Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 2

message: The biography of Moye W. Stephens appears to have been created by a well-meaning family friend, and is a bit of a mess.  If the name rings any bells, it is because he piloted Richard Halliburton around the world in 1931 and helped found Northrop.  I have done what I can but the article is poorly merged and virtually unsourced.  This is my first posting within the aviation project pages. Does anyone here have the energy or expertise to help?  BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help 

message: This article has been nominated for AfD, there is no discussion on the talk page. Thought you would like to know. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Singapore Airlines Flight 380]] 

message: I've just finished moving/re-naming the Red Bull Air Race task force to the new Air sports task force, expanding its scope beyond the 21 Red Bull articles to include other Air sports articles. The only issue now is how far to expand the scope. Air sports lists the following activities, should they all be included in the scope:
* Aerobatics
* Ballooning
* General aviation
* Gliding
* Hang gliding
* Human powered aircraft
* Model aircraft
* Parachuting
* Paragliding
* Ultralight aviation
* Wingsuit flying
Are there any topics missing? If gliding and ballooning include, should gliders and balloons be included as well?
If you have any interest in these articles please join the task-force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task force 

message: Settling with power has no cites or references. Is this article accurate? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Settling with power]] 

message: The peer review for Boeing 737 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Boeing 737]] now open 

message: The peer review for UH-1 Iroquois is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[UH-1 Iroquois]] now open 

message: What is the wingspan of a helicopter?? is it suposed to be the rotor diameter?? Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_       . -- 8:41, 12 January 2008
:Helicopter specifications normally use rotor diameter and not wingspan. So the answer to the question is zero unless they have wings fitted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopters 

message: Varig Flight 254 needs the attention of an aviation enthusiast who can read Portuguese. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varig Flight 254 

message: I have been coming across a number of aviation articles that "incorporate text from" a given source.  Just putting a generic disclaimer that material is copied from a source is not proper referencing.  If text is copied, it needs to be put in quotes or set aside in a block quote.  See WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW.  It is very painful, later on, to try to separate inappropriately sourced material from new writing by other wikipedia editors.  The general disclaimer sullies all the writing in the article, suggesting any/all of it is merely copied material.  For examples, see Arnold Air Force Base‎, Airspeed indicator, Edwards Air Force Base.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied material, inappropriately sourced, in aviation articles 

message: I've noticed your project tag, when inside the project banner shell, causes a space in the listing. See Talk:Boeing for an example. It's happens every time it's in that template. Can someone fix it?  — Rlevse • Talk •  14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill fixed it for us. It had been annoying me too. ;) Woody (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with project tag 

message: Talk:British_Airways_Flight_38#British_Airways_Flight_38
Synopsis: Most scheduled flights fly every day, some with the same number for years and years. It's not the prerogative of Wikipedia to suddenly decide that a flight number of a scheduled flight which has a minor crash suddenly means "crash". It doesn't. BA Flight 38, for example, is not a "plane that crashed", it's a scheduled flight to China which, on one particular day, was involved in a non fatal incident that's pretty insignificant. The correct title would be something like "British Airways Flight 38 incident". I appreciate that this may be how you record these on your aviation websites, but this is a general purpose encyclopedia.
Since this is a general issue which applies to all air crashes I am posting here for your comments. --kingboyk (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you bring it up here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of articles about scheduled flights which have crashed 

message: Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961?
I have never seen one?
If the list has country info for each passenger that would be good. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? 

message: Has been nominated for deletion, just a 'heads up'. The article looks reasonably well written to me and referenced, seems to hinge on notability. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air Canada Flight 190]] 

message: The peer review for EasyJet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[EasyJet]] now open 

message: The peer review for Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy of [[Future of air transport in the United Kingdom]] now open 

message: Are rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a aviation project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to , V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force with them, just like the Military aviation task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of scope 

message: User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358 

message: The spec templates I've seen for fighters (& maybe other aircraft) don't include fuel capacity. I'd suggest they should... I also notice there's some confusion if you try & add type of propellor, which attaches (in the template) to the engine, rather than coming in on a separate line. Trekphiler (talk) 11:10 & 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplicated question replied to on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel starvation? 

message: Hello members of WikiProject Aviation,
I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.
Please let me know if you;re interested!
Bluegoblin7 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea!  Trekphiler (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wiki specially for Planes... 

message: Comair Flight 191 and Gol Flight 1907 have their leads phrased differently.
* Comair Flight 191, or Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair. On the morning of August 27, 2006, the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet that was being used for the flight crashed while attempting to take off from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky, four miles (6 kilometers) west of the central business district of the City of Lexington.
* Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP, registration PR-GTD, on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus, Brazil to Rio de Janeiro, which collided in mid-air with an Embraer Legacy business jet on September 29, 2006 over the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. All 154 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 737 were killed as the aircraft crashed into an area of dense rainforest, while the slightly damaged Embraer Legacy landed safely with its seven occupants uninjured.
Which one is better? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the 2nd one better, since it says what type of plane sooner.  But there's no reason for them to follow a set format as long as the wording is clear. Seems like the Delta flight number should be in parentheses or mentioned later.  Comair was the operator. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first one. I think the first sentence has the most important info (flight type, route, operator), and the fact is airlines number flights based on route and not aircraft type, so to say "Flight 1907 was a 737" is technically incorrect. Also, "Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a..." is against WP:LEAD, which states "Avoid links in the bold title words." I take this to mean that if you want to link to Gol Transportes Aéreos, you're going to have to do it later in the intro, like the first example. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Trevor for the same reason that Flight 191 was "a scheduled US domestic passenger flight" , and that Flight 1907 was not "a Boeing 737". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * It actually says "Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP ... on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus ...".  Not the best wording to make that clear though... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fnlayson, even though it specifies the route, if you pare the sentences to the basics it still says "Flight 1907 is a 737" when it should be "Flight 1907 is a route" - I decided that I prefer the style used by the Comair 191 intro. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I already partially agreed with that.  Well whatever. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should it not be Foo Flight 123 operated by Boeing 737 registration N12345 of Foo Airlines! Then you can link to the airline at the end and not in the bolded lead. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like KISS wherever I can, and I think repeating Foo right in the first sentence is awkward. I see no problem at all in wikilinking from the bolded lead. We generally like to wikilink the first instance of any linkable term, and this should be no exception. So "Foo Flight 123, a Boeing 737-800SFP, registration N12345, operating from Here to There..." would be fine. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The introduction should be the basic facts that are covered in the article.  Nitty gritty details should not be in the lead.  So the registration number is not needed in the lead.  I have mixed feelings about the specific model of the aircraft in the lead since that might be too much detail. I wonder if it makes sense to have an infobox with all of the details. This could be a standard presentation and get the data at the top of the article in a way that it is available for those that want it and easy for everyone else to ignore.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general we try to follow the sources' style. There are many aviation safety publications that describe accidents, including the NTSB, ASN and many magazines, with a similar format. The lead typically describes the flight, the aircraft, the route, location and time, and the highlights of the accident and casualties, and any unusual characteristics. The aircraft type, for example, is critical to anyone interested in aviation safety, since that is almost like the subject's name in a BLP article. The crash infobox adds more details, and organizes them in a standardized fashion. Crum375 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the second. It seems to get to the point sooner, where the first can't seem to decide what it's trying to say.  Trekphiler (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest this should really be discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force who even have an infobox for all the details not wanted in the lead! MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased? 

message: Just came from the Brewster F2A page, found it titled "Buffalo". Since the a/c was officially desingated F2A, shouldn't it be renamed/moved? (BTW, I tried a page move; no go...)  Trekphiler (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at Talk:Brewster Buffalo and although the naming conventions would indicate is should be F2A Buffalo due to the mainly foreign useage a concensus has not been reached to move it!. I would suggest that you bring it up on that talk page again. If you get not joy then I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few other similar examples around the place where a US-built aircraft saw its most significant use outside US service, where our normal naming conventions for US military aircraft have been suspended. The Martin Maryland springs to mind. These are fine where they are. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the location of Martin Maryland, as it was not used in the US beyond intitial testing. I was the last person to bring up moving the Brewster Buffalo to F2A Buffalo. The F2A did see US service, though primarily as target practice for up-and-coming Japanese aces. - BillCJ (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the issue was brought up for a consensus decision again, there may be a number of editors who would vote for its status as the F2A Buffalo. Trekphiler, perhaps you can restart the process and see where it would go. Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffaloed 

message: Looking at quiet spike, I had a thought. Didn't Sukhoi plan a supersonic bizjet? With Gulfstream, IIRC. Anybody who knows more, can you include on all three pages?  Trekphiler (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a Sukhoi-Gulfstream supersonic business jet (SSBJ) joint venture that was first revealed at the 1989 Paris Air Show. The proposed design had a project designation of S-21. It never really got off the ground (if you'll excuse the pun), and Sukhoi tried teaming with Boeing, but that went nowhere either. Back about 2000 there were reports that Sukhoi was still working on a SSBJ, but I've not heard much since. Perhaps someone who follows the commercial industry would know more. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21 page, but there are no references on it at all. Might be good to add some if anyone has reliable ones. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd heard Sukhoi was working on it, but not that it was the same project. I'm going to add the S-21 link to Quiet Spike, tho; maybe somebody'll come across it with new info for both.  Trekphiler (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machstream? 

message: See this, particularly the subsection "Discussion".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Archtransit's unopposed RfA was indeed a surprise to me. I have always double-checked his edits, as his edits were often not quite "encyclopedic". I'm not sure I can define my suspisions further, but the term "gut instinct", also used a number of time on the ANI page dicussing him, is fitting. I think this whole matter exposes a large hole in the RFA process, in that the projects in which users spend a lot of their time editing are not notified when these users are being considered for admin status. That's too bad, because it might have saved ARBCOM a lot of embarassment in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mostly hoping ya'll will give Boeing 747 a checkup (make sure sources are accurately represented, etc.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Those was checked by the many editors and reviewers during the FA review.  But all his refs are web based and can be readily checked. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Very few reviewers actually check sources, so I'm not sure a spot check wouldn't be in order.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Another thing, I hope a lot of you will add Boeing 747 to your watchlists, since someone has to keep it in shape now and watch for vandalism?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Sure.  But that doesn't apply to the editors working on it such as me... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I watched progress on the 747 FA and I saw nothing that worried me, in all the recent conversations on this chap it has been noted that his aircraft article edits were accurate and in good faith. During that process Archtransit and Fnlayson where supplying alternating edits, I regard both of these editors as being very thorough as I do the other regular editors in this project. I do not believe that 'jerrymandering' got the 747 article to FA status. Whatever else he may have got up to does not affect us here and I see no point in prolonging this matter as he has been indefinately blocked in any case. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just need to make sure you all have had a good look.  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * It's a fair concern.  I think the references got spot checked while we were adding them back in Nov and Dec.  I'll check a couple closer to verify sometime.  Maybe I can replace a web reference with a book one while I'm at it. ... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Good day all, has anyone taken a look at the Aircraft parts industry article.  Sadly, Aircraft part redirects to this same article.  This whole thing reads like a bad advertisement.  Personally I think an article defining what an aircraft part is should be seperate from the aircraft parts industry article.  Thoughts?  Any help with the clean up would be appreciated.  --Trashbag (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aircraft parts industry]] 

message: This might be useful:  I knew about the Lockheed F-104 bribe but not this one. Netherlands operated F-5s. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Bernhard 

message: Hello, I'm new to this project and I'd like to know whether I can create a taskforce on Australian aviation topics.  Can I proceed with this or are there any objections? Littleteddy (roar!) 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 days have elapsed and there have been no objections. I will go ahead with the taskforce creation. If there are any strong objections, I will gladly 'destruct' the taskforce. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: * I doubt if a task force of one will work too well.  You should wait to get support of others that will help. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I thought the same and I haven't developed it yet. If nobody replies at all I'll just db-author all of the pages. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If this goes ahead, or if anyone decides to create any taskforce, I'd suggest taking a look at these instructions for creating a standard taskforce. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force question 

message: Hello,
I found the article Consolidated Liberator I on the  notability backlog, it has been around with a notability tag for almost a year. From the talk page it seems that a merger into B-24 Liberator has been discussed, but consensus has not been reached (see Talk:B-24 Liberator). 
To me, the Consolidated Liberator I article seems a bit strange, overly detailed, and might well be a merger candidate. But I'm not a subject matter expert. Perhaps it would be good if some people from this project could look into the matter. If you have comments, they might best be placed on Talk:Consolidated Liberator I. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidated Liberator I 

message: Hi, this article was recently created and I just happened to see it. I have checked on the Heathrow Airport article and that airport does not appear to have a similar page to the one above. It was originally named KCH FLIGHT INFO with no exlanation in the article of what KCH meant. I moved to the above title. The content (what little there is of it) within the article seems as if it could be covered on the airports article. So I was just wondering if it is the norm for these types of articles for airports, and if not should the article be perhaps redirected to Kuching International Airport with any relevant content moved? I am loathe to simply put it forward for AfD because the article creator seems to have done a fair bit of work on it, however I am just unsure as to whether it is notable enough for an article and would appreciate someone fromt this projects input. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kuching International Airport Flights]] 

message: Hello,
there are currently 33 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of  and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability. 
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPAVIATION: Articles of unclear notability 

message: There's a core subject matter which is in a real sorry state at the moment, specifically Aviation law and relevant industry groups (IATA). I've started by updating :Template:Commercial air travel to improve cross-referencing to these articles as well as tagging them to relevant projects, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with some spare time and knowledge of these topic areas is strongly encouraged to help out wherever they can. Thanks, Thewinchester (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation law and industry groups in a sorry state 

message: The fighter categories seem to be in need of work.  :Category:World War II fighter aircraft has subcategories for German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Soviet and Romanian WWII fighters, but for instance no British or US WWII fighters.  That means no Hurricane, no Spitfire, no P51 Mustang.
There are :Category:Fighter_aircraft_1930-1939 and :Category:Fighter aircraft 1940-1949 whose subcategories should contain most of the relevant aeroplanes, but the World War II category navigation for the American, British, Australian, French, etc, fighter aircraft is non-existent.
I suppose I could jump in and make appropriate categories but perhaps it would be better to discuss first.  Thoughts? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft which is the sub-project involved in aircraft categories. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighter categories 

message: METAR is being moved around because of a town in Israel called Meitar. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  METAR 

