Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:01, 11 November 2024 editCommander Keane (talk | contribs)Administrators29,068 edits MEA Flight 444 article: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:01, 11 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,352 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 24) (bot 
(88 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
}} }}


== Post-RfC discussion ==
==New categories involving aviation accidents==
{{Moved discussion to|Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Post-RfC discussion|2=] (]) 11:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Hello, WikiProject Aviation,


== Requested move at ] ==
An infrequent editor just created some new categories under the parent category ]. They include ], ] and ]. They are not well populated and I hope by posting this message, those editors who are knowledgeable about aviation accidents can either help populate them with appropriate articles or nominate the categories for deletion or merging at ] if they are redundant to existing categories. Thank you for any help you can supply. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:Going through the user's category creations, I believe these are all their recent aviation accident/incident category creations:
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:*]
:A lot of these seem oddly specific and unlikely to be useful, so I would not be opposed to CfD. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
::I've XFD'd the "shootdowns" and "auxiliary equipment" categories, and someone beat me to the punch with the "navigation system failure" category. ] (]) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::Update: I've also XFD'd the excessively specific airliner bombing subcategories. I don't think this category will ever grow large enough to warrant subdividing, and the Soviet Union subcategory is of course permanently capped by certain historical events in 1991. ] (]) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== NATO Reporting Names degrade in relevance in Russian / Soviet Aircraft ==


I just created ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to de-upgrade the Relevance in NATO designations in articles with soviet technology, including Aircraft, Missiles and Submarines, i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles and put these western designations in a second-plane chart. ] (]) 01:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
: ...pretty sure this is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|i think the new generations of engineering Entusiasts need to first learn the original designations of this vehicles}} Per ], The original designations are already present in the first paragraph and are predominantly used to refer to Soviet/Russian aircraft within articles. It is customary to include common alternative names for topics, including those originating outside the country of origin, in the first sentence of an article. NATO reporting names are no exception. Had the USSR assigned standardized reporting names to NATO aircraft, we would have included them in their respective articles as well. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::It’s been getting widespread press for over two weeks. I think it passes notability. I’ll hunt for more good sources. ] (]) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree. Per ], it is common established Misplaced Pages practice to include alternate names for all sorts of things{{snd}}not just Russian and Soviet military hardware{{snd}}in boldface in the first or second sentence of the lead. NATO reporting names are commonly used in secondary sources to refer to Russian or Soviet materiel; a quick Google search for "flanker" or "fullback aircraft" bears this out. As ] points out, ] already specifies that original designations be used in the title and article body, which I feel is adequate emphasis. ] (]) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry I missed this earlier, but the OP should be aware of ]. We've had Russian-language editors gripe about NATO names before, but they always ignore the fact that they're also included in the Russian language Wiki articles. See ] for another similar discussion. ] (]) 00:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


:I also created a related article: ]. Contributors welcome! – ] 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


== Infobox aircraft occurrence template usage proposal ==
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 04:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


I have opened a ] for the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template. -- ] (]) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


== Lists of airports and Airline destination list links ==
== Names of Surviving Aircraft Articles ==
{{Ping|Airbus A320-100}} has moved a number of articles in the ] from "List of surviving X" to "List of preserved X" with the comment "fix grammar". I'm not entirely sure what the grammatical error was, but it is presumably in reference to the issue of how to refer to static display aircraft when other examples of the type are still in active service. I'm not sure which format is better. I lean more towards "surviving" because it matches the "]" nomenclature used in main articles. However, I am of the strong opinion that whatever phrasing is used, it should be applied to all articles of the type for uniformity, which has not been done. Does anyone else have any thoughts? –] (]) 01:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


I recently noticed that pretty much every ] has a link to a page (or subpage) on this wikiproject, ], having been added in 2010 by {{u|Zyxw}}. However, ] says "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Misplaced Pages itself". Should these links be removed? ] (]) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:@]. This is because "surviving" is a term used for organic beings. But even if it is used for objects, it looks like it is stylized in a fan's Point of View as per ]. Whereas preserved is used for objects in a neutral Point of View. ] (]) 01:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
::{{Ping|Airbus A320-100}} Surviving (or survivor) is a term that has been used for a long time in main aircraft articles to refer to aircraft that are no longer in active service and the objection you raise seems to be a minor issue. I could see "preserved" being a slightly more neutral term, but then you run into the problem that it can't be used to refer to actively flying aircraft since they are technically not "preserved". I'm not entirely sure how "surviving" is stylized or POV, possibly along the lines of {{Diff|German submarine U-88 (1941)|prev|749074005|raiding career}} for U-boats. However, I am somewhat skeptical that this is a problem.


