Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash

Requested move 30 August 2023

2023 Tver Oblast plane crash → Tver Oblast Wagner business jet crash – "Plane" is unencyclopedic WP:SLANG or WP:COLLOQUIALISM that should not be used in article titles. "Wagner business jet" satisfies both WP:NOYEAR and WP:AVTITLE; it is unambiguous and highly unlikely to be confused with any other aircraft crash in Tver Oblast; and it includes Wagner, the most prominent WP:COMMONNAME search term used in the majority of media articles outside of Wikipedia. Carguychris (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Support move to 2023 Wagner Group plane crash. Just calling it "2023 [Region] plane crash" does not come after its importance and is not recognisable enough, especially in regards to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AVTITLE. Zerbrxsler (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A plane

• Support. See the picture at right: that is a plane. The use of the word "plane" to refer to an "airplane" is slang and we do not use slang in Wikipedia articles and especially not in titles. As 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) 16:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you omit "that is unintelligible to an average reader" from this essay quotation? To quote MOS:SIC, "do ... omit text where doing so would remove important context." (And lest one think "unintelligible" only qualifies "jargon", note that it was originally at the beginning of the series of adjectives.) Is "plane crash" less intelligible to the average reader? Meanwhile, unless reliable sources says that "plane" is slang, it seems to me a perfectly ordinary synonym for airplane/aeroplane that is acceptable in standard English. And plane (tool) is far from being the most common topic for plane. SilverLocust 💬 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Plane is not appropriate, does not need 2023, there is no flight number, no airline, inappropriate to name plane type, so I am happy with Tver Oblast Wagner business jet crash Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support but remove Tver Oblast. In my opinion, the only thing that's relevant is that the plane crashed and killed Wagner Group officials. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to Wagner Group business jet crash per WP:AVTITLE because the crash is notable for the involvement of a particular group, in which case the format should be <group> <event>. "Tver Oblast" does not seem necessary as a disambiguator (unless there is another Wagner business jet crash I'm not aware of). Also, I think the title should use "Wagner Group" in place of "Wagner" for consistency with other Wagner-related articles such as Wagner Group rebellion. 1857a (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Support for this name change

