This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Aviation: Aircraft This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This page is supported by the aircraft project.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Bombardier Aviation aircraft § Anachronism. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After a few recent disputes, I was wondering if livery changes should be mentioned in the caption? I think they should be mentioned especially when the livery is completely different. Take for example Air Illinois Flight 710, where for the longest time it had an image of the plane in the green and blue livery, but it crashed in the red livery. I will accept not including "previous livery" in the caption if that is the consensus, but I think even if it goes that way, we should maybe carve out a exception for if there is no pre-crash image of the aircraft in the current livery like Air Canada Flight 797 and still seek to replace the image of the aircraft in the previous livery on the article. Zaptain United (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject cannot grant consensus, one way or another, for a wide range of articles. They can give their thoughts by all means, but it has no authority. Wikiprojects don't have power or authority and are not an accepted level of consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where do you want me to take this issue to get consensus? Also, every one of these aircraft accident articles are under the WikiProject Aircraft banner so I think it makes sense to have it here. Zaptain United (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I do it at the infobox instructions. Zaptain United (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like if the livery has been changed, then it's probably fine to mention it. However your recent "previous livery" captions haven't been in previous liveries, they've been in the same livery with perhaps a different nosecone or a symbol on an engine. That doesn't constitute a different livery. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe the previous livery isn't the perfect caption, but I would still like to mention the symbol change in some way. People use Wikipedia to see what the aircraft looked like and they will base the animation on what the aircraft involved photo would look like. The Mayday episode for Air France 447 features Groupe Air France instead of the Air France KLM group in their animation. But, I would like to get other opinions from other editors who are no involved. I don't think your opinion should count since your the one who is reverting everything. Zaptain United (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that the average Wikipedia reader looks at aircraft accident articles for details on changes of livery. And you don't get to decide who's opinions count if you are in a dispute with someone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United, in this context, 'livery' is generally understood to mean the broad color scheme and graphics of the aircraft's exterior. Adding a barely noticeable logo on an engine nacelle does not constitute a change of livery. And in the context of an article such as Air France Flight 447, these kind of details are irrelevant. The caption in question already says that the aircraft's image predates the crash by two years, so the reader is already clued that the aircraft's look at the time of the crash may have been slightly different. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the situation on ValuJet Flight 592 where the aircraft had black skin on the aircraft foward section before it crashed? Is that enough of a change to be mentioned? Zaptain United (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same. That area painted black is not even part of the livery; it's not decoration: on some aircraft types, if the livery includes white or light colours on the nose, that area is sometimes painted black to reduce the glare from the crew's point of view. When you say 'livery', think of what is painted on the aircraft's tail and fuselage, basically. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original question, no. The aviation project has a particular problem with excessive detail in image captions, the wiki-wide guidance is at MOS:CAPTION. The key word there is 'succinct' (brief and to the point). It might be helpful to read the guideline on alternative text where the only text provided is describing the image and not factoids related to it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nimbus and Deeday-UK. This is an example of passionate enthusiasts debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an enthusiast publication. Stating that the photo was taken five years prior to the crash is enough. We don't need to state that it was later repainted and refitted with an Elesco feedwater heater and Walschaerts valve gear. (Am I getting my enthusiast vehicles mixed up again?) Carguychris (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless the livery change is exceptionally notable, it's not worth mentioning. - ZLEA ^TǀC 16:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not new news, but I recently came across some articles that are still linking to the amazing serial number database from https://JoeBaugher.com (where he was creating a database/operation history of every tail number from the US armed forces). Sadly, Joe passed away in 2023 (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/joe-baugher.62512/, https://www.crouze.com/baugher/), but another community member picked up the torch by both mirroring Joe's site, and continuing to accept input and corrections from the community.

So for example, https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1960.html is now found at https://www.crouze.com/baugher/usaf_serials/1960.html

I'm not active enough on the wiki to know the policies for such a change, but it seems to me that it would be sensible to update links to their new location as opposed to archive links, due to the ongoing nature of this historical preservation. Rafaelloaa (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was some debate whether Joe Baugher was a reliable source during the F-4 Phantom Featured article review back in 2008, not sure if that has changed. There are Baugher citations in the F-4 article post-FAR. If he is not deemed a reliable source then there's little point in editing the citation links and they would need replacing with an 'approved' source. I fought for the case to use him as a source back then. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]