Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 23

Planespotters.com again

A user is refusing to accept that planespotters.com is not a reliable source for Wikipdia. WP:AV discussed it several times, especially at WP:PLANESPOTTERS, but the user denies it was a consensus. I think we need to take the issue to WP:RSN, and get a community-wide consensus on this source once and for all. BilCat (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:PLANESPOTTERS is clear enough, even though it was never formally wound up. There is also the Aviation project's consensus-based list of questionable sources. One option would be to review and endorse that list entry. Also, [[Talk: Your warrior SurferSquall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no stranger to edit wars and account blocks, and that is perhaps an issue we need to bear in mind in dealing with their argumentativeness. See for example this recent accusation that another editor they disagree with is a vandal, and this subsequent whine on the talk page of someone who merely offered advice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been discussed all over the place continuously, both here and at RSN, and the consensus has always been it's not notable. It's never been formalized, but no one has ever provided any evidence that proves it's notable. So it is incumbent on the user adding them to prove its reliability, not the other way around. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You're asking me to believe that one person publishes and updates daily information on hundreds of airlines as well as hundreds of thousands of aircraft. I do not believe that, because it isn't possible. SurferSquall (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you're arguing that Planespotters.net isn't self-published, you should review the policy at WP:Self-published sources. Sites operated by multiple people can still be unreliable. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The website has never had anything worse than a couple of minor inaccuracies once in awhile, which happens in almost every source at some point. SurferSquall (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because nobody has ever given a solid reason why it is supposedly unreliable. I see no consensus on that discussion. SurferSquall (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As I stated before, it is physically impossible for one person to be keeping that source up to date. In addition, all of their sources for information are wll-known and reliable. The only user-sourced content on Planespotters is A. the photos of aircraft or B. information corrections that are verified independently by their staff. SurferSquall (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is that each and every contributor does so without peer review or other systematic checks for reliability. It's not just about the site owner, nor are the images any different from the rest - the whole site reeks with dozens of self-publishers. If you want a solid reason why that makes it unacceptable, please do actually read WP:SELFPUBLISH. You may not regard that as a solid enough reason, but the rest of us do. You report someone you disagree with for vandalism and get dismissed, you bother a helpful admin on their own user talk page and get pointed back here, your edits are reverted by multiple other editors. What a waste of your time and talents. I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to fight the inevitable, accept defeat on this one, and move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

“The whole site reeks with dozens of self publishers” How? Did you read what I wrote? Photos taken by people do not have anything to do with the information on the fleets tables. Corrections to information are verified by Planespotters’ staff. How is it “self-published” in any meaning of that term? SurferSquall (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Verified by Planespotters’ staff" could mean a simple Google search rather than actual fact checking. Planespotters.com is intended for plane spotters to quickly identify the aircraft they spot. Much like Wikipedia itself, it is not intended to be a reliable source for more professional purposes. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is only for that purpose, why does it have such comprehensive information on the history of every plane? SurferSquall (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Big quantity has nothing to see with big quality. Often, the contrary. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

SurferSquall Because many spotters are interested in that information (I should know, I'm one of them). - ZLEA _T\^C 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I read what you wrote and it is unfortunately misguided. If you go to the planespotters home page and select the main navbar [Radar] dropdown, it includes an option to [Share your data]. All you need is a user account, a Raspberry Pi and a modicum of tech savvy to set up an automated data feed. If you check out say the An-225 at https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1245880/ur-82060-antonov-airlines-antonov-an-225-mriya you get a [Correct data] button, which only requires that user account and you can corrupt it to anything you want. And we all know that users upload their own photos and add their own metadata. None of that ubiquitous user-generated content is peer reviewed in advance of publication. The opportunities for abuse to political, criminal, commercial or plain mischiveous ends are wide open. Per WP:QUESTIONABLE policy; "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires". Per WP:USERGENERATED policy; "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include ... collaboratively created websites", with examples such as Ancestry.com and IMDb noted. The burden lies on those who would claim reliability, to demonstrate that the integrity of planespotters is not compromised by all this and is sufficiently better than those examples. You have made no case at all, not even recognised that there is an issue to be addressed. If nothing else, that fact that everybody here is persistently arguing you down ought to be telling you something about the WP:CONSENSUS way we do things here. It is you who need to read, mark and inwardly digest. May I suggest a leisurely cup of tea while you do that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect regarding the “correct information” button. If that button is used, you can send information that is checked before it is inserted into the site. I know this, because i’ve done it myself. It isn’t blindly thrown onto the page. An account does not allow you to edit page layout or information in any way. SurferSquall (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You are also incorrect regarding the raspberry pi thing. That is solely for the website’s aircraft radar page, and has nothing at all to do with the aircraft data. SurferSquall (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ADS-B radar detection, photographs, and photo metadata have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. SurferSquall (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to bring deeper dives to our attention, not the other way round. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You say this why? SurferSquall (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat: The same user did ask this issue on RSN around last month, and nobody seems to agree with his view. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess our only option if they continue to be disruptive about this issue is to go to WP:ANI. BilCat (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? I still have not seen anyone provide a valid reason for labelling it as unreliable. Not one. Everything Steelpillow claimed is false. It's easy to verify that it's false. You cannot call a source unreliable without providing a valid reason. SurferSquall (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You are threatening ANI while completely ignoring what I am saying. You seem to be predisposed against this source for no real reason. Please be helpful and don't threaten things like ANI for people you dont agree with. SurferSquall (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

At least I'm not falsely accusing you of vandalism, as you did with User:Jetstreamer. I actually don't care whether or not you disagree with me, as that is your right. There is also nothing wrong with disagreeing with consensus. But it becomes disruptive when you refuse to accept the consensus of multiple editors across several different forums, and continue to use Planespotters as a source. You need to know when to drop the stick, or you will end up being blocked. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

They have been blocked for edit warring before, so they are no spring chicken. Tendentiousness on talk pages is not in itself a crime: if we leave this discussion, having yet again confirmed the consensus, and they go away, then ANI will be unnecessary. But if they still keep with the dodgy article edits, then it would be a different matter and WP:DISRUPTION would cut in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So i must assume you’d be blocking every other editor that’s using Planespotters too, yes? SurferSquall (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't block you, but I'm also involved in this ussue, so I wouldn't even if I could. Users won't be blocked just for using Planespotters, but for edit warring and other disruptions. BilCat (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t removal of properly sourced information disruptive editing, though? Last I checked it was. SurferSquall (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please also check WP:CANTFIX, whereas it said material for which no reliable source that supports it should be removed. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way is that relevant here? SurferSquall (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Eerrr... Because planespotter is not reliable source. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@User:SurferSquall: Disruptive editing is not vandalism; it's simply disruptive editing. See WP:NOTVAND for more info on what vandalism is not, particularly the heading titled "Disruptive editing or stubbornness". BilCat (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat: He also was reported to ANI partly due to edit-warring related to his insistence to use Planespotter. It's just that his luck allows him to go out ANI unscathed. But, if he keep pushing out his luck, I wouldnt be suprised to see another ANI report. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup. The rope will eventually run out. BilCat (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm really sick of discussing the reliability of Planespotters over and over, I explained my reasoning either at SurferSquall's talk page or at my talk page. What really bothers me regarding the matter is that SurferSquall accused me of vandalism without my knowledge, and that they also mentioned me at other's talk pages without pinging. Complete lack of etiquette. I'd say I'm dissapointed for this but this feeling comes when you have at least some respect for someone. I've seen lots of users like this one ending up blocked indefinitely.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocking me for using a source that is not A. self published B. incorrect? Am I missing something? How does this make sense? SurferSquall (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No, blocking you for bludgeoning and persistent disruption. Makes perfect sense to me. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The “bludgeoning and persistent disruption” comes from editors removing it as a source from pages without it being reliable. THAT is disruptive editing. SurferSquall (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the current consensus surrounding Planespotters, I think that's justified. You are acting directly against that consensus from what I can tell. I don't care if you like it or not – you're going to have to accept the consensus for now or risk further sanctions. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The “consensus” makes zero sense and was never really established in the first place. It’s about the worst “consensus” on anything i’ve ever seen and frankly i’m surprised it happened, given that Wikipedia editors are supposed to be reasonable and considerate. SurferSquall (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

