Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 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 · · discuss

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(3 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(7 more...)

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



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)[reply]

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)[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]
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

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]
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)[1] 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)[reply]
Hey, is anyone else going to reply on this RfC? Zaptain United (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
No, is that why no one is replying here? Zaptain United (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ "NTSB Aircraft Registration Inquiry". ntsb.gov. 30 November 2025. Retrieved 30 November 2025.

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Discussion for Airports of Milan

Hi! I've drafted an overview of the Milan Airport System (similar to Airports of London or of Berlin) to cover the integration and recent statistics of the three international airports. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft here: Draft:Airports of Milan. 21mis (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article talks of the Milan Airport System, but gives no evidence for such a "system" existing. It just talks about individual airports. It mentions 4 airports, but then only maps 3 of them. Additionally Simple Flying is not a reliable source per WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh I missed the simpleflying link. I'm surprised people still add it given that it pops up a warning when saving an article with simpleflying.com URL inside it. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments here or on the draft's talk page? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created Airports of Milan. Thank you for the feedback and edits. 21mis (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of 2025 IndiGo disruption into IndiGo

See Talk:IndiGo#Proposed merge of 2025 IndiGo disruption into IndiGo. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303?

Which image is better? The current image has too much unnecessary background detail while the image which I would like to add addresses this issue and places only the aircraft at the foreground. It's also newer (pictured in 2017 while the current infobox image was pictured in 2016).

Current image

Suggested image Zaptain United (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested image fits the consensus for a left-facing aircraft on a clean background. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am asking here after looking at this thread
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) 14:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "unnecessary" about the 2016 image. It does have some other stuff, but there's nothing "unnecessary". And why does it matter if the image you're proposing is newer? It doesn't make logic or sense. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New image The background is less distracting. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how objects in the background are distracting. Absolutely no one had a problem with the 2016 image until someone decided that a couple of buildings and an extra aircraft (Dash 8) were "distracting". It's not that hard to distinguish apart an Airbus A320 with buildings and a Dash 8. And the proposalist keeps saying the proposed image is newer, but I'm yet to see why should we care about that. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA, @Echoedmyron, @Ternant 728228, @4meter4, @11WB, @Grffffff, @Jahndah, @Katzrockso, @SportingFlyer, @Kelob2678, @TheRealWoofwoof, @The Bushranger, @4300streetcar, @Deeday-UK, @Tigerdude9, @Thebaldball, @Carguychris, @Just a teenage railfan
Need to finally settle this once and for all. This is taking too much of my time. Zaptain United (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zaptain United, I'd appreciate it if you'd actually address my points instead of introducing purely personal opinions and simply pinging other users. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to change it. The PIA 320 is still the main focus in the first photo. Just a teenage railfan (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3rd time, I don't want to be involved in picture changed. TheRealWoofwoof (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the current has less blocking livery than suggested one. Shaqil (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accident/incident notability?

Are there any notability on accidents / incidents? I just read newly-created United Airlines Flight 803 which is about an incident yesterday. Essentially, an aircraft took off, one of the engine cowlings fell off, then it landed safely with no injuries and no further damage. To me it looks like the very essence of trivial and certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. I haven't CSD'd or PRODded it yet but I'm tempted. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd nominate it for deletion. Seems like a WP:COOKIE and WP:NOTNEWS. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone beat me to it. Thanks @Hacked! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 803 if anyone else is interested in saving/deleting it. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed style guide addition for lead images

I have proposed an addition to WP:AVISTYLE that would populate the currently empty WP:AVIPIC section with advice on choosing lead and infobox images for aviation articles. This was suggested after a recent discussion to change the lead image of Airbus A330, where it was brought up that the selection criteria we've been using (aircraft facing left, clean configuration, clear background, etc.) are not formally written down anywhere and cannot be linked to. The proposal is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aircraft infobox image proposal, and I'd like to see what everyone thinks about it. - ZLEA TǀC 20:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop whoop pull up

