Talk:Air France Flight 447

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 index 5 4/Archives/ 3

Bomb threat

Not sure about whether we should mention the bomb threat - linking it to this incident is kind of speculative at this point. Evercat (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I can't find any evidence that the two incidents are related, I think mention of the bomb threat should be removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about removing it at least until some other source suggests a possible connection? Evercat (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be best. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea I think. Speculation doesn't help at the current moment. Shall it be removed?--78.16.224.140 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has now been removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, should be removed as no known connection, but someone keeps adding it back. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added an edit note to the article. Any further instances of addition can be reverted and a vandalism warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When you say "keeps adding it back", do you mean the one ocassion that I reverted the removal by an IP who did not leave an edit summary? Is talking about vandalism warnings perhaps a little heavy handed? Plastic Cupcake (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. It's not vandalism though, it's more like original research. But if other sources start making this point it can legitimately be put back. Evercat (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The edit note specifically states not to add unsourced speculation. If something is verifiable, then of course it may be added. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Is that image ok? OtisJimmyOne 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We'd really prefer one in Air France colours. If we can't get that, Airbus colours might be OK. Evercat (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use", subject to correct licencing and rationale being given. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged bruno muthelet who claims the copyright over this photo (linked from article infobox)... hopefully he will be able to make it available under a suitable license, however in the mean time perhaps we can use a low-res version under fair use? That would certainly be better than having some other airline's logo/colours. -- samj _in^out 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the actual plane by the way, according to its tail number. Bad taste aside, Mjroots is probably right - I'll get to it. -- samj _in^out 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any bad taste in using the most accurate image. Evercat (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the bad taste was about the objective, but not very empathetic phrase "As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use"". Arnoutf (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. In any case, I think if we must use a copyrighted image it should be made much smaller than the current 1024 pixel one... Evercat (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. -- samj _in^out 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But to be honest I think our fair use claim is suspect. No doubt with sufficient effort we could either acquire permission to use some image, or get a new image of an identical plane. I would support deletion. Evercat (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support deletion as policy says "the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible" Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a photo of a plane and we need... a photo of a plane. Were it a photo of 10 planes we could cut the other 9 out, but it's not so we can't. Would you prefer half a plane? -- samj _in^out 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Permission has been requested but in any case I believe fair use is applicable regardless of whether permission could be obtained (that being the point of fair use after all). It's not an "identical plane" that we're looking for but the plane. -- samj _in^out 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But the article doesn't really need a photo of the exact plane. A photo of an identical plane would be just as good. Evercat (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree Evercat. I don't really think there is a strong case to keep the image but anyway see how it goes. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a photo of an "identical" plane (aside from not being identical) would not be "just as good", especially when none is offered and we have one available to us under fair use. -- samj _in^out 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The current photo has already been tagged for deletion due to copyvio. I scanned Commons and Flickr, but found no suitably licensed images of Air France A330's. Might be worth pinging one of the Flickr authors for permission. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea mate. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD F9 specifically excludes "images used under a claim of fair use" and as such was inappropriately tagged and will almost certainly be removed by an admin in due course. -- samj _in^out 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of Brazil is truncated in the East - anyone feel like fixing this, as I'm signing off now?

Fernando de Noronha

Rio de Janeiro

class=notpageimage|

Brazil

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence

According to AP the plane hit turbulence before crashing[1]. Since the details are still sketchy I'm reluctant to put it in the article but it seems like a reasonable explanation for the crash. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is already noted in the article... but not as an explanation for a crash, as there's no mention of it having come down yet Jddriessen (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

F-GZCP , AFR447 , AFR 447 , AIRFRANS447 , AIRFRANS 447 should redirect here. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Route

Any images available of the route? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)