message: is a nav box used in more articles then those listed in the box.  While Wikipedia:Navigational templates is only an essay, it states 'A navigational template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles for the purposes of facilitating navigation between those articles.'  Since the nav box in question is clearly not used for that purpose in most applications, I think we should limit it's use.  Clearly categories are widely used and support finding more related information then this nav box.  In the case of say airlines, it does not aid in navigation within the airline articles.  The same can be said for aircraft and airports.  Many of these articles already have other nav boxes that do a much better job. We really should limit the use of this nav box to those items included in the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - I find that it's incredibly useful being able to jump straight from any aircraft to the List of aircraft, the List of aircraft manufacturers, the List of aircraft engines, and the List of aircraft engine manufacturers. I think it's great having this "mini portal" in each and every aircraft article. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was sweating there for a bit as I've added it to a lot of articles and was under the impression that it could be used in all aviation articles. I also find it very useful when editing. Nimbus (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - it's widespread. It predates WP:Aviation - it was developed by WP:Aircraft in early 2004 and since then has been included in practically every aviation-related article. WP:Aircraft specifically advises including this navbox in articles within its scope; I'm not aware of any similar advice in other aviation-related WikiProjects. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like it & find it useful. It's a great way to encapsulate the "world" a given aircraft lives in.  Trekphiler (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So this is useful for the aircraft project.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation navigation box 

message: I've submitted Boeing 737 for an A-Class review. Inviting all to review and share your comments. Trevor MacInnis and others have done a lot of work. --Born2flie (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 737 A-Class Review 

message: I notice that Frequent Flier Programs are included with the respective Airline article.  Are there any exceptions?--Novelty (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be best to ask WikiProject Airlines --Rlandmann (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent Flier Program 

message: Is there support for a List of aviators by nickname?  Trekphiler (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticing no objection, you may find it here.  Trekphiler (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of nicknames by nickname? 

message: I came across Advanced Flight Simulation devices and added it to your project. I feel it needs some attention from experts in this field. Apart from needing wikifying, I have concerns about potential bias and spam. Most of it seems to have been written by one new editor. Images have been flagged for deletion. I think it either needs to be merged with Flight simulator or some explanation added of why it is 'advanced'. Anyway, I will leave it in your capable hands. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be based on a limited range of company products and ignores the second biggest simulator company Thales Training & Simulation. Agree it needs a some work and is probably better merging most of it with Full Flight Simulator. Advanced is just a marketing name and has no real meaning. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advanced Flight Simulation devices 

message: There is an open RfC on the naming of missile and rocket articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on missilry and rocketry 

message: 68.187.153.197, has been adding  to various articles as an external link, typically at the top of the list of external links. This practise may be considered spam. Please comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming 

message: The template  typically is used to categorize the disambiguous page itself. Also, WikiProjects normally categorized Disambiguous pages via the disambiguous talk page. :Category:Disambig-Class aviation pages and :Category:Disambig-Class airport pages contains such talk page categorization. However, WikiProject Airports and/or WikiProject Aviation also categorizes the disambiguous page itself. See :Category:Airport disambiguation. Is there really a need to segment Airport disambiguous pages from :Category:Disambiguation? If not, please consider changing  to  on the so tagged disambiguous pages. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Greg - this has nothing to do with WP:Aviation - WP:Airports is the place to take this us. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Airport disambiguation 

message: Can you guys come to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelikan_tail and opinate on whether Pelikan tail is different enough from V-tail to have its own separate article? There is also some discussion at Talk:Pelikan_tail --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend you also post at WT:AIR, as that is the project that deals specifically with aircraft and their components. I'd copy it over for you, but I thought I'd give you a chance to do it yourself, in case you wanted to edit or rephrase your comments. Btw, it's not "wrong" to post this type of comment here, but you'll get more coverage in WP:AIR for this item. WP:AVIATION is the parent project of WP:AIR, but it's only about a year old. WP:AIR still has more members, and many of the older ones don't watch this page as yet. - BillCJ (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pelikan tail]] vs [[V-tail]] 

message: I'm going through all the pages in WP-space today that use the "Style" sidebar, trying to get a sense of whether these pages appear to be style guidelines.  I know that you guys have put a lot of thought into style, language and format issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide looks like a nice page, but I'm wondering why it doesn't have a talk page; are you just getting started on this particular version?  Do you want to hold off on marking it as a style guideline? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That style page is relatively new.  Was started in Jan. 2008.  Specific details with it can and should be discussed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat to your style manual? 

message: Hi there.  Are there any project members here who are willing to provide some POV editing for the US Airline Pilots Association article?  There appear to be two opposing points of view present in recent edits to this article, and the article looks headed for an edit war.  I started to remove a few inflammatory editorial comments, but have decided that I'm well out of area of expertise to clean this up any further.  Perhaps the article warrants separate sections for opposing point-of-views.  Any volunteers?  -- Tcncv (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airline Pilots Association 

message: An AAIB initial report has been released into the accident. I'm unable to access it as it's a PDF file. Link to the report is on the talk page. Anyone care to take a look and expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Farnborough plane crash 

message: A new Special Bulletin was released yesterday into the British Airways Flight 38 accident. From news reports it looks like fuel temperature is a major factor in the accident. Link to access the PDF document is posted on the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Airways Flight 38 

message: I originally posted to WP:AIRCRASH, but after low response from project members there I have decided to post here as well for furhter 'expert' opinions before a couple of AfDs close. Please read 2008 Cessna Compton crash and 2008 Cessnas collision and comment on their respecive AfDs. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project AfDs 

message: Z-739 is up. Looks insuficiently notable. Merge?  Trekphiler (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an issue for WikiProject Aircraft, where it's being discussed. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tagged the page for merge anyhow, that ought to do it, one way or another.  Trekphiler (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z-plane 

message: Hello.  I'm soliciting opinions regarding the controversy surrounding the formation of the US Airline Pilots Association.  Please see Talk:US Airline Pilots Association#Controversy and add you opinion.  -- Tcncv (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input 

message: A user with a personal connection with the flight has been adding links and data to a number of aviation articles. I have just removed some external links and comments from Boeing 747 and a I have removed a large chunk of text out of the Air navigation article which completely unbalanced what is a general article on the subject. I have no opinions on the subject matter just the inappropriate placing of text and links in related articles which should be covered in the accident article. As it is always difficult when dealing with users with a personal link just checking for other opinions on the matter. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur absolutely. The additions meant that a full 1/3 of the air navigation article turned into an analysis of KAL007 incident! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Air Line Flight 007 

message: The FAC for American Airlines Flight 11 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy of [[American Airlines Flight 11]] now open 

message: Just dropping a line to announce the creation of a new article; General aviation in the United Kingdom. Start class at the moment, I have outlined my plans for its future development on the talk page. All input welcome. --FactotEm (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: I've just listed an RfC for a dispute occurring on Talk:Arrow Air Flight 1285 over the use of a CG image to illustrate an incident. The policy implications are broader than just WP:AVIATION, which is why I've listed it there rather than here, but anyone with any insights on how this may relate to Aviation-specific articles (or in general) should chime in. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I've updated the banner, hopefully improving it and automating a few things.
#You can still rate the article however you please, but the template won't accept a rating higher than start in some cases:
##If you rate it A-class then you must also use "|A-Class=yes"
##If you rate it B-class you must also complete the B-class checklist, and all items must be "yes"
#The sub project parameters can be shortened to "|Aircraft= , |Airports= , |Airlines= , |Gliding= , |Rotorcraft= , |Air-sports= , |Defunct= , and |Accident= ; but the old forms still work.
# Every article B-class and below that hasn't had a checklist completed is in the new category: :Category:Aviation articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
#Banners placed on pages in the Wikipedia or User space are automatically tagged NA-Class
#Banners placed on Template, Category, Image, or Portal pages are automatically tagged with the appropriate class.
- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to project banner 

message: My familiarity with aircraft and related matters is limited to knowing that they're awesome. In need of an expert's help, I turn to you in the hope that skydiving is closely enough related to aviation, as web directories claim, to find one or someone who knows where to find one. I'll bug WikiProject Sports too.
Sex in freefall. Has it been done? Any details? I'm improving Sex in space for some reason, which in turn has led to researching intercourse in the closest terrestrial environments: skydiving, Vomit Comet-style planes (twice, apparently) and Antarctic research stations (yes, and let's leave it at that). It was easy enough to find (always non-personal) anecdotes and, eventually, a very unambiguous image courtesy of the lunatic fringe of the Mile High Club, but what I'm looking for now is anything that's usable in the article itself as a reference or at least a link.
Hope that wasn't too disturbing, Kizor 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An inappropriate and likely misplaced question about skydiving 

message: Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences 

message: I accidently came to the page in IE and discovered that all the show/hide links from "Requested articles" on down are not visible. It probably needs fixing but I'm not sure how to do it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation]] 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: HA! I knew you were coming! See above. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: :What do you think? ElectricalExperiment 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it, but I can't help thinking you're gonna get "nice piece of tail" jokes...  TREKphiler 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Barnstar Image 

message: I've already brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Aviators, military or otherwise... with little response, and since it also concerns editors here... How much interest is there in establishing a Aviator Task Force? There are quite a few aviator articles and neither Wp:Aviation nor WP:Biography deal with them directly. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I certainly would be interested as most of my research now stems around people rather than machinery. FWEiW Bzuk (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, too. I'm stronger on tech than people, but there's certainly enough need, IMO, if only judging by the #redlinks I've seen.  TREKphiler 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll set it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviator task force. Come lend a hand. I'll also update the project banner . All aviator talk pages will need their banners updated. Stand by for more details. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, before i do this, what should it be called? I was going to go with Aviator task force, but then I realized that non-aviators (aviation engineers etc.) could be a part of this. How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation biography task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aviation biography would definitely be more appropriate - or even Aerospace biography if you wanted to include (for example) astronauts and rocket scientists. I seriously question whether there's the critical mass at the moment to make an aviation biography taskforce workable; so it might help to cast the net wide! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * ^ "Aerospace biography task force" sounds good.  That'll cover for pilots that became astronauts for example.  WP:SPACE covers space but does not appear to have a biography taskforce. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aerospace biography task force", for sure. That lets us include broadly, from Neil Armstrong to Robert Goddard to Geoffrey de Havilland to Pancho Barnes, if we want.  TREKphiler 08:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you let us know here what the tag will be I will jump the gun and start tagging.  I suggest Biography=yes for consistency with other projects. - Canglesea (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that'll work. In fact you can start adding them now. Until the banners updated they won't do anything, but when it is we'll be ahead of the game. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography task force? 

message: The name of this category suggests that flying boats are not seaplanes. Perhaps the intended distinction was between floatplanes and flying boats. I suggest that the overall category should be 'Seaplanes', sub-divided into Floatplanes, Flying boats and Ground-effect aircraft/Ekranoplanes. These sub-categories could then have a further sub-category of amphibious flying boats/floatplanes/Ekranoplanes (if such things existed). The same consideration applies to the Lists, of course. Any comments? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I didn't see this for some reason. As an issue specific to aircraft, I've replied over on WikiProject Aircraft and invited further comment there. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category "Seaplanes and flying boats" 

message: Thanks to user Fnlayson for helping on the Mark E. Kelly page.
More help is needed though.
Kelly just returned from outer space as commander of the most recent shuttle mission. I've worked hard on his article but it is still only ranked class C. I need help from more editors  and input on how to dramatically raise the quality and rating of this article.
Commander Kelly is currently touring the U.S. promoting America's space program. There is a planned 4 to 5 year gap in America's manned space program when the shuttle program ends in 2010.
If you could help raise the quality of the Mark E. Kelly page it would be much appreciated. People will be googling his name and reading this article as he travels on behalf of NASA.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to ask at WP:Space talk page to get more help.  Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astonaut Kelly Alert--Help Needed 

message: A bot has created a page, here that lists aviation articles with cleanup tags on them. Check it out. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've bookmarked it, seems to be picking up redlinks? That's a fair sized list! Nimbus (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge cleanup task 

message: There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment. 
The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page. 
I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject notification bot 

message: The photo (right) was scanned from a book which discussed a "Boulton and Paul 90 h.p. aeroplane", which I presume to be the one pictured.  I notice the aircraft shown is a two seater and 90hp doesn't sound much for an aircraft of that size, but I really wouldn't know. Can anyone positively identify it for me please. Moondyne 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Boulton Paul P.9. 90 hp was quite respectable back in the day :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. Thanks. Moondyne 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification needed 

message: The Title is a bit Dubious as a lot of entrants in the list are Aeronautical related, rename required ? Have tagged with a clean-up list as per other similar "List of Engineers" Articles.
But have cleaned up some of the total non entries in this and fixed others links but project Aviation members are probably better placed to sort out remaining red links, and the notability of entrants.  -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BulldozerD11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List_of_aerospace_engineers]] 

message: As you may have heard, the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at our project.
I've updated the banner to accept C-class ratings, but only under certain conditions. As already happens with Start- and B-Class ratings, a "B-Class checklist" of 5 items exists. It will need to be filled out and at least 3 of the five items be "yes" in order for the article to be C-class. If all five are "yes" the article is B-Class, if less than three are "yes" the article is Start-Class. See here for an example of an article's checklist being completed and consequently upgraded to C.
- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SHIPS is considering using a B-Class checklist that could also assess for C-Class as you have described above however I'm wondering if certain criteria could be required to rate a C-Class. IE: 3-5 must be =yes in order to rate a C rather than any 3 of the 5? --Brad (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would. Template:WPAVIATION/Class uses a bunch of if/and/or statements to allow for any variation of the yes and no replies. You would just have to remove the ones you don't want to work. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New C-class rating and another update to the project banner 

message: Talking to a local pilot the other day, I mentioned this event but it was not known to him so I started this article.  I would like to know the location of the wreck and what investigation followed, what the result was, etc but since it happened more than 40 years ago, there is very little online.  Is there anyone lurking here who has access to more material?  It seems to be "known" that the crash was caused by an intentional explosion.  Some pages say it was some kind of insurance scheme but then the sketchy info fades out.  Nothing I have found says whether the culprit is known, was aboard or what the scheme was.   It would by nice to increase the content before the article is 5 days old so it can make it to the front page as a DYK.  52 people died in the crash, so it should be worth checking out.  All help welcome.  --KenWalker | Talk 00:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Canadian Pacific Airlines Flight 21]] 

message: The FAC for General aviation in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy of [[General aviation in the United Kingdom]] now open 

message: Could one of the experienced project editors please take a look at Talk:Explosive decompression where a petty dispute over the nature of QF30's decompression event would benefit from another pair of eyes. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we're on the subject of QF30, people here might also want to participate in the AfD on the incident. Rlandmann (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosive decompression 

message: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Popular pages. Its an incredible list of the top 2,500 most viewed aviation related pages. I think it will be a great resource, showing us which articles need to be improved to FA status, to make Wikipedia a valuable resource for aviation enthusiasts around the world. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular aviation pages 

message: A while back I went through a started stubs for every airport in Oregon.  Public and Private.  I have a user now going about an tagging the articles for proposed deletions.  I am just curious of a concensus of this project of keeping these.  To me it makes no sense to go through and create red-links after a seed has been placed for each field to be expanded on.  Thoughts?  --Trashbag (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to see articles on airports.  There's a lot of factual information that Wikipedia could embrace. Planting seeds is necessary for the garden to grow. Thank you, and please keep it up. --Jdlh  | Talk 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd think that for most airports you can find several sources.  When I have added smaller airports, I try to find at least two sources to provide some text for the article.  While they may be stubs, at least that are asserting notability and deleting them is more difficult, but not impossible.  All articles really should assert notability and not rely on a project to say that they should be kept.  The project's opinion will help but we are not the final word.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of Oregon Airports 

message: ...is a horribly messy and uneven page. I'd like to reorganize it, and bring uniform organization of all airline lists. I've created a templete  for this task. My idea is to replace the content of List of airlines with this template, and move all the content to other pages, essentially making it a disambig-type page, much in the same way List of airports in Canada is organized. I'll put the template here as well so you can have a look at it. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More power to you! It's clearly in desperate need of being broken up into smaller lists; and the List of Airports in Canada model seems like a nice way to do it :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of airlines]] 

message: There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS  has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:
====Proposal to remove date-autoformatting====
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the use of Wiki Autodating format

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

message: I just ran across Aircrew member: It needs major help, starting with its sources - it has none! - BillCJ (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircrew member 

message: There's a new template Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be used to assist in creating new articles. It will start things off by creating a page with all the standard information/headers/infoboxes, etc.  You just have to fill in the blanks and save. It's stil in the early design stages, so check it out and let me know how it can be improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article creation assistance 

message: These got filed as portraits instead of in the aviation FP section.  Might be useful for portal-building.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 06:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of recently promoted featured pictures 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Circeus (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Another editor with too much time on their hands! Sheesh! - BillCJ (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was keep if you were wondering! Nimbus (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Aviation}}]] 

message: Since the copyright police on here won't accept a copy of a copy of a US Government Public Domain photo, and I don't have the time or the inclination to research where the originals are these days, I have marked all 31 of my Pre-1940 Aircraft images for lack of source and they should be deleted on 15 August 2008. Since they are public domain I will keep them in my public collection and other Wikipedia editors will just have to try to replace them. Enjoy. --Colputt (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the images are marked public domain but none of them give a source, it is common for uploaders to mark images as public domain when they have just copied them from the internet. I know we should assume good faith but to people reviewing the images they fall into the no source category and are tagged - despite what you have said when you upload them. So to be fair to the copyright police (whoever they are!) they only have your word that they are public domain and unless you can provide a source it is highly likely they will be deleted. Just the same as anything else on wikipedia that is not sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywrong Police 

message: Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 is currently open at MilHist.  I've just added a missing section on protection of aircraft and added the banner for this project, but it needs assessing on the talk page.  Please comment on the article at the Peer Review.  Thanks Viv Hamilton (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for [[Protection of Military Remains Act 1986]] 

message: I dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Airport notability proposal in an attempt to get some thoughts on an inclusion criteria for facilities containing runways, airports, helipads, seaplane bases etc. Right now the discussion is not going anywhere, perhaps some WP:Aviation folks have an opinion, suggestion etc. Maybe no criteria is needed, maybe just a statement on the WP:Airports page stating that the project considers that any facility, past or present, containing any type of aircraft landing area is inherently notable. I think some statement should be made that can be pointed to as a reason to keep or delete essentially unnotable facilities like small, private unattended, landing strips with ICAO or some other national ID's. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports notability / inclusion criteria 

message: Currently, 3704 articles assigned to this project, or 15.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get this set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Cleanup listing. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Any idea?  -Fnlayson (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings it done very infrequently, every 1-2 months. This is fine for now, because the list is so long it probably won't change very quickly. I think that as people work on it they should remove or strike the entries they fix. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for the info.  That'll be fine.  I tried to address old fact tags and stuff from 2007.  But I've forgotten which all articles I worked on.  Oh well.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Are the two crashes mentioned in this article sufficiently notable for inclusion. I have my doubts on this one as nobody notable seems to be in the list of casualties, unlike the 2008 Farnborough plane crash where two notable people were involved. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accoding to some of the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Notability_guidelines, I'd say no. But since no guidelines have been settled on yet, who knows? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also tend to say no; the only part that even suggests notability is the allegation of sabotage; but I think it would need to be a lot stronger before these events became notable. This should probably be referred to the Aviation accident task force --Rlandmann (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[A. D. Williams Engineering crashes]] 

message: Ok, so I just did a first draft of North American DC-3. The problem is the project isn't really North American's. All they did was take some NASA money and draw up a budget based on Faget's team's drawings. So what should the article be named?  "DC-3" is out of the question, "Faget DC-3" doesn't seem right, and "DC-3 (space shuttle)" seems like a mouthful. Comments?
Maury (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "NASA DC-3" maybe.  Where did the DC-3 name/designation come from; NASA or North American? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Straight out of Faget's mouth I think. So NASA? Hmmm, ok. Maury (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another naming question... 