Any idea about the copyright status of a GPWS, and if it would be {{PD-ineligible}}, any idea where to find a good recording? Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any real recording of a commercial system would be copyright ineligible. You could try searching Creative Commons. Dw31415 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't know. Are the words 'pull up' really above the threshold of originality? I'd certainly be willing to argue in court that they aren't. And if an image of a PD painting is PD, then surely a recording of a PD sound is PD. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important discussion on JetBlue 292

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:JetBlue_Flight_292#Can_We_Change_the_Image_Now? Zaptain United (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pegasus_Airlines_Flight_2193#Could_(sic)_we_change_the_main_aircraft_image_to_one_of_these?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pegasus_Airlines_Flight_2193#Could_(sic)_we_change_the_main_aircraft_image_to_one_of_these? Zaptain United (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove thepointsguy.com from the spam blacklist

This project's editors may be interested in:

Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we change the image for Philippine Airlines Flight 475?

The first one has a more distracting background and has worse lighting than the below one. The below one has a green calm background and has better lighting. Zaptain United (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the wreckage photo for Singapore Flight 006?

The tail section image is used way more in new sources and media and is a better representation of the crash than a bunch of jumble up pieces of the forward fuselage. It also stand out more by sticking straight up and showing the sheer scale of the damage and how big it was.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1001189.stm

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/the-deadly-mistake-that-changed-singapore-airlines-forever/vi-AA1Q8UmA

https://taketotheskypodcast.com/singapore-airlines-flight-006/

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2000/11/02/0000059580

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/local/archives/2001/05/05/0000084449

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/wrong-turn-at-taipei-the-crash-of-singapore-airlines-flight-006-61128fc6b8ee Zaptain United (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tail section isn't as significant as showing what happened to the passenger areas of the plane. People don't sit in the tail section like that. Much better for the reader to see the devastation to the passenger areas. Additionally that image isn't used in any of the sources you listed above. Canterbury Tail talk 23:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tail section is a passenger area. Majority of the passengers that survived were from the tail section area. The links I show do feature the tail section as the main image even if it is at different angles. Zaptain United (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the image for Pegasus 2193?

Asking here after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pegasus_Airlines_Flight_2193#Could_(sic)_we_change_the_main_aircraft_image_to_one_of_these? Zaptain United (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Good article reassessment for TAM Airlines Flight 3054

TAM Airlines Flight 3054 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. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be counted as ground fatalities or ground injuries?

When counter-terrorism units, police officers, or troops storm hijacked aircraft and get injured or killed, should they be counted as ground fatalities or ground injuries? Like for example the 9 GIGN injured in the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969?

@ZLEA Zaptain United (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There not part of the initial occupant number which includes the hijackers. By the way, should the occupants amount include the 4 hijackers since they never boarded as passengers but as police? Zaptain United (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. Ground fatalities/injuries generally refers to people who were counted as occupants of the aircraft, so unless there is an existing precedent saying otherwise, I think they should be counted as ground fatalities/injuries. - ZLEA TǀC 05:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help me with the occupant numbers of Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206? The occupant's number are inconsistent and sometimes don't count the hijackers. Also, they count that Indonesian troop that died as part of the occupant's number. I really am confused. Zaptain United (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait are saying the GIGN should be lumped in with the standard injuries number or put into the ground injuries category? Check the article if you don't understand what I mean. I am confused by your commment. Zaptain United (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The GIGN are not counted as part of the total occupant number so readers could be confused on why they are counted in the injuries section and not into the ground injuries. Zaptain United (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of the Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 numbers because they are not cited anywhere in the article. I can't fix the numbers if I don't know how many of the passenger count were actually passengers and how many were commandos who boarded after landing. Also, I said the GIGN should be counted as ground injuries. - ZLEA TǀC 16:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source that said there were 48 passengers and it names the 2 pilots. If we count the 5 hijackers, then it would be 55 occupants. This is not counting the police officer. Would this be correct?
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2016/03/28/08595961/28.Maret.1981.Pesawat.Woyla.Garuda.Indonesia.Dibajak Zaptain United (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_648# because the occupant and fatality numbers are all over the place. Zaptain United (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, the three Egyptian Security Service agents on that flight were indeed passengers. The infobox appears to be accurate, though I've added an occupant count and removed some excessive detail. - ZLEA TǀC 00:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's correct. While the source does state there were 48 passengers and two pilots, it's unclear if the passenger count includes the hijackers. There were probably also more crew members, such as flight attendants, that are not mentioned. - ZLEA TǀC 00:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all- this is an issue I've noticed over the past several months on Wikipedia. Recently many editors have been quick to form AFDs for aviation-related articles, instead of improving them; or electing to delete articles that meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. We should only be deleting articles which really need it; there have been far too many completely unnecessary AFDs related to this Wikiproject. All that leads to is lost information and content. We should be focusing on improving articles; not focusing on deleting them. We need to preserve and improve the content we have instead of rushing to throw it out. It's sad, to be honest. Electricmemory (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

