Talk:Voepass Flight 2283/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Motitasmeow25 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Vuelo 2283.png

Flight 2283, Note the fluctuation in speed throughout the flight, dropping dangerously to 122 km/h.

 Not done - file was deleted from Commons as a copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 (2)

Not all passengers were Brazilians but one was Portuguese.

https://www.euronews.com/2024/08/10/48-year-old-portuguese-among-the-fatalities-of-the-plane-that-crashed-in-brazil 37.161.32.207 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Celjski Grad (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 (2)

add tge following wiki page to "See also" section [Category:Accidents and incidents involving the ATR 72] Mrbarlas (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Already done There is already a link to accidents and incidents involving the ATR-72 in the see also section with a category of the same nature, Category:Accidents and incidents involving the ATR 72 in the external links section. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

1 ground injury

1 person on the ground was hurt. On the news it said “one person on the ground was hurt” From the 2024 Brazil ATR-72 crash. 72.131.35.93 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

SIGMET citation lapsed and needs update

Change needed for citation - SIGMET icing between 12,000-21,000 feet (citation 11) to following archived source, as original SIGMET is no longer available through conventional weather services as effective time has passed. It is the pertinent SIGMET for severe icing that the aircraft was flying through at time of occurrence.

https://dd.meteo.gc.ca/bulletins/alphanumeric/20240809/WS/SBGL/15/WSBZ23_SBGL_091525___24273

Permanent meteo.gc.ca (Government of Canada weather service) source Ofcgow1012 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The airspeed seemed all over the place for the entire flight. I was wondering if it was ice on / around the cockpit on one of the first pictures of the wreckage. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The aircraft was definitely in a fully stalled condition and in a spin in the videos. Severe icing would do that. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That could honestly just be bad ADSB, but the groundspeed readouts towards the end made me think ice. Normal descent to zero to falling in less than 2 minutes. Ofcgow1012 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

FlightRadar 24 had said on their X (Formerly known as Twitter) page [1]here that the ground speed data for the aircraft had been inaccurate not only for the flight in question, but previous flights, therefore should be considered erroneous.

On their blog post about the incident [2]here they have a graph of the air speed which they consider more reliable. Teribus13 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: The original source for SIGMET was removed and replaced with different sources than proposed above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Fatalities

I see some sources that say there were 58 passengers, and 4 crew members, They were 57 o 58 passengers? I don’t know. Protoeus (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Aviation Herald is reporting that the airline is saying that there were 57 passengers on board. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I read that on Simple Flying they said 58 passengers, which demonstrates that the website is un-reliable, I first asked this question but then I remembered that Simple Flying is un-reliable. Protoeus (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to question its reliability but since this was breaking news, wouldn't it be normal for information to be inaccurate at first with a correction coming in later? I mean, the airline revised the death toll of the accident showing that this isn't really a case of unreliability. News agencies reported on what was known at the time, which was that there were 62 on board. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The name list of passengers and crew members can be found here. Major news outlets are updating the news for 57 passengers and 4 crew members.

Official numbers provided by IML(Legal Medical Institute, coroners) are yet to be released. 179.247.246.26 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Per CNN, the airline itself has revised the fatality count to 61 (57+4). General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The airline confirmed this morning there was a passenger not on the manifest. 62 total casualties. portuguese source Driop (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

For now there's no other reliable source yet. I think we need to wait until other reliable source to confirm this. Awdqmb (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ABC News and Reuters also reported the new figure of 62: [3][4]. S5A-0043^Talk 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Apart from Brazilians there were three Venezuelans on the plane. A woman, her daughter and her grandson. [5] Sapun (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn’t say anything about their citizenship, just that they were living in Venezuela. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Imagens gravadas na sexta-feira (9) mostram o menino venezuelano Joslan Perez" (Images [...] are showing Venezuelan boy, (Redacted)). The list of victims says there were three Venezuelans: [6]. Here's another source: [7].Sapun (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we're starting to get into excessive detail and/or tribute page territory. Mentioning that 3 Venezuelans died in the crash seems sufficient. General Ization ^Talk 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential WP:WEASEL

Just in regards to this paragraph:

Aviation experts speculated that ice buildup could have been a factor in the crash, while stating that it was too soon to draw conclusions.

Should we elaborate further on what these aviation experts are saying? Because as far as I can tell, the article contains each of their opinions on what the cause of the crash was. Furthermore, the wording might fall afoul of WP:WEASEL (in my opinion, at least). MiasmaEternal☎ 03:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence accurately covers what was said, and that it is too early to draw conclusions. I don't see anything wrong with it as it stands. As the invesitigation progresses, it is likely that it will be replaced. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

The plane did not spin, but rather a flat spin 2401:7400:601B:206D:99A9:C2DE:4C2F:D23F (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oncologist versus cancer doctor

Another editor has queried why the article makes a distinction between cancer doctors and oncologists. Oncologists are specialists with higher qualifications. Some doctors treat lesser cancers, like skin cancers, without being considered a specialist oncologist. Other doctors like radiologists interpret medical images for cancer without being an oncologist. So there is a difference. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Dog

Shouldn't the Venezuelan dog be included in the fatalities? RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Like it or not, pets and livestock are not included in aviation fatality counts. General Ization ^Talk 22:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Poor dog. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dog be placed on the crew and passengers section though? Borgenland (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can describe solely in contents, but not in infobox and charts. Awdqmb (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2024

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: not moved. Most users disagreed, per WP:CONSISTENT. Closing per WP:SNOWBALL. We're going nowhere now. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 → Voepass Flight 2283 – As per WP:COMMONNAME, lots of the sources seem to refer to it simply as Voepass < DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, and WikiProject Brazil/Transportation in Brazil task force have been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Most news outlets I looked at online use Voepass: CBC, BBC, MSNBC and AP. CNN uses both. win8x (talking | spying) 20:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The airline atual name is Voepass Linhas Aéreas Felaipinho01 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since when did we base official names off of how mainstream media uses them? 209.65.140.100 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's literally wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You learn something new everyday, I guess. 209.65.140.100 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  But its the actual name tho? 2804:1B2:1143:C191:2116:1AF3:510A:CEE2 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Slight Oppose: United Airlines can be referred to as just United, but United Airlines Flight 232 is called United Airlines Flight 232, not United Flight 232. Neither is American Airlines Flight 11 called American Flight 11. So why would we call Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 just Voepass Flight 2283. Though I do not know Portuguese so maybe calling it Voepass Flight 2283 is accurate. Alexysun (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

im brazilian and and i just think calling it voepass linhas aereas 2238 is better 2804:1B2:1143:C191:2116:1AF3:510A:CEE2 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This has already been addressed by the creation of a redirect from Voepass Flight 2283. Even if "Voepass" is common, it is not the name of the airline. General Ization ^Talk 20:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I know – I created the redirect. WP:OFFICIALNAMES says that just because something is the official name doesn't mean it should be the article title name DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @General Ization A creation of a redirect does not mean that the answer to the move page question is no move. There is no logical connection between these two situations. And I'm saying this as someone who is slight opposed to the move request. Alexysun (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that was the "answer to the move page question". I said it was my answer. The redirect addresses the ability of readers to navigate to the correct article with the name mentioned by the OP, which is not the name of the airline. General Ization ^Talk 21:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Slight Oppose I think instead of putting “Lihneas Aereas” we should put simply only “Airlines”, for example instead of saying Tam Lihneas Aereas Flight 3054 we only say TAM Airlines Flight 3054. Protoeus (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a slightly different issue. "TAM Airlines" is literally the English translation of "TAM Lihneas Aereas". The proposal above is not to move to "Voepass Airlines Flight 2283" (though I would still be opposed). General Ization ^Talk 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Protoeus Maybe the name "TAM Airlines" is wrong, because at the time that airline was truly called Tam Lihneas Aereas. Though obviously if you translate it to English it's TAM Airlines, but I guess it depends if they had an official english name? But then that brings into question the Chinese airlines names and if they have an official english name, because if they don't it wouldn't be viable to put Chinese characters as their name. Alexysun (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: I apply this name for having an shortened name that it’s also encyclopedic, if the name had just the name Airline or Airways i wouldn’t apply this. Protoeus (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And a small correction: the term is Linhas, not Lihneas. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Protoeus Sorry, can you elaborate what you mean by "if the name had just the name Airline or Airways i wouldn’t apply this." Alexysun (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alexysun: It does not have sense that if the proper name is China Airlines we should put airlines as a common name, China Airlines Airlines. Protoeus (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Protoeus Yes, but I'm not sure that anyone is arguing for that. Alexysun (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Nearly all major Chinese airlines have their official English name. So it's not a problem. Awdqmb (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Awdqmb: Yeah, that’s the point, however Brazilian airlines normally don’t have English names. Protoeus (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Infact in us wikipedia, most South American airlines aren't named in English. Such as Aeroméxico, Cubana de Aviación, Aerolíneas Argentinas. So I think we should follow our traditions. Awdqmb (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

