Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 6491

caption in infobox

@ OrbitalEnd48401 Please explain why is the caption/sentence: Part of the tail of the aircraft at the crash site not correct?

You were already reverted by another user who commented that: 'tail wreckage' is not a very common expression; 'TC-MCL' is meaningless to the reader at this point in the article.

So why do you keep reverting this in Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 ? Saschaporsche (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RE: SEE TALK PAGE

Saw the mesage firstly, your attempts at the caption I am sorry to say were not the best, no grammer at all. You refer an aircraft by it Regisatration, as with a car. Look at photo of the 747 seen four days before hand, its referred by its reg, stop reverting and with all due respect look at other accidents captions. Read these captions:

"Engine debris from TC-MCL still at the crash site five months after the accident" "TC-MCL, the Boeing 747 involved, photographed five days before the accident"

It's referred to its reg, so please stop. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If it was in flight such as Air France 4590 it was a flight as A) It was still airborne. If it was the aftermath i.e wreckage you refer to it by its reg. I don't understand what is hard about that? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be unusual to refer to the wreckage by registration, as this is an article about Flight 6491 then it would be better to say it is part of the wreckage of Flight 6491. On the other hand the earlier image of the aircraft is OK to refer to it as TC-MCL. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would you refer a pile of declare as a flight? I mean holding a piece of debris and referring it as a flight? I don’t want to be rude but why would you refer to it as a flight if well it isn’t a plane or a flight anymore? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

OB, If you can't grasp this simple concept I have serious doubts about your ability to contribute constructively here. - Samf4u (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC) .

I disagree, why not be specific of what part of the wreckage is visible? The viewer/reader is best helped if we describe exactly What is visible, the Tail! Saschaporsche (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say, it’s wreckage either way you look at it. It’s heing simple and short. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In reality it is a really bad picture for the info box. It is very hard to workout what is being shown. I would prefer that the previous aircraft picture was reinstated. OE please stop applying your made up blanket rules to every article, every article is different and things appropriate for one article are not always appropriate for another. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that the images should be swopped. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like there is a majority here wanting to swap the two pictures. That’s what I have done know. Also amended the captions. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey all! good news, I've found a photo of the crash in which will be used as the main image, don't worry it is a much better photo then the last one. I'll admit the last one was quite difficult to make out. As of now the new image is of the nose of thr 747 which partly survived OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Samf4u: @Andrewgprout: @Saschaporsche: Hey guys, is the new photo of the crash site better? I’d like your opinions on the new image. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Translated the final report from wikipedia turkish version of this article. Joseph30301 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary and final report

First, the article says there were 14 injuries on the ground, but the final report says there were 36 injuries on the ground; I have not fixed this problem because I do not have enough experience with modifying references and I do not want to damage the article by accident. Secondly, I noticed that the preliminary report is cited much more across the page than the final report, which is generally the opposite in most articles on air accidents (in most cases the preliminary report is not used as a reference), so I'm wondering if this might make the information in the article less accurate. Scs52 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)