Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

message: I ran into this article while doing NPP, and I'm not sure how to handle it. I don't think this is a notable concept in and of itself, but I'm at a loss as to where to move the information or where to redirect the title. I think it's at least a plausible redirect. Trains are my thing more than planes, so I was hoping you folks would have ideas. Please ping me on reply as I don't watch this page. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this article Improper flaps should not exist at all, it can easily be integrated in the main "Flaps" article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be redirected to Preflight checklist as flaps is a check list item if they are a feature of the a/c type. Related but I couldn't find it here is the 'config (configuration) warning system' that more complicated aircraft generally have, horns and lights flashing etc if the throttles are advanced beyond a certain percentage with no flaps set. Landing gear warnings are related (low throttle, land flap set, gear not down etc). Many sailplanes with retractable gear have an aural warning system that alerts the pilot that the airbrakes are open but the gear is up. An overview article could be created but the systems vary. This subject falls under airmanship. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest moving to a new subsection in Flap_(aeronautics)#Principles_of_operation, titled say "Improper flap settings". Preflight checklist, as suggested above, does not cover the landing scenario. This page can then be deleted, as it is the setting which are improper, not the flaps themselves, and we do not normally maintain redirects for arbitrary phrases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing is very vague and also not a term used in aviation. Flaps/slats is a pre-landing checklist item for some aircraft, my own memorised check list has flaps but they are not used until final approach. It's akin to being in the wrong gear in a car, we don't have an article for that (hopefully!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... pre-landing AND pre-takeoff! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with Steelpillow, the information in this article seems like it would fit well there. Also Improper Flaps is not a common term in this way and I don't expect many people would be searching it. Therefore it would not meet the WP:POFR standard. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all. Decided to nominate for deletion as I don't see any sourced content that can be merged elsewhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Improper flaps]] 

message: I see this subject was briefly discussed back in January [here], but no consensus was reached. I would like us to move forward with a consensus on this subject. Wiki is mostly used by ordinary people (in our case ordinary passengers) with no experience in the aviation world. Seasonal doesn't necessarily just mean summer or winter. There are four seasons. It could imply fall, spring, or any combination of the four. Which is why I am of the opinion that even a seasonal cut of 2 months, which i find to be substantial, should be indicated as such. A flight not operating for Q1 (January to March, such as in the case of the recent Delta seasonal suspensions) is quite significant. The average passenger consulting wikipedia would want to know that this flight is not operational year round. Now I agree with others that a cut of just 2 or 3 weeks should not be treated this way. But even then, what do we do? Do we leave the destination as year round, or do we add start and end dates to each of these -almost- year round destinations? What are your thoughts?
Thenoflyzone (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes "seasonal" service? (Take 2) 

message: To try and move forward with this discussion, what would people think of the following idea of guidelines for the Summary field of the  template? What would people change, add or remove?
-- Deeday-UK (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is overkill - it currently says "Brief factual summary of the occurrence." and I don't think we need to be implementing any more rules than that. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that would leave the question that started this discussion unanswered. The point matters, editors have different views about it, and there are currently no guidelines on a common approach. And it's not the first time that the question comes up. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, anything we write should be neutral, and we all seem to agree the Summary should be brief. I think Project guidance that says we should exclude cause or causes if someone deems it to be too complicated still leaves the door very much open to disputes about brevity and oversimplification. My opinion is that guidance should say the Summary is for specifying the event and its cause, and should be brief. We might define "brief" as no longer, and preferably shorter, than a basic declarative sentence. I agree with the rebuttal above of my proposed Summary for Air France 447. I would offer instead: "High-altitude stall due to weather [or 'icing'], system design and pilot error; impacted ocean." That's still brief, and I believe it's neutral and covers the major causes. In my comments on this subject, I've been including actual proposed text to try to distill our generalities (neutral, brief, reliably sourced) into real-world phrasing to show the possibilities for condensing official summaries and RSes into usable and useful Infobox text. DonFB (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Summary field guidelines 

message: Loitering munition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Loitering munition]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 19 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 19 May 2024]] 