  OneRandomBrit (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Tver Oblast" is a widely supported consensus established with the RM that literally just closed. 162 etc. (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. I don't really like Tver Oblast in the title either, and I was the first to suggest 2023 Wagner business jet crash in the previous RM, but almost all subsequent responses were divided between that title and the current title; valid concerns about the colloquialism "plane", whether to include the year, and attempts to compromise between "Tver Oblast" and "Wagner" got drowned out. I proposed this new RM to address those concerns and meet in the middle. Carguychris (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Support This should be the new title. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Support Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  The majority appears to have supported "Tver Oblast", but it seems that policy wasn't taken into consideration when the previous discussion was closed early. Right now, there are a number of different policies cited (SLANG/COLLOQUIALISM, NOYEAR, AVTITLE, COMMONNAME, TONE, CONCISE, CRITERIA, CONSISTENT, NPOVNAME) to support various positions that will hopefully be resolved in the closing. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Support per WP:AVTITLE, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME (Tver Oblast is not very famous). Parham wiki (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support 2023 Wagner business jet crash or Wagner business jet crash, whichever people like better. People don’t care about the event because it was in Tver Oblast, they care because it was Prigozhin and the musicians on the plane. HappyWith (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Update after reading other discussion: I would support pretty much any of the variations proposed by other users that includes "Wagner Group" in the title, like the ones that have "plane" or "airplane" rather than "business jet", or the ones that include or exclude the year. All of those are better than the current title. HappyWith (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on both procedural and substantive grounds. Substantively: the term "business jet crash" feels unnatural to me, too contrived to be optimal for casual readers and too general to be optimal for specialists. I'm also not convinced that the current title is as unacceptable as it's been described. While I agree that the term "plane" for an aircraft would be dispreferred in an article body, I think "plane crash" – as a noun phrase – neatly hits all of the article titling criteria except WP:CONSISTENT, and I don't think the current title is colloquial enough to trigger the second numbered point in WP:NPOVNAME. Procedurally: this article recently went through a highly attended RM that closed just one day ago. The objection to "plane" as colloquial was raised early on (i.e., most participants had the opportunity to see it before casting their !vote); regardless, numerous participants expressed support for the current title, indicating that they did not find the arguments against "plane" to be determinative. In the face of this consensus, I don't see cause to relitigate this RM so soon. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  yeah business jet seems like a silly descriptor. 2023 Wagner jet crash seems best to me. Only gonna be one of those. Tver Oblast is too inside baseball to be helpful. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  i think 2023 PMC Wagner jet crash is a lot better, because only putting "Wagner" can cause some confusions. Hallygosh (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  PMC Wagner seems esoteric, like something a diplomat, a general, or a self-serious talking head would say—not a mainstream news source. I think Wagner is clear enough by itself, but Wagner Group would also work. I favor leaving out Tver Oblast as well, but the consensus in the previous RM favored including it. Carguychris (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably, the reason there was a lot of support for it in the previous discussion was because there was a problem with the prior name when it only mentioned Tver and the quick solution was to add Oblast to the title. The fact that the closer of the prior discussion listed "for geographic accuracy" as the closing reason kinda supports that. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen several main-stream news sources say PMC Wagner, it's just an abbreviation for Private Military Company. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wagner Group rather than "PMC Wagner" appears to be WP:COMMONNAME. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  The original reply called it esoteric, or "only understood by people with specialized interest in the topic", when it just seems to be an abbreviation in the official name of the company itself that is registered in Belarus. It doesn't seem 'esoteric' at all to me considering many main-stream sources (as mentioned) have understood and used it. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly doubt that (1) the Wagner Group is registered in Belarus as a company, and even if that's true, that (2) they used an English acronym in their company name. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  1. The place where Wagner is registered was not relevant to my point, and 2. the Russian name for it (ЧВК «Вагнер») contains ЧВК which is the abbreviation for a private military company. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Jet" is too vague, it could also mean fighter jet WikiDonutFinnish (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Procedurally, said prior RM closed early and without any apparent consideration of policy, so hopefully this RM makes the situation clearer. (I had been toying with the idea of a move review, but this second discussion has rendered the situation as moot.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support As per above. Rager7 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as incompatible with WP:AVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. If anything, it should be 2023 Wagner Group plane crash. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  The Wagner Group reportedly operates drones, some of which are probably airplanes. Carguychris (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Has any of them got a Wikipedia article and may confuse the reader? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree on COMMONNAME. That would be Prigozhin based on sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the present title is the best we're gonna get. Several other articles use "plane crash". --estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AVTITLE states that if the accident is notable for the involvement of a particular group, then the group's name should be included—hence Wagner or Wagner Group. I would rather settle for "plane crash" than settle for emphasizing an obscure, nonspecific location rather than the group overwhelmingly associated with the incident in mainstream sources. Carguychris (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Strong support Ashleighhhhh (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to either: 2023 Wagner plane crash or 2023 Prigozhin plane crash - Regarding my opposition to moving to Tver Oblast Wagner business jet crash, it has already noted in the previous discussion that there are already a decent number of articles that use "plane crash" in the title. Both SLANG and COLLOQUIALISM link to the same policy, so it isn't clear why the proposer used both. Regardless, "plane" is not actually a slang term as far as I can tell. It is just a shortening of the word airplane. If we had a problem with shortening words in article titles, then the article Piano would be called Pianoforte instead. Policy recommends that we "Use commonly recognizable names" in article titles, which covers using "plane" in the article title just as it does to use piano over pianoforte. To address other comments, a significant majority of people would think of a "plane" as an aircraft, rather than a tool, so there should be no actual confusion. The fact that the article title is "plane crash" further reduces any possible confusion.

The only reason that I can see why this article is being selected for renaming over any of the others is due to being a newer article that has a good amount of attention at the moment. I believe the proposer would have a better time discussing prohibiting the use of "plane" in article titles at the talk pages for WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Disaster management, and/or WP:AVTITLE as those are the relevant areas to discuss aircraft incidents like this. It should be noted that AVTITLE currently lists two different articles as examples that use "plane crash" in the article title.

