Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 83: Line 83:
:There is no 'row over list formats'. Instead there is a row over whether [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] apply when describing a non-flying machine (per mainstream RS) that pre-dates the Wright brothers as a 'flying car'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]])
:There is no 'row over list formats'. Instead there is a row over whether [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] apply when describing a non-flying machine (per mainstream RS) that pre-dates the Wright brothers as a 'flying car'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]])
::See what I mean? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
::See what I mean? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:::See also the discussion at WP:FTN, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Inclusion_of_Gustave_Whitehead's_alleged_1901_machine_in_a_list_in_our_article_on_'flying_cars'] where "There is no policy that forbids it" has seriously been offered as an argument for including such policy-violating nonsense. And see here [http://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/whitehead.html] for what the motivation for it appears to be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a fringe perspective rejected by mainstream historians. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:42, 5 November 2022

Shortcuts
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

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

View full version (with review alerts)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



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

Electronic conspicuity

I've noticed there appears to be no article about electronic conspicuity. Airborne collision avoidance system confusingly lists some of them (confusingly because ACAS itself is a specific type of EC system - https://www.eurocontrol.int/system/acas - which refers to the same system known as TCAS).

The term appears to be mostly used by UK CAA and EASA.

Is it possible that the article exists under some other term I'm not aware of? There seems to be Category:Aircraft collision avoidance systems, but no article.

Sources:

PaulT2022 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closest page is probably Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast which is a specific type of "Electronic Conspicuity". Scare Quotes as, speaking as a pilot and flight instructor, I've never heard the phrase before today. ADS-B is a specific technology though, while your links appear to describe the class of all electronic aids to conspicuity.

Between TCAS, ADS-B OUT, and primary radar, that basically covers the range of current technologies for "EC".

I guess I'd start wondering whether it meets the criteria for a new article - is it WP:N, WP:V, to start with.

It's a rapidly advancing field, driven in large part by the mass deployment of drones into airspace shared with aircraft. Technology and terminology is working to catch up. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that all the sources for "electronic conspicuity" are British, hence this may be a British English term for something known by a different name on my side of the pond. @Ahunt: have you heard anything about this term? BilCat (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the term is not used often in North America. This British CAA item pretty much covers the subject. The last section "What is Electronic Conspicuity?" gives an overview. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an American term that covers ADS-B/ACAS/FLARM/etc? PaulT2022 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any similar blanket term here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up until very recently, we haven't really needed a blanket term for them. ADS-B is still being introduced and many aircraft don't have it. TCAS is pretty much airlines only. I'm suspecting that an Electronic Conspicuity article might be too soon. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks everyone for the feedback. I've removed split template and instead added sections to Airborne collision avoidance system to eliminate confusion between ACAS and other CASs, as well as added a brief passing mention of the EC term. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2022 Longmont mid-air collision

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Longmont mid-air collision. - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal - Discussion at Talk:Advanced Landing Ground - Merge Advanced Landing Ground in Advance airfield

I propose merging Advanced Landing Ground into Advance airfield. I think the content in Advanced Landing Ground can easily be explained in the context of Advance airfield, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Advanced Landing Ground.  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Advanced Landing Ground. --Bero231 (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus on stating / removing routes between the EU and Russia

Hello everybody, I've noted that there are ongoing edit wars regarding the removal of routes between Russia and the EU the reason being their full suspension due to EU sanctions since March 2022. Now there seems to be no concensus how to handle this and the content is currently inconsistent:
1) some of the routes have been removed entirely (e. g. after Aeroflot publicly stating to not expect their resumption anytime soon)
2) some are still stated as operating (which is the worst of the three possibilites in my opinion) and
3) some are still stated with a "(suspended)" remark.
For the sake of consistency would it be possible to reach a concensus here how to display these? The same applies somewhat for routes to Ukraine which have been suspended as well. Best regards. 2001:A61:105E:1201:D22:CF02:5A08:5329 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources

We have a growing list of questionable (i.e. unreliable) sources for aviation on our Resources page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Questionable sources. I have posted an update on the state of play and would appreciate any help in purging the remaining cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There is a move request at Talk:Shahed 149 Gaza#Requested move 4 October 2022. - ZLEA T\C 14:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of aircraft

A row has erupted over our list formats, specifically what to include in each list. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft which needs more contributions to make the WikiProject's position clear and assess some proposed changes that would affect many of our lists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'row over list formats'. Instead there is a row over whether WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV apply when describing a non-flying machine (per mainstream RS) that pre-dates the Wright brothers as a 'flying car'. AndyTheGrump (talk)
See what I mean? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also the discussion at WP:FTN, [1] where "There is no policy that forbids it" has seriously been offered as an argument for including such policy-violating nonsense. And see here [2] for what the motivation for it appears to be. Abuse of Wikipedia to promote a fringe perspective rejected by mainstream historians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=1120195583"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy