Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hi there everybody. I've just requested a Peer Review of

21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a push to get this article to GA status, however I have some concerns about it. Would therefore appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military History Project is forming a long term special project, to conclude in June 2014, marking the centenary of the start of WWI. Please review the

) 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sailplane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are also related to this. 76.66.198.171 (talk

) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

and Glider (aircraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Space shuttle orbiter etc. the list goes on.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk

) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why other articles other than unpowered aircraft have been listed, as none of the others appear to have been nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit histories of those articles are not concerned. only unpowered aircraft, glider, glider (aircraft). 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

) 14:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No need the article correctly redirects to the accident article US Airways Flight 1549. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two ditchings which do not have articles, the

) 05:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska Seaplane Service AfD

The Alaska Seaplane Service article has been nominated for deletion for the second time. It's about time that a rule was introduced stating that if an article is nominated for deletion, all wikiprojects that the article has been tagged with are notified. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be far better if a bot was created to do this. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#AfD_Notification_bot. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well guys, I did put it on the list of transportation related AfD's at DELSORT. Anyway, if you read that AfD, you will see that some users are calling on this project to come up with some sort of inclusion guideline for micro-airlines and air taxi/tourism operations. I have re-opened an earlier discussion
  talk
  ) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See

) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A user and I disagreed over whether offices of airlines that are not headquarters should be listed in articles of small cities (i.e.

Many airlines operate offices in other cities in other countries - I feel that articles of neighborhoods and small cities should mention the airline operations in the "Economy" section as the airlines contribute tax revenue and employ area residents. The other user feels that this is too directory-like and is not particularly notable to the small cities and neighborhoods. What do you guys think? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the notability for these operations? I have a problem with listing anything other then the headquarters operations. Maybe when the headquarters location moves, an leaves a significant presence extensive coverage is merited, say Boeing from Seattle or IBM from Endicott. I believe that I would object to listing of offices without some notability references. Is having an office of 100 people significant? The problem here is where to draw the line and it goes well past this. If we were to say that 100 employees in an office says it merits a listing, then every company of that size would need to be listed. Does this cover what you are asking or did I miss read the question? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It sort of covers my question - the thing is that companies don't necessarily publish exactly how large their offices are. Some do differentiate: China Airlines refers to larger United States and Canada operations as Branch Offices (Anchorage, Burlingame, El Segundo, Honolulu, New York, Sea-Tac, Tamuning, Vancouver) and smaller ones as Mini-Offices (Chicago, Houston, Irving, Willow Grove, Tempe) - In addition it has a sales office in Toronto. http://www.china-airlines.com/en/about/about-3-3.htm - But this depends on the company. If you look at EVA Air it does not state how significant or large its North America offices are http://www.evaair.com/html/b2c/english/global_tools/couns/America.htm - EVA Air does state that Chicago and Atlanta do not have local offices and that EVA Air operations are handled by offices in other cities. How the offices are used depends on the company. As for "then every company of that size would need to be listed." - the thing is that an operation of a larger airline is part of a company that passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), while a law firm of that size normally would not pass WP:Notability companies - Also this is mainly regarding "Economy" sections of articles about cities and neighborhoods - Both Bellaire, Texas and Gulfton, Houston passed GA with sentences about local office operations of larger companies. Bellaire has AT&T and Chevron while Gulfton has TACA Airlines. What got the "Economy" section to pass GA was not removal of the sentences about the companies, but additional material that summarizes the economic statuses of the communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I must also add that sometimes airline office lists are misleading. For instance Garuda Indonesia lists United States addresses, but it turns out Air Zimbabwe lists the same addresses- the addresses are occupied by a local firm acting as an agent for other airlines. I am fine with removing sentences about these sorts of operations as it is not the airline itself operating an office. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a big mess if everyone writes what they don't know about, and ticket offices are so obscured that they cannot be listed in cities (which I cannot think of a reason why it's within AVIATION's or COMPANIES' jurisdictions) without proving their relevance. (That means I can't understand the reverse logic--list unless you can prove its irrelevance.) Including a small office (with an employment and economic figure much smaller than the ground or cargo agents at the airport) destroys the quality of the city's article. You might want to add all companies that operate there, but if you can't do it all, it only makes sense to do the biggest ones first, not Air China in Central, Hong Kong or Air Tahiti Nui in El Segundo. HkCaGu (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much writing what one personally knows as it is writing about what can be verified from reliable sources (

WP:V) - As long as one can verify information one can add information like that. It does help to know the subject (as to interpret information), but WP:V is the core policy here. The airlines do not say how large the offices are (though with China Airlines there is a hierarchy), so we don't know whether they employ more people or less people than the cargo agents at a given airport. It depends on the organizational structure of the airline. Anyway I added them because a major company is represented (as it's not like the office workers are isolated) in the business in that community. - I do try to add as many major companies as possible to each business district or small city. For instance with Downtown Houston Continental is headquartered there and there are many major energy companies; to my knowledge I have listed all of them. I also listed consulates as, while they employ few people, they are representatives of foreign governments and are important. It's that with some places either airlines are the only major businesses (i.e. SeaTac) or that there is not much there (i.e. Willow Grove). WhisperToMe (talk

) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In busy cities where information is abundance and there's no difficulty in

Shinjuku, Tokyo. (Everyone can imagine there are many.) The fact is that there are rarely big ticket offices these days--if they haven't even moved into airports. HkCaGu (talk

) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK ticketing offices usually have actual office space in the same complex (i.e. with ANA in New York). Anyway, in terms of how much commercial output we could exclude listing McDonald's restaurants or ATMS of a bank, but we can mention cities that have dedicated offices for McDonald's or offices operated by a bank (i.e. Frost Bank in Bellaire, TX). I think the Notability company policy helps with IINFO (so it excludes non-notable companies, i.e. small law firms that don't get much press); airlines as a whole certainly pass notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(<) I dont really see listing airline offices other than headquarters has any real value, bit like listing car dealerships and the like. In

Manor Royal, Crawley two miles from London Gatwick nearly every other building is an airline office, airline support or related industries, the only one of any note is the Virgin Atlantic main headquarters. MilborneOne (talk

) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I think car dealerships would be a better analogy to McDonald's restaurants or bank branches, not offices of Ford or Chevy, offices of McDonald's or offices of an airline for that matter - in offices operations are controlled and coordinated.

2. Regarding Crawley, I haven't seen any airlines with sales offices in Crawley. There may be airline-related buildings, but I haven't found any listed in "city office" directories. Then again I didn't search many European airlines. Those in Asia tend to have them in Greater London. I notice TUI Travel also has its headquarters in Crawley, but that's a British subsidiary of a German company. Here is a listing of foreign airlines with offices in the United Kingdom (not including those only with airport offices):

China Airlines - Greater London: http://www.china-airlines.com/en/about/about-3-4.htm

EVA Air - Greater London: http://www.evaair.com/html/b2c/english/global_tools/couns/Europe.htm

Icelandair - Greater London: http://www.icelandair.com/contact-us/

Japan Airlines - Greater London: http://www.au.jal.com/en/jalmile/address/

So I'm not sure if what you see in Crawley is what I had in mind here.

3. Having said that, in some cities listing airline offices would fit in well as the economy stems from aviation - i.e. SeaTac, Washington is where Seattle's airport is located. Various Asian airlines have offices in SeaTac office parks.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I presumed the discussion was about airline offices not "sales offices", in which case they are even less notable !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are airline offices. Some seem to be pure sales offices (i.e. China Airlines in Toronto and London) - but that seems to depend on the structure of the airline. By "sales office" were you thinking of a ticketing counter operated outside of an airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to the following question. Does the office have a significant impact on the economy of the location it is housed in? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case it would depend on the location itself. In

Honolulu, Hawaii or Central, Hong Kong) WhisperToMe (talk

) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment vs. Peer Review

It seems to me that the current use of the assessment request process (

) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at

Dialogue

13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this Boeing 767 belong in Category:Glider aircraft? See this edit summary. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. Aircraft was not designed as, nor was its primary function, a glider. It was only turned into a temporary glider due to running out of fuel. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. If we allowed this reasoning to proliferate here soon all aircraft will be in this category simply because all fixed wing aircraft can glide (and helicopters can autorotate - which is functionally the same thing). Remove it. Roger (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Wolfkeeper is going a bit far to prove a point in relation to the discussion going on at Talk:Glider. Almost getting to the point of being disruptive. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article will garner wide attention on 3 February 2009, the fiftieth anniversary of the crash. Please consider pitching in to improve the article over the weekend.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please check if this article is now in B-class or tell me what I should do to improve it? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's a list...I thought lists were only capable of being list-class. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, list can be FL class too! Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the list needs improving more culling as I am not sure it is really a notable subject, aviation shootdowns and accidents during a war are not normally notable. Perhaps to the same criteria we should have a List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Second World War that should keep us busy for a number of decades. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can check {{Lists of aviation accidents and incidents}} as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is now under peer preview. Check Wikipedia:Peer review/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War/archive1. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started the

