Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)

Tense guidelines again

We've previously discussed adding a statement on tense to the guidelines, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Grammatical tense, but never followed through. Are there any objections to adding that now? - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should add it, but I don't think that particular discussion came to a clear consensus. The last post there says that if it is not in service it should be past tense. That leads to odd situations, like standing in front of an aircraft in a museum and saying, "this was an aircraft". I have always edited based on past tense only when no examples exist anymore anywhere (ie all were destroyed). - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend forming a good guideline, since the engine guideline was introduced (quite a few years ago now) there has been very little confusion over tense. I remember the tense being questioned in an article and when I linked to the explanation the editor said 'fair enough'. I tried searching other projects for style guides and tense guidance but it seems that the aviation project is one of few that has guidance. I did randomly stumble across AEC Routemaster (obsolete London double-decker bus) and it is described as 'was' even though plenty are on the road in private hands. I guess the key to tense is if the subject is still being used for its intended purpose or not (the bus is not in regular fare paying service). Could get complicated with warbirds as they are still flying but unarmed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a general guideline at WP:MOSTENSE:

By default, write articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued.... Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. (Emphasis mine.)

That last part does seem to back up Ahunt' preference, though we could quibble over what exactly "meaningfully exist" means. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That is a good find! I think we have to run with that and only refer to aircraft, engines and such in the past tense when they no longer exist, not when they are just out of service. Otherwise it produces very strange grammar. "Is this your private-owned F-86?" "Yes it was." "Were you going to fly it today?" "I was going to." - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This issue seems to have come up again recently and this discussion was never closed or the page changed. I think we can act on the above and amend the guideline accordingly. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I lean towards the past tense. Rather than the above hypothetical dialogue around a privately-owned F-86, which indeed sounds surreal, a more meaningful situation to consider would be, e.g. your child asking you "Dad, what's a spitfire?" Would you word your answer in the present tense? I wouldn't. If the Spitfire can be described essentially as a WWII fighter, the examples still flying today no longer meaningful exist as fighters, which is what I read in WP:MOSTENSE as meaning that the past tense should be used. If a child (or a layperson) opens the article and reads the first line "The Supermarine Spitfire is a British single-seat fighter aircraft", they will be forgiven for wondering if the Spitfire is still patrolling the skies today! --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be interpreting "meaningfully exists" to mean "its existence has meaning" ie, it's still being used as a fighter. That's probably not what the MOS intends, and it's certainly not how I interpret it. I agree the Lead sentence needs to be rewritten, as it predates the enforcement of the Tense guideline, and perhaps even its inception. Adding "retired" after "is" would probably help. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand "meaningfully exists" to be that there are not just little bits of it left. For instance here where I live we have the nose and the the wings from a prototype Avro CF-105 Arrow in a museum. That is all there is of any of them left. Is the Arrow referred to in past tense? Yes. On the other hand here in the city we have quite a few Spitfires of various marks that still fly regularly. I see them over the city quite often (in normal years). So what would you say to your child when they run outside at the sound of the Merlin engine flying overhead and ask "what type of aircraft is that?", pointing at it. "That was a Spitfire" ??? - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahunt, I would say "That is a Spitfire" because we would be referring to a specific example that is clearly in existence. My point is more general: if someone had no clue what 'spitfire' means or is, the simplest way to explain it would be to say that a Spitfire was a WWII fighter aircraft. The present tense may be semantically and philosophically more correct, but WP favours clarity and ease of comprehension over formal correctness (such as with WP:COMMONNAME). Therefore, clarifying right away that a particular aircraft type already belongs to aviation history, rather than current aviation operations, seems much more encyclopedic to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is kind of the point, though. Today World War II is past tense, whereas Spitfires are present tense. The Spitfire was a WWII fighter. The Spitfire is an aircraft seen flying at airshows. It is WWII that is past tense, not the Spitfire. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, our Project guideline is only drawing attention to the general WP:MOSTENSE in the context of aircraft types. If an editor lacks common sense or community spirit, no words that we can write will make them smarter or more cooperative. Let's just get on and see how this latest tweak works in practice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record I disagree with using present tense for obsolete, museum only types. I would not use the word 'quibble' relating to an MOS guideline, rather 'interpret', it has been written that way for a reason, just a shame that it's not black and white. We could ask why so many articles use past tense, are all these editors wrong and will be there be a crusade to 'correct' them? We end up with tortuous leads such as the F-111, The General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark is a retired American supersonic, medium-range...'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

See also

Initial proposal

Following on a discussion on the main aircraft project page I would like to propose the following changes to this suggested guideline:

• Add a new section in body after variants "Related Development - If not already listed in the variants section then describe any other aircraft that are directly related to the subject aircraft."
• The "See also" section is changed to "This section contains links to related articles not already linked including similar aircraft and related lists" everything else is removed.

