Talk:Beechcraft Super King Air/Archive 1

Archive 1

Specifications for KA350?

I was reading the article and noticed that although there is a specifications section for the B200, there is none for the B300 and King Air 350. Is there a specific reason for this? And if not, could I add this section to the article? -Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If this version has significantly different specifications, I believe it'd be worth to include them as well. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason why there are only specs for one variant: The WPAIR page content guidelines specify only one variant is to be used for the specs, usually the most common one, or one that is most representative of type. Every once in a while, you will see two specs templates in one article where two variants differ widely, but it's not the norm. If the B300 is more of the middle ground between the B200 and 350, then I've no problem changing the specs to that variant. - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a fast response! :) Thanks for the guidance Bill, I was unaware of that guideline. Is there any appropriate way in WP to give more detail (other than listing & brief description) about the variants of an aircraft and its specs? Maybe in an article of its own, separate from (but linked to) the main article about the aircraft? Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Some articles have so many variants with histories of their own that pages like P-51 variants: specifications, performance and armament are created. In this case, I believe that the 300/350 is different enough from the 200 in the specs department that it warrants its own article, so we would have Beechcraft King Air 200 and Beechcraft King Air 350/300. Failing that I think there should be a second specs template put on this page with the 350 numbers (just as the 100 page has two for 90 and 100 specs). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a second set of specs for the 350. I'd forgotten we have two in the 90/100 article, so there is precedent within the King AIr family. There was enough opposition to splitting off this page fm the main one that I don't think we need to try to split this one again, but I'm open to it eventually if need be. - BillCJ (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that they used this airplane in Jurassic Park 3 when they were having a tour of the island.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The information regarding the B200 service with the Canadian forces is incomplete. The B200 is currently serving at CFB Trenton in a flight called the Multi-engine Utility Flight or MUF. they are used for various utility missions and personnel transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.137.59 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that shows this? - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Argentinian version: Beechcraft B200 Cormorán

I've noticed in the Spanish wikipedia that the Argentine Navy has developed a local version of the B200T for maritime surveillance, the Beechcraft B200 Cormorán. No sources are cited in that article, but it looks quite comprehensive as to encourage me to include a brief reference to it in this article (the english one). Please if anyone has any caveat let me know, so I can address it before proceeding to update this wikiarticle. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll need a reliable source, other than the es.wiki article, of course. If you find one, feel free to go ahead and add the brief mention. - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/raytheon_bk_air200/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beach_king_air350/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/enhanced-surveillance-system-emarss/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Using Template:RP citation style

The reference list of this article is very cluttered. There are also many instances of multiple citations at the end of a single sentence to different pages of a single source. This issue could be resolved by using the template:rp for the sources. I propose a change to this style. Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scotteaton92: I support references pages style, it will defintely be easier to WP:verify.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Variants specs

Currently, only the 1981 B200 have specs, with mixed refs : a difficult to check Janes 2003 and the indirect Frawley via airliners (1995?) I propose to add the current variant specs (250/350i/350ER) with up to date references from textron/beech:

General
Variant	250	350i	350ER
Crew	1-2
Capacity	10	11	11
Length	43 ft 10 in / 13.36 m	46 ft 8 in / 14.22 m
Span	57 ft 11 in / 17.65 m
Height	14 ft 10 in / 4.52 m	14 ft 4 in / 4.37 m
Cabin L × W × H	16'8" × 4'6" × 4'9" 5.08 × 1.37 × 1.45 m	19'6" × 4'6" × 4'9" 5.94 × 1.37 × 1.45 m
Weights
MTOW	13,420 lb / 6,087 kg	15,000 lb / 6,804 kg	16,500 lb / 7,484 kg
OEW	8,830 lb / 4,005 kg	9,955 lb / 4,516 kg	9,455 lb / 4,289 kg
Useful load	4,670 lb / 2,118 kg	5,145 lb / 2,334 kg	7,145 lb / 3,241 kg
Engines
Engine type (2×)	PWC PT6A-52	Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-60A
Power or Thrust	850 shp / 625 kW	1,050 shp / 783 kW
Performance
Maximum Cruise	310 kt / 574 km/h	312 kt / 578 km/h	303 kt / 561 km/h
Ferry Range	1,720 nm / 3,185 km	1,806 nm / 3,345 km	2,670 nm / 4,945 km
Takeoff	2,111 ft / 643 m	3,300 ft / 1,006 m
Ceiling	35,000 ft / 10,668 m

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content says "These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The 350ER is a 350i weight variant, so the choice would be between the 250 and 350i. I don't know which is the most numerous, any idea? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Since when are book sources depreciated? Just because you don't have a copy of Jane's doesn't mean it cannot be used as a reference. And why must specifications be limited to current versions?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Offline sources certainly aren't deprecated (and I got a jane's myself) but WP:verifiability is easier with online source thus makes a claim stronger. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. I would say the manufacturer is a better source for specs. And the manufacturer lists current variants specs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

@YSSYguy: You tried to change and remove referenced info without explanations, I reverted with as summaries : "why deleting referenced info?", you did it again and I asked again "you have to explain deleting referenced info", of which you replied "Restored my cleanup/update/adding of information/relocation of information and removal of non-notable crash". I reverted again with "restored referenced details, "destroyed, the pilot sustained fatal injuries" notable crash", and you reverted again. Can we sort it out here instead of reporting WP:3RR?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually take a detailed look at what you were undoing?

Yes of course the diff for each modification --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• You added prices of various models to the infobox a couple of months back. You did not provide any context for those prices; I added that they were 2016 prices in US dollars and you undid that.

You also rounded the prices. US$ are obvious in aerospace, even more for an american manufacturer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I also added referenced text to the body of the article, explaining what a 250EP is - after you added the 250EP to the infobox model prices you neglected to add any mention of it anywhere else in the article, which means that it was just a random set of numbers in the infobox without any explanation or context. You undid that as well.

thanks for that. Just don't do it simultaneously with contestable info deletion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I updated the text to reflect that production of the B200 ended four years ago, which is referenced by the latest version of the serial numbers list, a document that I can access as a person who works on King Airs every day and has a login for Beechcraft technical publications; and you undid that. As soon as I figure out a way for people like you who do not have access to Beechcraft tech. pubs. to view that list, I will update that reference.

even if you know your job, and I'm sure you are, you still need to provide the reference. And Beech tech pubs are a perfectly admissible ref, even if only accessible by a few, and you are!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I also updated the number built in the infobox, which is also referenced by the serials list, and you undid that.

if it's replacing valid refs, it's not admissible.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I added access dates to a couple of references that you added a couple of months ago because you failed to do that at the time; you undid that.

I personally don't care about access dates if the ref is already dated, So I don't add them but nothing prevents you to do so.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I moved the info about the crash of the Japanese military LR-2 to the same paragraph as the other information about Japanese military use - plenty of other editors would have removed the info altogether as it's not really notable, but it expands on Japan's use of the LR-2 and provides some context; you undid that.

No info was lost.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I corrected the text to show that it is the model B200GT that is marketed as the 250 and it is an improvement over the B200, you undid that.

Because as we argued about a few weeks ago, you didn't provide any ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I removed info about a crash that killed one person as it is not notable, being an event that did not receive significant coverage even here in Australia, where it happened. If you think it is notable fine, put it back in. Do not just do a mindless blanket reversion to do it though. YSSYguy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

no need to do a mindless blanket modification either! When you want to add modifications, do it one by one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I replaced them one by one to explain :

• cost= US$
• 250EP
• number built
• model names refs

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

main picture

The current main pic is a nice air-to-air one, but flies away from the text and the light is a bit dull. Here are some possible replacements flying towards the text:--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• 
  current RAFB200
• 
  air-to-air sv:Svensk Flygambulans B200 over clouds
• 
  air-to-air sv:Svensk Flygambulans B200
• 
  Cobham plc, gear down
• 
  two RAF B200, air-to-air

I think the first (existing one) is the best of those for a lead photo. The direction of flight is not an issue WRT the text. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

not an issue but WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES states "Though not a requirement, the aircraft in images should preferably face the text. That is, it is preferred for aircraft facing the right to be aligned to the left, and vice versa."--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And symbolically, an aircraft looks more like an aircraft when the background is the sky :)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your revert

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste, more relevant here]

show me where it needs to be a stand alone article to be mentioned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about Beechcraft Super King Air where this discussion should be moved in its talk page. I deleted your last addition because there is no March 23, 2019, Beechcraft B200 King Air accident at Matsieng Air Strip article, while there was standalone crashes articles for your previous additions. See WP:AIRCRASH for guidance on wehter or not an accident deserves a standalone article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:AIRCRASH suggests that the place for those incidents that don't deserve such articles are in the lists on the aircraft types. Where else would they be? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No: WP:AIRCRASH is generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about ... aircraft type articles. and If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an ... aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Sorry to jump in, but it is worth noting that most light aircraft accidents are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and don't get mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. If you check the articles on types of cars, like Ford Mustang you will note that even though they have been involved in literally millions of accidents, we don't list them at all. They are just not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of canvassing I think Carlossuarez46 and Marc Lacoste would both be interested in the discussion at #Is the incident encyclopedic below. Ahunt is already involved there of course. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And so is u|Marc Lacoste. Sorry, I missed that. Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

King Air 260 placement

Why is the King Air 260 discussed in the 300 series section rather than the 200 series section? This AVweb article states that it's part of the 200 series, and the pictures show the 5-large-window fuselage. Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The initial company press release makes it pretty clear, that regardless of the numbering, it is a development of the 200 series and not the 300. I'll move it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Beechcraft King Air which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reverted text

I'd encourage third parties to look at this edit.

The edit summary cites WP:PROVEIT. And the editor is entitled to challenge and remove the material, as it was unsourced. But I don't think that's the intention of the policy.

Was it really likely to be challenged? What part of it exactly was likely to be challenged? The full callsign of 9DW? The Archie awards to the ATCs?

I'll probably find some references, and I certainly won't be reinstating the material without them. But the material is accurate, and verifiable, and interesting, and encyclopedic IMO. So any help in validly reinstating it appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It was challenged. The two sentences you added, and which I removed, were not verifiable. If you cite refs they can be added back in, see WP:V. Except the "(generally shortened to niner delta whisky in radio comms)" part, which is non-encyclopedic in nature. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was challenged and validly removed. But obviously I don't think this improved Wikipedia.

I hope to prove you wrong about them being verifiable. Did you make any attempt to find sources before concluding this?

I will seek other opinions on whether the fact that the full callsign is generally shortened in radio comms is non-encyclopedic in nature. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I did not try to source it, because WP:UNSOURCED says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so you need to find the refs, not me.

Sure, let's see what other editors here have to say about whether we should include radio jargon here. This article is watched by a number of active aviation project editors, so I am sure we will get some quick input. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. just checking. You said not verifiable. But you had made no attempt to verify it, and as you say this is not your responsibility. Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It was not verifiable, because you added it without the required provision of a ref with which to verify it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Full callsign

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2009/april/14/unintentional-king-air-pilot-an-interview-with-doug-white is a perhaps a primary source with respect to the full callsign being N559DW but I think it is adequate. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that they wrote out out in words, but, sure, that is fine to verify the registry. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And in the photo it's just N559DW, did you see that?

OK, but you objected to radio jargon above. So, how would you like me to express the fact that this aircraft is commonly referred to both as 9DW and N559DW? It's not just in radio comms that it is shortened. That is just the explanation of why the phrase 9DW is so common... a Google on "9DW" -N559DW King Air gives me 37,800 ghits, and the first few pages all look relevant. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to include anything, but just the registration. It adds nothing to the understanding of the incident. Even the registration adds little, but our standards allow it to be included if germane Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. - Ahunt (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The names by which the aircraft is known to thousands of people adds nothing to the understanding of the incident? Really?

When you say our standards you mean the essay to which you linked, I take it? Andrewa (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That is the WikiProject standard we use as to when to include registrations. In this case I would doubt that the registration is known to thousands of people. You have to ask yourself if the incident was described without the registration would it still accurately describe the incident. Obviously "yes". Knowing the aircraft's registration adds nothing to the understanding of what happened, as it wasn't a factor in the incident. In fact since it was not an accident I would argue the registration should not be included, as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed our project accident and incident inclusion criteria and considering that the King Air 200 is a light aircraft, I think the whole incident should just be removed from the article: WP:AIRCRASH. There was no damage, no deaths and the incident is nothing more than a curiosity really. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed your project accident and incident inclusion criteria, I don't think they are particularly helpful or relevant. But they explain a lot. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The two issues raised above are being discussed separately below at #Is the incident encyclopedic and #Registration. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Awards

• https://www.natca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2010-archiebooklet.pdf
• https://www.natca.org/community/awards/2010-archie-league-medal-of-safety-award-winners/ Southern Region

The President's awards don't seem to be listed there but they were also given, see

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq1b2ZfDYDg

which is a primary source of course but well worth a listen. Andrewa (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.natca.org/community/awards/2010-archie-league-medal-of-safety-award-winners/ seems to be sufficient, as it at least mentions it in some detail. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to mention the President's Awards, or have I missed that? Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope, just the Archie League. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore that bit, with the ref as agreed. Andrewa (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the incident encyclopedic

I think this edit above is most informative.

Note that the wikiproject page cited is an essay, as I pointed out before. It's not an official guideline. If it's going to be enforced as seems to be the desire here, it needs to become one. And I think it would need some changes to gain this level of acceptance. And meantime, it offers guidance and is helpful as that. But in a content dispute such as this one, it is irrelevant.

See User:Andrewa/9DW for some of my research. A long way still to go.

And see wp:creed#verify for my take on all of this. It's good that we'll end up with references in the article. But perhaps not the best process. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We can argue about the usefulness of WP:AIRCRASH, but it has been accepted as the standard for inclusion of accidents and incidents in aircraft type articles for more than a decade. The incident we are talking about is a pilot incapacitation incident where an non-current pilot took over and landed the aircraft without damage, death or injuries, other than the pilot who succumbed to his heart attack. There were no long-term effects, no changes to any procedures, including aviation medical standards. We don't normally include these incidents due to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is reflected in WP:AIRCRASH. Having another pilot, even if non-current, land the aircraft in these circumstances is not even that rare. The incident is just not notable and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not even remotely interested in arguing. But I thought you should know that the Wikiproject does not own the article, and so the essay to which you linked is no more binding than one I might write. I think we do need to be clear on that.

The notability guideline to which you linked is different; It is an official Wikipedia guideline. But it starts out Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article... (my emphasis). That is quite simply not the issue here.

Of more relevance is the policy at WP:PROPORTION. One thing we need to weigh up is, does the 9DW incident have comparable coverage in reliable secondary sources, as compared to the other incidents listed? Interested in your opinion on this.

You might also note that, of the fourteen incidents currently listed, [1] exactly four are supported by references... including this one. Are you going to remove the others?

Please don't do it, I think that would not improve Wikipedia at all. They do belong in the article, and it's far easier to add references if the items are there. Even flagging them each as unreferenced, while not nearly as bad, wouldn't be for the best IMO.

But by your interpretation of policy, these others are unverifiable, are they not? Andrewa (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: WP:DROP it ("I am not even remotely interested in arguing"). If you want to write a competing essay, go. If you want to argue in the talk page of WP:AIRCRASH, go. But please stop the WP:wall of text here. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: then I'll keep it brief... although I do think you misquote me.

