Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in [YEAR][edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing early per a request on WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus to mark the deadliest accidents, however there is not a consensus to use the 50+ mark to mark accidents. The general feeling on how to mark these seems to be to use italics, which gives a slightly different appearence, but does not create a significant change. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

For what is a simple template for navigation is does cause some issues (particularly in the 2014 version). Can I propose that as they provide no help in the primary use to navigate between articles that the marking of the more than 50 victims and the deadliest accident is ; depracted and removed from this series of templates, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the 50 victims is an arbitrary level, and is a lower hurdle for modern large aircraft than eg pre-war aircraft, and the difference between deadliest and next deadliest is but one fatality ( 0.125% of the possible capacity of a A380) I can see a good reason for removing the emphasis between entries. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. The templates are for navigation. Not about statements on this or that crash....William 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose — I find those indications useful sometimes. With just a glance, you can see the deadliest accidents of a certain year, with the top one highlighted. For some time, I even thought something else could be done: highlighting in some other way accidents or incidents where there were no casualties. I've never proposed it, but maybe that could be useful as well... I'm sorry to be swimming against the tide, but I really find those indications useful. About the issues it caused in the 2014 version, they have been corrected, and consensus has been achieved of not listing MH370 as the deadliest, since there hadn't been confirmation of their deaths yet. I have proposed also that the italics be removed from it, since we can't confirm either that 50 people died, but I made it clear from the beginning that I wouldn't go ahead with it if I found too much resistance, which seems to be the case now. Problems, like any others, can be solved with simple discussions, in favour of usefulness. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As we only had one objection consensus is that these entries are not needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus? What consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote, it's an evaluation of the weight that an editor's argument gives. Even so this proposal hasn't been advertised enough and that is the reason why there has only been one objection. On the basis of weighing consensus, I'm reverting your changes and starting a proper RfC when I am done. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 06:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion. MH17 is now the deadliest accident of the year. I think italics and bold small caps are very useful for identifying serious accidents. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose' and strongly question the rationality of User:MilborneOne. As far as I can see there is one support and one oppose vote and very little other input, except people saying that the conclusion that there is consensus here is absurd. I think the templates should be changed back to include an indication of at least the deadliest crash and also probably other very serious crashes. The indication of the most serious (in terms of lives lost) crashes added to the usefulness of the template and I see no downside, except in cases where the 'most deadly' is disputed. However these cases are rare... -2A02:120B:2C41:6ED0:D9BC:4093:DA4C:FAA9 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Not only are they rare (which—let's be honest—doesn't mean anything when they do happen and the problems need to be solved), the problems they cause can be fixed by discussing the issue. It has recently happened with MH370, generating a huge discussion at the 2014 template's talk page about whether that incident should be regarded as the deadliest or not (before the crash of MH17, now the deadliest). I actively participated, defending my position that it shouldn't be marked as the deadliest for two main reasons: 1) no evidence of the crash and of anyone's death had surfaced; and 2) no significant amount of time had passed so that it could be safely assumed that, due to the circumstances, everyone was dead (the so-called declaration of death in absentia). When either of these requirements were met, then it would be reasonable to list the accident as the deadliest of the year. Eventually, consensus was reached not to list MH370 as the deadliest, as I had said it would have been better. In such cases where the deadliest is disputed, the creation and enforcement of a simple rule, like the one I've presented above, will suffice to avoid great discussion, as long as it is respected. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on this topic[edit]

