User talk:Noha307

Welcome!

Hello, Noha307, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which template do you mean? I can think of a couple:

• {{User WPMILHIST}} - a little userbox indicating your membership
• {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} - the announcement/open task box
• {{WPMILHIST Navigation}} - the navigation bar

Is one of them the one you mean? (In all cases, you just add the appropriate template name between sets of double curly braces to the page in order to include it.) Kirill Lokshin 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a reference for the addition you made about Titanic's captain ordering the lifeboats lowered half-empty? In my extensive reading, I've not come across this. When adding such a statement, a footnote with a reference would be most helpful. Akradecki 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I added a reference to a book that does not confirm it but it highly suggests it. -Noha307 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, the reason Victoria Cross was not a link (I think) is because earlier in that paragraph the post-nominal VC is linked there. Just thought I would let you know... with or without your last edit to this article, I don't think there is much of a difference anyways. BigNate37_(T) 02:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be super helpful if you could write an intro to the article on Unterseeboot 405 so that unfamiliar readers could, you know, read about it. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I know I just was trying to start as many Unterseeboot articles as I can, so I'm being very brief. -Noha307 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Yeah, but it's not like the article is short. There is no article. And you wrote it back in August, so it would be great if you could go back and fix it now. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry not right now, but it does help more than a blank page. -Noha307 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Barnstar, yay my first on wikipedia :D.--Rafy talk 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

See thank you on WP:TEA. (",) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice, I have checked and fixed it .. seems that my bot was one day outdated. Thanks — Tjmoel  ^bicara 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing! Glad you liked it! Student7 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

You should add the {{In use}} template if you plan to do a lot of edits to an article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was actually just writing a response on your talk page to explain myself and make sure there were no hard feelings when I received an e-mail notification about you posting here! I hoped you weren't upset that I reverted your edit and that my edit summary response showed good faith.

When I reformat the aircraft on display/survivors sections, I have been doing it in small edits because: 1) it is easier to keep track of the differences between the edits I have made, 2) I figure it will make for a more useful edit history than one big edit, and 3) I have been trying to keep as much relevant, user-added information that already exists on the page – and smaller edits make it less likely that that information will be lost. Most of the time I believe I have been simply editing the existing entry and moving it "up" to the other "fixed" entries, but this time I just decided to outright duplicate them and then delete the old entries. On that note, I will also point out that, as you likely know, many of the AOD/survivor sections are a mess, so I have been creating temporary subsections just to organize the airframe entries for the time being. (For example, the "airworthy" section on the MiG-29 article.)

A while back I read somewhere about different editing styles on Wikipedia and how some people make one large edit and others make lots of smaller edits – both to the same end. I took that to mean there is an understanding regarding when pages were edited in the latter way. I had no idea there was a template for that – I will make sure to use it in the future.

This is way more background information than you needed to know, but I just wanted to get it out there. So, anyway, thanks! —Noha307 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not that big a deal of me. I was unsure what the To Be Deleted list meant, but figured it out based on your last edits. There is a similar template, {{Under construction}} meant for major changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for mentioning the templates. They are very helpful.—Noha307 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't see the In use tag, as it was not at the top of the article where it's supposed to go. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I intentionally used the section version of the in use tag. Isn't the section version supposed to go at the top of the section that is being edited? –Noha307 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, I am confused by the FAA reference for the one flying H-21. It is not defined, or even mentioned, anywhere else in the article, but somehow Never mind, I figured it out, the reference was in the references section of the article rather than at the end of the Classic Rotors Museum entry. I am still confused about the use of the "in use" tag, though. –Noha307 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the section toggle didn't work, maybe because you used an Uppercase S in section. Either way, I completely missed it where it was. Still, you did add the tag, so I'm sorry I didn't see it. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think I understand now. The "in use section" tag always goes at the top of the article even though it refers to a specific section of an article. I thought it went at the top of the section that was being edited, similar to the "unreferenced section" tag that is currently at the top of the "aircraft on display" section. –Noha307 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was wrong, it can go in the section, but it might get more attention at the top, as an article tag. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will remember this for next time. –Noha307 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Reply