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just to add it is intended that we dont provide any rules on how the see also also looks (like sub-lists) leave that to the general guideline, basically it would be a straight list of links . MilborneOne (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely think this proposal is moving in the right direction. I am wondering about a few implications/variations:

• Should something like the Canadair CF-104 be treated as a variant of the Lockheed F-104 or a related development? Might it be sensible to bring both groups together into one section, perhaps making related types a subsection of variants, and/or renaming the section "Variants and related types"?
• The "See also" rule on non-duplications would mean that comparable types would often end up scattered across the article and not brought together anywhere. An example might be provided by submissions to a protracted multi-round procurement process. Is it safe to assume that any significant groupings will be mentioned in the main text, or do we need to keep some explicit provision for them? My tentative view is that if they are not worth discussing together in the main text then they are not worth grouping anywhere else in the article, but that may just be a lack of imagination on my part.
• Sometimes the See also section is dominated by lists. This phenomenon is likely to increase as more lists get created and linked. Is this a good or bad thing? Sometimes the lists or the links to them are duplicated in that stack of nav templates that seems to accrue at the bottom of every article. I would love to see a cleaner and more explicit division of labour between list links and navboxes, to reduce clutter and maintenance issues.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Steelpillow

1 Dont have a problem with related development being part of variants, I did try and think of related aircraft that would not be variants, the CF-104 would be a clear variant. I am sure somebody will be along soon and remind us.

2 Agree with your observations.

3 Not a big fan of listing lists, perhaps we should just remove the mention of lists in see also. We can then discourage the addition in see also if they appear elsewhere in a navigation template. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to have a strong view so I will change:

• Variants - to be changed to "Describing major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed."
• See also - to be changed to "This section contains links to related articles not already linked including similar aircraft. To help the reader add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated"

If there is no major objections I will make the change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem in principle with this. But before going ahead I would like to see a couple more attempts to garner views. One is to draw attention to this updated proposal on the Aviation and Aircraft project talk pages. The other is to seek some agreed home for list links, so we can forestall the inevitable "If I can't put them in "See also" then where can I put them?" questions. I am starting a sub-thread below for that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats OK we are not in a rush. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Now I've been away for a while and probably out of touch with changes of policy etc but could someone explain why we're changing things now. They'd hadn't been a problem as I understood it up til now.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. It was sparked off by this discussion on the Aircraft project talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Which was in turn sparked by this edit by a regular user. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So not initiated by policy then? So what we're about here is a bit more clarity about what goes into the See Also section and what stays out. In my opinion put related development in the see also if 1) it isn't already organically included in the body text, 2) not in a navbox at the bottom of the article. And a 'list of aircraft by X' belongs in see also if you haven't namedropped it earlier. That was easy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not that easy. 1) Comprehensive related development and/or Similar aircraft lists, including links already used in the article, have long been a part of Wikipedia aircraft articles, and are features that many readers and editors, myself included, like and want to keep in some form somewhere, which is what is being discussed here. 2) Navboxes are not currently visible to mobile readers on Mobile view, which may include up to 50% of Wikipedia readers. This issue has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's navigation boxes." The guideline hasn't been changed yet, but there is some support for doing so, and it may eventually happen. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd overlooked mobile view showing neither Navboxes nor Categories (an annoyance on my mobile phone which leads me to switching to desktop view for navigation) . In that case, I would say the guidance should "Use the See also for any relevant links or lists that are not accessible elsewhere in the article" and "consider incorporating development of related designs or comparable aircraft in the body text where appropriate but be aware that not everyone reads the whole article when looking and that related and similar aircraft may need to be signposted through the index" To that end, don't change the current layout unless beneficial for the needs of any particular article (the usual case-by-case scenario). Revisit the guideline when Wikipedia do something about navboxes and categories for mobile uses GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Links to list articles

Where should these links go in aircraft articles? Sometimes a given type may be included in several list articles. There is a move to stop adding them to the "See also" section (see above topic). A templated "List of lists" navbox seems an overly rigid and clumsy solution - we have enough clutter down there as it is. Should we stop adding links to list articles anyway, if they are not appropriate in the main article content? For example in the Lockheed Hercules article is a link to Military transport aircraft sufficient and we can just leave out any link to the List of military transport aircraft? To be honest, I think I prefer this last approach and see how it goes. If a good, consensual home appears then we can revisit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think one of two lists added to aircraft type articles is a good thing, but if we are not going to put them in "see also" I really don't know where would work. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, links to list articles are a common feature of See Also sections in many Wikipedia articles, and I don't think we can put that jinn back in the bottle, at least not at the project level. That said, I am for recommending that we (WPAIR) limit them to 1 or 2 links. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another tweak after reading comments:

Variants - This section describes major subtypes or variants of the aircraft. These can be arranged in subsections - see Messerschmitt Me 163 for an example of how this can be done. Related developments by the same company or major modifications by others can also be listed.
See also - This section contains links to related articles or lists not already linked in the article including similar aircraft. Add an explanation why the link would help the reader. The use of the Template:Aircontent is deprecated.

MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No objections after a week so I have added the changes to the guide. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent and ongoing changes to this style guide are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Style guide and in various subsections of that thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

New Operators Map Style via Maplink

I'd like to suggest discontinuing the use of svg maps to show operators and adopt {{Maplink}} instead. This would be easier to edit and update, while also adding a nicer map interface, which can be zoomed and panned.

The SA 330 page contains a Maplink map, instead of an SVG.

What do you think?

Alex Roșu 11:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs)

"Major" variants

The style guide [1] states that lists of variants should only include major variants. How "major" is this, or do all variants count? Thank you for your help. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Boeing 737-800 Series is a major variant. The 737-832 is not.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We normally rely on reliable sources to establish that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies! CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Instead of using the title word 'development', the more appropriate words would be Creation or History. Emirthesenat (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft are not "created", they are "developed", and "history" would conflict with "operational history". - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur. This is standard English language usage. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Creation" can surely only be suggested by someone entirely ignorant of English-language aviation literature. And there is no point in writing "Development history" when the first word says it all on its own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Crash, not accident

I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

• https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129668
• https://crashnotaccident.com/
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/11/17/crash-not-accident-better-road-safety-reporting-could-save-lives-show-researchers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeharding (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We use the word in aviation articles because it has specific, defined and legal meaning for both civil and military aircraft occurrences. For instance the civil Transportation Safety Board of Canada writes:

• Investigation process
• Definition of a reportable occurrence

As you can see "Occurrences" are legally broken down into "Incidents" and "Accidents".

The Royal Canadian Air Force Flight Safety Directorate uses exactly the same terminology, with the exact same meaning, as the language is standard throughout aviation globally.

You can note that in aviation safety, aircraft accidents are all viewed as preventable.

There is no logical reason to stop using the correct legal terms, even if the mainstream general news media is shying away from that. You will not find that same trend in the aviation media. For instance here is a recent aviation media report, that uses the correct terminology. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless and until this fuss brings substantive changes to accepted terminology, we leave well alone. And it is misleading to suggest that the media are actually acting on it themselves, they are just reporting it as a novelty item. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources the OP cited are American. Is this even an issue outside the US? Also, https://crashnotaccident.com/ is an anti-automobile advocacy site, and appears to have a campaign to push this as an issue in the US. I'm concerned that the OP is (inadvertently) violating WP:SOAPBOX by bringing this up. Wikipedia isn't the place to push for social change, neologistic usage, etc. BilCat (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Aeharding: you make a point but BilCat is right, this is no place for personal rants. Wikipedia cannot decide the language evolution. If there is a connotation risk, the best practice is to use the source words. In aviation, accident is defined by the Chicago Convention when there is injuries or fatalities, significant damage, or a missing aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)moved from Talk:Boeing 737 MAX, more relevant here

Units

Changes are being made to this section without prior discussion here. I seem to recall a recent discussion elsewhere, but there was no clear consensus to change this guideline. So maybe we need to clear the air a little here.

