Jump to content

Talk:2015 Shoreham Airshow crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.138.15.171 (talk) at 09:57, 25 August 2015 (→'them' vs. 'it'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rename

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy move to 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash. —David Levy 22:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2015 Shoreham Hawker Hunter crash. More specific, less melodramatic. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment

The title should be 2015 Shoreham Airshow Hawker Hunter crash this is would make clear it was an article referring to this event of 2015 and not the 2007 Airshow crash or any other shoreham which exists and there is more than one Shoreham. Sport and politics (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far too long. "2015 Shoreham Airshow crash" is sufficiently clear and unique. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not including the plane is not clear enough, short is not always good for clarity. I have moved it to get away from the clearly unsupported title it was previously at. The article title as clear and informative, this is for searches for hawker /Hawker Hunter related searches, Shoreham/Shoreham Airshow searches. The article is also inline with the 1952 Farnbrough article title. Sport and politics (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PRECISION. Redirects and search engines accommodate readers seeking other relevant terms. —David Levy 22:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Destination

I understand the aircraft flew in from North Weald to display and was due to return without landing. I have removed the origin and destination until we have a reliable source, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Suggest that if this is the case, Shoreham is given as stopover, annotated (display). Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably misleading as I dont think it had any intention of stopping it was a fly from North Weald, display and return to base, sadly not to be. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot

Reports that the pilot was pulled clear might not be accurate. There was initially some confusion with a crashed light plane in Sandown earlier in the day, which the pilot survived. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we should have the information on the pilot at the moment until we know what has actually happened. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourced info is fine, what we should not be doing is naming him. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was named in the source I gave. He is, according to the BBC, alive in hosptal [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why he shouldn't be named - all airplane crash articles name the pilots and crew when available. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, there are plenty of articles that don't name the crew when the name/s is/are known. My opinion is that, except in special cases such as Lubitz and the Germanwings crash, the pilot should not be named; I think there needs to be a very good reason to do so. If it doesn't aid in understanding of the subject, it isn't necessary; generally a name doesn't aid understanding. YSSYguy (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this sounds argumentative, but hiding the pilot's name makes no sense: his name would have been published in the event programme, and all of the news outlets I have looked at (BBC, Telegraph, Guardian) have named him. New Thought (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that as a general principle we should follow the lead of the civil authorities in the country concerned, in the case of the UK that's the police. After all, it's they who have the unenviable job of formally contacting the injured or dead person's family. MarkMLl (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperCarnivore591:, please undo your rollback. Mjroots (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least two people that have no problem naming the pilot, and three people that don't want him named. That certainly does not equal a "consensus" to not give names to the victims. Consensus is not a vote. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just this article, it applies across a great many aircrash articles and is in accordance with WP:BLP1E, which is policy. Very few non-notable people (in the terms of Wikipedia notability) are named in aircrash articles. For the very few that are, there are usually very good reasons that they are named. Wikinotable people should be, and generally are, named. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read WP:BLP1E. It only applies to creating an article about the person, not having the person's name in the article. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Before someone says something about WP:BLPNAME, that would only apply if the person's name has been intentionally concealed (an example where we would conceal it would be if it was a military aircraft in a secret operation). It's general consensus that the pilot and co-pilot of an aircraft which has crashed should be named, you can see 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to confirm it. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC
WP:BLP still applies to the pilot. It also applies to a certain extent to those recently deceased, such as the victims of this tragic accident. It does not apply to those who have been dead for 60 years plus. John Derry is a wikinotable person. It is arguable that his observer may be wikinotable, but his name is included for completeness. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using some common sense, WP:1E states "[...]In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident.[...]"
Considering the fact there should be a redirect from Andy Hill (pilot) to the article, one can logically deduce that the name should not be censored from the article. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approach picture

Hi Folks, I added a picture of Runway 20 and the A27 road. This video from YouTube should give an orientation of the crash. Bridge, road, river and runway are visible.

Nice one, thanks for that. We're local, and a colleague suggests that the BBC photos show that the plane came down somewhere near the road junction visible to the right. MarkMLl (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAIB request for photos

I've changed this to reflect what the BBC were reporting yesterday evening (Saturday), i.e. that the AAIB wanted people whith photos etc. to contact them but not to send anything.