::Might I suggest reading through the ] to review previous arguments, as this is a subject that has come up repeatedly. ] (]) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC) I just created a stub for ]. It may be of interest to members of this project. ] (]) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Aviation accidents/incidents template splitting? ==
::I'm going to very strongly advise against {{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation|prev|1248536478|deleting}} talk page sections as "unnecessary". This is moving into ] territory. Please do not repeat this. –] (]) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I won't let anything worse happen ] (]) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::A question for you Airbus: Is English not your first language? –] (]) 02:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::English is my first language. ] (]) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Your phrasing seemed a bit unusual and I thought it might be indicative of someone who was unfamiliar with the language. No criticism or judgement intended, just wanted to make sure nothing was being lost in translation. –] (]) 16:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::I would not be opposed to reverting the undiscussed moves back to their previous titles. If Airbus thinks "preserved" better describes the topics, then they should seek consensus first. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::They need to be moved back immediately. The title formats are by WPAIR consensus, and no dubious claims of POV can override that. I count at least 30 that have been moved. A320-100 needs to move them back immediately. I can do it if necessary, but it's a lot of work to clean up someone else's messes. ] (]) 02:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I am agreeing with @]. Sorry @], but @] is much more persuasive than others in this thread. ] (]) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


So the aviation accidents and incidents template for several countries (namely the ], the ], and ]; arguably also true for ]) are getting too large to navigate properly.
:::::What do you mean? Everyone agrees that your changes should be reverted. Please do so as you clearly don't have ] for that change. --] (]) 03:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. ] (]) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] did say he could do it and I'll let him ] (]) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|BilCat}} you don't have to do that. I'll go ahead and move them. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::even @] agrees to do so and I'll let him do that too. ] (]) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's done. I'll also advise you to not close discussions which you are actively involved in, especially if you were not the one to start them (per ]). - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': {{u|Airbus A320-100}} has opened ] <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue"><sup>~</sup>]<sup>~]~</sup></span> 03:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:I am not going to add to the Village Pump discussion, it already has more content than the whole sorry story merits. But I do wish to express my respect and gratitude and support to all who have kept our dictionary on the right path (in my consideration), {{u|BilCat}} and {{u|ZLEA}} and {{u|Noha307}} to name but the most prominent. Keep up the good work! ] (]) 17:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


In the case of Soviet aviation incidents, using small text and standard width on a 1920×1080 screen only displays two thirds of the template (1930s to 1970–1974). The same setting also only displays ~60% of the British aviation incidents template (Before 1910 to 1960s). And for French and Russian aviation incidents the template occupies almost the entire screen.
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


I've set up a draft in my userpage to split up those nations' aviation templates but I would like your opinion here. ] (]) 06:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Reliability of ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Two new Chinese stealth fast jets for Mao's birthday ==
What is the general consensus, if any, on the reliability of ], , as a source? I've corresponded with Paul Freeman in the past, and he seems sincere about factual accuracy. ] (]) 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


Greetings from Milhist. We already have ]; just to double check that the fast jet guys around here are working on something for this ](?) product:
== Category:Pilot intake jet fighter ==
Yes, China Just Flew Another Tailless Next-Generation Stealth Combat Aircraft
https://twz.com/air/yes-china-just-flew-another-tailless-next-generation-stealth-combat-aircraft
Let's keep watching our sixes. ¬¬¬¬ ] ] 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Apparently they flew ''three'' (I think one is the GZ-11J, or that might have been yet another?). - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
It seems the deleted category from ] has been recreated at ]. I've nominated the new category for ] speedy deletion, but given the different name, I am not confident that the reviewing admin will recognize the category as a recreation. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
* The Categories for discussion tag at ] should make that clear. ] (]) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Hopefully, but someone unfamiliar with aircraft layouts might not immediately recognize a "nose-mounted intake" and a "pilot intake" as referring to the same thing. If it weren't for the articles in the category, I probably would have assumed "pilot intake" was supposed to mean something like ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC) ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::* Fair point, thanks for explanation. ] (]) 00:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Draft:Delta Airlines Flight 554 ==
:::If it's been created ] they are using a different account. ] ] 08:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


Wondering at what point an incident would be considered notable. There is obviously going to be coverage of most (if not all) incidents, but does this Project has a guide as to which ones are considered notable? ] (]) 18:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which I would have noticed had I visited their talk page! I think the intended word was 'pitot' not 'pilot' as that was how I described it at the last deletion discussion (which the creator read and agreed it was a bad category). Re-creation of a bad category with another incorrect term, and suspected socking, it's not looking good. ] ] 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The editor has ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 14:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


