Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Naming convention for space incidents

Currently we have 2009 satellite collision on the collision of Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251. That form of name is, in my opinion, poor since it is not likely be the name most readers know it by. In addition, this can require renames if there are additional incidents in a given year. Obviously Category:2009 satellite collisions would be a good category if we have several of these. Also, I have a concern that there may be a need to differentiate between collisions between intact satellites and between an intact satellite and some other object (debris or cosmic material).

When we have two satellites colliding names should be something like:

• Iridium and Kosmos collision or Iridium and Kosmos space collision
• 2009 Iridium and Kosmos collision or 2009 Iridium and Kosmos space collision
• Iridium 33 and Kosmos 2251 collision or Iridium 33 and Kosmos 2251 space collision

Opinions and proposed wording to add to the project page? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that having the year in the title is a good idea - perhaps 2009 Iridium and Kosmos space collision or 2009 Iridium and Kosmos satellite collisions?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Off hand do you know the reason why editors want the year at the beginning of the title on disasters? Seems unnecessary to me. I know it is common. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because a guideline not far from here says it must start with a year if it hasnt a flight number!. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So is consensus forming around yyyy Foo1 and Foo2 satellite collision when two satellites impact and yyyy Foo satellite collision when a satellite impacts something other than another satellite? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that title system too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Any opinion on the need to qualify the satellite name, Iridium or Iridium 33 in the above example? I'm thinking just the primary name without the qualifier. This avoids style issues with a name like 2009 Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 satellite collision. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Two more AfDs

This to notify task force members of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths by aircraft misadventure and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 190 (2nd nomination)‎. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted. I'm taking from this that we have a defacto policy not to wait for official reports before deleting the articles. Might as well give up early and save my energy.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy is to create articles about subjects that are notable. If notability (as opposed to newsworthy) occurs after the report is issued, that's the time to write the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities of passengers

I answered a question on Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 on why the nationalities of victims is not notable, I replied because it has nothing to do with the accident. After a bit of a circular discussion other users said they were included in other accident articles and another comment was Information like this turns the passengers from anonymous passengers into real, living people ... it helps the reader associate with the event. It turns the article from a stone-cold narrative into a real and readable article, it helps get the point across. A good point but can we add every bit of information that meets that criteria. It did lead me into realising that we do not have any guidelines for the layout or contents for air accident articles. Is it worth creating something and answering what should and should not be included.? MilborneOne (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a mention of passenger nationalities so long as it is kept simply as that; it can have an effect as it effectively involves other nations. There is a strong possibility of assistance to families from their governmnets, or a request to be party to the investigation. I wouldn't generally include any other information, however. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have said some things about this issue on Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1951. I feel that the nationalities are not vital to an article, the article won't break down without it, but it does provide useful information. It can lift the article from good to better. I think we need to break the information down into four categories:
A: Absolutely vital information, e.g. location of the crash, cause of the crash, number of victims, etc.
B: Important but not vital information, e.g. nationalities of the passengers
C: Interesting but not important information, e.g. notable passengers
D: Trivial information, e.g. ethnic background, religion, what school they attended, shoe size, etc.
A must be included, B would be recommended, C would be optional and D wouldn't belong in the article. That's, in brief, what I have in mind. Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Page content

As a follow on from the suggests above I have drafted a page content guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/page content. Comment appreciated (good or bad). MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Piper PA-34 Seneca crash

I have nominated 2009 Piper PA-34 Seneca crash for deletion, so please feel free to add to the debate. Also note there is a prod placed by another user on Carpatair Flight 128 and that Porthcawl Mid-Air Collision, while it does involve somewhat unusual circumstances with a collision and received a flurry of news coverage, may well require nomination at AfD as well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont think the Porthcawl Mid-Air Collision is particularly notable more like a memorial and not really much about the crash itself. Just one of many mid-air collisions, sad but they are not the first air cadets to be killed in accident and their doesnt appear to be any unusual circumstances, although we dont have an official report. Like other accidents we may have an issue of recentism but it should go to AfD at some point. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I've started the process of getting this for this project. When it's up and running it will replace the AfD notices we usually see here. Watch the main page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we have had this over on the AfC WikiProject for a while now, and it's great! Also alerts of prods, DYKs etc. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Small plane crashes into Ecuador building

Does anyone have any more info on this accident? Sounds like it will be notable :( - BillCJ (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of articles at [1] google news. LeadSongDog (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Montana plane crash

This article is in need of major, major work all help is appreciated. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming question