message: Looking through the talk archives, I see ASN being touted as a reliable source pretty universally, and have treated it as such.   Questions have been raised as to how reliable it is, in the Pan Am Flight 214 FAC (Source review section) as well as a recent AFD I saw (I can't remember which).   I've noticed what seem to be some changes in the site, with accident articles being referred to as "wikibase articles".   Looking at the page in question, I see "Yes, you can add accidents and incidents to the ASN WikiBase yourself! Or you can correct or update existing accidents. You can add any aviation accident or incident you like: general aviation, military, helicopters etc. As long as they are not covered in the main ASN Safety Database" and a red box warning "This information is added by users of ASN. ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information."  On the other hand, it says "Every entry or correction is being reviewed before it appears online."   Is it time to reevaluate whether or not ASN is as reliable a source as we've been treating it?   I know it is used heavily in a lot of articles here.   RecycledPixels (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote what I said at FAC: That last bit is the important part.  ASN entries generally cite their sources, so it's almost always more useful to just cite the real source directly.  The fact that ASN aggregated the information into a database doesn't make it any more or less reliable than the underlying source. RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This recent ASN database entry is a good example of how you have to evaluate each entry on its own merits.  It says, "... was destroyed following an inflight breakup".  Contrast that with what an NTSB spokesperson says in this press briefing: "very indicative of an in-flight breakup".  Of course the NTSB guy knows it was an in-flight breakup, but the NTSB is careful and exacting, so he's hedging on that until more data is in.  Whoever wrote that statement in the ASN entry was willing to make what sounds like an authoritative statement based on their own evaluation of the primary sources available to them at the time.  The bottom line is, ASN is a good tool for doing research, but I'd be really careful about blanket statements like "ASN is a WP:RS so we should believe anything it says". RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's interesting to me about that Beechcraft Bonanza crash you just posted is the page looks quite a bit different from the ASN pages of old accidents that I've been looking at, such as this one.  The Bonanza has a user-contributed warning box at the top, and a link that lets me directly edit the details that appear on the accident description.   The 1963 Northwest Orient accident has neither one of those, even though both have similar-appearing URLs and both are identified as WikiBase articles.  This Piper PA-22 accident that occurred on the same day as the Northwest Orient accident allows me to edit it and has the warning box, so it's not just the age.  The difference is when I click on the "database" link at the top of ASN, I see an ASN Accident Database and a Wikibase.  The 1963 Piper accident only shows up in the Wikibase, but the Northwest Orient accident shows up in both.   RecycledPixels (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation Safety Network Wikibase 

message: Hi all,
I recently opened a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines regarding Ryanair, any feedback would be appreciated! VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanair Discussion 

message: Hi,
Coming here from these articles. They are about unverified or perhaps hoaxed/legendary claims of early attempts at aviation in India.
Would the :Category:Aviation in India or :Category:Aviation history of India then be apt here? 
I have been told these cannot be added as such (perhaps due to WP:FRINGE concerns).
Please do let me know if these cats are appropriate for the article or otherwise which ones might be. Having no cats related to aviation in these articles deprives it from needed navigation. Afterall we do have :Category:Pseudohistory under history (maybe a similar arrangement can be made for such aviation-related articles).
Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not part of our main aviation coverage. We have an article on Claims to the first powered flight, but I am not sure if the Talpade nonsense has sufficient credibility. We also have an article on Aircraft in fiction; the Vaimanika Shastra might find a home in that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was able to follow on from these to the relevant cats. :) Gotitbro (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Have also added internal links to the articles listed above. Gotitbro (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked the first-flight article in the Vaimanika Shastra article. For what it's worth, I've previously contemplated creating an article called First flight claims considered to be implausible or something similar (discredited, nonsensical, balderdash?), but I discarded the idea because it doesn't seem encyclopedic, it's inherently subjective, and there would likely be ongoing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues. Carguychris (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shivkar Bapuji Talpade]] and [[Vaimanika Shastra]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler#Requested move 23 May 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS#Requested move 23 May 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Civil Aviation Airshow#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Indian Civil Aviation Airshow#Requested move 26 May 2024]] 

message: This is to inform the members of this WikiProject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved Boeing aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved Boeing aircraft]]