Regarding my support to move to 2023 Wagner plane crash or 2023 Prigozhin plane crash, a variant of the Wagner suggestion is already listed above and already mentions that the deaths of members of the Wagner group is part of the notability of the article. Regarding the Prigozhin suggestion, I have already mention in the prior discussion that "Prigozhin crash" or "Prigozhin plane crash" is the closest to a COMMONNAME that currently exists. Significantly, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, Axios, CNN, The Guardian, The Hill, The Moscow Times, NHK, Radio Free Europe, and Reuters have all used either version in the last few days. Combined with the nine articles I listed prior, that makes eighteen publications that have used either version. Thus, I believe that Prigozhin plane crash could be considered to be the COMMONNAME for this incident. Personally, I don't care if the year is included or not due to previous events. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@ModernDayTrilobite, @Estar8806, @Super Goku V: I've started this discussion at the WP:AVTITLE talk page to hash out whether "plane" or "plane crash" should be considered generally acceptable in article titles. Carguychris (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Wagner Group plane crash per WP:AVTITLE. There is ongoing discussion about whether "plane crash" is an appropriate event descriptor at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Is_the_word_"plane"_too_informal_for_article_titles?, but current consensus given all the titles that include "plane crash" at List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, for example, is to use "plane crash", which we should do here unless that consensus changes. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree with everything said by supporters - "plane" is not "slang." I say this as someone who literally worked at the FAA in the past. Plenty of formal, dry government documents that use "plane" in English. The year and location the crash happened is still the best disambiguation. SnowFire (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's useful to note that the word plane is not the only issue under discussion here. And while I personally agree that plane is sufficient, I'm not sure the FAA appeal to authority works here; I also used to literally work in a public aviation institute where we would refer to crashes using well-understood names— for example, if I said something like "we learned from Tenerife that blah blah blah...", my audience would know what I meant. But this is an encyclopedia for everyone, so we don't bring our professional biases into things. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support moving to a title that conforms with WP:AVTITLE. Other incidents with complicated contexts also have conforming names, such as the 1961 Ndola Transair Sweden DC-6 crash. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Also a plane

• Oppose. Best move the page to 2023 Wagner plane crash, as I suggested last time round. This title is brief, to the point and contains all the essentials. The "plane"/"airplane" quibble is pedantic and a red herring; everyone knows what a "plane" is in the context of the word "crash", so the woodworking tool objection is frankly silly (by the same token we all know we're not talking about Richard Wagner), and "plane" itself is hardly slang ("plane crash" is completely normal everyday English). "Tver Oblast" is obscure and doesn't help most people identify which crash we're talking about. Adding "Group" to "Wagner" is unnecessarily verbose, as "Wagner" on its own is widely used. Ericoides (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wagner is a surname and also nom de guerre of one of WG's leaders. WP:COMMONNAME for the company is Wagner Group, not "Wagner" alone. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  The common name could equally be said to be "Wagner", particularly when used adjectivally, i.e. "Wagner forces took Bakhmut". That it's "a surname and also nom de guerre of one of WG's leaders" is irrelevant. The context determines the meaning and few if any people will understand it as meaning Utkin. Concision is always better than prolixity if there's no ambiguity, but having said that, I'd have no objections to 2023 Wagner Group plane crash. Ericoides (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article could use a rename, but "wagner business jet crash" is the wrong move. Including business is far too pedantic. Maybe something like 2023 Wagner jet crash? Scu ba (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose "business jet", and especially "Wagner business jet" as that can easily be read as jet of "Wagner business" (which would be nonsense), since not that many people know what a business jet is. Way too technical. Go and look how many article titles include "business jet". Also oppose "plane" per nom. Too colloquial; oppose "Prigozhin plane" and "Wagner plane". What type of a plane is a "Prigozhin plane"? What type of a plane is a "Wagner plane"? These sound like some special types of aircraft. Support "jet" as the right balance. Oppose "PMC Wagner".—Alalch E. 21:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Valid points! Would you support "2023 Wagner Group airplane crash"? (I oppose "jet" as being too informal or slang). — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I support 2023 Wagner Group airplane crash. Airplane is fine. Thanks! —Alalch E. 16:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  What type of a plane is a "Prigozhin plane"? My suggestion was "Prigozhin plane crash" as in the plane that Prigozhin was on crashed. Does 1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash suggest that there is an aircraft called the Vineyard or does it suggest that there is a connection between Martha's Vineyard and a plane crash in 1999? It suggests the later. Same with Prigozhin.

