Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AVIATION)
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(13 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(12 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Aviation Safety Network as a Reliable Source

[edit]

(Starting this discussion here for max awareness since the Accidents task force talk page is effectively dead.)

I'm considering taking Aviation Safety Network to the WP:RSN to determine if it should be listed as "Generally Unreliable" or "Deprecated". On the surface it appears as though use of this widely cited source is a clear violation of WP:USERGENERATED. Per ASN: This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. Most entries have some level of sourcing, but it's often limited to a publication name with no other identifying information other than, sometimes, a date. Their own disclaimer indicates they have little to no editorial review of information posted on their page. Thoughts? nf utvol (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to sending it to RSN, as I too am skeptical of its reliability. However, there should probably be a clear distinction between the ASN Database and Wikibase, as they almost certainly would have differing levels of reliability. - ZLEA TǀC 19:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought the same, then I realized that there does not appear to be a functional difference in the Database and Wikibase. For instance, looking at the most recent (as of today) entry in the Database section, a Learjet 55 Runway Excursion in Caracas on 24 September, versus the Wikibase section, a Mi-8 Damaged by FPV Drone in Ukraine on 29 September. The links for both are to the Wikibase, even though one is included in the Database section and the other in the Wikibase section. Both have the same disclaimer noted above. The comingling of the information and the matching disclaimers seems to me to indicate that neither the Wikibase or Database should be considered reliable sources nf utvol (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the database/wikibase dichotomy seems pointless and rather confusing, but not all content on the ASN is user-generated. Take for example the article on United Airlines Flight 232: it has no 'information added by users' disclaimer and above all no 'Edit this accident description' link at the bottom, so it presumably comes from the ASN editorial staff, and that article is far from the only one of that type. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely are correct in the observation that not all content is user generated, it's the unclear nature of what is and is not user generated that concerns me. It looks like the main method of determining whether or not something is user generated is through the disclaimer. Another database article (here) does not have the user generated content disclaimer, but does solicit information from users. I am curious if, were someone to submit information, that would change, and if that solicitation ages off after a certain time period. Regardless, it is not clear what level of verification the organization conducts on user submitted information. The article linked above also only cites the FAA database for the aircraft information, a track from ADS-B Exchange, and an image in JetPhotos; it is not clear where the information on the gear-up landing took place.
Point is, I think it's worth cautioning users about this source considering that it is clear that user-generated material is used in a large portion (perhaps a significant majority) of entries, and in many cases it is unclear what is user-generated or submitted, and what is not. I've used it myself in the past, and it's arguably one of the most prolific sources of information on aviation-related articles, but it seems like it needs more scrutiny. nf utvol (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an irregular contributor to ASN, I can testify that user contributions (like my own) are validated and edited by the site's management before publication. So I think there is no purely "user generated content". Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to RSN, let's have outside eyes take a proper look and get consensus. (And yes I'm for deprecating it) 10mmsocket (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ASN database is reliable. It has editorial oversight. Accidents on the Wikibase should be treated as a source of sources - i.e. use the quoted sources to reference, rather than the Wikibase itself. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ASN entries should be judged on a case-by-case basis. We have some entries which are reliable, like those cited to final reports, studies, reliable sources... and then we have those where no sources are cited, those with unreliable sources, those where the (user-generated) content is bad... I wouldn't mind ASN being brought to WP:RSN where there would be more discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OAG Flight Guide Worldwide

[edit]

This publication is cited thousands of times on Wikipedia. It might make for a nice article. See WP:JWG and WP:MWG for guidance on how to write journal/magazine articles. It not an article, it might also make a good addition to its publisher (OAG (company)?) or some other article where it could be section-redirected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that the printed guide will no longer be printed from December. OAG online continues. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding maps to Aircraft Occurrence infobox

[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to add maps to the infobox 'Aircraft occurrence'. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer: Apply WP:AIRCRASH airplane crash articles as well, but only for commercial aviation

[edit]

I've started a discussion on WP:AIRCRASH regarding whether this general consensus should be applied to aircraft crash articles themselves as well. Please chip in and help refine the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Asamboi (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju Air Flight 2216 - Length of first paragraph

[edit]

Moved the original discussion from Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216 to here:

Does the first paragraph of Jeju Air Flight 2216 really need to be that long? A majority of it needs to be moved below. The first paragraph should be short and simple, not a detailed description regarding the accident flight. The first paragraph should be something along the lines of (Airline) Flight (flight number) was a scheduled (type of flight) operated by (airline) from (flight origin) to (destination). On (date), the (aircraft model) operating the flight (short description of the occurrence). (Number of on-board fatalities and other fatalities). --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 23:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name?