) 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Air International December 2000

Does anyone have a copy of Air International - December 2000? I am chasing the article "Aeroflot's Offspring: Russia's Regional Airlines Part: 1 - Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov analyse the major Russian regional airlines, particularly in the aftermath of Aeroflot's deregulation, and the country's financial crisis of 1998." - and also Part 2 - which I would assume is in the January 2001 issue. If anyone has this mag, and can supply me with that particular article (scan of the article is enough) I would appreciate it, as it will be useful for an article I am working on now. --

10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have both editions, with both articles. I am well past needing my sleep, so I will try to scan them later today, unless someone else beats me to it. Email me the email address you want the scans sent to. -

talk

) 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, email sent. --

Dialogue

13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting permission from several other wikipedians to move

) 02:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You dont need to transfer projects as none of the projects own any article, although some could be considered the primary project of an article. I have added wikiproject trains to the

Bombardier Innovia article. No need to remove the aviation/airport tags, some articles can have as many as five or six interested projects at once. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk

) 09:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding China Eastern Airlines Flight 5210 - is this really China Eastern or China Yunnan? I'm confused about which airline operated the plane and which airline is incorrectly cited as the airline that operated the plane. I have seen reports talking about this as of China Eastern and as of China Yunnan. Which is it? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a former China Yunnan aircraft operating a China Eastern Flight probably because by the time of the accident Yunnan had merged into China Eastern. So I suspect China Eastern is correct but as it was shortly after the merger it was still known locally as China Yunnan. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I just updated and overhauled the Vladivostok Air page. I gave it an extensive history from the site and also have changed the number of aircrafts and destinations to the correct amount. I have some other plans to revise and add more stuff on service and stuff like that. I think that this article should be reviewed again as it is currently a stub and is more like a "C" class article now. It also needs to be rated on the importance scale.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on some discussions at

) 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 190

Air Canada Flight 190 has been nominated for deletion 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have

) 12:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No point in prodding...it contained no text, so was eligible for speedy. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new

, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across the article

) 10:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should be italicised throughout, at

WP:ITALICS trains, locomotives and ships are allowed to have their name italicised, I would treat an individual aircraft with a name the same. We tend to do this for registration letters and military tail numbers as well as that is the 'name' as such of any particular aircraft. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If named trains or locomotives, and ships names are italicised, then it follows that named aircraft should be too. I'll add a note to this effect to the style guide. If need be, any discussion should now be directed here - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't need no stinkin' italics... (whoops, wrong working group). No, seriously, main word names should be italicised, however the registration number, nose art name or call-sign italics brings up another set of issues? Trev, I was admonished early on that these nomenclatures do not receive italics unless there is a case to be made that the aircraft is identified by this designation. What is the "standard" (We don't need no stinkin' standard... whoops, there I go again?!) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

My thoughts are that aircraft names - Southern Cross, (including nose art names such as Sally B') should be in italics. Callsigns should be in Title Case such as Bealine 345. Registrations (tail numbers) should be in BLOCK CAPITALS such as G-AWYU. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that callsigns are capitalised (eg SPEEDBIRD) in airline infoboxes and articles as the official documentation presents it that way (ICAO 8585). MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled onto this article and its related Mirage IIIV, Balzac, and so on "daughter" articles. It appears to be a bit of mashup with terminology such as "sporty-looking" and "absurdly large tailplane" probably enshrined due to editors having to translate into English. Hardly any citations are found in the articles which seem to have been sliced and diced recently from the main article. This series of articles needs some help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

Another project has recently awarded A-Class to Walter Nowotny and also applied this to the aviation banner. As a result the banner shows "Start" instead of A. Is there a mistake in your banner syntax? If your project does not subscribe to A-Class the article should be GA class. Agathoclea (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the article and there are lots of minor errors in it, but what the hay? it still holds up well and should be considered as an A-class. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

The Aviation assessment probably has not been updated in a while. B-class is the highest an editor can give. Articles have to go through a review process for A-class, GA and FA levels. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously the decision of your project weather to rate the article A or GA. My point above was that although the the banner is set class=A it displays as Start Agathoclea (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects do A class reviews. FA and GA are done on a higher level. I'll look at it.. -Fnlayson (talk)

The question came up that the Engines task force isn't in the project banner. Is there enough interest there to create its own parameter, assessment categories and other items. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not switch to {{WPBannerMeta}} for the assessment template base at the same time? It makes the template more readable, and adding a new task force is adding about ten lines to the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my plan. I've already got it worked up at

Template:WPAVIATION/sandbox. I'm running some test, but it'll probably go live in the next few days. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs

) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FA cleanup needed

According to

) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Engines in the banner

Engine articles now have their own parameter in the project banner. If you want to help, hunt down every engine article and switch them over from |Aircraft=yes to |Engines=yes . - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about

.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. —

WP Physics

} 08:36, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier

• Bombardier → Bombardier Inc.
• Bombardier (disambiguation) → Bombardier

A rename related to Bombardier has been proposed at

WP:RM, see Talk:Bombardier

76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Montana PC-12 crash

Would the Montana PC-12 crash that likely involved children be considered notable for an article? Here are some news articles about the PC-12 crash: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29828359/ and http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/22/montana.plane.crash/index.html WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, it seems to be too recent an event. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

Like 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash ! it doesnt look particularly notable under guidelines but I think the current thinking is to leave alone until the recentisim has gone away before making an assessment to delete or otherwise. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait a bit to see what comes out of the official investigation. The bodies aren't even cold yet! This is Wikipedia not Wikinews. Roger (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the notability is likely to hinge on the number of people killed. Had the aircraft only had the two pilots on board, it would almost certainly be non-notable. Apparently the aircraft was carrying more people than it had seats for, that is likely to be a feature of the NTSB investigation. Agree that article should be kept for now, especially as it is on the Main Page as part of ITN.

WP:Rocketry

FYI,

WP:LV WikiProject Rocketry is reorganizing, since rocketry is related to your subject of concern, this is to inform you. See WT:WikiProject_Rocketry#WPSpace 76.66.193.69 (talk

) 02:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch your language

Maybe not an answerable question, & maybe something that needs addressing beyond WPAv, but looking at

this, let me ask it: what "Chinese" are we talking about? Mandarin or Cantonese? As I understand it, the transliteration differs (& I can never keep straight which PRC uses...). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠}

23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ben Gurion International Airport

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk

) 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand coverage?

There is currently a proposal at

talk

) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Airportpicreq

Template:Airportpicreq has been nominateed for deletion. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Source search

• Oswald, Mary. They Led the Way : Members of Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame : 25th Anniversary 1973 to 1998. Wetaskiwin: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame (1999).

Hi. I'm looking for somebody who has a copy of this book who can help me evaluate a suspected copyright infringement listed at

WP:CP. I realize it's a bit of a longshot, but I thought to ask here and at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and hope to get lucky. If you can help me out, please let me know. I'll check back. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to update that I am no longer in need of this. The contributor verifies using material from the source, but is planning to go through the permission process to verify authorization to do so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have the book as well if you need a second set of eyes for a check. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

Since the contributor has declined to verify permission, it could be worth quite a lot! I'll contact you at your user talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources for AeroSur (Colombia)?

Are there any secondary sources for AeroSur (Colombia)? I see the website of the company, but I'm not sure where I can find press reports or other secondary sources about this airline? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerospace project

There has been a suggestion on

09:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

location categories for airports in British Columbia

Please be advised that classifying airports by regional district categories for British Columbia is no more meaningful than classifying them by electoral district or which diocese of a church they're in. Regional districts are governments only, and are not valid geographic subdivisions for various reasons, but more to the point regional district governments have no jurisdiction over transportation, especially air transportation. Regional district categories should only be for member municipalities and any facilities or regional parks operated directly by the regional district. Proper geographic categories are to be found in Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia and the subcategories of Category:Coast of British Columbia and Category:Interior of British Columbia. In some cases there may be enough to warrant categories such as Category:Airports in the Chilcotin, Category:Airports in the Cariboo (those two could conceriably be Category:Airports in the Cariboo-Chilcotin however), Category:Airports in the Central Coast of British Columbia, Category:Airports in the Okanagan, Category:Airports in the Lower Mainland etc., with those as subcats of the respective region categories. When editing one of these articles, please adjust the extant regional district categories to the most suitable geographic-region category.Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very sorry to bear the bad news that a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia has impacted articles of interest to your project. The short story version:

14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the Fleet section of this article. Various editors keep adjusting the fleet size and it currently does not reflect what the source quoted says. Can some editors who are knowledgeable about airlines / fleet sizes / where to find the info please look this one over? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A possible further problem may be the recent additions by

WP:COI grounds. Mjroots (talk

) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Include IATA/ICAO Airplane designators in Infobox for Airplane articles

Small suggestion: For commercially used airplanes, it might be an idea to include the common IATA/ICAO designators for this airplane. (user COM Lampe of Wikipedia DE) 85.182.75.125 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

The article on Convective instability was merged into a technical physics article on Convective available potential energy. Now there is a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to have the merged article recreated to describe the phenomenon in less technical specificity and in a manner appropriate to aviators. If you care, could you please review Talk:Convective instability#Fork?