But its more respectful to say "linhas aereas" 2804:1B2:1143:C191:2116:1AF3:510A:CEE2 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree Protoeus (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support as per WP:COMMONNAME. rariteh (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The airline refers to itself as Voepass.[8] It is the common name. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Where exactly? All I'm seeing is "Voepass Linhas Aéreas". GalacticOrbits (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at the top of the linked page. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Brazilian airlines tend to exclude the "Linhas Aéreas" from the name as it is difficult to pronounce for an English speaking audience. Plus, that's the logo of the airline and for minimalism, the airline tends to exclude it. The remainder of the article mentions "VOEPASS Linhas Aéreas" 3 times, so it's pretty clear with what the airline wants to be called. GalacticOrbits (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose We've had a strong precedence on preserving the airline name in the accident articles to the ones in the airline articles. See TEAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 6865, Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4815, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4823, Noar Linhas Aéreas Flight 4896. I don't see why this one's any different.

The proposed title should be (and already is) a redirect for articles with shorter names, see: [9]. We don't call Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 as "Garuda Flight 421", or as seen above, we don't call United Airlines Flight 232 as "United Flight 232" as these are only alternative shorter names. People colloquially tend to exclude the "Airlines" or in this case "Linhas Aéreas" from the name, however, Wikipedia shouldn't follow this as it is not encyclopedic. GalacticOrbits (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because the article of the airline still has Linhas Aéreas in the title. If they changed it to simply Voepass, then I would gladly support that instead. RPC7778 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If we change this page into a shortened name, should other pages similar to this also be changed? Such as Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 to Austral Flight 2553? Awdqmb (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The standard on this site is to refer to airlines by their full name, I do not see why this should be an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumMangoCloset (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is not policy. If it was, it would be listed in Topic-specific naming conventions for article titles, which it isn't. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is good, there is a redirect from the shortened title which aids the ability to find the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• :Oppose We believe that it is better to use the Portuguese name, even in the English version. This is because the airline's head office is in a Portuguese-speaking country and it is expected that it should be displayed in its native language.LendingNext (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Use proper name as title. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: We should keep things as they are. Full airline names are standard practice here, and there's no need to make an exception. Waqar💬 15:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Agree with GalacticOrbits said, and also move TAM Airlines Flight 9755 → TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 9755 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054 → TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054 back.Air Astana 1388 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The main discussion is whether to move Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 to Voepass Flight 2283. For the other two, TAM Airlines Flight 9755 and TAM Airlines Flight 3054, you'll need to propose a different move. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article on the airline is still named "Voepass Linhas Aéreas" and we should remain consistent. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: It seems to me that the only viable options are "Voepass Airlines Flight 2283" and "Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283" (i.e. no move): "Voepass Flight 2283" is as noted above equivalent to "United Flight 2283", which is good as a shortened form in speech but should not be used as a formal title. Given the airline is not actually called Voepass Airlines, the correct choice, which also goes with consensus, is "Voepass Linhas Aéreas". By the WP:COMMONNAME policy, also (this is just a policy argument and doesn't matter as much) Veopass Linhas Aéreas is probably the common long-form name, even if Voepass is used as a common shortening like United is for United Airlines. The only argument used in favor is that the short form is common. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per existing precedent on aviation accident articles, we use the full name of the airline, and I don't see why that should change.

