Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan[edit]

A user has just created a new navbox Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan not something we normally have, is this one step towards Template:Aviation accidents and incidents involving blue aircraft on a Thursday or something usefull ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those cases that could go either way. It does sort of beg the question though as to why we would have this nav box and not Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United States or Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom, though. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Which is why this may be better as a list. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That might be a more sensible approach. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
We do seem to have an awful lot of readers and editors from Pakistan. I don't know if anyone keeps statistics on this, but IMO we shouldn't be too hasty to think of this as a lesser navbox than "AA&I in the US" or "...UK", or "...Russia" for that matter. I also think it makes an encyclopedia more usable to have easily accessible tools for cross referencing, and a navbox has everything right there, in context, without needing to sift through a list on another page. I also think we need to ask more often how something like this might hurt WP as an encyclopedia. I personally don't see any harm. If someone makes a page of some sort, it does not bind anyone to make all possible similar pages. My $0.02. Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem I have is that if every article had such a navbox then some like the United States would be to large to be of any use. We already have Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan so the navbox doesnt really add anything in my opinion, if it was a list then it could provide more information to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I see your point about some navboxes, like the US, being huge and unwieldy. That's definitely a concern that makes sense to me. However, not all articles need to have the same format. If our goal is enhancing readability, then maybe different approaches are warranted? For a country like Pakistan, maybe a list and a navbox would both be helpful, but for the US, maybe just a list? I think navboxes have the effect of stimulating further interest by presenting what's available right there on the page, and one click gets you to the article. To get to a list, you have to already want to see what's available. Instead of click-and-read, it's click-and-see-if-anything-interesting-is-available. I am biased in favor of navboxes because of my own experience as a reader who just likes to surf sometimes. I know that doesn't make me right, but it's my $0.02 Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Commercial flights[edit]

I have removed a couple of additions by User:Swpb to accidents articles of a new Category:Commercial flights, but the user has reverted. Clearly adding accidents to a Commercial flights category adds no value and as nearly all accident articles are commercial flights not really a defining attribute. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this one. "This category contains regularly scheduled commercial flights." That says it all. Accidents per se are not regularly scheduled flights (not regularly scheduled anything), and accident articles are not about the scheduled flights themselves. But I don't see a talk page for that category. Have you been discussing this somewhere with Swpb? Dcs002 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No I but I included a link to the user name above which should have notified them of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an article will be needed for Continental Express Flight 2286 & Proteus Airlines Flight 706[edit]

The TV Series Mayday has included this accident in the current (16th) season. So it looks like this accident will need an article. To help anyone who does decide to write it, here is the NTSB report:

I'm actually surprised this one has not had a write-up, since it appears the captain of the flight was affected by drugs which contributed to poor decision making.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It already has one. Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that one. There is another obscure incident that they are featuring I've only been able to locate a French Language version of the accident report for Proteus Airlines Flight 706:

Graham1973 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Vieques Air Link Flight 901A - needs an overhaul[edit]

Just checked this article out. The text including one quotation is completely unreferenced. There is an NTSB report linked, but surely a case like this would have generated newspaper articles. I may have a book that discusses this accident. Graham1973 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

F-4 crash, Wisconsin Air Guard, May 21, 1986.[edit]

The Wisconsin State Journal did an excellent summary of all military air incidents in Wisconsin in 2011 after the F-16 crash.

I was searching for the RF-4 crash of May 21, 1985. It was not on your military database.

A review of the newspaper article may provide data on other crashes. Keep up the good work.

Robert P. Walsh

Link to Wisconsin State Journal article. (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Help needed at formatting names on list and on death image montage[edit]

Click to come to the image page:

Aviator deaths in Je Sais Tout on 15 August 1912.jpg
Aviator deaths in Je Sais Tout on 15 August 1912, image 2.jpg
Aeroplane Victims Now Number 100 in the New York Times on October 15, 1911.pdf
Aeroplane Victims Now Number 200 in the New York Times on October 16, 1912.png