WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a quesion or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects: WikiProject Aircraft for an article about an aircraft WikiProject Airlines for an article about an airline WikiProject Airports for an article about an airport

Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section

Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks watch · edit · discuss
New! The Aviation contest has begun! New! A new template update you on current articles under review, and needing your input. Add {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}} to your userpage, and keep in the loop! New! Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles now lists almost 5000 articles that require creating or redirecting. Dig in! Aircraft engines now have a piece of the project banner. Enter |Engines=yes on any engine page you find! A new template is available to quickly create articles. Go to Template:WPAVIATION creator and start creating! The collaboration and review departments are open. Please visit and nominate or help review articles!
Proposed deletion 29 Nov 2009 – PROD tag removed from Alitalia Flight 404 (talk). 28 Nov 2009 – PROD tag removed from Air New England Flight 248 (talk). 28 Nov 2009 – PROD tag removed from Sukhoi KR-860 (talk). 28 Nov 2009 – PROD tag removed from Avianca Flight 4 (talk). 27 Nov 2009 – CEPA (Central Europe Private Aviation) (talk) proposed for deletion by Ironholds. 26 Nov 2009 – Air Gumbo (talk) has been deleted. 26 Nov 2009 – Dawlish Air Show (talk) proposed for deletion by YSSYguy. 23 Nov 2009 – Alaska Airlines Flight 536 (talk) proposed for deletion by Mukkakukaku. 21 Nov 2009 – N64606 (talk) has been deleted. 20 Nov 2009 – Sports plane (talk) has been deleted. (2 more...) Articles for deletion 30 Nov 2009 – Combs Field Airport (talk) has been deleted; see discussion. 27 Nov 2009 – XtraJet (talk) nominated for deletion by MilborneOne; see discussion. 23 Nov 2009 – Northeast Airlines (charter) (talk) nominated for deletion by Samuell; see discussion. 16 Nov 2009 – Mimika Air (talk) was kept; see discussion. Featured article candidates 26 Nov 2009 – Rolls-Royce R (talk) is promoted to FA status. Featured list candidates 20 Oct 2009 – List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories (talk) is nominated by Dabomb87. Good article nominations 30 Nov 2009 – Petlyakov Pe-8 (talk) is promoted to GA status; see discussion. 29 Nov 2009 – Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Sturmvogel 66. 29 Nov 2009 – Hippolyte De La Rue (talk) is promoted to GA status. 26 Nov 2009 – Frederick Scherger (talk) is promoted to GA status. 25 Nov 2009 – Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 421 (talk) is nominated as GA candidate by Mukkakukaku. 25 Nov 2009 – Eric Harrison (RAAF officer) (talk) is promoted to GA status. 25 Nov 2009 – Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 (talk) is promoted to GA status; see discussion. 21 Nov 2009 – George Mackinolty (talk) is promoted to GA status. 19 Nov 2009 – Frank Lorenzo (talk) is not promoted; see discussion. 16 Nov 2009 – Trondheim Airport Station (talk) is promoted to GA status. (2 more...) Peer review 6 Nov 2009 – Peer review opened for Braathens destinations (talk) by Arsenikk. Today's featured article 22 Nov 2009 – Werner Mölders (talk) was featured on the main page. Did you know 29 Nov 2009 – A fact from Alec Cunningham-Reid (talk) appeared on the main page. 28 Nov 2009 – A fact from Polikarpov SPB (D) (talk) appeared on the main page. 27 Nov 2009 – A fact from Jetrail (talk) appeared on the main page. 27 Nov 2009 – A fact from Polikarpov NB (talk) appeared on the main page. 26 Nov 2009 – A fact from George Mackinolty (talk) appeared on the main page. 26 Nov 2009 – A fact from Gordon P. Saville (talk) appeared on the main page. 26 Nov 2009 – A fact from Helge Skappel (talk) appeared on the main page. 26 Nov 2009 – A fact from Parnall Puffin (talk) appeared on the main page. 25 Nov 2009 – A fact from CGS Hawk (talk) appeared on the main page. 25 Nov 2009 – A fact from Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS (talk) appeared on the main page. (15 more...) Bounty board 8 Mar 2009 – Bounty for bringing Dawson's Field hijackings (talk) to FA status: $30 donation by Sherurcij. Other news 23 Nov 2009 – A new edition of the Wikipedia Signpost is out. 19 Oct 2009 – The cleanup listings from WolterBot have updated. 17 Oct 2009 – A new database dump is available.
View full version (with review alerts)

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Notability & Style guide	talk
Showcase & Popular pages
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ Article alerts
→ New articles	talk
→ AfD record	talk
Departments Assessment (Log) talk  → B-Class/A-Class  → Instructions Collaboration talk Peer review talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter New! Contest talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Portals Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Aircraft accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk  → Engines task force talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk Aerospace biography talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Contents 1 Split glider to glider and sailplane 2 Article alerts 3 Templates for deletion 4 Seriesbox Aircraft Categories 5 Jat airways 6 Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC 7 Aviation Contest Results 8 Category:Airplanes 9 Arsh Air? 10 Distress radiobeacon → Emergency locator transmitter 11 Airlines and preserved aircraft 12 Missiles 13 Dakotas used in the filming of A Bridge Too Far 14 Image sizing 15 Colorado Balloon Incident 16 A Challenge! 17 Adam Air Flight 172 18 Australian Aviation magazine - perhaps others 19 Balloon! 20 A-Class reviewers & coordinator needed 21 Bell X1 22 Peer review - Rolls-Royce R 23 Aircraft and registrations 24 FA review for Boeing 777 25 October Contest Results 26 Contradiction in assessment standards 27 Photographic resources 28 Mimika Air AfD 29 A-class Review for Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 30 A-Class review process 31 1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion AfD 32 Rolls-Royce R, FAC nomination 33 CFM56 Peer Review 34 Xian MA60 35 A-Class Review for Frederick Scherger 36 Bombardier Dash 8 accidents

[edit] Split glider to glider and 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.

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

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. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:36, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for deletion

A few Templates have been nominated for deletion, please have your say at [1].yousaf465'

[edit] Seriesbox Aircraft Categories

It has been suggested on the template's talk page that this template be converted to a navbox style template, or to make it compressed by default with the ability to expand and show the hidden portion (my recommendation). The template, as it is currently formatted, interferes with the normal formatting of the page by the wikimedia engine, resulting in displaced images and section edit links. --Born2flie (talk) 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)

[edit] Jat airways

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)

[edit] Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC

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)

[edit] Aviation Contest Results

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:

1 Featured articles 0 Featured lists 0 Featured topics 0 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds

0 Good topic 6 Good articles 27 Did you know? items 0 In the news items

---

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

[edit] Category:Airplanes

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)

[edit] Arsh Air?

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)

[edit] Distress radiobeacon → Emergency locator transmitter

A requested move has shown up asking for Distress radiobeacon → Emergency locator transmitter... I will note that the article covers more than just ELTs. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Missiles

After compiling this list of missiles I noticed that not many (if any) are tagged with the aviation project, List of missiles does appear in Template:Aviation lists, maybe this has been discussed before. I suppose there is a grey area when these things are launched from the ground, a ship or vehicle and some of them don't necessarily 'fly' as such. They are tagged by MILHIST but we might have better access to the technical details in our combined reference sources. Just a thought. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 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)

[edit] Dakotas used in the filming of A Bridge Too Far

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)

[edit] Image sizing

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)

[edit] Colorado Balloon Incident

Seriously? An article for this? Already has an AFD... --Trashbag (talk) 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)

[edit] A Challenge!

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)

[edit] Adam Air Flight 172

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)

[edit] Australian Aviation magazine - perhaps others

I think I may rewrite and expand 1989 Australian pilots' strike (User:Russavia/Strike), and one of the sections I will include is a list of the airlines which operated in Australia during the dispute (User:Russavia/Strike#List_of_charters). I have had a look at airliners.net and have managed to find some photos of some of the aircraft which were flying down here at that time, but what I am missing is usable references. I remembered seeing a Hawaiian Airlines TriStar in Perth at the time, and managed to find photographic "evidence" of this. And I am sure that I am missing other airlines and aircraft. Does anyone out there have copies of Australian Aviation magazine going back to this time, or perhaps other magazines (Flight, etc) which may have covered this? Any help with providing references for these would be appreciated. Can contact me via my talk page if you wish. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 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. --Russavia ^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)

[edit] Balloon!

Does anyone want to collaborate on one of these articles: BEAR-4 or SABLE-3?

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)

[edit] A-Class reviewers & coordinator needed

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)

[edit] Bell X1

FYI, I've asked Bell X1 to be retargetted to Bell X-1 at WP:RFD. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Aircraft and registrations

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)

[edit] FA review for Boeing 777

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)

[edit] October Contest Results

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)

[edit] Contradiction in assessment standards

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 WP:AVIMOS#CITE: "There is no numerical requirement for a particular density of citations or for some predetermined number of citations in an article..." However, assessors claim it is only a "rule of thumb"; however, they never change an assessment to comply with WP:AVIMOS#CITE, even after WP:AVIMOS#CITE is called to their attention.

I view the B Class requirement of a minimum of one citation per paragraph a violation of WP:AVIMOS#CITE. 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. WP:MILHIST has adopted this: 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 WP:AVIMOS#CITE, 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 Douglas John Bell. Both this article and Pier Ruggero Piccio are cited to the same standard: WP:AVIMOS#CITE.

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)

[edit] 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. --Russavia ^{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 {{EduardMarmet}} for the licencing, as this will also add the OTRS and add to category commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet - Eduard's photos are great especially for 1970s and 1980s European aviation. Be sure to use the licencing template, as if the photos are migrated to another licence, it can apparently void the OTRS permission. --Russavia ^{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 {{KonstantinvonWedelstaedt}} for the licencing, as this will also add the OTRS and add to category commons:Category:Photos by Konstantin von Wedelstaedt - Konstantin's photos are great especially for 1990s/2000 European and also Middle Eastern aviation (particularly Dubai). Be sure to use the licencing template, as if the photos are migrated to another licence, it can apparently void the OTRS permission. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mimika Air AfD

The Mimika Air article has been relisted at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-class Review for Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

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)

[edit] A-Class review process

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 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)

[edit] 1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion AfD

The 1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion article has been nominated at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rolls-Royce R, FAC nomination

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)

[edit] CFM56 Peer Review

I have just opened a peer review for the hugely updated CFM56 article. Feel free to whack at it if you have some time! CFM56 Peer Review Link -SidewinderX (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xian MA60

Petebutt (talk · contribs) has redirected the Xian MA60 article to Antonov An-24. I'm not sure that this edit was a good one, but am assuming the edit was made in good faith. Question is, should these articles be combined, or separate articles. What is the consensus here? Mjroots (talk) 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)

[edit] A-Class Review for Frederick Scherger

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)

[edit] Bombardier Dash 8 accidents

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 talk page where there is a dispute about the recent accident in Mali. Mjroots (talk) 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)