MiasmaEternal☎ 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite the prima facie reading of WP:COMMONNAME I believe both precedent and a deeper understanding of that policy means the current title is appropriate. I agree with @GalacticOrbits on this one for sure. This may also be approaching WP:SNOWBALL? MrAureliusR_Talk! 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – seems like a straightforward case of WP:COMMONAME. Look at the References section: not a single headline reads Voepass Linhas Aéreas; they all simply use Voepass. In this Brazilian source alone, Voepass outnumbers the full company name 10:1 (or 10:3 if you want to count the company's own press release, which you would expect to be formal) so let us not be pedantic. The other mentioned precedents are hardly relevant: every case needs to be evaluated on its own merit for prevalence in common use, and in Voepass's case, it seems pretty clear which one is the common name. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  At least the Argentine Austral Líneas Aéreas is commonly knows "Austral" in both offical and commons. So should we also change it to "Austral (airline)"? Awdqmb (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's not the main point of this discussion but, regarding your question, that would depend on what the sources say. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's obviously the main point, that they're in similar naming. For me I think we should follow traditions of us wikipedia, that use full official name if no better name can be used. Awdqmb (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  What I meant was that the main point of this discussion is whether or not to move the current title. This is not a discussion on whether or not other articles should be moved or not. That's a discussion not relevant to this section and which should be discussed elsewhere. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, such exclusions are often rather colloquial and "unencyclopedic". Sources can call it whatever they want to while Wikipedia should stick to the norm by using the name given in the airline article. To extrapolate your idea, news reports surrounding the accident of Delta Air Lines Flight 191 call it "Delta Flight 191" or even "Delta 191" per these sources (even used by the FAA) with : [10], [11], [12], [13].

  Granted, these terms may be used in the analysis of the accident or investigation sections, but as a title, stick with the airline name and the precedent. GalacticOrbits (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @GalacticOrbits, "Wikipedia should stick to the norm by using the name given in the airline article"" – who said that? The chief WP guideline at play here is WP:COMMONAME, and this is a pretty clear-cut case, in my view. Who cares about Delta or United Airlines? We are discussing a Voepass occurrence here: show me a majority of sources that use Voepass Linhas Aéreas instead of simply Voepass in relation to this accident and I'll change my !vote. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I need to point out that, we need a standard policy to all similar pages, we can't use different standard every time such event happened. So if this one passed with a different naming policy, any other similar pages should also be changed. Awdqmb (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Now, I agree that "Voepass" is more commonly used than "Voepass Linhas Aéreas" but this doesn't necessarily translate to using the former in the title. WP:NPOVNAME makes mention of how colloquialisms should be avoided in article titles in favor of more encyclopedic titles. It's been the tradition as seen in the Brazilian airline articles as well as the Delta, United and Garuda articles.

  Once again, I see no issues with the use of colloquial terminologies in the article itself. However, the title should both be a commonly recognizable name whilst being sufficiently precise, an ideal scheme for encyclopedic articles. The proposed title serving as a redirect should be enough. GalacticOrbits (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how the proposed title would be non-neutral as there's no POV-pushing. It's a neutral common name. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well since the title should be commonly recognizable and precise, doesn't the proposed title fit those requirements? Voepass is easily recognizable, commonly used and is precise and concise. The current title, which uses the official name, could serve as the redirect. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  So what about similar pages? We must follow a standard format in all similar page, changing it every time just because "commonly used" will be a chaos. At least in aviation sector, we use the same name with airline page title. And I should point out, many sources also use IATA flight number to name an aviation accident, should we also use it as page title? Awdqmb (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Consistency isn't the only reason why an article should be named x. The proposed title is a common name. Based on the criteria, Voepass Flight 2283 is easily recognizable, natural to an english speaking group for an english Wikipedia and it is precise and concise since there are no similar titles that could be confused with and clearly identifies the subject without the need for the official name. There is a bit of consistency since TAM Airlines Flight 3054 isn't named after the official name but named as such since it is the common name. Look at Air Inter Flight 148, the official and correct flight number is Flight 5148 yet Flight 148 is used since it is the name used by the majority of sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support a move to Voepass Flight 2283 and alternatively to Voepass Airlines Flight 2283 – Whilst Voepass Linhas Aéreas is the official name for the airline, the majority of sources use the term Voepass which looks to be the common name: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