::::::] is the next step (again!) or a proven ] would delete all contribs. ] ] 14:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC) :There is no guideline apart from ], the essay ] is the best we have. ] ] 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


::Linking to the draft: ]. This accident should probably appear in the MD-80 article but would probably be nominated for deletion (if it was accepted) because the aircraft was apparently repaired (no hull loss), there were no fatalities and no apparent change of procedures mandated, though there were plenty of NTSB recommended actions in the accident report. The accident was no fault of the aircraft type, same goes for hijackings, it could be argued that these events should not be included in aircraft type articles. ] ] 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Not sure on policy: is there anything preventing the addition of this gibberish category to multiple aircraft articles being reverted immediately? ] (]) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It might survive given the aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft involved in ] was also repaired and returned to service, there were no fatalities and there were no broad changes in industry procedures as a result. The Qantas article is not without its issues, but it would likely survive an AfD given the enduring media attention it received in the years since. This accident is less well known and most of the sources used were published in the immediate aftermath. Since we cannot rely on ] as inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, the standard to meet GNG would likely be the depth and longevity of coverage in secondary sources. I think there is a solid argument for inclusion of this incident in the MD-80 or LaGuardia accidents and incidents sections. But as a standalone article it's likely I wouldn't survive an AfD unless you could find some additional recent sources showing it's ongoing significance. ] (]) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Not necessarily, but I decided not to as I was not 100% sure an admin would agree with the CSD. With the CSD now being contested, I'm not sure now is the best time to do that, either. I won't oppose anyone who wants to remove the category from the articles, though. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It can be removed from the articles for failing ]. Not defining and not supported by references in the article. ] ] 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A bot will automatically delete the categories from articles as I discovered last time, I was half way through removing them manually. ] ] 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I use ] a lot (no pun intended) on Commons, and the deletion of the category gave me the perfect opportunity to test it here. See ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} I've nominated it as a category for deletion at ]. This editor is causing extra work and it needs to stop. ] ] 19:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:The category has been deleted. I've added all articles from the category to my watchlist to more easily catch any further recreation attempts. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Drones in ] ==
== Requested move at ] ==
Should ] be mentioned in ] classes section?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:No, because an unmanned (drone) rotorcraft is one ''of'' the classes listed there (and could, conceivably, be any of the four!) - not a seperate class. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:A UAV is any aircraft that does not carry a human pilot. A vast majority of unmanned rotorcraft fall into one of the four listed classes (usually a multirotor helicopter), and perhaps most importantly, not all UAVs are rotorcraft. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 05:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] of ] ==
== Request for comment ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
I've created an RfC on listing the officially determined causes in the summary field of the Infobox accident occurrence template. It can be found at ]. ] (] - ]) 09:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Run of the mill, defunct company. Not enough information to merge.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
== Destroyed Survivors ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
I was just reading the B-17 article today and I noticed that the "surviving aircraft" section now reads "surviving aircraft, lost survivors, and wrecks". In response, I made an {{Diff|Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress|prev|1253166492|edit}} to change the header and remove the information about the destroyed aircraft. However, it brings up another point that I considered mentioning in the previous discussion about ], but didn't at the time because I didn't want to seem like I was piling on the user. Based on a ] on the talk page for the surviving Spitfires list, my understanding is that the consensus was that aircraft that survived military service, but were later destroyed should not be included in such lists. On balance, if sufficiently relevant, those destroyed in accidents could be included in the accidents and incident section. Is this correct? –] (]) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 04:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tq|...my understanding is that the consensus was that aircraft that survived military service, but were later destroyed should not be included in such lists. On balance, if sufficiently relevant, those destroyed in accidents could be included in the accidents and incident section.}} That is my understanding as well. In cases where the aircraft's destruction isn't particularly noteworthy per ] but bears mentioning due to special circumstances, it can alternately be mentioned under "Operational history"; see ] for an example. Regarding the overall question, huge numbers of historic aircraft have been destroyed in non-noteworthy crashes or routinely scrapped or otherwise expended; listing every such instance would eventually overrun surviving aircraft lists with ] and ]. In my opinion, the destruction of a particular aircraft needs to have be ''specifically discussed in detail'' in a ] source to warrant inclusion; a routine entry in a database doesn't cut it. ] (]) 14:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 12:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== ] has an ]==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. –] (]) 23:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 12:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 13:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== MEA Flight 444 article ==

'''Hi WikiProject Aviation'''
<p></p>
I am currently working on writing an article about MEA flight 444, as that was one of the incidents that we do not have coverage for. Please provide feedback, or maybe even contribute yourself
Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 - Misplaced Pages
<p></p>
Thanks,
---- ] (]) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Courtesy link (so people can click easily): ]. ] (]) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for putting that there
::—— ] (]) 06:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@], while you are here, I see the draft says "The search operc" so it appears the sentence got cut off. ] (]) 07:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:01, 11 January 2025

WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Misplaced Pages's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
Skip to table of contents
 Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Aviation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
WikiProject Aviation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 9 August 2010.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review
Peer review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Post-RfC discussion

Moved to Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence § Post-RfC discussion – Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 New Jersey drone sightings

I just created 2024 New Jersey drone sightings. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...pretty sure this is WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s been getting widespread press for over two weeks. I think it passes notability. I’ll hunt for more good sources. Thriley (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I also created a related article: 2024 US air base drone incursions in the United Kingdom. Contributors welcome! – Anne drew 15:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence template usage proposal

I have opened a discussion on tweaking the usage guidelines for the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Lists of airports and Airline destination list links

I recently noticed that pretty much every list of airports has a link to a page (or subpage) on this wikiproject, Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists, having been added in 2010 by Zyxw. However, MOS:LINKSTYLE says "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Misplaced Pages itself". Should these links be removed? Kdroo (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

PteroDynamics

I just created a stub for PteroDynamics. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Aviation accidents/incidents template splitting?

So the aviation accidents and incidents template for several countries (namely the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and Russia; arguably also true for France) are getting too large to navigate properly.

In the case of Soviet aviation incidents, using small text and standard width on a 1920×1080 screen only displays two thirds of the template (1930s to 1970–1974). The same setting also only displays ~60% of the British aviation incidents template (Before 1910 to 1960s). And for French and Russian aviation incidents the template occupies almost the entire screen.

I've set up a draft in my userpage to split up those nations' aviation templates but I would like your opinion here. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Melbourne Airport

Melbourne Airport 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) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Two new Chinese stealth fast jets for Mao's birthday

Greetings from Milhist. We already have Chengdu J-36; just to double check that the fast jet guys around here are working on something for this Shenyang Aircraft Corporation(?) product: Yes, China Just Flew Another Tailless Next-Generation Stealth Combat Aircraft https://twz.com/air/yes-china-just-flew-another-tailless-next-generation-stealth-combat-aircraft Let's keep watching our sixes. ¬¬¬¬ Buckshot06 (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently they flew three (I think one is the GZ-11J, or that might have been yet another?). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Trondheim Airport

Trondheim Airport 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) 15:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Icing (aeronautics)#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Icing (aeronautics)#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. cyberdog958 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Delta Airlines Flight 554

Wondering at what point an incident would be considered notable. There is obviously going to be coverage of most (if not all) incidents, but does this Project has a guide as to which ones are considered notable? CNMall41 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no guideline apart from WP:GNG, the essay WP:AIRCRASH is the best we have. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Linking to the draft: Draft:Delta Airlines Flight 554. This accident should probably appear in the MD-80 article but would probably be nominated for deletion (if it was accepted) because the aircraft was apparently repaired (no hull loss), there were no fatalities and no apparent change of procedures mandated, though there were plenty of NTSB recommended actions in the accident report. The accident was no fault of the aircraft type, same goes for hijackings, it could be argued that these events should not be included in aircraft type articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It might survive given the aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft involved in Qantas Flight 1 was also repaired and returned to service, there were no fatalities and there were no broad changes in industry procedures as a result. The Qantas article is not without its issues, but it would likely survive an AfD given the enduring media attention it received in the years since. This accident is less well known and most of the sources used were published in the immediate aftermath. Since we cannot rely on WP:AIRCRASH as inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, the standard to meet GNG would likely be the depth and longevity of coverage in secondary sources. I think there is a solid argument for inclusion of this incident in the MD-80 or LaGuardia accidents and incidents sections. But as a standalone article it's likely I wouldn't survive an AfD unless you could find some additional recent sources showing it's ongoing significance. Dfadden (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Drones in Rotorcraft

Should Unmanned aerial vehicle be mentioned in Rotorcraft classes section?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No, because an unmanned (drone) rotorcraft is one of the classes listed there (and could, conceivably, be any of the four!) - not a seperate class. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A UAV is any aircraft that does not carry a human pilot. A vast majority of unmanned rotorcraft fall into one of the four listed classes (usually a multirotor helicopter), and perhaps most importantly, not all UAVs are rotorcraft. - ZLEA T\ 05:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atruvera Aviation

Notice

The article Atruvera Aviation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Run of the mill, defunct company. Not enough information to merge.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)