Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Part 1 - How should airports be listed in airport and airline destination lists? Note in all examples, the "Airport" suffix is dropped.

1. List the official airport name (eg. Sydney Kingsford Smith)
2. List as named by Wikipedia (ie. the name of the airport's Wikipedia article) (eg. Sydney Airport becomes "Sydney")
3. List the airport by the city, town or municipality (in order of preference) that the airport is physically located in (eg. Sydney Airport is listed as "Sydney", Luton Airport would be named "Luton", instead of currently "London-Luton", and Charles de Gaulle Airport would be listed as "Roissy".)
4. Use the name of the primary city served by the airport, to be determined by consensus in individual cases where there is dispute (eg. Luton Airport primarily serves London, therefore it would be listed as London Luton. Where an airport serves multiple cities, consensus should be reached on which is the primary city.)

Part 2 - How should cases be handled where multiple airports serve the same primary location (as determined by part 1)? For example, when Western Sydney Airport opens, the city of Sydney will have two airports serving it. How should they be differentiated? Note - in all cases the "primary region" is determined by the outcome of part 1.

1. Where one airport is outwith the primary region, list it differently (eg. Western Sydney Airport is located 27 miles from Sydney itself, so list it as "Luddenham" or "Badgerys Creek" instead
2. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using IATA codes - eg. "Sydney-SYD" and "Sydney-WSI"
3. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using the official airport name - eg. "Sydney Kingsford-Smith" and "Sydney-Western"
4. Disambiguate all airports in the same region using the specific locality the airport is located in (eg. "Sydney-Botany Bay" and "Sydney-Luddenham")
5. A combination of options 2, 3 and 4 depending on consensus for the specific situations
6. Use a method similar to WP:COMMONNAME to determine the disambiguator, based on a commonly-used name from reliable independent sources
7. Do not disambiguate airports in the same primary region

Context: this RfC has been started as there has been repeated disagreement on how the existing style guide for airports should be implemented when writing destination lists. I've posted here rather than at the Airports WikiProject as this also affects airline destination lists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Options 4 and 5 6 (as proposer) - airports are known and advertised as the primary city served by the airport, with few exceptions. It does become necessary to disambiguate airports, but it's not always possible to fit them all into the same "box" - in some cases using IATA codes makes more sense, sometimes using local names (like London Luton) and sometimes official names (like Sydney-Kingsford Smith). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Vote amended after the addition of COMMONNAME, an option I should have thought of from the start but didn’t…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

4 for part 1 and 5 for part 2

For part 1: The official name, or the name of the locality in which the airport is located will be unfamiliar to most readers looking at a destination list, for whom the city name will likely be the most familiar. A lot of articles about airports are titled with names which do not include the city in them, too.

For part 2: Following on from prioritising familiarity, we should use the most commonly known disambiguator. This can be different in different cases, including:

• The official name of the airport, its abbreviation, or parts of these
• The locality in which the airport is located
• The IATA code of the airport (this seems a little unlikely to me)

Having commented on some of these disputes that the proposer is referencing, a major cause of dispute is determining the primary city, which this RfC does not decide any guidelines on. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately didn’t include the primary city here, because those disputes can’t really be handled by guidance rather by individual discussion. From what I’ve seen, the existing disputes have gotten bogged down by discussion about municipalities etc. which is what this RfC tries to solve. But please by all means, if there’s an improvement to be made here then please do suggest it! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"Disambiguate all airports in the same region" may be misleading. The term "region" can refer to different geographic levels, such as a city, district, metropolitan area, state, or even a larger administrative region. Using a more specific term would help avoid ambiguity and make the guidance clearer. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said in the original question, “region” here refers to the outcome of part 1 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

ok UrbanGridIndia (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For Part 1 – Option 3

The reason I feel this is more appropriate is that it is more straightforward. I am also fine with Option 4, but the issue is that reaching a consensus on selecting a primary city could again create confusion, as people may have differing views on which city should be considered the primary one.

For Part 2 – Option 4

Again, for the same reason, I feel that approaches requiring consensus tend to become more complicated. It is better to use methods that require less consensus while still preserving all relevant information. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

For Part 1 - 4*

(* = denoting that option 4 should also employ a common/consistent separator as appropriate (and consistent in the article's usage but can be omitted if not adding value), but would enhance clarity: for example: New York—JFK or "New York (JFK)" compared to "New York JFK" or "London London" as in the case of YXU)

for Part 2  - 6**

(** = denoting that the COMMONNAME use should be informed by common sense and what is best for clarity/context in usage in the article (as long as it is supported/agreed - the format should be fit for purpose, sometimes London Heathrow, sometimes London LHR might be more appropriate or more obtusely:- "London — London International" is not as clear as "London — YXU"!  (Similarly "Moscow — PUW" saves the day without looking redundant ("Moscow — Pullman-Moscow") but still differentiates from "Moscow—SVO / Moscow—Sheremetyevo").  

