Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

What should be the main image for this article?

current image

The current image is too blurry and the image size is really small so it won't appear when you hover over the article name. Zaptain United (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Zaptain United Did you mean to post that at Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision instead of here? - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Also Zaptain United can you please WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're disruptively obsessed with changing the lead image in that article and are being generally disruptive around images all over aircraft and aircrash related articles all over the project. Canterbury Tail talk 23:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is right. Also, discussions about improvements to individual articles belong in the talk pages of said articles. You can post notices about such discussions here, but all discussion should take place in the appropriate talk page. - ZLEA ^TǀC 02:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright no more Mr. Nice Guy. I've done being patience and having to constantly wait and submit everytime. No wonder this quote age well. A few months ago I thought it was a exaggeration. It is truly this. "Yeah, if you ever try editing wikipedia, you'll find out that their community is the worst totalitarian shithole ever."

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/1708mtt/wikipedia_editors_are_the_worst/ Zaptain United (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I have calm down a little. I just can't hold my true feelings back on this. Zaptain United (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You are required to, per WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but building consensus requires patience. Sometimes it takes half an hour, sometimes it takes days or weeks. I think we all can agree that Wikipedia can be a bit bureaucratic at times, despite what WP:NOTBURO says, but that just means that things tend to work more slowly than we'd like. "Totalitarian" absolutely does not describe Wikipedia. No one person or group controls content within articles, and those who try often end up blocked. - ZLEA ^TǀC 03:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You know I have been trying to be patience. It all started with the short description where I wanted to build a consensus on whether to use "aircraft" or "aviation" and everyone just keeps insulting me for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#Aviation_does_not_mean_the_same_thing_as_aircraft.

I generally getting stalk on Wikipedia with editors keep following my contributions all the time. This image mess is with editors telling me to go the talk page were especially on obscure plane accidents, no one will respond. I than ping editors and get attacked for it. I than am told to place all my image suggestions here instead of the talk page. Now I can't do that either. I have conceded on many occasions, yet I am getting screw over. Also, for the Haneda images, the editors who ruled against these image changes have a vendetta against any image changes mainly edit that article and will be generally the only editors who pay attention to the talk page. It has been a few months since those discussions, and I am trying to get more editors involved. I keep getting attack no matter what side I am on. Zaptain United (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an example of me just getting screw over. A sockpuppet editor moved ValuJet Airlines Flight 592 to ValuJet Flight 592 in 2021. I move the bold text of the flight number in the intro to ValuJet Flight 592 to match the article name. @Doniago reverts my edit saying that Valujet Airlines is the correct title despite the article title being just Valujet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ValuJet_Flight_592&oldid=1307968006

They then accuse me of vandalism and threaten me with a ban despite the article already being name ValuJet Flight 592. I explain to them that "I was merely adjusting the article to fit the name. I actually prefer using ValuJet Airlines Flight 592." I change the article name to match the airline name after that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#August_2025

They then say it is nonsensical for blaming an editor who was actually a sockpuppet for my edits despite me basing my edits on their edit so I can match the title. They then say I should have ask on the talk page before making the edit, but the article was already called ValuJet Flight 592 for 4 YEARS so why would I think I need to seek consensus for this change when the article title was already changed. I than change the article title in his favor only to get promptly reverted by another editor not happy with me sastifying this editor's "request". I than go to the talk page to settle where the original title form 2021 is kept. Wow just wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ValuJet_Flight_592#Requested_move_28_August_2025 Zaptain United (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I really tried to remain calm and collected in this situation, but I generally kept screw over by this situation and having people try to insult my English? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zaptain_United#Aviation_does_not_mean_the_same_thing_as_aircraft Zaptain United (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see that users were insulting you over "aircraft/aviation". From what I see, they were just pointing out to you that the two terms are not interchangeable and were asking you to stop treating them as such. Also, if you think you are being unfairly followed across multiple articles, there are ways to deal with that. Keep in mind that tracking other users' edits is not always "stalking", as there are many legitimate reasons for doing it such as if an editor has made a string of problematic changes. It's also possible that editors aren't intentionally following you at all, especially if most of the articles where you think you've been followed are very similar in topic, as the editors might just be watching those pages. Accusations of WP:HOUNDING are serious, so it's important to assume good faith until it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the other editors are acting in bad faith.

Can you point me to an example of someone telling you to propose images on this page? I believe I told you that you could use this page to notify users of discussions, but I don't recall anyone telling you that you should propose the changes themselves here.

And finally, I assume you're referring to these two discussions. I see no indications that any of the involved editors have any sort of "vendetta against any image changes". All editors who opposed the proposals brought up reasonable concerns about the images, so to say they have a "vendetta" is assuming bad faith. On a side note, don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD if you believe one image is significantly better than the current image. While it's true that the images on some articles were chosen by community consensus and shouldn't just be boldly changed, that's not always the case. If someone disagrees and believes that the new image is not an improvement, or if you missed that the old image was chosen through consensus, then you may be reverted. If that happens, you should then try discussing the change on the talk page. This is called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

What's your thoughts on the ValuJet situation? I just tried to ignore that and move on, but this discussion has brought back memories of it back. Zaptain United (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem I see is that they are only reverting my image changes because I am the one who is changing the image. I keep being reverted by the same 2 or 3 editors.

Also, here is the discussion about image changes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303#This_image_is_way_better_than_the_current_one_for_an_image_of_the_aircraft._Could_we_change_it? Zaptain United (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Given what I've seen, I think Doniago was wrong to call your edit vandalism. Unless there's more context I'm missing, I find the idea that you "deliberately introduced incorrect information" to be absurd and and a major overreaction, especially given the fact that this "incorrect information" was the article's very title. There is nothing inherently wrong with making the article text consistent with the title, and if Doniago or anyone else had a legitimate issue with your edit, they should have brought it up instead of accusing you of vandalism.

The problem I see is that they are only reverting my image changes because I am the one who is changing the image. I keep being reverted by the same 2 or 3 editors. If there is no reasonable doubt that you are being hounded in that way, then you should read WP:DWH to learn how to deal with it accordingly. However, I'll reiterate that such accusations are serious and you have to assume good faith until it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they are acting in bad faith. It's possible, and I strongly suspect this to be the case, that these editors are simply regulars of aviation accident/incident articles and that they watch the pages in question. If you were being hounded, they would probably have followed you across many unrelated topics, especially topics to which they rarely contribute.

As for the Pakistan International Airlines discussion, guninvalid said I believe it would be more appropriate to post a message on WT:AVIATION (emphasis mine). That means you should use this page to notify members of the WikiProject about the discussion, not that you should start new article content discussions here. The only reason to have such discussions here is if the proposed change would affect many aviation articles rather than just one. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no interest in relitigating an incident from four months ago, but I'd encourage you to look at this edit, where Zaptain made a change to text that had been stable for months if not years without providing any edit summary. I might have given them a lower level warning for something like that, but their Talk page was already replete with warnings, including a warning for edit warring issued within the same month. If you want to call what I did absurd and a major overreaction then knock yourself out, but in context Zaptain appeared to be making significant amounts of unconstructive (and in the case of the one I reverted unexplained) edits, and an escalation seemed warranted. DonIago (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw that edit, and I have not seen any additional context that would justify your reaction. It wasn't the level of the warning you gave that was problematic, it was the fact that you misidentified the edit as vandalism. If Zaptain United was making significant amounts of unconstructive edits, then you should have given them the appropriate warning or confronted them about it in a civil manner rather than assuming bad faith. I too don't want to relitigate old incidents, but one must first acknowledge their mistakes in order to learn from them and ensure they don't happen again. I made a very similar mistake just last month, but I learned from it and used it to improve myself. Please consider doing the same. - ZLEA ^TǀC 06:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The last two results on the talk page have just been decided by the same 2 or 3 editors. I am just getting more opinions involved than just having the opinions of the editors who mainly edit that article. Zaptain United (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Boeing E-3 Sentry

Boeing E-3 Sentry 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) 04:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft § Should livery changes be mentioned on Wikipedia?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft § Should livery changes be mentioned on Wikipedia?. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox airline alliance § Removal of slogan parameter

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox airline alliance § Removal of slogan parameter. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Apsara International Air

The article Apsara International Air has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for a year. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Briefly existed, now defunct, without any airplanes.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SAM Intercontinental

The article SAM Intercontinental has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns and needing citations for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced. Defunct. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

 – Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Survey

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@Zaptain United, I created a survey section, please add a clear !vote there. Dw31415 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• COMMONNAME per @ZLEA

Dw31415 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Discussion

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

@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)

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)

Pinging @GalacticOrbits and @Borgenland. Zaptain United (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Personally, I've toned down my editing routine on Wikipedia since this RfC proposal was created, so my knowledge behind the whole regulation and subsidiary code sharing probably needs some touch-ups.

