Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by flight number

New category created today Category:Aviation accidents and incidents by flight number as it would include nearly every accident article I am not convinced of the value. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I presume what is meant is accidents and incidents known by their flight number. Which ought to omit Staines, Munich, Tenerife, Stardust etc. Doesn't mean I'm convinced of the validity of the category either. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I just nominated the category for deletion. Here's a link to the CFD[1]...William 12:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Finnair flight AY 915

Please come on over and join in the debate over whether this article should be kept or deleted....William 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Aviation/Aviation accident task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories to fine

I notice a trend to create ever more detailed categories for accidents to the point they are pretty useless in finding anything, for example Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 19** replacing Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States and also Categories being broken down by American state rather than the whole of the USA. Great for people with local knowledge but removing these from the parent categories in my opinion doesnt help. I suspect soon we will have Category:Aviation accidents and incidents to blue aircraft on Fridays in 1956 in Smallville, Anytown. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. People want to create category intersections for just about everything. If you have Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States and Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1980, a simple search will find any overlap. Of course if you add in something like Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Utah (is that one even needed?), yea, you can find nothing which probably would justify something like Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Utah in 1980. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

B-47 crash in 1959

A newcomer has posted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#B-47 wreck Feb. 1059 regarding a plane crash he thinks may be notable. Passing it over to you guys. - Location (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect talk page to WP:AVIATION?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation gets a fair amount of questions on aviation accidents, probably more than this page does. Would it be better if we redrected this talk page to that page? (We could archive the closed discussions here first, and move any open ones to that talk page.) Btw, MILHSIT does this with some its sub-projects. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree it would no harm and give a wider audience to questions posted here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force for an example. They archived the last discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force/Archive 3 before redirecting, but I haven't figured out where they put links to that archive. BilCat (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just removed a bunch of unsourced speculation from Samoan Clipper. Can someone please give it a look?

I've just removed the old explanation for this accident, because it was largely unsourced speculation which was not in the official report. I'd appreciate it if someone else could give it a look. Thanks. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Updating Copa Airlines Flight 201

This accident is going to be the subject of an Air Crash Investigations episode in the current (14th) season and I thought I'd have a look at it.

The article needs a clean-up, there are some 'odd' citations (To the IMDB listing for the NOVA episode for example) and what looks like a quote from the official report, but the report itself is not linked.

So I think this article is in need of a proper update.

Graham1973 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TAROM Flight 381 - Worth an article?

This non-fatal incident on 24 September 1994 is in many ways similar to the China Airlines Flight 140 crash, but it happened at altitude and the crew were able to recover control of the aircraft and eventually land safely.

This YouTube video includes footage of the flight from a Discovery Channel documentary, which suggests that it may fall into the noteable category. There is a summary accident report here, but obviously it would be better to try and locate the full incident report and any contemporary news reports.

Also there is this paper, "Example of a Complementary use of Model Checking and Agent-based Simulation by Gelman et al" that used the incident to look into what they termed "automation surprise".

Graham1973 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:US Airways Flight 1549

We could use some experienced eyes, especially in dealing with aircraft incidents, at Talk:US Airways Flight 1549#Too much unrevealing content about the aircraft. The issue should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 826

United Airlines Flight 826 is an article on a turbulence event that appears to have been around since 2007, doesnt appear to be particularly notable, before I take it to AfD, I am missing something ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a very minor incident to me, on par with a minor car accident that resulted in one fatality. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Factors University Class - Students Contributing Articles

Hi,

I am a professor at Western University and am implementing an assignment for my students to create articles on Wikipedia. These articles will be related to human factors subject areas (pilot fatigue, decision making, mental health, situation awareness, workload management, safety management systems, etc). As you know, human error is the primary cause of most aviation accidents so this is related to your project. Students will be required to source at least 10 peer-reviewed journal articles within their articles and they will go through a student-to-student peer review of their articles.

Any tips, suggestions, or ideas from seasoned Wikipedia editors? Would anyone be willing to provide some basic mentor-ship to students regarding how to be a good editor?

Thanks in advance - I am hoping we can make some high-quality contributions but I am also new to Wikipedia editing and hoping to avoid major stumbling blocks.Skearns4 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Skearns4. Dolphin (t) 06:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Execuflight Flight EFT1526

Just for information I have proposed deletion of Execuflight Flight EFT1526, a business jet crash with nothing really of note even for the BAe 125 article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: The prod has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)

Thanks, upgraded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execuflight Flight EFT1526. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting views on notability being expressed at the discussion, if we used the same critertia then we have a few hundred biz jet crash articles that could be written. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, it is the same old non-arguments, essentially "if an airplane crashed it must be important". I would support this notion if we also had articles on all car accidents as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Squirrel helicopter crash on Fox Glacier

This crash occurred AM today in New Zealand killing 7. I have added it to the Fox Glacier page.[2] Unlikely to be a stand alone page (per above discussions, Execuflight Flight EFT1526 etc) unless a notable person has died or similar. Just advising of incident. 220 of ^Borg 08:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A page on this was created, 2015 Fox Glacier helicopter crash, which is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Fox_Glacier_helicopter_crash. 220 of ^Borg 02:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Worst accident since Tuesday

We seem to be getting a lot of edits adding the worst accident since the last one and the third one of an aircraft with blue stripes this year, clearly not notable or encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have seen these sorts of things added to accident articles for a while. Unless it is "the worst" something (and not the worst on a Tuesday or the second worst on a Wednesday in Lent) I have been generally removing them and getting lots of "thanks" for doing so. Let's see if we can create a consensus here on this subject one way or the other. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The worst aviation accident since the nurse reinserted the catheter." Oops, I'm just recalling some hospital experience I had 7 years ago while recovering from open heart surgery. Milborne, I agree with the edits you made. We may have a trend, I seem to recall at least one person arguing for that Execujet crash to be kept because it was the worst aviation accident to ever happen in Akron....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with naming

"Date, location, event" seems to be the naming convention if there is no flight number or established event name, but I've got one with all kinds of gray area. The callsign was Logan Ambulance One. The aircraft crashed at sea 7.7 nm from Campbeltown, Argyll, Scotland. The airline was Loganair. I'm using "2005 Campbeltown air ambulance crash" as a working title. I'm assuming a callsign is not similar enough to a flight number? And I'm also using only the city name even though it crashed at sea, but should I say Campbeltown, Scotland, or just Scotland? Or maybe something entirely different, like "2005 Air ambulance crash off the coast of Campbeltown, Scotland"? Thanks!

BTW, you can see the beginnings of this article in my sandbox03. It's a collection of fragments right now, but there's a lead there too that summarizes the event. I appreciate constructive comments! Edit: As this was a UK accident, I especially appreciate advice with UK spelling and grammar.

(I imagine the notability itch needs scratching, so here's that bit in hopes that we can focus on the name. As of April 8, 2015, the recommendations from the investigation of this crash concerning mandatory shoulder harnesses for passengers in similar size transport aircraft (below 5,700 kg max t/o mass, fewer than 9 passenger seats) became regulation across the EU. And yes, there is a direct paper trail with explanations, recommendation and opinion numbers, and action reports from the AAIB (SR 2006-101), EASA (acceptance & closure of UNKG-2006-101, issuance of Opinion 04/2011), and the new EU regulation (COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012, CAT.IDE.A.205(a)(3)). It was this flight. EASA also accepted two more recommendations for study - one requires two pilots on every ambulance flight and the other requires a radar altimeter or GPWS or similar on all single-pilot passenger transport flights. Little plane, two fatalities, but major change for operators and passengers across Europe, and maybe elsewhere. I imagine the FAA is watching this.) Dcs002 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 2005 Loganair Islander accident would meet the <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>> criteria if we don't have a flight number which doesn't require a location (on the grounds that Loganair have not lost that many Islanders in 2005. Some articles use crash rather than accident but I think that sounds a bit tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that is a simple and clear name, but would add that it would be helpful to readers to create redirects from all other possible descriptors, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 2005 Loganair Islander accident it is then. (They lost one other Islander in 1996, also an air ambulance.) I will make a list of redirects. I think among them should be terms like Campbeltown and air ambulance. I expect for the people around Argyll and the Highlands (and Orkney) who depend so much on air ambulances that is how they will remember it, but for the rest of the world I know this needs a consistent title. Thanks for your help! Dcs002 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I just moved 2005 Loganair Islander accident out of my sandbox and onto main space. Any suggestions would be awesome! !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcs002 (talk • contribs)

West Air Sweden Flight 294

As the result of the related AfD for West Air Sweden Flight 294 was keep that overturns the long held position that cargo flights are normally not notable do we need to look at creating articles for the hundreds of similar cargo only accidents ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That job should fall to those who indicated "keep". Also if we are treating all transportation modes equally then we should have articles on all transport truck accidents and trail derailments, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, but the point appears to be lost at these AfDs as it must be notable it is in this mornings paper! MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, I always cite WP:NOTNEWSPAPER but no one cares. "If a plane crashes it must be on Wikipedia". I hate how Wikipedia editors fall for the same sensationalism that the tabloids do. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan

A user has just created a new navbox Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan not something we normally have, is this one step towards Template:Aviation accidents and incidents involving blue aircraft on a Thursday or something usefull ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those cases that could go either way. It does sort of beg the question though as to why we would have this nav box and not Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States or Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom, though. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is why this may be better as a list. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That might be a more sensible approach. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We do seem to have an awful lot of readers and editors from Pakistan. I don't know if anyone keeps statistics on this, but IMO we shouldn't be too hasty to think of this as a lesser navbox than "AA&I in the US" or "...UK", or "...Russia" for that matter. I also think it makes an encyclopedia more usable to have easily accessible tools for cross referencing, and a navbox has everything right there, in context, without needing to sift through a list on another page. I also think we need to ask more often how something like this might hurt WP as an encyclopedia. I personally don't see any harm. If someone makes a page of some sort, it does not bind anyone to make all possible similar pages. My $0.02. Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have is that if every article had such a navbox then some like the United States would be to large to be of any use. We already have Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan so the navbox doesnt really add anything in my opinion, if it was a list then it could provide more information to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see your point about some navboxes, like the US, being huge and unwieldy. That's definitely a concern that makes sense to me. However, not all articles need to have the same format. If our goal is enhancing readability, then maybe different approaches are warranted? For a country like Pakistan, maybe a list and a navbox would both be helpful, but for the US, maybe just a list? I think navboxes have the effect of stimulating further interest by presenting what's available right there on the page, and one click gets you to the article. To get to a list, you have to already want to see what's available. Instead of click-and-read, it's click-and-see-if-anything-interesting-is-available. I am biased in favor of navboxes because of my own experience as a reader who just likes to surf sometimes. I know that doesn't make me right, but it's my $0.02 Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Commercial flights

I have removed a couple of additions by User:Swpb to accidents articles of a new Category:Commercial flights, but the user has reverted. Clearly adding accidents to a Commercial flights category adds no value and as nearly all accident articles are commercial flights not really a defining attribute. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this one. "This category contains regularly scheduled commercial flights." That says it all. Accidents per se are not regularly scheduled flights (not regularly scheduled anything), and accident articles are not about the scheduled flights themselves. But I don't see a talk page for that category. Have you been discussing this somewhere with Swpb? Dcs002 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No I but I included a link to the user name above which should have notified them of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an article will be needed for Continental Express Flight 2286 & Proteus Airlines Flight 706

The TV Series Mayday has included this accident in the current (16th) season. So it looks like this accident will need an article. To help anyone who does decide to write it, here is the NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8901.pdf

I'm actually surprised this one has not had a write-up, since it appears the captain of the flight was affected by drugs which contributed to poor decision making.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It already has one. Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that one. There is another obscure incident that they are featuring I've only been able to locate a French Language version of the accident report for Proteus Airlines Flight 706:

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/1998/f-je980730/htm/f-je980730.htm

Graham1973 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Vieques Air Link Flight 901A - needs an overhaul

Just checked this article out. The text including one quotation is completely unreferenced. There is an NTSB report linked, but surely a case like this would have generated newspaper articles. I may have a book that discusses this accident. Graham1973 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

F-4 crash, Wisconsin Air Guard, May 21, 1986.

The Wisconsin State Journal did an excellent summary of all military air incidents in Wisconsin in 2011 after the F-16 crash.

I was searching for the RF-4 crash of May 21, 1985. It was not on your military database.

A review of the newspaper article may provide data on other crashes. Keep up the good work.

Robert P. Walsh rpwalsh@sbcglobal.net

Link to Wisconsin State Journal article.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/military-plane-crashes/article_c79fd9d4-92c0-11e0-8917-001cc4c03286.html

64.136.251.50 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Elko, Nevada air-ambulance crash

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I am not a member of this WikiProject, but an incident occurred yesterday that I believe warrants an article. Here is an article from a reliable source to start you off: (NBC News) I am well aware of the "Not News" policy on Wikipedia. Here is why I believe this incident is notable: The aircraft was destroyed, and four people were killed. The incident caused damage on the ground as well. The incident is similar to 2006 Mercy Air Bell 412 crash, with an even larger loss of life this time. I have already added this incident to the Current events portal. To all editors here, thank you for all you do on and for Wikipedia! Juneau Mike (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The ref and the refs linked in that article show that this was a Piper Cheyenne on an air ambulance mission that crashed. The Cheyenne is a light aircraft and crashes of light aircraft, especially on medevacs are very common events, similar to car crashes that kill four people. There doesn't seem to be anything in the article that indicates there will be any lasting effects from this accident, such as changes in regulations, Airworthiness Directivess etc, as a result of this accident. See WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahunt, I understand most of your reply, even though I tend to disagree on a couple of points. Crashes of the Piper Cheyenne may be common, but I believe air ambulance crashes are not. Likewise, I acknowledge that crashes on the roadway that kill 4 may be common, but similar to this incident, how often do ground based ambulances crash and kill four people? I believe that air ambulance crashes with multiple fatalities are very rare, and notable. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is another medevac flight that killed multiple people.[3] It was determined that the pilot was under the influence of marijuana[4] and the plane ran out of fuel. That crash has no article. WP:NOTNEWS is the rule here.

BTW the article above killed two people who belonged to our church parish.[5] My wife spoke to Ilomae Bialak the same day as the accident. That was a very weird time personally at my home. The wife of a blog owner who I sometimes wrote for passed away, plus the accused killer of our church pastor's mother was arrested. All in a matter of 4 days....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sadly in the US medevac crashes, both fixed-wing and rotary-wing are very common. It has long been identified as an issue in that segment of the industry, for instance see this.- Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is why I brought the topic to this WP, instead of creating the article myself. I believe it would have survived an AfD, but consensus means a lot more to me, Notability not so much. Notability is important, to be sure, but consensus of the Wikipedia community is more important. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence - new fields suggestion

Dear project members. I have submitted a proposal to include two more fields to the Infobox aircraft occurrence, see here. Please visit the infobox's talk page and voice your opinion. Thank you. - Darwinek (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash

I and other editors have removed the mention of this accident from the aircraft type article and now it has its own stand alone article. It was removed from the aircraft type article because it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. It was a Beechcraft King Air 200, so a light aircraft, it clipped a shopping centre and crashed in the parking lot, the crash killed five people (all occupants of the aircraft). The aviation press is reporting that the accident was due to an engine failure. There is no indication at this point that it will lead to any changes in procedures, ADs, etc. Any thoughts on notability of this accident? - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable as a number of beechcrafts have had multiple deaths in Australia before, and as the Victorian politicians point out it is their worst for 30 years - the accident against the sheer volume of Melbourne and essendon traffic, and this accident make it significant in Australian terms - I would be hesitant to make judegments before the ATSB have made their pronouncement in 28 days - it might not seem much to overseas/non australian perusal from the sources you have accessed to date - you might come to the judgements like above - but really pre-empting notability from the limited material available seems a bit short on what might happen, the ATSB is usually never quick on their findings, and there are a range of issues that arise - it might not just be a clip or engine failure - JarrahTree 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that we don't keep articles on non-notable events in the hopes that they might become notable at some point in the future. Instead we wait until they become notable and write them then. One question to ask is "is this just the usual media bias that all aircraft accidents get sensationalized". The comparison is to ask "would Wikipedia have a stand-alone accident article if it had been a car that hit a shopping mall and the five occupants of the car died?" - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if aviation/accident notability can be argued for the tag to be removed - the australian context is quite marked - the airport buffer zone has been an issue locally in essendon for over 20 years - the national safety regulator and accident investigation - both bodies are in specific context with this accident - some accident events on highways, railways, light aircraft are sufficiently contextualised in the australian project to actually have stand-alone and survive, from what I can see JarrahTree 14:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comment below on the subject of airport or country notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction is that it is not really notable for a stand-alone article or a mention in the type article, note this is my own criteria!

• Was it a commercial scheduled flight? - no it was a private charter
• Did it hit something notable? - as far as I see the shoping complex is not noteworthy.
• Did somebody notable die? - sadly five deaths but from what I can see none would have a wikipedia article.
• Did the rules and procedures change? - we dont know but if it was an engine failure on take off probably not.
• Other factors like "Did it kill people on the ground?" - sometimes this can up the notability for military aircraft but not always light aircraft but fortunately didnt happen here. Not convinced that a common twin like a King Air has a problem but it may be related to how the Australians fly or licence the type but I have not seen anything yet other than bad luck. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Again - local context does actually look at some of that differently

There have been an ongoing issues about 'buffer zone' - so it is not relative to what it hits or not, but the extent to which melbourne and essendon facilities might be different in proximity compared to similar installations around the world or not

Charter flights to Tasmania are inherently interesting in that traffic control in Tasmania has ceased/retreated to Melbourne, technically making anything crossing the Bass Strait (or about to) different from other australian facilities

the Australians - there are significant issues as to a range of conditions to flying in Australia due to impending changes to staffing levels of the administrative structures of the national air services bureaucracy - not that this accident has anything to do with that - but really, applying 'universalist' arguments to something like this in Melbourne does miss the point somewhat, and, even if there is insufficient notability for aviation project - it is definitely notable for australian project as there are a range of issues surrounding aviation safety in Melbourne, regardless of the findings by the ATSB (or the relatively low status for the earning of the aviation accident tag) JarrahTree 14:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as the "airport buffer zone" arguments go, if that is the case than I would definitely support the accident being added to the article on the airport, but not a stand-alone article or the aircraft type article. In other words it could be notable to the airport, but not the aircraft type. The same goes for the country. It is it is notable to the country , the state or city it could be mentioned in those articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Melbourne/essendon articles are less relevant - the nature of transport across Bass Strait (which was the planned flightpath) has historically had a range of issues which have had wrecks and disasters over time - some which have sustained notability simply by the ramifications. I can see and hear what the aviation/accident argument is, and obviopusly commendable guardians of threshold of notability for your way of seeing the world. There are, and probably will be sufficient issues arising from this article to remain in Australian /Victorian /Melbourne context regardless of the arguments to pull it from your project tag. JarrahTree 14:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record I am not suggesting we pull it from the project tag or even that it go for WP:AFD. My past experience with AfD on aircraft crashes is that they are always kept, just because people jump on it with, "the press covered it" arguments. It is almost impossible to get an aircraft crash article deleted here on Wikipedia for any reason. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also note that a lot of the issues raised by JarrahTree if notable would sustain an article, so if Bass Srait route has issues raised by reliable sources then it could achieve an article and the same for multiple Australian King Air accidents and the airport buffer zone would be in the Essendon Airport article (nothing at the moment), none of which requires the existence of a stand-alone article on the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. This should be elsewhere and perhaps redirected there. In many ways this article continues a bad precedent that "any aircraft accident gets an article, no matter how non-notable it is". - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 with doing away with the dedicated article and instead keeping/expanding the entry in the Essendon Airport article, where it fits perfectly, together with many other similar accidents (one even involving victims on the ground), none of which is notable enough for a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision

It has been nominated for deletion[6]. Come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

2007 Singapore Changi Airport Taxiway Collision

It has been nominated for deletion[7]. Come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017

An editor is trying to put United Airlines Flight 3411 into the template. This was an on the ground event. These templates have not included such things as Nut rage incident, JetBlue flight attendant incident and airport attacks and airport bombings[8]. The criteria for these templates should be the same as the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft‎ except for the inclusion of military incidents and I'll say the maintenance of these templates has been in line with this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The "editor" is me. The template is named "Aviation accidents and incidents in 2017". There was an incident on board United Airlines Flight 3411 on 9 April 2017, therefore it is appropriate to add the article to the template, and the template to the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 6/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Aviation.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Aviation, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mississippi Marine KC-130 crash

Apparently a "U.S. Marine Corps KC-130 refueling plane" has crashed in Mississippi with at least 16 deaths.[9] Just FYI. 220 of ^Borg 05:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops. Already started at 2017 United States Marine Corps KC-130 crash. 220 of ^Borg 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprising. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Are all military accidents now notable, if they are we have about 50,000 articles to write. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this so far as notability?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Another non-incident where nothing happened. Please send it to AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 759

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 759. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 759

Thoughts about this incident? Its claim to fame (or at least notability) is that it could have been a bad accident, but wasn't. In fact nothing happened, the plane lined up on the taxiway, overshot, went around and landed normally. Every good landing is an accident that didn't happen. Is there any reason to keep this, other than that a bunch of editors will oppose deleting it? - Ahunt (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know... I'm in two minds on this one. Strictly speaking it's a non-event. However, the scale of the near-disaster and its closeness are quite remarkable, and not very common either. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a informal list[10] of wrong airport landings. The Continental flight that landed in Corpus Christi had an article but it was deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are events where at least the airplane landed in the wrong place. We don't have articles on aircraft that "almost" landed in the wrong place. Despite all he media hoopla, I really think that Air Canada Flight 759 is not notable for an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has started an AfD yet, my vote would be delete. Samf4u (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support sending it to AFD. Time has passed and it dropped out of the news quite quickly. This really falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, not to mention that nothing actually happened. It was a non-event. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

So glad to see it has an entry. It's certainly a major topic of discussion on aviation forums. You have pages on accidents and incidents most people have never heard of that changed the industry forever. This came close to being Tenerife all over again. The fact that the NTSB is investigating the incident is notable. Telcia (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mayday (TV series)

A lot of accident articles have a link to Mayday (TV series) normally under a heading of dramatization, as Mayday is an entertainment programme I am not actually convinced that the programmes are notable to the accident. Perhaps we should consider removing mention of mayday in these articles as the fact that an entertainment programme is produced is not that uncommon as they fill more and more series of programs. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been talk concerning Mayday episodes in the past. Here is one case[11] about whether it was a reliable source. There were categories for crashes that were made into Mayday episodes, but the cateogries were deleted at CFD. Check here[12] and here[13]. I've done a great deal of work on List of Mayday episodes but don't care one way or another whether the crash articles make mention of the show....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Because they are dramatizations and not strict documentaries I have concerns about linking to Mayday from aircraft accident articles. I would be happier if they were not linked. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not think there would be any difference if they were removed from the articles. It is likely that people who follow aviation already know about the show's existence and the incidents they have covered. However, some episodes raise questions like "Massacre over the Mediterranean" (Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870). I believe they should be mentioned but NEVER used as a direct reference to add parts to the article as the show focuses more on Dramatization.

Also, dramatization/in media sections are not solely sections for the Mayday show. Some crashes have been covered on numerous programs such as Seconds from Disaster and Why Planes Crash. It is just that Mayday is the most common. Tntad (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have run its course. Unless someone objects aka restarts this discussion, I am going to remove the Mayday episode links in crash articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mayday is certainly not an entertainment programme. It's more or less a documentary series. Sure there is some "dramatization" of the events, but they always present the official investigations' findings. That's not different in any way to any other of the documentary series on aircraft accidents. I can even see how one could make such a documentary without any dramatization/reconstruction. Almost no aircraft accident leaves video footage of the actual pilots in distress. Also Mayday is/was never used as a source, there was just mention in the relevant articles that the episodes exist. It's absolute not uncommon to mention media coverage of aircraft accidents. Heck, US Airways Flight 1549 even mentions they made a feature film about it. And that is even more fictionalized.Tvx1 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mayday is has been used as a source. Check out some of my edit summaries for Trans-Colorado Flight 2268. There have been other instances too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No reason not to include Mayday links. it's a valid treatment of subject and investigation even if dramatized in parts. Some include interviews with actual participants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So, could you tell me as na outsider, is here a consensus or not? WikiHannibal (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So where are we with this? I still can't see a clear consensus which supported the removal of this. So if no-one objects I will reinstate the information (save of course where Mayday was used as a source).Tvx1 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I object it is not noteworthy to the accident in nearly all cases and I am not sure it is a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it any less noteworthy than any other coverage which is mentioned in the "In the media" sections in aircraft incident articles? And as I have explained before, there is no intention to use it a source, so that objection is off the mark. Sully (film) is mentioned in US Airways Flight 1549 and that feature film isn't a reliable source either.Tvx1 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

To sell programmes the Mayday serious has made and sensationalised a lot of accidents, so many that we should mention why Mayday hasnt made a programme about them. The media section of the Flight 1549 is not the best example of encyclopedic content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is just the sort of absurdity I'd expect from the self-appointed Sky Gods of Wikipedia. Yes, let's ignore the show that relies on official transcripts, actual investigators, real experts, and eyewitness testimony in favor of erroneous news articles because one guy saw one episode he thought seemed sensationalized (I can't believe anyone would think this, of all shows, is at all "sensationalistic") when it's a very science-focused show. Anything that smells of scholarship must be killed. I'd name the many, many, many episodes that are purely science-based but I'm going to get shouted-down and yelled at for incivilty anyway. Telcia (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that this has been raised again at Talk:British Airways Flight 38 after I removed some none noteworthy mentions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, despite the claim on the Flight 38 talk page, there is clearly no consensus above on whether "In culture" references should be included or deleted. Many aviation incident pages have had these sections for years without complaint, so there is long standing precedent for keeping them. Therefore, any single user who takes it upon themselves to mass-delete these references will be reverted until consensus is reached. Obviously, I vote in favor of keeping them in any consensus building discussion. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments about the Knute Rockne crash article...

I've renamed the article on this crash and purged a clearly incorrect flight number from every Wikipedia article I could find with it. I've also made some new comments on its talk page. This is an important crash in U.S. aviation history; sadly, its article could stand a lot of work. Is there anyone here who might be willing to help with that? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to alter inclusion criteria for entries in the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft

A proposal has been put forward to alter the inclusion criteria for entries in the List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. The proposal affects aircraft types that first flew before 1921. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format#Proposal for inclusion criteria for pre-1921 aircraft....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just created a stub article for the Bronson Cutting crash...

...but right now it only has a lead, an infobox, and a bibliography of potential sources. It really needs a lot more work to make it a proper article, but I don't think I can devote the necessary time and effort to this task. So I'm asking for help from anyone else who might be interested and motivated on the subject.

The accident is most important for the political and regulatory consequences that stemmed from it. The crash itself is certainly notable and interesting in its own right, but when examined purely as an aviation accident, it wasn't especially remarkable for its time. On the night of May 5, 1935, an eastbound transcontinental TWA DC-2 flight, Flight 6, took off from Albuquerque for its next stop, Kansas City. Both the flight crew and TWA's dispatchers had cleared the flight to depart, despite the fact that the transmitter on the plane's two-way radio had been malfunctioning, preventing the pilots from asking ground facilities or anyone else for information or advice. Making matters worse, the weather forecast for Kansas City turned out to be overly optimistic, and conditions deteriorated to the point that it was impossible for the flight to safely land there, though they may have tried an approach anyway. Eventually the flight, facing a critical fuel situation, headed further east toward an emergency field at Kirksville, Missouri, but the weather there wasn't much better. Just before the accident, the DC-2 was flying at near ground level under a very low ceiling, through darkness and patchy fog, trying to keep the ground in sight on its way to the Kirksville field. As it banked to avoid an accumulation of ground fog, its left wing dragged on the ground, and it crashed only sixteen miles from its goal. Investigators from the Bureau of Air Commerce, which oversaw U.S. civil aviation, found it had less than half an hour's worth of fuel left in its tanks. Out of thirteen people on board the plane, five were fatally injured, including both pilots. The Bureau found the actions of TWA personnel to be important factors in the crash and cited several violations of regulations by the company.

One of the dead was U.S. Senator Bronson M. Cutting of New Mexico. He had been a progressive Republican ally of Roosevelt, but the two had a falling out, and in 1934 Roosevelt backed Cutting's Democratic challenger, Dennis Chávez. After Cutting barely won a very close election, Chávez, with Roosevelt's continued support, contested the results in the Senate, claiming that Cutting's margin of victory came from legally disqualified voters. Cutting had visited New Mexico to secure affidavits for his case and was on his way back to Washington when he was killed. These circumstances, taken together with the 1933–34 Air Mail scandal and other complaints about how the Roosevelt administration had been failing to meet the growing needs of U.S. civil aviation, made the crash into a major political issue. Senator Royal S. Copeland formed a subcommittee, the Copeland Committee, to independently investigate, not just the accident, but the Bureau of Air Commerce's overall management of air safety. TWA refused to accept blame, stating that the regulations it had been claimed to have violated were promulgated in such haphazard fashion that it was unclear whether they were even in force. The Copeland Committee's hearings and report mainly sided with TWA against the Bureau, but the report was especially controversial for its bias and apparent refusal to even mention any contrary evidence. In the end, this political battle helped precipitate the 1938 replacement of the Bureau of Air Commerce by the newly formed Civil Aeronautics Authority.

I've found several sources which would be useful in fleshing out the article, which I've listed in the bibliography and describe in much more detail on the article's talk page.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Waddesdon Manor air incident

This accident happened today and naturally an article was quickly created. We have a Cessna 152 and a Guimbal Cabri G2 helicopter, each with two on board, that collided, with all four occupants killed. Naturally the media are all over this, but it doesn't seem particularly uncommon or notable. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash

Project members are invited to help expand the 2017 Nature Air Cessna 208 Caravan crash article, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Or send it to WP:AFD, so far it looks very non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been sent to AFD. The discussion can be found here[14]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RA-01460 An-2

Anybody have a reliable source for the Naryan-Mar Air Enterprise An-2 crash in Russia on 19 December 2017 which killed 13, it was a scheduled flight so is probably noteworthy for an article. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20171219-0 MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edits to aircraft occurrence infobox template

I've proposed revisions to the {{Infobox aircraft occurrence}} template, to address issues with reporting casualty information. The proposed revisions are in the sandbox, and test cases are on the testcases page and the template talk page.

Please find more info and join the conversation on the template talk page.

Thanks, Shelbystripes (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

While attention is drawn to the template, I have opened another discussion for a suggested change at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Tailnumber parameter; I lack expertise in changing templates so I have no test cases for people to view. YSSYguy (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

An aviation accident discussion at another talk page

It is at WT:AIRPORT and can be found here. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Willy waving

Probably time we added something to the guidelines about all the "my accident is bigger than yours" entries, nearly at the point of "This accident is the 34th deadliest with people wearing red socks and the 678th deadlist involving green-painted aircraft. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Much of this cruft comes under WP:OR and can be removed on that basis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both those ideas and would add WP:TRIVIA, but since this is becoming an increasing problem I think we need to directly spell it out in the guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I will try and work up some words to add, it may by noteworthy if it was the deadlist for the aircraft type or airline and that is often reported but the rest is guff. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have started removing this cruft from some articles under- Trivia, WP:OR, or unreferenced or some combination of the three. For example Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 where the source is ASN where somebody adds up a table for the information....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have added this at Wikipedia:AVILAYOUT-WW. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash‎ article title

Discussion at Talk:Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_plane_crash#Proposed_move_Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_plane_crash_to_Yak-Service_Flight_9633. Someone has found a flight number for the flight and is suggesting a move to use the flight number. IMO, using a flight number is kind of dubious for a charter flight, but I'd appreciate some more opinions. The flight number does not seem to have a reference either. Thanks. Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base

This article has numerous problems

1- It names, and also tells where they are from in some cases, crash victims. The WikiProject guideline says we don't name victims unless they have a article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply. 2- Entries for crashes that happened at other air bases, the bahamas, the gulf of mexico (and admittedly miles away from Eglin). 3- Many entries have this website[15] as its source. It is a personal website. Does it pass WP:RS?

I need some guidance. This edit of mine[16] removed things definitely not Eglin....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Dominicana Flight 603

This article was moved from Dominicana DC-9 air disaster to its present name about two years ago. The basis for the page move is this[17]]. Unfortunately that is a blogspot and per WP:SPS would not be a reliable source. Should the article be moved back or is there a WP reliable source out there that says this is Flight 603. I'll ping @AntonioMartin: who is the editor who did the page move....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions the current title seems okay unless there is a reason to move it from there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ahunt: What is the proof the flight was 603? The person who made the page move justified it on the basis of a blogspot blog. ASN[18] has no flight number for this accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The article makes it sound like it was a scheduled flight and probably would have had a flight number, but quite right we need a reliable source for the flight number. Most of the refs I found in a search seem to be Wikipedia mirrors (and there is the danger, that so many sites copy us, that this will become a fact in time if we keep it.) - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Although this was the worst accident in Dominican aviation history, given the country's poverty and small size, I suspect it'd be hard to find reliable printed sources outside the Dominican Republic. The blog posting claimed that some of its information was sourced from the national archives, but of course we can't simply take it on its word.

For what it's worth, a Dominicana timetable for 11 September 1970, seven months after the accident, lists a flight 603 from Santo Domingo to San Juan, scheduled for Fridays and Sundays. The accident was on a flight from Santo Domingo to San Juan on February 15, a Sunday. In fact, all the flights listed have three-digit numbers, with 60x being used for Santo Domingo-San Juan and 30x for Santo Domingo-Miami. (However, the accident was on a DC-9, while the timetable only lists Electras. Perhaps there was a fleet substitution after the accident?) I'm sure this isn't a reliable source by our standards, but I just wanted to point it out. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne:, @Mjroots:, @YSSYguy:, would any of you like to weigh in on this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have had a look around but cant find anything on a flight number, odds are that 603 is probably correct but that might not be enough for wikipedia and we may need to revert to the earlier title. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this deserve an article?

Hi guys I just saw news of a runway collision between a Asiana A330 and a Turkish Airlines A321, see here 1 2. Is this event worthy of an article? Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Some minor damage that will be repaired, with no injuries, no deaths. When two cars have a fender-bender in a Walmart parking lot we don't have an article about the incident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:BOAC Flight 712#Katz which members of this Wikiproject are invited to contribute to. Mjroots (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons for victims

I understand that this is not mentioned in the project page guide because there was not a need to repeat WP:MOSFLAG (which really says you dont need both a flag and the name of the country, the name is sufficient) but it comes up regularly on accident article discussions, refer Talk:Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 for the latest. Do we need to make it clear that MOSFLAG applies or a better explanation as to why this so ?. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we need to spell this out for people in detail and why! - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm in agreement too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with such use of national flags. We're presenting a list of anonymous victims grouped by nationality, so making it clearer by adding a graphic indicator seems nothing but sensible to me (and I don't read MOS:FLAG as a bar to using flags in this particular case). It bemuses me how a tiny icon can stir up all sorts of feelings as on the Cubana de Aviacion talk page, but such is human nature, I guess. Deeday-UK (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to present a few arguments against the use of flags in these aircraft articles:

1. Flags are being used for decorative purposes (notwithstanding any ostensible alternative explanation that has been proffered) thus directly contravening WP:MOSFLAG.
2. Flags add nothing useful since the nationalities are already plain to see in text form (other than eye candy which is improper in view of the context).
3. Flags are not necessary because the victims were not representing their country when they died.
4. Flags are inappropriate in this context as they draw further attention to the nationalities of the dead in a form of "celebration".
   Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: it's not decoration; it facilitates comprehension. Information presented in graphical form is easier to process than in textual form. If the country name spelled out is clear enough, the country name with the flag next to it is clearer, so why not use it? "The victims were not representing their country", so why do we group them by nationality in the first place, and not by gender or age? They may not have been official representatives of their country, but their nationality is the only trait that we choose to highlight in the table, so why not add an icon that makes it clearer? How that icon could be seen as "celebration" or a "bizarre salute to the dead" is beyond me, frankly, but maybe it's just me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It only facilitates comprehension if the reader recognizes the flag. Because the country is already spelled out, I see the flags are nothing more than decoration. Garretka (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a weak argument: all readers are likely able to recognise a fair number of flags: the one of their own country plus at least a few others. For large countries with a large number of aviation occurrences (the US is a prime example), that means a lot of readers will often find comprehension facilitated. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discounting. You're making assumptions that people know "a fair number of flags" which neither you, nor I, know is true. My point is flags alongside words might help the reader understand the flag, but it does nothing to help the reader gain an understanding of the topic at hand. Garretka (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to credit our readers with enough common sense and intelligence to be able to understand each country by name alone, without having to be spoon-fed a pretty little flag to aid comprehension. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Western Airlines Flight 470

The article Western Airlines Flight 470 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apart from being created by a banned user the accident shown not signs of being noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see an AfD on it, but it is definitely not an article worth keeping. Bohbye (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That's because it's a PROD, not an AfD. An AgE won't be necessary unless someone removes the PROD. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather than deleted, it should be merged into Western Airlines, which currently does not have an entry for this occurrence in the 'Accidents and incidents' section. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, it's worth adding an entry for this occurrence to Western Airlines, but there's no need to keep this one as a redirect, so I have no objections to deletion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the year always be included in article titles?

I noticed recently that several air disaster articles (particularly incidents involving multiple aircraft) have been moved to include the year in their titles. For example, Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision was moved to 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision. According to WP:DISASTER, the year should not be included on the titles of articles that have no flight number or involve multiple aircraft unless it is needed to disambiguate the page. This contradicts what the task force page says, which says the year should always be included in article titles without flight numbers (but says nothing about multi-aircraft incidents).

Should the year always be included on article titles that do not need to be disambiguated? In my opinion, it should only be included if it helps identify the event. For example, 2008 Mexico City Learjet crash has the year in its title because it is what most people would search for, and just saying "Mexico City Learjet crash" just sounds vague, especially because it involves a single aircraft. But 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision should not have the year in the title, because adding the year does not help identify the event, especially because mid-air collisions are uncommon and this is the only one to occur in the area. But what do you think? Funplussmart (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The project essay on this has three choices flight number / <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>> / popular name. You could argue that "Überlingen mid-air collision" is a popular name and doesnt need the year. I would be reluctant not to include the year in some of the others as it just helps. Out of interest as member of the project for many years I have allways used our own guidance and was not aware of WP:DISASTER, clearly a bit of a backwater that nobody took the project view on and just created it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

So what should we do about the article titles that do not require the year? Should I move them back to where they were before? Funplussmart (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:DISASTER is outdated. The 'year in the title' question was also discussed on the Talk page, and the conclusion seems to be that it's not a problem to have it as additional descriptor. Personally, I'm in favour of anything that enhances clarity, and having the year of an event in the title can only help, in that respect, especially when browsing search results, e.g. from the 'live' Search Wikipedia box at the top of each page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Page move

Should Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 be moved to AirAsia Flight 8501? I think "AirAsia" is the airline name, although we have another article at Indonesia AirAsia. Hddty. (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It may look the same but Indonesia AirAsia is a different airline to AirAsia, so no it is alright where it is. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Indonesia AirAsia is just an affiliate, although not stated in the article. Airline name should be used per naming convention. See another affiliate at Category:AirAsia. Hddty. (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on new article name

I would like comments on the name of a new article I posted about the 2017 Medford, New Jersey Schweizer 269C crash. The name "Death of Troy Gentry" or something similar would be more descriptive and would make the article easier to find. I believe the article qualifies for the "popular name" exception. Carguychris (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why in the world would we name an aviation article after someone who doesn't have an article on themself? Second of all, general aviation accidents are very common and unless somebody Wiki notable is on the aircraft, the accident isn't considered notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that there is an article about the musical duo that this person was one half of: Montgomery Gentry. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that an article about this accident is warranted (just). I was about to rename it myself – before this discussion was started – to something simpler such as 2017 Medford helicopter crash, although e.g. Death of Troy Gentry would also be acceptable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Iberia Airlines → Iberia

I've noticed that all five articles about accidents occurred to Iberia aircraft are titled Iberia Airlines Flight xxx. I doubt anyone calls the company Iberia Airlines, apart from some legal documents, maybe. The Iberia main article even reports a completely different full registered name. Any objections to renaming the above articles to Iberia Flight xxx, per WP:COMMONNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeday-UK (talk • contribs)

I don't see any problems with that, it makes the title shorter. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

List of previously missing aircraft

I raised an issue about the criteria for inclusion in the List of previously missing aircraft. If anyone's interested, please post your opinions here. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Air Littoral Flight 701

This is a recently created crash article by an editor with a history[19] of copyright violations. I'm trying to find sources for what the article says. Here is ASN[20] but it is pretty thin on details.