Hi. Just letting you know that reflist|2/3/4 are all deprecated per Template:Reflist#Columns. If you don't know the best ways to format these are:

• reflist|35em for 2 columns
• reflist|30em for 3 columns
• reflist|40em for 4 columns

Most of the time, 4 columns don't really need to be used unless an article has well over 200 or so refs. thanks--Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! However, I just tested the 40em parameter on the List of aircraft in the Smithsonian Institution article and it gave me 3 columns not 4. The 20em parameter you added gave me 6 columns. I can mess around with it to get a 4 column layout (honestly, I don't really care how many columns it is, I just want to use the format that works best), but I thought you might want to know your suggestions don't work out exactly as claimed (I will note the reflist you cited above provides some different suggestions).

Anyway, I appreciate you telling me about the change. –Noha307 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear Noha307, thank you very much! You're right, it's been quite some time since I wrote that article (and unfortunately I'm not as active as a Wikipedia editor as I used to be) but it's very nice to see that it is still considered valuable. Thanks again for showing your appreciation! All the best, --M.L.Watts_{Watts up?} 13:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you did a massive mod to this page, why did you delete the data on new displays? this is the only area where that information was available. that info show that a museum is alive (referring to adding new stuff). almost all people say... oh i was there 5 or 10 years ago. what could have changed?

V/R Westca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westca (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

First, I will point out that I included an explanation of my actions on the talk page for the article, so please take a moment to look at that if you haven't yet. Second, this type of information belongs on the museum's website, not Wikipedia. Details such as where the museum has moved a certain aircraft to on a certain date is unencyclopedic as it is a little too overly detailed for Wikipedia. In addition, most of the movements you added were unsourced, so even if that type of information would qualify for inclusion your additions would still be problematic. Remember that the goal of the Wikipedia article is not to "show that a museum is alive" as Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, but to provide a general overview of the subject.

My suggestion if you would like to contribute to the article is to write up a few paragraphs with references that describe the displays at the museum, as Wikipedia generally prefers paragraphs to simple lists of information.

I can understand the issues of contributing to a Wikipedia article dealing with an aviation museum as I volunteer at one myself. (For example, one final thing to be careful of is a conflict of interest.) I also appreciate the effort you have put in to improving the article (as many of the aviation museum articles on Wikipedia are stubs), but, as explained above, there are problems with what you added. –Noha307 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

thank you for your quick replay. I did read what you posted there, but I did not know when you would see any questions.

Sense you work at a place like this, you know that the only way a web page is updated is if they have someone with the skills to do so. That is why most 501c's (that do not have a line item from Fed, State, or local govs) are quickly moving to only doing updating info via Facebook or other social media because of both the lack of out of pocket cost, manpower, and ease of use. WP does not accept FB or other social media as a valid sources even from "official sites". I would think as part of General info would be any information about growth or decline of something. also the reason there were notes about acft moving to different areas but not listed in those new areas. Is because other people would change it back. simply because it was not that way months or years ago when they went there. This would start a change revert war lasting weeks to months. The want to avoid the Conflict of interest, is why I only used bullet points and hyperlinks to other WP pages. That is also why I did not add photos or try to upload info docs that might have been put out by this origination. I my not employed at this origination, other than helping on my off time, from time to time. I do stop by there about once or twice a month and have POC's that I visit with.

Again, I understand the problem. The fact that aviation museums have moved toward updating social media rather than their own websites has frustrated me as well. It makes adding references to lists of surviving aircraft for Wikipedia articles more difficult. However, that doesn't mean that we can add uncited information to Wikipedia articles. A lack of information on museum websites does not justify attempting to fix it with uncited additions on our end. Wikipedia is not an extension or substitute for a museum website. The fact that there were people revert warring is a great example of why reliable sources are necessary, as simply pointing to those sources would resolve the debate. I have actually dealt with this specific issue on the talk page for the museum at which I volunteer. You might find the discussion and suggestion there useful. Finally, I will note again that I don't believe aircraft locations within a museum is information that belongs on Wikipedia. –Noha307 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Noha307,

I noticed that the two entries for the surviving Bolingbrokes at 17 Wing Winnipeg are no longer on the page. I had made these entries in 2016.