Nevertheless, what this discussion is trying to achieve is, long overdue, a standard for naming all aviation accidents for regional airlines that operate/market themselves under a major airline (primarily seen through flights in North America, occasionally in Europe, and seldom elsewhere), something that has not been clearly outlined at WP:AATF (I'm aware that it's not a guideline page, but it helps clear out confusion for naming most aviation article accidents). The term used in the industry for this is a "capacity purchase agreement," where major airlines provide the capacity (aircraft) for smaller regional airlines, with the regional airlines hiring crew members and the service, while the major airline is responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft. There have been numerous discussions with varying opinions, some of which include Colgan Air Flight 3407, Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, and the discussions up above. These discussions argue whether to value WP:COMMONNAME or to be more technically precise. The main issue with WP:COMMONNAME is that the common name differs for different events (see Colgan Air Flight 3407 v/s Continental Express Flight 2574.) and WP:CONSISTENT disputes like this happen time and again.

For future accidents, a possible make-shift solution to address both issues would be to initially name it with the brand name (when it receives maximum publicity) and once the heat dies down and legal proceedings take over (investigation, court hearings, etc.), we can switch it over to the airline name as official bodies would recognise the operator as the body that hired the flight crew and not necessarily the body that owns the aircraft (similar to how we don't use the lessor as the operator of the flight, say calling the accident Andromeda Leasing I Flight 3591 instead of Atlas Air Flight 3591) In this case, American/Delta techncially act as the lessors to PSA/Endeavor. I'm using my base as Comair Flight 5191, where Comair was held liable (as mentioned above) on grounds of crew negligence and inadequate training. The editors over here can be the judge for my proposal here and decide on how long to wait before renaming the page, but I think this rationale has substantial common ground.

Now regarding the accidents that have already happened, well, I'm not entirely sure. First let's get consensus on a solution and maybe then we can decide what happens to those articles. GalacticOrbits (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, is anyone else going to reply on this RfC? Zaptain United (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zaptain United, did you ever open the rfc with a template Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC Dw31415 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

No, is that why no one is replying here? Zaptain United (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The RfC tag expired a few weeks ago (Special:PermaLink/1325087091), though I’m not exactly sure this is ripe for a close with only one person voting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just close this rfc as no consensus and I think I will just do a RFC on the main article for the Potomac Collision to decide the name for Flight 5342. It will probably get more attention. Zaptain United (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this should be closed. Unless there is an objection, I’ll close this as withdrawn. Dw31415 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t get a chance to do it yet and next couple of days are sketchy too. Dw31415 (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

References

References

Requested move at Talk:Japan Airlines Domestic#Requested move 12 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Japan Airlines Domestic#Requested move 12 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tamale International Airport#Requested move 24 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamale International Airport#Requested move 24 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 12:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Requested move 24 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NATO phonetic alphabet#Requested move 24 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lodrino Air Base#Requested move 25 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lodrino Air Base#Requested move 25 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request relevant to this project: Heart Aerospace

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Heart Aerospace article. DrThneed (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request relevant to this project: AAR Corp.

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the AAR Corp. article. DrThneed (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Air Combat Group RAAF

Air Combat Group RAAF 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) 18:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Río de Agua de Vida Airstrip

The article Río de Agua de Vida Airstrip has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for over 17 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for 6 years and for notability concerns for 5 months. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Run of the mill Landing strip.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ElbaFly

The article ElbaFly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 6 years, and for Notability concerns for 5 months. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Defunct air supply company. A Google search found only one reliable news story – about their poor financial situation in 2010, 2 years before they went bankrupt. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Téra Airport

The article Téra Airport has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 17 years. Tagged as Unreferenced for 4 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. A Google search found only similarly named airports, and zero news or book references. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request relevant to this project: AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe article. DrThneed (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nannhausen Airfield

The article Nannhausen Airfield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for 16 years. Tagged as Unreferenced 2 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Fails the relevant notability guidelines.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident#Requested move 26 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1972 Sacramento Canadair Sabre accident#Requested move 26 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dortheys Hiyo Eluay International Airport#Requested move 21 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dortheys Hiyo Eluay International Airport#Requested move 21 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Content in aviation accident articles

Hello,

I happened to embroil myself in a discussion about content that can be found in accident articles, namely, "Reaction" sections containing statements by public figures. I think that I do not have enough knowledge about usual practices, I would like to learn about Wikiproject aviation customs.
The current point of contention is in Air Canada Express Flight 8646 / Talk:Air Canada Express Flight 8646#Response section is getting chunky. I have the opinion that "Reaction" sections with texts stating that some politician or other public figure expresses sorrow in regards to lives lost, states that some event is tragic or vows to commit any resource necessary to the investigation is, at best, meaningless padding for technological articles and certainly not really useful. When writing about aviation accidents, the points that matter are how, when, why and how to avoid in the future.
My view stems from the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)#Page structure, and, I admit, my repeated disappointment when encountering sentences that don't add anything significant for me to the subject "accident" and only feel like empty words.
Other editors hold the opinion that statements by major politicians have a place in such articles, especially, as worded by @Relton66 on the aforementioned Air-Canada-Express talk page, for accidents that happened in the 2020s.
I would like to learn about the stances of Wikiproject regulars about that matter. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody here willing or able to help me learn? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You could use the 16 aircraft accident Featured Articles as a yard stick. Beware that some may have had low quality input added after their reviews, if in doubt read the version that was stable immediately after promotion. They have been through a robust review process and should comply with the content specified at WP:WIAFA. Some articles have response/reactions and others do not, it appears (logically) to be related to the severity/enormity of the accident. United Airlines Flight 93 has a split off article at Reactions to the September 11 attacks in accordance with summary style.

I wouldn't do it myself but if you felt strongly that reaction text is of no consequence you could remove it, if other editors disagree it would be re-added. You can discuss specifics on each article's talk page and propose removal of certain text, a better way to do it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable source question - timetableimages.com

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#timetableimages.com_-_copyright_infringement. A source used in almost 1,000 articles. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 16 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 16 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers no longer in scope?

Are aircraft carriers no longer in scope (out of scope) of this project, again? (ie. aircraft carriers should be removed from this project) -- ~2026-21583-41 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be. I'd say a ship whose entire purpose is aviation is well within the scope of this project. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

DMAN

Please fix the issues tagged. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Uyuni Airport#Requested move 10 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Uyuni Airport#Requested move 10 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Flight levels and altitude unit conversions in aeronautical articles

While editing an article to do with civil aviation (Thai Airways International Flight 261), I came across a section that referenced flight levels without an explanation of what they were or any conversions to more commonly used units. I had two questions on the subject which neither the Wikipedia manual of style nor the Aviation WikiProject manual of style was not able to answer:

1. If an article gives an altitude in flight levels, should it include a conversion to altitude in feet, since that unit is more generally used in aviation?
2. Should altitudes in aeronautical articles also include a conversion to metres?

With regard to the current Wikipedia manual of style, I don't think that there is a question that articles primarily concerning aviation should use feet as the primary measurement when discussing altitude, since it states that articles should use "other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic." But I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to include a conversion to metres. On the one hand, it would be uncommon for altitudes to be converted to metres in aviation literature, but on the other hand, the conversion might be helpful for people who are less familiar with imperial units.

And flight levels also raises a question; it's very easy to convert flight levels to an altitude in feet, but only if you know what a flight level is, and "flight level" is not a common term outside the industry and the enthusiast community. I'll admit that I'm mostly here because I'm not a regular contributor to this project and I don't want to go around adding conversions and explaining what flight level is on different pages without knowing if there is already some kind of consensus on how that should be done. I do think it would be helpful to have some explanation of flight levels for readers who might not be familiar with aviation jargon. Perhaps a conversion to more familiar units could be included, or maybe a link to the Flight level page the first time the term is used (e.g. "The aircraft was flying at flight level 310"). There could be even be a template that adds an explanatory note explaining what a flight level is, though, as Help:Explanatory notes points out, such notes should be used sparingly for accessibility reasons. St4r1ight (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A flight level is an altitude in feet or metres using the standard altimeter setting QFE (1013 hPa) which is standard above the transition altitude or transition level. In countries that use feet, 7000 ft would be FL70. 20000 ft FL200 etc. In countries that use metres you would say Flight Level 18500 metres. Avi8tor (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It's QNE not QFE but otherwise, yes. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes to adding a conversion into feet for flight levels, assuming the source gives altitudes as FL in the first place. For example: "The aircraft was flying at flight level 310" (FL310, 31,000 ft)"; subsequent occurrences in the article could just use the 'FL' abbreviation, e.g. "The pilot was instructed to descend immediately to FL280 (28,000 ft)." No to adding a further conversion into meters, which is not particularly relevant in feet-using countries, and would overload the prose with figures and unit measures. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:EU aviation fuel taxation#Requested move 6 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EU aviation fuel taxation#Requested move 6 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow 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) 15:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Starfighters Inc#Requested move 3 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Starfighters Inc#Requested move 3 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Differing consenses on whether or not to include pilot names in crash articles

There is consensus to exclude pilot names on many articles, but a consensus developed to place the names of the deceased pilots in the article for Air Canada Flight 8646. Other articles, such as Lion Air Flight 610, do name the pilots. Is there a policy or guideline to use for cases like this? Obviously WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME, but in my opinion, nothing is substantially different between the pilots of Jeju Air Flight 2216 and Air Canada Flight 8646. It might be helpful if there is a clearer guideline to point to in these cases. guninvalid (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Commonsense would say to me that if the crash was the fault of one or both of the pilots then there is maybe justification for naming. Otherwise, if they're innocent victims along with the passengers and other crew then there is no reason to name them. So in the case of both the above linked I'd say they shouldn't be named. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's relevant in either case. Either way that would run up against WP:BLP1E guidelines, either through WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:VICTIM. guninvalid (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I always thought that it was common practice to name (at least) the crew involved in the accident/incident if their names were available and verifiable in reliable sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Same, though that may have been a byproduct of the crash articcles I tended to read. There always tends to be a pre-incident section that at least mentions who was manning the aircraft. DonIago (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Where flight crew have performed exceptionally, they are generally named (Gimli Glider, BOAC Flight 712, British Airways Flight 009). Where they have messed up, they are commonly named, but this is an area that should be taken on a case by case basis. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I brought this topic here because for the articles I've worked on, it seems to be the opposite, as in the examples I listed. Would it be a good idea for WP:AVIATION to write a brief Wikiessay regarding this? I'd be happy to write a first draft, if there's any interest. guninvalid (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As a strawman for us to discuss further that would be a very good idea. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "strawman"? guninvalid (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course - see Straw man proposal 10mmsocket (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus proposal A: Crew members, alive or dead, fall under normal WP:BLP1E guidelines. As such, until the 1.5year post-death cooldown expires, their names should be excluded unless they would otherwise be included by WP:BLP1E.

Consensus proposal B (more in line with this consensus here): Where the crewmember's name is particularly well known and they played an extraordinary role in the accident, they should be named. This extends both to incidents of extraordinary acts of heroism and to incidents where the crew is deemed at fault. In other cases, their name should remain excluded.

I don't anticipate either of these proposals being the working guideline or Wikiessay, but hopefully that gives everyone some places to start from.guninvalid (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe this subject is more governed by wiki-wide guidelines. If the crew names are frequently used in reference sources then they should be added, British European Airways Flight 548 (all crew have a paragraph, flight deck crew mentioned throughout), Munich air disaster (both crew mentioned in the lead section and have their own articles) and Kegworth air disaster (crew have one paragraph and are mentioned throughout). It would be an omission not to name them, especially at Featured Article level (comprehensive...neglects no major facts or details), in theory all articles should be written with the goal of FA promotion in mind, if they are not progressed through the ratings then at least they are well written and sourced. On the flip side, if the crew names can only be found by digging deeply into sources then that would be an indicator of whether they should be included or not. I don't think an aviation project guideline would work, guidelines are not compulsory and editors often ignore them (human nature not to be told what to do), it could also be deemed instruction creep. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Nimbus so far, but I'd like some clarification. Where does the "1.5 year post-death cooldown" you mention come from? Such a cooldown is not mentioned in WP:BLP and I have never heard of such a thing. I don't think it's a good idea to make up hard cooldowns for policies that were not intended to have them. - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I swear I remember reading about the 1.5year cooldown somewhere. The idea being that we still give someone the BLP treatment up to 1.5 years after their death, but I can't find that guideline anywhere so we can probably strike that part out. guninvalid (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Particlarly well known" is particularly ambiguous wording and seems like very WP:POV language. I support Nimbus's argument that if they're named by reliable sources then it's acceptable to name them within an article discussing an aviation incident in which they were involved. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You're think of WP:BDP, which says that for the recently deceased BLP "can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside" - note the use of "can" as opposed to "must". Read the full text at the link for context. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to diverge from normal BLP criteria, including WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. In other words, only name the crew if they are widely named in reliable sources, and only if inclusion of the names actually adds significant value to the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Notes

Talk:United_States_UAP_files#UFO_or_UAP_in_article_title_and_wikivoice

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

MH 370 "presumed" dead

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that may be interest to members of this project. See Talk: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Stop removing presumed. guninvalid (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 19 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Sydney International Airport#Requested move 19 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Aerodrome

With a few more sources, this will be a B-Class article. Please add reliable sources to this important article. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atlantic Excellence

The article Atlantic Excellence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreference for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced article about a defunct joint venture.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)