· I'd encourage you and anyone else who has thoughts about this question to share them on the [RFC on airport destination lists]. Mpgviolist (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus (disambiguation)

A DAB page, Airbus (disambiguation), has been created by a new user. Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airbus (disambiguation). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous deletion of destinations from airport destinations lists

The creator of the RfC on airline destination lists, who believes they should not be in the encyclopedia, has caused a lot of destruction to the airport destination lists by removing all unsourced content citing WP:BURDEN, instead of adding citing citation needed tags which would allow us to keep the verifiable information until it gets cited. The most recent mass removal which I just noticed today was to Mexico City International Airport, but it has occurred in other airports as well including Frankfurt Airport.

If you have a few moments, please consider restoring and sourcing the information in these destination tables. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash#Requested move 10 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2017 Valan International Cargo Charter Antonov An-26 crash#Requested move 10 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2017 Valan International Cargo Charter Antonov An-26 crash#Requested move 10 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: Cambodia Airways

Cambodia Airways, which was (apparently) founded and controlled by the recently-disgraced Prince Group scam center syndicate, has been the subject of a slow-motion edit war to remove evidence of these links. Please chip in at the article/Talk page if you can assist. Asamboi (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my perspective: the discussion is already taking place on the article’s Talk page, and I’m happy to continue working toward consensus there. My edits are based on core content policies such as WP:RS, WP: V, and WP: OR.
I’m not trying to argue here; my only aim is to ensure that the relevant policies are applied correctly and that content discussions remain on the Talk page, where they belong. If needed, I’m open to seeking wider input through WP:3O or other dispute‑resolution processes. AeroLatitude (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mode control panel

This article has been tagged for no sourcing since 2009, and has been unreferenced since 2007. If anyone can add sources, I would appreciate it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Junkers Ju 87#Requested move 11 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Junkers Ju 87#Requested move 11 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 00:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review: Human Intervention Motivation Study

I've opened a peer review for Human Intervention Motivation Study, the FAA/ALPA program coordinating treatment and monitoring for aviation professionals with substance use disorders. The article covers the 2023 National Academies findings on program effectiveness, testing protocols, eight legal cases, and international expansion. Feedback from WikiProject Aviation members would be appreciated. ~~~~ LumenStoneEditor (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article is strictly US-related, and though this is clearly mentioned in the lead, my preference would be to see this reflected even in the article title. On a sidenote, there is a mention "United States" in full, I seem to remember we have a consensus to spell "US" instead. But on the whole, the article does look quite good! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan olieslagers: Thank you for the review and kind words!
On the title: While HIMS originated as a US program in 1974, significant international expansion has occurred in recent years—the article documents adoption in Hong Kong (2016), New Zealand (2019), Australia (2020s), and emerging European interest. These international variants operate under the same HIMS name and model. Given this trajectory, a US-specific title could become misleading as the program's geographic scope continues to evolve. The lead's identification as "a U.S. aviation program" and the dedicated International expansion section seem to adequately contextualize the origin while acknowledging the broader reach.
On "United States" vs "US": Good catch—I'll review the article for MOS compliance and standardize to "US" where appropriate.
Appreciate the quick feedback! LumenStoneEditor (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Second Sydney Airport#Requested move 20 January 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Second Sydney Airport#Requested move 20 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 02:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AV