Would not oppose the inclusion of Airlines into the proposed title – Voepass Airlines Flight 2283 – as some sources also use this term whilst also simply using Voepass: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Additionally, the proposed title would be recognisable without the need to add the official name of the airline and would also be a natural title. The proposed title is precise and can't be confused with another event and is concise enough to identify the subject. Most english language sources identify the subject as Voepass (sometimes using Voepass Airlines), not Voepass Linhas Aéreas. Wikipedia doesn't necessarily base itself on consistency. For example, TAM Airlines Flight 3054 uses a common name for its title, not the official name. Another such example would be the case of Air Inter Flight 148. The official and correct flight number for this event would be Flight 5148, yet Flight 148 is referred to as such since it is the name that is commonly and majoritarily used by sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm leaning towards the WP:CONSISTENT argument given precedent (as shown by GalaticOrbits). S5A-0043^Talk 11:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – Look at today's WP Main Page, In The News section: look how clumsy "Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 crashes in the Brazilian state of São Paulo" reads. How many news outlets or other sources would refer to the event as such? I doubt very many. That's either pedantry or fixation on consistency with other stuff already existing on WP, at the expense of common sense and clarity. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  But we are not a news website right? It's the Wikinews work. Most news even use the IATA or ICAO flight number to call an aviation accident. So should we change the page name further to "2Z2283 crash"? Awdqmb (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You are right: we're not a news website; we are a bunch of pedants with OCD, Obsessive Consistency Disorder. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's how encyclopaedia works. I need to point out again that, terminology in professional sector have nothing to do with common sense. Also we need follow WP:CONSIST, which change in one time will need to deploy to all similar title. But one thing you are right, there's indeed someone that have OCD, like the other topic on this talk page, which a wikipedian insist to use word "crash" instead of "accident" to refer all similar aviation occurrence events, although all major organizations and regulators use them. Awdqmb (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The common full name of the airline includes "Linhas Aéreas", and it is consistent with previous usage. I suppose, if there is disagreement, then we should have a guideline on naming air accidents. I would be okay with either outcome in that case, but until that day I think the best course is to attempt consistency.--cyclopia^speak! 13:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose precedents say that the full name of the airline should be displayed. I personally think it could be just VOEPASS Flight XXX, however I also think it's important to keep things standard so... No change, please.

Examples: TEAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 6865, Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4815, Rico Linhas Aéreas Flight 4823, Noar Linhas Aéreas Flight 4896 Mateusmatsuda (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the existing precedent to be WP:CONSISTENT with other aviation accident/incident articles. The title should be WP:CONSISTENT with the airline article. If it can be demonstrated that "Voepass" is the common name of the airline and the airline's article is moved, only then would I support such a move here. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Flawed argument. WP:CONSISTENT reads "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics", i.e. articles about air accidents should be titled broadly consistently among themselves; same for articles about airlines. The guideline does not extend to topics that are dissimilar but related, such as articles about air accidents and articles about the related airlines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. I've updated my !vote accordingly. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT — Joe1ow^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Aéreas portion of the name stands for "air" or "airline". The American equivalent would be United Airline, American Airline, etc. Just look up any airline incident pertaining to those airline companies. So no, we do not shorten for the sake of consistency. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Infact the whole "Linhas Aéreas" is the word of "Airlines" in Portuguese language. Awdqmb (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Voepass Linhas Aéreas is the common name of the airline and is consistent with the naming of other articles. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Improper Use for Advertisement