The issue here is, does this incident belong in the list in the article? Are you prepared to give an opinion on that? And please, say why. Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: No. This is not a major incident. This is an encylopedia, not a repository for every incident ever. Go edit the ASN wikibase if you must.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Agree that This is an encylopedia, not a repository for every incident ever. But disagree that incidents that are not major as the Aviation Safety Network sees it should therefore be removed from articles to which they are relevant. The test should be, has the incident received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources? And it seems to me that this one has. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay that is two editors who think this is not notable enough to be included. Let's see if any other editors will wade in. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be good. And while this is not a discussion that will have a formal closure, it would also be good to refer to official policies and guidelines IMO, and to seek consensus on that basis. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is normal on Wikipedia to let these sorts of discussions run a week in total. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that may apply to RfCs and similar, but there's no such guillotine on discussions such as these. But I'm unlikely to find much more time for this one. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a rule, just a norm on Wikipedia. It gives enough time for editors who aren't here every day to join the conversation, without it dragging in too long. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's already dragged on too long. :) BilCat (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comments - I've been watching Andrew's TLDR posts. I've seen nothing here that proves the incident is notable, as it's primarily a newsy event, and as such fails WP:NOTNEWS, which is a policy. If this incident. is truly notable as claimed (meets WP:GNG), then split it off to its own article. If it survives AFD, then fine. If not, then that's a good indicator it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. BilCat (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Will you be applying this logic to the other incidents mentioned there, and elsewhere? Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Why? Has their notability been challenged recently? BilCat (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, because of Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I never said it did. BilCat (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would have assumed that when someone says If this incident. is truly notable as claimed (meets WP:GNG), then split it off to its own article. If it survives AFD, then fine. If not, then that's a good indicator it shouldn't be mentioned in the article that they thought that the notabibility of the incident was relevant to whether or not it should be in the article. Was I wrong? Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, you were wrong. BilCat (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  I do make mistakes, obviously. In some ways glad to hear of this one. But can you clarify... do you or don't you think that the notability of the 9DW incident is relevant to whether or not it should be in the article? I am now confused on this point. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's relevant in the sense that an incident that is non-notable as an article is less likely to be worthy of inclusion in the aircraft type article, in my opinion. As Ahunt originally stated at the beginning of this subsection, "The incident we are talking about is a pilot incapacitation incident where an non-current pilot took over and landed the aircraft without damage, death or injuries, other than the pilot who succumbed to his heart attack. There were no long-term effects, no changes to any procedures, including aviation medical standards."

So my question to you is this: Why is the incident worthy of inclusion in this article, especially if it's not notable enough for its own article? I haven't seen a straight answer to that yet, though it may have gotten lost in all the previous sections. You basically seem to have been arguing that since the incident has been in the article for a long time. You need a better reason for its inclusion than just that. BilCat (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Registration

This edit removed the shortened registration 9DW with the edit summary not in the cited ref and so removed. We don't put partial registrations in, as they are not useful or encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations for when you add registrations.

The point about the reference is valid. But again we see appeal to an essay within Wikiproject Aviation.

If the shortened registration is prominently featured in sources, then it seems to me it is useful in identifying the incident, and therefore encyclopedic. In which case it should be in the article. Andrewa (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia and avoid WP:JARGON and similar, we use WP:FORMAL terms and language. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not what those pages say at all.

Agree that we are an encyclopedia. But WP:JARGON is about how we phrase our prose. It does not forbid the use of accurate technical language, just advises that it be avoided and/or explained so that the general reader can understand it. There is no way that either N559DW or 9DW can be rephrased, nor any need to do so. An explanation of 9DW is IMO advisable, and the very MOS page you cite supports this.

Similarly with WP:FORMAL which is about Colloquial, emphatic or poetic language. Are you really suggesting that the registration number and callsign are examples of that? Surely not. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortened registrations used as radio callsigns, certainly are jargon. They are also not relevant to the incident. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and we should not use them to refer to aircraft unless they have already been mentioned in the article and so the meaning is clear. Used in this way, they can make the article more informative to the general reader, who may well come here having seen for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqPvVxxIDr0 . Listen to more than just the first five minutes... and then ask yourself... what will the average reader know the aircraft as?

They are relevant if and only if they are commonly used in sources. As they are. The callsign and registration are both commonly used to refer to the incident. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay with no more input from anyone else for a while now, this whole discussion can be closed as a consensus to remove the incident as "non-notable". - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.