Option 6 - This also allows fluidity, for example I would presume that it is more commonly clear that Dubai(DXB) due to their branding/marketing using the IATA code is more well known and "Dubai International" and similarly across town the (up and coming) 10 year old airport is more likely to be referred to as "Dubai World" instead of "Dubai(DWC) or Dubai-Al Maktoum"  - so I think COMMONNAME gives better latitude for the common names in use (often times the airports official site assists as its identity....

(PS - I note that this RfC is laser focused saying this is the format only for "airport and airline destination lists" So all other AVIATION related content would be not expected to be referred to/considered in evaluation of this RfC? ( for example Longest Flights is an Aviation project page that according to this definition is outside this RfC then?) DigitalExpat (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Why are you making this more complicated? Obviously we aren't going to write out "Harry Reid International Airport" in every table as lacking any location in its official name and being an unfamiliar name. No one has suggested option 2 in previous discussions either: it's funny that we get Toronto Pearson International Airport with the city first and namesake second but Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport reversed. And no one has suggested listing only often-unfamiliar physical locations either, so obviously 4, the current practice, is the only option. In part 2, literally nobody has ever used or suggested a "Sydney Botany Bay", so why are you proposing unreasonable options? 5 is the only thing that makes sense, there's not a one-size-fits-all for names and locations of airports, which differ in naming formats, relative size, familiar usage, specific areas served, and need for disambiguation in the first place. As Arnav noted, this doesn't even address the issue at the Airports talk, where the main issue is what the primary city served is. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Because RfCs must be neutral, so I'm not going to restrict the discussion only to that which has already been talked about. As for the issue of primary city, I addressed that in response to Arnav's comment above - however it is covered by points 3 and 4 in section 1, because essentially the arguments have been whether we name them after the primary city (eg. Delhi) or the place the airport is physically located (eg. Noida).

If you have a better suggestion then I'm all ears - but it's clear that the current method of working... well isn't working, going by the back and forth. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Options 4 and 5 - I agree with the above. For Part 1, I think other options might make the destination tables a bit clunky with long airport names and Option 4 would follow WP:CONCISE. For Part 2, I imagine that for the most part we could follow WP:COMMONAME to choose between if we use Options 2 (i.e. New York-JFK), Option 3 (i.e. London-Luton), or Option 4 (i.e. Orlando-Sanford). ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The airport is geographically & physically located in Jewar, 40 kms south of the primary city, Noida & 80 kms from Delhi. That's what I have been trying to explain you all long @Danners430. You are equating Hahn with Noida which is completely illogical. I am going to write it in simple words again.

Airport - Primary City - Physical/Geographical Location of the Airport

1) Indira Gandhi International Airport - Delhi - Palam

2) Noida International Airport - Noida - Jewar

3) Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport - Mumbai - Andheri

4) Navi Mumbai International Airport - Navi Mumbai - Ulwe (Navi Mumbai literally means New Mumbai. The word "Navi" is Marathi for "New" (as in new city not airport) so writing it as Mumbai-Navi sounds like York-New, complete nonsense)

I can't explain it more simply than this so please try to understand. FlyJet777 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with the RfC in question? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"or the place the airport is physically located (e.g. Noida)" - You clearly seem to confuse Jewar with Noida. Hence I wrote that. FlyJet777 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this. I've raised concerns previously about how we approach Western Sydney Airport in the destination lists, so hopefully this will help generate a consensus moving forward. For Part 1, I think it is pretty straightforward. My preference is Option 4. I'm taking the perspective here that the utility of these lists for most people is understanding where airlines fly to from the airport, which they would associate with a city or major metropolitan area.

Part 2 is a little more complicated. As it is currently written, anything proposed other than Option 2 and Option 5 are unworkable, but 5 doesn't provide the level of specificity we need to resolve the issue - each case would still be open to interpretation. I think consideration should be given to disambiguation by WP:COMMONNAME instead of the options proposed.

• Option 1 makes no sense at all and would be confusing for a reader. It might work for a major hub like Newark (per COMMONNAME), or for local audiences (eg. Most Australians would know Avalon is an airport between Geelong and Melbourne), but very few people interested in whether you can fly from San Francisco or Singapore to Australia are going to have a clue where Badgery's Creek is!
• Option 2 actually works for disambiguation, as IATA codes are unique. However, this may not be easily recognisable or intuitive to readers who aren't aviation enthusiasts or frequent travellers.
• As to Option 3, the official name is often very long, so it might be more appropriate to shorten it (this is where COMMMONNAME helps again!) Eg, the examples given of Sydney - Kingsford Smith and Sydney - Western do not actually match this scheme. The airport's official names are Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport and Western Sydney Nancy Bird Walton International Airport. Nobody is going to bother to spell those out every time. It would be more appropriate to list them as Sydney - Kingsford Smith and Sydney - Nancy Bird Walton.
• Option 4 is also ridiculous. For the examples given of Sydney, no recent sources would refer to airport by either of those names. You may find some sources referring to Badgery's Creek airport, but these would be purely historical references that pre-date construction of the airport.
• Option 5 as stated is the most workable, but lacks specificity as a guideline to resolve disputes.
• Option 6 7 would only work in specific situations. Eg. If and airline flys to both JFK and LaGuardia Airport, are we just going to list "New York" twice in the same list? However, in the case of Sydney where the airport is being marketed as serving Western Sydney, you could have both Sydney and Western Sydney in the same list. Interestingly, Sydney - Western' (which appears to be the preferred usage currently) seems to align more to this option (although it would be Western Sydney, rather than Sydney - Western). Dfadden (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this may actually resolve the concerns raised by other responders... @UrbanGridIndia, @Arnav Bhate, @FlyJet777, @Dfadden, @Mike gigs, @Reywas92 - would any of you object to adding a seventh option to Part 2, that being "WP:COMMONNAME"? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would just result in disambiguations like "City name–Airport article title", right? And my concerns are with part 1, not part 2. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily - remember that COMMONNAME is essentially guidance on using "commonly recognizable names"... and if it's only being applied to the disambiguator, we'd be determining in each case what the common disambiguator would be. For example in the case of Sydney, it would probably be Kingsford Smith or Western, and in the case of New York it would be JFK or LaGuardia.

Just replying to your concern abot part 1... I don't think an RfC can really come to any consensus on what the primary city should be in every case, which is why I never added such a point. In each case it's different. The reason as far as I can see that no discussions about primary cities have ever gotten anywhere is because we've wound up mired in discussions over the other points in the RfC... in the case of Mumbai, we ended up going on a tangent about metropolitan areas for example. A lot of the discussions would be easier to have if it was focussed purely on which city an airport primarily serves, and if option 4 is decided upon in part 1 then that's the only question being asked. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As there’s not been any opposition, and further editors have voiced their support, I’ve added COMMONNAME as option 6. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel Part 1 is more complicated. Conflicts usually arise in large metropolitan areas where there are two airports located in two different cities. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I checked that Badgerys Creek is a suburb of Sydney, so the airport should be considered as serving Sydney. That is why I feel Part 1, is pretty straightforward in this case. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The reason I feel Option 4 is not ridiculous is that, for example, "Sydney–Badgerys Creek" clearly indicates that the airport is located in Badgerys Creek, which is part of Sydney. This provides both the specific location of the airport and its association with the larger city it serves, while also giving us cleaner and more consistent guidelines.

We could also use IATA codes, but that would require readers to be familiar with them. Additionally, IATA codes are not always derived from the airport's actual location. for example, MAA is the IATA code for Chennai Airport. Airport names can also be quite long, so using commonly recognized short forms may be a practical alternative. For example, we could use "Bengaluru–KIA" for Kempegowda International Airport. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, IATA codes is one of the options - specifically option 2... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I dont think you will find much support for Sydney - Badgery's Creek amongst Australian editors. That has been proposed in discussions here before and found little or no support because of the issue I mentioned around not many sources that refer to it as that. But also, there are other issues. The suburb of Badgery's Creek itself is pretty obscure and not well known even by those in Sydney - it is a rural area on the urban fringe of the Sydney metro area with a population of less than 200, so hardly a major population centre! The airport itself spans lands considered in both Badgery's Creek and Luddenham, to actually has a different postcode (2745) to Badgery's Creek (2755). It is also planned that both suburbs will become part of a new large urban area called Bradfield over the next few years once the airport opens. Dfadden (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@UrbanGridIndia what you have said about "using commonly recognized short forms may be a practical alternative" is very close to what i am suggesting with WP:COMMONNAME Dfadden (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4 for part 1, replacing "city" with "city or metropolitan area" (largely because what is considered as/defined as a "city" varies widely, and also to cover cases like DFW and BSL where the airport is named for and/or explicitly serves multiple cities). Short COMMONNAME for part 2, i.e. apply a short disambiguator that is widely used in reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is commonsense. We need more of it on Wikipedia. My vote is for the same! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I’ve added another option for COMMONNAME since it appears a number of editors would support such an option. To be honest I should have added it from the get-go, so that’s my bad! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Rosbif73's commmon sense approach Dfadden (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  One additional thought: some remote airports (e.g. AKV, GRY, PPW to name but a few) serve relatively small localities that are neither cities nor metropolitan areas. Should we explicitly allow for this in the wording (e.g. by stating "Use the name of the primary city city, metropolitan area or other locality) served by the airport?" Rosbif73 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think that’s sort of what I was going for with option 3 in part 1, but didn’t really carry over into option 4… but yes that does make sense. The only caveat being that if an airport can be said to serve a city above the locality, then it should be said to do so. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  How about "Use the name of the primary locality (in most cases a city or a metropolitan area) served by the airport"? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  That seems eminently sensible - I would support that Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  As a matter of process though, I’m not sure editing the RfC options a second time would be sensible… what say you? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hopefully some of the other !voters will comment on this suggestion and consensus will become clear without needing to edit the RfC statement again (which I agree would be rather late in the game) or ask a separate question. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fingers crossed then - I just don’t like rug-pulling… adding an additional option is one thing, but editing an option after voting just seems wrong Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can support "primary locality" as it accommodates remote airports that do not primarily serve a city or metropolitan area. However, I think it should remain clear that where an airport primarily serves a specific city, that city should normally be used. Otherwise, there is a risk of broader metropolitan or regional labels being used where a more precise city name is available. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is where Rosbif’s point about COMMONNAME comes into play - there are many airports where the municipality (as an example) is more commonly used to refer to the airport than the primary city. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree @Rosbif73 as per my vote replied to up above (here) with the suggested tweak of also commonsense naming and commonsense formatting for optimal reading....

  ("London London International" looks funny and confusing", London (London International) is mildly better, but London (YVU) might be even better?) - but YMMV - should be whatever is best for the article and also using common sense, only use when disambiguation is needed (" Malé (Malé International)" or "Malé (Velana)" or "Malé (MLE) are all inferior/unneeded in most contexts than just "Malé" as this RfC is only for destination lists on Airline and Airport wiki's..... DigitalExpat (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• This RFC is grievously flawed in two critical respects.

Number 1: It does not attempt to define the problem it is trying to solve. Space is at a premium in destination lists, and the current consensus is that we use the shortest practicable form: the city it primarily serves, which is almost always spelled out in the airport's name, plus (if necessary) a short disambiguator if there are multiple major airports. This is perfectly in line with WP:COMMONNAME, where is the evidence that this is not working? (The context, which is oddly not mentioned here, seems to come from the RFC author's insistence on disambiguating Delhi and Mumbai, despite basically everybody else in that discussion disagreeing with them.)

Number 2: The list of proposed "solutions" is absurdly complex (there are 4 x 7 options!) and for no obvious reasons includes options that are contrary to current practice and Wikipedia naming conventions, like using the unabridged official names (mm, Guarulhos – Governador André Franco Montoro International Airport, Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport, San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport, these just roll off the tongue!).

And as the cherry on top, "part 2 option 5", an unspecified combination of options 2, 3 and 4, is pretty much what we have today and brings no additional clarity to edge cases. Asamboi (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You do appear to have confused a few rather crucial points though about the entire purpose of an RfC, so let me go through your points…

1. I’m far from the only editor that had issue at the previous discussion - indeed I count at least two other editors that felt the existing method wasn’t working. The entire purpose of an RfC is that when existing systems aren’t working, which is borne out by the repeated arguments about this issue, a new consensus needs to be formed. That is what this is doing.
2. There are numerous options for the simple reason that RfCs need to allow for all viewpoints. We may think an option is absurd, but that is our viewpoint - it may not be shared by other editors. There’s a very simple solution - don’t vote for the solution you think is absurd, vote for the solution you feel is the most sensible. It may well be that no change in procedure is the outcome - and that’s a valid outcome.

Going by the productive discussion that has been had up until this point, it’s evident that the RfC is needed. It’s not being closed, it’s not going away, so if you have an opinion please let’s hear it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I will not endorse this mess of an RFC. You need to go back to the drawing board, come up with a concrete proposal (you've already changed the options available in mid-flight) and provide some examples of how that would be superior to the status quo for contested cases. Asamboi (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Happily, we do not require “endorsement” from editors to hold RfCs. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• The disambiguation strategy has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. None of the options presented here are going to provide useful guidance that is going to improve on the application of common sense, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. In particular I would not be happy with the "Disambiguate all airports in the same region" language since there are many cases in which one of the airports in a region is "primary" and does not really require disambiguation. For example, the current practice in these lists is that "Orlando" refers to Orlando International Airport while "Orlando/Sanford" refers to Orlando Sanford International Airport: it is common practice in the industry to refer to Sanford as Orlando, so it makes sense to have Orlando in the name because people are not familiar with Sanford, but at the same time Orlando is pretty unambiguous in meaning Orlando International, so it doesn't really make sense to disambiguate that one. Airports are often trying to associate themselves with larger cities, and for whether we include the larger city in the name we just have to look at reliable sources and see how successful these efforts are in terms of how people generally understand the destination served by the airport. In terms of the application to Delhi and Mumbai, that means folks are just going to have to duke it out and reach some consensus. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is to inform interested parties that a deletion discussion about Sadiq Abubakar III International Airport in Nigeria is under way, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadiq Abubakar III International Airport. YSSYguy (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#helis.com. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've (unfortunately) just WP:LLMPRODed around 70 articles on aviation disasters (you can see the list here), idk if anyone fancies saving some of them? (courtesy ping Ohok12 who's expressed interest) To do so, just follow the guidance at WP:LLMPRVOBJ, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

TBH I'd rather expedite their deletion, not save them! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If they feel like notable topics, the easiest and likely most productive action to take en masse would be to collect the sources and put them next to a (soon to be) redlink at something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/missing articles. CMD (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! There is a deletion discussion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigeria Airways Flight 357. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Harry Reid International Airport be moved to Las Vegas Airport, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Raskuly 🐰 11:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Palm Beach International Airport be moved to Donald J. Trump International Airport, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Raskuly 🐰 11:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, there’s a discussion currently taking place at Talk:Ryanair about the inclusion of incidents which fail WP:AIRCRASH. Editors are invited to contribute :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to take a strong position either way on this discussion, but WP:AIRCRASH is itself a contentious and controversial essay. So if an incident doesn't even meet that very low bar, it's up to the person including to demonstrate that it instead meets WP:GNG without being merely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. guninvalid (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed that many articles regarding major historic aviation accidents have been recently deleted via expired PRODs due to text-generation issues. Because these events are clearly notable, I am opening a request at REFUND to get them restored to a draft space so we can manually rewrite them to standard. I would appreciate any eyes or help from the task force once they are restored to ensure the prose and references are solid. - N198UA (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also like assistance with finding more aviation accident articles that have been deleted. - N198UA (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

List of articles that I have found so far: 1961 Mineralnye Vody Il-18 Crash, 1962 Paraná de Eva Panair do Brasil Lockheed Constellation crash, 1996 Texel Douglas DC-3 Crash, 1995 Lagos Harka Air Services Tu-134 Crash, 1991 Royal Saudi Air Force C-130 Hercules Crash, Aeroflot Flight E-35D, Aeroflot Flight 6246, Aeroflot Flight 37577, Uni-Air International Flight 602, 1987 Bakhtar Afghan Airlines Antonov An-26 Shootdown, 1986 Iranian Air Force C-130 Crash, Aeroflot Flight F-77, Aeroflot Flight E-46, Aeroflot Flight Sh-88, Aeroflot Flight 6515, Malév Flight 203, 1977 Tavda Mid-Air Collision, Aeroflot Flight 6274, Aeroflot Flight E-15, 1974 Francistown Wenela Air Services Douglas DC-4 Crash, Aeroflot Flight H-75, Aero Trasporti Italiani Flight 327, 1972 Svetlogorsk An-24 Crash, Aeroflot Flight B-608, Paranese Transportes Aéreos Flight 903, Aeroflot Flight 145, Aeroflot Flight F-28, Aeroflot Flight 302, Air Inter Flight 2611, Serviços Aéreos Cruzeiro do Sul Flight 144, Aeroflot Flight 205, 1958 Lazo Il-12 Crash, Aeroflot Flight 164, Aeroflot Flight 105, Aeroflot Flight 10 (1957), Aeroflot Flight 11, 1957 Begé VARIG Commando Crash, United States Air Force Flight 441/13, 1956 Anadyr Li-2 Crash, Aeroflot Flight 214, Aeroflot Flight 136, 1953 Kemerovo Mid-Air Collision, Aeroflot Flight 229, Aeroflot Flight 783, 1952 Habomai Islanda RB-29 Shootdown Incident, 1952 Tacoma C-54 Crash (I stopped at 1952, will add more later). - N198UA (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

More Articles: 1951 Novosibirsk Il-12 Crash, 1951 Rio do Sal Linhas Aéreas Paulistas C-47 Crash, 1950 Myrtle Beach C-46D Crash, Panair do Brasil Flight 099, 1950 Karaganda Ilyushin Il-12 Crash, Aeroflot Flight 17, 1948 Bodaybo Li-2 Crash, 1948 Royal Air Force Avro Lancaster Crash, 1948 Beechcraft Model 18 Disappearance, 1946 Kolpny Li-2 Crash, 5 November 1946 Vnukovo Aircraft Crashes, 1942 Aeroflot Li-2 Krasnoyarsk Crash, 1941 Alma-Ata G-2 Crash, USSR-B10, 1934 Tupolev ANT-27 Sevastopol Crash, 1933 Tupolev ANT-7 Podolsk Crash, 1931 Tupolev ANT-9 Crash, IRS Aero Flight 9601/02, Northern Thunderbird Air Flight 204 (Not PRODed, but another recent article that I have wanted to re-add to Wikipedia), Summit Air Flight 802D (Same thing as Northern Thunderbird Air Flight 204), and 2023 National Aerobatic Team Aermacchi MB-339 Crash (That took a while) N198UA (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice to know how many of them have a realistic chance of being recreated. I took a look at some and identified a few that could be recreated (for one, 1991 Royal Saudi Air Force C-130 Hercules crash), but I have a feeling that most of them simply don't have enough sources to justify a standalone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I know Montréal–Trudeau International Airport is the official name, but if you go to Montreal, the locals still call it Dorval Airport, so that would be the common name. Montreal now has a second airport, which is officially MET – Montreal Metropolitan Airport, but the locals call it Saint-Hubert Airport. Given this discrepancy between local and outsider usage, which terms should we default to? Montreal-Dorval and Montreal-Saint-Hubert would be the common names if you follow local usage. The dog2 (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This confirms me in my opinion that, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, aerodromes in general and airports in particular should only be named and referenced with their official name. The first source of information should therefore be the AIP, a legally defined and published official document. Adopting this exception to COMMONNAME would also end for once and for good the endless arguments about names of airports in destination lists. Remember that this would not be a precedent: we already have a consensus that, contrary to general practice on WP, we do not use country flags in aviation articles. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

We have way too many articles about defunct UK articles that are mostly about very short-lived, non-notable and with either no sources or just one or two sources that confirm that the airline existed and not why it is notable enough to warrant a standalone article rather than a row entry in List of defunct airlines of the United Kingdom. I have listed a few at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation and will work my way through the full list in due course. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palm Beach International Airport#Requested move 2 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is abundant with uncited texts and possible original research which would be bad on a usual article, but is catastrophically bad for such an infamous historical event. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and good to know you care about the article. Go ahead and start fixing it and come back if you need any specific help. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

for a start i've added more citation neededs. not sure what else i can do, maybe later i can condense the article and add more citations - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. Like I say, shout if you need help as this is a busy project with a number of willing helpers. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy: - I've got access to The Times archives. Let me know when you've finished tagging and I'll see what I can reference. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

eh, i'll see. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My main problem with the article is the unnecessarily lengthy sections about hypothesis that could probably be shortened into a couple of paragraphs yet still get the general jist. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup. Far too much unsourced content. Self-evident original research. Needs deflating... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

the problem is i'm too much of a lazy bum to fix it! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#A_separate_wikiproject_is_needed_for_Airships_and_other_lighter-than-air_aircraft_(Cross-posting_from_Wikiproject_Aviation) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject for how to start a Wikiproject, but note the advice on finding people who are interested first. Many Wikiprojects go dormant because the initial enthusiasm of one or two contributors isn't sustainable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

thinking of making it a task force. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to invite input from WikiProject Aviation on a substantial rewrite of Parachuting that I have prepared in userspace at User:MargaritaPLV/Parachuting rewrite. The main proposal and discussion are at Talk:Parachuting#Proposed comprehensive rewrite.

I am primarily active on Latvian Wikipedia, but I also edit on English Wikipedia, and aviation has been one of my long-standing interests. While researching skydiving, I worked on substantial improvements to the Latvian and Russian articles, both of which had previously been much less developed. That work led me to examine the English article more closely.

The current English article contains a large amount of potentially useful information, but it has also carried a general sourcing banner since 2009. In its present form it mixes an encyclopedic overview with duplicated discipline coverage, detailed instructional passages, local drop-zone traditions, commercial price information, long lists of unevenly sourced records, weak or dead references, and media whose size or placement sometimes obscures the structure of the article.

I did not set out simply to shorten the article. My aim was to preserve its useful breadth while giving it a clearer structure around parachuting as both an aviation activity and an air sport. The draft therefore retains the early history, civilian and military uses, the sequence of a sport jump, training methods, equipment, safety, major freefall and canopy disciplines, organisations, drop zones, high-altitude milestones, formation records and the existing popular-culture topic.

While preparing the draft, I asked a USPA examiner and instructor, together with several other experienced participants in the sport, to read the technical descriptions and point out terminology or practical inaccuracies. I treated this only as an informal technical check. It is not approval, and it does not replace reliable published sources or discussion among Wikipedia editors.