The sentence "Brazilian television news channel GloboNews interrupted Olympics coverage to broadcast from the area around the crash, showing fire and smoke rising from the plane fuselage" is irrelevant. The impression caused is that of the use a plane crash as a subreptitious means for advertising in favour of a company, in this case, a TV channel. If this sentence is maintained, it should be changed to "Several media and television channels did the coverage of this crash, presenting videos of the flat spin during the fall, and of the fire after the crash." Antar Mandeep (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did any other network interrupt its coverage of the Paris 2024 Olympics and shift to continuous coverage of the crash? As I see it, that is what is being reported here, not just that the crash was reported (with on-scene video) by multiple networks that operate in Brazil (as would be expected and hardly needs mentioning at all). General Ization ^Talk 04:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article what someone stopped doing in order to carry out his job. For sure the reporters also aborted their lunch in order to do the coverage of the plane crash. Interrupting Olympics coverage to report a plane crash is irrelevant to an article about a plane crash, and this information is also not stated in the cited references. The overall impression is that of an attempt to promote a private company, trying to take advantage of popular commiseration, which seems to be disrespectful to those who died in the crash, and also to Wikipedia itself. This TV channel might be in a state of desperation in order to seek this type of self-promotion. It is my understanding that this sentence should be removed. Antar Mandeep (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@General Ization, only Globo covered the Olympics. And it was not GloboNews as far as I can tell... RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is no GloboNews. According to the official website: "Além da transmissão do Olympics.com, os Jogos Olímpicos Paris 2024 também serão exibidos no Brasil pela TV Globo, Sportv e CazéTV." Source:

https://olympics.com/pt/noticias/onde-assistir-jogos-olimpicos-paris-2024

Confirmed by:

https://oglobo.globo.com/esportes/olimpiadas/noticia/2024/07/24/olimpiadas-2024-onde-assistir-aos-jogos-de-paris-ao-vivo-veja-programacao-e-calendario.ghtml

"Os Jogos Olímpicos serão transmitidos pela TV Globo, SporTV, Globoplay e CazéTV."

"GloboNews" is wrong information. Antar Mandeep (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also note that much of the video and on-scene reporting carried by other networks and media outlets, both domestically in Brazil and internationally, originated with GloboNews. It is not "advertising" to mention the network's widely-noted role in reporting on the disaster. General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is not "advertising". It is a network on top of its game. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources, [26] [27] [28] do not mention GloboNews interrupting its Olympics footage. I don't agree that this is advertising but the sentence should be rephrased to reflect what the sources say.

AP News states: "Brazilian television network GloboNews showed aerial footage of an area with smoke coming out of an obliterated plane fuselage. Additional footage on GloboNews earlier showed the plane plunging in a flat spin. A report from television network Globo’s meteorological center said it “confirmed the possibility of the formation of ice in the region of Vinhedo,” and local media cited analysts pointing to icing as a potential cause for the crash."

NBC News states: "An area of fire and smoke was captured in footage by Brazil's TV GloboNews. Other footage from the outlet showed a plane spiraling while falling."

Maybe a rephrase of the sentence could include: "Brazilian television news channel GloboNews provided aerial footage from around the area of the crash site, showing fire and smoke rising from the aircraft's wreckage." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that rephrasing. Antar Mandeep (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

We have no source for "flat spin"

We say "flat spin" four times in the article. But we have no source for this. There are three sources cited. One is in Portuguese and calls it "em espiral". One is in English and says "unrecoverable spin" but doesn't use the word "flat". One doesn't use the word "spin" at all, it says "plunged". As I understand it, a "flat spin" is one type of spin that an airplane can find itself in. My guess it that "flat spin" is WP:OR by some editor who watched the video. So maybe we should just say "spin". Or find a new source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the sources with one that does use "flat spin". - ZLEA _T\^C 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2024

Requesting adding the word 'flat' before 'spin' in accident description :) VoidRegent69 (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks VoidRegent69 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

About the ten passengers who didn't board

In the "Crew and passengers" subsection, the article states that "At least 10 ticketed passengers failed to board the flight because they were waiting at the wrong gate." Are there any updates about those ten passengers? I've done some digging but haven't found anything. Poxy4 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A major brazilian TV network did a piece on some of those people on its sunday evening show "Fantástico", and a text summary can be found here, in portuguese: [29]. The piece does not provide an accurate number, and in one of the cases the passenger decided not to board based on a family request to travel on a different date, so not all of those ticketed passengers failed to board due to gate number confusion. I think that these people's personal data (names, where they live, etc.) should NOT be added to this article. Fbergo (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with you there, but we should clarify that not all passengers who missed the flight were at the wrong gate, since that's what the article conveys at the moment. Poxy4 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Bad archives and access dates

This edit [30] has left us with a number of bad archives and access dates. The article says one thing, but the archived version of the source, as of the access-date, says something different. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)