Also- Anyone think this accident isn't notable?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

An ATR-42 hull loss with fatalities during a scheduled passenger flight seems well within the inclusion threshold to me. There are more sources in Italian if you google "ATR-42 incidente Firenze Peretola 1997". --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The article says only one fatality - the Captain. The article was ambiguous about whether he was killed on impact, or taken to hospital with injuries and subsequently died. The latter seems more likely so I edited the lede to say both pilots were taken to hospital with injuries but the Captain died. However, an English-language source on the matter would be an improvement. Dolphin (t) 00:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United_States in 2019

Please note that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United_States in 2019 has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 22#Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States in 2019. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that others like this sort of mixed categorisation. So we can further dilute the category system to a point of having zero value to navigation and finding stuff, you almost need to know the article you want before you look for it. Remind me to ignore all this cat stuff as it is probably not worth the effort saving as so little people actually use it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I found rare copies of accident reports

I wnet to [21] and I actually found two rare copies of aircraft accidents. I found the report on China Airlines Flight 676 and Thai Airways Interntional Flight 261 You go to the page and click the download button to get the document. China Airlines Flight 676 report download page (I'm aware it erroneously says A310) Actual report on CI676 Thai Airways International Flight 261 report download page Actual report on TG261 They are already in their respected articles. I encourage people to use them. Thank you and you're welcome. Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Reinforcement of template

We need to reinforce the templates (ex the refimprove, expand-[language], etc.) because some of them have been there for like a decade and still hardly anyone has taken action. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Anytime you find an old one feel free to make the fixes (ie remove the offending material). - 22:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

List of passengers discussion

Is taking place at an aviation accident talk page here[22]. Please come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Mayday season 20 episodes

I found this from Russian wikipedia and this video. The following is a list of the other episodes for mayday season 20 (they come after the crash files):

• S20E11: Pakistan International Airlines Flight 268
• S20E12: West Air Sweden Flight 294
• S20E13: TBA
• S20E14: 1990 Wayne County Airport runway collision
• S20E15: AIRES Flight 8250
• S20E16: Sol Líneas Aéreas Flight 5428
• S20E17: Cougar Helicopters Flight 91
• S20E18: LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470
• S20E19: Kenya Airways Flight 507
• S20E20: TBA

However we need more sources before these can be added. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Two things. Firstly the Youtube video fails WP:RS. Secondly- This conversation really belongs at that Mayday episode article talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I moved it there. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence casualty figures

I've posted a proposal to clean up casualty figures in the Infobox aircraft occurrence. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

There is a discussion[23] about the article's lede section. Please come over and give your opinions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Passenger Flags

User:Felviper is edit warring over a challenged addition of flags being used as decoration in Lion Air Flight 610, the user is using an other stuff exists argument rather than using talk page. As far as I remember we dont have an exemption to use flags for decoration, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The addition of flags is not being done for decoration purposes as User:MilborneOne wrongly states. Also, WikiProject Aviation has a guide about the use of flags, which says: "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited.". In the case of Lion Air Flight 610, the flags are being used to portray information of the article by being beneficial to each and every reader, as it makes the process of gathering information most relevant to them quicker and easier. Also, this practice is widely observed in other related articles, I don't understand why this specific article should be an exception.Felviper (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG provides some guidelines as to where flag icons may and may not be appropriate. In the "Appropriate use" section, I see the statement "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". As such, don't see the use of flag icons in a list of passenger nationalities as necessarily being against the MOS. I also trudged through the talk page archives for that MoS page and didn't see anything jumping out at me that indicates a strong consensus that the use of the icons is inappropriate. But I didn't go through all of the archives, only back to archive 11 (through early 2013), so there may be something further back. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

india adds nothing to the understanding that “India” provides within the table. The implication of which is that the flag is simply decorative. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't see how a flag helps the reader to understand anything more or how it is useful to the article in any way. Seems like nothing more than eye candy - Samf4u (talk)

We have had discussions on this issue before. In passenger casualty lists these dead people are not representing their country so it is inappropriate to use them. WP:ICONDECORATION says: "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation. Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function." - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, in a way, they are sort of representing their country, aren't they? That seems to be the point of the casualty lists, to indicate that there were x passengers from this country, and y passengers from this country, and so on, to give an overall impression of the geographic origin of the people involved. The WP:ICONDECORATION link is on the same page of the MOS as the MOS:FLAG link I gave before, only ICONDECORATION deals with icons, not flags. Scroll down to the section on flags, which is where I quoted from. Overall, I'm not feeling strongly about whether or not there are flag icons present. If someone wants to spend the time putting them in then I'm not offended by it; I'm not going to do that myself though. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, which I stated in a previous discussion, is that flags are only meaningful if the reader recongnizes them. The reader is here to read about an aircraft crash, not learn about flags of different countries. Text better explains where the victims are from rather than flags. Garretka (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this discussion is still ongoing and has not reached any consensus. Personally I agree with the move to remove flags from the accident pages, but since consensus hasn't been reached and agreed upon, such removals or claims of consensus on such removals are, at the very least, premature. I wasn't even aware of the discussion until such a removal was made. Perhaps let's not jump the gun until we have an actual consensus?

Cadar (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it really needs a consensus as the MOS is clear about not using flags used for decoration, the discussion was trying to see if passenger lists were an exception but that so far hasnt been justified. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough This is enough of a consensus to suit me. Thanks!

Cadar (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This section is being used to put forth a claim of consensus, when I believe that something like this which affects hundreds of articles across the project deserves something more than 7 editors saying it's so. If those who support their removal are confident in their success, an RFC would only bolster that success, and should be undertaken for posterity. Regards,  Spintendo  18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we actually said there was NOT a consensus to use flags rather than the other way around. The flag removal is to follow the manual of style guideline as discused above. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My comment was that my reading of the MOS was that flag icons were fine, if the editor wanted to include them, and that some of the discussion above was misapplying WP:ICONDECORATION, which is a different section that doesn't apply to this discussion. I don't see a requirement to include them, nor a requirement to remove them. My personal preference is to not include flag icons, or even tables if there are just a few nationalities involved. I don't care for them and find them slightly distracting, and I really dislike tables of nationalities that only have a few rows in them. Other people seem to like the flags if there is a table. But I don't see that the removal of flag icons where they are present is supported by the MOS or previous discussions about that MOS. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think even MOS:FLAG makes it pretty clear that flags should only be used for people clearly representing their country, as it explains and gives examples of sports teams and military units. Airline passenger deaths are not in that same category. These people are not dying for their country, in fact the country they are from is only incidental. - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We're kind of repeating ourselves from our conversation on May 1 and May 3 when you said this, so I'll try not to repeat myself too much, but a table with a list of the number of victims, by nation, of an aircraft disaster seems, to me, to be the definition of "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." (from the MOS). The sole purpose of the table is to group people by nationality, and thus, the representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the table. I'm interpreting the word "subjects" here to refer to the subject/citizen/resident of a particular nation, not a topic of discussion. I don't see anything that says the table has to include the flags, I don't see anything that says the table can't use the flags, and I don't see anything in the "§ Inappropriate use" section that says the flags shouldn't be used. I'm still neutral here, I'm not involved in any of the addition or removal battles that have been taking place, but just stating an opinion. I'm also not sure an RFC would be more helpful than just soliciting more opinions from different editors in this section, since I'd personally just repeat what I've already written here and leave it at that. It's not an issue that I care to spend a whole bunch of time debating about. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I just took another look at the very top of that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons document, which contains the MOS:FLAG subsection and see that the document's definition of icons in the second paragraph of the lead includes flags, so WP:ICONDECORATION does apply. I wasn't paying close enough attention before. I agree that according the MOS, flag icons in casualty lists are merely decorative and should not be used. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1980 Indian Airlines crash

An editor created Flight accident of a Boeing 737 of Indian Airlines in Rampurhat. It was a cut and paste from German wikipedia[24]. The only references didn't link to anything or in one case, a Irish Times article[25] that mentioned a 1980 Indian Airlines accident killing two people. I nominated the WP article for speedy deletion as a hoax and it has been deleted. I also removed a mention of this accident in Indian Airlines. It wasn't referenced.

Aviation Safety Network has no accident on the date claimed or a Indian Airlines accident as described with two fatalities. I'm just posting here if anyone would care to do some further detective work. Fake aviation accident articles have occurred in the past. Thai Airways Flight 358 survived an AFD but was deleted later on....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It was real. It wasn't a crash, but a Boeing 737 entered severe turbulence, and 12 passengers were injured when they were thrown from their seats. 2 of them later died. The plane safely landed after the incident at Calcutta. The airline said the passengers disregarded warnings to fasten their seatbelts. It appears as an AP wire story in a few newspapers that I could search with Newspapers.com, like The Morning News (Wilmington, Delaware), p. 6A, 12 May 1980, article (subscription required). An Indian Aviation Security Authority report on aviation incidents in 1980 available here lists the accident on page 8 (that reference is present on the German Wikipedia page). Similar AP wire article in the Standard-Speaker (Hazleton, Pennsylvania) 13 May 1980, p.9 [26] and page 8A of the Des Moines Register 12 May 1980 [27]. So it wasn't a hoax article. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that someone accepted a {{db-hoax}} speedy on that article if it was a cut and paste from the German Wikipedia, since it wasn't so blatant that it would constitute vandalism. But I don't think it's a notable enough event for an article. But it would probably be a good idea to revert the scolding message that was left on the editor's talk page. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Airline accidents and incidents designated as Flight 191

I have just started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 8#Category:Airline accidents and incidents designated as Flight 191. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion- Should Cecelia Cichan be mentioned by name?

At the talk page for Northwest Airlines Flight 255. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737

• List of all accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 MAX by year
• List of all accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 Next Generation by year
• List of all accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 Classic by year
• List of all accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737-100/200 by year

A number of sub-lists has been created which includes a number of non-noteworthy accidents, For information I have added proposed deletion tags to them. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! If the prod gets removed I would suggest sending them to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion for interested editors

Here it is[28]. It concerns Aviation accidents in China's template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Kegworth air disaster

Could anyone please look at the content dispute over at that article. An editor, @SquisherDa: has put in two mentions of a passing motorist and named them. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hence the dual mention:: uh . . has restored what I think had been a long-standing consensus. I sympathise with the sense that the double mention is slightly odd. It's a rather unusual case ("passing motorist" doesn't really cover it). To me it seems notable - in fact a striking feature of the accident story - and should be mentioned; the man concerned was a ==casualty==; and what makes his story notable is that it's a distinctive element of the ==aftermath==: hence the dual mention. We hesitate to name people not involved in the aviation operations; but it would seem tasteless (evasive) to include Pearson's story without naming him. So to me the consensus version, though unusual, was right - SquisherDa (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did review it and restored it, as I think the lawsuit was unusual, significant and can't be included without naming the individual. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Why do we need two mentions of this in the body of the article?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Because they are tied together in the text. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't logical at all. First, it contradicts the consensus we don't name people unless they are the cockpit crew or WP notable. Why is Pearson more important than the entourage of Władysław Sikorski or Cecilia Cichan the only survivor of Northwest Airlines Flight 255? Secondly, why does this crash related detail need to be mentioned two times while we don't repeat details of the crash again?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to offer an opinion I dont really think he is worth a mention, he did good stuff probably based on his marine training but a lot of others were involved in the rescue. I have also a reliable source that says Matt Pickard was the first rescuer on the scene and received a certificate for his bravery. Best just remove both mentions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and we always forget the lifeboat crew that were involved and later won recognition for the help at the accident, these were all brave people so rather than name everyone of them best just to stick to a summary of events. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favour of mentioning him by name, except for his later successful lawsuit, which seems quite precedent setting. The lawsuit decision makes this unusual and I think worthy of an exception. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Condolences in articles about aviation accidents

Many articles about aviation accidents list, and sometimes quote, statements of condolence issued by government agencies, airlines, and aircraft manufacturers. This is often a lengthy list. Sometimes, an entire section of the article is devoted to listing condolences such as this current example. It seems to me that these statements of condolence contribute nothing of encyclopedic worth. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) does not mention condolence statements. What do others think?—Finell 01:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. They are mostly just boilerplate text. I would agree they add nothing of encyclopedic value and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN

This discussion at WP:RSN about the use of enthusiast websites as references may be of interest.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fatality counts

Just as a heads up, the fatality counts of both Korean Air Flight 801 and United Airlines Flight 232 have been changed from 228 and 111 to 229 and 112, respectively, to be in line with other articles which include fatalities from injuries, regardless of the NTSB's policy of only listing them as "fatalities" if they died within 30 days of the accident, like in Delta Air Lines Flight 191, Los Angeles runway disaster, or Continental Airlines Flight 603. So if you ever see these old fatality counts listed on other articles, they probably should be changed. Thank you. LearyTheSquid (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Frank Edwards

Should the plane crash that killed Frank Edwards (Illinois politician) have an article or accident listing, since a notable person died? WWGB (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily work that way. To have a light aircraft accident article we normally require that a notable person died in the accident or that the accident resulted in some sort of changes, like an Airworthiness Directive, change in ATC procedures, etc. But it doesn't follow that just because a notable person dies in an aircraft accident that we need to have a stand-alone article on the accident. In this case the details in the press seem to be very scant at this point, not enough information to start an article. Looking at what there is there, it is probably sufficient to leave the accident in the person's bio article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of move discussion for Death of Aaliyah

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been proposed to be moved from Death of Aaliyah to 2001 Marsh Harbour Airport crash. Discussion is located at Talk:Death of Aaliyah#Requested move 31 January 2020. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ČSA Flight 511 (March 1961)

What does anyone think of this source[29] saying the plane may have been shot down by the Russians? That isn't the official cause. It is around 300 km from the Czech border to Nuremberg. A Soviet missile that far into West German air space seems a little far fetched....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the current coverage in the article, naming it as an unlikely theory is probably the right approach. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Where in the article does it say unlikely?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say it is implied. It is certainly given no credibility. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I am just going to remove the whole bit unless someone objects....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably the best idea. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit to infobox aircraft occurrence template

I have proposed a change to the formatting of the Infobox aircraft occurrence template, building on the work that has been done to date already. Please view the proposal and discuss on the infobox talk page. Thanks, Shelbystripes (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

1956 Crane Corporation Lockheed PV-1 crash

Just for information 1956 Crane Corporation Lockheed PV-1 crash is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1956 Crane Corporation Lockheed PV-1 crash MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Mangalore mid-air collision

FYI:
Basic sources for only several hour old(?) mid-air collision, 4 deaths, in Victoria Australia

Four dead after Mangalore plane crash

Devastating': Four dead after two planes crash in mid-air over central Victoria

220 of ^Borg 04:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a typical mid-air collision between two light aircraft, a Piper Seminole and Beech Travel Air. There are hundreds of these globally every year, so not really notable. Your article link is a redlink, so there is no article on it. What was your point or question? - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with notability needs for this area, just bringing it to the attention of potentially interested editors. 220 of ^Borg 07:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of mid-airs? https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/presolo/skills/avoiding-midair-collisions Or is that USA only? 220 of ^Borg 07:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that is US only. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for 'updating' me. 220 of ^Borg 06:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There have been at least two-mid air small aviation accidents in South Florida (Where I live) in the last five years. Neither has an article. These type of accidents are rarely notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably a lot rarer here in Oztralia. ≈One thirteenth USA population, and I think your rate of internal air-travel-per-person is higher too? 220 of ^Borg 06:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

1961 President Airlines Douglas DC-6 crash

I removed part of the article that said the pilot had alcohol. The reference["Airmail book"Vogt, Ronny (1997). Irish Crash Airmails. Bray: Irish Airmail Society. p. 281. ] for this info I am not sure is a WP:RS. Please note here[30], where more info about the book and its publisher can be found. I'd like to hear other opinions regarding the info and the source.

@Ww2censor: who originally put this in the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE: yes, I added that information and reference. It is published information of an official Irish government primary source record. As you know we are discouraged from using primary sources and being from 1994 it is likely not online. Besides which I know the research for this book was diligent and impeccable, so see no reason to remove it. The book is now the established publication on Irish aviation crashes related to airmails. The link you provided is now well outdated. The book was published by, a now defunct, specialist philatelic society and at that time was distributed by the author in Europe and elsewhere by others as your link suggests. You will find current references and availability at here, here amongst other sites. ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WW, I want to hear other opinions before restoring the edit (I will be the first to do it if consensus says to keep it, or no one else posts to this thread besides me and you) but lets give a few days for others to chime in. This info needs to be sourced first class, IMHO I think we need a better source. Let's you and I see where this discussion goes. Ok?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE: Thank you for removing this information. It is untrue und would be unfair to the memory of the pilot and the pilots relatives. I sadly lost a family member in this crash. The reason for the crash was that they accidentally used the wrong typ of fuel at Shannon airport which caused the crash only a couple of seconds after take-off. The Wikipedia entry does not mention how many seconds passed between take-off and crash but I do believe it was less than 60 seconds. This information never was made public (I guess because the officials at the time were worried about liability). We got the information from close friends working for the airline who investigated the accident. As this information was never made public unfortunately I do not have written proof. IdaS7

Pinging- MilborneOne, Ahunt, Mjroots, Jetstreamer, YSSYguy, Samf4u, and {{Petebutt if they want to join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me in this discussion. I see nothing wrong with including that source. Considering that it is a primary source, I'd add something like "According to, bla bla bla..." to the text. Is there any possibility to find another source not mentioning the pilot was alcoholised so that that can also be mentioned in order to balance the information in the article?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If Ww2censor feels that the research for the book is thorough, then that is good enough for me. If a secondary source publishes info from a primary source, then it is useable. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, Ww2censor Please consider what this would do to the families of the victims and the family of the pilot. The cause of the accident was not because a crew member was drunk and there is no official report that suggests anything close to it. IdaS7

Unless an official accident report mentions crew intoxication it may be better to leave it out ; better to have at least two sources for anything contentious. Also, don't forget, just because something is published in a book or magazine does not make it irrefutable!--Petebutt (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

To state the pilot "had alcohol in his blood" implies he had been drinking prior to the flight and is a very serious charge indeed. I'm aware in some conditions a body may "produce" alcohol after death. Allow me to quote from a medical journal: "A person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) and state of inebriation at the time of death is not always easy to establish owing to various postmortem artifacts. The possibility of alcohol being produced in the body after death, e.g. via microbial contamination and fermentation is a recurring issue in routine casework. If ethanol remains unabsorbed in the stomach at the time of death, this raises the possibility of continued local diffusion into surrounding tissues and central blood after death"

I've located two reports that I believe pass WP:RS.

https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/import/uploads/2017/11/N90773.pdf released by the Minister for Transport and Power, Ireland in October 1963 and

http://www.shannonparish.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Clare-Champion-ShannonInqueston77AircrashVictims.pdf

Neither report mentions anything about crew alcohol consumption, therefore I believe any reference to alcohol use should be excluded from the article. - Samf4u (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe I will obtain a copy of the released Irish State Papers report on this crash in which this information was found. However, it will be at least two weeks before that happens because the person who has it is away from home and will not return before then. As Samf4u says this is a serious charge, but if it can be verified, then it should be seriously considered for inclusion. The Irish Minister for Transport and Power's report, noted above, may well not be the final one, so let's just be patient for a while. While The Clare Champion's report is quite detailed it is contemporaneous to the event, just 6 days after the crash, it certainly won't include the final conclusions that always take time. ww2censor (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan and I would like to thank ww2censor in advance for going though the trouble to obtain the report. - Samf4u (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Usage of clips of Mayday (Air Disasters) posted by the Smithsonian Channel as external links only (also the series Why Planes Crash)

Dear editors,

Here is a discussion over when/how to add clips of Mayday (Air Disasters) posted by the official verified YouTube account of the Smithsonian Channel (the TV channel in the US broadcasting the series) in the Template:External media templates in the external links sections on articles about aviation accidents. This is only about using them as external links, not as actual sources in the article.

Most of the time they are sample clips, about 2-3 minutes long, from a particular episode. Samples:

• Nigeria Airways Flight 2120: "Fire in the Air". Smithsonian Channel. 2013-04-10.
• Germanwings Flight 9525: "Did This Co-Pilot Willfully Crash Into the French Alps?". Smithsonian Channel. 2018-02-02.

On one occasion the Smithsonian Channel posted a full episode, that of Cathay Pacific Flight 780: "Air Disasters: Deadly Descent (Full Episode)". Smithsonian Channel. 2019-09-01. - The channel also posted a preview to that episode.

Also note The Weather Channel has posted clips about aviation accidents and incidents too: one about the 1970s ALM crash, but it's from a different program, Why Planes Crash. This series may be discussed too.

The question is whether they should be posted at all and under what circumstances.

---

My position: I feel the clips have value for members of the general public who are not specialists in the field, and who want a quick overview about the accident itself and/or an aspect of it, but who do not have the interest/patience in reading the actual accident reports. Wikipedia, after all, is a resource for general readers. It could also be a resource for a specialist or interested person who wants to know of a clip he/she/they could use to illustrate the case to a general audience. I would be OK excluding a link if the link actually contradicts the reports and/or has a demonstrable inaccuracy.

@WilliamJE: @MilborneOne: @Ahunt: @Samf4u: @Jetstreamer: @Petebutt: @Mjroots: @Shelbystripes: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The main issue with the use of Mayday, as opposed to actual documentaries, is that it is fictionalized drama and has has been noted as inaccurate in the past. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Which particular episodes are known to be inaccurate? I wonder if this occurred after a certain year or time period (as I recall at least earlier episodes mainly stuck to the reports, or at least mostly did: There was one part from the Aeroperu 603 episode where the source on one aspect (on the pain/suffering of the victim) was from a Miami lawyer representing the families and not the official reports.

One could compare the clip to the report itself and document on the talk page whether the clip deviates from the report.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Question are there any WP:COPYRIGHT issues? We also have WP:YOUTUBE to consider. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am unsure, as this point was brought up by other WikiProject Aircraft editors in discussions about using it as a ref. Hopefully others here can add some details. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: @Mjroots: This was addressed in Talk:Nigeria Airways Flight 2120. WilliamJE asked User:Justlettersandnumbers to take a look and Justlettersandnumbers concluded there is no copyright problem as the videos do come from the Smithsonian Channel. Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking states: "External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as [...] the website has licensed the work from the owner[...]" (my emphasis added on this part). The Smithsonian website, down on the bottom of this page has a section "more social" which links to this channel. The Smithsonian Channel airs Air Disasters and the extended description of one of the sample videos identifies it as from Air Disasters ("From: AIR DISASTERS: Under Pressure").

Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites states that users should take care that the uploader of a video has the right to do so (do not link to copyright violations on YouTube) though there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated entry into this discussion. It is me who caused it originally. I was busy late yesterday and asked Whisper to start it up here.

First as for copyright, I had those concerns but as Whisper points out, administrator justlettersandnumbers said that isn't a problem. Just, who does a great deal of copyvio editing here, has my confidence. If they say copyvio isn't a issue with these links I believe it.

I do however agree with Ahunt. These programs are dramatizations not documentaires. They aren't even considered a reliable source for aviation accident articles per a talk page discussion around here that I can't find at the moment....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Air Disasters and Why Planes Crash were produced to create revenue by selling television commercial time. As stated above these "shows" are dramatization and not in line with the spirit of an encyclopedia IMHO. - Samf4u (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of having them be external links, which are not at the same level of scrutiny as reliable sources: IMDB, a user-generated website, is happily used as an external link in film articles, but it is regarded as absolutely not appropriate for an actual cited source. Wikipedia:External_links also states that "Links to be considered" includes "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Re: the motive for the source, newspapers and news media organizations are also there to sell airtime/ad space, and Wikipedians use them to cite non-scientific/non-technical information (this is different from scientific/technical information, which of course should in-article strictly be cited to accident reports and scientific sources). Does this mean we should not use CNN, The Guardian, etc. media as external links either?

