Jump to content

Talk:Airblue Flight 202: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 35: Line 35:
:::::::The BA Flight 38 approach works for me, and no need for subpage, per Arsonal. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The BA Flight 38 approach works for me, and no need for subpage, per Arsonal. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I agree. --[[User:Ferengi|Ferengi]] ([[User talk:Ferengi|talk]]) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I agree. --[[User:Ferengi|Ferengi]] ([[User talk:Ferengi|talk]]) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::on a sidenote, as another editor who worked on the AA 331 page, the exclusion of METAR translation was not universally accepted. [[Special:Contributions/66.220.101.210|66.220.101.210]] ([[User talk:66.220.101.210|talk]]) 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


== Aircraft photo ==
== Aircraft photo ==

Revision as of 10:01, 28 July 2010

Dubious

The aircraft cannot be an A320, as Airblue does not operate the type. Of course, once the registration is known, then the type will be apparent. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article meant Airbus A320 family, which includes the A319 and A321 that Airblue operates. It seems they have not determined the exact model that was operated for the flight. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)06:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all mentions of the A320 throughout the article. We'll find out the tail number soon enough. WackyWace converse | contribs 06:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its an A321, AP-BJB. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article on AirBlue Wikipedia page concerning the crash. I had "reference needed" on the A319 but was deleted not long after. I feel my actions for citation for the type of plane Airbus whatever was not taken into consideration if it was really that type of plane flown by the Airblue Airline. Adamdaley (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

METAR

I've re-added the METAR to the article. This is relevant to the accident and weather conditions prevailing at the time. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the importance of the METAR data, it would be preferable to use the translation in the actual prose and use the hard data in the footnote. Using it as is provides little help for the casual reader. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the METAR with a translation in the refs is established practice. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it's commonplace, it doesn't make it right. It's of no use at all to 99.99% of readers, while the translation is far more accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the translation from a ref to a note, and wikilinked various terms in the translation. This should allow readers to fully understand the METAR now. Whether or not they understand its significance is another matter. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a footnote (not part of the main prose) and provides no meaning unless the reader scrolls or clicks on the annotation. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've been criticised for putting the translation directly into the article. On the American Airlines Flight 331 article, the metar is on a subpage - American Airlines Flight 331/METAR. See Talk:American Airlines Flight 331#METAR for reasons. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That topic brings up the same exact issue I am raising, which is the the distraction caused by raw METAR data in the main prose. I understand the objection to full direct translation as well. I may have been unclear before, but I would prefer the positions of the raw data and a condensed explanation swapped. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for input from members of WP:AVIATION on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See British Airways Flight 38 - do you mean something like this? Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think the translation can be in the same footnote. It need not be in a subpage. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NORUSH, can we await input from other editors now that I understand exactly how you wish the info to be presented? Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Took us only an hour and a half. :) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BA Flight 38 approach works for me, and no need for subpage, per Arsonal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Ferengi (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on a sidenote, as another editor who worked on the AA 331 page, the exclusion of METAR translation was not universally accepted. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft photo

There is a photo of the aircraft at Plane Spotters. I've e-mailed the photographer to request permission for its use in the article. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a load more over at airliners.net. WackyWace converse | contribs 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]