Thanks, Bongomatic 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This article discusses the abrupt diversion of 255 U.S.-bound aircraft to airports in Canada and their handling there following the

16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it meets the criteria for inclusion as the diversions themselves are not really notable in context of the list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Most major aircraft accidents and incidents will cause aircraft diversions and delays to other aircraft. I have no problem with the notability of the subject as a stand alone article, although from a npov other aircraft were diverted to places other than Canada. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other case where the entire airspace of North America was suddenly closed. If there's another article discussing the subject, by all means point it out. We long ago abandoned using the ICAO or the national definitions of "aviation incident" as criteria for inclusion in WP, though we can't seem to get our act together on defining an alternative. In anything but the most legalistic interpretation I have to regard this event as being an "incident" affecting "aviation". LeadSongDog come howl 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My npov point was that the closure of US airspace also had a knock on effect in Europe and elsewhere not just in Canada. As to inclusion in the list I am happy to go with concensus but the diversion of the aircraft in itself is not notable as an incident involving commercial aircraft. Diversions are not normally incidents in themselves just knock on effects like cancelled departures. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's an article on all the aircraft that returned to their origin or diverted elsewhere, I'd support adding that to the list as well. If we want one comprehensive article for all the diversions and returns on the day, I suppose that too could be viable. Simple proximity was the reason nearly half the flights went to Canada. For trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flights following Great circle routes and beyond their points of no return, Canada was simply the most viable alternative. Without checking, I'd bet that some went to Iceland, Greenland, maybe even a few Africa-US flights diverted to Bermuda, Mexico or Cuba? Those too could be the subjects of interesting articles if someone wants to tackle them and has sources.LeadSongDog come howl 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an what Wikipedia is not . Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jet engine performance has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A new editor has been active in systematically changing all articles that pertain to Italian aircraft in World War II, see

) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Ya'll want to weigh in on this? AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kingfisher Airlines website mentions Kingfisher Red as a Class and NOT a airline. Kingfisher Red does'nt have its own website nor livery or anything. Its just a Low-cost Class for domestic travel.
I suggest merging the Kingfisher Red article with Kingfisher Airlines article as its creating confusion. i mean if there are separate Kingfisher Airlines and Kingfisher Red articles then Kingfisher Airlines article should not inculde Kingfisher Red's fleet OR we should merge KF and KF Red articles as Air Deccan/Simplifly Deccan is gone in either ways. (Druid.raul (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Kingfisher Red (formerly Air Deccan) is still a separate airline from Kingfisher (according to the latest Flight airliner directory. MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we should not put the Kingfisher Red Fleet on the Kingfisher Article. i suggest removing the ATR 72-500s and A320-200s, A321-200 ordered by Kingfisher Red (Air Deccan) as its already there on the Kingfisher Red Article. Kingfisher Airlines article should only contain aircraft ordered by Kingfisher Airlines ONLY.
Even on the Air India, Jet Airways Articles ,the fleet data of their subsidiaries is not mentioned in their(AI,9W) articles;INSTEAD its separately on the AI Express/AI Cargo and Jet Lite articles. (Druid.raul (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Red is NOT a subsidiary or a separate airline. It has been fully merged with Kingfisher (operationally and legally) and is now just a different type of product that IT offers (and even that is often interchanged). This situation cannot be compated with Jet and Lite (since the two remain legally distinct, operating as 9W and S2 respectively, and have a parent-sub relationshop) or Indian Airlines and Regional (these two also remain legally separate, operating as IC and CD respectively) and even air India and Express (AI and IX, again separate entities, each having its own operating sertificate and code, with an actual parent-sub relationship).

Regards Kingfisher, both 'mainline' and Red operate as IT, after their AOCs were formally merged a while ago. It is one airline. And I think all articles on the two should me merged (destination lists, articles, fleet info, etc). Jasepl (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We should merge the Kingfisher Red article with Kingfisher Airlines article and rename the current Kingfisher Red article back to Simplifly Deccan OR Air Deccan as its history now. Kingfisher Red is NOT an airline. ITS JUST A LOW-COST CLASS. its now with Kingfisher Airlines and we should integrate all the info,destinations etc on the Kingfisher Airlines Article. (Druid.raul (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

A-7D production data has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:PigFlu Oink has been correcting the spelling in a number of articles including changing enroute to en route in aviation article. I pointed out to the user that enroute (one word) is more normal when discussing aeronautical matters and provided a link to a FAA document http://naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/ifr/enrt_low as a reliable source. The user points out that the FAA is not a reliable source for spelling but has agreed to stop making the changes pending an agreement. So I am just looking for other comments, en route or enroute or does it really matter? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually a grammatical difference - "enroute" is the adjective form and "en route" is the adverb. Examples: "the enroute VOR was malfunctioning" and "the flight was en route to Heathrow". Roger (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed this template being placed in the

) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Mono-tilt-rotor

I added the article

) 12:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See edit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am suggesting removal of Terminated Destinations from Airline Destination pages as they are Terminated and only God knows that whether they will be restarted or not. They are History. There is no point putting them. Majority of the airline articles do not have them so far i have seen.
(Druid.raul (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

You may be better raising it at the relevant project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with

has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on getting General Aircraft Hotspur to GA level, as I did with General Aircraft Hamilcar and will hopefully with the rest of the WWII British gliders. However, I'm in need of all of the stats for the Hotspur Mk II for the 'Specifications' subsection; I've fashioned two cites for some of the stats from my sources, but they're not complete. If anyone has Jane's World War II Aircraft or even the original 1945-1946 version that, I believe, mentions the Hotspur, then I'd be extremely greatful if the proper stats could be included. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in desperate need for any information on the Hotspur Mk III variant; I know it existed, but have no reliable sources that explain what made it different to the Mk I and II - any help would be greatly appreciated and barnstars awarded liberally! Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources on it, but ... the Museum of Army Flying has an example in its collection, and it also has a research library whose curator may be able to help point you to useful information. Hope that helps, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mimika Air Flight 514 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

People keep adding speculation about the cause of

17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

With the current speculation, it probably wouldn't hurt to have a sourced reference in the article that is is being looked at as a possible cause. If and when the BEA report is published, and if the loss of one or more pitot tubes is confirmed as a significant factor, then a fuller mention can be made. IMHO, the pitot tube article really needs a section linking to accidents where the pitot tube has been a major factor in the accident, whether through maintenance errors, insect nests or other causes. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article misses an image (graphic or photograph) or multiples illlustrating the Brace position. Could someone retrieve it or create such? Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have located such an image. I will add it to Commons. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done and added to the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On the article on Elsa Andersson, the categories say she died in an aviation accident, but the article said she died from a parachute failure. Is dying because your parachute failed to open really an aviation accident? Tavix |  Talk  19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This Pan Am schedule File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg has been nominated for deletion, as non-supportable fair-use; however it seems that the copyright has run out on the document, so it's not fair-use, it's PD. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some minor cleanup of {{Infobox aviation}} was reverted as it wasn't brought up here first. Other than some syntax cleanup (removing unnecessary quotation marks and line breaks), the only changes are the removal of an extraneous border and tweaking the width and font sizes to match those of the {{infobox}} base class. If there is no opposition I'll re-add these changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As there's been no opposition, I've restored these changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I submitted the

) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done a GA Reassessment of LANSA Flight 502 as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article is very close to meeting all the GA Criteria. There is one unreferenced section and some formatting issues along with two dead links that need to be repaired. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects of this review and that I have put the article on hold for one week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, OpenFlights has released a database with 54317 scheduled airline routes, plus a rendering engine for it -- see thumb for a sample. Let me know if you'd like to render a world map for an airline/airport of your choice; any equirectangular map can be used as the background. Jpatokal (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! This article has been copied from http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/a-57.html. Greetings, Causa83 from Italy.--160.80.47.215 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted.LeadSongDog come howl 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 French helicopter crash. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash and Boeing ex-executive Michael M. Sears‎ are both at AfD. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Was reading Britten-Norman Trislander (after one of them threw a prop into the fuselage in NZ this morning) when I saw this statement -- "The third engine is a tractor engine......". Aren't all three engines tractors (as opposed to pushers)? Do we really need to say that? It infers the other two aren't. Someone with more tech knowledge than me care to comment? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - Need expert code writer's help with this template, the 'cat class' portion of the template doesn't work correctly, so I've commented it out temporarily, because some TFs use upper case in their quality categories and some use lower case, eg, Category:A-Class Aviation accident articles (Aviation is capped) and Category:A-Class rotorcraft articles (rotorcraft is lower case). Maybe if an add'l parameter could be added to this template that would allow that to be taken into consideration? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the same problem at: Template:WPAVIATION WikiProject assessment level category. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Template:Aviation accidents and incidents has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Compass Airlines Flight 2040 article has been AfD'd. Mjroots (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can members of this project look the article over please, particularly the "Cause" section (see talk page. What is the consensus about this section? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article about the British part-work World Aircraft Information Files.