  Besides, we have reliable sources that are using it just fine with no confusion, Wagner 'skull' flag flies over empty Prigozhin plane crash site in Russia. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to 2023 Wagner Group plane crash per kashmiri and Ericoides. — Goszei (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to 2023 Wagner Group airplane crash. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested move in the nomination (but open to some of the alternatives below). "plane" is an abbreviation for airplane. "jet" is an abbreviation for jet-engine aircraft. Neither of these are slangs, and on the front of colloquialism they rate the same to me. "business jet" imposes an additional qualifier which is irrelevant to the event. If the goal is to avoid confusion with other plane crashes, "2023" clearly does a better job at disambiguation compared to "business jet" (does anyone not editing this article really remember if the downed plane is a business jet or otherwise?). WP:NOYEAR is a naming convention that in practice is mostly cited for historical articles.Ceconhistorian (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for various reasons already discussed. JM2023 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose A business jet is a plane as already discussed above. And strongly oppose for reasons already mentioned. And anyways, even though the name wagner is widely used to describe the plane crash by the news, yegevny and the founder weren't the only people that died. This is why we've changed so many article titles mentioning famous people in it. And the aircraft was owned by MNT-Aero LLC, not Wagner, it is literally stated in the airticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for reasons already stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.21.6.181 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any proposal that either only puts "Wagner" and not "Wagner Group" (ambiguous) or "Prigozhin" (more notable individuals died) in the title. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose suggested title, but support a move generally. I like something like 2023 Wagner Group jet crash or something to the effect - I don't care about plane vs jet vs airplane but apparently that's important to some people. But in general, the most memorable part about this is the fact that it involves the Wagner Group. Accordingly, the location is only of secondary importance, and it is unlikely to help with navigation (which is the entire point of good titles). A title involving Wagner is going to help people find this, and that should be our priority. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support move either to 2023 Wagner Group jet crash / 2023 Wagner Group plane crash OR 2023 PMC Wagner jet crash / 2023 PMC Wagner plane crash. "Business jet" is too long and unneeded as a description. The year has to stay IMO. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the year needs to stay, and it's a plane at the end of the day, so just keep it simple. Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I would support either 2023 Wagner Group jet crash or 2023 Wagner Group plane crash, since a consensus seems to have emerged that the word "plane" is acceptable, and either title is better than the current title (I'm glad we seem to have moved past the pointless and awkward inclusion of Tver Oblast). However, "PMC Wagner" still seems pretentious to me, and it's not the WP:COMMONNAME of the organization. Carguychris (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose the move to Tver Oblast Wagner business jet crash. The word "plane" is too colloquial and the word "jet" may be misconstrued by a reader as to mean a fighter jet. The term "airplane" is preferable. "Wagner" must be referred to as "Wagner Group" in this context. Strongly Support move to 2023 Wagner Group airplane crash. S V SS Y 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment support> 2023 Wagner Group plane crash but Wagner Group plane crashor 2023 Wagner Group jet crash would be an improvement as well. I think Tver Oblast is too awkward and unrecognizable to many readers and would not be how them search for an article on this crash; but Wagner Group definitely is recognizable, often searched, and should be in the title. Page views in the past 30 days for Wagner Group (not even including all the other Wagner Group articles such as Wagner Group rebellion): 1,004,230; Page views over same period for Tver Oblast: 77,599. This page has 106,115 views over 30 days. I think this is in large part because it is linked from the "In the News" section on the main page which identifies it as the Wagner Group crash. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  THIS. The name has to include "Wagner Group" because "PMC Wagner" is nowhere to be found in a page name. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose But still, the aircraft isn't owned by Wagner, another company owns it so should we put 2023 MNT-Aero LLC plane crash? That sounds weird doesn't it? Even though, yes, most readers would probably recognise the event, the aviation wiki community has generally taken the stance of not naming plane crashes after famous people or by a group. And also, Wagner group is so vague because it's a private military company. Moreover, the pilots weren't part of the wagner group, the flight attendant wasn't part of the wagner group so there's no point. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  The actual ownership of the jet is immaterial because the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources discuss this crash in the context of the Wagner Group. You say that the aviation wiki community has generally taken the stance of not naming plane crashes after famous people or by a group, yet we have articles titled the Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan, the Wichita State University football team plane crash, and the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash. Wagner group is so vague—no it's not, it's the WP:COMMONNAME of a group that was widely covered by the mainstream news media before the crash occurred. Carguychris (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well for the stevie ray crash, the article isn't structured the same way most aviation articles would. Lynyrd skynyrd plane crash, you can see that the article has a second title "Convair CV-240 N55VM crash". For the Wichita state university crash, the title would be too long and most people would recognize it immediately and there isn't another good name for the crash.