Here's an upcoming article (so far in userpace) about a unique aircraft that crashed on its maiden flight. At least half of the article will be focused on the fatal flight. Should it be named after the event (1934 Osoaviakhim-1 balloon crash) or after the aircraft itself (Osoaviakhim-1)? Regards, NVO (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Does it need a crash infobox, at all? NVO (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good article about the balloon and the crash, but the article title should be related to the balloon itself as Osoaviakhim-1 it has a lot more history then just the accident, you can always redirect the other title to it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's live in mainspace. NVO (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

CanJet Flight 918

I PRODed CanJet Flight 918 as Notnews and Recentism, but it has been contested. I'm preparing to take to to AFD unless I'm persuaded that it has lasting nobility, which I don't see at this point. There will probably be matters related to the airport's security, which is better covered directly on the airport page. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Daft question but it appears to have been an incident on the ground - dont think that is a hijack? MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempted hijack as he never got access to the cockpit. A move perhaps, but definitely notable. First such operation by Jamaican forces. LeadSongDog come howl 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the subject is notable; the (pseudo)hijacking is unique in Jamaica and, without checking the article got this bit right, only one comparable incident has occured involving Canadian aircraft. Compare with Air West Flight 612, which survived an AfD. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kent Air Ambulance

The article on Kent Air Ambulance (United Kingdom) has recently been created, and it includes a section on the 1998 fatal crash of their previous aircraft. I'm sure more information might be available about this, to expand that section, but not sure if it falls in the interest realms of any of your participants. Any input gratefully received! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the Air Accident Investigation Branch Bulletin on the accident as a reference, it has a lot of factual material on the accident. You may need to consider removing the names of the victims of the accident as it may be considered against WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input. Any other help gratefully received. One last question was whether this is notable enough to be tagged for your task force as part of the Aviation project banner? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

American Eagle - Flight 184 or 4184?

There is American Eagle Flight 4184 - But when I watched Mayday the controllers radioed as "EGF 184," even though the narrators refer to it as Flight 4184. What happened? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Just for information Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatalities from aviation incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See also two others - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 1726 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Romania Extra 300L crash. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Dakota disaster

I'm going to write an article on the loss of the Dutch Dakota Association's Dakota PH-DDA in 1996. This accident really deserves to have an article (it has one on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Dakotaramp). Would Dutch Dakota disaster be a suitable title? Any better suggestions? Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The guideline says it should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>> so it should be 1996 Den Oever Dakota accident or a variant although you may not get any objections to 1996 Dutch Dakota accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The guideline also mentions exceptions. I was wondering whether this would be one. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1996 Dutch Dakota accident works for me, as I have no clue what a "Den Oever" is! (I assume it's the place where it happened.) 1996 Netherlands Dakota accident also works for me, assuming it happened in the Netherlands. I look forward to seeing the article. Do you have it up on a sandbox as yet? - BillCJ (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might consider redirects from 1996 Netherlands DC-3 accident and variations. There is an article for Den Oever, which is a lot lower than Denver. :-) I note that Accident history for 19960925-0 at Aviation Safety Network has several refs listed. See also NETHERLANDS AVIATION SAFETY BOARD. FINAL REPORT 96-71/A-16 Douglas DC-3C, Dakota, PH-DDA of the Dutch Dakota Association, near Den Oever, 25 September 1996. Issued December 1997. LeadSongDog come howl 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start in my sandbox. Might take a few days to write it though. The final report 96-71/A-16 has a lot of info to digest and add. I want to get a fuller history of the aircraft involved in the accident. BTW, "Ramp" in Dutch translates as disaster. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Same numbers on a flight, train, bus or other mode may exist despite accidents

The concept is that possibility of using the same numbers on a flight, train, bus or other mode exists despite accidents; awareness of this in title creation can be incorporated

• Air France Flight 447 - page title may include flight was in accident.

If Air France Flight 447 is a currently operating flight(which may be untrue), then the title of the current page Air France Flight 447 may need should be changed to reflect this possibly indicating a notation regarding accident of the fateful date. Confirmation of this is not available but Air France web site indiates no flight AF447 for current dates possibly meaning that the flight number may have been retired.

