Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 26

current image

The current image is too blurry and the image size is really small so it won't appear when you hover over the article name. Zaptain United (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Zaptain United Did you mean to post that at Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision instead of here? - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Also Zaptain United can you please WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're disruptively obsessed with changing the lead image in that article and are being generally disruptive around images all over aircraft and aircrash related articles all over the project. Canterbury Tail talk 23:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is right. Also, discussions about improvements to individual articles belong in the talk pages of said articles. You can post notices about such discussions here, but all discussion should take place in the appropriate talk page. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright no more Mr. Nice Guy. I've done being patience and having to constantly wait and submit everytime. No wonder this quote age well. A few months ago I thought it was a exaggeration. It is truly this. "Yeah, if you ever try editing wikipedia, you'll find out that their community is the worst totalitarian shithole ever."

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/1708mtt/wikipedia_editors_are_the_worst/ Zaptain United (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I have calm down a little. I just can't hold my true feelings back on this. Zaptain United (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You are required to, per WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but building consensus requires patience. Sometimes it takes half an hour, sometimes it takes days or weeks. I think we all can agree that Wikipedia can be a bit bureaucratic at times, despite what WP:NOTBURO says, but that just means that things tend to work more slowly than we'd like. "Totalitarian" absolutely does not describe Wikipedia. No one person or group controls content within articles, and those who try often end up blocked. - ZLEA ^TǀC 03:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You know I have been trying to be patience. It all started with the short description where I wanted to build a consensus on whether to use "aircraft" or "aviation" and everyone just keeps insulting me for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#Aviation_does_not_mean_the_same_thing_as_aircraft.

I generally getting stalk on Wikipedia with editors keep following my contributions all the time. This image mess is with editors telling me to go the talk page were especially on obscure plane accidents, no one will respond. I than ping editors and get attacked for it. I than am told to place all my image suggestions here instead of the talk page. Now I can't do that either. I have conceded on many occasions, yet I am getting screw over. Also, for the Haneda images, the editors who ruled against these image changes have a vendetta against any image changes mainly edit that article and will be generally the only editors who pay attention to the talk page. It has been a few months since those discussions, and I am trying to get more editors involved. I keep getting attack no matter what side I am on. Zaptain United (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an example of me just getting screw over. A sockpuppet editor moved ValuJet Airlines Flight 592 to ValuJet Flight 592 in 2021. I move the bold text of the flight number in the intro to ValuJet Flight 592 to match the article name. @Doniago reverts my edit saying that Valujet Airlines is the correct title despite the article title being just Valujet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValuJet_Flight_592&oldid=1307968006

They then accuse me of vandalism and threaten me with a ban despite the article already being name ValuJet Flight 592. I explain to them that "I was merely adjusting the article to fit the name. I actually prefer using ValuJet Airlines Flight 592." I change the article name to match the airline name after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#August_2025

They then say it is nonsensical for blaming an editor who was actually a sockpuppet for my edits despite me basing my edits on their edit so I can match the title. They then say I should have ask on the talk page before making the edit, but the article was already called ValuJet Flight 592 for 4 YEARS so why would I think I need to seek consensus for this change when the article title was already changed. I than change the article title in his favor only to get promptly reverted by another editor not happy with me sastifying this editor's "request". I than go to the talk page to settle where the original title form 2021 is kept. Wow just wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ValuJet_Flight_592#Requested_move_28_August_2025 Zaptain United (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I really tried to remain calm and collected in this situation, but I generally kept screw over by this situation and having people try to insult my English? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#Aviation_does_not_mean_the_same_thing_as_aircraft Zaptain United (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see that users were insulting you over "aircraft/aviation". From what I see, they were just pointing out to you that the two terms are not interchangeable and were asking you to stop treating them as such. Also, if you think you are being unfairly followed across multiple articles, there are ways to deal with that. Keep in mind that tracking other users' edits is not always "stalking", as there are many legitimate reasons for doing it such as if an editor has made a string of problematic changes. It's also possible that editors aren't intentionally following you at all, especially if most of the articles where you think you've been followed are very similar in topic, as the editors might just be watching those pages. Accusations of WP:HOUNDING are serious, so it's important to assume good faith until it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the other editors are acting in bad faith.