original motion is above Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'm on the fence with this issue. While the template is indeed used for purposes of navigation, it shouldn't put any weight on a certain page to be visited; at the same time many of the deadlier disasters are the most notable (not always the case but it can be). Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support the change and comment As I wrote above- 'The templates are for navigation. Not about statements on this or that crash'. I'm also reverting the edits made to the templates. There was a consensus and you don't like it. That doesn't change the fact there is one. Till and if that consensus changes, the removals stand....William 14:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support indication of the deadliest accident I think the templates should indicate the year's deadliest accident as the number of fatalities is one of the most important things in aviation accidents and incident. 50 deaths is redundant and an arbitrary parameter, however. Btw, the legend "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics Deadliest incident shown in Bold SmallCaps" in all templates still remains, so far it makes no sense. Brandmeistertalk 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support removal per my opening statement above and the conclusion that was reached, a user reverting the change because they didnt like the conclusion rather than discussing it was probably not the best way to go. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indicating of deadliest, but not the "at least 50 deaths" indicator. Deadliest, I believe, is a matter of interest and/or notability, while 50 deaths, as Brandmeister indicated above, is an arbitrary figure that was more relevant as a significant fatality count in historical incidents and older-model aircraft with fewer passengers. I do believe, however, that a better way of indicating said "deadliest" accident should be considered. There was a discussion on one of those template pages some years ago about the fact that the 'small caps' and italics styling were not good choices for emphasis because they did not follow WP conventions and did not provide users with screen readers the same information (among other arguments). Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support indicating deadliest and 50+ — Again, as I've said, these are useful indications. The deadliest of the year is the most significant of the year, and I think it makes sense to mark that if we're making templates separated in years. The 50 figure may be somewhat arbitrary, but it was chosen for being a reasonable figure that would mean only the most relevant accidents of each year would be highlighted. There is an article which lists aircraft accidents and incidents with 50 or more fatalities. 50—half a hundred—is a reasonable number. A full hundred—100—might be too much. There aren't many accidents that cause more than 100 fatalities in one year, so 50 is a reasonable figure. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question, can someone please put this RfC into plain English? It appears the ivotes above are all aviation project members. That doesn't help a WikiProject Virus editor who is here because of a bot notice. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @SW3 5DL: -- Effectively we're discussing a series of navigational footer templates. One example can be found here: Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009. These templates are included in the footer of all articles for the equivalent year's plane crashes, so in the previous example, all aviation accident and incident articles in 2009 have that template in the footer. What is up for discussion are two bits of "extra" data that are not part of the navigational aspect of the template: the indicators of the deadliest accident (by death count, shown in small caps), and the indicators of all accidents that had at least 50 fatalities (in italics.) Certain editors are of the opinion that neither should be indicated, as this is primarily a navigational template; other editors believe that one or both of these indicators merit keeping for a variety of reasons. The actual templates themselves are not under contention, just these extra indicators. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (As a side note, the templates currently do not have the contentious styling as they were removed after the original discussion above, prior to RFC. The template, styled originally, looked something [this], but with a footer explaining that the styling choices. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