  Look at the 2001 marsh harbour plane crash, should we really put 2001 blackhawk international airways cessna 402B crash? For the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, should we put this for the title: 2020 Island Express Holdings Inc sirkorsky S-76B helicopter? Both of these crashes were named death of [person], even the title of the jfk jr crash was changed. Even if most people would recognize these titles if we just put the famous stuff, it isn't factually correct and ignores the other dead people. In this day and age, most people would know about the tver oblast plane crash since most people have access to the Internet so they would most likely know immediately what the crash is about.

  So what if the overwhelming majority of news outlets state Wagner Group, that doesn't we should put what they say wether it's correct or false, the aircraft wasn't owned by the wagner group and not all people in the plane were part of the Wagner group. So I say

  • Strongly Oppose and keep the current title.

  Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  you can see that the article has a second title "Convair CV-240 N55VM crash" - That is not correct. That is just the name set in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence. The creator of the article did it back in 2009, when things were less uniform. Per the template's documentation, the parameter should be Occurrence's commonly-known name, with a note in the section prior to Leave empty unless a custom infobox title is required. An infobox not following the proper format due to an old edit isn't a good counterargument regarding the title.

  In this day and age, most people would know about the tver oblast plane crash since most people have access to the Internet so they would most likely know immediately what the crash is about. Our goal here is to determine the best name for the article for readers. To quote CRITERIA, Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. Given some of your comments, I would recommend reviewing CRITERIA as it might be helpful to consider regarding your stance.

  So what if the overwhelming majority of news outlets state Wagner Group, this implies that using Wagner in some form would likely meet the Recognizability (a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with ... the subject area will recognize) and Naturalness one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles characteristics of CRITERIA, along with potentially also meeting COMMONNAME. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  2020 Island Express Holdings Inc sirkorsky S-76B helicopter crash. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. List of airliner shootdown incidents demonstrates that plane shootings include years in the title when it is a noncommercial flight without a flight number. Further, I understand the importance of including Wagner in the title, however "Wagner business jet" may cause confusion about Wagner being a business, as discussed previously. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "jet crash" or "business jet crash" or similar. As shown by Super Goku V, "plane crash" is ordinary, common language and not slang or too informal. The type of aircraft is not a very salient descriptor of the event. No opinion at this time on "Wagner Group", "Wagner", "Prigozhin", etc. in the title. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose anything containing "jet" or "business jet", which are far less formal terms than "plane". Support "Wagner Group plane crash", with or without year, or "Prigozhin plane crash". Un assiolo (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title sounds kinda unwieldy, how about just renaming it into "2023 Tver Oblast Wagner jet crash"? --Boris Baran - ✉ 10:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Name change

Given the very apparent and glaring nature of the crash, should it be renamed the Assassination of Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin? 2401:7400:401A:F518:EC85:E7FF:FE17:2761 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Eight other people were assasinated as well. One of them was another notable individual now with his own article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LABEL ,the term "assassination" (or "murder", for that matter) should be used with caution due to its negative connotation. If a consensus emerges among reputable mainstream sources that it was definitely an assassination, then the name can be changed, but it is likely to take a few years to reach that point if it's ever reached (consider that the motives and even the basic facts behind the violent deaths of numerous controversial historical figures are unknown or unknowable). Carguychris (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This particular article is written and structured like aviation accident, and not like articles about deaths. Prigozhin's death has been dealt with in his own article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

Please add in the investigation section that Molecular-Genetic & DNA tests have been conducted and the Dead peoples identity has been established.

Citations

1. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-investigators-confirm-wagner-mercenary-chief-prigozhin-died-plane-crash-2023-08-27

2. https://www.dw.com/en/yevgeny-prigozhin-dna-confirms-death-russia/a-66641480 DitorWiki (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Already done weeks before using similar terminology. Borgenland (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Where DitorWiki (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See the Passengers and Crew section. Borgenland (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)