I would be grateful if some of you might take a quick look at it, and tell me how it can be improved.

As you will see, I have put a lot of work into created wikilinks for every File in the partwork, but I want advice on how to make it better. This could include any categories it could go in that I haven't done yet, etc.

Thanks. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of hard work on the list of subjects but I dont think it is really needed, they link to the related subject on wikipedia which is nothing to do with the publication. You may have to delete it. Also remember that most of the content has been around for a while and used in other publications and part works so I am not sure about its notability. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is proposed that

) 20:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A similar problem has arisen with this article that arose with the Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 article. An editor is pushing a POV that the ageing fleet in Iran / US sanctions was the reason for the crash. The aircraft in this case was registered in Uzbekistan and built in the Soviet Union. I'm not getting into an edit war or falling foul of

) 13:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport GAR notice

WP:LOTM

) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New categories for Mojave Air & Space Port and Edwards Air Force Base

FYI: I created and populated the categories Category:Mojave Air & Space Port and Category:Edwards Air Force Base. Ikluft (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone look at

) 06:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would question the assessment of B class, no supporting materials (images) and quite short. Also assessed by its creator which I personally avoid doing. Notability is the 'topic of the month', I do hope we come up with firm guidelines soon. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Knocked it down to Stub based on Start criteria of no problems with notability. I also edit commented that the organization of the article was eyewash to make it seem more substantial, which seems to be an attempt to justify the self-assessment. --Born2flie (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering what happens if they decide to change their callsign? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just made a recommendation to move the article to Sussex Police Air Operations Unit. See the

article talk page. --Born2flie (talk

) 11:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bill Humble

I've created Bill Humble over the past few days. I've tagged him for the MILHIST aviation task force, which I think is joint with this project, but you may wish to bring him fully into this project, and you'll certainly have better sources than I do to expand the article. David Underdown (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Category:IATA-indexed railway stations has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how to add this to your list of AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix R/C. R/C hobbyists may know of some sources that can help. Marasmusine (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why {{aviation-accident-stub}} isn't listed on WP:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#Aviation_stubs ? CS Miller (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it can be added, as well as any others from Category:Aviation stubs. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm not a member of your project, but am putting this here to inform you that the following article is at AFD:

) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines to Determining Airport Notability.

Hi, I am unaaware if there any established guidelines on what makes an airport notable. I recently had an interaction with a new user that is an Airport enthusiast and would like to point anyone who knows his way to help him on creating airport articles. If there isn't any concensus on what makes things notable maybe we can get a discussion going here.

talk

) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you need me to restore one of Aviation fellow 101's sub-stubs, let me (or some available admin) know. If it can be salvaged, there are a bunch more just like it. Wknight94 ^talk 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

About 30 stubs or so I would say :) and if I would be allowed a few thousand more similar stubs with basic statistical infobox details. I just have enough information currently for the basic infoboxes - but since alot of the airports don't exist on wikipedia I had to create a whole new page for them even though it was just for the infoboxAviation fellow 101 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, would there be a better way to present this information? A list perhaps? Or would that skirt

WP:NOT#STATS too much? Wknight94 ^talk

14:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some guidelines exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 14:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a Bunch. We appreciate that.

talk

) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'm not sure about the list idea - frankly the thing is that I have a humongouse database of airports all listed with their ICAO codes and coordinates and calling codes - plus a good deal of them have details such as runway and helipads - its a bit varied to be in a list and the idea of a page that says - list of airports by coordinates...well just seems a bit impractical..or it could be done though. The ICAO distinguishes an airport from all other airports as well as IATA and FAA for those in the US and Canada. So basically the information I have on the airports is sorted by ICAO - thats why I was also making entries to my basic stub pages in the List airports by ICAO pages as well. The information like I said is heavily statistical point by point information and not something you can elaborate upon on its own at the moment but again thats the whole idea behind having an open wikipedia :) Aviation fellow 101 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd read the first link that Trevor MacInnis posted. Airports are not all notable, but airports that have current scheduled passenger services, that are owned by (or managed for) a government, that are advertised as destinations for passengers or freight are most probably notable. If you start by creating stubs for airports which meet the above, you won't go far wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to review this proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal: Any large-scale semi-/automated article creation task require BRFA. ^Bongo_matic 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Aviation fellow 101 is making the articles by hand. He just goes very fast, as none of them had any content. If he has to determine whether there's a scheduled service to each one, it will slow him down a bit :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't even notice there was a more specific

WP:AIRPORT project. Maybe this should be moved there instead? Wknight94 ^talk

15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AVIATION is the umbrella parent project for airports, airlines, aircraft, etc. So here is fine, I just left a note on that talk page to direct those members to this discussion. --Born2flie (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on

its talk page and move it forward. As a result of this discussion, I upgraded it from {{brainstorming}} to {{draft proposal}} since that intermediate step is now available. Ikluft (talk

) 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The A-Class review for Boeing 777 was opened yesterday. All willing editors are asked to participate. Thanks for your help. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems everyone is busy...but again, any contributors would be appreciated...SynergyStar (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx all for the successful review. SynergyStar (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Revising_WP:AIRCRASH_-_Thryduulf.27s_fourth_draft - how about a new series of articles with a lower threshold for those that don't have sufficient notability for their own articles. This could include GA and military losses. What I have in mind is a series of lists "List of aviation accidents in (year)" Something similar to the various Lists of shipwrecks, such as List of shipwrecks in 2009. The minimum criteria for entry would be airframe write off / ditching, an accident causing serious injury or death, fire on board. All entries to be verified by RSs. The major accidents can be included on list and linked therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There exists currently

List of airshow accidents and other similar ones in Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents as well. Thryduulf (talk

) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The lists in that category will prove valuable for adding info to year lists if the suggestion is adopted. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have the military type lists like

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1975–1999) to consider, although they could really do with a tidy up. MilborneOne (talk

) 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think such mishaps are better treated in lists than as articles or in article sections. This effort, though, will require tons of work to keep up, even if only hull losses are tracked. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else got a copy of World Directory of Airliner Crashes? That's good for up to 1995. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a nice idea, but at the moment seems to be mostly a list of notable times women have been in balloons. Not even a mention of the Wright brothers or the jet engine! Could definately do with expansion if anyone fancies a project :). (192.88.212.32 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

It really is just a random collection of facts (which wikipedia is not) most first can be found in the years in aviation articles. How many firsts should it list an almost endless list. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I just noticed that this is actually derived from list of firsts, which is one of most poorly defined articles I've seen! A list of aviation milestones may be interesting, but this already seems to be fairly well covered by timeline of aviation. If theres no extra benefit that can be gained from this article what's the point. By the same logic should the entire list of firsts and sub articles be scrapped? Perhaps we could suggest they replace it with a Timeline of everything ;)... (192.88.212.32 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I will volunteer to do some (as time allows) translating of French articles to English. I am a college student taking French, so I am not perfect, but I can mostly translate aircraft articles into English, and the practice doesn't hurt, especially given that eventually I'm supposed to be majoring in French. Here are two aviation articles I have translated so far:

. I am not quite sure how to import those projects into the WikiProject aviation, so how do I do that?

Thanks,

Falconus^{p t c} 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be best to try to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Falconus^{p t c} 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also confess that I am not a builder, just a pilot-in-training, so I may be one to fall victim of mistranslating construction materials etc. If somebody wanted to look at the pages I translated and see if anything seems out of place, it may not be a bad idea. Falconus^{p t c} 01:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

your input is invited at talk:Swissair#key_people, and the associated rfc regarding infobox parameters. as the outcome may have wide affect, the input of as many reasoned views as possible is needed. --emerson7 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The gist of the conversation is that one or more editors would like to state that LAX is a hub airport for the airline. Any opinion, expert or otherwise, will be questioned if it does not support the desired edits. There is already a stalled mediation that was not seen through to completion, because neither side could get past their own ad nauseum arguments. --Born2flie (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And a lot of effort on a point that is really not that important! Can you go from one VX flight and get on another at LAX (within a reasonable timeframe) to a different destination if not it is not a hub. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to get enough opinions on this topic to even fill a whole hand while there is numerous participation with everything else? I mean, seriously. And don't get cranky like you're doing some big grandiose out of your way thing by sending one or two people over there because its really not that much, this is what this page is for, and its been two weeks for goodness sake so its not like anyone's rushed or harrassed you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

sufficient grounds for you to be blocked. Zzyzx11 (talk

) 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Or tthis highly intelligent response. - BilCat (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Trevor, maybe there is a way to promote this through the AVIATION projects, something in the templates or something?

