quick go at the organisation of the section headings. Feel free to revert. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)