Talk:Yemenia Flight 627

	Aviation portal This redirect is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This redirect is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles

Enroute contradiction

CNN is reporting that the flight was enroute to Comoros not departing from as the article states. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight number contradiction

CNN says it was Yemenia Flight 626, not 627. Offliner (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies / Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Yemenia Flight 626. -- 2help (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has confirmed that it is flight 627, in fact many sources (BBC, Reuters) state that the plane was coming in to land, rather than taking off. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yemenia Flight 626 is the correct article. Information should be moved from here to there. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it was flying eastwards ? yousaf465'

The flight route would have been generally southwards, however as the plane may have been commencing landing procedures, it may have been heading in a different direction. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly should be merged. I am unsure which one is correct however. 2help (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever number turns out to be correct, we should merge these articles as soon as possible to prevent people working on two articles simultaneously. It seems that 626 has less information, I think we should redirect it here. We can move back to 626 if there is confirmation that it was the correct number. Offliner (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yemenia website seems to say that it was 626.[1]. Offliner (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a Google News search seems to show 626 is correct. 2help (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 626 seems now to have all the information that it here, so I'm redicting this page to 626. Offliner (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.