| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aviators Code Initiative article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Returning to the NPOV-ification project (see below), I felt that as written, the article had some structural issues. So I re-contextualized and rewrote it. In the process, I've removed a bunch of detail that I found marginally useful. The reader interested in such detail may click through to the code's home page. Sanjaysaigal (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Vegaswikian recently swapped the Flying category tag with Flight Training. While appreciating that the latter tag loosely applies, why remove Flying? After all, it's the Aviators code, not the Student Pilot's code :) I suggest either reverting or using both categories. Sanjaysaigal (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability edit
This is an explanation why there is a notability tag on this article. The objective of the main author of this article appears to be mainly aimed at publicizing his/her venture rather than at improving Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new publications, however worthy. Even if the venture is completely altruistic, the article fails the criterion of Wikipedia:Notability because "The number of sources provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it."
The fact that the code exists does not mean that it automatically merits inclusion in Wikipedia. On similar grounds you could have an article for every book, magazine and manual that was ever published. The article has therefore been tagged for 'notability'. JMcC 08:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For a discussion about this, see User talk:Jmcc150 and User talk:Michaelsbaum JMcC 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope I'm not stepping on Wikipedia Establishment toes by removing the orphan and notability flags. The AMCC, while not the biggest thing in general aviation, is well-regarded in the GA community. For this pilot and long-time AOPA and COPA member, it certainly passes the notability bar. (The article itself appears to need NPOV-ification, some of which I've attempted. More to come.) Sanjaysaigal 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the Overview with numerous third party sources that reveal how well regarded the AMCC is in general aviation and in how many sectors it has been adopted and is being promoted. I would argue that the Notability issue is resolved and this flag should be removed. Rstowell (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe the additions and edits I've now done on the Overview, Permanent Editorial Board, and Structure sections addresses the concern about the major contributor being closely connected to the subject. Rstowell (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)