@Mukkakukaku: Thank you, for that well written explanation. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support indicating deadliest but not 50+. I would add the 'deadliest' should not have any enhancement to the term. Such accidents do have more interest but enhancing the term with italics, etc., seems sensationalist to me. WP isn't the Daily Mail. As for the 50+, it is arbitrary as others have noted, and it also seems, albeit unintentionally, to trivialize loss of life. I remember one accident where one person died all others survived, and reporters proclaimed, 'only one person died.' Of course, if that one person is your loved one, it's no small matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support indicating deadliest, with comments. (I'm not an WP Aviation member; I opted into RFC notifications.) From an outsider's perspective, I think I would expect to see casualties in parentheses rather than an arbitrary threshold for highlighting casualties over some number (such as 50). Were that implemented, I would no longer support emboldening the accident with the highest death toll.
    As an aside, I strongly oppose the use of small caps, per MOS:BADEMPHASIS and would prefer that you guys used something like an asterisk or bold-and-italics. But it's your WikiProject not mine, so I'm not gonna push the issue on that one ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    PS: Again thank you to Mukkakukaku for the comprehensive summary.
The idea of indicating casualties in parentheses after the incident link is an interesting one. It wouldn't necessarily add much to the size of the template, and aside from the question of whether there could be a no-human-deaths accident that was "worse" than (eg) 25 deaths, it would leave the value judgement of "deadliest" to the reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Indicating the actual number of dead versus souls on board is a good idea in any event. As far as continuing to use 'deadliest,' if the actual number is used, it would still be a good idea. I was thinking that the press and (maybe the various countries' NTSB's) make that claim anyway. The term then is WP:V and is in itself of interest and is a searchable term. I'd support continuing to use that. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Support casualties in parentheses — Excellent idea! I hadn't thought about it! No (according to some, unnecessary) highlight, and no arbitrary limit. Only a concise, specific, unbiased indication of the number of deaths. Better yet, maybe even the number of casualties and the number of souls on board. That would be even better. I support any of them. If that happens, I will stop supporting indicating the deadliest and 50+. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would have to include the number of souls on board, otherwise the casualty figure would not be informative on the scale of the disaster. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support indicating deadliest and 50+ fatalities I suppose this constitutes opposition to MilborneOne's position that all entries in the template (i.e. all accidents / incidents in a given year) look identical. I don't want to be required to click through all the listed accidents and incidents to find the most significant accident. The fact is, safety in air travel (and any mode of transportation) is most obviously measured in terms of fatalities. If I break an arm in a hard landing, bummer, but it's not as final as death. So for people interested in airline safety, denoting the biggest failures of airlines to keep passengers safe is useful. -2A02:120B:2C41:6ED0:D9BC:4093:DA4C:FAA9 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You dont have to click through as we have an sortable article that lists all accidents with more than 49 victims, this just a navigation box not an article, all the information can be found in List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. If users think they need all the detail then perhaps a list article for accidents by year to include all the detail they need rather than use what is a navigation box. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark deadliest but not 50+. I understand what the different sides are proposing be done, but I'm not quite clear what "support" and "oppose" mean by themselves. 50+ appears arbitrary; is it used by scholars or aircrash fans (those analogous to roadgeeks for highways) outside of Wikipedia, or is it exclusively based on what people are saying up above, that it's a nice and convenient number? Unless it's often used offwiki, I see no reason to give it, especially because of what someone said above, about how this would be unhelpfully weighted toward post-World War II crashes with their higher passenger numbers. Deadliest, on the other hand, is clear and helpful: anyone can understand why one specific flight would be marked, and it's independent of passenger numbers. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guys, I'm confused. The heading of this debate box summarises the content by saying: "There is a clear consensus to mark the deadliest accidents, however there is not a consensus to use the 50+ mark to mark accidents. The general feeling on how to mark these seems to be to use italics, which gives a slightly different appearence, but does not create a significant change". But, as I look through the templates for each year, I can't see any marking for any deadliest accidents! Is there any reason why this isn't done yet? I don't have the time or the ability to do it, but I'm guessing it should probably be done by now, since the discussion was closed over a week ago with "a clear consensus" to mark the deadliest accidents. Could there be any other reason I'm missing? If not, can anyone please do us a favour by marking those deadliest accidents once and for all? Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 15:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Air Lines Flight 304 - Article improvements[edit]

I've started work on running down references for this article. I have managed to locate the original US accident report and it's now linked in as a source. But I would like some help in running down contemporary news reports (Preferably online copies if possible.)

Two other things that might add to the article would be a map showing the start point of the flight, accident location and both the planned destination and the actual landing point along with, if possible, an artists reconstruction of the incident.