message: I need some help with this one please. I have discovered three articles covering the Grob 109 motorglider, we have Grob G 109, Grob Vigilant and Grob 109B. Needs a three way merge but I don't know where to start with this one. The Vigilant article is the most comprehensive, the Vigilant is just a 109B in military markings and not adapted AFAIK as it says in the lead . There was a G 109 (G 109A?) variant with a lower one piece canopy and faired tailwheel. I've got some references for this. I'm a bit stumped as to the best thing to do. I could use all the best bits in my sandbox to make one article. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a case study of why one should do an extensive search for other articles on the same or related types before creating a new one, Also doesn't look like there's been much cross-pollinization by the same editors either. The Vigilant has one link to the 109B, but nither of the other two link to each other or that one. I'm not too clear on the relationships between the 3 types yet, but I'd probably support one article for all 3, as the Vigilant is really only a military type in ownership. Mess! Good job finding them! - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does say check for other articles before going for it! Some of these articles have been around for a while. I spotted it because I added an image and infobox to one, then when I added the company navbox it linked to a different article! Imagine my confusion! The Vigilant article is quite good, obviously the work of a keen Air Cadet, telling us how all the controls work. I know this aircraft well (several hundred hours flying in two G 109Bs), also maintained them. Just wondered how best to sort it out without treading on anyone's toes. Nimbus (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct title to use would be Grob G 109 with the 'B' and Vigilant as variants, I'm sure we can make a nice article out of all the text available.Nimbus (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) I'd see what the general consensus is here first, and which article they consider the prImary one (probably the G 109). Then we can post a  tag on the primary article, and  tags on the other 2. Give it a couple weeks at that point to gather comments in the Merge discussion. If you want, you can go ahead and work up a combined article on your sandbox page, and then if all 3 are accepted to be merged, copy it to the kept article. - BillCJ (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Weeks! OK! My problem is that I want to fix it all today which clearly can't be done but I do note that the quality in this project is improving dramatically at the cost of some 'editorial exchanges'. Quite happy for others to comment and help, will put something together in a sandbox in the meantime. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 109 and 109B articles are very small articles without much active editing; I'd say that a formal merge process is unneccessary in this case - just go ahead and be bold. Grob G 109 is the best-named, so material from the other two should be merged there and their articles turned into redirects. For GFDL compliance, make sure to note the source in the edit summary when merging text in. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, do the easiest merge and if there is an issue, discussion can take place in the appropriate article talk pages. (I was going to be silly and recommend that we follow BillCJ's advice and have a two week "mourning" period, but I thought better of it, whoops, I thought I was just thinking that.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Nibmus, my "weeks" answer was response to your question on "how best to sort it out without treading on anyone's toes". I do concur with RLand that it's probably not necessary. I'll be glad to help out with anything but writing new text, if you want a break in the merging chores. Just let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, please don't take offense at my gentle ribbin', I knew what you meant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a good draft going in the sandbox now. Will have a look at the edit history a bit closer, two are by the same editor and the same text has appeared in a slightly different form (surprise!). By GFDL do you mean just leaving a clear edit summary RL? I try to do that all the time. No rest for the wicked. Nimbus (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the need for tact nowadays, BillCJ was right but you do have to be bold round here at times to get things done. The draft is here, I know there is still lots wrong with it. Nimbus (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're merging text from another article, the edit summary should explicitly say so for GFDL compliance; so when you move the article out of your sandbox and over the existing Grob 109 article, your summary should say something like "Merging in content from Grob Vigilant and Grob 109B". This acknowledges the contributions (and copyright ownership) of the authors of those articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger, will get on it soon hopefully. Nimbus (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vigilant article is a direct copyvio of this . I will shuffle the words around, I am also translating text from the wiki:de article. Hope to get there soon. Nimbus (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Grobs! 

message: There's a discussion on the MD-80 page about whether a July 2008 incident in which an evacuation slide inside the plane carrying Obama deployed should be listed on the incidents list involving the plane.  Your input is appreciated.  Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-80#Barack Obama]] 

message: Cool Hand Luke asked me to come here and see if you opinion is the same as mine to replace airnav on the US-Airport Template with globalair’s airport pages. To see the discussion and reasons why I believe the two should be switched out please see the template’s talk page located here. - Neilh89 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was brought up before at WikiProject Airports and my comment at the time was that I cant see template adds any value it is just a vehicle for external links that are not really needed. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Perhaps it would be easier to remove the template from airport articles then it wouldnt matter who it is advertising or site pushing. MilborneOne (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated this and related us-airport templates for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_27#Template:US-airport. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-Airport Template 

message: We have a POV-pusher on the Centennial Airport page adding info soley from an issue-oriented website. The user's name, User:NoNoise, should tell you what his issue is! I believe the London City Airport page has had similar problems. I've issued several warnings, and given detailed revert summaries, but in the end I'm called "malicious"! Admin help would be nice in this case, as I'm over my reverts. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centennial Airport and COI/POV 

message: See here. --John (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry spelling or local spelling on aerospace articles 

message: The article mentions the AOC being suspended for unspecified reasons. Reading between the lines of the AAIB report into G-BVOV's accident, I'd say that the reasons could well be to do with the underlying cause of the accident (and possibly other incidents involving Emerald, which I've not checked out yet). Are there any editors who can add to and expand the article as I'm not sure I can make a decent enough job of it myself, being a bit out of my areas of expertise. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emerald Airways]] 

message: The A. D. Williams Engineering crashes article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD A. D. Williams Engineering crashes 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Gliding 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Aviation 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Defunct Airlines 

message: There will be a DVD release of Wikipedia this Christmas, and many of the articles in this project have been selected to be included. The project members have been asked to select a particular version to be used, so as not to include any vandalism, false statements, etc. A list of selected articles is here, please add a permanent link to a usable version, per their example. A list of articles with maintenance tags on them is here, check them out and maybe fix them up. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fighter aircraft article could use some improvement if any expert editor has some time to spare. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation articles on the DVD release 

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash.  Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? 
* Note the Nom's explanation! - BillCJ (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash 

message: Just checked in with Raul's TFA and Biman Bangladesh Airlines is scheduled for the 28th great job everyone. -Marcusmax (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Biman Bangladesh Airlines]] will be on the Main Page!! 

message: I have a flickr friend who took many aviation photographs, and he is willing to change any of his photographs to Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike if Wikipedia wants them. I worked a lot with him on drag racing photographs (he's a huge fan of both), and he has relicensed 74 photos to Creative Commons so that Wikipedia can use them . He reserved a Wikipedia account at User talk:Twm1340, but he hasn't use it yet (there are no deleted contributions). All you have to do is ask him on the photo and he will change the license. He does want you to thank him after you upload each photo so he can add it to his group, and please provide a link to the Wikipedia article so that anyone can look it up. He likes that. You can give my name if you want, he knows me as royal_broil. Here's the set of his aviation photographs: . I strongly recommend using the flickruploadbot at Commons because it's real easy. Ask me if you want help explaining that part. There are many great photographs taken from all over the place, even EAA fly-in (in my backyard!). I'm not an aviation fan myself. Royalbroil 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avaition photos source 

message: The FAC for Melbourne Airport is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone could give Melbourne Airport a copyedit, it'd be very much appreciated. A copyedit would do wonders for this article. Mvjs (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy of [[Melbourne Airport]] now open 

message: User:GW Simulations has implemented a poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll concerning GW's rename proposal found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket name cleanup poll 

message: :Image:Tcollins 1039148.jpg, :Image:DSCF1934d submitted.jpg, :Image:DSCF6548b.jpg and :Image:DSCF3754a GEZJC BRS submitted.jpg all were originally uploaded with copyright marking from Airlines.net  / Jetliners.net. Uploader has a user name that indicates they may be the original copyright holder, but since they are copyrighted elsewhere, do these have to go through the Wikipedia:OTRS process? I'm asking here, because these are all aircraft pictures and I know there are plenty of admins that watch this page that can help to sort this out. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a grey area - most of the time if it seems fairly reasonable that the uploader is the copyright holder, we would simply assume good faith, but asking for OTRS verification is a good way to be sure. In this particular case, the uploader has gone out of his way to call attention to his copyright over the photo and has left copyright messages embedded in the images; to me, that makes me wonder whether he's aware of the implications of the GFDL - that while he does indeed still own the copyright, the only right reserved is the one to be credited as the creator of the image and that he has licenced away every other right. I'd suggest that it's worth making contact with him to clarify if this was his intention. If so, then the airliners/jetphotos captions need to be trimmed out - but that's something that anyone is allowed to do for a GFDL-licenced image. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, some of these are being deleted as copyvios. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images 

message: There have been several AfD debates lately related to the hundreds of small airlines in Alaska. I have initiated a conversation here in order to find some consensus on these issues and any and all input is welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation in Alaska 

message: Flying Blind, Flying Safe -- I put it up for a self-nom at T:TDYK, so hopefully it will get to T:DYK on the Main Page in a few days. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made T:DYK on 10 October. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: An article within the scope of this WikiProject, Pier 126 Heliport, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier 126 Heliport.  Thank you. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of Pier 126 Heliport 