Sometimes, I feel like there are two or three of us (occasionally more) that monitor these sections. Peer review, especially the A-Class review process could use a little more participation from a lot of the sub-projects and task forces. Watching these pages to see when new articles have been submitted, and then taking time to look at them, will help the process gain more momentum and promote more articles for all the related projects. For the A-Class review, you just have to submit your support or oppose with your reasons, similar to the FA process. Many of you already assess articles as you come by them, but watching the Assessment page will key other editors to when an editor is seeking advice on how the article is progressing.

It is not a requirement to participate in the project, but if you are looking at other ways to help the project move along, it is easier than some of the other maintenance tasks in the project. --Born2flie (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to get more participation. We could ask the nominators to advertise themselves using Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Coordinators#Boilerplate_and_templates. Or we could add a section to Template:WPAVIATION Announcements listing current nominations, again updated by the nom. But these require a bit oftechnical editing know-how, which many general article editors lack. Perhaps we could request a bot to do it? I've been wanting to get the newsletter up and running again, perhaps we can advertise on it too? Another thing I'd like to get started is an editing contest modeled after Wikipedia:WikiCup, to get people improving the articles we have, rather than just creating stubs and general cleanup. Maybe the first round starting on Sept 1 till Dec 1, and quarterly thereafter. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A poll to go along with this. Show of hands, how many of you regularly check:

• {{WPAVIATION Announcements}}?

1. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Nigel Ish (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Using regularly now, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment?

1. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Somewhat regularly. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Only when I post something requesting review, but I try and review one for each one I request.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review?

1. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Have from time to time. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And how many would be up for regular talk page notices about things going on?

1. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, even milhist has this problem. Unto my experience, the underlying reason for it is that the editors we have are interested only in article development, not reviewing. Consequently a disproportionately small amount of project members are responsible for about 90% of all comments generated in an A-class Review or Peer Review. Automated scripts can help, dishing out gongs can help, but short of forcing people to review if they want to edit the best course of action is going to be accepting this for what it is: apathy. By advise, if its worth anything to you, is to increase the number of coordinators somewhat so as to help improve assessment related coverage and consider creating a review alert box; I know that the first place I look for New PR/ACR material is the milhist review box on my talk page; not the project pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation on why it might be quiet in the review departments, after joining in and reviewing/commenting on submitted articles the nominators or creators have often objected to non-radical constructive critisism, such as complying with the spirit of the MOS etc, this has happened more than once and I'm dis-inclined to do it again. What is the point of submitting an article for peer review and then objecting to any problem areas that might get highlighted? I assessed a fairly new article as Start class and placed an uncompleted B class checklist on it with the intention of giving it a proper review and moving it up. I got a 'snot-a-gram' on my talk page from the articles' 'owner' demanding that I explain why I had only rated it as Start class, he did almost apologise when I explained his misunderstanding but here is another example of the pitfalls of reviewing articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this is a common problem. In terms of assessments I have been trying to keep one wikiproject's articles assessed. I'm adding a second one, but this takes time and effort. For the first, there is one article that is close to becoming A class, and it is listed for 3 projects! The only thing missing is references. And there is the problem. Many articles simply lack inline references. Without those articles have lower quality ratings. In fact one assessment review I did showed that a significant number of start class articles would likely be C class if they had references. So maybe an effort to reference articles might generate results. The problem is that finding references for many facts can be difficult. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my biggest concern is that if so few of us are doing the reviews, then some group of editors will perceive that we are blocking the gates to article promotion. Honestly, the Wikipedia review processes for peer review, GA review and FA are open and don't necessarily require the projects' review processes. Still, a larger pool of editors doing reviews and assessments would give the current reviewers the ability to gauge whether we are on the level or out in left field with our review perspective. --Born2flie (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really had any negative issues with ordinary reviews, but some of my GAs have been trying because they've been resistant to necessary changes or don't understand that they really do need to rewrite the sentences to better communicate their ideas. OTOH one of my reviewers for GA really didn't have a clue about the level of material available to use and wanted more info added on what the vehicle was like to drive, etc. I would suggest adding notices to this talk page about requested PR, ACR and FACR in our subject; that's how I track things on my other projects. And we really do need a better way to publicize the unassessed articles better. I like MILHIST's method of a section on their Assessments page that automatically tallies the totals of articles that need assessments and assignments to task forces or whatever. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've create a template to alert people of reviews, etc going on, just add {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}} to your page/talkpage wherever and it produces

Aviation WikiProject Articles for review

Peer review Granville Gee Bee Model A 2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash Fresno Yosemite International Airport This box: view talk edit

. Are there any other sections needed? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're listing the Feature Article candidates, what about the GA ones as well? Other than that, people can check {{WPAVIATION Announcements}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added GA's to the template. Any more takers for the poll above, or does no one else read those pages? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking mainly from the aircraft article creation side just like to thank those behind the scenes who carry out the assessment process and clean up after us. The one place that everybody watches is the project talk pages and I am sure that a regular reminder for help would not be a problem. If you think of all the aircraft articles that have been created starting with User:Rlandmann were are now getting down to some of the more rare and in some cases non-built projects. So it may be timely to suggest a general program/programme in article improvement. Just a minor point about inline citations a lot of the aircraft articles were created without inline citations as they all came from the one reference (and I dont think it is a requirement to inline ref everything) but the assesment process seems to have a thing about in-line references, but if nothing has been added or contested they probable dont exist! Just thought I would mention it as it appears to create problems. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I only started actively involved in editing since February, just read this discussion today and would like to ask a few questions? The reason is I have been editing significantly to a few articles, including

) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA nominations and review are independent of WikiProject reviews, the same as for

WP:FAR. In my opinion, the problem with GA review is that it isn't usually as critical as a FA review, so it doesn't help progress the article to featured article status. Since it isn't as critical, I've encountered some good articles at my time on Wikipedia that I might not even consider B-Class if I were to review it. And once it has achieved GA-Class, an article seems to languish there after failing an initial FA-Class review. This may be due to shock at the difference in the processes. Just my opinions and observations. --Born2flie (talk

) 11:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 777

Greetings all, your input is invited at: Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 777/archive1. Thanks for any help. SynergyStar (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

For anyone interested, I have started a discussion on hub/focus cities listing of the Airline concerned at

) 10:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that nobody at these discussions seems to provide an authoritative definition of what constitutes a hub, much less a focus city, I refuse to participate in a conversation where nobody but the individuals involved in the disagreement get to determine, "...what the definition of 'is' is." --Born2flie (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hubs are generally listed as such by the airline. Southwest is one example of an airline that does not have hubs, no matter how many flights they run from an airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problems begin when the airline proclaims its business model and/or hubs while editors on the wiki proclaim the vertices of flights arriving at a common destination as the quintessential definition of a hub or focus city or even inconsequential, whether the company declares it so or not. Usually not, but in this case, they are arguing against it when the company declares it so. Add to the confusion the consideration of other poorly defined terms such as home base, base of operations, and hub airport (which is an FAA term). To me, it seems that WP:Airlines needs to do more homework in defining the business of airlines and finding some accepted industry terms and definitions as to what constitutes a hub of a hub-and-spoke system, what constitute a focus city, and what is simply a common destination from several of the airline's departure locations. --Born2flie (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur totally with Born on this one. However, such a discussion on WPAIRLINES should only last about 10-12 years, which is probably quite short for this issue! I know I have a tendency to argue over jots and tittles, but this whole hub/focus city agrument well into BIKESHED territory now. - BilCat (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The

) 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The very significantly revised

) 11:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed a few typos, I can see that a lot of thought has gone into this guideline, should help enormously at AfD cases. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

states,

“

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

”

I'm curious if you have any thoughts, because it makes me take a second look at the article. I feel the article is notable enough, however there appears to be a certain slant towards POV, which I had previously perceived as merely over-coverage of Australian experience. I would welcome a second look at the article by other editors and your opinions on the user's contributions to it, which appear to be the entire article itself. --Born2flie (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing his other contributions, there are seven edits to CAC Woomera which also primarily involve edits using material written Peter Ewer (diff). IMO that tips the scale a bit towards a conflict of interest if it is beyond mere circumstance that the username is the same as the source quoted for the edits, and most of his edits are based on his own material. --Born2flie (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There must be a better title for this one! What about

) 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - that title is so unwieldy that it cannot possibly be the common name for the incident! There doesn't, from a quick google, seem to be a single used name but varients of "Uberlingen crash" and "Uberlingen collision" seem most frequent. These are too ambiguous for our purposes, so I've got no objection to 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Article moved, all double redirects fixed. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested on the template's

) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think it would be better as a navbox it fits better at the bottom than infobox style at the top/side. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

{{

Seriesbox Aircraft Categories}} looks like an infobox. A show/hide collapse option would be good though. -Fnlayson (talk

) 15:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My sandbox template incorporates a show/hide collapse option where the default is for the seriesbox to show normally. --Born2flie (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I transferred the changes to the template. Default is expanded, so there is no need to reconfigure the template on any pages, readers can now simply hide the table if they choose to. --Born2flie (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've raised an issue at the talk page of the article and would appreciate input from WP:AVIATION members. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Would just like to note that the Rolls-Royce Merlin article was nominated for Featured Article status on Sept 10 and is currently under FAC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1. Support votes, comments or otherwise would be very welcome there at this time. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results for the first round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time.

Contest leaders

The top three finishers in the September round are:

1st

1. Sturmvogel_66 (204.3 points)

2nd

1. Zyxw (142.3 points)

3rd

1. Arsenikk (131 points)

Notable mentions

1. Aviator006 (83.4) collected 5 GAs
2. Binksternet (70.1) collected 6 DYKs
3. Canglesea (92) and Nimbus227 (86.1) each created 25 articles
4. Ian Rose (83.6) created 1 FA and 1 GA

• For a full guide see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009/September

---

Content Leaders

As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most:

• Featured articles
  • Ian Rose (1)
• Good articles
  • Aviator006 (5)
• Did you know?
  items
  • Arsenikk (10)

---

At a Glance

The Contest participants have collected a Round 1 total of:

---

Congratulations to all competitors. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this odd category Category:Airplanes... since most aeroplanes seem to be under Category:Aircraft... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that Arsh Air (be careful how you spell it!) has been prodded, seems genuine, just no references. Perhaps airline editors would like to save it. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A yahoo search revealed no trace Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this their website?:[2], they won't get much business with that! No images on Airliners.net that I can find. The prod has been removed by someone. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A

) 03:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Airlines and preserved aircraft

Throwing this open to discussion:-

Where large aircraft are preserved, should the fact be mentioned under the airline articles for those airlines with which the aircraft in question served? What I'm suggesting is a section called "Preserved aircraft", all entries to be fully referenced to show that the aircraft did in fact serve with the airline in question and is now preserved. Former preserved aircraft that have been scrapped may also be included. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, some preserved aircraft have been used by a lot of airlines/operators it wouldnt surprise me if a preserved DC-3 had scores of owners in the past. You would have to make clear what is meant by large aircraft. Dont get me wrong some preserved aircraft have a particularly affinity with an airline for example the KLM collection at the Aviodrome. Some preserved aircraft are painted in an airline markings that never operated with the airline but are just representative. How would handle a preserved aircraft that had been leased by an airline for a few months twenty years ago. You would also probably need to define preserved aircraft to just those on public display as in theory all the the aircraft parked in desert storage are technically preserved! I think you would need a clearly defined guide on the notability to the airline of the aircraft concerned. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many DC-3 do have a long history of past ownership. That should not prevent their inclusion in each airline that they served with. Service to mean revenue earning flight, so those bought as a spares source would be excluded, even if subsequently preserved. Aircraft in fictious markings would be excluded from the article relating to that livery, although photos of such may be used to illustrate the type in that airline's livery if the airline operated that type of aircraft. Aircraft in desert storage would not count, more akin to a scrapyard than preservation, although aircraft retrieved from there for preservation would count. Widening the scope a bit, Military aircraft could also be treated in a similar way as civil aircraft. For some Airlines and Air Forces this could lead to a separate article on size grounds. Aircraft held in reserve collections may be included too. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After compiling

15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't WikiProject Rocketry a better home for these? Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all missiles are rockets, all missiles are weapons though... so MILHIST is best... 76.66.194.183 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Finnish AF C-47 DO-7 was used in the filming. Can anyone provide a reliable reference for this, as I've got an article in preparation about the loss this aircraft (which took part in the real event!). Also, the article states that Dakota F-OCKX was used in the filming. Can anyone confirm (with refs) that this is c/n 27215, an ex Aden Airways aircraft (another article in preparation)? Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the information based on a "I was there" article in a British magazine. I will double check the information to make sure it is correct. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, the Aden Airways article is now live. Further expansion welcome. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this announcement earlier: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Default thumbnail image size is now 220px which might be of interest. I noted during the Merlin FAC that comments in other reviews indicated that some images should be made larger than the default 'thumb' option. This seems to be a change in policy, could cause problems with editors enlarging their fave pictures to half the page width though!! I think we could safely enlarge images in the 'specs' sections to 300px as we perhaps have been doing for a while, this looks like the official 'nod' to do it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked and regular articles are still a 180px default.

MOS:IMAGES is the main guidance. - Ahunt (talk

) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The announcer did not link to where the change is mentioned but I note that someone else says that it's not working anyway! Must have a look in the MOS again, as I had been previously removing forced image sizes from articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording still supports not specifying sizes for most images, but the wording is toned down over what it was at one time. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be some confusion as to whether this is talking about 'preference' settings or sizing specified in the wiki code, I think it is the latter. Was quite confused to see comments like 'you need to make the images bigger' in reviews. Watching with interest. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposal_to_increase_the_default_thumbnail_dimensions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? An article

) 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it - the AfD should pass - it has no enduring value beyond Fox News! - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this isn't going to get deleted :/.... can we at least remove WP:AIR from the list of projects supporting that article? It has nothing to do with aviation. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the aviation project box has been removed from the talk page already. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me.  :-) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work~ - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Douglas DC-3 article states The very large number of civil and military operators of the DC-3, C-47, and related types since their introductions means that a listing of all the airlines, air forces, and other operators is impractical.

I don't agree with that. It should be possible to produce a List of DC-3 operators (covering the DC-3 in its various guises and also the Lisunov Li-2 and Showa L2D2 and L2D5). It would probably be best to split the list thus - Military, Civil in Africa Civil in Asia, Civil in Australasia, Civil in Europe, Civil in North America, Civil in South America. Individual country lists within the civil lists as required.

Yes, it will be a large undertaking, but it should be do-able as the vast majority of operators are known and have articles on Wikipedia. Question is, are this Wikiproject's members up to the challenge? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I not sure it would have much value as it would probably be just a list of every airline between 1935 and 1960, I think we probably have other things to do first like the missing airlines and missing aircraft lists. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently under review as part of GA Sweeps and is currently on Hold. It needs some attention to bring it upto standard (see talk:Adam Air Flight 172/GA1). Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I may rewrite and expand

07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Flight has online archives of its magazines. search results for "strike" in 1989-90. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I tried a search of it earlier, and surprisingly there wasn't much written about it in flight at the time. One or two articles, with nothing in them unfortunately that is needed for the list, and all their other info is found in google news/scholar/books, but in more detail. I think Australian Aviation is gonna be my best bet to find this info. --

Dialogue

07:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth dropping a line at

WP:AWNB then. Mjroots (talk

) 07:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon!

Does anyone want to collaborate on one of these articles:

?

These are amateur Canadian high-altitude balloon experiments. One appeared recently on the Discovery Channel. These buggers get to over 100,000 feet to the edge of space (but much lower if there is a kid inside). Here are the sites: [3] and [4].

If you are interested, please visit: User:Anna_Frodesiak/Blue_sandbox. Thank you. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, be great to get some reviewers over here for a couple of articles that have passed ACR at MilHist and need the tick of approval for Aviation (yes I have a vested interest in one...!). Also another article there has been reviewed and has three supports and no opposes, so just needs a coord to close and promote. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked Bell X1 to be retargetted to

) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review - Rolls-Royce R

Dear colleagues, could I ask that you cast your eyes over the recently expanded Rolls-Royce R aero engine article please, a story with many facets that I did not discover until borrowing some library books! A peer review page is open at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Rolls-Royce R if you would like to add comments. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles on aviation accidents identify aircraft by their registrations. Many editors may be unaware of the existence of the List of aircraft by tail number. Aircraft should be added to the list if they are the subject of an aviation accident article or are notable enough to sustain an individual article. Articles which cover an aircraft type of which there were only one built may also be added to the list. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings all, the Boeing 777 article has been nominated for FA review. Any and all comments welcome. SynergyStar (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aviation WikiProject Contest Newsletter Issue 1 - October 2009 Contest leaders Here are the results for the second round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time. Contest leaders The top three finishers in the October round are: 1st Sturmvogel_66 (185.7 points) 2nd Zyxw (150.8 points) 3rd Ian Rose (131 points) Notable mentions Nimbus227 powered into 4th place with 130.3 points including 1 FA Russavia (20) collected 4 DYKs Canglesea (36.7) assessed or checklisted 267 articles Ian Rose (83.6) created 1 FA and 1 GA SidewinderX (32.7) created 9 articles and petebutt (62) created 8 articles For a full guide see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009/October Content Leaders As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Ian Rose (2) A-Class articles Ian Rose (1) Good articles Aviator006 (5) Did you know? items Sturmvogel_66 (12) At a Glance The Contest participants have collected an October total of: 2 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 A-Class articles 0 Good topic 3 Good articles 13 Did you know? items 0 In the news items This combines with the September totals to make a grand total of: 3 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 A-Class articles 0 Good topics 9 Good articles 40 Did you know? items 0 In the news items Congratulations to all competitors! Another successful round, let's try to build on it! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In several instances, articles I have created have been assessed as Start Level, with the reason given being that they do not have at least one citation per paragraph. I have been citing every fact given, in line with

is called to their attention.

I view the B Class requirement of a minimum of one citation per paragraph a violation of

. As a result, the assessment process now used is invalid.

Is there something here I am overlooking? Or do we need to overhaul our assessment process? Georgejdorner (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia requirement for B-class is suitably referenced (see {{Grading scheme}}). How well referenced does it take to meet "suitably referenced" can be open to interpretation though (these are guidelines). A cite per paragraph seems fitting for this to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To some degree it's a matter of interpretation; you consider a cite valid until the next one is given, even across paragraphs, but the assessors that you mention consider that a cite is only valid for a single paragraph. I agree that the situation should be clarified.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite to resolve the ambiguity that you've noted. This project has not, but the members might want to consider if that's appropriate for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk

) 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflight) Can you point towards a specific article or two where this is going on? I generally don't follow a numerical rule of them. If a specific statement or claim is made, I tend to want a citation. Calling the General Electric CF6 a high bypass turbofan doesn't need a citation. Saying it's a high bypass turbofan with a bypass ratio of X.X needs a citation. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Specific example:

Pier Ruggero Piccio is probably the most blatant example. I was fortunate to find several sources, each of which covered different periods of his life. However, in using them, I had to rearrange facts into chronological order. As a result, the reader who would be flipping back and forth using one-per-paragraph cites, would be either bewildered and annoyed by repeatedly returning to the same source and searching through it to verify facts, and/or irritated enough to quit referring to the source.

General example:

The rigid assessment system now in use could result in an article otherwise qualified to be a Featured Article being assessed as Start Class because it lacked a single unneeded cite.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Part of your problem is that most of your paragraphs are very short. If you combined most of the one to two sentence paragraphs that deal with roughly the same subject this would be less of a problem for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

The comment above is off point, as it has nothing to do with citations.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The hell it doesn't. If you combined your short paragraphs you wouldn't be expected to cite quite so often and the text would flow better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

And if I wrote the article as one long paragraph, I would only need to supply a single cite to be assessed B Class? Be real.

If you want to start a thread on paragraphing, do so, and we can discuss it there. This thread is about citing sources. Most specifically, it is about a contradiction in WP standards.

Also, I consider the tone of your reply as bordering on the abusive.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider it as you like, my point is that your use of short paragraphs aggravates the citation problem. A single cite per paragraph, but a page number should be there for every fact in the paragraph like pp. 17, 23-45, 77, etc. And, yes, I've seen numbers of articles that remain at start for lack of citations, usually more than one, but sometimes just a single one, that would easily qualify as B-class or better if they had them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

My point is that I do not believe you have even looked at the example article. It is a well-fleshed out article because I had ample sources. And if you object to my paragraphing, you are free to edit it.

Thank you for verifying that the present system misclassifies articles.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong because I did read your article and I thought it was quite thorough. Very choppy, though, with very short, very specific paragraphs. It's not on a topic of interest to me so I doubt that I'll bother to edit it to fix what I see as its problems. And you are quite welcome about the agreement; it's outstandingly obvious to anyone who's ever assessed a number of articles. But that's true of any article that lacks any citations at all as well as yours which have some, so that's hardly news.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Others can't tell it is well sourced without the inline references. Short paragraphs with 1-2 sentence are not good writing and should be avoided where possible. That's been addressed in that article though. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Everything I wrote in that article is cited to source. However, unless I rubber stamp citations to meet an arbitrary standard that is contrary to

, it will remain at Start Class.

The point of THIS thread is arbitrary assessment standards. From the feedback I have gotten from assessments, I don't believe the assessors even check the sources. They seem to read the article, count off the citations to verify that the standard one per paragraph are there, and rubber stamp it. If they actually read the sources, they would not repeatedly ask me to add information that is not available. This has happened even when I noted on the Talk page of an article that I have cited every fact in it.

As for writing ability--I have a thirty year publication record in journalism, creative non-fiction and fiction. If you wish to engage me in a discussion about paragraphing, start a thread elsewhere, inform me of its location, and I will oblige you.

The constant attempt to change the subject shows me that there are editors here that are unwilling to examine the issue at hand.

And as for the imputation that I am too lazy to cite every paragraph, I offer the example of

.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If they actually read the sources, they would not repeatedly ask me to add information that is not available. - If the info is not available to reference from, then it shouldn't be in the article in the first place - see

WP:OR. Mjroots (talk

) 06:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Exactly correct, which is why I do not include information not in sources. However, that doesn't prevent them from asking for information not in evidence. Because I put only the facts and cite my references at every change of source, I am arbitrarily assessed in violation of

WP:AVIMOS#CITE

. In turn, I am pointing out that the resulting assessments are so faulty as to be useless. This apparently irks those wedded to the faulty system, so they resort to changing the subject to an attack on my writing style.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The

) 06:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Photographic resources

It might be a good idea to have a list of photographic resources which we are able to use for the project. I have gained permission from various photographers for use of their photographs and have uploaded quite a lot to Commons. Would anyone be able to do up a subpage or something of the like, or suggest how best to list resources, and I can add some of the resources I have gained permission to use, and others could do the same. --

I'm chanting as we speak

10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A possible source in the UK is Geograph where all photos are CC 2.0 licenced and fully useable on Commons. Currently, entering the word "aircraft" returns 2,093 images (this means that the word "aircraft" is associated with 2,093 images in either title or text). There is also a similar project covering Germany Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple more good links-- SidewinderX (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Defense Imagery - US DoD released photos
• Defense Link - More US DoD photos (there's some overlap between these two)
• NASA Images - Tons of NASA photos and images... a really great resource, once you figure out how to naviage it.

1. Over 3,000 photos from Eduard Marmet - when uploading, upload to Commons and use {{
   I'm chanting as we speak
   13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Nearly 9,000 photos from Konstantin von Wedelstaedt - when uploading, upload to Commons and use {{
   I'm chanting as we speak
   13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A WP:MILHIST A-class review for the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 has begun. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The

) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Split glider to

sailplane

I've split glider. The reason was that about half the article used the term 'glider' as if it meant sailplane (or whatever you want to call rigid fixed wing aircraft that predominately fly in gliding flight <exhales> ). So it was much too specific. Generally wikipedia articles are best off taking the most general meaning of the title they have.

The split is quite imperfect right now, but then again glider wasn't exactly FA quality to start with. I hope everyone will help in the long and short haul to improve these articles.

A few Templates have been nominated for deletion, please have your say at [5].yousaf465'

A user suggested this to me, and I think it's a good idea. The Military History projects' A-class review process is much more active than ours. If an article under both our projects is promoted to A-clss by them, should we automatically assess it here as A-class? -Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think so, but I could be accused of a bias ;-) So long as they come over here to announce them I don't see any reason why we shouldn't acknowledge them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except a cursory check to make sure article's layout, etc follows

WP:AVIMOS guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk

) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The process at MilHist/Ships is that when a MilHist Coordinator closes a successful ACR on a ship-related article, the coord simply raises the article's assessments on its talk page to A-Class for both MilHist and Ships - no formal announcement or request for assessment at Ships is made. On the other hand I agree at least a cursory check is needed to ensure that certain formatting standards are met for aircraft articles (aviator bios should be the same layout as any other bio). To me this should revolve around the Aviation Coordinators, so either:

1. Make the process effectively the same as MilHist/Ships, where there's no requirement for announcement/request at Aviation, but the person who raises the Aviation assessment to A-Class following the successful MilHist ACR is (also) an Aviation Coordinator and makes that cursory check mentioned above, or
2. Require the announcement/request at the Aviation assessement page, but an Aviation Coordinator can simply do the cursory check and promote without waiting for reviewers to support.

