BREAKING NEWS
Cloud Server Hosting For Online Businesses
Inexpensive SEO Services
Benefits of Wanting to play Free Online Slot machines
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force

Summary

WikiProject iconAviation: Accidents Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Aviation accident project.

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
  • aviator deaths in Je Sais Tout on 15 August 1912, image 2
  • Aeroplane Victims Now Number 100 in the New York Times on October 15, 1911
  • Aeroplane Victims Now Number 200 in the New York Times on October 16, 1912

    • Accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters edit

    Latest comment: 7 months ago19 comments6 people in discussion

    (I'm raising this matter here at the request of 77.100.222.101, but it applies to maritime incidents as well.)

    I assert that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 ought not be subcategories of Category:Transport disasters in 2023, but 77.100.222.101 disagrees. Edit histories: [1][2].

    In summary, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so ought not be sub-categorised as such. Per WP:SUBCAT, "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." It is not the case that accidents/incidents can be expected to be disasters. Some are, but most are not.

    Recent related discussion (participants: Hammersoft, Davidships, 97.113.8.72): Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion/Archive_4#category:_Disaster

    Note that the argument applies equally to all accidents/incidents (not just aviation, maritime) and all years, so I can see that Category:Transport disasters in 2023 for example will probably need specific articles added instead of subcats.

    Mitch Ames (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply What is a "disaster" is subjective. The International Federation of Red Cross has this definition. Even that definition is subjective. There's no bright line definition of disaster that I think we can apply here. Maybe someone else has a resource to help with this. To me, it is clear there is a difference between disaster, incident, and accident. I don't know that I can quantity those differences. Being able to quantify the difference underpins this discussion. That said, I don't think the existing category structure is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think we need a "bright line definition" or to be able to quantify the differences. We simply need to look at the general requirement of SUBCAT. Can we reasonably say that (with possibly few exceptions) "all accidents/incidents are disasters"? If not, we ought not (sub-)categorise accidents/incidents as disasters. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply I don't think that aviation accidents can be categorically described as disasters, and it's hard for me to think of even a single incident that is popularly described as one. It is certainly subjective, and I would make the call on a strictly case-by-case basis depending on whether a preponderance of WP:RELIABLE secondary sources describe an accident as a disaster. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

    I've remove Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 from Category:Transport disasters in 2023 again. [3][4]. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply Dimadick apparently still disagrees with my change (history, today's discussion), so I again invite comments and explicit opinions as to whether "accidents and incidents" should be a subcategory of "disasters" (for all similar categories, eg for all years). I say that they should not, because not all accidents/incidents are disasters and WP:SUBCAT says "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply I don't believe that all accidents and incidents are necessarily considered disasters, and as such categories for accidents and incidents should not be subcats under disaster categories. If one jet brushes another and causes damage but no casualties, that's an incident, and might even be an accident, but would anyone call it a disaster? DonIago (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

    I think this issue is significant enough to try to seek consensus. I added the 2023 aviation accidents and 2023 shipwrecks to the 2023 transport disasters subcat, which Mitch Ames reverted today. My two cents:

    1) In terms of usability, I think users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters" instead of just "road incidents" and nothing else. Indeed, being a "disasters" buff and being puzzled why I wasn't able to navigate to all modes of transport under "transport disasters" like I could in years past is why I made the now-reverted change. If I am being reasonable and not biased in my usability expectation, I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."

    2) Dovetailing on 1), I know that "we've always done it that way" is not Wiki policy but I do note that 2023 is the only year not currently falling under the convention in other years, and I would ask Mitch Ames if he is going to also going to remove the plane and ship categories from all previous years of "transport disasters" as well.

    3) If we must grapple with a definition of "disaster" and obsequiously adhere to it for the purposes of these categories, I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition that also satisfies the "with possibly a few exceptions" piece notated above.