How does this make sense at all? The information is not incorrect, and although people claim it is, i have seen no proof it’s self-published. It seems quite unfair to both the source and the editors of Wikipedia to deprecate a source without a reason. SurferSquall (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It strikes me that the root of the problem here is that SurferSquall entirely fails to understand how WP:RS actually works. The policy itself is clear and unambiguous:: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 'Reputation' needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. The burden of proof for this lies with those proposing that a source be cited. Prove that the Planespotters website is widely cited by sources meeting WP:RS, and we can use it. Otherwise, we don't. Simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The entire reason this “reputation” is nonexistent is because of obtuse and ignorant editors erasing it from pages for no reason. It exists as a source on well over a hundred articles on Wikipedia, last I checked. It is cited in a Wikipedia article almost every day. The information the Planespotters database is correct and kept up to date by its editors, so that it can be used as a source for other materials. SurferSquall (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Pleas read what I actually wrote and respond to that. We need evidence that WP:RS are citing the Planespotters website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Since when? Since when is that a requirement? SurferSquall (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS is core Wikipedia policy, and has been for many, many years. If you are actually incapable of understanding why the burden lies with you to demonstrate that a source you wish to cite is compliant with policy, after reliability has been questioned by multiple contributors, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m perfectly capable of understanding that, you just hadn’t pointed it out. I do however fail to see how I am supposed to do that on my own. I have almost no experience in debate. However, I am still correct, so i must do something, I guess… SurferSquall (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point i’m at my wits end. I truly do not and will not understand why you all have taken the (seemingly) incorrect stance you have. I am still waiting for someone to actually respond with a reason for labeling Planespotters invalid. The “reasons” Steelpillow provided were all irrelevant. The supposed notation in the Terms of Service is irrelevant as it refers only to user-submitted photographs. Any information submitted to the site as A. a correction or B. photograph metadata is verified by Planespotters’ employees before it is added. I have never encountered incorrect information in the website’s database, nor has anyone else I have asked. In addition, it seems a bad idea to deprecate it, as it is one of, if not the largest freely accessible databases of aircraft information anywhere on the Internet. No other website with a comparable level of information is accessible free of charge, and if Planespotters is deprecated, airline articles will fall behind as there will be no source for many aircraft deliveries and other movements. It is hard enough as it is to verify information for use in articles, why make it so much more difficult? SurferSquall (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You did make an interesting point here... Maybe we do need to WP:DEPRECATE planespotter :) Ckfasdf (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You STILL refuse to provide a valid reason why. Not one. Deprecating is a waste of a great source, and for no reason. Provide ONE valid reason. ONE. Not one that can easily be refuted by a short read of the relevant website section. SurferSquall (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation requires that a source “fail the reliable sources guidelines in nearly all circumstances which is no way true for Planespotters. SurferSquall (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should take the steps necessary to Deprecate planespotters at RSN. This may be the only way to really settle the issue of whether or not planespotters is truly a reliable source, and to what extent, in a way that can be enforced. BilCat (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have cautioned before against the likelihood that this would succeed. Firstly, if you look at the list on that page, they are all high-profile sites relating to general news and popular culture; specialist sites such as planespotters are conspicuously absent; DEPRECATE is for mountains and we are troubled by what the wider editorial community might regard as a molehill. Secondly, all unreliable sites are deprecated by default, and all that formalising one with DEPRECATE does is to highlight the major bugbears for our convenience, and make life a little more difficult for IP editors. Even a deprecated site may be cited in certain limited circumstances. We should certainly see fewer rogue citations, but it is debatable how many fewer. And of course, in the associated discussion, there is always the risk of the uninformed WP:BOOMERANG effect.

I think it should be enough to note here that, per WP:RSSELF; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The proprietor of Planespotters, Thomas Noak, is the only identifiable editorial filter for specific materials, other than the membership piccies. I have found no evidence that Noak is an established expert, as defined above. Of course that may change, if others know more than I do, but in the course of several discussions over several years, nobody has done so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest somebody with better professional experience than I attempt to contact Thomas. I wonder what he’d have to say. SurferSquall (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I do believe there is argument to be had that Noak is indeed an expert as mentioned, solely because of how much he has published and edited.SurferSquall (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Surely we couldn't use the sources on Planespotters.net's official source list? XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what we should be doing. The site's "most commonly used sources" are listed. I do not know how much (if any) material is specifically attributed to any given one. But where it is, or where we can track it down, we should be citing that source directly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

On paper that is possible, yes. But it is difficult. Take for example the FAA, whose reports are more often than not hundreds of pages in length; having organization such as Planespotters does makes it much, much easier to attain information. SurferSquall (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: @BilCat: @XtraJovial: @ZLEA: @Ckfasdf: I contacted Planespotters, and received a response from Thomas Noack (planespotters proprietor) directly asking "Is there anything in particular we can provide to help establish credibility/reliability?", as well as this link, which states "All pieces of information are evaluated by our experienced team of editors ensuring a high quality of all published records." Mr. Noack states he was unaware of the issue. Any ideas? SurferSquall (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. We need evidence that independent sources consider the website reliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Other users were concerned on whether or not information is verified before being added. It is hardly irrelevant. Perhaps I should ask for examples of their information being published elsewhere? SurferSquall (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Including planespotters' staff in this discussion is much like asking to the accusee for setting their own administration of justice.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You're acting as if this is a court trial. You yourself were inquiring as to whether or not it is a self-published source, and Planespotters' staff is about the best way to answer that question. SurferSquall (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't. Not at all. Not remotely. The decision is ours. Made according to our criteria. Based on evidence we can find ourselves - i.e. citation in other (reputable) sources - not on input from the obviously self-interested source. That is how it is done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet again I must state that zero, none, nothing of valid evidence has been found. Nothing. SurferSquall (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet again, you seem not to understand what is being asked. Since you are clearly in the minority here, and appear to have been in several previous discussions, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the source meets WP:RS criteria, as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It isn't down to others to prove that it doesn't. If you can't find such evidence, the source can't be shown to meet WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So it’s okay for you all to accuse it of being false and a fabrication without any valid reason for doing so? In what world does that make any sense whatsoever? SurferSquall (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I made no such accusation, and I see no evidence of anyone else doing so either. I am stating Wikipedia policy, which is that when reliability of a source is questioned, it has to be demonstrated. The onus is on you find evidence that Planespotters is being used as a source by other publications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The burden of proof is on those making the case for a claim. That is fundamental to any form of judgment. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one is "accusing" Planespotters.com of being false and a fabrication. However, we cannot just take their word that they are reliable. In what world would that make sense? - ZLEA _T\^C 22:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So, I've been watching this conversation for a while, and have been thinking about the point that AndyTheGrump has made repeatedly, which is (correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that one pretty reliable measure of whether a source is a reliable source is if other, widely recognized reliable sources also use that source, thereby lending credibility. That's easy to figure out by just searching for "planespotters" on scholar.google.com, and seeing if other, highly-cited research papers refer to planespotters as a reliable source. The results actually surprised me. In not really any order:

• Cox, B., Jemiolo, W., & Mutel, C. (2018). Life cycle assessment of air transportation and the Swiss commercial air transport fleet. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.10.017 cited by 60 other articles, uses planespotters.net
• Bazargan, M. (2016). Airline maintenance strategies – in-house vs. outsourced – an optimization approach. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 22(2), 114–129. doi:10.1108/jqme-08-2015-0038 cited by 26 articles.
• Caputo, A., Borbély, A., & Dabic, M. (2019). Building theory on the negotiation capability of the firm: evidence from Ryanair. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 240-262. Cited by 16 articles, but this only has a brief mention of planespotters, stating only that it was one of the sources of data that this study used.
• 'Seymour, K., Held, M., Georges, G., & Boulouchos, K. (2020). Fuel Estimation in Air Transportation: Modeling global fuel consumption for commercial aviation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 88, 102528. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102528 cited by 45, uses and mentions planespotters.net extensively.
• Jemiolo, W. (2015). Life cycle assessment of current aned future passenger air transport in Switzerland (Master's thesis, Universitetet i Nordland). A thesis, but cited by 19. PDF available through Google Scholar. Written by one of the authors of the first paper I listed above.
• Zhang, J., Fang, H., Wang, H., Jia, M., Wu, J., & Fang, S. (2017). Energy efficiency of airlines and its influencing factors: A comparison between China and the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.05.007 cited by 36. Uses planespotters.net as a data source in its work.
• Squalli, J. (2014). Airline passenger traffic openness and the performance of Emirates Airline. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54(1), 138–145. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2013.07.010 cited by 17, uses planespotters.net

I only went through the first few pages of results, and ignored any sources that weren't also heavily cited themselves. I did a quick search of the full articles either through PDF links from Google Scholar or through a well-known academic paper lookup service. While I'm not a fan of the argumentative style of debate of the editor who has been arguing in favor of keeping planespotters.net as a reliable source, I'm starting to think they may have a point. Comments? RecycledPixels (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As a scientist, I take the citation stuff very seriously. I really don't care what paper cited Planespotters. IMO, those papers should be withdrawn immediately, as they relied upon information published in a source that cannot be considered reliable. And here I go again with my reasoning: Planespotters bases their information in a number of sources, some of them blogs. Since blogs are self-published sources, then the circle closes. This matter is beyond Wikipedia. Separately, is anyone so naive to believe that the Planespotters' stuff would label their own site as not reliable?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

They haven’t labeled their site as either reliable or unreliable. In fact, in their email they stated that they were wholly unaware of this issue and had not run into it when working with any other publication. SurferSquall (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) It rather depends what Planespotters is being cited for. If it is data central to the findings of a scientific paper, certainly one can question the validity of citing it. Papers may well contain citations for incidentals, though. Or again, Planespotter might be used as a source for data not available elsewhere, but in a manner that makes it clear that it isn't necessarily reliable - just all that is available, or sufficient for preliminary research and tentative conclusions. Looking at the first paper cited for example (Cox et al.) the first dataset includes the following comment: Additionally, we read in a second group of data that has information for each of the planes in the above dataset. This data contains information such as number of seats, production volumes, etc. This data was gathered from planespotters and mostly wikipedia. Note that this is secondary data, but it's sufficient for the purpose. The authors of the paper (which is essentially predictive, concerned with future aviation developments) are using Planespotters & Wikipedia as sources, while acknowledging that the date is only 'sufficient for purpose'. The purpose being to make estimates regarding future trends. As to whether this is valid for this particular paper, I don't have the subject matter expertise to say.

Personally though I'd place more weight on evidence that Planespotters is being cited with any frequency in mainstream media, and specialist aviation publications etc, than in a few scholarly articles. We are asking for evidence of 'reputation', which can't really be shown through such a small sample. If it has an actual reputation, it is going to be found amongst publications covering a similar field. And from a brief Google (non-Scholar) search, I can't see much evidence of such publications citing Planespotters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope others hear will read what you’ve wrote and think. I also keep returning to WP:RSSELF which states: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”. I fail to understand how this and this alone does not end this discussion. Purely the amount of information on Planespotters more than establishes the “expert” designation, and as you have shown, information from Planespotters has indeed been published in reliable, independent publications. I’m still very surprised nobody can see my point here. SurferSquall (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood WP:RSSELF. 'Published' does not mean 'cited'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SurferSquall: When so many "don't see [your] point here", it's good sign that you need to step back and reevaluate your point(s) in a very self-critical way. I'd recommend starting by carefully re-reading all the policies and guidelines mentioned in these discussions, and determine whether or not your are applying them correctly to planespotters. We all have had to reevaluate our views occasionally, both on- and off-Wiki. I do realize that not being able to use planespotters as a source will make your work on Wikipedia much more difficult, but, honestly, that should never be a reason to use a source whose reliability has been questioned. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Keyword “questioned”. SurferSquall (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

“I do realize that not being able to use planespotters as a source will make your work on Wikipedia much more difficult, but, honestly, that should never be a reason to use a source whose reliability has been questioned” And that’s what I take issue with. It should be an atleast somewhat valid reason, because Planespotters has been in use on Wikipedia since Planespotters was created. After the relevant discussion took place in 2018, the issue was dropped entirely until Jetstreamer brought it up earlier this year. All of this discussion has taken place purely based off of Jetstreamer’s original misunderstanding of Planespotter’s terms of use page, when Planespotters had been otherwise used as a source for hundreds of articles. Digging through edit histories of pages citing Planespotters, I have seen not one single example of it being removed from a page because of any inaccuracies in the information sourced from it. Deprecating the largest freely available database of such information on the Internet is a massive blow to information availability, one that Wikipedia will never recover from. There are problems enough finding citations for information on Wikipedia, and if Planespotters is deprecated, it will be close to impossible to update information on relevant pages at a rate anywhere close to how it is now. SurferSquall (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Being the "largest freely available database of such information" does not make it exempt from WP:RS. The fact that many editors have mistaken Planespotters to be reliable is a far more serious problem than the need to "update information on relevant pages". - ZLEA _T\^C 03:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "...if Planespotters is deprecated, it will be close to impossible to update information on relevant pages at a rate anywhere close to how it is now" Then we shouldn't have such information on Wikipedia at all. Nothing prevents people from going to planespotters directly for that sort of information, as it's not a subscription site. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a specialist site like planespotters. As to your arguments about Jetstreamer's being the only one to bring up objections to planespotters, that's totally irrelevant, as others, myself included, have drawn our own conclusions that planespotters isn't a reliable source.for Wikipedia. Consensus can and does change, but it takes time. If the community eventually comes to the conclusion that planespotters is reliable enough, then fine. But there's no sign that it'll happen anytime soon. And to be honest, how many articles actually cite planespotters? Probably less than 50,000 out of nearly over 6.5 million articles, or less than 0.0008%. (Even 100,000 articles is only 0.0016%, assuming my math is correct.) That's not going to be a "such a massive blow ...that Wikipedia will never recover from" by any stretch of the imagination. BilCat (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Just my two penn'orth. According to SurferSquall a few paragraphs back, "zero, none, nothing of valid evidence has been found. Nothing." Which is of course precisely the point: no independent RS, no credibility. It boggles my mind that this guy does not grasp the implications of their own words. Somebody then posted some academic references. I have published a fair pile of distinclty not-peer-reviewed stuff on my own web site over the years, and some of those pages periodically find their way as references into peer-reviewed academic papers. I am afraid that it takes more than a few primary sources slurping your rants to make your site reliable - I should know! And so too should Wikipedia, as I have also seen it cited (though more often merely acknowledged) in such shoddily-researched papers. What we actually need is reliable secondary sources which make it explicit that they regard planespotters as reliable. And, as our lone and persistent maverick points out with some vehemence, those are sorely missing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Care to share these examples? Also nice of you to call it shoddish. Respectful. SurferSquall (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Are Planespotters citations fulfilling a useful purpose anyway?

Doing a quick sample, by searching for 'Planespotters' in article space, makes me wonder whether the way the source has been used on Wikipedia would actually be useful, even if 'reliable'. Take a look at the American Airlines fleet article as an example. It cites "American Airlines Fleet Details and History" from Planespotters twice - with two different retrieval dates. Needless to say, the link actually goes to the current database, making it impossible to confirm what it said at the time it was referenced. And then there is a link to a supposed "production list search" which leads to a 'Page not found' form, and a whole slew of truly bizarre citations labelled "Please verify your request" which needless to say lead to the same 'page not found' form. Absolutely none of these supposed citations perform the function they are supposed to - which is to enable a reader to verify what the article says is backed by a verifiable source. They aren't citations at all. They are vague hand-wavings at a database that might possibly have supported the article when it was cited. Functionally useless.

Or look at a second example, List of Boeing 737 operators: it cites Planespotters twice. The first supposed citation is to the front page of the website, while the second, supposedly "Production List Search - Planespotters.net Just Aviation" is a dead link. Again, not verifiable citations of anything, just hand-wavings.

A third example, Emirates fleet, repeats the pattern: a mix of links to the current database, and to dead links. Hand-wavings.

In summary, what we have seen in the examples is a mockery of what a citation should be. Not a means to verify data as presented in articles, but (at best) a link to an external database, with the implicit suggestion that even if it was right when it was cited, it is probably wrong now, so you are better off getting data from there. Which if it is correct, is a darned good reason not to keep 'citing' it in the first place. Wikipedia is not a database. An nor is it a mirror of one (which the Planespotters terms of use make it clear would not be appreciated). If the only source we have for data is an ever-changing database, we shouldn't be constructing articles around it. And we certainly shouldn't be filling articles with misleading 'citations' that verify nothing. Articles are supposed to be summaries. Not continuously-updated exhaustive lists. We don't do that. We can't do that. Regardless of how reliable Planespotters might be, it isn't being cited as a reliable source. It isn't, in any real sense, being cited at all, in the examples given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I do kind of see your point, but isn’t that an issue with how the citations were done, though? That’s hardly an issue with Planespotters, is it? SurferSquall (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I think that is a separate issue. It applies to all references, and is not specific to Planespotters. The fact some people aren't using referencing right has no bearing on the discussion on Planespotters being a reliable source or not. For instance I see references in other areas just to CNN.com, new.bbc.co.uk etc. Like any others, those should be removed if they don't support the claim that's being references but it is not to do with the actual site. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what exactly would a valid citation of Planespotters look like? The data is constantly changing, and there is no way to backtrack through it. Verifiability is at the core of how Wikipedia works, and none of the 'citations' I looked at above are verifiable. The only way verifiability can be achieved in circumstances like this is through archiving: we'd have to insist that the database itself wasn't cited directly, but instead that an archived copy of the relevant page was made with each citation. Certainly the problem can occur with citations to other publications, but not to the extent it is doing so here. Most citations to the BBC say are to static pages: stories that are published, and then left unchanged. Our article on the British Airways fleet cites a BBC article from 2007, and it's still available to validate the content it was being cited for 16 years later [1]. Linkrot can occur, certainly, but archiving sources like the Wayback Machine help out with that - but only to the extent that occasional snapshots are sufficient to preserve pages before they disappear. Archives aren't intended to backup entire rapidly-changing databases continuously, and they'd run into severe copyright issues if they ever attempted to. Given that requiring an archived copy for every citation of Planespotters would require explicit policy changes (one that might run into copyright concerns, given the bulk of data involved), and that the way the website is being directly 'cited' now runs contrary to WP:V, we can't just ignore the problem. Ultimately, this problem arises because we are attempting to use a constantly-changing source (of questionable reliability) as if it were a permanent record. A source that can't be verified isn't a source, for Wikipedia purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as a point, for years now I have been archiving every ref I add anywhere, just because stuff disappears from the internet all the time and it is easier to archive it when it still exists than hope you can find a copy later. I wish every editor archived refs as they add them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I think I'll start doing that. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail. Citations to pretty much any source must be taken on a case by case basis. A useful citation to Planespotters would look like any other useful citation to an unreliable source (which is permitted in certain narrow circumstances, such as an article discussing the nature of claims made by the source). Planespotters is not a special case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A changing data table shouldn't screw up a link, though, it's still human error SurferSquall (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Boeing 307 Stratoliner

As the wikipedia page correctly states the civilian double passenger deck airliner using the wing design of the B-29 was the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. But the military transport using the wing design of the Boeing B-29 was, actually, their C-97 Stratofreighter and NOT the C-75 as the wikipedia page says. The wing and tail feather designs of the Boeing B-17C were repurposed for both the Boeing C-75 and the 307 Stratoliner. Also the wing designed for the prototype Boeing XB-15 was used for their 314 Clipper flying boat as that wikipedia page correctly says. Sbrenerkener (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Best to use the talk page of the article that has the potential problem, eight different aircraft types have been mentioned. A Template:Dubious could be placed next to the questioned text with the talk page thread linked within the template. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Public Transit In Infobox- NOTTRAVEL or not?

Hi all,

Was having a discussion with @AirportExpert about this so thought I’d bring it here for more visibility. Recently, some public transit lines/access started popping up in a few info boxes (such as at LaGuardia Airport, for example). There’s no mention of public transit for the infobox over at Template:Infobox airport that I can see. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT also mentions “However, be careful not to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL by including detailed information about bus numbers, specific train services and the like.” It also mentions “Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so take caution when adding information about services/concessions, airline lounges, navigation tips, nearby hotels, and ground transportation options.” Does including this information in the infobox violate WP:NOTTRAVEL? Additionally, if we keep it, it may be a bit of a project to add public transit info to airport infoboxes considering how many airports worldwide are connected to transit systems. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC))

I think it's appropriate to list which transit agencies serve the airport, but minutia such as route numbers and locations of bus stops is a clear violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL because it's often difficult to properly source and it's subject to change with little notice. For busy airports that attract lots of editor attention, this isn't a huge problem, but such information is prone to becoming badly outdated if nobody is watching. Carguychris (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that these were added at LaGuardia Airport under the infobox parameter publictransit, but that is not a listed parameter in the Template:Infobox airport documentation. It looks like this parameter was added here on 14 April 2020, by User:Jonesey95 with the edit summary "add publictransit per talk page discussion". That discussion seems to be at Template_talk:Infobox_airport/Archive_5#Public_transit/parking, but all it was was one editor requesting it and and a template editor adding it, with no serious debate. Also the template editor wrote "Please adjust the documentation", which obviously was not done.

I agree that this infobox parameter runs afoul of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE and also adds too much clutter to the infobox and should be removed as a parameter from the template. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I support removing it from the infobox. Carguychris (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Either remove it or revise for an acceptable use, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the answers. Think for now remove and if we want to come back to it we can revise it then if this becomes a big discussion/debate. VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecating Template:Aircraft infobox

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_begin#Merger_and_deprecation, to which anybody who uses these infobox templates is invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 5 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Air Inter Flight 148#Requested move 5 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 10:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested Review at Draft:Richard James Waugh

Hi All, just wanted to ask for some help in reviewing a draft regarding an aviation historian (Richard James Waugh) to see what improvements I can make. The obvious lack of references are ones that I'm actively looking for. All advice appreciated. Thatusername96 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 135 Airlines as Charters in Destination Lists

Good afternoon. @VenFlyer98 and I have gotten into a bit of a disagreement over on the Nashville International Airport page on whether or not it is appropriate to label Part 135 charter carriers as charters in the destination list (in this case, Red Way, JSX, and Contour). The way I see it, they should be labelled as Charter, as there are subtle differences in the way they operate, not to mention substantial legal differences. They're legally charter airlines and the style guide makes concessions for charter labels on charter destinations, therefore they should be tagged as such, it's as a simple as that. I'll let VenFlyer post their reasons why they think that they shouldn't be listed as such. nf utvol (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested in the multile-article AfD, notified immediately above here and currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Midwest destinations. It is looking as if these list pages will shortly be deleted en masse. I would assume that in-article sections which cover the same ground would soon follow; that would certainly resolve you question! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't tracking on that AfD at all. Certainly seems to follow that the in-article destination lists would see the axe if the standalone destination lists are done away with. Will wait and see... Still would appreciate any thoughts anyone else has on the in-article status of charter airlines, just in case it's decided that those should stay in airport pages. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The in-article destination lists are fine. We go through this every so often, someone decides destination lists violate some sort of WP:NOT and gets a bee in their bonnet even though they're clearly encyclopaedic content in the same vein of train routes from train stations and are also frequently updated. The airline destination lists were arbitrary and often unsourced, while airport destination lists can usually be easily sourced to the point sources are only required for future routes.