As an issue secondary to this article this highlights a problem with linking to the BBC: they change the article posted to a specific URL, sometimes drastically, without giving any indication... these days they don't even have a time on a particular version, just a date. See this track [2] for the longer-running BBC story. MarkMLl (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also

I've trimmed this section down to the Farnborough disaster and Kegworth crash. A "see also" section is not supposed to be a place for placing every conceivable vaguely similar event. Farnborough is relevant as the deadliest airshow accident in the UK. I think that this is the second deadliest, but we'll need a RS before that factoid can go in the article. Kegworth is relevant in that a busy dual carriageway road was involved, although as far as I recall no vehicles were. I'd suggest that any other proposed additions are thrashed out here and consensus gained before they are added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just edit-conflicted with you, attempting to reduce the list to the same two articles, with the same reasoning. we have categories for the rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Kegworth accident as it has no relevance to this accident, an airliner on approach to a major airport is not the same as an airshow accident with an aircraft doing aerobatics, lots of aircraft have crashed on to roads and is really incidental to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the link was tenuous at best. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it back because it is relevant, as the crash was very similar occurring on a busy dual carriageway, and also this is now the worst crash in Britain since Kegworth - so that is another strong link. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry still a bit tenious, and also not the worse as the crash of Bandierante G-OEAA in 1995 killed 12 on board. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection: Kegworth is not relevant, because none of its casualties were on the ground. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victims

Just a reminder that consensus on aircraft accident articles is not to list or name victims unless they are otherwise notable, normally considered that the have or would be likely to have a stand-alone wikipedia article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that the players played for Worthing F.C., a notable football club, it is reasonable to assume that they would likely have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? --McSly (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Until the accident the article Worthing United F.C. does not even mention players names. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Wikinotable. See WP:NFOOTY. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is notable. They should be added back in. Worthing are a relatively big non-league side, and this is a huge loss to them. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTY disagrees with you. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTY only applies to sports. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True but indicates that the would be unlikely to have an article so in wikipedia terms not notable per the current consensus on these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, names of victims should not be included. However, the name of the pilot should be included. Generally in aviation incident articles, the pilot's name and co-pilot's name are included. See 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worst since Kegworth

Please do not claim that this is the worst since Kegworth as already mentioned G-OEAA https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/2-1996-emb-110-bandierante-g-oeaa-24-may-1995 killed 12 in 1995. Just because journalists dont research doesnt mean we have to repeat misleading claims, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's Knight Air Flight 816. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may well turn out to be the deadliest since Kegworth. BBC South East TV reporting that police are saying the toll "could rise to 20". Of course, this will need to be confirmed before it goes into the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Can we please not use redtops as sources in the article. They fail WP:RS. I wouldn't use The Sun as a source for the day of the week, let alone facts about which was the previous deadliest aircrash in the UK. Reliable sources will report this in due course. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals

While people are tweaking the content on hospitals, just to note that the injured were taken to Worthing Hospital but the pilot was airlifted to the Royal Sussex County Hospital. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a usable source? Should we put it in the lead? 31.52.163.247 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (with source), so maybe no need for such detail in the lead? 31.52.163.247 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia?

How is the addition of the church service to the responses section trivia? It is an event that was held in direct response to the event and worthy of inclusion IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth does it matter what the traffic lights at the intersection are called? Sitting in Australia, it matters not one bit to me; nor, I suspect, does it matter to anyone sitting in Taunton, Mevagissey, Worksop, Peckham or Saltaire either. Adding the info does not aid understanding of the subject, it actually detracts from understanding. YSSYguy (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is because each junction on a UK Road has a name, e.g. the roundabout before the junction cash site it called the "Manor Roundabout" The junction has a name it should be used as the crash was actually across the junction. Just because a user does not find it relevant because they are in Australia does not mean it is trivia. The plane crashed at the actual junction. If a plane had crashed into a specific hotel the name of the hotel would be included, it is the same principle here. Sport and politics (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of injured

There are contradicting comments in the article as to how many injured, one sections say 14, another says 16, could someone clarify? James 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisyja (talk • contribs)

 Done - infobox updated. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'them' vs. 'it'

An editor or editors keep hanging "the AAIB appealed for members of the public to contact them" to "the AAIB appealed for members of the public to contact it" (Italics added). I don't know anyone, from social friends to professional copywriters and journalists, who would use the latter formulation in British English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Them" is correct in Br.Eng. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think them is right too, have fixed it81.138.15.171 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owner

I have - again - restored the name of the owner, a significant owner and operator of several vintage aircraft, Although the citation is now dead, I can confirm that the information was at that address on the evening of the incident. It is not Wikipedia policy to remove cited information just because of linkrot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, but that wasn't why I removed it. In fact, a number of editors have removed this fact for the same reason. It is irrelevant who owned the aircraft. The fact that it was based at North Weald isn't that relevant either, apart from it demonstrates that the aircraft flew to Shoreham for the display, and was scheduled to fly back there afterwards. If the deadlink ref is to stay, perhaps someone can get a Wayback Machine link that works. Personally, I think it should go. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of fatalities

I don't see any sources for "4 (confirmed), possibly at least 11 (unconfirmed)". Sources, quoting the police, currently say "11 dead". It appears that someone has mistaken "unnamed" for "unconfirmed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Shoreham_Airshow_crash&oldid=677757778"