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force
 – Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name?

  • American Airlines Flight 5342 (IATA name)
    • Consistency with sources including the NTSB, NY Times, and Washington Post
    • Brand recognition of American
  • American Eagle Flight 5342 (Branded name)
    • Ticketing and passenger experience
  • PSA Airlines Flight 5342 (ICAO name)
    • Operational and legal accuracy

The same question applies to the recent Delta accident:

  • Delta Air Lines Flight 4819
  • Delta Connection Flight 4819
  • Endeavor Air Flight 4819

All follow the style of <airline> Flight <flight-number> as described in the [conventions section]

Should the title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the ICAO name? Zaptain United (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice inconsistency between article names for aircraft accidents where an airline is operating on behalf of another one. There is dispute on what airline should be used. I wanted to end this dispute after especially seeing the dispute on 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision Zaptain United (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, this is specifically about how the flight number is stylized within the article itself, not the title? Article titles should use whichever is the WP:COMMONNAME used by reliable sources. It is my opinion that for articles that use the flight number as its title, the article itself should be consistent with it. However, I don't currently have an opinion on which style should be used on articles such as the above example, which are not titled with a flight number. - ZLEA TǀC 03:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to solve which airline to use for the title. Like there was a dispute on the Potomac mid air collision article on whether the Flight 5342 should be called PSA Airlines, American Airlines, or American Eagle in the article? It is mainly a problem with these regional air carrier crashes Like Comair Flight 5191 or Colgan Air Flight 3407. Zaptain United (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I change the title to be less confusing cause I am talking about which airline should be used in the title not the flight number. I copied this from someone's draft RFC on this topic. Zaptain United (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In that case, it should be whichever is the WP:COMMONNAME used by most reliable sources. - ZLEA TǀC 18:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem is a title dispute right after a crash and there is dispute on what the title should be for a crash where a airlines is operating on behalf of another one and sources vary in what they called the crash. Zaptain United (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think the best course of action is to wait until a clear common name emerges. WP:THEREISNORUSH after all. If a reasonable amount of time elapses and there is still no clear common name used by reliable sources, then it's probably worth tackling on a case-by-case basis. - ZLEA TǀC 03:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaptain United, I created a survey section, please add a clear !vote there. Dw31415 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMONNAME per @ZLEA
Dw31415 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Option 1 if that's how the NY Times, Washington Post and other WP:RSs do it, unless/until there's a better WP:COMMONNAME. That said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper so waiting an hour for the media to pick a name might be the best choice in practice. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 17:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that calling this an "American Airlines" flight would be a bit misleading since American Airlines does not operate the Bombardier CRJ700 series of regional aircraft. "American Eagle" is only how American Airlines markets itself as a regional carrier but doesn't necessarily "operate" a flight. I remember reading the article of Comair Flight 5191, where Delta couldn't be held liable, since Comair managed its own flight crew and pilots, even though Comair was a complete subsidiary of Delta Air Lines. It's likely that the same may apply here, although news reports read that family members of the victims are suing both American and PSA for the accident.
In the preliminary report, the NTSB almost never makes mention of American Airlines, or American Eagle for that matter. The lead paragraph remarks that PSA Airlines operated Flight 5342, with no mention of American Airlines whatsoever. Only later, does it mention that PSA Airlines is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American.
Zaptain United (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Adding space for discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United, thanks for creating the RfC, I remember there being extensive discussion on this at both the talk pages for Delta Connection Flight 4819 and American Airlines Flight 5342 (IATA name). I think it's important to ping the editors from those discussions here as part of RFCBEFORE. I could maybe do it next week, but I suggest caution in requesting close without that step. Dw31415 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the draft of the RfC from my page so you could at least make sure to ping those editors. Draft RfC on my talk Dw31415 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GalacticOrbits and @Borgenland. Zaptain United (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not that well-versed in the acronym soup or their regulations. In my private opinion it's the actual livery that matters unless a consensus of reliable sources say otherwise. Borgenland (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Importance rating for Suwalki Airport

[edit]

Hello! Please could this article Suwałki Airport get an importance rating for wiki project aviation? Thank you! Cubingx (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cubingx WikiProject Aviation doesn't do importance ratings. We only provide ratings based on quality. - ZLEA TǀC 18:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Cubingx (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Egyptair or EgyptAir?

[edit]

The main article has the lowercase a while all the accidents have the upper-case letters. Most sources refer to the airline with the capital a. Should the main airline article be changed to have the uppercase A in it? Zaptain United (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably use EgyptAir. It's probably better to keep the convention the same, particularly if it's the WP:COMMONNAME. guninvalid (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay Zaptain United (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Egyptair#Requested move 8 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Egyptair#Requested move 8 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:1990 Wayne County Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1990 Wayne County Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:1983 Madrid Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1983 Madrid Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2001 Linate Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2001 Linate Airport runway collision#Requested move 9 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Air Greenland

[edit]

Air Greenland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2025 Turkish Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash#Requested move 11 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Turkish Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash#Requested move 11 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash#Requested move 14 November 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash#Requested move 14 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RSN on FR24, FlightConnections and Flights From

[edit]

Morning all (or good timezone) - I've started a discussion at WP:RSN#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? for the three sources listed, for the simple reason that there's been a bit of back and forth between various editors on numerous talk pages, so I felt it was time to get a consensus one way or the other at the appropriate venue. Just to note that I'm not trying to get them deprecated, rather I just want clarity on whether they're reliable or not for the sake of stopping the arguments. Danners430 tweaks made 11:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can Admiral Cloudberg be considered a subject-matter expert?

[edit]

Hello! I am posting today regarding a specific writer who I believe should be assessed by editors of the Aviation WikiProject. A little while back I was introduced, by @Wasianpower (thank you!), to the work of Admiral Cloudberg (Kyra Dempsey), an analyser of aviation accidents and a script writer for YouTube channels such as Mentour Pilot. Cloudberg's work, which can be found here, is of exceptionally high quality. I had the pleasure of reading Cloudberg's article on British European Airways Flight 706. Not only does the article go into intricate detail on the internals of the aircraft, in this case a Vickers Vanguard, and the problems that led to the tragic crash, but it is written in a way that is digestible for a reader who may not know much or anything about aviation terminology. This is something even I have struggled with when writing for Wikipedia. Whilst Cloudberg does dramatize a tad, it is well within reason for what I would personally expect of a reputable news outlet reporting on an accident such as BEA706, and goes into far more detail.

I am aware that Medium is not considered a reliable source, however I am here to ask whether Cloudberg could be considered, as RS/PS states, 'should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.' I would argue that Cloudberg is definitely a subject-matter expert, and if an editor were to cite one of her self-published articles in an aviation article on Wikipedia, I personally would not oppose it. I encourage you to read some of Cloudberg's articles if you get a spare hour (yes, some of them are that long!), as they are brilliantly written and are very engaging! Please let me know your opinions. This is not an RfC, so whilst a consensus can be formed here, it won't be binding in any way. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804 - Wikipedia
There was a lot of discussion about whether to use Admiral Cloudberg's articles for EgyptAir Flight 804 and it was decided to not use her content since it is a self-published source. I think the only articles you can use from her are at Southeast Asia Globe. However, there are only 2 of her articles on there.
Kyra Dempsey - Southeast Asia Globe Zaptain United (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello everyone. I have intentions to nominate Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 as a GA so I've been making major changes on the content in my personal sandbox. However, when I was using the Earwig tool to review copyright status, I saw that it's really high. However, most of it is from the National Transportation Safety Board and content from them is usually in the public domain, and that the highlighted content is in the public domain in this case, so I was wondering if I really need to worry about that or no? Also, another major source Earwig is highlighting is the ASN wikibase article about this accident. However, comparing my sandbox with the ASN wikibase, it's fairly obvious that the content Earwig is highlighting from the ASN wikibase is a direct copy-and-paste from the NTSB final report, just like these ones. So isn't most of the content Earwig highlighting a false positive? Thank you. 00:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content Earwig flagged, the ASN source is fine; it is just the probable cause—which is properly cited from the NTSB and in the public domain anyway—and some stray words. The NTSB source on the other hand does seem to have significant sections that are the same. While yes this is fine since NTSB works are in the public domain, it would be ideal to add a {{NTSB}} template at the top of the references section with a link to the NTSB website (see the template documentation for more details). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB template is already in the References section so I guess that's all then. Thank you for this. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1324607123"