While it's a primary source the Nashville airport does not include Part 135 airlines on its own destination list, so I would exclude them from the table. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a bad idea, however, the airport site does include at least one Part 135 charter operator (Contour). That being said, for the sake of consistency relying on the airport's own destination list might not be a bad idea. nf utvol (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, sorry for the late reply. @Nf utvol:, I've seen that AfD discussion a bunch, as mentioned above it seems to be brought up a bunch.

As for the 135 carriers, as stated before, should be an all or nothing scenario. Either we leave BNA's page alone and treat 135's differently, or add the charter tag everywhere they fly which I'm not opposed too, may just need some help since it's quite a few pages for some of these carriers such as Contour and JSX. Since they've been left alone for a while on some pages, I'm worried if we add the tags there may be some reverts from users not in the know which we will have to keep a look out for. Not opposed to adding the tags and also hoping no hard feelings with regards to your message on my talk page! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC))

Definitely agree that if we tag them as charter here, we need to do it everywhere for consistency's sake. Shouldn't be terribly challenging or complicated, just a bit tedious. If we all concur on that course of action (keeping JSX, Red Way, and Contour but tagging them as charter/seasonal charter), I'll get started this week/next week on tagging the route lists.

And no hard feelings at all! It can be difficult to convey tone on talk pages...I hope I didn't come across as condescending or ungrateful of your efforts to keep the page looking good. nf utvol (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:RNAS Lee-on-Solent (HMS Daedalus)#Requested move 11 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RNAS Lee-on-Solent (HMS Daedalus)#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

AFD notification

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations FOARP (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Tver plane crash

New article 2023 Tver plane crash. Needs work, and a better title. I've made a suggestion on the talk page re the title. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD for the List of large aircraft

There is a deletion discussion for the List of large aircraft at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large aircraft (2nd nomination). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by aircraft manufacturer

Hello, WikiProject,

I just came across this category that seems underpopulated. I'm not sure if there are any editors associated with this WikiProject who work with categories but it seems like this category should have more subcategories for relevant aircraft manufacturers if anyone would like to take on this project. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it is needed as most of the related articles are already in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think these can be sent for CfD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• At least one of those two, e.g. "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by aircraft manufacturer" or "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by aircraft". -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

New article!

I wrote the article Aeroflot Flight 200! If you guys could help me de-orphan it and suggest improvements that would be great. Thanks!

PlaneCeiling912|Talk:PlaneCeiling912 03:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@PlaneCeiling912: I note that you give the registration as"USSR-". We normally use "CCCP-" for Soviet aircraft registraions. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you; I will change that. I was using the Russian site for some basics and it must have translated it.

PlaneCeiling912|Talk:PlaneCeiling912 12:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sunan Shuofang International Airport#Requested move 2 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sunan Shuofang International Airport#Requested move 2 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1934 KLM Douglas DC-2 crash

I thought that all the main airplane crashes were covered. When starting a draft about a 1934 KLM crash, I thought it was an international airliner crash where all people were killed, nothing more notting less. However when reading old newspapers I was “happy” finding information that was not available in sources about the crash: that someone was selling illegally mail of the airplane. Later I found out about conspiracy theories of a possible shooting or hijacking of the crash before I found an 1984 newspaper article where a journalist got their hands on an unpublished cover-up official investigation report stating the KLM and the minister are responsible; as too many risks were taken and other risks ignored. Whauww. 109.37.155.228 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables

I have started a request for comments on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Planespotters...

Hello WP Aviation.

As I am editing Etihad Airways fleet and removing reference to planespotter, SurferSquall revert my edit and insist to keep Planespotters as source in Etihad Airways fleet. For context, Planespotters is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Common sources to avoid,as one of common sources to avoid Some questionable sources are frequently cited by inexperienced editors in aviation-related articles. Planespotters also have been discussed several time in WP and SurferSquall is also part of some of those discussion, such as first discussion on Planespotter in WP Aviation, Planespotter discussion in RSN and lastly second discussion on Planespotter in WP Aviation, and almost all veteran editor said it is not reliable source (mainly due to WP:SPS), except for him. And he claim that all of those discussion do not met WP:CON. So, should we keep Planespotters on article that already use them? Ckfasdf (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is a clear breach of consensus and amounts to WP:DISRUPTION by SurferSquall. I have posted a caution on their talk page. By the way, you should not have used no ping, you should have posted a link to this discussion on their talk page, as I have just done for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLANESPOTTERS clearly fails WP:CON. Multiple comments at the end of the discussion were blatantly ignored. You two insist it’s not a reliable source, yet you STILL fail to provide justification for this, instead choosing to continue to claim it as a self-published source- when this has been demonstrated by at least 5 separate editors to be false. In addition. Planespotters themselves offered to prove they indeed have a dedicated editing staff, to which you responded that “their opinion didn’t matter”. It seems, for some reason, you have some odd personal vendetta against this website for some reason. I continue to be baffled, to which i’m sure you’ll tell me im not competent to edit wikipedia. sigh… SurferSquall (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• This website is a self-published source but not a reliable SPS per WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is the more common situation. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  So what then makes it unreliable? The information is true, lol. You could go and find a specific inaccuracy in some data entry on there, but that's possible with every source of information on earth. SurferSquall (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the consensus does not make the consensus invalid. If you want the consensus to change, please present your arguments and allow a civil discussion to take place, and especially stop making claims of a "personal vendetta" against Planespotters (such claims are counterproductive). No one will tell you that you're incompetent unless you give them a reason to believe you are. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There's always going to be something on Wikipedia that an editor disagrees with. That doesn't mean they're incompetent just because they disagree. I'm sure every editor who's disagreed with SurferSquall can point to a major issue, either within WPAIR/WPAV or Wikipedia as a whole, which they strongly disagree with the consensus on. I have several. However, we still abide by the consensus as much as possible, even if we still work within the system to get that consensus changed eventually. But we can't be disruptive about it, or ignore the consensus and just do what we want. If we do, we're being disruptive, and can and should be blocked for it. SurferSquall you're getting very close to that happening. You have two alternatives to avoid that: Start abiding by the consensus, or stop editing Wikipedia completely. The choice is yours, but if you continue to ignore the consensus and be disruptive, you will eventually be blocked. BilCat (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus needs to change, then. This remains the most baffling series of discussions I have ever been involved in. SurferSquall (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The "personal vendetta" statement didn't come from nowhere. Steelpillow's dismissal of Planespotters is baffling in a sense that his tone, and the way he discusses it remind me of people with true personal vendettas.SurferSquall (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You can believe what you like about me, I don't care whose genitalia are bigger. But in your posts here you would be wise to respect our policies to assume good faith and make no personal attacks. Speaking of personal obsessions, you have now instigated at least five discussions on this topic and been outvoted every time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so here: Planespotters is a simple database of information. It exists wholly in order to provide this information to whomever may need it. Those who claim it is a self-published source do so because the "About" page lists the name of just one person. Thomas Noack, the name listed on said page, made it seem as if Planespotters does indeed have multiple editors working on it. Noack offered to confirm this on Wikipedia. I relayed this information to Steelpillow, who immediately shot it down claiming it didn't matter. It does, however, matter, as that would disqualify it from being a self-published source. Other editor's arguments against Planespotters mentioned that its sources were unclear. However, it does list where it gets its information (these sources primarily being the FAA, IATA, Transport Canada, etc.) to a HIGHER degree than plenty of more reputable, mainstream, news sources do. Another editor mentioned the website's images, which are indeed self-published items- however these are completely irrelevant to the data contained on the website. An additional editor, (I believe it was BilCat) mentioned the "correct data" button that appears on each page for an aircraft. He claims this button allows anybody to edit the information in the database- this is entirely false. This button allows a user to submit corrections to data that are thoroughly vetted by Planespotters staff before being added to the database. I know this, because I have done it myself on several occasions, submitting sources from elsewhere. I would be more than willing to request Noack come here and discuss this himself. SurferSquall (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody needs to confirm that the website they work at is reliable. Reliability is established by other means.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have updated WP:PLANESPOTTERS to redirect to a more recent RSN discussion with a clearer outcome. The consensus is even more solidly against the site. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did you close this? I have nothing personal against you. As per Jetstreamer- it was confirmed in another discussion that Planespotters has been directly cited in over a dozen academic papers. Steelpillow- the overwhelming majority of the comments in WP:PLANESPOTTERS are simply false. There's no other way to say it. They aren't true. SurferSquall (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point SurferSquall you're falling into WP:IDHT. The consensus is overwhelmingly against you in all these conversations, repeatedly. At this point you're passing over the point from discussion into being disruptive and refusing to drop the stick. You don't agree with the consensus, we get it, but at this point consensus is what it is and none of your arguments are overturning it. You have two choices. 1) accept that this is what the consensus is or 2) continue poking that horse endlessly and have other admins asked to intervene. Canterbury Tail talk 01:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your way of "discussion" here is unnecessary- I understand perfectly well that you don't believe Planespotters is a reliable source. However, your comments in WP:PLANESPOTTERS are quite obtuse. Remind me again why you care so much? SurferSquall (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Planespotters is not:

• a self-published source
• contributed to by random individuals
• made up

All of these things can be and have been proved to be false multiple times. SurferSquall (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, might I state again that Planespotters' own head offered to discuss this himself. SurferSquall (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This guy has proved deaf to WP:CONSENSUS and is still flogging his WP:DEADHORSE despite repeated warnings. He's even trying to rewrite history and brand archived discussions he doesn't like, here. I do now think it is time for the admins to move in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Remember when I said that people wouldn't say that you're incompetent unless you gave them a reason to? Well, tagging a discussion with a POV tag is a pretty good reason. It's clear that SurferSquall will not listen, so I agree that it's time for an admin to step in. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can always change. And it needs to. And i have the right by Wikipedia’s own rules to attempt to. So quit it with the threats you make because you don’t like my viewpoint. Might I mention you haven’t said anything about why you believe Planespotters to be bad. Only threats. SurferSquall (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@SurferSquall: IMO, you really should read WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf@Steelpillow@ZLEAYou all will make threats to me without even attempting to consider your own viewpoint. Not once in this discussion have any of you mentioned anything about why you consider Planespotters to be bad. I get that it’s been discussed before, but if you care so much, state it again. Discussion is impossible without the ability to clearly hear both side’s viewpoints. SurferSquall (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, people are not obligated to continually restate the same thing just because a single editor wishes to push the conversation against consensus. And demanding they state it again, when it's clearly documented elsewhere, is not arguing in good faith and is considered WP:Sealioning. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started an AN/I discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior from User:SurferSquall. Feel free to chime in. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Chengdu WZ-10

An editor with only 8 edits has tagged Chengdu WZ-10 for speedy deletion per WP:G11. Given the fact that Caker18, the editor who added the advert tag to the article in 2019, was blocked as a sockpuppet of DeepNikita, I'm wondering if there is a connection between this new user and the sockpuppeteer. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Very likely. I don't know how far back socking can be correlated. Anyway, I have removed the advert tag, as it does not appear to be appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Adoption of WikiProject:Civil Air Patrol as subproject or task force

Hello!

I've been working on keeping Civil Air Patrol related content updated on Wikipedia for quite some time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Air Patrol was created back in 2018, but only ever had one active member at a time. I came around much later after the project had gone inactive. I had marked it as active again for a little while, but was the only active member for about a year.

Seeing this WikiProject, I feel it may be more appropriate to incorporate into WikiProject:Aviation in some way. Either as a task force or one of the subprojects on here. As the sole active member on an inactive WikiProject, I know this probably sounds like a stretch. Much of the groundwork has already been laid in respect to assessment scales and page categorization.

Let me know what you all think!

Sorry if this wasn't the right place to put this, I'm still kinda new to how WikiProjects are structured. >.< Tsubasa-Minoru (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon further digging... It's probably better to join the US Military History and Military Aviation Task Forces and just be the person to do CAP related things, especially since there's not a standing group doing the WikiProject and it's pretty much just me anyways lol. Tsubasa-Minoru (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Accident" vs "Crash"

There is a discussion about the aviation usage of "accident" vs. "crash" here. Contributions, especially from admins, would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

{{IATA and ICAO code}} and {{#invoke:IATA and ICAO code|function}}

FYI Template:IATA and ICAO code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Module:IATA and ICAO code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wunghuang

We have a relatively recent editor, Wunghuang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is behaving badly. A profusion of dubious edits is part of it, a habit of creating awful stubs, having them moved to draft space, so promptly moving them back to mainspace, is another. Their talk page gets a lot of flak, which they frequently remove. I'd suggest we try to tame this guy, and if that fails, take them to ANI. I have already posted a warning on their talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display#Requested move 7 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display#Requested move 7 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

HESA Shahed 136

There is currently a content dispute over at Talk:HESA Shahed 136#GNSS between myself and another editor. Some more eyes on this would be appreciated. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Determining the future of B-checklists

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Nimbus227 came to my talk page to discuss the removal of the B-class checklist from your project banner. Just to give some background, it was decided at the beginning of this year that quality assessments should be shared across all WikiProjects rather than being maintained by each separate project. Therefore it made sense either to move the B-checklist into the banner shell (to be shared by all projects) or to remove it altogether. In the discussion linked above, the community chose the latter. The general view was that there are more effective ways to keep track of deficiencies in an article, by using maintenance templates, etc. If you let me know your thoughts on this matter, I can advise on possible routes forward. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

As "the community" has decided that because some edtiors can't be bothered to use checklists propoerly, then no-one must be allowed to, they have removed the ability to track quality issues. We should reinstate the checklists, and if that means breaking away from this core group who don't care about quality, then so be it.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on, surely we should give our important community experts the chance to maintain this Project's relevant articles through the maintenance templates they must be gagging to apply. I mean, they must know so much more about assessing quality in aviation articles that aviation project members do. But seriously, there ought to be room for both. Those who want to track universal quality issues should be free to use their universal tools of choice, those who want to track local topic-related quality issues should be allowed to use their local tools of choice. I mean, folks should just learn to step back and keep out of the way - and that includes lynch-mob "consensus". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a 'done deal'. For the record aviation article quality ratings follow the Wikipedia wide standards for each class, the B-class criteria are listed at Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria. It should be noted that these exact same criteria were in use via Template:WikiProject Aviation and each criteria populated a category where a particular criteria needed work. When these categories have been speedy deleted (because they have been emptied due to editing the WP:AVIATION template) there will be no way of tracking articles that need work. 'Supporting materials' means images mostly, there is another tagging system thankfully for aviation articles needing images but it relies on editors tagging the talk page. I can not understand how such a loss of hard work over many years has not been queried by the other projects, can only assume that they just don't care. I am truly baffled by this forced change. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we could legitimately add the checklist back to your banner, as an advisory checklist. It does not need to affect the overall class of the article, so would not conflict with other ratings on the page. (The only difference is that completing the checklist would not automatically change the rating to B, is that okay?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tags need to be removed from the six maintenance categories in the sincere hope that they will re-populate. The notice at the beginning of this thread is to a discussion, seemed innocuous enough and unimportant. The two next stages should have been to notify the projects of the new consensus (with proof) to give time for objections/opt-out etc and the next stage (assuming project agreement) would have been a notice saying 'this is happening now, there might be some disruption etc). Neither of these things happened. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge the class letter has always been input manually, the template has the feature of not displaying B class even if it is typed in if any one of the criteria is not met and marked as such, in those cases the template and navigation pop-ups display C class. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the way to restore the system that was in use is to restore Template:WikiProject Aviation to this revision [2], this would be following the WP:BRD principle. Whatever improvements or future necessities required for this template can then be added in a measured fashion with a brief explanation of what they were at the template's talk page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That would restore the categories. But the actual checklist was disabled in the meta module. So I will need to make an adjustment to that, to allow the checklist to be used in "advisory" mode. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever needs to be done to get the established system working again would be very much appreciated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have investigated removing the speedy deletion tags from the maintenance categories, according to the policy page there is supposed to be a 'contest this deletion' button in the speedy template but I couldn't find it. I assume that simply removing the speedy template is not the way to do it. Fingers crossed that the system is restored (repopulating the categories) before the seven days is up or they will have to be undeleted (if that is possible with categories). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fine just to remove the speedy deletion tags for {{db-c1}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have this morning tagged the maintenance categories as empty and not to be deleted as an administrator wanted to delete them again (messaged me via my talk page). We were using only five B class criteria, the sixth category is for articles with incomplete B-class checklist. I noticed that there is a checklist item that the project was not using and that is The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. I think that is very relevant and many aviation articles would fail this through 'enthusiastic editing'. I'm assuming that criteria would be included in the 'new' checklist, if it is I will create a category for it. I have placed many more aviation project pages and categories on my watchlist in the hope of detecting unannounced changes at an early stage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there any point in doing this if some admin will just delete them again?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added Template:Possibly empty category to the B-class checklist cats this morning which should prevent them from being deleted. Empty categories populate a list where they are lined up for culling, there doesn't appear to be any curiosity in to why these categories are empty. There's something much wider going on here which the project is unaware of, I've noticed changes to the appearance of project banners on talk pages but just thought it was some kind of tidying exercise. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This disruption has not yet happened at MilHist, the B-class checklist is still in use though with only five criteria, I guess the sixth has been added more recently. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because WP:MILHIST explicitly opted out of the Project-Independent Quality Assessment. (I think they also specifically rejected the sixth criteria previously). Perhaps WP:AVIATION should do likewise?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Good that the editors there were switched on enough to opt out, this project is also opting out through this discussion (unless there are objections which can be heard now). The sixth criteria (readability) and whether it ought to be used or not should be a separate discussion here, I believe that it is a good idea though there is the prospect of a category filled with every C/B class article because none would have been checked initially, editors could work together like we did with the MDN renaming push some years ago. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The B-class checklist has now beed added back to the banner, and all those categories have repopulated. They will not be deleted again. Sorry if you feel you were not adequately consulted on these changes. The meta module exists to serve active WikiProjects like yourselves, so do speak up if there are any other changes you would like. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, there was no communication about these changes that I was aware of (I watch most of the project announcement and talk pages) apart from the invitation to a discussion about potential changes above that appeared unimportant. We have very few editors maintaining project pages as the original architects retired from Wikipedia long ago and our single admin is on a break at the moment and they rarely get involved in project husbandry in any case (no criticism, just an observation). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose the effort was made to invite the project initially, and thereafter all the discussion and implementation was done in that central place. Your input would have been more than welcome. Personally I was a fan of the checklist and would have preferred to see it moved into the banner shell for the benefit of all projects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Prop design"

Prop design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently a redirect about stage props, though it seems to me that this could easily refer to an aviation or nautical topic. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Uncrewed/unmanned

A user has recently changed multiple instances of "manned/unmanned" to "crewed/uncrewed" across multiple aircraft articles. I've reverted a few, but then I saw that the changes were made to a much larger number of articles than I originally thought, including this borderline disruptive change to Aircraft. There was a discussion here in which we found that MOS:GNL does not mandate the use of the less common "crewed/uncrewed" terminology for aircraft. Instead of reverting every single change, I think it's time we establish a formal consensus for this issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The editor has agreed to self revert their changes. I still believe something should be done to make the consensus more clear, and I am open to suggestions on how to do that. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable in these areas, but maybe MOS:GNL could be specified? Another idea is to add an invisible note (WP:INVISIBLE) in relevant articles. xRozuRozu (t • c) 04:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion to update the project style guide at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Terminology:_manned/unmanned. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SimpleFlying

Hi.. There is a discussion about reliability of SimpleFlying on RSN. More opinions are welcome. Thank you. 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Ckfasdf (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Royal Canadian Air Cadets

Royal Canadian Air Cadets 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Help re a commercial air crash

Can anyone who edits air crash and related airline articles spare a few minutes? I was tagged in User_talk:Jetstreamer#Accidents/RAM/RJ this discussion but am not experienced with these articles. I think they'd appreciate some help. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Accidents/RAM/RJ per @Ckfasdf's suggestion not to spam another user's talk page. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Colombo International Airport, Ratmalana#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Colombo International Airport, Ratmalana#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Day the Music Died#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Day the Music Died#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Great Barrier Reef Airport#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Great Barrier Reef Airport#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX groundings

The scope and naming of Boeing 737 MAX groundings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for EVA Air

EVA Air 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boeing 737 AEW&C#Requested move 15 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes "seasonal" service?

Hi, all. Just asking for a little guidance.

I made an edit to Athens International Airport that I am now rethinkining. In the article, under Delta Air Lines, I moved "New York–JFK" to the "seasonal" line, citing this AeroRoutes post that reports "07JAN24 – 10MAR24 Seasonal service suspension".

As a general matter, I understand that routes that are only served for part of the year are marked as seasonal. However, after viewing a few other airport articles (e.g., Eagle County Regional Airport), I noticed there are other cases where service that is nearly year-round appears as year-round, not seasonal.