The source approach in the draft is broadly as follows:

• the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale is used for international competition disciplines, formats and record status;
• the United States Parachute Association and British Skydiving are used for their own national training systems, terminology and safety guidance;
• the Federal Aviation Administration and the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations are used for United States aviation requirements;
• peer-reviewed research is used for injury and fatality patterns;
• FAI and similar institutional sources are used for historical claims.

I have tried to state the geographical and institutional scope of each source. USPA material is presented as United States guidance rather than as a universal rule, while FAI material is used for international competition and record governance. The rewrite adds or develops several areas that seemed particularly important:

• a clearer distinction between parachuting as the broader activity and skydiving as a common or sometimes narrower term;
• the sequence from aircraft exit through freefall, deployment, canopy flight and landing;
• tandem, static-line, instructor-assisted deployment and accelerated-freefall training;
• the aviation role of jump aircraft, drop zones, airspace and operational planning;
• the distinction between the FAI, national air-sport bodies and national parachuting associations;
• formation skydiving, canopy formation, freeflying, angle flying, wingsuit flying, canopy piloting, accuracy landing, speed skydiving, paraski and indoor competition;
• safety coverage based on a recent systematic review and clearly identified national statistics;
• a shorter and more verifiable selection of high-altitude and formation records.

Some material was removed or condensed because its existing treatment seemed too instructional, repetitive, temporary or weakly sourced for a general encyclopedia article. This includes duplicated sections on the same disciplines, detailed night-jump and cross-country instructions, a long explanation of ejection-seat operation, commercial equipment prices, local activities such as space-ball or raft jumps, drop-zone drinking traditions, and a large number of age, lifetime-jump and novelty records supported by sources of uneven quality. These subjects were not removed simply because they are unusual. The question was whether their previous coverage was proportionate, verifiable and suitable for a general overview rather than a training guide or collection of local practices.

The media were also reorganised so that each file has a specific explanatory purpose. The draft uses opening and landing media for the stages of a jump, a tandem image in the training section, an aircraft image for jump operations, and separate images for canopy formation, formation skydiving, freeflying, angle flying and wingsuit flying. A ground rehearsal image illustrates a formation-skydiving dirt dive. The large generic freefall image near the beginning of the current article was removed because it dominated the layout without explaining a distinct part of the subject.

I retained the current civilian pre-exit image in the infobox with a more precise caption, but I am open to a more representative lead image. Earlier discussion on the article talk page raised both the representativeness of the lead image and the relationship between the terms parachuting and skydiving, so those questions remain relevant to this rewrite.

I would especially appreciate comments from aviation and air-sport editors on:

• whether the relationship between parachuting and skydiving is described accurately and neutrally;
• whether the aviation context, including aircraft operations, exits, drop zones, airspace and regulation, is sufficiently represented;
• whether the roles of FAI, national air-sport bodies and national parachuting associations are correctly distinguished;
• whether United States regulations and guidance are clearly limited to their proper jurisdiction;
• whether the balance between recreational, competitive, military, emergency and specialist uses is appropriate;
• whether any major internationally recognised discipline is omitted or given disproportionate weight;
• whether the source balance between FAI, USPA, British Skydiving, FAA material and scholarly research is reasonable;
• whether the lead image and the wider media layout represent the subject effectively;
• whether any remaining passage is still too instructional or too dependent on primary institutional sources;
• whether the rewrite should eventually be implemented as one coherent replacement or through several coordinated edits.

I am not asking the project to endorse a finished version. I would value technical and editorial scrutiny before making any major change to the main article. I will keep the proposed text in userspace and revise it in response to specific feedback.

To keep the discussion in one place, please comment at Talk:Parachuting#Proposed comprehensive rewrite. Thank you. MargaritaPLV (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: the userspace rewrite has now been implemented in Parachuting after the discussion period and a fresh current-source, history and rendered-layout check. The current version is revision 1367640029. The detailed record of the proposal remains at Talk:Parachuting#Proposed comprehensive rewrite.

Thank you to anyone who had the page on watch. I will leave the live article on watch rather than continue expanding it, and will respond at the article talk page if a specific aviation, sourcing or technical issue is identified. MargaritaPLV (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Due to how notable the R33 and R34 are on their own, i propose it be split into these 3 articles:

R33-class airship

R33 (airship)

R34 (airship) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see the need. The article as it is has the correct size - neither too big nor too small - and right content. Splitting it up would only increase the "noise" factor. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a point of style for the future. Such a discussion should be started on the article's talk page. However, you're then very welcome to come here and place a link to invite participation by project contributors (without imposing your own thoughts of course). 10mmsocket (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

An aircraft type article is the typical approach and is best here. There is little benefit in covering individual aircraft in separate articles if they are very similar. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In regard to this conversation, I would like our members to express your thoughts about this. Ohok12 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this article doesn't deserve Start-class rate - mainly from failed verification references, as the crash was impactful and undeniably widely-known, and the article looked kinda detailed. I'm have no experts in writing GA/A/B articles, so I need help here. Ohok12 (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The importance/notability of an article has no bearing on its assessment, it is purely a Wikipedia community-based standard scale of writing, supporting materials (images) and referencing. Further info at Wikipedia:Content assessment. There are vital articles that are given priority to achieve a higher standard. For this article there was no B class checklist coding on the talk page (see the aviation project banner and unhide the checklist), I have added this and assessed it as C class as the only problem is the unaddressed sourcing tags. With articles that involve additional projects (disasters and New York in this case) I do not promote the article unless they have also completed their checklist, they may have different criteria. Some bots award the same class automatically to the other projects though I haven't seen that happen for a while (I don't believe it was correct to do that).

Complications arise when different editors have differing opinions on an article's standard (some over-assess, some under-assess) and even more trouble when the article creator roasts the assessor for not awarding their article a higher class. This is the main reason that I stopped assessing articles, if you add an uncompleted B-class checklist it appears that a lowly Start class has been awarded, not the case as it's simply that the B-class parameters have not been completed i.e. the article has not been assessed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment. Sometime ago the Wikipedia assessment system was changed but the Aviation and Milhist projects opted out, retaining the local systems. This can cause assessment discrepancies between projects, I'm trying to find that thread. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Some project members (perhaps all?) may have noticed an appearance change to talk page section headers, I noticed this a while ago. Today I noticed a blank character space between 'Talk:' and the article title (e.g. Talk:Supermarine Spitfire appears as Talk: Supermarine Spitfire, I was perturbed by this as I often create archive talk pages.

The change is directly related to this site-wide change applied as default. Users can restore the original appearance by unchecking 'Show discussion activity' in Preferences - Editing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought the space would mess up copy/paste, but I read that it’s just CSS and there is no character there. How is it impacting you? Dw31415 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It would have had no effect but I was not to know that so I queried the change at the Village Pump (Technical). I have suggested that a simple notification to all wikiprojects would have been nice, the people who edit the technical stuff rarely consider that their site-wide changes just might be noticed. "I'll Get Me Coat". Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Huh, that explains things. I have my preferences set to automatically enable beta features, so I didn't realize that's what it was when I noticed the changes about a year ago. - ZLEA ^TǀC 09:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Anyone interested in helping clean up some slop? I created User:Dw31415/AI Cleanup to list articles tagged for AI in aviation. Should I make this a sub page in the project?

Note: I started preparing to work on Air traffic control Dw31415 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Add every article created by settignano (talk · contribs), a particularly nasty person who ended up being blocked from among other things making violence/death threats against another editor. He used AI. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• FYI, this user's contributions can be filtered by "(Main)" Namespace to limit it to articles only. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it ok if I just stubfied the article Ohok12 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I can do more targeted fixes to ATC. Dw31415 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amman Civil Airport#Requested move 20 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 02:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I have prepared a substantial userspace rewrite of Wingsuit flying at User:MargaritaPLV/Wingsuit flying rewrite. The main proposal and discussion are at Talk:Wingsuit flying#Proposed comprehensive rewrite.

The draft reorganises the article around the history, aerodynamics, aircraft flight and deployment sequence, training, FAI disciplines, wingsuit BASE, safety and a concise record section; it also separates ratified records from preliminary June 2026 claims. I would especially value aviation and air-sport scrutiny of the aircraft-exit, airspace, deployment, source-balance and record-status treatment.

To keep discussion in one place, please comment at the article talk page. Thank you. MargaritaPLV (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects, like the astronomy and spaceflight have a kind-of logo, but this one is just a picture of the wright flyer! should a logo be designed? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

For most of the TA's that edit articles under this project I'd suggest a gaggle of spotters. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Given that it started with the Wright Flyer I think it's the perfect choice. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

maybe a more stylised wright flyer? also, aviation didnt start with the wright flyer due to lighter than air aircraft still existing before it - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to propose something. Of course if you have the spare time you could have at the countless unsourced or badly-sourced articles, especially those rife with spotter-site WP:UGC / WP:SPS references. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Not a priority, to say the least. What is it but eye-candy? Better to work on the content of our dear encyclopedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This event is in the news. I added a couple of redirects (see talk). Posting here to get more eyes on the article. Dw31415 (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)