message: I have created a new article about Thunder City, a company based in Cape Town, South Africa, that owns and operates a collection of ex military jets, most notably it owns the only airworthy examples of some types. It is widely believed to be the only place that an ordinary civilain can experience a supersonic flight. I need help to get the article up to standard, I have no experience of using and applying templates, categories, infoboxes, etc. This is the first article I have started from scratch. Roger (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to help, just drop a note on my talkpage with what you need specific help with. -Marcusmax(speak)  20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with new article 

message: You guys may want to have a look at this and offer an opinion on this RFD...it involves a cross-namespace redirect that points within your project.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFD of note to your project 

message: B. Wolterding has created a bot called  that gives alerts to different WikiProjects, based on the project's talk page banner.  Your project was interested in a bot like this one per comments on the talk page. An example of a report is here.  Instructions on how to add your project are here.  Alerts should be generated daily.  Any feedback is appreciated, and should go here. LegoKontribsTalkM 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This new page has been created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts, and is linked to on the navigation banner. Keep an eye on it for deletion announcements, FAC announcements etc.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Alerts 

message: I just noticed that the image :Image:De Havilland.png is up for CSD. It would be a shame to lose it. Self made by the editor who has possibly retired from WP, company is defunct. I would appreciate any help from image tagging experts to fix it if it can stay. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a self-made image and therefore free.  The non-free logo was the wrong tag.  It needs to free type license (GFDL or Creative Commons), but I doubt we could do that for the image maker. Don't know... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: A fair use rationale has been added to that image.  Add other reasons for its use to the fair use template. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks very much for fixing that. As a sidenote Bae transferred (sold?) the design authority rights for the 'classic' piston aircraft to a new company called 'de Havilland Support Ltd.' More info here  on their profile page. It seems that BAe still look after the classic jets though. The DHSL logo is the same as the de Havilland one with the addition of the word 'support' (can be seen on their homepage). I wondered about de Havilland Canada who have also transferred rights through Boeing and Bombardier Aerospace to Viking Air. It's hard to keep up sometimes! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Havilland logo image 

message: I've nominated Air Europa Flight 196 for deletion as I feel that the accident is not sufficiently notable as per WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Europa Flight 196 

message: I'm having issues with an editor on the Igor Sikorsky biography article. I severely edited information that he feels needs to remain, and in the course of reverting to the version he prefers, he has removed several valid edits that had been made since (diff). I'd prefer that other editors get involved to make it more than a him versus me discussion. If I am on the short side of consensus, that is fine, but it definitely needs more input from others. And if someone else could volunteer an RfC on the issue, it should probably be voiced dispassionately by someone uninvolved. --Born2flie (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor Sikorsky 

message: Interesting problem for you. User:Threecharlie from the Italian Wikipedia was asking about a contradiction at Amiot 143#Variants: if 138 of one model were built, followed by 148 of another model, how can the total production count be only 154? Is the latter model perhaps only an upgrade, or am I missing something else? Wasn't able to find information on this quickly, and thought I should get this down before I forget about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment with #/sources here.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  11:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a suspicion of that, but no solid # to back it. Guessed right, looks like. (Yay! ;D)  TREKphiler hit me ♠  18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thanks for the quick response. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amiot 143 

message: Does the Aviation Wikiproject consider that the accident at Ciampino yesterday justifies inclusion in the Ryanair and Rome Ciampino Airport articles. There is much discussion on the Ryanair talk page, and my addition of the accident (with reliable references) to the Ryanair article has been removed, claiming the accident is "non-notable". It is a very rare occurrence for an aircraft to be brought down by birdstrikes affecting both engines, and with the substantial damage suffered by the aircraft I believe that its inclusion in both articles is justified. Whether the accident justifies a stand-alone article yet or not I'm not sure. This is something that can be re-assessed at a later date when more facts are known. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like that involved a 737-800, so Boeing 737 Next Generation would be the first place it should go.  Airline and airport article can't reasonable list aviation incidents and therefore have a higher threshold. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the 737NG article. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanair accident at Ciampino 

message: The Ryanair Flight 296 article is currently at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanair Flight 296 AfD 

message: Not my area at all, but we have nothing at all on Elinor Smith, probably one of the half dozen or so most celebrated women pilots of the 1920s and 1930s. Probably better that it be written by someone who knows a lot more than me about the history of aviation. Definitely should be DYK-able for whoever takes it on. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elinor Smith 

message: There is a dispute at Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_587#Sources_for_Jdey_citation over whether a man saying that he shoe bombed the flight counts as "al-Qaeda did later claim responsibility" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Airlines Flight 587 

message: Looking for some thoughts on the name of this article.  It's widely quoted in texts as "The Thule Incident", however the guidlines here indicate it should be named Date Location Airline Aircraft Type crash.  I guess that would make it "1968 Thule Air Base Strategic Air Command B-52 crash" - a bit of a mouthful.  Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, Strategic Air Command aren't an Airline are they? What about "1968 Thule AB B-52 crash"? Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean "1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash"?  
PS: I notice that Palomares hydrogen bombs incident does not follow any particular naming convention either. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling out Air Base is OK, but you'd probably want to create a redirect from the short title anyway. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-52 crash at Thule Air Base 

message: Expert opinion on this AfD would be appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spruce Creek Fly-In AfD 

message: Something I should've done sooner... There is a proposed merge of this & this to this, under the MAG title. No objections have been raised here, but improvement, especially to sourcing of some claims, to structure, & to clarity, is still warranted. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also a WP:Military History thing too.  You might get some help by asking at their talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's been fairly well covered there already. It's where this started.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I didn't see anything on it there when I checked earlier. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, it's mostly here, for anybody wanting to add before the merge goes ahead.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge FYI 

message: In the midst of another research project, I just discovered that there are two essentially duplicate articles: List of World War II aces from Italy and List of Italian fighter aces of World War II. I've dropped notes asking why there are two such lists on each of the talk pages. Input is welcome. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles 

message: I've come across a reference to II/StG1 and want to know exactly what is meant by that, so that I can link to an appropriate article. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: STAB II./STG1: Can't tell you immediately what the equivalent of Stab (lit. Staff) would be, but StG1 stands for "Sturzkampfgeschwader 1" ("Sturzkampf" was usually abbreviated to "Stuka") i.e. Divebomber Wing 1. "II Stab" would perhaps be "No. II Group". Have a look here for StG2. Hope this helps. --TraceyR (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Organization of the Luftwaffe during World War II may also help. --TraceyR (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, have linked to Sturzkampfgeschwader 1, which will link to the article once it has been created. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luftwaffe units in WW2 

message: During the FAC discussions for the 777 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 777), it was brought up that Civil Aviation Authority is currently a dab page, and by its nature really should be a List page. List of civil aviation authorities currently redirects to the dab page. Any thoughts? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly a list page, "list of aviation authorities by country". If there were different meanings for "Aviation Authority", it would be a DAB. - Canglesea (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it's so clearly a list that I just moved it to List of civil aviation authorities (something I meant to do the other day when I agreed to a request to add it to ). In its place, we could do with a general overview article of what a country's civil aviation authority typically does. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far! - BillCJ (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the dab template, also. - Canglesea (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue of list vs dab page needs discussion 

