Talk:Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Venezuela Low‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela 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.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.
	This article was automatically prioritized by a bot per the category key. Please ensure that the importance value is appropriate before removing the `\|autoi=yes` parameter.

Aviation: Accidents

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 28 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 – The flight number was 109 not 108. I could not find a direct final report but I could find a video describing the final report here: [1] where in one of the scenes, it mentioned that the flight number was 109. The Aviation safety network also mentions it as flight 109. Username006 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerm (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - "109" is most likely a typo, given that a vast majority of sources use "108". Also of note is the fact that it is customary for airlines to retire flight numbers which were involved in fatal accidents. "Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109" has been active as recently as September 2017, while "Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108" does not appear to have been used since the accident. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ZLEA: The vast majority of sources may use 108 but that's mainly because Wikipedia mentions it. The final report mentions it as 330/109. Sure Flight numbers may be retired but there are some exceptions to it American Airlines Flight 1 (1962). Username006 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Username006 Sure, it may very well have been an exception, but that doesn't explain why "Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108" isn't used anymore. Furthermore, a Google search of Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 and Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 from before January 1, 2010 (just under a month before this article was created) brings up very little results, none of which are directly related to this topic. Are there any other official documents which refer to the flight as "Flight 109"? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Conflicting sources I've seen, that's for sure. Some articles say 108, the Diccionario General de Zulia cites flight 109 https://books.google.com/books?id=5XlGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1944&lpg=PA1944&dq=%22Aeropostal%22+%22marzo+de+1991%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=DUzI16GaWe&sig=ACfU3U3QiULQjQ3ahblepFGY_yPvuCNKgg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7gsvG-7L1AhW0IEQIHYrhBDcQ6AF6BAgbEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Aeropostal%22%20%22marzo%20de%201991%22%20-wikipedia&f=false , and the images of period articles don't mention a flight number at all (mostly calling it a DC-9). What a baffler. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the official report does mention it as 109. Not considering as a source but other languages (i.e. Deutsch and Español) both mention it as Flight 109. Username006 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2022 (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.

Add topic