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Mayday are (boring) dramatizations and not documentaries, but they seem to me reliable enough for inclusion as external links, provided the linked video comes from the copyright owner (which seems to be the case for the Smithsonian Channel) and not reposted by some random YouTube user, which would be copyvio. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mayday programmes are made for entertainment they are not reliable as sources so I cant see why you would want to link to a video. We dont allow made up images or animated gifs of dramatisations in accident articles (unless they are part of the official report) so this would extend to non-factual works like Mayday which cant be used as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And indeed we don't use them as sources for our articles nor do we reference them from within the article. As already pointed out above, "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" can be included as EL, and a programme from the Smithsonian Channel, even if in the docu-drama format, seems well past that threshold. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

There is additional valuable information that can be in a Mayday program that has nothing to do with technical, scientific, or legal aspects of the crash investigation: Socio-cultural ones such as who was on board the aircraft, how the survivors felt/managed, and also the cultural or societal ramifications. In regards to the book Dealing With Disaster in Japan (written by a Japanese studies lecturer, not an aircraft accident investigator) I left a note on the talk page, after considering book reviews, that this work is not to be cited for technical, scientific, or legal analysis, but it can be cited for societal and cultural analysis. Also one can review each individual episode or segment to see if it just simply lifts the technical/scientific info directly from the report. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"In the cabin it is becoming almost impossible to breath" That's from the Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 video. How is that known for certain? Nobody survived the crash. Yes it is probably true but clips of these disasters contain scenes (Like a flight attendant using a fire extinguisher) that there is no way of corroborating. If someone put the fire extinguisher bit into the article, it would be removed for that reason. So why are linking to something that does have that in it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I'm personally interested in reading the report on that one and seeing if the report talked about survival aspects and the like, and/or if the CVR picked up noise from the passengers. That way I could compare the Mayday footage like the passengers having difficulty breathing to any comments the Saudis made in their report. Sadly the Saudis don't seem to have published it online. If you know of a place where it has been published I would appreciate the info! I just recently found some reports from the Indian government that for a while hadn't been published online... WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Having Mayday as an EL does not mean that we endorse it as a reliable source. It simply tells the reader "there's more stuff here from a reputable publisher that could be relevant (and that you may have heard about from the TV), even if it's not something we have used for this article." --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then we run into a problem with paragraph 2 of WP:ELNO which reads- 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.'...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Smithsonian Channel [31] could be described as such website. That paragraph refers rather to sites such as Infowars, Goop and that sort of nonsense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Final Report

There are several sites, notably ICAO E-Library, Indian DGCA, that doesn't support linking, I'm wondering if there's a way to link these reports.
Also, I'm unsure of the possible copyright issues.
Thanks in advance.
HanayoPlus LP (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again- Munich air disaster

I removed all the non-notable people named at the page and an editor seems not to get it even though I posted[32] to their talk page about not one, but three recent conversations on this topic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a project-wide consensus about this? The full list of passengers, both survivors and fatalities, is widely reported at every anniversary of the Munich air disaster, and it seems a little churlish that in a list that would contain a maximum of only 44 people, we focus only on those who deserve a Wikipedia article. Sure, they're only notable for being involved in the accident, but there's not that many of them and it adds to the article to be able to list all 44 people. – PeeJay 12:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Three reasons not to do this:

• We have a consensus not to, because if you put it in this article then people are going to take that as a new consensus and put them in all articles, including ones where hundreds died.
• Lists of non-notable people are non-notable, see WP:LISTBIO
• and especially WP:NOTMEMORIAL

- Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:LISTBIO that says non-notable subjects can't be included in a list that also includes notable subjects. Could you please expand on that for me? I also don't see how this fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The fact is, for most air crashes, the full list of passengers (both fatalities and survivors) seems pretty hard to come by, but for the Munich air disaster, the list is full and sourced. Leaving out any members would make a reader question why some few had been omitted, especially when some (e.g. Vera Lukic, who is famous for having been pregnant at the time of the crash and was travelling with her two-year-old daughter) are famous enough to have been regularly written about but possibly not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article (per WP:ONEEVENT, since these people are largely only notable for having been involved in the crash). – PeeJay 15:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:LISTBIO says that list "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines". It obviously doesn't meet that threshold, as it is just a list of non-notable people. We wouldn't write text on each dead passenger in an article. By "non-notable" I mean that they do not have bios on Wikipedia. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies because the only reason to include a list of non-notable people is for memorial purposes. Would the article be less understandable to readers without the list of dead passengers? I would argue that it would be more understandable without the list, because the list of names adds nothing to the understanding of the crash, it only adds clutter. There is no confusion to readers in most accident articles, as we clearly title it, "Notable people who died" and then list them. How is Vera Lukic famous, when we have no article on her? Part of our consensus is that people must have been notable for something other than having been killed in the accident. How does knowing some random person died in an accident add understanding of the causes of the accident? For these reasons we have a consensus not to include dead passenger list. To change that you are going to need to present a very convincing case as to why this list is needed, how it increases reader understanding of the accident. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of an arrogant view to assume that a famous person would have to have a Wikipedia article. Not every famous person (at least within their field) is notable enough for Wikipedia, and not every person who is notable enough for Wikipedia is necessarily famous. – PeeJay 19:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't really care whether someone is "famous" or not, as there are so many different standards of fame. Here on Wikipedia what is required is notability. But let;s get back to the key issue: you need to create a new consensus here, so what is your actual case for including a list of non-notable dead passengers? - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not I reverted PeeJay's restoration of the non-notable people Ahunt, will tell you the one exception is the cockpit crew and because they are heavily named in any accident reports. I missed a steward, the first times around....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The way it is presented at the moment, as two lists headed "Fatalities" and "Survivors", gives the impression that it is a complete list. If it is to list only notable people (which is fine by me) the headings should be "Notable fatalities" and "Notable survivors". - htonl (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That will help readers, so good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Weird arguemnt about notablity when it comes to surviors and fatalies in the munich air disaster I want point out that far as I know every person that survied the accident has come forward in media and told their story far as I know as there have been plennty of anniversaries since the accident now over 62 years ago. Also I do find it weir toe this seriously dubus line of notability as I would like to ask who is notable to whom? Im pretty sure in many non-Europan the Munich Air Disaster has no notablity as pepole in those countries are not that emotionally involved or intrested in an aviation accident that happened in Europe decades ago, and even if the news reached around the globe when it happened back in 1958. I can personally admit that when reports comes about accident in Asia, Africa and South-America etc that turns out to be fatal I don't show nearly as much intrest in the story as when its closer to home such as in Europe or North-America. With that said I can understand why inclusion of names survivors and fatalites can be problimetic when it comes to articles about accidents and disasters. Because list with all involved is usually not ready made for use, where you can tick the boxes who has died and who has survied. When it comes to natural disasters and terror attacks its near impossible to get list of all involved the bigger the disaster is, chaos is always at the center of these incident. There probaly many examples of MIA person that aren't mia because some inviduals might have been reported twice (maybe with diffrent spell of their name) or person might be MIA but nobody knows they were here as none notice that they were MIA. Same for fatailies some times inviduals that die could see their body disintgrate in manner that indentification could be near impossible so there is no formal confirmation that they are dead. And finally the surviors it has happend that pepoles have falsified their survivor stories. So as you see the task of including names in articles about diaster & accidents is problimatic as I said. But how would I go about it well I think when it comes to the actual text in the article explaining what happened names should be used as reported by media, since using only prononce would look weird. Personally I would only includes names in list, if such list has actually been published by valid authority. Other wise I don't see reason for inclusion of such list in an article about disaster or accident and I clearly I would not go great length of including just only "famous" pepoles I would rather include all involved or none. Rather than toe dubious line as I said since who is famous to whom any way?DoctorHver (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

naming convention for accidents involving notable groups

I believe we need to add a naming convention for accidents involving notable groups. Currently, there are a handful of such pages with no consistent naming format. These often lack airlines and flight numbers, since they are often chartered flights. I propose the format:

<year> <group> <event>

If the accident is notable mostly for the injury/death of the group, then the other current formats focusing on the place do not adequately describe the page. For example:

• Wichita State University football team plane crash -> 1970 Wichita State Shockers football plane crash
• 1977 Mississippi CV-240 crash -> 1977 Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash
• Cal Poly San Luis Obispo football team C-46 crash -> 1960 Cal Poly Mustangs football plane crash
• Southern Airlines Flight 932 could have the redirect 1970 Marshall Thundering Herd football plane crash
• Air Indiana Flight 216 could have the redirect 1977 Evansville Purple Aces men's basketball plane crash

An alternative for the sports team incidents would be to use the full name of the school and add "team" in lieu of including the mascot. If there is consensus, I can draft this onto the project page and move the pages above appropriately. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "Wichita State University football team" tells the average reader more than "1970 Wichita State Shockers football [team]" and that "Cal Poly" should be expanded to at leasr "California Polytechnic" though "State University" might be optional.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: to be clear, you would support what I propose except to replace mascots with school names and the "team" qualifier, as follows?

• Wichita State University football team plane crash -> 1970 Wichita State University football team plane crash
• 1977 Mississippi CV-240 crash -> 1977 Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash
• Cal Poly San Luis Obispo football team C-46 crash -> 1960 California Polytechnic State University football team plane crash
• Southern Airlines Flight 932 could have the redirect 1970 Marshall University football team plane crash
• Air Indiana Flight 216 could have the redirect 1977 University of Evansville men's basketball team plane crash

I wonder if the "team" is necessary, as a way to shorten the page names. I suppose the year could also be omitted, though including it is consistent with other naming conventions. In the specific case of Cal Poly, I wonder if the full name "California Polytechnic State University" disambiguates it from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona as well as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion, so I am proceeding to add to the naming conventions section. I am leaving out the year, as it adds unnecessary disambiguation and further lengthens the page names. If anyone has concerns, feel free to revert and continue the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

How are these disasters known in the public an how were they reported?DoctorHver (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A deletion discussion

has been started for Category:Aviation accidents and incidents with a sole survivor. The CFD can be found here[33]. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Active vs inactive crew in infobox

According to multiple sources there were 6 *active* and 6 *inactive* crew onboard Sriwijaya Air Flight 182. For cases like this do we include 6 in the crew section of the infobox or 12? I'm inclined to say 6 as the 6 inactive crew just seem to be passengers waiting to be crew on a later flight. FozzieHey (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inactive crew are "deadheading", they are passengers. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats the word I was looking for, completely forgot! Is this taskforce large enough to get a reasonable consensus on this or should I post it to the main WikiProject because @PaPa PaPaRoony: doesn't seem to want to budge on this. FozzieHey (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You can quote this on the article talk page if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

N3RB Citation Fatal Crash

Is the N3RB Cessna Citation crash that killed two on January 9, 2021 notable for it's own article? Article, Article, ATC Audio, Flightaware; Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it would be, or even mentioned in the aircraft type article for that matter. As per WP:AIRCRASH, it was an aircraft crash with no notable people involved and no indication that it will result in any lasting effects, such as changes in ATC procedures, airworthiness directives, pilot training, etc. See WP:LASTING and also WP:NOTNEWS. Just seems like another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL aircraft crash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with what Ahunt says above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Saudia Flight 163

There is a talk page discussion going on. Please come over and share your opinion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Corso helicopter crash

has been nominated for deletion.[34] Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Are this and this accidents so notable to deserve a page on Wikipedia?--Paolo9999 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing those questions here!

• 2021 Xumabee Game Ranch helicopter crash involves the death of a notable person Sasa Klaas (someone with her own bio on Wikipedia)
• 2021 Touques Airbus AS350B helicopter crash also involves the death of a notable person Olivier Dassault (someone with his own bio on Wikipedia)

On that basis, yes, they should both be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of Mayday episodes

There is a talk page discussion that editors here may be interested in. Please come on over....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Aviation accident related articles at AFD

There are 4 at this moment-

• 2021 Lomonosovsky light planes mid-air collision Here is the AFD.
• 2021 Saint-Pathus Robin DR400 plane crash Here is the AFD.
• 2021 Hermosillo Cessna 401 plane crash Here is the AFD.
• B-17 Flying Fortress No. 42-29532 Memorial Here is the AFD.

Please come on over and join in the discussions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hattiesburg plane crash

Is at AFD. Please come over and take part in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 GAR

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aviation/Aviation accident task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Aviation/Aviation accident task force articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stephen Baltz" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stephen Baltz. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Stephen Baltz until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FYI, Baltz was a initial survivor of this aviation disaster....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash

This crash happened more than a month ago, now. No lasting effects from this accident, fails WP:EVENT and of course WP:AIRCRASH, as just another routine light aircraft accident with no lasting effects. At this point there is no cause determined but seems most likely to have been a mechanical failure or over-loading/weight and balance issue and subsequent pilot loss of control. Any arguments that this article is worth keeping? - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

None from me. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Around and around we go-

There is a discussion here[35] about whether a crash survivor who doesn't have an article should be named in the article. Please come on over and join in the conversation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is still open[36]. Please come on over....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Questionable page moves

User KlientNo.1 has recently made a number of questionable moves:

• ValuJet Flight 592 → ValuJet Airlines Flight 592

Contravenes WP:COMMONNAME; the airline was commonly known simply as Valuejet.

Keep. Most crash articles include "Airlines" or some appropriate form (e.g. American Airlines Flight xxx, Delta Air Lines Flight xxx...). Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good argument when guidelines are not followed in the first place. Even the NTSB's accident report (let alone the press) contains 24 occurrences of 'Valujet Airlines' vs 550+ of 'Valujet'. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the naming conventions specify to start with the airline, and our article on the airline is at ValuJet Airlines, not ValuJet (an {{R from short name}} redirect). Mdewman6 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• 2010 Conair CV-580 crash → Conair Aviation Flight 448
• 2006 Falsterbo Swedish Coast Guard C-212 crash → Swedish Coast Guard Flight 585

Although the ASN lists 448 and 585 as their 'Flightnumber' (sic) [37][38], the accident reports only mention their callsigns ('Tanker 448' and 'KBV 585' respectively). The ASN is at liberty to construe a flight number from a callsign (and they don't have a Callsign field in their summary information, unlike us), but should we?

Revert move. We follow the official reports. If they don't use a flight number, we shouldn't either. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Air Bagan Flight 11 → Air Bagan Flight 011
• Aeroflot Flight 3 → Aeroflot Flight 03
• Aeroflot Flight 4 → Aeroflot Flight 04

Wasn't there a consensus or at least a discussion on whether to include leading zeros in such cases? And how many zeros should be added, one, two or none at all?

Leading zeroes are certainly allowed (e.g. Korean Air Flight 007, an example listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions) but must follow use in WP:RS. I cannot find any RS to support the form of the flight number, but I didn't look too hard either. Keep or revert moves according to how the flight number is written, with deference to any official reports. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• United Nations Flight 544 → United Nations Flight-544

What's the point, was this a test?