My preference (and I declare a vested interest, like StormBird!) is to primarily utilise the first method, to reduce 'paperwork', and keep the second method in reserve for MilHist aviation-related articles that are already at A-Class and someone wants them raised to A-Class for Aviation as well. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for the ships usage, I usually will leave notice at

WT:SHIPS and list the review at the project's review page as well. Then, when the review is closed, at least 50-75% of the time the closure is performed by a MILHIST coordinator who is also a project member of WP:SHIPS (since ships lacks coordinators) but at least three MILHIST coords are ships members. -MBK₀₀₄

22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MBK, just to clarify, do you mean that when a ship article is listed at MilHist for ACR, you announce it at the Ships talk page and on the Ships review page, all linking to the same MilHist ACR page? If so, no prob with that, it makes perfect sense - what I meant was that when the MilHist ACR is successfully closed, there's no announcement after that about a Ships ACR of the article, it's just upgraded to A-Class for Ships as well, yep? As to MilHist Coords who are also active in Aviation, well there's Storm and myself at least... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly correct, since the ACR process at MILHIST is more stringent than at SHIPS, has more visibility which relates to more reviewers, a separate review is seen as overkill and unnecessary. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's general agreement, I could start this process by listing the MilHist ACR for Frederick Scherger on the Aviation review page, on the presumption that a successful outcome would mean that both MilHist and Aviation promote the article to their respective A-Classes - let me know if any objections or other comments (an additional note to the ACR instructions, perhaps?)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Scherger's passed MilHist ACR before we got any resolution on this new proposal so I'll post it for review in the old way at Aviation ACR but hopefully we can simplify in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just transcluded the MilHist ACR for Henry Wrigley to the Aviation ACR page per the process discussed above, so I'm hoping a successful outcome could see it promoted to A-Class on both projects in one go, per the MilHist/Ships system. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the MilHist ACR for Henry Wrigley, transcluded at the Aviation ACR page, has just been passed by MilHist, so can we expect the article to now be promoted to A-Class for Aviation per above discussion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

←I should also point out that an A-class article at MILHIST that also falls under your scope (Tupolev TB-3) has just now been demoted from A as a result of a reappraisal review. The ACR in your assessment template now redirects to the reappraisal review instead of the initial review listed in the article history. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Although it only has one letter for a name I have nominated this aero engine article for FAC, your comments would be very welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce R/archive1, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just opened a peer review for the hugely updated

) 18:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A little reminder/request: the A-Class Review for the CFM56 is still open! I would really appreciate it if another couple editors could head over a take a look at it and leave comments! Specifically, if someone could take a look at the sources (regarding reliability) and the images (regarding suitability), that would be great (see Nimbus's comments on the review page). Thanks. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no merge discussion at

Talk:Xian MA60, so it making Xian MA60 a redirect looks like an improper change. -Fnlayson (talk

) 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Petebutt has been informed of this discussion on his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted the redirect, really needs to be discussed. The article says it is based on the An-26 and not the An-24! so it needs to be looked at. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Peterbutt has also redirected

H-8 bomber without discussion. MilborneOne (talk

) 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO merging the two is totally unwarranted; for one thing, the MA60 is a passenger plane, while An-26 is a military transport, and most specs between the two differ. It's the Xian Y-14 that's an exact copy of the An-26. Jpatokal (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect of H-8 bomber as that was not discussed either. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aviation A-Class Review for Frederick Scherger is open. All interested editors are invited to comment! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Should an accident which writes off a Dash 8 be mentioned in the article if the accident does not have its own article? Please see the

) 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines for including accidents in aircraft type articles is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at this article about an apparent airline hoax: Metis TransPacific Airlines - I know that a local news program in the United States aired a segment dismissing it as a fraud. How do we write an article about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than the fact that it could use a bit more text and refs to flesh out the story it looks okay. A hoax airline is probably encyclopedic as a subject, as long as it was an actual real-world hoax and not just fictional in nature. - Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Aviation WikiProject Contest Newsletter Issue II - November 2009 Contest leaders Here are the results for the third round of the Aviation Contest. Remember, the contest is ongoing and you can sign up at any time. Contest leaders The top three finishers in the October round are: 1st Sturmvogel_66 (225 points) including 55 maintenance points (550 edits!), 1 GA, and 11 DYKs 2nd Binksternet (195.1 points) including 15 articles created (14 B-Class!) and 16 DYKs 3rd Ian Rose (126 points) incuding 1 FA and 5 GAs Notable mentions Zyxw powered into 4th place with 113.9 points including 23 articles created Nimbus227 (70) and SynergyStar (40) each collected 1 FA Arsenikk (40) collected 4 GAs Russavia (51.3) and Geschichte (24.4) collected 6 and 3 DYKs, respectively Mukkakukaku (31.4) collected 1 GA and led with 2 Peer Reviews For a full guide see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest/History/2009/November Content Leaders As of this update, the following is a list of participants with the most: Featured articles Ian Rose (3) A-Class articles Ian Rose (1) Good articles Ian Rose (6) Did you know? items Sturmvogel_66 (23) At a Glance The Contest participants have collected an November total of: 3 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 0 A-Class articles 0 Good topic 11 Good articles 37 Did you know? items 0 In the news items This combines with the September and October totals to make a grand total of: 6 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 1 A-Class articles 0 Good topics 20 Good articles 77 Did you know? items 0 In the news items A few notes for the December round: There are several editors which signed up to the contest but haven't made a submission in the 3+ months of the contest. I'm going to remove them from the scoreboard, but if they want to be put back in, just drop me a line. The "In the news" item has yet to be used, and I think with the limited scope of this contest it may not be usefull, so I'm going to remove it. If anyone has suggestions for other scoring issues, please bring it up at the contest talk page. Sorry about how late this round-up is, but I got a little burnt out this month. I could use some help in scoring if anyone want to volunteer, and I'm thinking of implementing self scoring, with me just reviewing for scoring errors. (This wouldn't be in the current round, and probably not the next, but soon.) Again, congratulations to all competitors! Our most successful round yet, let's try to build on it!- Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a copy of Bristol F2 Fighter Aces of World War I By Jon Guttman, Harry Dempsey

 ? Looking at it in Google Books, I'm pretty sure it has the references I need for observer aces Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards on pg 87. I need it to complete the list 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Trevor, this may be one of those I mentioned that I can sneak a glance at - will be able to let you know by Friday morning (Sydney time) if no-one beats me to it... As a kind of quid pro quo, could you pls look into this as soon as you can...?! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The featured article candidacy for Frederick Scherger is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tooling around in the unassesed article category, I found a floating talk page. We have both

) 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the talk page actually belongs to the redirect page and should remain there, might be useful to add a template and explanation to the header like the one at Talk:Royal Air Force Museum London to explain the merge though. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've hidden the project banners for those type of talk pages since there was no article associated with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An A-Class Review for Henry Wrigley is open. All interested editors are invited to comment! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just nominated

12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better to list the concerns on the article talk page? MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did try that and met resistance. But my purpose is not to impugn the article or any editor who has contributed to it (that includes me, as I recall it); I'm simply looking for examples of what is a site-wide issue. Tony (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, understood. For those who are not likely to watch your discussion please let us know on any conclusion reached. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

14:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Paine Field/KPAE in Washington state has two airlines that have applied to start commercial service, however someone keeps removing any refences to commercial service, any progress thereon, any references regarding this etc etc... HELP! Sbrynen (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording you put there now is neutral and just reports the status. Looks like the user(s) that has been removing is being difficult. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to maintain the neutrality, but this user appears only interested in his side of the situation.Sbrynen (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that I have opened an A-Class Review for the CFM56. Please drop by and leave your comments! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is still around this holiday season, I would appreciate a couple more reviews... I think I need one or two more before a decision is made. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a formal process for reassessing older A-class articles as does Milhist. They've downgraded the Tupolev TB-3 for lack of citations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tupolev TB-3. Should we do the same or is it necessary to conduct our own review? If so, do we want to establish a formal mechanism for doing so in the future?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're happy to bring the ACR process together for both projects, reassessment should be the same too I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. If an article has been reassessed by a WP, that reassessment should apply overall to all WPs. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

An A-Class Review for Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) is open. All interested editors are invited to comment! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of sources give conflicting info re the RVR in the METAR. Please see the talk page for details. Input welcome as to which is the most reliable source to use? Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about whether or not the METAR adds anything to the article, and whether or not any, some or all of it should be in the article. Input is welcome on the talk page (link above). Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, does anyone have access to this book please?: Bartelski J, Disasters in the Air: Mysterious Air Accidents Explained, London, Airlife, 2001. It has been used as a source in an article but the page numbers were not given. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A request has been made for

) 08:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Berlin Air Services accident

OK, I fully appreciate that blogs generally fail

. I'd be inclined to treat readers comments as "blog posts" and thus failing RS.

However, I'd like to invoke

) 10:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The rules in

WP:SPS give some useful flexibility. I would say in this case a person making a statement about themselves on a blog would be reliable, but document it on the article talk page to avoid future deletions. - Ahunt (talk

) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So suitable wording such as "Gail Halvorsen stated his intention to donate $100" would be a good work-around? Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure I think that is unimpeachable, citing the blog as a ref. No one can logically argue that the ref doesn't reasonably support that. The main point of avoiding blogs is to stay away from unreliable and uninformed opinions on subjects. This avoids that problem as it is a statement of fact, not opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)