message: The BEA has released its final report into the accident. Unfortunately my French isn't good enough to read and fully understand it. Apparently it makes interesting reading. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etihad Airbus A340-600 accident at Toulouse, 15-11-2007 

message: I hope that this is the place to raise the questions below; if not, would someone post it where it will achieve a wider readership? Thanks.
I'm puzzled (and excited) by a possible wiki-hole in the history of the early days of aviation in the UK.  Perhaps I risk making a fool of myself over this, but I have been unable to find articles/references/mention in Wikipedia of what must have been an important centre of activity on the Isle of Grain during the pioneering days of aviation! There is an article about a disused railway station (Port Victoria railway station), indicating that there must have traffic there at some time, but that was all; nothing about an RNAS station there nor what must have been a thriving centre of aircraft design, experiment, construction, testing and operation. 
The "Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes: Their Designers and Manufacturers" has a whole range of references to its aircraft (see below) There many references to "Grain" in the Putnam "Shorts Aircraft since 1900", often in the context of experimental work (e.g. on wireless systems), and I have just found a list of references RNAS Port Victoria, the RNAS Experimental Construction Depot on the Isle of Grain and a whole range of aircraft designed and constructed there:
*Port Victoria Grain Griffin
*Port Victoria PV.1
*Port Victoria PV.2
*Port Victoria PV.2bis
*Port Victoria PV.4
*Port Victoria PV.5A
*Port Victoria PV.7, PV.8 Family
*Port Victoria PV.7 Grain Kitten
*Port Victoria PV.8 Eastchurch Kitten
*Port Victoria PV.9
Another source mentions a few types (here).
There is enough info here to create a stub about the PV.5.
www.aviastar.org/air/england/a_port_victoria.html mentions a few PV-types too (with some images).
Perhaps experts in this field will be able to solve this conundrum for me: Is Isle of Grain / Port Victoria mentioned here under another name? Are the aircraft already mentioned under other manufacturers' names? If not, there is some interesting work to do here: A new RNAS station, a new manufacturer and many new aircraft - more than I can handle at the moment. I look forward to getting more infomation. --TraceyR (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The aircraft originated from a Royal Naval Aeroplane Repair Depot on the Isle of Grain, because the name Isle of Grain was used for the seaplane station it was named Port Victoria it later became the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Post Victoria railway station was part of the Hundred of Hoo Railway, built to serve steamers to the continent in 1860s. The Eastchurch Kitten was probably named after RNAS Eastchurch, on the Isle of Sheppey, anothe early RNAS station. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Eastchuch Kitten was named after the Eastchurch RNAS Station, where it was designed and part built to meet the same requirement for a lightweight shipboard anti-zeppilin fighter as the Grain Kitten. When its designer was given command of the Port Victoria unit, he took the part built aircraft with him, and it was completed at Port Victoria and designated as part of the PV series. Irritatingly, the only Port Victoria type that actually entered some sort of production(and even some brief postwar service, the Grain Griffin (or Griffon), is the one there seems to be least written about.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos Here, here and here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's information (including a photo) of the P.V.4 floatplane version of the P.V.3 at www.aviastar.org/air/england/portvictoria_pv-4.php. --TraceyR (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isle of Grain / RNAS 

message: The artlce Flag carrier need some major work. I recently nominated it for deletion and a consensus was reached at to keep the page but, remove the table that contained 99% WP:OR, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag carrier...One editor now has steped in after the deletion and refuses to let the table go. So if anyone has a second please check out the page or add to Talk:Flag carrier. Thanks, Spikydan1 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag carrier help 

message: The AAIB has reissued a report into the incident involving Airbus A319-131 G-DCBI at Schipol on 18 April 2007. The original AAIB report is here and the reissued report is here. One safety recommendation has been withdrawn as a result of the review of the incident.
Question is, is this incident notable enough to be included in Wikipedia (unusual circumstances?). If so, would anyone care to write it? Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely a minor incident.  This would have the the cause of notable aviation policy changes to make it notable per WP:Aircontent#Incidents guidelines.  Note the guidelines there for inclusion in aircraft articles.  The threshold for a separate article will be higher. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting case 

message: Can someone weigh in on the AFD of this article and given an informed opinion of whether ATPs help in establishing a person's notability (preferably with numbers on how many people attain the license). - Mgm|(talk) 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only claim to notability is as an author not a pilot. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This thing surprisingly survived AfD, so I've taken a knife to it and cut out all the promotional and non-encyclopedic crap. The creator has a checkered history, so I'll be keeping an eye on it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rod Machado]] 

message: The article Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) has been submitted for an A-Class review based on WP:MILHIST assessing the article quality as A-Class. Please see the nomination under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review#Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II) and describe your support or oppose for the assessment of A-Class quality. You may need to scroll up from the link. It is on the Peer review page under the A-Class requests section. --Born2flie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class Review 

message: Several articles on early aviation mention the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Deutsch+de+la+Meurthe&fulltext=Search . Could someone please create a stub on this? (I will not be doing so myself.) Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working several articles on prizes, so if no one else starts one, I'll start putting together material in one of my sandboxes. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ended up going a different route, and as there were several prizes offered by the same guy, so it made more sense to write a bio on him. The article is now up at Henri Deutsch de la Meurthe (corrections/additions invited), and I'm creating redirects from the prize names. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much. Wow - I can see what you spent 31 December 2008 doing. :-) Great work! -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Deutsch de la Meurthe prize]] 

message: Today I visited the Fleet Air Arm Museum & took loads of photos & notes, but I'm having problems with aircraft numbers, what should be italicised etc & checking I'm getting the details on the aircraft right. The article doesn't have this project's banner but I can't find anywhere more appropriate to ask for help.— Rod talk 21:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great museum, use their official website, click on 'research' (top left) then 'exhibitions' on the next page which should take you to the aircraft and their numbers. I would like a photo of the Wyvern engine for an article if you took one. Happy New Year. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I'd found the museum website & will continue expanding when I get some time. The only pic I have of the Wyvern is at :Image:Westland Wyvern TR1.JPG but doesn't really show the engine.— Rod talk 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, because that aircraft is there we can't use a non-free image in the Rolls-Royce Eagle (1944) article. Hope you enjoyed the 'helicopter ride' to the carrier deck! I used to work on the Phantoms (ex-Ark Royal) and the Buccaneers but in the RAF, makes me feel old when I see them in museums now. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet Air Arm Museum 

message: I've been doing some reading recently on notable women fliers of the 1920s and '30s. We have some (I'm glad to see a pretty good article on Bessie Coleman), but there are some surprising omissions. I've recently added an article on Elinor Smith; among the missing are Viola Gentry, Evelyn "Bobbi" Trout, Lady Mary Heath, Phoebe Omlie, Jessie "Chubby" Miller, Mae Haizlip, Gladys O'Donnell, and doubtless others of equal note. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that. I was suprised to see that there was no article on Women in Aviation, International.  At least there is an stub about the Ninety-Nines. --Trashbag (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a page on Bobbi Trout, which TitanOne took and made great. I also started a page on the Women's Air Derby of 1929 (the original Powder Puff Derby), and was disappointed to see that nothing has been written about most of the contestants (some of which Jmabel mentions). Would anyone like to help with that? :) Acmejia (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviatrixes 

message: G,day all, I have just PRODded Heli Holland EC130 crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod supported by Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new GA aircraft crash article