Graham1973 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Try these two:
Propeller slices through plane The Argus - 11 July 1956, p.2 (National Library of Australia) Retrieved 2014-07-06
Woman Killed By Piece Off Propellor The Canberra Times - 11 July 1956, p.3 (National Library of Australia) Retrieved 2014-07-06
Dolphin (t) 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those. I'll add them as sources while I work out just how to use them. If anyone can find contemporary US or Canadian reports I would be eternally grateful.Graham1973 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Graham1973: -- Have some North American-sourced articles:
Also, here is the Google news archive search I used as a source; though Google has made it rather difficult to find their historical news articles these days you can generally make do with a clever application of search terms. Hope that helps somewhat. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Have added them to the article as sources but will take a few days to go through and sort out how to make best use of them. Graham1973 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of news aircraft accidents and incidents[edit]

I've started cleaning up the references for this list. I've noted a number of incidents (Date/Location Only) which I've listed below where there does not seem to be a link to an official accident report. Obviously with the Asian/Latin American reports there may be a language issue. If anyone can help with tracking these down I will be grateful. I plan to go over the Australian incidents over the next few days.

News Aircraft Accidents and Incidents without an official accident report

  • 2010-06-18, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • 1995-07-10, Mexico City, Mexico
  • 1984-07-31, Akashi, Hyōgo, Japan
  • 1984-09-19, Jecheon, South Korea
  • 1982-01-01, Pagosa Springs, Colorado
  • 1971-05-20, Isle of Portland, United Kingdom
  • 1970-07-26, Japanese Alps, Japan
  • 1960-05-02, Chicago, Illinois

Graham1973 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The title seems a bit nonsensical. Until I actually clicked into it I had no idea that it was actually a list of accidents and incidents involving media-operated aircraft. Perhaps a rename is in order? Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
That might not be a bad idea. I'm also thinking of adding a column to the table for the Uninjured, that's one reason I put out a call for the accident reports since that information will be there. I've had a look over the Australian TSB website and could not locate accident reports for two incidents covered in the news media (1982-04-07, Adelaide, Australia & 1966-12-10, Sydney, Australia.). The other thing is that the location naming needs to be 'formalized', there seems to be four different naming conventions being used, City only, City/State(Province/Region), City/Nation, City/State(Province/Region)/Nation, my preference is for the last as it conveys the most information. Graham1973 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have tweaked the location names to be City/State(Province/Region)/Nation as appropriate and have raised the question about the seperate non-media operations accidents which in my view are not notable to the list. Perhaps we need to find a name that makes it clear that these accidents are during actual media operations. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hot articles subscription[edit]

Your Hot articles subscription is complete. The daily list can be found here. Feel free to integrate this into your WikiProject page however you like by adding the WikiText {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Hot articles}}. Kaldari (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it looks (live):

54 edits Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
22 edits Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
21 edits Kweilin Incident
17 edits Dealing with Disaster in Japan
13 edits Japan Airlines Flight 123
10 edits Air France Flight 447
9 edits List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location
7 edits Luxair Flight 9642
7 edits Flight 19
7 edits 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 27 August 2014.

I went ahead and added it to the main page. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Ethiopian Air Force An-12 crash[edit]

Military transport aircraft accident 2013 Ethiopian Air Force An-12 crash has been proposed for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsurpisingly the article creator took down the prod. So I sent it to AFD. Which can be found here[1]....William 14:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Airlines of Foo accidents and incidents[edit]

I presumed that this family of categories (like Category:Airlines of Asia accidents and incidents) were meant as parent cats for the airline accident cats but more and more individual accidents are creeping in. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that there were "Airlines of <continent> accidents and incidents" categories. I thought that "<Airline name> accidents and incidents" categories were directly parented by "Airliner accidents and incidents by airline". On the one hand, it would make sense that an accident whose airline has no category itself would end up in the "Airlines of <continent>..." category, but on the other hand I really don't think it should (the accident is not an airline article itself). I'd support removing the continent-level sub-categories and reparenting all "<airline> accidents and incidents" categories with "Airliner accidents and incidents by airline". Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 21:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Crossair Flight 498[edit]

Can someone help resolve a simmering edit war here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Any aviation publication reviews of Dealing with Disaster in Japan?[edit]

I started an article on Dealing with Disaster in Japan, a book about Japan Airlines Flight 123. I found reviews in social science publications and newspapers but I want to know if Flightglobal or any aviation specialist publications have reviewed the book. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)