Was there a problem with the entries? I am responsible for both aircraft and am supervising the restoration of 9887 to static display condition. I noticed they were missing when I went to the site today when I went to addinformation on the fuselage of 9893 being used for a restoration at the Battle of Britain Museum in Kent. https://www.facebook.com/The-Kent-Battle-of-Britain-Museum-126834467471736/

• IVT 9887 17 Wing Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Aircraft donated from farm in 2013, indoor storage awaiting cosmetic restoration.

• IVT 10209 17 Wing Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Fuselage and wing roots only. Stored outdoors.

I notice that the entry for 9887 is still there, but now says "Unknown ID"

Here is our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pg/17-Wing-Ghost-Squadron-434646616707603/photos/?tab=album&album_id=434655930040005

34FGH

Hi 34FGH,

Thanks for asking. Looking back at my edit summary, the problem I had was that I could not find a reliable source that confirmed that there were two airframes at 17 Wing. The one source I did find did not suggest that there was more than one airframe at 17 Wing and did not include an identity for the one that it did mention.

I appreciate the link you included – that is an excellent history you compiled – but Facebook is not a reliable source. Unfortunately, I also can't use your statements here because Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia. However, if you know of a source that meets the guidelines at WP:RS, such as a news article, that includes the necessary information please let me know and I will gladly re-add the missing identity. Or you could even do it yourself. It just has to be supported by reliable sources. (As an aside, this is an issue I have run into myself with the museum where I work.)

I will also note that the general consensus among the Wikipedia editors that monitor airplane articles is not to include "bits and pieces", that is to say incomplete airframes, when there are surviving complete airframes. So, I don't know if 10209 would be considered notable enough.

I know some of the Wikipedia policies I noted above can be confusing, so please feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Best of luck on your restoration,

Noha307 –Noha307 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't know if you're working on converting aircraft lists to tables in a systematic manner or not, or as you find them, but the list in the Beriev article is quite a mess. I've reorganized it a little, but it needs more, and tables are well beyond my wiki-abilities. Cheers. - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've basically been going through and converting the lists of aircraft on aircraft manufacturer pages to tables. (Also adding infoboxes to articles that are missing them, talk page project banners, etc.) I had been focusing on the smaller and lesser known manufacturers because I figure they are less likely to get the attention they need and I'm less likely to run into conflict with other editors there. However, I have been considering taking on some of the bigger companies. I'll have to take a look at the Beriev article, but I don't know if I'll get around to it since I've only been doing American companies so far. I appreciate the recommendation though!

As far as skill level goes, I don't actually know that much about tables either. I didn't make the one I've been using – I shamelessly stole FlugKerl's design from another article. I've just been copy pasting that same one every time and then modifying it to fit the new article. ;) –Noha307 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem, as I'm certainly not trying to make work for you. As to copying tables, that's what I've always done with navboxes, infoboxes, and even references. However, tables elude me, and even editing them is difficult. I'm not sure why, but that's how it has been for me. - BilCat (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307

Thank you for creating Sweetheart pillowcase.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your move request was reverted. There is a rule about not changing the language the file name is in, so for instance, the changing the spelling of Iljusin to Ilyushin and Tupoljev to Tupolev are in violation of this rule. Both are correct spellings. See my talk page changing file names, and conventions. 777sms (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Prairie Aviation Museum. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the article on this museum.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

		Wikiwings
		For great work finding and adding many aircraft three-view drawings. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I am just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, have access to the right resources and tools, and have the right skillset and knowledge to do so! I hope that they are as much of a use to everyone else as they are to me! –Noha307 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well those are all happy coincidences for improving Wikipedia in general! - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Golden Age Air Museum. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words. What I don't understand, however, is why you went through and added archived versions of every reference to the article. It's not a problem, per se, it just seems unnecessary. –Noha307 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Tennessee Museum of Aviation. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Historic Aircraft Restoration Project. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Aviation Heritage Park. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The edit you are referencing was made in preparation for the creation of a new article, as stated in the edit summary. The Aviation Heritage Park page – for a location in Virginia – existed as a redirect to the Aviation Historical Park article. However, there exists a different location in Kentucky that goes by the former name. In this case, the creation of a disambiguation page or qualifier in the title, such as a state name, did not seem necessary as the location in Virginia may have never actually used the "Aviation Heritage Park" name. I did not immediately replace the removed content as I was still writing the article and the delay may have given the impression of simple blanking. Next time, I will try to remember to not blank the page until the replacement content is ready. –Noha307 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aviation Heritage Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page F9F.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Museum of Flight and Aerial Firefighting. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! I have marked the article as "reviewed". I really appreciate your work in expanding Wikipedia by creating this article. Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Hangar 25 Air Museum. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

There weren't many non-routine sources that were indepedent of museum and reliable; hence, I've merged it to the Webb Air Force Base where the museum is put in context, and supports the content already there.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Klbrain: Could you explain what you mean by "non-routine"? What type of sources would you be looking for? –Noha307 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

By 'routine', I mean source like ""What's Going On". Odessa American", which routinely list events. For reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; for notability, see WP:ORG, noting particularly that there is No inherited notability. So, the museum is important because Webb Air Force Base is notable, and so it is best discussed in the context of that page. Klbrain (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Noha307. Thank you for your work on Lewis Air Legends. Cocobb8, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the article on Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cocobb8}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taylor Cub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethel, Pennsylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In addition to the Boeing and McDonnell Douglas lists, I just wanted to make sure this one was on your radar -- List of preserved Aero Spacelines aircraft. With so few airframes (6 total across all 3 types), this one seems especially pointless to me. I also have a strong suspicion that the anonymous user doing this is an editor from the distant past who was the subject of an ANI report for similar behaviours. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Adding that Can Eng template was a copy paste error on my part. Good catch. Masterhatch (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heritage Village Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heritage Village.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Noha307. Thank you for your work on Fort Yukon Air Service. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 02:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cessna AT-17 Bobcat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of Aviation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Curtiss-Wright CW-19, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Magnetic chip detector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAAB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Airport terminal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil Aeronautics Administration was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ryan ST, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bluffton Airport, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life Flight was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dahio Trotwood Airport, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drag strip was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of aviation mnemonics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aircraft in fiction, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of aviation mnemonics, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Griffing Flying Service. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Defiance Memorial Airport, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil Aeronautics Administration was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bell Aircraft, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Bell was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please follow the layout at WP:USCITIES for US city articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that one's my bad. I was actually just finishing up last night when I noticed there were separate style guides for U.S. cities and cities in general and realized my mistake. I'll have to go back today and fix the articles I changed. –Noha307 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There, all fixed! The infrastructure sections have been moved back to after the education/media and before the notable people sections. I even through in transportation subsections.

I must admit to being a bit confused over why there are different style guides for different countries though. Doesn't a city have the same fundamental elements no matter where it is – or at least, those elements are irrespective of geography. Wouldn't it be better to standardize? Even if there is a level of national idiosyncrasy that requires different sections, it would seem to be beneficial to at least put similar sections (e.g. infrastructure/transportation) in the same order. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter to me as I don't deal with that project much, but it just seems unecessarily inconvenient. –Noha307 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Related to that, while mentioning of local airports is certainly appropriate, they should be mentioned in the actual city, village, town or township they are located in, not simply the nearest city. City articles are about the city, so outside very limited exceptions, that's defined as what's inside the city's actual borders. If Wikipedia didn't have articles for the other more specific locations, that would be different, but, for instance, the Portage County Regional Airport, that's in Shalersville Township, not Ravenna, even though it has a Ravenna ZIP code. It's not part of the infrastructure of Ravenna since it's not located in nor is it owned or maintained by the city of Ravenna. It just happens to be near Ravenna (which has a ZIP code that covers a large area of Portage County). Only other place that should mention it in an infrastructure section besides Shalersville is Portage County, Ohio. That's going to be true for any other airport, especially these smaller regional airports that aren't really transportation for general public use like a large commercial airport.

Also, USCITIES is a guideline, not an absolute, so many sections can either be combined or omitted altogether. If you only have a transportation section but nothing else under the infrastructure subheading, you do not need separate headings for infrastructure and transportation. As the article develops, then separate subheadings can be added. Smaller towns and cities are not going to necessarily have every section that a larger city might have or even have the need for subheadings, which is also true for less developed articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you only have a transportation section but nothing else under the infrastructure subheading, you do not need separate headings for infrastructure and transportation. As the article develops, then separate subheadings can be added.

I went back and forth on that, but elected to add transportation subsections because: 1) It seemed that was what was partially being objected to in regards to a previous revert regarding the section heading changes and so figured that the best option would be to follow it more exactly, 2) it would be useful to "get ahead of the curve" for editors adding content in the future by setting up a structure, and 3) all or almost all of the articles already had a climate section that was nearly (i.e. other than one or two sentences) the only heading in the geography section. I understand what you're saying though – it is rather awkward if there is no other content – and had some reservations for that reason. I have no problems leaving it out if it isn't warranted.

Related to that, while mentioning of local airports is certainly appropriate, they should be mentioned in the actual city, village, town or township they are located in, not simply the nearest city. City articles are about the city, so outside very limited exceptions, that's defined as what's inside the city's actual borders.

I would at least somewhat disagree. The referenced FAA forms explicitly describe the airport's location in relation to the city's central business district (e.g. three nautical miles (3.5 mi; 5.6 km) north of Ravenna's central business district^[1]). Furthermore, some airports are very directly tied to their city even though they're not inside their official boundaries. Some examples:

• The Sidney City Airport is owned by the city of Sidney even though it is outside the city limits.
• The Licking County Regional Airport (previously the Newark–Heath Airport) was owned by Newark until the mid 1960s, but is today located within the boundaries of Heath. It was so much associated with the former, that the latter attempted to obtain an injunction against expansion.^[2]
• The Galion Municipal Airport was outside the city limits until circa 2001.^[3]
• Even in the cases of what were supposed to be "county" airports, there were still contentious fights over which city they were located near. For instance, the Griffing Sandusky Airport strongly contested the designation of the then Port Clinton Municipal Airport to receive state funds.^[4]
• The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport is located in an entirely different state from Cincinnati.

It just seems like the distinction is rather arbitrary as to whether it is inside or outside of a line.

I don't want to be guilty of a strawman argument, but I would presume that your understanding of the criteria for inclusion (i.e. the "very limited exceptions" you mention) of an airport in a city's article would be: 1) inside the city limits, or 2) owned by the city (qualifying Sidney City Airport; based on "owned or maintained by the city of Ravenna"), or 3) provides commercial airline service to the city (qualifying Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport; I presume this is what is implied by "major airports" (emphasis added) on WP:USCITIES). Is this correct?

Oh, and lastly, thanks for the detailed explanation. I very much appreciate it. I hope this doesn't come off as too confrontational. I'll agree to whatever the best policy is here, I'm just not sure what that is yet. –Noha307 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added "infrastructure" sections with the airports to a bunch of county articles, since the general premise of that is uncontentious. If they should be renamed to "transportation" to conform to WP:COUNTY, I will do that tomorrow, but I ran out of time tonight. –Noha307 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did an informal survey by selecting random counties from various states and it does seem that the vast majority of them use "transportation" as a section header, rather than "infrastructure", so I've changed the sections I created last night accordingly. Unfortunately, the other question I was hoping to have answered – where to place the transportation section – is far less clear cut. (The template on WP:COUNTY doesn't seem reflect the consensus layout on nearly all articles, so I ignored it.) The most common placement seems to be after the "education" section (or "media", if applicable) and before the "communities" section, so I have elected to employ that. (Luckily, that was what I had already done in most cases, based on the fact that the "infrastructure" section for cities had been in the same place.) –Noha307 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you made several edits to Location identifier and ended up with [[Civil Aeronautics Authority|CAA]] but that redirects to Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Should it have been [[Civil Aeronautics Board]] (CAB) or [[United States government role in civil aviation#Civil Aeronautics Authority|Civil Aeronautics Authority]] (CAA)? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should have. I noticed that when I was making the change, but kind of ignored it due to a bit of disambiguation overload from both the Administration/Authority (I ended up making a navbox timeline a few months ago just to keep things straight) and the Taiwan/United States confusion. Anyway, thanks for poking me.

To head off this problem in the future, I also changed [[Civil Aeronautics Authority]] to redirect to [[United States government role in civil aviation#Civil Aeronautics Authority]] as well. ([[Civil Aviation Administration]] was recently changed to [[Civil aviation authority#List of civil aviation authorities]] from [[Civil Aviation Administration of China]], so it could be argued that the same could be done with [[Civil Aeronautics Authority]]. However, as far as I am aware, the Civil Aeronautics Authority name is unique enough of a term that linking directly to the American entity is warranted.) –Noha307 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I would agree that CAA usually refers to the US one. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 16:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Noha307. I'm the COI editor for Stonepeak, working on updating the article. I noticed that you made significant contributions to the ATSG article, including adding that it was bought by Stonepeak a few years ago. Would you be able to take a look at the edit request I posted and make the changes I outlined? Specifically, the current content in the Acquisitions and investments section says the firm "acquired Omni Air International" which is inaccurate; Stonepeak acquired Air Transport Services Group (ATSG), the Nasdaq-listed parent company. Sources for your reference: Air Cargo News, FlightGlobal and ch-aviation, all indicating the sale's completion in April 2025. (The ATSG article still records only the November 2024 agreement, not the completion, which is a separate correction that needs to be made.)

My request also asks for two infobox updates sourced to the corporate website. I think WP:ABOUTSELF allows for this. If you prefer, your approval on the Talk page post would allow me to implement the modifications myself. Thank you, Quartz2913 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, for your info enginehistory.org was deemed an unreliable self-published source in 2013. Current aircraft engine sources (reliable and non-reliable) are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Reference sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question: Would you consider Curtiss-Wright's Summary: Engines Shipped a reliable source? It is hosted on the Aircraft Engine Historical Society's website, but it was created by the company itself. Since the reference sources guide states that manufacturers' official websites are acceptable, I would think that the summary would be as well, since they both come directly from the company. (If so, linking to the AEHS website for this particular document would seem to be permissible as per WP:CONVENIENCE.) On the other hand, the websites probably counts as "published", while the summary might not. Also, how would you regard the Pratt & Whitney Engine Production page? Based on a footnote, it states it was "transcribed", so it would be essentially the same as the Summary as no content has changed (barring a single simple correction to a mathematical error on the original document) and the only modification being that the data was converted to an HTML format rather than a scan.

For the time being, I have replaced the references to pages written by the webmaster to links to one of the two above sources as at least, in my understanding, there is no interpretation/original research being carried out there. However, depending on your conclusions above, these themselves can be replaced as well. (Also, for what it's worth, I skimmed a few of the books mentioned on the reference sources page, but unfortunately the ones I was able to access didn't seem to include production totals.)

Also, I hope you don't mind, but I added some external links to the books on the reference sources page as it should make them more accessible. –Noha307 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Probably best to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about apparently original documents hosted on self-published websites as I can find no guidance on it at WP:RS. The Curtiss-Wright document could be deemed a primary source. I'm fairly sure that if it was hosted on Facebook it would be not usable. I personally try to avoid these grey areas by using very obvious reliable sources (usually published books) and if I can't find a reliable source the information gets left out of an article until a reliable source is found. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply