Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 16

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group. [1] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. [2] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Space programSpace program has been nominated for discussion at RfD -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_11#Template:Green_aviation. - ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahunt (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi… I’m Jeremy Lovey from Solar Impulse. I’m looking for someone to help me fix some inaccuracies on the Solar Impulse article. (Here’s my original Talk page post.) Obviously I have a conflict-of-interest, so I’m wondering if I can prevail upon any WP:Aviation volunteers? Would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. -- Jeremy Solar (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You should also ask at WT:Air (Aircraft), which is a more active talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jeremy Solar: Thank you for being up-front with this, it is a very constructive step. You should read wp:COI to understand the best practices. A brief disclosure note on your user page would be a great step. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think each plane should have it's own independent article and the articles on the families should also be independent. After all the B777x and A330neo as well as B737MAX and A320Neos have their independent articles but are still part of these families. We should keep the articles on the families but keep a main article link to each model.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to be more specific which "families" need to be split out from the main article, remember in most cases where needed the content has already been split into different family members. MilborneOne (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:, I meant the different Boeing & Airbus families. Like Airbus 321 redirects to A320 family. What we need to do is keep A321 listed on the A320 family, but have a main article link to a separate and fully detailed article about the A321.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears as if it's already been done.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated for deletion the article List of airlines of the Faroe Islands. The discussion can be found here.Olidog (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Multi-function display is up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-function display. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The nominating-editor that I have been working with on this GA Review (Class455) does not have a lot of time over the next week or so to work on adjusting the article per my requests. I am participating in the most recent GA Cup and would like to finish up my Review before the end of the month. If someone from this Project could step in and lend a hand that would be very helpful, there aren't really all that many issues left. (I have also posted this request over on the talkpage for WikiProject Aircraft.) Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just participated in MilHist's March Madness competition, and noticed all of the improvement on military articles. Whoever came up with March Madness sure made an effective way to make improvements. This WikiProject needs something similar. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Although some of the users are the same we dont work in the same regimented fashion as mil history and have tended to work better when somebody (like User:Kyteto) asks for help on a particularly article and we respond accordingly. You are welcome just to suggest help in improving an article (we did a have an article of the month thing a while back) but I am not sure the full blown mil hist approach is how we work here. But if you and others have any suggestions then it will be welcomed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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/2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision. Come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision. Come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if we have an article on Air et Cosmos, the big French-language industry magazine? (section or full article) Am I just missing it somehow, or do we not have one yet? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it on a search of en:wp, but the French Wikipedia has it: fr:Air et Cosmos. (Might need to be able to read and translate French to create an English article from sources.) DonFB (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

fr:Fichier:Air & Cosmos.svg says it is copyrighted, but on English Wikipedia, this would seem to be a {{PD-textlogo}} file -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've begun a draft at DRAFT: Air & Cosmos with a partial translation -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: This editor is fluent in French, so may be of help. - BilCat (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

[forgot to reply here and replied to Bilcat's talk page, moved here on 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)]. Don't hesitate to put it in the mainspace, nothing is wrong with the draft, I know this publication and checked the given french refs (Le Figaro is a reliable major newspaper, the circular and difficult to check [Air&Cosmos 25 March 1963] isn't great though but supports a not so controversial paragraph). The claim "top three industry magazine" along AvWeek and Flight is bold though, it's the main french aerospace industry mag, but compared to the 2 previous is of inferior quality, less capable technically and often too Airbus fanboy. I don't read German, but Flug Revue seems to have at least a similar industry coverage. The best french aerospace publication was the swiss Interavia (translated in FR, DE, EN, SP), disappeared in the 90s. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

[[de:Flug Revue]] I've rarely had the chance to read that, and my German is too poor to actually read much beyond a few bits. So that would seem to indicate that we should create a [[Flug Revue]] as well? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Interavia magazine was removed from Interavia recently, so it seems like an [[Interavia (magazine)]] stub article could be built from what was erased? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's sufficient to go to mainspace now, I've directly attached to French article's references to the translated text without reading the original French refs though. But I suspect that's how most translated articles are done, without reading the originals sources. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've submitted the current draft for submission -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace now. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have started an article at 2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash. Please add to it if you can. It has a Current tag on it. Message posted here in order to avoid duplication of effort.

As there have been many helicopter crashes in Snowdonia, I have prefixed the title with 2017. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is just a light aircraft crash, with no notable people involved and no sign of a cause that will have any lasting effect on airworthiness rules or ATC procedures, etc. These are daily events worldwide. Why would we have an article about this? See WP:RUNOFTHEMILL - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It should have just been merged into Snowdonia instead of needing to go through AfD -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Many of you will be aware of the recent incident on a United Airlines aircraft when a passenger was forcibly removed from an aircraft that was overbooked and sustained moderate injuries. This is looking like a major PR disaster for United Airlines. As things stand at the moment, it has probably already passed WP:GNG and could well sustain an article. There is a precedent that such incidents can sustain articles - United Breaks Guitars.

Might be worth discussing here as to whether or not there should be an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Like all such incidents it is difficult to make the non-aviation editor understand the weight of such incidents against the history of the airline but as they can see it on social media and the news is must be important. If it does turn out to have an effect on the business then it may be worth a mention on the United article but hardly a stand-alone article. It appears that it was actually a United Express Embraer 170 flight operated by Republic but that doesnt appear to have been noted as it doesnt fit the anti-United theme. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was United Express Flight 3411 on 9 April, but it is United Airlines that are copping the flak. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 3411 has been created, and nominated for deletion.Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly is a bit of PR disaster for United but we are now seeing a bit of a pile on and attempts to add other United are crap stories. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There's been a website around for 20 years or so dedicated to United Airlines complaints. It is called Untied.com....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Then if there are that many, is it time for United are crap or Lists of reasons why United are crap? I'm failing to see this reasoning why "Oh, it's just one incident of many" is diluting WP:N for this incident. As Mjroots pointed out, this was just one passenger on one flight, but it's going to be one long-running PR problem for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the notability as a PR failure for United and United Express of the recent incident, although it now appears the "deboarding" and handling of the passenger was actually done by "aviation officers" and not Republic. It does concern me that every gripe against United is tagged onto the one incident. Perhaps also a lesson on using your name on other airlines aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There's been a suggestion to merge Suborbital spaceplane to Spaceplane since 2010. Please participate at the discussion at talk:Suborbital spaceplane. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Suborbital spaceplane

How much does a helipad add to the cost of a building. As you can see in the foreground, the Mt. Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, has several helipads, ranked for different weights of helicopters: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0718989,-118.3789237,525a,35y,39.33t/data=!3m1!1e3 The one in the center is ranked "15," for 15,000 pounds, while the one in the back left is ranked "12" for 12,000 pounds.

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to add such a helipad to the roof of a building, and how much more it adds to the cost to increase the poundage to support heavier and heavier helicopters?

If so, you could add it to the Wikipedia Helipad page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helipad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31EB:2EC0:F8DD:9DBA:8A67:71F5 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no sensible answer. It depends very much on the building: Does it need reinforcing, does it need its roof replacing with a flat one? etc. etc. Forget it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Some attention is welcome on the Sonaca 200 article. Most work on it was obviously done by someone very close to the project but little acquainted with Wikipedia. I do not question the good intentions but there is room left for improvement, in aligning the article to Wikipedia standards. I already did my best but am uncertain at several points - the right way to do unit conversions for one example. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft re the inclusion or not of the United Express Flight 3411 incident on that list. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United Airlines#Multiple issues. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) There is a dispute about whether historical logos should be used in the article's "history" section. Some editors say it is advertising, while others disagree. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've started a draft about this company at Draft:PD AeroSpace; it has an article on Japanese Wikipedia. I was wondering if there's more available about this company (I cannot read Japanese, I'll be using MTL to read any such sources, such as Google Translate). -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is now live, per advise from WP:JAPAN -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit: I just saw the suggestion on top, and will copy this for the aircraft sub-group as well) I've only learned about this topic recently, and have fiddled with some edits, but must say that this seems to be one of the most underreported major historical events in aviation and world history. The first non-stop trans-Pacific flight, with only one remaining artifact - the plane's propeller, I'd say that it's a national treasure, exhibited in the state of Washington near the plane's landing site - and the pilot and co-pilot telling interesting circumstances and tales about this flight (by the way, we have no article on the co-pilot of the first non-stop trans-Pacific flight if anyone would like to have a go at it) I've come here to ask the project to take a look at working on, improving, and linking the following articles: Miss Veedol, Clyde Pangborn, Hugh Herndon, and Wenatchee Valley Museum & Cultural Center. Thanks. History is so great when you come upon something new like this, at least new for me, and realizing that the world has underappreciated a historical event and artifact. I'd say that as an artifact the propeller is in a group just below the Syng inkstand as important but little-known American objects. I wish we had a picture of it. Randy Kryn 01:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a proposal to move Pilot (aeronautics) to Aviator at Talk:Pilot (aeronautics)#Requested move 8 May 2017. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 16/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Aviation.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Aviation, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Could someone sufficiently knowledgeable take a look at Noordzee Helikopters Vlaanderen? The pictures look over large to me, and one carries a "copyright" mark. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Aviation System Performance Metrics and Autonomous air combat manoeuvring instrumentation and let me know if they actually do need their own articles, or if either would be better merged & redirected to a parent? And if they should remain standalone, is there someplace I could link to either to de-orphan them? These articles are unrelated but they are both orphans that I'd love to get out of the Feb 2009 orphans backlog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

PMC I would suggest that Autonomous air combat manoeuvring instrumentation would be better as a paragraph in Air combat maneuvering instrumentation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Beauty thank you! That's one down :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway about including non-airline flights in this list article under "see also". Interested editors may comment here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Now listed for AfD deletion discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airline flights that required gliding. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major be moved; discussion here for anyone interested. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A user has proposed that Gliding flight be moved to Gliding. The current topic at Gliding, which is about the sport of gliding, would be moved somewhere else. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for keeping up the great work! In case anyone has a moment, your feedback is requested on a possible new infobox image for Boeing 737. Please see options, or suggest your own, here. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who commented on that discussion, which is now concluded. There is however another discussion open about Boeing 737 Classic, opinions welcome. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

An edit war has broken out at Wataniya Airways between 139.190.254.44 (talk · contribs) and CBG17 (talk · contribs). I have asked them both to stop on their user talk pages. I do not yet know the rights and wrongs of their edits or of their individual behaviour, so any help in restoring normality would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this aviation accident (1, 2, 3) deserve an article? There is a bit of coverage but it is mostly in Spanish, would it pass WP:NOTNEWS and this WikiProject's guidelines? Inter&anthro (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Very commonplace, just like a car accident. These happen pretty much everyday globally. No lasting effects beyond the deaths. - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Fighter_aircraft#RFC_about_fighter_effectiveness_section

Please feel free to comment if you wish. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for RAF Lossiemouth; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I get some neutral opinion? I've got User:Andy Dingley calling the Bomarc a ballistic missile here and implying it's a SAM here. Now, it was intended to destroy bombers, but I've only ever heard it called a cruise missile. Can somebody weigh in on the Arrow talk page & straighten him out? I'm getting really tired of arguing with him, about every edit I make. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I know you have reading problems and can't accurately transcribe a spelling from one place to another, but my point is that you are describing Bomarc as a ballistic missile (and then as a cruise missile), when I know that it's anything but.

Again, stop lying about other editors. Stop 4RR edit-warring. If anyone is desperate enough to care, see User talk:Parsecboy#Edit war? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are ignoring WP:CIVIL and getting stuck into a slanging match. If either of you takes the other to WP:ANI you'd probably both earn a cooling-down block. I'd suggest you both leave this particular article for someone else to come along one day and fix up. One more tip - next time someone slags you off, don't bite back but stay polite and article-focused (I succumb occasionally and it never does me any good, ahem). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone revert this please. The airport article has been at "Menorca Airport" since creation in 2006. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You should probably discuss the name change on the article's talk page first. --Finlayson (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Already advised the editor that this isn't the name re other moves, would prefer that someone familiar with aviation look at it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with aviation, it is the difference between "Spanish" i.e. Castillano and Catalan languages. Touches politics. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the move right after the OP posted here, as the title had been stable for 11 years. - BilCat (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully accept that the vast majority of general aviation accidents are not notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia, or even a mention.

However, there was an accident yesterday where a Cessna 152 made an emergency landing on a beach in Portugal, killing two people on the beach. Obviously, an investigation is underway. It is possible that the cause of the emergency landing was the partial structural failure of a wing in flight. If and only if this is the cause, is the threshold met for a mention in the Cessna 152 article, or a stand-alone article? Obviously if the cause was engine failure, with the wing damage being a result of the forced landing, then it is just another non-notable GA accident as far as we are concerned. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots I don't understand why wing failure makes it notable but engine failure doesn't? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Engine failure in light aircraft is a relatively common event. Structural failure of a wing in which the aircraft is successfully landed is an extremely rare event. Still unclear exactly what has happened here and am not going to rush to add anything just yet. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots that's not a good match with the WP:AIRCRASH criteria, however given that people on the ground were killed I expect that it might get sufficient news coverage for WP:GNG, so let's wait and see if media interest is sustained. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed re AIRCRASH, but that cannot possibly cover every scenario. There are plenty of sources available covering what has happened, but this incident needs to go further than GNG, otherwise Wikipedia could be flooded with thousands of articles on GA accidents. This one really hinges on the why it happened. Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The why is apparently an engine failure. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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/Air Canada Flight 759. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how many editors here participate on Commons, but since RuthAS has provided so many nice historical aircraft photos there which have been used in aviation articles here, I was rather concerned to see this deletion request, which I've taken the trouble to reply to. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm now more concerned. The Commons user who started the deletion request has found three photos that RuthAS listed as "own work" which are clearly too early for her to have taken them herself, and two of these she lists on her other online photo collections (on airliners.net and abpic.co.uk) as having been obtained from other sources. So this may put all her contributions under a cloud. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

See my comments on Commons RuthAS (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've just replied. Is there anyone else here who has experience dealing with issues like this on Commons and can possibly offer some assistance? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Improvements welcome on the Flight planning article: it is very one-sided on commercial aviation, plus very US-centric. Also, it only discusses the creation of the flight plan document, which for a private pilot is only the last step in the process. Thanks in advance, Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've locked the Air India article due to an edit war. Details at the talk page. Fresh eyes welcome please. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Article has now been unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia guideline or convention on whether we write say P 201, P.201 or P-201 for some particular type designation, when sources differ? Please give your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Punctuation in type numbers. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on the WikiProject Bristol cleanup list and several aircraft articles are included which are outside my areas and expert help would be appreciated:

• Bristol Orion where there is a "clarify" tag on: Maximum power output: 5,150 eshp (3,840 kW) (maximum takeoff)
• Bristol Theseus where there is a "clarify" tag on: Specific fuel consumption: 0.5 lb/equiv. hp/h ( kg/equiv. kW/h)
• Bristol Beaufort where there is an "expansion needed" tag saying: "content on 1943–44 service and retirement/replacement."
• Bristol Aerojet where there is a deadlink to http://www.skomer.u-net.com/start.htm for a claim about "Rocket motor casings for Martin Bullpup air-launched missile"
• Bristol Blenheim where there is a deadlink to http://www.blenheimsociety.org.uk/BB%20Journal%20-%20contents%20table%20-%2054-55&56.doc for a claim about "The England cricketer Sqn Ldr Bill Edrich was awarded the DFC for his part in the raid."
• Bristol Bulldog where there is a deadlink to http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fafincolor.html for a claim about the paragraph related to use by the Finnish Air Force against the Soviet Union
• Concorde where there are dead links to http://www.icbh.ac.uk/witness/concorde/ re a quote "to develop a brand-new engine for Concorde would have been prohibitively expensive" and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-5212185.html re "Periodically Concorde visited the region on similar chartered flights to Mexico City and Acapulco."
• Bristol Coanda Monoplanes a page number is needed in Barnes, CH (1964). Bristol Aircraft Since 1910 (First ed.). London: Putnam
• Bristol Siddeley which needs additional citations for verification.

Any help with any of them would be great.— Rod ^talk 15:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: try running those deadlinks through the Wayback Machine. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wayback machine doesn't have those pages.— Rod ^talk 07:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Theseus clarification tags don't have any reasons given inline - the article history gives the edit summary when they were added as "what does "equiv." mean?" I'm guessing it's 'equiv' because the turboprop power is that delivered through shaft plus the jet efflux but is there an engine expert in the house? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

(I've also directed this to the Aviation accident task force; I just figured I should also give notice here.)

I've renamed the article on this crash and purged a clearly incorrect flight number from every Wikipedia article I could find with it. I've also made some new comments on its talk page. This is an important crash in U.S. aviation history; sadly, its article could stand a lot of work. Is there anyone here who feels able to help with that? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A proposal has been put forward to alter the inclusion criteria for entries in the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. The proposal affects aircraft types that first flew before 1921. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format#Proposal for inclusion criteria for pre-1921 aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow never entered service, but the page has an Operators section that states "Royal Canadian Air Force – Arrow was cancelled before entering service." which is blindingly obvious from all that precedes it. Pages such as TSR-2 don't have an Operators section. Which is the correct approach to adopt in such cases? regards Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that, if there never was an operator beyond the manufacturer's normal flight testing, this section serves no purpose for the reader, save to make us look ridiculous. Even many a machine operated solely by a research organization, such as the Fairey Delta 1, does not currently have an "Operators" section. On the other hand, the Fairey Delta 2 does have such a single-operator section - though it misses out the operator for its famous record-breaking flight, Fairey Aviation itself. Also, if a machine is handed over to a commercial or military customer, who then chooses not to deploy it on active duties, I think they would count as an "operator" for our purposes. I don't actually know which side of the line the CF-105 falls, its cancellation was so last-minute. Overall, my suggestion would be that if there is only one operator then that should be made obvious in the rest of the article, so the section should be included only where there are more than one operator. @BilCat: If all this means a change to our guidelines and updates to thousands of other articles, then it's high time we sought a fresh consensus on the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• If it's necessary, it should have it. The TSR-2 can't be understood without the context of Australia. If it's simple and obvious without stating it though, there's no need to impose it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So can I take it there is a consensus that aircraft that never entered service shouldn't have an Operators section? Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't thinks so yet. If there is a current consensus to include it, even a guideline as BilCat (talk · contribs) suggested elsewhere, then this discussion involves nowhere near enough editors to change that consensus. What it has demonstrated is that we need that wider discussion on the guideline talk page, with links posted on all relevant WikiProject talk pages. Having said that, if there is such a guideline then I don't personally know where it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, I would widen the debate to include the "Primary user" in the lead infobox, to which similar arguments apply. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Recently, I have been working on de-stub-ifying a number of aviation museum articles. However, I am at a loss for content.

The only areas (read: sections) to cover that I have come up with are history and collection/aircraft on display. I have also been adding museum infoboxes, but aside from that I am out of ideas. Even the history section itself is usually pretty sparse.

I will note that information such as museum hours and admission price are unencyclopedic.

Does anyone have any ideas for topics regarding an aviation museum that I could add? —Noha307 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, in general I cannot see anything else notable about aircraft museums. A few get embroiled in notable issues, for example the US Smithsonian Institute's National Air and Space Museum has twice been caught up in controversies (one perhaps still ongoing) over claims to the first powered flight. A few others may have architectural merit or tall tales about wartime or whatever. But really, one cannot expect an expansive article on a run-of-the-mill museum. And that is fine, it is how Wikipedia works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made a stub article for the 1935 airliner crash which killed U.S. Senator Bronson Cutting, but it badly needs expanding and I don't have the time to devote to it; I'd appreciate any help. Although this crash is already notable simply as an significant airliner crash of its era, its true impact lies in the political battle and regulatory transformation that followed it. I've discussed this to some extent in a posting to the accident task force talk page, and I discuss potential useful sources in the article's own talk page. Just thought I'd give a heads-up here.

Because of the crash's political and regulatory consequences, I'm also wondering if participants in other WikiProjects might be interested.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I will be attending the Dubai Air Show next week. Please leave me a message below if you'd like photos of any of the aircraft on display. The current aircraft list is here: http://www.dubaiairshow.aero/aircraft-list regards Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Parker Hannifin, and I've shared a few edit requests for that article, including providing a new "Aerospace" section. If you have a moment, please take a look. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that here, I'll take a look. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

While linking stuff at an AfD, it came to my attention that bomb rack is a redirect to bomb bay, which seems a little bit off to me. While bomb racks are often (always?) found inside bomb bays, they're not synonomous, as bomb racks are also (more often, especially these days) attached to pylons. It would seem to me that this might be low-hanging fruit for somebody to write about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

They're covered at Hardpoint, the redirect could point to the specific section on racks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• squints* Ah, so it is. Good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Aviation

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there is a lack of consistency in the naming of de Havilland aircraft. For example, there is De Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth De Havilland Flamingo and De Havilland DH.88. I think there should be a single format & I'd favor the first form.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I have posted a link to this discussion on the de Havilland talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The lack of consistency is due to WP:COMMONNAME which is a policy as opposed to a guideline. Some de Havilland types are commonly known by their type number and name, some by just their name and some by just their type number. I'd much rather see this system than some kind of false system introduced just for the sake of consistency (even though I like to see standardisation where possible). There was a big push with Avro aircraft a few years ago to include the type number in the article number (e.g. Avro 643 Cadet), most articles have been moved back since to just manufacturer and name. 'I'm going flying in an Avro 643 Cadet' doesn't roll off the tongue and it probably didn't back in the 1930s! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, in this case, I'd have the page-at-title (as opposed to redirects, which are cheap and should be plentiful!) exclude the DH number for aircraft with names in this case, for instance. However in this case, there's a fly in the ointment: De Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth includes the DH number because it is not the De Havilland Tiger Moth you're thinking of, but a case of a resused name needing the number to disambiguate! A quick scan of the de Havilland navbox, in fact, indicates that we are currently, in fact, quite consistent - in the vast majority of cases, types with names don't use the DH number, while those without names - for obvious reasons - do, and the DH.71 has one because of the above ambiguity, while the DH.88 has one because there's another De Havilland Comet... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at the DH aircraft category there doesn't seem to be many types that have an awkward title. There is the problem of disambiguation which is why we have de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth and de Havilland Tiger Moth. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How about only using the type number where there is a need to disambiguate? Redirects to the common uses and hatnotes to the alternative articles. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I can go along with that. The de Havilland DH.88 is more often but unofficially referred to as the "Comet racer" and for consistency with the WP:COMMONNAME policy the article really should be moved to something with "Comet" in the title, such as de Havilland DH.88 Comet (currently a redirect). This would also be consistent with the Tiger Moth example. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to fully explain myself earlier as I was on my Kindle Fire. Been having issues with the laptop which are hopefully now resolved.

So it's de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth and de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth. De Havilland Tiger Moth redirecting to the DH.82 article, both having hatnotes pointing at the other. And de Havilland DH.88 Comet and de Havilland DH.106 Comet. De Havilland Comet redirecting to the DH.106 article, both having hatnotes pointing at the other. Maybe a de Havilland Comet Racer redirect could be created too? Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that all looks good to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the suggestion of Mjroots2 further up (per indents), some types never received names so numbers are essential. But then, there is the argument that to include the type number for say the de Havilland Mosquito would be an apparent violation of WP:COMMON and I have reliable books which don't use type numbers where they don't have to, to back that up. On the other hand I also have reliable books which always include the type number, so the specific interpretation of common name policy is open to challenge - common among which readership? Names should surely be included where they exist, the only meaningful debate can be whether numbers should be excluded from some article titles. The main practical problem with that is in agreeing which names are sufficiently common and unique to trump the number and which are not. Given that redirects can fix any user expectation issues, my personal view is that we should hold on to the idea of being an encyclopedia and give the common name that readers of an encyclopedia might expect. And if I picked up an Encyclopedia of De Havilland Aircraft I would definitely hope to find the type numbers included in the titles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The adopted consensus - admittely, primarily developed around consistency issues with U.S. military designations - is to use "manufacturer, designation, name" page title format for aircraft articles. Then again, there's also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NATURAL to consider (along with WP:COMMONSENSE), and, as mentioned, redirects are cheap and useful things. To sum up my rambling, I'd lean, in the crunch, towards including the DH-number across the board here, even though it feels odd including it for the (jet) Comet! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between US and British type naming, I would oppose any article moves to introduce a false naming system (have already opposed this above). I agree with how US types are currently named and also how the majority of British types are named. It is the readers that determine what the common name of an article is, some research into the number of page views of articles and their redirected alternate names might remove editor's personal preference from the process. I can move pages but I rarely do so as I believe in stability, the recent move of the DH.88 had been stable for 13 years, I didn't see the consensus to move it. Please keep in mind that page moves cause havoc with navbox redirects unless they are manually edited, it's mentioned at Wikipedia:Moving a page under the rarely heeded 'post-move cleanup' section. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that in the past sometimes I've had navbox redirect edits reverted on the grounds of WP:NOTBROKEN (and had to point out that in navboxes, redirects do break how they display on the page) doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Just point them to the page move instructions and carry on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The DH.88 patently needed doing, per the above disambig discussion. As far as I am concerned, 13-year-old cruft needs fixing 365 times more urgently than 13-day-old-cruft. Do let me know if I broke any navboxes during my customary post-move cleanup. My apologies for disturbing your stability, but that's WP:BOLD for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Another editor removed an accident from the Tropic Air article. I reverted the removal but was again reverted. I raised a discussion at the talk page but there has been no response. Opinions from uninvolved editors are requested. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The airlines subproject seems to have very few watchers. A topic I started there some time ago has not yet recieved any responses. Please see WT:WikiProject Airlines#When is an airline definitely "defunct"?. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Shearwater Aircraft appears to be a defunct aircraft manufacturing company which never made any aeroplanes. its web site is up for sale. Should this article be proposed for deletion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Depends on whether the company received "significant coverage" or not. Looks like the company is only notable for its Model 201 four-seat, amphibious kit plane it was designing. --Finlayson (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not even that. Its sources comprise one paragraph about a scale model in a show report, the company registration and its own web site. There's nothing notable there at all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sources in the article. However, with the exception of BLPs, Wikipedia does not require that sources be in the article to prove notability, only that they exist. I'll leave it to those with better google-Fu and more time than I to see if there's enough that can be dug up on it to pass GNG, but it should be remembered that notability is not temporary, and a thorough check needs to be done before any nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: More searching reveals that a company called Seaflight (NZ) Ltd. built and flew a prototype amphibian called the Shearwater and after it folded the machine found its way into the hands of Shearwater Aircraft. So a better solution might be a page move to Seaflight Shearwater, with appropriate rewriting/tagging. Does that seem reasonable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That does sound about right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If Seaflight (NZ) Ltd. and Shearwater Aircraft are closely connected some how such as a common individual or individuals, then that covering in one article should work fine. [I'm assume the two are connected to transfer the prototype aircraft.] -Finlayson (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Now moved to Seaflight Shearwater and exp[anded a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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/Nova Coden. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that we have Franklin 6 series and Franklin O-335, which appear to both cover the exact same series of engines. @Nimbus227:, I seem to recall engines being in your balliwick - is there stuff to merge here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not as simple as it looks at first glance. There are several series of Franklin 6A/6V engines and I found seven different Type Certificates (, , , , , , ) before I stopped looking; covering six-cylinder horizontally-opposed engines of 264, 335, 350, 425 and 500 cubic inches; the Franklin 6 series article lists engines of other cubic capacities as well. It seems to me that it's worth the Franklin 6 series article being an overview and having separate articles covering engines of each cubic capacity. YSSYguy (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the O-335 article probably needs a set of pruning shears, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Originally all the Franklin engines had their own articles then they were redirected into series articles which I didn't agree with but didn't contest it either. If I get some time I'll have a look and see what's best to be done, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Have been looking at this long and hard. The Franklin range has always confused me and this set of 'series' articles doesn't help. The citation source is Error 404 in most of the articles and can't be retrieved. The source does exist on the Aircraft Engine Historical Society website but this has been previously deemed a non-reliable source under Wikipedia rules. One of the authors (Kimble McKutcheon) has two books published, the author of the Franklin article (Jack Erickson) apparently has not published anything, this is the key as to whether any WP:SPS can be used. There are other sources but the AEHS list is particularly good.

It does appear that the 0-335 article is a duplicate but I would leave merging or deleting just for now. In a nutshell Franklin have used a mixture of displacement, cylinder number and horsepower rating for designations over the years, importantly this means that an 'O' designated engine was not necessarily a military designation. Lycoming and Continental on the other hand have pretty much stuck with the 'O' designation, military or not (e.g. Lycoming O-360). The whole Franklin set of articles needs to be reviewed, there are endless circular redirects and linked Commons categories that don't exist. The navbox is fairly useless as it is.

For aircraft engine, components, designer biographies and manufacturing company article related questions there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines task force which has been running for nine years, fairly quiet now as the majority of articles in the scope (~1,800) have been written. There is still lots of maintenance, expansion and improvement work to be done if interested editors would like to help. Might start a thread over there on Franklin but all the members read this page anyway. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see looking at Franklin 4 series that the 4A4-75 and O-225 are the same engine, the first designation is number of cylinders and horsepower, the second is displacement. This is not explained clearly in the article. I propose that the Franklin range is treated the same as the other engine company articles on Wikipedia as YSSYguy suggests above. We use the company article as the overview and have separate articles for each engine type (every displacement). The Lycoming navbox shows how this works, this was how Franklin was treated before 2012 but it wasn't necessarily correct back then either. For clarity the engine types should all be titled with 'O' designations as the AEHS decided to do to avoid confusion, a sourced note could be inserted as to why this has been done (I suspect that 'O' designations would be used by owner/pilots as the WP:COMMONNAME anyway but I couldn't prove it). This article naming system would also align with Lycoming and Continental making comparisons easier (for those readers who like to do this). I count a possible 20 type articles in all, some closely related types could be covered together in one article for practicality and risk of AfD etc. A huge advantage of using the standard system is that each engine type can have its own set of specifications and specific aircraft applications list.

I am willing to do this if there is consensus but it will take a while and there would probably be some temporary confusion during the process, not to mention addressing all the related redirects that have been created (35 alone for the Franklin 4 series). Eventually the series articles could be redirected/anchored to the relevant section of the company article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have long thought we needed to sort the Franklin engines out properly. I agree the best approach is probably one article on the company history and products and then one on each engine type by "O" number. If you are willing to take this on then I would vote to "please do so". - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like Something That Should Be Done, to me, yes. I'd help but engines are so not my area of expertise, unfortunatly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the navbox to be much more useful (IMO), it now has a complete list by displacement and groups by cylinder number, further split into displacement and company designation. It looks quite large as a number (all?!) of variants have been included, I will strip these out as required to make the navbox more encyclopaedic. I have article text ready to fill Franklin O-400 which is currently redirecting to Franklin 6 series in error as it was apparently an eight-cylinder engine.

I might need admin help to move pages over redirects or perhaps I can apply to become a 'page mover' assuming that right has more authority than what I can do already as a plain old wiki editor. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The navbox looks good so far, great start! I'm a page mover, so let me know if you need some sleight of hand there to move pages. I can't delete pages, but I can move them without leaving a redirect if need be. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. This is a very complicated situation which I'd like to get right. Might start a thread on this to save clogging this page up. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines might be a place for a more blow-by-blow coordination of this if that suits. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That's where I meant, just left it out of the last message (getting too old for this game!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I forgot that even existed! Anyway if you need pages G6-move nuked just let me know which ones. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the Franklin range is in order now. Separate type articles have been created (some contain two or three closely related types for practicality), the product list in the parent company article has been clarified by using a simple table (the naming convention inconsistencies are especially apparent there) and the navbox has been overhauled, removing links to sub-variants in an effort to declutter it.

The type articles have a very basic set of specifications, these can be expanded using the many FAA TCDS listed above. There are many, many redirects, I have corrected quite a few but the tool is getting confused/overloaded. Hopefully more photos will appear on Commons, cheers and Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that on, the results look good! - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I have a very large headache! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a couple of Franklins for that! - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about this UAV/UCAV? I took a few photos of it at the Dubai Air Show here: regards Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I started the page for the Soviet aviation task force, and I've gotten several users to agree to join the task force once its all up and running. Can the Aviation project community give the greenlight to adding the soviet parameter to the Wikiproject aviation template? There is quite a need to cover more Soviet aviation related content because a lot of information about Soviet aviation was not available until glasnost and later, but needs to be added to English wikipedia. We have a very long to-do list, and Soviet aviation makes up most of the Aviation accident project's and aviation women in red to-do lists. Thanks :)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Great work getting that going. I don't see any reason not to add it to the Wikiproject aviation template! - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Sydney Seaplanes crash With all respect for the good intentions of contributors, I cannot see what is noteworthy here. But of course all sympathy to the victims and those who remain to mourn them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's too soon to create an article, but also too soon to discuss deleting that article. It is unusual - maybe it will give rise to some operational change in small tourist seaplanes, in which case it would pass for notability. As yet we don't know. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that when a commercial small aircraft crashes with the death of paying (in this case international tourist) customers, and it becomes national and international news it could be argued to be notable - certainly more notable than many "Oh I damaged my A320 while landing but nobody was injured" articles that can't be got rid of. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In this case, a stand-alone article is justified as a wikinotable person was one of the victims. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I reckon that settles the matter. Thanks to all! Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

British Airtours G-APFK, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: - needs retitling (1977 British Airtours Boeing 707 crash ?) but it is a major airliner that was written off. I don't see a problem with a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI: That one is covered at British Airtours G-APFK now. -Finlayson (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've out in a move request for this one. Shouldn't be controversial but as Fnlayson created the redirect I can see that there is a potential objection. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

...and while we are discussing the notability of light aircraft accidents: 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Prodded. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

...and challenged. Creator says to take to AfD. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think AfD is a better venue for community review, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah please do send it to AFD, it seems to be totally non-notable, much WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I started the Afd. You can find it here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting that. -Finlayson (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI – Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've proposed revisions to the {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} template, to address issues with reporting casualty information. The proposed revisions are in the sandbox, and test cases are on the testcases page and the template talk page.

Please find more info and join the conversation on the template talk page.

Thanks, Shelbystripes (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have prepared a draft article on the outboard tail configuration at User:Steelpillow/sandbox. Before I push it out for review, does anybody have any comments to make? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than a couple of para with no refs it looks fine. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not every para needs a ref, if the material is obvious on reading the sources in the bibliography. By all means tag any statement you mistrust, but they should not be tag-bombed for the sake of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I'd never heard of this having an actual name before, interesting. Do the "ears" on the M2F1 qualify? Also, does SpaceShipOne really count, or is it just a really, really weird twin-boom without wings outside of the booms? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions tend to be isolated by history and several descriptions have been used. I had to pick one for the article title so I chose what seemed to be the most rational. The M2F1 was a lifting body, i.e. a weird fuselage, and not a wing, I have never seen such a body's tail surfaces discussed in an "outboard" related context. Twin-boom types seldom have an outboard tail, but one could argue that SpaceShipOne demonstrates that the two features are not mutually exclusive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Only some minor remarks about the phrase "During the late 1950s and early 1960s the principles of the outboard tail were re-investigated by American NACA engineers, as a possible solution to the problems of supersonic flight.":

• NACA became NASA in 1958
• "American" is unneeded, and some dislike the term, preferring "US'an"
• "solution" makes this the sole solution where it rather is a means of improvement, one among several

Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"USian" is a neologism and isn't the correct demonym for the United States of America. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good points, thank you. "Possibly the solution" is not what I meant by "a possible solution", but I can see how it is ambiguous. I'll clarify it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Should the Miles M.39 and the Pterodactyl VI be included? If not, why not, and should they still be mentioned for clarity? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  I think you are confusing endplate fins with the outboard tail. Some endplates are tail fins while some are more like winglets, some are on tailless aircraft while some are on craft with tails and others are on tandem wing types such as the M.39. RS do not bother to discuss the distinction, so I am not sure why we should. Also, there is no article for endplate fins (as tails they are covered by empennage), so I am not sure how it could be presented sensibly. I could add something like, "An endplate fin is not an outboard tail, because there is no horizontal stabilizer extending beyond the wing tip." but I know of no RS for such a statement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC) [updated]

Thanks all, I have now moved it to Draft:Outboard tail and submitted it for review. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[Update] Yeeks! Over 2000 drafts awaiting review. Should I just bung it into main space myself and offload the formal review process? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, bother. I don't have an "Accept" button, presumably because it is my draft. I am reluctant to just move it as that may bork the draft tracking stuff. Would somebody be willing to oblige? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• I joined the Articles for creation project recently. I'll look into promoting it. There are multiple steps to be able to accept or decline AfCs (turn on the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" feature in user preferences, then click on tab "review (AFCH)" tab to load option bar). I promoted this article to main space. -Finlayson (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is at WT:AIRPORT and can be found here. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place at talk:Graham Hill plane crash re the article's title. Originally created at 1975 Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd Piper PA-23 Aztec crash, per naming conventions for aircrash articles. Agree it was a bit convoluted, but there must be a better title than the current one. Suggestions welcome. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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/Graham Hill plane crash. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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 1175‎. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago a User with a bee in his/her bonnet about long haul flights added to the United Airlines article a Section titled United Airlines dominates the longest non-stop flights operated by U.S. carriers (diff) which has since morphed into a table of the 25 longest routes operated by the airline. I have removed it twice and another User has removed it once; an IP has reinstated the information all three times. Can we get eyes-on please. YSSYguy (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That information does not belong in an encyclopedia. I've requested protection for disruptive editing .--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree (It's unreferenced and WP:OR also applies) also and have put the article on my watchlist....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day, ladies and gentlemen, this one still needs another reviewer if anyone has some time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I submitted a request at Talk:Ulendo Airlink, on behalf of African Parks, to change "Nkhotakota Game Reserve" to "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve", since the Wikipedia article has been moved. The editor who reviewed my request removed mention of the park altogether. I provided sourcing to verify that Ulendo Airlink flies to Nkhotakota, but for reasons I'm not following, the reviewing editor says other updates are needed to the article. I was only trying to update the name of the park, but if a project member if curious to take a look at the article and make improvements, that would be great. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for John Glenn; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there any place I can find an archive of newly created articles? I want to know what plane crashes had their articles created in 2017. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Only the last month, to my knowledge. Follow the page's left column Tools option to Special pages and browse down to Recent changes and logs > New pages. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You may want to look at WP:AIRNEW where we try to list all the articles created in each month. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I never knew about that. I just added three I have created this year. There are plenty from previous years listed here. Should I check it against the AIRNEW archives and add any missing ones? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the regulars here will add articles they find as well as create as it gives a heads up to others in the project, it would do no harm to keep the record complete if you have time. Perhaps we need a note somewhere to remind new article creaters to add an entry (or perhaps something to add to a users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Should I add them to the "recently discovered" list or the relevant monthly archive or both? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If you would like them reviewed I would add them to this month's list. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Many have already been reviewed. I'll add where appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. I still don't see any plane crashes whose articles were created in 2017. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/submission history 2017 perhaps? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this recent incident see here deserving of an article? Inter&anthro (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be the non-combat crash of a military An-26 transport with 26 deaths (everyone on board) so I would say, "yes". My only concern is the lack of details and being a Russian military crash it may stay sparse for refs. - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the article was already started by another user, to any who are interested the articles can be found here. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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/2018 Antonov An-26 crash Sario528 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not an aviation enthusiast but looking for an expert opinion. I just came across List of aerobatic teams and List of flight demonstration teams. Are these lists of the same thing or is there a subtle (to me at least) difference between aerobatics teams and flight demonstration teams? There is significant overlap in the list contents and both lists include civilian and military teams. If there is a difference I think the leads of each list should state this and link to the other list. Thanks for any help - Dumelow (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

They are "almost" the same thing. I really think those two articles could be merged. - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, which would be the main article do you think? - Dumelow (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I would think "flight demonstration teams", as it is slightly more general. It would at least in theory include non-aerobatic formation teams (there are a few). - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy would suggest that we go with the more popular "aerobatic teams". I have seen flight demonstrations that were not aerobatic, but they were never presented by standing teams. Are there really any such? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why yes, here is a link to one I immediately thought of. I feel sure there must be more. http://www.thevictors.be/wordpress/the-victors/ Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I know of some in Canada, like The Canadian Harvard Aircraft Association Flight Operations Team and the Fraser Blues. There were at least two formally-organized military teams that were non-aerobatic, the Dragonflies and the Musket Golds. I also flew in some military helicopter formation demo teams that were, by necessity, non-aerobatic. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about "air display teams" then? It means much the same as "flight demonstration teams" but in more common language. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that would work. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How about List of aerobatic and air display teams? --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No need. Aerobatics is a form of air display. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree: aerobatics is a subset of air display. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I carried out a merge of the articles to List of air display teams. It currently has the list of display teams and aerobatics teams separately from the two articles. They probably should be merged but it is beyond my area of expertise - Dumelow (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any guidance on such foreign names? Should an article title be it its native language, such as Diavoli Rossi, or under its English translation, in this case "Red Devils"? Existing articles are a mixed bag, for example we have "Southern Cross Aerobatic Squadron" and not Cruz del Sur, but on the other hand there is Asas de Portugal rather than "Wings of Portugal". I am prompted to ask this because the List of air display teams has two tables which I am trying to merge, but some tieams are listed differently in each table and I need to know which to run with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the subject! I had some difficulty upon seeing my own national military display team mentioned in a minority language ("Diables Rouges") even when it is a red link. As this is an English language page, I reckon it would be safest to name them in English. Especially with multi-lingual countries like mine that's the best way to avoid trouble. But then again, some teams are really linked to their local name, the Frecce Tricolori coming to mind as a first example. Not sure. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