A user partly reverted my edit and explained, "Delta operated ATH-JFK till this month and has a pause in February resuming early March. Many year round routes don't operate in Q1, seasonal route means no flights in winter season." I totally respect this. I just want a little guidance on what is considered seasonal. As I understand it now, a route with a seasonal suspension is still considered year-round (i.e., as long as it serves the route for most of the year). Is that correct? Thank you. Precision123 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

With a double reserve: 1/ this subject matter is not my usual cup of tea; 2/ there will always be borderline cases, I feel inclined to agree with the reversal. I think "season" is, in this context, not to be taken as a calendrical part of the year, but rather as a type of passenger: a "winter" seasonal route might serve skiers, whereas a "summer" seasonal service might see beach-goers as its main users. There can also be religious seasons, the Hajj flights are the most prominent example. Just my opinion, though! Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ciampino–G. B. Pastine International Airport#Requested move 1 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ciampino–G. B. Pastine International Airport#Requested move 1 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Aviation Museums by Country Navbox

While working on creating aviation museum articles recently, I noticed that @Nimbus: has been adding a see also section with an internal link to the list of aviation museums to it. I appreciate the effort, but began wondering if a navbox might be a better way to handle it. To that end, I created a prototype in a section on my sandbox. Each section in the article is linked to an entry. Where subsections for administrative divisions exist they are placed under subgroups. I admit it might not be perfect, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks. –Noha307 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

May I be the first to WP:WHACK! you for pinging the wrong Nimbus? I'm not sure how useful such a navbox would be, as it seems that all the links are to different sections of the same page. A better alternative might be to split the list by continent, perhaps with some larger countries having their own lists as well. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I created the museum list in January 2009 and it has been added to museum articles as standard without objection ever since, I couldn't understand why it wasn't being added to recent new museum articles after I'd added it to a few, it could be taken as personal preference not to include it. The practise parallels the long-established use of List of aircraft engines in engine articles, List of aircraft manufacturers in company articles and List of rotorcraft in helicopter articles etc. , it's not a crusade or a personal preference on my part, just standardising page section layout and links to avoid arguments and make the articles more comprehensive. New editors become understandably confused when there are style/layout differences between similar articles and often come here to ask why.

Any navboxes would need to be locally focussed to keep the size down. I did create Template:British Aviation Museums which I think is a reasonable size and I have been considering creating one for Germany by state, there are currently 19 aerospace museum articles for Germany. Splitting lists is known as forking and list cruft, one editor (now blocked) unilaterally created about 10 lists from the aircraft engine list, they were all redirected back to where they came from.

There are of course clickable categories at the foot of each museum article, grouped in manageable numbers by country or state. I have seen categories linked in See also sections, while not the way to do it I could see the logic of highlighting that categories exist. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The sandbox navbox is acting as a table of contents instead of holding a group of related articles, I've never seen a navbox used that way and it would be quickly nominated for deletion, this project is watched and visited regularly by the 'navbox police'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked instead of just creating it. You're right. In hindsight it is an improper use of a navbox. Thanks for pointing that out. –Noha307 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess it just seemed a bit "generic" to be including in every see also section, but we do also have a "related lists" section in Template:Aircontent. I can definitely appreciate the benefits of standardization – its part of the reason I came up with a template for creating aviation museum articles. (The other reasons being it makes the process a bit quicker and ensures I don't forget to cover an aspect of the museum.)

I created a similar Template:United States Air Force Museums, so I know what you mean. I could see similar navboxes being made for Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States. –Noha307 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Doh! I guess I need to pay more attention next time! –Noha307 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Navboxes tend to get out of hand, They breed like rabbits and clutter up the bottom of more and more pages. The fewer the better. A "List X" link in the See also section takes up less screen real estate and less bandwidth. Both are one-click solutions to the bigger picture, so no inconvenience there. Stick with the link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

New Approach

Okay, so I've dumped the global navbox and replaced it with a section with national navboxes for Australia, Canada (nevermind, already exists), Germany and the United States based on Nimbus's British Aviation Museums template. Could I get everyone's thoughts on these?

Two issues in particular: First, what is the best way to handle defunct museums? For the United States Air Force Museums template, I created a separate group, but in this case it could quickly become crowded. Second, the United States box is a monstrosity, presumably the best way to break it down is by region like the British template above? (e.g. Midwest, Northeast, South, West, etc.) –Noha307 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Horrible. Clunky. Overkill. Duplicates information on the global list so adds a maintenance overhead - something Wikipedia already has problems with. Etc. etc. etc. Just add a See also link to the List of aviation museums. The aviation project even has a See also template with a subsection for list articles. Simples. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The navbox police don't like redlinks, any redirects will not display auto bold on the target page. The American box is very large, from WP:NAVBOX: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines:. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

On defunct museums, dead people, defunct companies, extinct species etc no special measures are needed to my knowledge, Wikipedia is a historic record as well as documenting current subjects. The lead section of a closed museum should note the status. Adding special sections to navboxes would be seen as a visitor guide against WP:NOTGUIDE, some museum articles have opening times, how to get there etc which also bends that guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten until now, but the other reason I was a bit hesitant to include a simple link to the list of aviation museums was because it seemed redundant if links to specific aviation museums were included. (For example, reasonable see also links for the National Naval Aviation Museum include Aeronauticum, Fleet Air Arm Museum, Fleet Air Arm Museum (Australia), Naval Aviation Museum (India) and the Shearwater Aviation Museum.) However, the aircontent template has allowances for both, so this doesn't seem to be a problem and I plan on including the list going forward.

@Steelpillow: I agree with you regarding the United States navbox and have deleted it. It is too big. However, navboxes for the Australian and German still seem very reasonable. My question then is: How do you feel about the existing British aviation museums and Canadian aviation museums templates? I understand that you're not a fan of navboxes, but both Nimbus and ZLEA seem to be in favor of limited national navboxes. Therefore, barring any further input I am inclined to be bold and create the Australian and German navboxes. –Noha307 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no one-size-fits-all answer. The problem is threefold: size, proliferation and duplication. Large navboxes pack too much information into too tight a space and themselves become an un-navigable wall of links. Excess numbers of navboxes collectively become a similar wall of largely irrelevant screen estate. Duplication of the same links in the article text, See also section and navbox is just another spaghetti interface to push aside when looking for something else: once is usually enough. There will always be times when these things do their job for the reader, but there are other times when they just get in the way. As a rule of thumb I'd say; if the navbox is too big to offer real clarity, go for a list article with more layout opportunities, if the list article is pathetically empty, go for a navbox, if there are too many navboxes then focus down on the most relevant two or three and be ruthless with the others. But that is just one editor's opinion. Hope it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Navboxes came into use for this project when the 'sequence' parameter was removed from the Aircontent template in 2008, old coding can still be found in articles. The new navboxes were created using the article's category members (e.g. Category:Scottish Aviation aircraft and Template:Scottish Aviation aircraft). To deal with exploding navbox farms there are shell templates that can collapse them, Template:Navboxes hides all navboxes and is in use at Supermarine Spitfire. Template: AircraftDesignationNavboxShell can be used to hide designation sequence navboxes (recommended if there are four or more) leaving only the manufacturer navbox visible, in use at Lockheed P-2 Neptune. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ICP Savannah

Our article on the ICP Savannah is heavily loaded with what I'd call "personal research" at least, though "a personal rant" might be nearer. I tried my hand at cleaning up, but found the task overwhelming. Who has more energy/courage? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Had a go. The whole rant was uncited so, true or not, it had to go. Tidied a bit more, too, still not brilliant. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, the article looks much better now. I had thought of moving the whole rant - and that is what it is/was! - to the talk page, but couldn't find a neat way, which explains my lack of success. This may well be a good example of rigourous action being most effective. We will now wait for reaction from the ranter - if any comes up. Cheers! Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Although we dont mention that the aircraft was originaly licensed built from Agrocopteros in Colombia, I have a ref somewhere I will try to find it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:North American P-51 Mustang variants

I've encountered a user at Talk:North American P-51 Mustang variants#Massive edits by Completeaerogeek whose behavior is raising all sorts of red flags with me. I would appreciate more eyes on this. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom

This list was recently moved to a new title, and quickly returned to its original title. I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United Kingdom#Recent reverted move. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

There has been a rash of Turkish fan/nationalist editing in the last couple of days, especially edit warring at Fifth-generation fighter. Eyes and opinions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gull wing#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gull wing#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox in jet fighter generation articles

There is a discussion at Talk:Fifth-generation_fighter#Infobox_type about including Template:Infobox aircraft type in generic articles on the various jet fighter generations. All comments much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

More input still needed to resolve the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wright brothers

Wright brothers 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Revived discussion at Talk:Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X

An old discussion has been revived. Feel free to chime in. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)