Firstly, one can never foresee every circumstance, so the less prescriptive we are the better. For example I do not think we should mandate the use of Template:Convert, it is there to serve us not to bind us. Second, this template does have provision for departing from its default format, and it has that facility for a reason. We should not insist either on the default or on a different format. In particular, when a source states "miles" or "mph" it may mean statute or nautical (nm, knots) miles and speeds. Primary sources often targeted a particular market, and everybody concerned knew which they meant. Secondary and tertiary sources sometimes make the wrong assumption and, without the primary source and knowledge of its market for comparison, there is no way of knowing. For this WikiProject to try and prescribe a way through this kind of mess would be hopeless.

However I do believe that we should give the units published by the manufacturer. This may need to be qualified as in, say, "X claimed but [source Y] gives Z as the true figure", or some care over rounding errors for unit conversions. This is much as the guideline currently states. However, since the Convert template does have some provision for fine-tuning rounding issues, I would delete "If not," from "If the original source does include multiple units, the original numbers should be used to avoid adding rounding errors. If not, units can be converted using the {{Convert}} template." and say something like, "Units may often be converted..."

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is not a simple issue and we have to allow some editorial decision making. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There are two subjects here:

1. Convert template usage: I think it's best to avoid whenever possible (when the source gives both units) as the editor can't know which one is the original figure and which one is the one converted by the source: adding another convesion can lead to rounding error creep ;
2. units to be used (the most sensitive subject is for distances). There are previous discussions on the subject, in Talk:Airbus_A350#Units (proposition to use km, nmi and SM units, consensus to limit to km+nmi), and in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_49#Units_conversion (no obvious consensus, but nmi+km status quo not changed).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Accidents" vs "Crashes"

Let's discuss the use of the word "accident" when referring to airplane crashes. I changed a few instances of the word "accident" to "crash" at Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. User:Fnlayson reverted my changes citing "more formal wording," so I opened a discussion at the talk page for the article, and they helpfully pointed me to this style guide. As I pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident", the term "accident" has fallen largely out of favor in reliable sources. Even in the body of the section I edited, the words had been used interchangeably prior to my edits being reverted. Further reading below, and I'm curious to hear thoughts on the subject. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to standards. Favoring "crash" instead of "accident" reflects the current language standards and avoids potential ambiguity, especially when lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/associated-press-collision.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120417/

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"Accident"

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I see this was discussed last year. There is a difference between using the "correct legal terms" and being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a trade journal or government publication, and we are not beholden to the Royal Canadian Air force or other entities. We should be using the best language we have available to us, full stop. Insisting that we use outdated language because some sources still do represents a misunderstanding of the goals of the project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why it matters. It is easy to get too precious about these things. There is possibly a technical difference, in that an accident might for example include colliding with a parachutist and staying airborne, but that might not be regarded as a "plane crash". And even that is arguable. Both terms are perfectly acceptable in everyday usage. It comes down to good writing, and there is no reason to change either to the other unless it improves the style of writing at that point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"Both terms are perfectly acceptable in everyday usage"

But accident is not acceptable in everyday usage and should be used sparingly if at all. That's my point. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That's wholly untenable and belied by the evidence. Just google "air accidents" and "air crash" and you will see that both terms are used everywhere, indiscriminately. Of course "accident" is an everyday term. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"Accident" is widely used in both the specialised aviation press and non-specialised press to refer to serious aviation occurrences (less serious occurrences are "incidents"). "Crash" is also widely used, though it tends to be less formal register and is less widely used in the specialised press. Accident is also a broader term: all crashes are accidents, but not all accidents are crashes. Accordingly, while it is perfectly acceptable to use "crash" on wikipedia to refer to a particular accident where reliable sources have used the term, there's absolutely no reason to exclude the word "accident". Rosbif73 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not change the page unilaterally while this discussion is ongoing. As yet there is no consensus for change. You linked above to a press style guide on "collision", a medical discussion on "accident" (Oh, please, go check out "Hospital A&E"), and an archived discussion about car crashes in which you were admonished, "Simply put we follow the sources, if they consistently use 'accident' then so should we" and told to slow down and evaluate each case on its own merits. These hardly support your case here. You write above that you are "curious to hear further thoughts on the subject". Here you are ignoring all that, bulldozing the inconvenient thoughts you invited out of your way. And not for the first time. If you do not stop your headlong rush, I would warn you that you risk running foul of WP:DISRUPTION. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It was not my intent to be disruptive, sorry. Funnily enough, in the discussion you refer to the precipitating edit was at an article littered with sources that used 'crash' rather than 'accident', but they seemed to miss that in a rush to scold me. I don't mean to be recalcitrant, I'm just hearing a lot of 'this is the way things are, and because they are this way, that's the way it should be' but not 'here's why accident is better word'.

You're a good writer and among the best who've admonished me so far. Maybe we do need to give sources another year or two to fully abandon the word, since it seems to have lodged itself pretty well in the hippocampi of editors who cling to it like a childhood stuffed animal. I'll take a step back and listen before making any more changes like this. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You get the way things are, not what we think message because that approach is Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, the policy discussion pages are the place to win over hearts and minds, not here. But I don't hold out the slightest hope of success and it might be wiser not to push your luck for a while. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing this is a problem, but both "accident" and "crash" are equally acceptable. You are a native English speaker, so statements like "accident is not acceptable in everyday usage and should be used sparingly if at all" or that "accident" is "outdated language" baffle me. Also, can you please explain how "lives (and billions of dollars) are at stake" over our use of "accident" or "crash"? Forgive me of this sounds a little harsh, but these statements actually detract from your argument as they seem to show a lack of understanding of the English language. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that I look at the edit that sparked this discussion, I will repeat what Fnlayson that "Accidents and incidents" is the standard name for the section per WP:Air/PC. I am against changing the standard for section titles to "Crashes and incidents", as "accident" is more broad and formal than "crash". There are many aviation accidents that cannot be accurately described as crashes or incidents. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that 'accident' is more formal, but I think I understand what you're saying. 'Crash' recognizes that when there's a major loss of property or life, there's almost without exception a series of failures leading up to the collision, whereas 'accident' is a "normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans." When I say to use sparingly, I mean we should save it for all but the most insignificant crashes, like a fender bender or perhaps a tail strike incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your definitions, but if you look up crash and accident on Merriam-Webster, you will see that your above argument is not accurate. For example, it defines "crash" as "to damage (an airplane) in landing" (nothing about a major loss of property or life, or a series of failures leading up to a collision), while "accident" is defined as "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". - ZLEA _T\^C 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The item in quotes in my last reply is from accident. AP style is ahead of Merriam-Webster on this matter, and I'm arguing we should move in that direction. We should generally prefer 'crash, collision incident, derailment, etc' in place of 'accident' in most cases (and depending, obviously, on the circumstances of whatever happened). I can tell this won't be one of them for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For individual accidents and incidents, that's fine. For section and list article titles covering aviation accidents and incidents, we cannot have something like "List of aviation crashes, hijackings, shootdowns, mid-air collisions, ect." (note that mid-air collisions would have to be separate from crashes as, although rare, not all mid-air collisions result in a crash). We have to summarize the titles to "accidents and incidents" to cover all scenarios. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There are times when "crash" is appropriate in everyday usage, and times when "accident" is more appropriate. Wikipedia generally follows how the event is described in reliable sources. There are also cases in aviation articles where the terms "accident" and "incident" (as defined in the Chicago convention) are more appropriate than everyday usage, again generally following usage in relevant reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I hear you. I know 'accidents' can do some work that 'incidents' can't, but I still think 'crashes' is the common sense word to use in its place. I can tell I'm in the minority on the matter. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to agree, but common sense is to use the more broad word when the lists cover more than just crashes and incidents. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I know, I just think crash would be the better word in this case. Glad to have had the discussion either way. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the key here is intent. Most events are accidents (e.g. BEA Flight 548), where the crash of the aircraft was not an event the crew intended. A few events are deliberate (e.g. Germanwings Flight 9525), for which the word "crash" is a better word. Then there are terrorist incidents (e.g. Pan Am Flight 103, for which the word "crash" is also a better word. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing "Accident" to "Mishap" on US Military Aviation articles

This is related to the above discussion, but more limited in scope -- (only for U.S. military aviation articles, and *not* covering shoot-downs/hostile action). I'm suggesting that we change the name of the section on "Accident" to "Mishap" as the latter is the preferred terminology used by the DoD to describe incidents. In addition to being more accurate in a U.S. military-specific context, it also neatly avoids the above debates about "crash vs. accident" by using neither term.

See, e.g. USAF Mishap Investigation Process ("Any unintended occurrence in the Air or Space Force that results in death, injury, illness or property damage is considered a mishap and requires an investigation."); Army Mishap Classification; Navy Mishap Definitions, etc.

This would not change anything substantive other than the section title -- no change to the lists of events on any article, just to be very clear. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)