The article in question is named 2012 United Nations Mi-8 shootdown; both of the above are redirects. It looks like Klient renamed the article in the lead and infobox, but then instead of moving the article to United Nations Flight 44, he moved the redirect at United Nations Flight 44 to the hyphenated form. (Generally redirects are not moved, instead new redirects are just created at the desired target.) If there is a flight number for this incident used in official reports and other reliable sources, start a WP:RM discussion for this article specifically. Whether the hyphenated form is appropriate as a redirect is an issue for a discussion at WP:RFD. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Aeroflot Flight 20 → Aeroflot Flight 20/101

Apparently some sources report 20 as flight number and others 101, but this is the wrong way to cover that in the article. No sources mention 'Flight 20/101'; the title now is just misleading.

Revert move. We need to use the flight number based on a preponderance of the reliable sources, and then have the other one as a redirect (Aeroflot Flight 101), not combine them into some confusing hybrid title. Revert to the status quo, and if someone believes it should be under the other flight number, start a requested move discussion at that talk page to hash it out. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

However, there is Aeroflot Flight 101/435, which has been at that title for many years. Of course, reliable sources are more challenging for aeroflot stuff, but that's what we need. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would revert those moves myself if the system allowed me, but an admin is required for that, and probably some discussion too. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering there was no discussion prior to the moves, I think it would be best to utilize the "R" and "D" of WP:BRD. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You can revert a page move if there have been no significant edits to the resulting redirect by moving it back to the original page. I certainly disagree with at least some of the moves, but I would give Klient a little time to join the discussion here before jumping to BRD. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! The first move is because it is better use the whole airline name and not just ValuJet. ValuJet may have been common but ValuJet Airlines is the correct name to use here. The second and third name is because if the callsign is rather evident, we should use the flight number. If the callsign did include a number, it was a flight number or else what else would it be? the third fourth and fifth one is because we should use the whole flight number and not just a portion of it. I don't know which discussion you may be talking about or referring to. The sixth one is because the flight number is included so it is better off to use it and someone had previously made a move where I could not make a direct move to United Nations Flight 544. The seventh one is because we can't exactly include only one number. It is a varying topic and there is this page as well : [39] where there is a similar title scheme. KlientNo.1 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It would seem most efficient to discuss all of these here and reach consensus on whether any need to be moved back. I left comments under each bullet above. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sterna Linhas Aéreas Flight 9302

For Information Sterna Linhas Aéreas Flight 9302 has been proposed for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination of Pan Am Flight 7

I have nominated the Pan Am Flight 7 article as a Featured Article candidate. Your feedback would be appreciated at the nomination page if you have some time. Thank you, RecycledPixels (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No clear description on when and when not to use abbreviated forms in page titles

So I've been a bit hesitant to ask this but can someone add this because I can't see any clear description on when and when not to use abbreviated forms in page titles here. Pages themselves take their own very name where most of them use the non-abbreviated form (e.g. British European Airways Flight 548, Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182, Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303, Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529 etc.) whereas a few others use it in the abbreviated form (e.g. TWA Flight 800, BOAC Flight 712, KLM Flight 4805, probably Pan Am Flight 103 etc.) There should be some rule where you should use the non-abbreviated form with an exception being that if the lengthened form of the word was not widely known such as KLM or TAM, the abbreviated form should be used. KlientNo.1 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

We should us the airline name that is used as the article title for the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: If that's the case then TWA and BOAC pages should be renamed. KlientNo.1 (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with MilborneOne: while I generally value consistency across the encyclopedia, that is the last criteria of the five that matters when naming an article. Recognizability is the first one, so you should work out which is the name most commonly used in the sources to refer to the accident flight (or event), and use that one. Other reasons to break strict consistency are clarity and conciseness: renaming BOAC Flight 712 to British Overseas Airways Corporation Flight 712 would make it less clear: the airline name overwhelms the rest – which is the part that matters – while using the full airline name instead of BOAC on the airline article arguably makes it clearer what the subject matter is. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, WP:COMMONNAME applies for airline names and consequently for crash articles, so e.g. ′TWA Flight 800′ is fine for me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy safe skies, Batman!

An editor created[40] a Aviation accidents and incidents in template for 2022. Since the only entries had no articles, I removed them[41]. The template is now devoid of links and would qualify for WP:TFD but IMHO that's a waste of time. Sooner or later, the template will have an entry. If anyone disagrees, feel free to start the TFD. We're into February already without a notable accident or incident. Pretty incredible and unheard of in the dozen or so years I have been helping to maintain the templates....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2022 Þingvallavatn air crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Þingvallavatn air crash...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 1986 Ljósufjöll air crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1986 Ljósufjöll air crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Images and animation at Tenerife airport disaster

At Tenerife airport disaster a recent SPA has been making frequent image changes, and has most recently added an animation of the incident here. I recalled a past discussion in the article Talk archives, in which someone said "Previous consensus (at project level) was that made-up images and animations were not to be used": here. I haven't been able to find that consensus here however, and rather than continually revert the SPA myself I thought I would bring this here for other eyes, and if someone can point towards that rumored consensus, great. I mean, the animation isn't even added in a useful section, but I've previously encouraged the editor to discuss things on Talk to no avail. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision

Has been nominated for deletion. Please join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Article naming convention for regional flights by contractors

The recent page move of CommutAir Flight 4933 from United Express Flight 4933 got me thinking: has any attempt been made to establish a consistent policy for names of accident articles involving a regional airline contractor operating under a major airline's brand name, e.g. CommutAir d/b/a United Express, Envoy Air d/b/a American Eagle, Jazz Aviation d/b/a Air Canada Express, and so on? Current accident article names are inconsistent, e.g. AVAir Flight 3378 and American Eagle Flight 4184 are both linked under American Eagle (airline brand). Carguychris (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, but it is a good question. I think usually we would go with what the sources call it, but perhaps a consensus on it is needed. -Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think usually we would go with what the sources call it—yes, but the issue here is that government crash reports almost invariably use the name of the actual operator, whereas media reports typically emphasize the brand name for public consumption. (Cue imaginary "man on the street" TV report: "I've never heard of Endeavor Air. Delta Connection and Delta aren't the same? Really?") Yes, I think a consistent policy is needed, and per WP:COMMONNAME, I think the brand name should be used. Carguychris (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed a challenging question to answer and I fully support there being a dedicated policy to this. It's still not clear what to name the title by saying "I think we should go with what the sources call it" since in my move request too, I stated that sources both tend to call it "CommutAir Flight 4933" and "United Express Flight 4933". Generally speaking, both names are correct but technically speaking, United Express isn't even an airline since it is only a brand name and that is only used to, in my opinion, give people a sense of pride by stating that they are flying on a more renowned airline when actually that's not the case and therefore it is impossible for it to operate flights since it has no IATA and ICAO codes. Since airlines like CommutAir, Simmons Airlines have an air operating certificate while their brand counterparts (United Express, American Eagle) do not and since the format given here indisputably mentions: <airline> Flight <flight number>, I think we should go from what the actual operator is and not it's major airline banner it is operating under. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And once again, the public can too identify the regional airline from the banner (E.g. Comair Flight 5191, Colgan Air Flight 3407, Air Midwest Flight 5481 etc.) Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice

2007 Balad aircraft crash has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Colgan Air Flight 3407 summary

Hello. There's an ongoing discussion regarding the infobox summary of Colgan Air Flight 3407. It can be found at Talk:Colgan Air Flight 3407#Infobox summary. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know where to ask - accident reports from Mexican investigations?

If this is not the proper forum, please tell me where to ask this question - I want to know where to find official reports for air accidents in Mexico. Spanish language is fine - I assume that's how they're written. I understand they are investigated by the Agencia Federal de Aviación Civil, but I have found elsewhere online they are investigated by the Dirección de General de Aeronáutica Civil Accidente de aviación. Are the reports available online? I found one air accident article that cited a 166-page report on some ICAO database, but it linked to a pdf reader (not the pdf), and the report would not load. Thanks for any help! Dcs002 (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In theory you are at the right place! Most countries understand that accident reports are pretty worthless if kept secret and so most make them widely available. We have a page that lists this sort of information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources but the link you are looking for is not there, meaning no one has found it yet, if it exists. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Maybe here, it's in Spanish though. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Final reports are here, although the one report which I did scan appeared to have some redaction (mainly names).Nigel Ish (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks @Ckfasdf. This is what I was looking for, but it's disappointing. They only seem to report a select few, and they seem to do what they can to make them as illegible and as useless as possible. I think I'm at a dead end, but if you guys can think of any other resources I'd appreciate it. If not, thanks for your help anyway. Now I have a resource I didn't have before, and I do have an interest in air crash articles, so your help is still meaningful to me!

Here's the incident I'm trying to learn about:

An on-demand air taxi crashed in Toluca, Mexico, 15 Sept, 2006, killing two (commercial pilot, charter flight, with fatalities). It was a 6-seat Piper Malibu (XB-JVH) with 7 onboard. Enroute fuel starvation, attempt to divert, stalled 1 mile short of runway. One fatality had been a famous child actor in Mexico and also fairly well known in the US around 2002-03 Pablo Santos (died age 19, only a stub, references to the crash were a mess, Spanish WP article is no better). BAAA says "It was later reported by the authorities that Pablo Santos was seating (sic) on the floor and was not strapped." I can't find Spanish or English press accounts more than 8 days after the accident. Doesn't it seem odd when a famous actor is killed because he was sitting on the floor of an overcrowded air taxi that ran out of fuel and the press seems relatively silent?

I don't know what it takes to get Mexico to write or release a full report. The NTSB has a paragraph about it, saying they got the information from "The foreign authority," apparently in the immediate aftermath because they report 1 fatality and 6 injured; the 2nd fatality occurred the day after the crash. (NTSB has a link to a "full narrative", but it's a dead link. If Mexico did do an investigation, they don't seem to have made it public. (Note: I wrote this maybe 2 days ago but forgot to hit Reply.) Dcs002 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Date and age template in infoboxes

FYI to the project, there is an IP anon that has made it a personal mission to scrub the templates that display "## years, # months ago" and Template:Start date and age templates from the infoboxes of quite a few aircraft accident articles. See Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:B87E:5165:D2D8:463C as one of the examples of the rotating IP addresses. I don't know if there is a consensus to make such a widespread change, but I thought I would ask the project for their opinion. I think this is a useful bit of information to have there, but I'd rather that this project decide that than some random IP. -- Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Bek Air Flight 2100 translation help needed

A final accident investigation report for Bek Air Flight 2100 has been issued by the Kazakh government, but it's written in Russian and an English-language report does not seem to be available, making it difficult for me to update the page (I greatly distrust online bot translations of technical literature). Help from an editor familiar with both aviation accidents and the Russian language would be greatly appreciated. Carguychris (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Problems with List of aircraft hijackings

Six weeks ago, I posted some concerns about List of aircraft hijackings at Talk:List of aircraft hijackings, but have received no comments or responses at all. So I'm going to post my concerns here in hopes of getting some response.

1. What evidence is there of the 1919 hijacking by Franz Nopcsa von Felső-Szilvás? I notice that we don't even have a month for it, just that it took place between March and July. By contrast, the 1928 hijacking in Michigan (the following entry) was front-page news not only locally ("Sky Thug and Pilot Plunge 2,000 Feet Fighting") but in Canada as well ("Pilot Attacked in Air by Passenger"). How could the first airplane hijacking be so poorly documented that we don't even know what month it took place?
2. The 1929-1930 hijacking of Doc DeCelles is even less documented. It doesn't appear to have been reported until 40 years after it took place. Given that when DeCelles reported the hijacking in 1970, it was an era when hijacking was much in the news, it seems possible to me that this was just a man telling a tall tale about being the first person ever skyjacked (I assume he didn't know of the earlier, and documented, 1928 hijacking in Michigan). "DeCelles kept his flight log, according to the article, but he did not file a report with authorities." What kind of flight log fails to record even the year when a flight took place?
3. The 1932 hijacking in Brazil refers to the hijackers and their hostage as "four African American men". Not only is this racial description of questionable relevance, it seeems likely to be misleading, as the term African American is usually used only in reference to people from the United States, and I would be surprised if the persons involved in this hijacking were from the U.S.
4. There seems to be excessive use of flag icons in the list in violation of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use. Whenever a hijacked flight stopped to refuel in another country, that country's flag gets added to the entry, even if the flag does not represent the flight's origin or intended destination, the airline's nationality, or the hijackers' nationality or chosen destination.

Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the word "plane" too informal for article titles?