This is from another website( could be lagging in recognising that there may be no flight AF447) is the current schedule below indicates timing though may need to verify Departure Status Details Airport: (GIG) Galeao Antonio Carlos Jobim International Airport City: Rio De Janeiro, RJ, BR Scheduled: 7:00 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009 Terminal: 1 Local Time: 6:37 PM - Sun Jun 14, 2009

Same applies to any accident train bus etc where same number is not always terminated and can forever lock up the page naming into though meaning referrence to accident, can be confused with current flight 447. This comes from a beginner.65.51.38.194 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Patelurology2 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Rewording. Patelurology2 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The following comment indicated that naming convention can attend to this

• ":The article follows the naming standards of Wikiproject Aviation. Suggest you discuss there if you have concerns about the naming scheme. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)"

Same numbers on a flight, train, bus or other mode can exists despite accidents.Patelurology2 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not an issue as only one Air France Flight 447 is notable none of the others are. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2007 Hukou F-5F crash

Just come across 2007 Hukou F-5F crash which appears to be a non-notable crash that was probably News at the time. Crew died and some soldiers on the ground doesnt appear to be different to thousands of other not mentioned accidents. Any thoughts, does it need a prod? MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The crash does not seem to meet WP:AIRCRASH, though I suspect the accident will have generated a report and hence recommendations, which I may look for to check before an AfD. On the subject of which, a related article is currently at AfD. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two articles at AfD Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Taiwan crash does not appear to be under investigation by the ASC, meaning no report except for internal from the military. I would therefore doubt notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Prod removed so now nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added comments to the AfD. I think it raises some questions that need to be further addressed in WP:AIRCRASH. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the task force have it back? Make it a task force subpage and transclude it where it is now with a handy 'edit' button; that way task force members could have watched it more easily and continued improvements while also refining changes, without locking it away from other users; in short, the current mess may have been avoided. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what it is that you're asking for the task force to have back – the article at AfD or WP:AIRCRASH or what? I'm not sure what the "current mess" is either. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH. It was a direct response to the previous comment, hence the four colons. The "current mess" is " some questions that need to be further addressed in WP:AIRCRASH". I just worded it a little more strongly. ;) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now nominated 2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash for the same fate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just proded 2009 Serbian MiG-29 crash although I suspect it may get de-prodded, with this sudden rash of non-notable military accident perhaps we need to review the guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, we could let the user who created the last 2 listed articles know that there are guidelines. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Heerodden helicopter accident, 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash, 2008 Piper PA 28 plane crash and Hanoi military plane crash from 2008 can probably all go too. 2007 Bangalore plane crash is in a similar position. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have proded the 2007 Bangalore plane crash, the 2008 Piper PA 28 plane crash has been AfD before but it was news at the time, perhaps we should wait for the official accident report (which I suspect will say aircraft flew into large hill) before proposing again. We have some differences of opinion at 2009 West Java airliner crash AfD as it was a military F27 with a loss of 24 crew and troops. I supported delete as it was a military accident but we have articles like 2009 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash with 41 crew and troops lost which has never been nominated for deletion. Perhaps we need some suggestions for a coherent military aircrash guideline we can all buy in and support. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Aviation incidents and accidents in 2009

A user has created Template:Aviation incidents and accidents in 2009 and been adding them to accident articles, has re-added it on two articles when I removed it as not needed. Dont think it is needed, duplicates categories and mixes types of accidents (including some that are marginally notable). I suspect the user will not create the nav boxes for every year for every accident article (military and civil) since 1909! so it is a bit of recentisim. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Recommend TFD. - BillCJ (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that a better implementation could be valuable, but this form is problematic in several ways. Note the reversal of the words "accident" and "incident" from "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009". Since we have systematic categories for each year, I would think that we should be able to have an automagically generated template that generates a similar display from the categories without creating a maintenance burden. If it can't be done by transclusion, it should be possible for a bot to do it. In the meanwhile, suggest moving to userspace rather than an outright deletion.LeadSongDog come howl 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been rather bold, and moved all these templates to "Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in year". I still don't like the idea of manually generating each year as the articles listed will inevitably diverge from the category of the same name.LeadSongDog come howl 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We now have have over thirty templates created and they are speading across accident articles like a virus. Why would you want to navigate between accidents in the same year, why not use the categories? At least they are keeping to actual article links! MilborneOne (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Those templates offer a better view of all accidents in aviation history -arranged chronological-, so we could navigate very easy. I don't know why u are so circumspect.TouLouse (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Navigation boxes are to provide an easier path to similar items, not sure that provide other links to accidents in the same year would be of interest to the reader. The category system has been arranged to provide links to similar accidents by type, location, aircraft, date and airline should the navbox replicate the category system? They also appear in articles like 2008 in aviation which would give a better overview of the year if added as a see also. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The cats are more than able to crry out the functions intended for the templates. Since the user is not open to discussion, and continues to create templates knowing it is a contested issue, I recommend a group TFD. (I'm very sick today, so I can't do this myself today.) - BillCJ (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't really object to the templates if there was a way to guarantee the links would remain auto-syncronized with the categories, effectively making them category navboxes. I don't think it's a bad thing to have the navbox, just that it's badly implemented. As done now, a new article could be added either to just the cat or to just the template. This is simply wrong-headed design.LeadSongDog come howl 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is guidance on this at WP:Template namespace#Usage. I'll start the TFD.LeadSongDog come howl 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you start a better version of this template? ...if is simply wrong-headed desing? arr? TouLouse (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A more accomplished template hacker might be able to do so, if you can find a volunteer.LeadSongDog come howl 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Started TFD. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents and continue discussion there.LeadSongDog come howl 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lead! Perhaps a single template could be used on all the accident/incident articles, though I don't know at whic point what it could include. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents

FYI, Template:Aviation accidents and incidents has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TAM Flight 8095

Another AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAM Flight 8095 comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

New article has been created Harrier Jump Jet family losses, list a lot of information we would consider non notable! including combat losses, perhaps we need to start on all the combat losses from WW1 and WW2 types!! MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Just for information Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Following a lack of clarity in recent AfDs I have proposed a new criteria for notability of accidents and incidents (as they relate to stand-alone articles)Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#New_10-passenger_idea. We have had no comments for a few days on the suggestion, looking for any objections or suggestions before moving it into the guideline. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Page content

The page content guideline is still just a proposal any chance of changing it to a guideline, it might help when users use the its only a proposal argument, although I suspect they would also use it only a guideline argument then! Comments welcome on changing it to a guideline. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus by absence of argument? --Born2flie (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

The 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision has existed for several days, and as far as I can tell, its notability has not been challenged in anyway. However, references to the accident are being removed from the AS350 and PA-32 articles with statements that they do not meet the notability requirements for accidents. I've always operated under the assumption that if an icident had its own aricle, it was notable, period/full-stop. Perhaps we need to address this in the proposed notability guidelines. It does not make sense to me that we have an incident article, but can't even mention the incident in the aircraft articles, which is where many people will go to first when looking for the article! - BilCat (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This does create an incongruity! It seems to me that since the WikiProject Aircraft accident guidelines found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents were arrived at by consensus and have been in use for some time that the 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision is out of step and should be deleted. This other recent accident has been getting wide national media play here and there are easily enough refs to make an article about it, but that doesn't mean it should be an article, since it is pretty minor. I think the fact remains that even with temporary media attention, that light aircraft accidents aren't usually notable because there are thousands of them globally every year. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This project's page content guideline for aircraft articles discusses what to include/not include in the Accidents and incidents section. That is the information I have based any edits on. The best idea I ever saw was the inclusion of a wikinews link to the incident. I prefer that and retained that edit in the hopes it will curb other editors from reintroducing the accident into the section.

Since we haven't been able to reach consensus on a notability guideline, we can't speedy delete such articles and it is tiresome having to continually revisit the inane discussions to "keep", that invariably surface at WP:AFD because a group of editors believes that newsworthy equates to notability. The worst thing is that there is little follow-through. As soon as the news sources dry up, so does the refinement of the article, IMO. --Born2flie (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't there's any way to avoid revisiting notability discussions at AFD for every one of these articles. It's just the nature of WP's open editing, and that isn't going to change. All we can do is to have some credible guidleines that serious editors can read and accept, but the fan-boys and news juskies will still have their own ideas. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is the aircraft page guideline which has been agreed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents sometimes conflicts with the aviation project guideline for articles Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Accidents. We have tried looking at the article guideline and User:Thryduulf has proposed another revision of it recently. The main problem is the guidelines are getting more complex when we should be simpler and easier to interpret in AfDs. I did suggest that every fatal or hull loss accident with aircraft over ten passengers is notable and could have an article (this would include nearly all commercial airliners and military transports and helicopters), this would have just left the GA and fast jet to be sorted out but the idea didnt catch on! MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You know in reading this over I don't think the two guidelines do really conflict. The Aircraft article guidelines are there to prevent aircraft type articles from getting cluttered up with hundreds (or in the case of aircraft like the C-172 - thousands) of accident summaries. Just because there is an article on an accident doesn't mean it has to be linked from the involved aircraft type article page. Why not leave it as it is - the accident article links to the type article, but not vice versa? - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then we need to make clear in what ways an accident can be notable enough for its own article, but not enough to mention on the type article. This would probabably be due to notability factors not related to the avitation aspects of the accident, but I genuinely don't see how that applies in this case. Remember, before we developed guidlienes for the aircraft articles themselves the usual threshhold was that the incident needed to have its own article to be included in the type article list, because these article would have already proven their notability, or welse would be deleted at some point. These guidelines were developed primarily to cover incidients that did not have articles of their own, but were none-the-less notable enough to merit inclusion in the aircraft type or airline articles. Somewhere along the line, the fact that accidents with articles were automatically notable was left out of the guidelines. There are probably not going to be that many accident articles on each aircraft type to begin with, so I really don't think list clutter will be a real problem here. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. May be we should take this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content and see if there is a will to change the guidelines? - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally there is further discussion on this over at Talk:Piper_Saratoga#Midair_collisions. I have asked them to bring it over here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if an accident is notable enough for an article (not sure the Hudson mid-air qualifies but perhaps it does), then the type aircraft is notable to that article. That doesn't mean that the crash is notable in the aircraft's article. I don't see any conflict there. It's notable to mention that a Piper PA-32 was involved in this crash, but not notable to mention in an article on PA-32's that one was involved in this crash. The crash had nothing to do with the airplane model.Seanfranklin (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point seems to support my contention above that just because an accident article links to the aircraft type, there is no reason for the aircraft type article to link to the accident. We actually have quite a number where that is the case already. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

On reason to link it is so that people who know the type of aricraft can find the accident article if they don't know its name already. That's partly why we list the accident articles to begin with, to have a record of the accident articles. If you don't think the accident is notable enough for the aircraaft article, then ther'e a good chance its not notable enough for its own article, by our own guideliens. Yet no one has yet challenged the notability of the Hudson reiver collision article. All the efforts seem to have been focused soley on removing them from the type articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite true! This accident doesn't meet the aircraft project guidelines for inclusion in type articles, does make some other guidelines for accident articles? - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

>>ther'e a good chance its not notable enough for its own article, by our own guideliens<< As of right now, I personally don't think that this accident is notable enough for an article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a news source. What would make this notable is if the accident results in policy or legal changes, then the accident becomes noteworthy for its influence of those decisions. Right now it's tragic and newsworthy, but not notable in an encyclopedic sense IMO.12.160.113.74 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) <==Sorry, that was me - not logged in Seanfranklin (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The initail NTSB report for the accident has been released. That should go a long way to determining the accident article's notability, and could have a bearing on the type articles as well. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision if you want to opine. Seanfranklin (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents series

Per this deletion log, the Deletion was claosed as a precedurl close, with no prejudice for re-opening the discussions. The closer also noted that only one template was nominated. I'd like to see the whole series nominated for deletion. As of yet, there are only 37 templates, according to the Cat page for these templates. Might be good to get rid of them before they grow anymore! Again, they are really redundant to the Cat system anyway. Hopefully we won't get as many "phantom voters" this time around! - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidents report

I found a lot of incidents reports listed on this page: http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Year=2009

There is another incident reported in wikinews (spanish version) and other sources below: http://es.wikinews.org/wiki/Avi%C3%B3n_de_Alan_Garc%C3%ADa_sufre_desperfecto_y_aterriza_de_emergencia http://www.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108128&Itemid=1 http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/618254.html

We could use those links as reference to new articles that are missing, couldn't we?

Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.242.152 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The ASN reports are regularly used as sources in accident articles, it has its own template Template:ASN accident. Although it is always best to back it up with some official references if known. I suspect most of the notable 2009 ones have already been created. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

List of accidents involving military aircraft

I have been trying to tidy up some of the military aircraft accident lists (like List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1950–1974), mainly removing some non notable fanboy info like aircraft construction numbers and block numbers for US aircraft. I have also removing the names of none notable pilots and other aircrew and in some cases long lists of passengers under the not memorial clause. These are only a summary list but some have more information then in some accident articles! One user has aleady questioned me removing mention of Major Hampton E. Boggs (a former Korean War pilot and second ranking ace with the 459th Fighter Squadron flying the Lockheed P-38 Lightning during the China-Burma-India campaign (1943-1945). as they are trying to build up information to create an article on him. I think they really need to have an article to be mentioned, although in some cases like test pilots these may be notable without articles. Just need some inputs to make sure I am going down the right course. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC) listed

I concur with the "not a memorial" removals. I don't know about removing the c/n's and such; they are, after all, usually included in available databases like ASN. Should disputes arise, I wouldn't haggle over it. Leaving in some individuals who are probably notable but without articles yet might best be handled by wikilinking them; the redlining is a standard way of identifying that an article needs (probably) to be written on them. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of material available on "Hampton E. Boggs", an article could certainly be constructed on him. Passenger lists in general have no place as not notable, though it wouldn't hurt to talkspace them. Construction numbers sometimes help clarify details of model or prior crash history. While they may not belong in the visible article, I'd prefer to see the information preserved as hidden comments or infobox fields (even if not rendered in the final text). LeadSongDog come howl 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)