Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

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

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Aviation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:AV WT:AVIATION

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 45 days

WikiProject Aviation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 9 August 2010.

Aviation WikiProject Articles for review

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

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

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

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

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

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

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

Melbourne Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Trondheim Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is no guideline apart from WP:GNG, the essay WP:AIRCRASH is the best we have. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the draft: Draft:Delta Airlines Flight 554. This accident should probably appear in the MD-80 article but would probably be nominated for deletion (if it was accepted) because the aircraft was apparently repaired (no hull loss), there were no fatalities and no apparent change of procedures mandated, though there were plenty of NTSB recommended actions in the accident report. The accident was no fault of the aircraft type, same goes for hijackings, it could be argued that these events should not be included in aircraft type articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might survive given the aircraft was substantially damaged. The aircraft involved in Qantas Flight 1 was also repaired and returned to service, there were no fatalities and there were no broad changes in industry procedures as a result. The Qantas article is not without its issues, but it would likely survive an AfD given the enduring media attention it received in the years since. This accident is less well known and most of the sources used were published in the immediate aftermath. Since we cannot rely on WP:AIRCRASH as inclusion criteria for stand-alone articles, the standard to meet GNG would likely be the depth and longevity of coverage in secondary sources. I think there is a solid argument for inclusion of this incident in the MD-80 or LaGuardia accidents and incidents sections. But as a standalone article it's likely I wouldn't survive an AfD unless you could find some additional recent sources showing it's ongoing significance. Dfadden (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, because an unmanned (drone) rotorcraft is one of the classes listed there (and could, conceivably, be any of the four!) - not a seperate class. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A UAV is any aircraft that does not carry a human pilot. A vast majority of unmanned rotorcraft fall into one of the four listed classes (usually a multirotor helicopter), and perhaps most importantly, not all UAVs are rotorcraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Defunct airline for a defunct state. Not enough information to merge.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kempegowda International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. I can't find any sources. Please, rescue it or I will propose deleting it. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]