A plane

As humorously pointed out by @Ahunt in this RM discussion, this is a picture of a plane. Is the word "plane" an appropriate contraction of the word "airplane" or is it unencyclopedic WP:SLANG? The current article naming guidelines use the phrase "plane crash" twice. Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's slang and should not be used in an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

A search of Associated Press articles shows that the AP is not shy about using "plane" to refer to aircraft, including article headlines. See, for example, [42]. On the other hand, I did a search of about a dozen NTSB accident reports published in the past couple of months and the only instances of "plane" were as part of the word "airplane". I personally don't find it too informal. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The general news media can write in slang if they want, here we are running an encycopedia. WP:TONE says Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone ... Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon ... the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw it used in academic journals when I looked for it as well. I was going to post those as links, but got sidetracked on various dictionary sites trying to find one that would label "plane" (referring to the aircraft) as slang or such. I didn't find anything, then got busy with other tasks. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"Plane" by itself certainly does not unambiguously refer to an airplane, but its shortening of airplane is certiainly one of the dictionary definitions of the word and is therefore not slang, per se. Here, "plane crash" is fairly unambiguous, and "airplane crash" or "aircraft crash" seems too awkward and less concise. So, I don't really see a problem here with the current guidance. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And in reference to the linked RM, "jet crash" doesn't seem like it's an improvement, either, and would only be possible in crashes involving jet aircraft. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The word “plane” to mean an aircraft is too informal for an encyclopaedia. Whenever I have seen it used, I have changed it to aircraft or airplane or aeroplane. I intend to keep doing so. Dolphin (t) 02:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No one has mentioned MOS:COMMONALITY, which says: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English). Using "plane" avoids the airplane vs aeroplane ENGVAR problem. This means "plane" should be preferred, as long as it is not too colloquial as others are claiming (which I don't think it is). Un assiolo (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters

(I'm raising this matter here at the request of 77.100.222.101, but it applies to maritime incidents as well.)

I assert that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 ought not be subcategories of Category:Transport disasters in 2023, but 77.100.222.101 disagrees. Edit histories: [43][44].

In summary, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so ought not be sub-categorised as such. Per WP:SUBCAT, "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." It is not the case that accidents/incidents can be expected to be disasters. Some are, but most are not.

Recent related discussion (participants: Hammersoft, Davidships, 97.113.8.72): Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion/Archive_4#category:_Disaster

Note that the argument applies equally to all accidents/incidents (not just aviation, maritime) and all years, so I can see that Category:Transport disasters in 2023 for example will probably need specific articles added instead of subcats.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What is a "disaster" is subjective. The International Federation of Red Cross has this definition. Even that definition is subjective. There's no bright line definition of disaster that I think we can apply here. Maybe someone else has a resource to help with this. To me, it is clear there is a difference between disaster, incident, and accident. I don't know that I can quantity those differences. Being able to quantify the difference underpins this discussion. That said, I don't think the existing category structure is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need a "bright line definition" or to be able to quantify the differences. We simply need to look at the general requirement of SUBCAT. Can we reasonably say that (with possibly few exceptions) "all accidents/incidents are disasters"? If not, we ought not (sub-)categorise accidents/incidents as disasters. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that aviation accidents can be categorically described as disasters, and it's hard for me to think of even a single incident that is popularly described as one. It is certainly subjective, and I would make the call on a strictly case-by-case basis depending on whether a preponderance of WP:RELIABLE secondary sources describe an accident as a disaster. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've remove Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 from Category:Transport disasters in 2023 again. [45][46]. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick apparently still disagrees with my change (history, today's discussion), so I again invite comments and explicit opinions as to whether "accidents and incidents" should be a subcategory of "disasters" (for all similar categories, eg for all years). I say that they should not, because not all accidents/incidents are disasters and WP:SUBCAT says "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that all accidents and incidents are necessarily considered disasters, and as such categories for accidents and incidents should not be subcats under disaster categories. If one jet brushes another and causes damage but no casualties, that's an incident, and might even be an accident, but would anyone call it a disaster? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this issue is significant enough to try to seek consensus. I added the 2023 aviation accidents and 2023 shipwrecks to the 2023 transport disasters subcat, which Mitch Ames reverted today. My two cents:

1) In terms of usability, I think users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters" instead of just "road incidents" and nothing else. Indeed, being a "disasters" buff and being puzzled why I wasn't able to navigate to all modes of transport under "transport disasters" like I could in years past is why I made the now-reverted change. If I am being reasonable and not biased in my usability expectation, I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."

2) Dovetailing on 1), I know that "we've always done it that way" is not Wiki policy but I do note that 2023 is the only year not currently falling under the convention in other years, and I would ask Mitch Ames if he is going to also going to remove the plane and ship categories from all previous years of "transport disasters" as well.

3) If we must grapple with a definition of "disaster" and obsequiously adhere to it for the purposes of these categories, I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition that also satisfies the "with possibly a few exceptions" piece notated above.

4) If the consensus agrees with Mitch Ames, than shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? I don't see the point of it if only "road incidents" qualifies. Mreleganza (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category or at least changing its name. As I've argued already, it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, and there isn't a category for "Aviation accidents popularly described as disasters". Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc. Carguychris (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the (debated, and not really able to be definitively quantified) definition of disaster? Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters?

I say the latter is worse. I'll also point out that it appears that the 2023 ship/train/plane accident categories were all originally part of the 2023 transport disasters parent category; between June and September, Mitch Ames removed those. Since THEN, there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors (myself included) between the three categories attempting to return them to the status quo, and he's reverted 'em all. It's all those categories' histories are about. He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it.

That said, if changing the name to something like Aviation Accidents, Incidents, and Disasters would make everyone happy, I would be on board for that. Mreleganza (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

... there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors ... attempting to return them to the status quo, and [Mitch has] reverted 'em all. ... He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it. — In each of my edits I included a link to this discussion in the edit summary, and at the time of each edit, this discussion (up until about 2023-09-08, before your post generally agreed that accidents/incidents ought not be categorised as disasters. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question becomes: Are Accidents, Incidents and Disasters able to be hierarchically organized, or are they all potentially standalone categories? I'm leaning toward the latter, as it doesn't seem to me that any one of those is inherently subordinate to either of the others. DonIago (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If the latter, where do we get our definition of what constitutes an incident, an accident, and a disaster? Mreleganza (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would think the arbiter there would be what reliable sources are calling the situation. DonIago (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category ... it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, ... Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc — It's not just transport; not all fires are disasters, especially not all arson, nor all attacks, nor all engineering failures, nor all injustice. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Quoting and replying to Mreleganza (quotes are grouped logically here for convenience here by "theme", eg definition of "disaster", removal of entire category, not necessarily chronologically in the order in which they were posted):

users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters — Why? As I've previously stated, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so why would you expect them to listed/categorised as such?

I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster." — Using the word disaster in a way different to normal usage is not the solution. Perhaps we need a set of categories using the more general term "events" that encompasses accidents, incidents and disasters.

which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the ... definition of disaster? — Putting things that are not disasters into a category called "disasters" is simply wrong. In particular, it goes against WP:CATDEF and for subcats WP:SUBCAT "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent". (Yes there may be a few exceptions, but in general one does not expect incidents and accidents to be disasters.)

I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition — I disagree. Per WP:SUBCAT (with my emphasis here), incidents/accidents should be a subcat of disasters "if logical membership of [incidents/accidents] implies logical membership of [disasters] (an is-a relationship)". But that is not the case: one cannot say that an incident/accident logically is a disaster. Counting specific instances in a specific category is irrelevant - it's the logical relationship that matters. Consider a small category "X incidents" with 5 articles, 4 of which are disasters - count them, say it's a majority and include the category in "X disasters". Then I add 5 more articles about incidents that are not disasters to "X incidents" category - now the categorisation is wrong (the majority are not disasters). Simply adding articles (incidents) to the correct category ("X incidents") ought not require changing the category tree.

Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters? — We could add specific articles and/or subcats to a "disasters" category if the article/subcat is specifically about/for disasters.

... shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? — No - you could still add articles to the "disasters" categories as well as the "incidents/accidents" categories. Categories can overlap.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Your block reply here might be more convenient for you, but it makes trying to follow your responses to other users an absolute nightmare to figure out and respond to. On that basis, I oppose your proposal. If you eventually find it more convenient to refactor your replies into their appropriate context, I will revisit and reevaluate. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I did make an attempt at putting each of my replies in situ, but I don't think it makes it any easier to follow - if anything (given that others have replied before me) it is harder. I ask that you consider my comments on their merits (and their reference to content policies and guidelines), and challenge them directly if you disagree with them, rather than simply opposing the arguments based on the position at which I placed them on the talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Maritime incident#Incidents, accidents and disasters are not the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency needed for regional airline incident names

An edit war seems to be breaking out over Horizon Air Flight 2059, which may be moved back to Alaska Airlines Flight 2059 (again) by the time I hit "Add topic". I previously proposed to move CommutAir Flight 4933 to United Express Flight 4933 per WP:COMMONNAME, but the proposal failed to reach consensus. There seems to be little consistency when naming articles about flights operated by a regional airline, e.g., Horizon Air or CommuteAir, under a major airline's brand name, e.g., United Express, American Eagle, Air Canada Jazz, etc. For instance, the article about American Eagle Flight 4184 uses the brand name rather than the actual operator. My personal opinion is that WP:COMMONNAME should control, which means the brand name would control in most cases, but I think some consensus is needed. Carguychris (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Naming the tragic event in the articles head title

Why don't we mention the tragic event in the main title? Like for example 2001 shootdown Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is much informative than just the flight number, no? It's what we do with all other types of tragic events. Sidney.Cortez (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sidney.Cortez It mostly has to do with a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OVERPRECISION. For most aviation accidents and incidents involving civilian airliners, the flight number is most commonly used by reliable secondary sources to refer to the event. Furthermore, adding the time and type of incident, such as adding "2001 shootdown" to "Siberia Airlines Flight 1812", is most often unnecessary disambiguation unless there are more than one accident/incident with the same flight number. Per WP:OVERPRECISION, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." - ZLEA _T\^C 02:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ZLEA,

Thanks for your reply. But some titles don't fall under the disambiguation rule like Murder of Joana Cipriano or Killing of Sanda Dia?

Greetings, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they do. Those articles are on the murders/killings rather than the victims themselves. While you may argue that aviation accident and incident articles are on the accidents rather than the flight numbers themselves, aviation accidents are unique in that the accidents themselves are most often referred to by the flight numbers. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There are different types of aviation accidents. With Sabena Flight 571 or Korean Air Flight 858 you know it's an aviation incident but not what kind immediately. You got to start reading the article before you know it. Hijacking of Sabena Flight 571 and Bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 is more adequate informative, which is more important than "unnecessary disambiguation". Especially for common wiki-readers.

I would state that would be "balanced precision", rather than overprecision. And just using flight numbers right now is underprecision. Sidney.Cortez (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You do make a valid point, though I'm not sure I agree with it. Perhaps you should open a formal RfC to encourage more users to weigh in on this. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @ZLEA, I asked on RfC for help. They ask what to do: Starting RfC on a new page or here. What do you think? Thanks, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be best to start an RfC on this talk page, as it will be more likely catch the attention of those who are more knowledgeable in aviation accidents and incidents. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Accidents/RAM/RJ

Hi there - I saw this edit @Jetstreamer made on Royal Air Maroc correctly undoing an addition as unsourced. This accident actually has its own article 1975 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crash which was not linked in the uncited edit.

However, this led me to two questions which I thought I'd bring up:

• The accident is listed on Royal Jordanian but not on Royal Air Maroc. I know that accidents are usually listed on the operating carrier's article, but I'm not sure what policy/guideline that comes from. I'm unsure if this should be the case when it's a charter flight for another carrier.
• It seems the article was renamed last month without discussion. I'm not sure what the correct name would be here but it seems inconsistent to me that we would list the crash under Royal Jordanian, but not Royal Air Maroc, while the name of the article is "Royal Air Maroc crash".

Figured I'd just ask these questions here for you given your involvement and knowledge of aviation style/guidelines (and tag @Steelpillow and @Ckfasdf who are also knowledgable) for discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about air crash articles, so I have posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Avgeekamfot: it's an interesting question. I guess the main question is on how we treat accident that involves charter flight for another carrier. I don't think we have guideline or consensus of such case yet, see WP:AVTITLE. And, I also think it would better to discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force instead of other editor talkpage. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I initially started writing on Jetstreamer's talk page to explain why I was undoing his revert, then it morphed into questions that I thought you + @Steelpillow would also be helpful with. I'll move this discussion where you suggest. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The above copied from: User talk:Jetstreamer (with minor adjustments) to continue discussion here ~~~~ Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

To start with, linking to another article is not sourcing per WP:V, which is a basic policy. That's the reason why I removed the addition.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, that's why I noted that you correctly undid the edit. But seeing it (I'm watching most of the alliance-member airlines) led me to the two questions I listed out above. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

My first thought is that this information appears to be WP:Glossary#verifiable, and it was reverted because it was WP:Glossary#uncited. (Please do click those links and read about the difference; it's important.)

When you personally know that material is verifiable (for example, you are fairly sure you could find a reliable source for that information with a quick visit to your favorite search engine or by walking over to your bookshelf), then the best, policy-endorsed practice is for you to WP:PRESERVE that information by adding a citation. Another policy-endorsed practice is for you to tag that information with {{citation needed}} (I suggest pinging the adding editor so they know that some more work is needed there).

What's not actually endorsed by policy is:

• I treat the addition of good, relevant information that I personally believe could be cited as some sort of Mother May I? children's game, so if you don't add the citation the first time, you have to start all over, or
• I revert information that doesn't belong in the article at all, and instead of saying that it doesn't belong in the article, I claim that it's just because it's uncited.

(Of course, if you don't know anything about the subject, then you will mistakenly remove good information. That's a risk in our system.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 9 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 9 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 7 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283#Requested move 7 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Los Angeles runway disaster#Requested move 4 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Madrid runway disaster#Requested move 7 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)