Can you point me to an example of someone telling you to propose images on this page? I believe I told you that you could use this page to notify users of discussions, but I don't recall anyone telling you that you should propose the changes themselves here.

And finally, I assume you're referring to these two discussions. I see no indications that any of the involved editors have any sort of "vendetta against any image changes". All editors who opposed the proposals brought up reasonable concerns about the images, so to say they have a "vendetta" is assuming bad faith. On a side note, don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD if you believe one image is significantly better than the current image. While it's true that the images on some articles were chosen by community consensus and shouldn't just be boldly changed, that's not always the case. If someone disagrees and believes that the new image is not an improvement, or if you missed that the old image was chosen through consensus, then you may be reverted. If that happens, you should then try discussing the change on the talk page. This is called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

What's your thoughts on the ValuJet situation? I just tried to ignore that and move on, but this discussion has brought back memories of it back. Zaptain United (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem I see is that they are only reverting my image changes because I am the one who is changing the image. I keep being reverted by the same 2 or 3 editors.

Also, here is the discussion about image changes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303#This_image_is_way_better_than_the_current_one_for_an_image_of_the_aircraft._Could_we_change_it? Zaptain United (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Given what I've seen, I think Doniago was wrong to call your edit vandalism. Unless there's more context I'm missing, I find the idea that you "deliberately introduced incorrect information" to be absurd and and a major overreaction, especially given the fact that this "incorrect information" was the article's very title. There is nothing inherently wrong with making the article text consistent with the title, and if Doniago or anyone else had a legitimate issue with your edit, they should have brought it up instead of accusing you of vandalism.

The problem I see is that they are only reverting my image changes because I am the one who is changing the image. I keep being reverted by the same 2 or 3 editors. If there is no reasonable doubt that you are being hounded in that way, then you should read WP:DWH to learn how to deal with it accordingly. However, I'll reiterate that such accusations are serious and you have to assume good faith until it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they are acting in bad faith. It's possible, and I strongly suspect this to be the case, that these editors are simply regulars of aviation accident/incident articles and that they watch the pages in question. If you were being hounded, they would probably have followed you across many unrelated topics, especially topics to which they rarely contribute.

As for the Pakistan International Airlines discussion, guninvalid said I believe it would be more appropriate to post a message on WT:AVIATION (emphasis mine). That means you should use this page to notify members of the WikiProject about the discussion, not that you should start new article content discussions here. The only reason to have such discussions here is if the proposed change would affect many aviation articles rather than just one. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in relitigating an incident from four months ago, but I'd encourage you to look at this edit, where Zaptain made a change to text that had been stable for months if not years without providing any edit summary. I might have given them a lower level warning for something like that, but their Talk page was already replete with warnings, including a warning for edit warring issued within the same month. If you want to call what I did absurd and a major overreaction then knock yourself out, but in context Zaptain appeared to be making significant amounts of unconstructive (and in the case of the one I reverted unexplained) edits, and an escalation seemed warranted. DonIago (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw that edit, and I have not seen any additional context that would justify your reaction. It wasn't the level of the warning you gave that was problematic, it was the fact that you misidentified the edit as vandalism. If Zaptain United was making significant amounts of unconstructive edits, then you should have given them the appropriate warning or confronted them about it in a civil manner rather than assuming bad faith. I too don't want to relitigate old incidents, but one must first acknowledge their mistakes in order to learn from them and ensure they don't happen again. I made a very similar mistake just last month, but I learned from it and used it to improve myself. Please consider doing the same. - ZLEA ^TǀC 06:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The last two results on the talk page have just been decided by the same 2 or 3 editors. I am just getting more opinions involved than just having the opinions of the editors who mainly edit that article. Zaptain United (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Boeing E-3 Sentry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft § Should livery changes be mentioned on Wikipedia?. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox airline alliance § Removal of slogan parameter. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Apsara International Air has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for a year. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Briefly existed, now defunct, without any airplanes.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The article SAM Intercontinental has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns and needing citations for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced. Defunct. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)