How about WP:COMMONNAME? - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm, what about multi-lingual countries? Checking our national football team, who incidentally go by the exact same name "De Rode Duivels / Les Diables Rouges" ("The Red Devils") I found them listed on these pages as Belgium national football team Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft 1990–1999 → Category:Aircraft first flown in 1990s

Category:Aircraft 2000–2009 → Category:Aircraft first flown in 2000s

Category:Aircraft 2010–2019 → Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s

• Hello. We can see the category tree with very ambiguous names such as Category:Aircraft 2000–2009, Category:Aircraft 2010–2019. By category decriptions, it means the first flight was made in 2000s (2010s). My proposition is to rename all such categories to more correct format: Category:Aircraft first flown in 2000s, Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s etc (by decade). All subcategories will be renamed also using similar format, of course. Note, already existing Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010, Category:Aircraft first flown in 2011, ... Category:Aircraft first flown in 2017 will be the subcategories of future Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s, for example. Any objections? 217.30.192.236 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  Very definite objections. "Aircraft 2010–2019" means the decade from 2010 to 2019 (inclusive) and not what you suggest. It is a very conventional way of indicating a span of years and there is no reason whatsoever to change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  But 2010s also means "from 2010 to 2019 (inclusive)", see high-level Category:2010s. Note, the parent category for Category:Aircraft 2010–2019 is Category:2010s in transport. It's the same range! 217.30.192.236 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  You have gone back and changed what you wrote. You are not supposed to do that because it makes a discussion thread unintelligible. Please restore the old text so we know what we are talking about. If you wish to modify it, you can use the <s>...</s> markup to strike it out, like this and then add what you really meant and mark it (updated). Or, better still, having restored it, simply make a follow-up comment explaining what you really meant to write. Right now, I have no idea what comments I am replying to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also object to any change, the aircraft xxx0-xxx9 are part of a larger category structure around aircraft articles and not just as a parent of first flown categories which is a relative recently introduced. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Where is the entry point of a "larger category structure"? What are the inclusion criterias for Category:Aircraft 2010–2019 (and for their subcategories by country)? What does "Aircraft 2010–2019" mean? It contains only aircrafts first flown since 2010 till 2019? Or something else? If yes, why don't rename it to Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s? Should the Category:Aircraft first flown in 2014 be the subcategory of Category:Aircraft 2010–2019? 217.30.192.236 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day all, Abductive is currently running hard removing JACDEC as a source from anywhere s/he finds it, following a discussion at Talk:2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash in which s/he asserts that JACDEC is an unreliable source. I have no opinion on JACDEC either way yet, but his/her edits are removing a source and replacing it with, well, nothing. It seems to me that Abductive should cease until it is decided what to do about this situation. YSSYguy (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• All you have to do is your own research, which will reveal that secondary sources consider JACDEC to be unreliable and/or to have flawed methodology. Abductive (reasoning) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I will look into it in due course and form an opinion, but I think you should stop what you have been doing for the moment. As I suggested in a recent edit summary, by all means use {{Unreliable source?}} to tag JACDEC references, but don't just remove the ref and do nothing else. YSSYguy (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a couple of refs to the article on the JACDEC blog if anybody wants to use those as a starting point. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please could you format them correctly so that we can identify them in the reflist and follow them up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive:. JACDEC looks OK at first glance. You appear to have made the claim of unreliability in the JACDEC article but your claim is itself limited to JACDEC's analytical statistics and is poorly sourced. There is no evidence that the individual incident data are unreliable. WP:RELIABLE is clear that a questionable source may be cited in certain circumstances. I would agree with YSSYguy that, pending consensus, you should stop your wholesale deletions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Steelpillow. Abductive, as JACDEC hasn't been raised before at WP:RSN, you should really open a discussion there. If consensus is that JACDEC is unreliable, then I don't have a problem with it being tagged as such in the first instance, and then replaced with a different source, where used in articles. I'm currently getting a strong smell of WP:IDONTLIKEIT where you and JACDEC are concerned. Please do not remove references to JACDEC from articles until there is a consensus that they should be removed. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing the JACDEC article and in particular JACDEC#Controversies, almost all the objections there are unsourced. I agree with the other editors here, please take this to WP:RSN and stop removing the refs until a consensus is determined. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors commenting on this issue should read this comment by Abductive on the subject of JACDEC. It speaks volumes. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I see what you mean. Based on that, I think it only fair to warn Abductive (talk · contribs) here and now, that failing to stop deleting could result in their being taken to WP:ANI for disruptive behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, oh dear indeed. Thanks, @Mjroots! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Given this problem I began reverting the deletions. But then I thought I'd better ask, is that being a bit premature? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: - no, that's not being premature. I've already undone a load of edits to aircrash articles. Best to use undo rather than rollback though. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, Now done all the non-crash instances, except for one which I judged a valid deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: - Either you open a discussion at WP:RSN or you accept that JACDEC is a reliable source. Your choice. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not accept that JACDEC is reliable. In any case, the discussion here is sufficient. As you may note, participants have concluded that an unreliable source can be used in some instances. But where a source is wrong, it is wrong. For example, in the article that started this, I have provided a number of secondary sources that tell a different story than the early (and incorrect) JACDEC report. Abductive (reasoning) 14:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Then you are invited to take it to WP:RSN to make your case and gain a consensus there on the site's acceptability. Please post a link to the discussion there back here when you do. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes. That does not stop them from being RS, whatever any given editor may or may not accept. But if you spot a relevant mistake then correcting it needs support from other RS, as you appear to have done. That is often best discussed on the talk page of the article in question, I expect you will have done that too. As long as the kneejerk deletions elsewhere have stopped, this discussion here has done its job. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 article describes a sub-scale replica which has nothing to do with the original Supermarine company. I have started a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26#Move or merge?. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there's a deletion process notice for wikt:stormo on Wiktionary for the Italian airforce unit type -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)