Talk:Airliners.net

message: The "general criticisms" section seems very NPOV. Anybody else agree? (NOT a straw poll; comments only!) Sentinel75 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: User:Planefan has today added content to this article that I would consider original research (with some possible NPOV issues as well).  It has been reverted by both User:Brandon W and myself, and to avoid crashing into the 3-Revert Rule I'm bringing the discussion here rather than reverting again.  The paragraphs question are:
 The screening process for photographs seems dominated by technical considerations rather than artistic ones, and so 
 photographs are rejected for reasons such as leveling, centering, and pixelation. This generally means photographs have a 
 tendency to all look the same and as cameras evolve, the standards for acceptance change also. This technical approach to 
 photography tends to appeal to its overwhelmingly (mostly young) male aviation enthusiast membership.
 The website's non-aviation forum has a distinctly right wing authoritarian and political bias which is evidenced by the 
 following facts: 1., The relatively high proportion of current and retired U.S. military members on the site, 2., The 
 moderators' very authoritarian approach to managing the forums and their reluctance to tolerate public discussion of how the 
 site should be managed - even in the site-related forum; 3., Moderators selectively censor topics based on content all the 
 while ignoring others with considerable scatalogical content or, for example, crude salacious references to prominent female 
 Democrats; and 4., Moderators themselves participate in some of the heated discussions even as they ban members for 
 criticizing moderators and censor criticisms, which places members who disagree with moderators in the unfair position of 
 being unable to properly respond to moderator' excesses. Because of these practices, some members cynically refer to the 
 moderators as the "Bill O'Reilly's of the Aviation world."
While I would agree that the screening process is technical issues, I think that there's a lot of drawing of conclusions in the above.  I typically stay out of the political discussions on the site, but again there are conclusions being drawn and what looks like NPOV problems. -- Hawaiian717 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Planefan]] 

message: The page has been semi-protected because of a recent rash of vandalism.MBK004 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Vandalism 

message: I recently removed the paragraph talking about competing websites as it seems to leave an opening for anyone to link to their similar site there.  An anonymous editor put one back in claiming that information on competitors is often found in articles.  A major thing that bothers me is that all the links to competing sites are external links rather than wikilinks, as I don't believe any of the other sites have articles on Wikipedia (and I'm not sure they've established enough notability to warrant them).  In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I thought I'd open it up for discussion here.  Thoughts? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In just the few days since this was put back in, already two more sites have been added: AirspaceOnline and DetroitSpotters.  The issue is, when you start to provide examples, everyone else feels free to add their own site (or their favorite site) as an additional example.  The same thing happens with the meetups section.  None of these other sites have their own article, and instead link to the site itself. I think this helps to show what I mean by the section opens up the article to spamming. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to answer Huaiwei comment about MyAviation.net statement about Airliners.net not specifing them as a sister site. True not a sister site but every page on airliners.net has a link to MyAviation.com at the bottom as Partner Sites: Aviation Photo Gallery. and both sites are copyright Demand Media Inc. Although the link to MyAviation should be put in external links as per WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that most examples of having competitor links is in a "See Also" section, and these don't go to the competitors' websites, but to their articles on Wikipedia.  For example, Google Calendar#See also contains links to the articles on Yahoo! Calendar and Windows Live Calendar, but not links to the the other sites themselves.  I'll also note a couple of points from WP:EL: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article and that the list of links normally to be avoided includes Links mainly intended to promote a website which was my concern that led me to bringing this up in the first place.  I don't have a problem with the section on partner sites (MyAviation and FlightLevel360), my issue is with the competitors and that was the paragraph I originally removed. I'll add  to the section and see if it gets some attention. In addition, it's probably worth considering adding a short discussion about MyAviation (as it was essentially run by the same people) and how it differs from Airliners.net. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing Websites 

message: The content with the remarks "2008 Redesign
In May 2008, the site was redesigned with new colors and a modified page layout. The changes were released to a mixed reaction with many users disapproving of the new site." is both accurate and concise - and there is no evidence of provocation in these remarks. I highly recommend to the managers/head moderators/site foremen/whoever runs this place that if this becomes an editing war, to consider the value of leaving these remarks in the content of the main article, based on accuracy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetmod (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anet Homepage Redesign 

message: There seems to be a content dispute regarding some information claimed by an IP address that resolves to the owners of this website to be defamatory and irrelevant which was posted by a disgruntled user. There also seems to be a systematic cleansing of this article of dissenting information which from what I can tell is cited. I make no judgment about the voracity of such claims and the current version of the article, but further edit warring over this is unacceptable without discussing the valid points. Therefore, I have fully protected this article from editing until the warring parties are able to discuss and come to an amicable agreement on the content of the article. -MBK004 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I made a revert was because of the removal of text without discussion. The NPOV aspects are what this discussion is meant for. -MBK004 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: In addition to the photo database and discussion forums, the website accepts aviation articles for publishing, has an automatic news service which gathers aviation news, maintains an information database about aircraft types (based on The International Directory of Civil Aircraft by Gerard Frawley), and hosts a flight and hotel booking service.Italic text
Airliners.net DOES NOT host a flight and hotel booking service.
I implore you to find the service on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.162.205 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2008
:Airliners.net used to have a partnership with TravelNow.com where TravelNow operated an Airliners.net branded version of it's booking engine.  Presumably Airliners.net got a commission on bookings.  This seems to no longer be present, presumably Demand Media decided to discontinue the partnership and/or negotiate a new one.  I guess updating this should go on the to do list once this article's content dispute is resolved.  Also, I suppose it is not quite accurate to state that Airliners.net host(ed) it as it did not, rather it linked to TravelNow. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travel and booking service 

message: This one goes in the "Other Controversy" section.  On the date of July 16th, 2008, a parody site of Airliners.net called Airwhiners.net had their domain hijacked by their hosting company, eNom, who is a subsidiary of Demand Media (who owns airliners.net).  As a result of this hijacking, anybody who attempted to access airwhiners.net was redirected to airliners.net.  This was confirmed by several members of airwhiners.net trying to access the site but getting redirected to airliners.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The big secret (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 July 2008
: Not done: Doesn't seem like it adds to the article, and doesn't seem very important.  You also haven't given the text you want incorporated (a little fiddling with the above post could fix that) or any sources for it, so I'm going to have to say no.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source to confirm that this happened? Is such an event notable? Plus, your suggested wording is factually incorrect; airwhiners.net is not registered to eNom, rather it appears to have been registered through eNom.  Plus, it sounds speculative, and if there is no credible evidence to suggest something, why mention it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edits 

message: I notice that some pictures have disappeared from Airliners.net since I last looked at the site a couple of years ago. I assume these were removed by disaffected members who have since moved elsewhere? What other sites have been established by such people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastie (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 December 2008
:Specifically, I'd like to know more about this image, taken in 2003 - which Concorde is depicted here, and where was it taken? Bastie (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sites

message: The page at the moment is entirely based on citations from the website itself, with no third party references.  I believe this page should be deleted as it is largely an advertisement for the site in question.  I would also question the notability of the website, and without third party references to prove its notability, surely it should be deleted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelmg (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability?