User talk:Relton66

Welcome

Hello, Relton66,

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.

Cheers, -Fnlayson (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy 1000th edit!

Happy 1000th edit, @Relton66! Thanks for editing and making aviation articles a btter place! (If you reply then it'll be the 1000th edit or if you edit an article before then) ~2026-21637 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for helping to improve the page 2026 in aviation! ~2026-21637 (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Bolivian Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash

On 1 March 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Bolivian Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2026 Colombian Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash

On 26 March 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2026 Colombian Air Force Lockheed C-130 crash, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 01:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Simple is good

I like what you're doing simplifying aircraft links, replacing technical model names with the more commonly used names. Keep it up! 10mmsocket (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit on K2 Airways flight 1732

Hello, I am the same person as ~2026-34081-04, and I would like to clear something up. I just want to keep it as “-400SF” and not “-400” because it is a freighter. I don’t want this to get to an edit war and if it does, I apologize. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked into it and the vast majority of 737 crash articles used just -x00, even if it was a freighter. I fixed the other ones to help remove any confusion. Relton66 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

They think we are edit warring, we aren’t. I want to clear it up. Can you keep it “SF” so that way we don’t get blocked? Or you could put “-400F”. Thank you. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thing is, we kind of are, so let's keep it here for now. I'll add cargo plane after 737, because some might not know the F stands for freighter anyway. Hope this helps. Relton66 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright that is fine. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from in this case, as there are still passenger 737-400s flying. Relton66 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that is true PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! I don't want you to be discouraged by this, just a simple disagreement, it happens. Relton66 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks bro, also on “2026 in aviation”, that plane crash in Akron was kind of notable, however there is no Wikipedia page on it. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

So for the future, 2026 in aviation's notability policies were confusing for a bit for me, but what I think goes is that very rarely do crashes without articles get featured there, unless it's the first crash of an aircraft type or something. The page is pretty much a 2026 aviation recap, where the most important events stick. That's why some accidents that do get an article, like the Robinson crash in Taiwan don't get featured. It's mainly commercial aircraft, as it's hard for general aviation or military aviation accidents to achieve notability on their own. For this specific example, general aviation accidents don't really effect the industry as a whole, unless someone really famous (like JFK Jr.'s PA-32 crash) dies in them, that really kicks off changes. Relton66 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The Piper one crashed into a house, so can you keep that? PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be reverted. I don't necessarily know for sure the rules of that page, so maybe try asking Rosbif? They seem to be handling the "in aviation" pages notability guidelines. Relton66 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit @PENNAVGEEKJ1718 as the crash does not have an article, is not notable and is a run-of-the-mill crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the thing, it CRASHED INTO A HOME IN AKRON OHIO. PLANES NORMALLY DON’T DO THAT. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't matter dude. It still isn't notable and doesn't have an article. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does dude, not every general aviation incident crashes into a house and the people living there survive. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the times planes crash into houses and the occupants survive. It also, for like the third time, does not have an article and won't be talked about in a week or less. Stop edit-warring or you will be reported. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The pilot and copilot died, the people living in the house didn’t. PENNAVGEEKJ1718 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Aircraft variants

At thus point you're just being disruptive. You're helping anyone or simplifying anything by removing the aircraft variant from the lead, and even if you were simplification isn't necessary. Wikilinks to other articles exist for a reason. In some places you're introducing factual inaccuracies, such as the K2 Airways page, because 737-400 is the designation of the passenger variant, not the converted freighter. The wikilink there contains an explanation of what "737-400BDSF" means, so there's no reason to eliminate it at all. Just stop. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 18:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The airplane IS a -400. The -400 is NOT the passenger designation. That is the plane. A -400. The BDSF is a subvariant of a variant. It isn't necessary. Nobody says BDSF in discussion, airlines don't include technical designations anywhere in their flights because they know they're overly confusing, and I've been told before what I'm doing helping, so which is it? And regardless, why are we breaking consistency now? The vast majority of 737 crash articles use that format. Are they all wrong? Or is this one wrong? It's most likely this one outlier that's wrong, rather than all the others. Relton66 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Brining this up again, you are still being disruptive. Shortening a link from 747-400BDSF to just 747-400 is disruptive. If it was “too conplicated” like you claim to link to specific sections, then the ability to section-link would not exist. Anybody can click on the 747-400BDSF link and see exact what that variant is, rather than being brought to the top of the 747-400 article and having to look around for the freighter. Please stop. You are not helping anybody. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Same thing with the Amazon crash article. There is no harm whatsoever in linking directly to the section on converted freighters, because that’s the relevant section. The rest of the 767 article is not relevant. By insisting on making the top link different than the info box link you’re causing more potential confusion, rather than less. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I've received far more praise for these edits then criticism. I'm not removing the specific link entirely, it's still in the infobox for those who care about that stuff. The main lead link leads to general information about the aircraft that doesn't require prior knowledge like the specific link does. Like I've said, it's like that on almost every other crash article, which suggests to me that's what's desired. Leave it alone. Relton66 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's like that on a lot of crash articles because you've changed it to be that way. There is extensive criticism of your actions on this talk page and its history and very little praise. There is no rule or policy that lede-section links must "simplified" to please people without prior knowledge; this has never been the case on Wikipedia. Stop vandalizing articles to conform with your personal opinion. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 17:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And and the vast majority of that criticism is from you. You seem to be the only one annoyed by this. No one else has told me to stop, and my reversion have received thanks from editors, and I've been told to keep doing so. No one else is reverting these edits. You're the one being disruptive here. Relton66 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Electricmemory on this one. While it is technically true that 737-400BDSF is a subvariant of the 737-400, it is also true to say that the 737-400 is the passenger subvariant of the broader 737-400 variant, since only the passenger aircraft carry the plain "737-400" designation. There is no benefit whatsoever to simplifying the links. Nothing about "737-400BDSF" is "overly confusing", and even if it was, that's what section links are for. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

But that's also what the infobox is for. 737-400 links to information about the plane itself; the freighter link requires prior knowledge of the -400 variant that does not exist in the BDSF section. There's a reason that neither the media nor ordinary people include that information in discussion. It's a fact best saved for the infobox which is where that technical information goes. I do respect it isn't just an issue with one individual though. Also the -400 is not the passenger designation. It's a broad term that encompasses the dozens of -400 variants. Just as "757" encompasses all of its variants. Relton66 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:ROMCargo Airlines

Hello, Relton66. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ROMCargo Airlines, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)