[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

(9 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(8 more...)

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



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

Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition

[edit]

I have nominated Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is planehistoria.com a reliable source?

[edit]

https://planehistoria.com/ publishes quite a lot of aviation content, but I see many red flags, including a general lack of bylines, absence of listing sources, lack of photo attribution, lack of editorial, and lack of contact information. None of these signal unreliability per se, but taken together, it looks bad to me. What do others here think? Do we have anything conclusive one way or another? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update -- I also note very many copyright violations for the images on the site. It makes extensive use of CC-licenced images from Wikimedia sources but does not attribute them, and also republishes images that appear to be under copyright and not have any free licence, eg this photo taken from here (note the copyright notice in the footer). --Rlandmann (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the site and noticed the exact same red flags you did (lack of bylines, no sourcing, no attribution, etc.). I also noticed that the writing just seemed off, so I some randomly selected segments of various articles through AI detection services (GPTZero and Detecting AI). Though I cannot vouch for the accuracy of either service, both stated with high confidence that the text samples were written by generative AI. AI detection might be spotty at best, but it's another data point. I'd recommend adding this to WP:RSPSS if consensus is reached that it is Generally Unreliable or should be Deprecated.
I would support having it listed as Generally Unreliable due to the lack of attribution, sourcing, and what appears to be extensive use of generative text, or Deprecated if substantial amounts of incorrect information can be found. nf utvol (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Nice catch with those tools. Not definitive of course, but I tested them out on some texts of known provenance, and they seem to work well. I also noticed this weird article which not only includes an obviously untrue headline, the article body doesn't make any reference to that extraordinary claim. This itself reeks of AI! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. To the other problems I'd add that it is a mix of reporting, history, discussion and opinion, with no clear dividing lines between them. A useful source of gossip to follow up, but nothing more. (FWIW, Deprecation is a formal process and not really worth pursuing for minor cases like this one). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is acig.org aka Air Combat Information Group a reliable source?

[edit]

I did a source check on a recent edit to Dassault Mirage F1 and ran across this archived site. Quick search on the Googles suggests that the original website lost its .org domain 15± years ago and some content was moved to a .info domain, but updates ceased circa 2020 and most of the former pages are no longer linked. The dial-up-friendly formatting, 31337 H4X0R color scheme, and lack of notes or citations virtually screams WP:USERGENERATED Usenet project. Seems extremely sketchy but I'm curious if anyone out there knows anything different. Carguychris (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bits of the overall site are written by published authors, like Tom Cooper - [1] (with some being extracts from works published elsewhere), and might be able to pass WP:SPS, while other parts of the website (such as the page you linked) don't have an identifiable published author and definitely don't count.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. No editorial oversight. Only cited quotes from RS can be trusted, but then you have the RS so you don't need the BS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion here. It wasn't completely dismissed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reliability of airdisaster.ru

[edit]

Another reliability question! This time about airdisaster.ru, which is cited nearly 600 times on various articles. It's cited so often that I opened a discussion over on the Reliable Sources noticeboard if anyone wants to weigh in. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning initial survivors/fatalities on template:infobox aircraft occurrence

[edit]

Should the aircraft occurrence infobox include initial survivors/fatalities of aviation disasters in brackets? I've noticed that some articles include it and some others don't. Scs52 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. At least some of those edits we're seeing on accident articles are just vandalism with made-up numbers, such as this edit. Even if the numbers were valid, there is no reason to include them in the infobox. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Musical groups or artists" section in Fatalities list

[edit]

Should the list of fatalities from aviation accidents include duplicate entries for notable musical artists in both the "Individuals" and "Musical groups or artists" sections? I would prefer to consolidate all of them in the latter section. Join the discussion on the Talk page. Carguychris (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of [Aircraft Name] operators

[edit]

Do the lists showing up in Category:Lists of aircraft operators by aircraft type belong in Wikipedia?

I haven't checked all of the lists appearing but most of the sources either come from the aircraft manufacturer (such as Airbus or Boeing), come from WP:PLANESPOTTERS, Airfleets which is similar enough to Planespotters or, but not limited to, sources only talking about a specific operator ordering x aircraft. From what I've been able to find, there really aren't any sources talking about who operates x aircraft which does fail WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, these lists have always struck me as a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE, but they contain some useful information despite this. I suggest more uniform inclusion criteria and formatting. Carguychris (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very generally speaking, I think WP is completely saturated with all kinds of possible and less possible lists. For myself I never consult them, so I find them ALL unnecessary and thus a waste of resources. But that is only me, of course. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Aeroflot Flight 31 (1955)#Requested move 7 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aeroflot Flight 31 (1955)#Requested move 7 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Göring has an RfC

[edit]

Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Airfleets.net

[edit]

I've noticed that Airfleets.net is used in almost 600 articles on both accident articles involving the aircraft's history and fleet data. And it can be said that it also bears some resemblance with Planespotters. Its disclaimer page – [2] – states: "While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, Airfleets.net makes no representation as to the accuracy of, and cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors, ommissions, mis-statements or mistakes within the pages of this web site or on other web sites which may be linked to this site from time to time. [...] " I'm also wondering where they get their information from and if there is editorial oversight over the published data. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, it doesn't appear to be WP:USERGENERATED like Planespotters. The disclaimer alone is likely not enough to consider it unreliable as it appears to be purely for legal purposes, but the lack of cited sources and information on their editorial oversight (or existence thereof) is enough for me to lean unreliable. - ZLEA T\C 16:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to tell for sure; there is no "About us" type information to know what checks they make, and I can find no Internet chitchat about its reliability. According to WP:SOURCES, we should "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In the absence of such a reputation we must, per questionable, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires." So, while it may or may not turn out to be questionable, we cannot currently accept it as reliable. This is just one of an ever-growing cascade of dodgy sources which our Aviation hangers-on espouse. In my opinion we need an aviation-wide crusade against all this crap. Sadly, I no longer have either the time or the energy to follow that through. Hey-ho. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Maharaj_International_Airport#Requested_move_13_August_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flightsfrom.com

[edit]

is Flightsfrom.com a reliable source? It is a website that shows a list of which airport has flights to which destinations operated by which airline, they can be a source for adding new routes on airports and list of airlines destinations articles, word of caution: it is a independent source,and it is not a booking website,however, this website sometimes may lack in information, this website only shows nonstop destinations from a specific airport, for an example: Qantas and British Airways operate London Heathrow-Singapore-Sydney flights, however,when you open London Heathrow, it does not show Sydney as a destination, same thing from Sydney, it wont show London Heathrow,also, if a certain route with two flights sections has no fifth freedom route on the second section: KLM's Amsterdam-Taipei Taoyuan-Manila flights has no fifth freedom route between Taipei Taoyuan and Manila, but when you open Taipei Taoyuan-Manila flights, it will show KLM is a operator, and once again, from Manila, it does not show Amsterdam as a destination. Also updated are monthly and not constantly, so if a new route/route change/route discontinuation was announced during or slightly before the update, it may take a longer time to update. Metrosfan (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, to clarify, this source sometimes give false information on routes that's seasonal or are temporarily suspended for a while, also this website won't show if a charter flight is a charter or not, it will be treated the same as a normal flight Metrosfan (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 12 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Total Express Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Total Express Linhas Aéreas#Requested move 16 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New categories involving aviation accidents

[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Aviation,

An infrequent editor just created some new categories under the parent category Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by type. They include Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by auxiliary equipment failure, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by clear air turbulence and Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by metal fatigue. They are not well populated and I hope by posting this message, those editors who are knowledgeable about aviation accidents can either help populate them with appropriate articles or nominate the categories for deletion or merging at WP:CFD if they are redundant to existing categories. Thank you for any help you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the user's category creations, I believe these are all their recent aviation accident/incident category creations:
A lot of these seem oddly specific and unlikely to be useful, so I would not be opposed to CfD. - ZLEA T\C 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1241881984"