    4) If the consensus agrees with Mitch Ames, than shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? I don't see the point of it if only "road incidents" qualifies. Mreleganza (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

    I think there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category or at least changing its name. As I've argued already, it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, and there isn't a category for "Aviation accidents popularly described as disasters". Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc. Carguychris (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    So which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the (debated, and not really able to be definitively quantified) definition of disaster? Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters?
    I say the latter is worse. I'll also point out that it appears that the 2023 ship/train/plane accident categories were all originally part of the 2023 transport disasters parent category; between June and September, Mitch Ames removed those. Since THEN, there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors (myself included) between the three categories attempting to return them to the status quo, and he's reverted 'em all. It's all those categories' histories are about. He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it.
    That said, if changing the name to something like Aviation Accidents, Incidents, and Disasters would make everyone happy, I would be on board for that. Mreleganza (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply .mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk{font-family:Georgia,"DejaVu Serif",serif;color:#008560;quotes:none}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-italic{font-family:inherit;font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-marks{quotes:"\"""\""}... there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors ... attempting to return them to the status quo, and [Mitch has] reverted 'em all. ... He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it. — In each of my edits I included a link to this discussion in the edit summary, and at the time of each edit, this discussion (up until about 2023-09-08, before your post generally agreed that accidents/incidents ought not be categorised as disasters. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply I guess the question becomes: Are Accidents, Incidents and Disasters able to be hierarchically organized, or are they all potentially standalone categories? I'm leaning toward the latter, as it doesn't seem to me that any one of those is inherently subordinate to either of the others. DonIago (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    If the latter, where do we get our definition of what constitutes an incident, an accident, and a disaster? Mreleganza (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply I would think the arbiter there would be what reliable sources are calling the situation. DonIago (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category ... it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, ... Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc — It's not just transport; not all fires are disasters, especially not all arson, nor all attacks, nor all engineering failures, nor all injustice. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Quoting and replying to Mreleganza (quotes are grouped logically here for convenience here by "theme", eg definition of "disaster", removal of entire category, not necessarily chronologically in the order in which they were posted):
    users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters — Why? As I've previously stated, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so why would you expect them to listed/categorised as such?
    I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster." — Using the word disaster in a way different to normal usage is not the solution. Perhaps we need a set of categories using the more general term "events" that encompasses accidents, incidents and disasters.
    which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the ... definition of disaster? — Putting things that are not disasters into a category called "disasters" is simply wrong. In particular, it goes against WP:CATDEF and for subcats WP:SUBCAT "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent". (Yes there may be a few exceptions, but in general one does not expect incidents and accidents to be disasters.)
    I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition — I disagree. Per WP:SUBCAT (with my emphasis here), incidents/accidents should be a subcat of disasters "if logical membership of [incidents/accidents] implies logical membership of [disasters] (an is-a relationship)". But that is not the case: one cannot say that an incident/accident logically is a disaster. Counting specific instances in a specific category is irrelevant - it's the logical relationship that matters. Consider a small category "X incidents" with 5 articles, 4 of which are disasters - count them, say it's a majority and include the category in "X disasters". Then I add 5 more articles about incidents that are not disasters to "X incidents" category - now the categorisation is wrong (the majority are not disasters). Simply adding articles (incidents) to the correct category ("X incidents") ought not require changing the category tree.
    Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters? — We could add specific articles and/or subcats to a "disasters" category if the article/subcat is specifically about/for disasters.
    ... shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? — No - you could still add articles to the "disasters" categories as well as the "incidents/accidents" categories. Categories can overlap.
    Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply Huh? Your block reply here might be more convenient for you, but it makes trying to follow your responses to other users an absolute nightmare to figure out and respond to. On that basis, I oppose your proposal. If you eventually find it more convenient to refactor your replies into their appropriate context, I will revisit and reevaluate. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I did make an attempt at putting each of my replies in situ, but I don't think it makes it any easier to follow - if anything (given that others have replied before me) it is harder. I ask that you consider my comments on their merits (and their reference to content policies and guidelines), and challenge them directly if you disagree with them, rather than simply opposing the arguments based on the position at which I placed them on the talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply See also: Talk:Maritime incident#Incidents, accidents and disasters are not the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply Consistency needed for regional airline incident names edit
    Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    An edit war seems to be breaking out over Horizon Air Flight 2059, which may be moved back to Alaska Airlines Flight 2059 (again) by the time I hit "Add topic". I previously proposed to move CommutAir Flight 4933 to United Express Flight 4933 per WP:COMMONNAME, but the proposal failed to reach consensus. There seems to be little consistency when naming articles about flights operated by a regional airline, e.g., Horizon Air or CommuteAir, under a major airline's brand name, e.g., United Express, American Eagle, Air Canada Jazz, etc. For instance, the article about American Eagle Flight 4184 uses the brand name rather than the actual operator. My personal opinion is that WP:COMMONNAME should control, which means the brand name would control in most cases, but I think some consensus is needed. Carguychris (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply Naming the tragic event in the articles head title edit

    Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments2 people in discussion

    Why don't we mention the tragic event in the main title? Like for example 2001 shootdown Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is much informative than just the flight number, no? It's what we do with all other types of tragic events. Sidney.Cortez (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

    Sidney.Cortez It mostly has to do with a combination of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OVERPRECISION. For most aviation accidents and incidents involving civilian airliners, the flight number is most commonly used by reliable secondary sources to refer to the event. Furthermore, adding the time and type of incident, such as adding "2001 shootdown" to "Siberia Airlines Flight 1812", is most often unnecessary disambiguation unless there are more than one accident/incident with the same flight number. Per WP:OVERPRECISION, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." - ZLEA T\C 02:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Hello @ZLEA,
    Thanks for your reply. But some titles don't fall under the disambiguation rule like Murder of Joana Cipriano or Killing of Sanda Dia?
    Greetings, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, they do. Those articles are on the murders/killings rather than the victims themselves. While you may argue that aviation accident and incident articles are on the accidents rather than the flight numbers themselves, aviation accidents are unique in that the accidents themselves are most often referred to by the flight numbers. - ZLEA T\C 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    There are different types of aviation accidents. With Sabena Flight 571 or Korean Air Flight 858 you know it's an aviation incident but not what kind immediately. You got to start reading the article before you know it. Hijacking of Sabena Flight 571 and Bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 is more adequate informative, which is more important than "unnecessary disambiguation". Especially for common wiki-readers.
    I would state that would be "balanced precision", rather than overprecision. And just using flight numbers right now is underprecision. Sidney.Cortez (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply You do make a valid point, though I'm not sure I agree with it. Perhaps you should open a formal RfC to encourage more users to weigh in on this. - ZLEA T\C 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Hello @ZLEA, I asked on RfC for help. They ask what to do: Starting RfC on a new page or here. What do you think? Thanks, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It would probably be best to start an RfC on this talk page, as it will be more likely catch the attention of those who are more knowledgeable in aviation accidents and incidents. - ZLEA T\C 18:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Accidents/RAM/RJ edit
    Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments5 people in discussion

    Hi there - I saw this edit @Jetstreamer made on Royal Air Maroc correctly undoing an addition as unsourced. This accident actually has its own article 1975 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crash which was not linked in the uncited edit.

    However, this led me to two questions which I thought I'd bring up:

    • The accident is listed on Royal Jordanian but not on Royal Air Maroc. I know that accidents are usually listed on the operating carrier's article, but I'm not sure what policy/guideline that comes from. I'm unsure if this should be the case when it's a charter flight for another carrier.
    • It seems the article was renamed last month without discussion. I'm not sure what the correct name would be here but it seems inconsistent to me that we would list the crash under Royal Jordanian, but not Royal Air Maroc, while the name of the article is "Royal Air Maroc crash".

    Figured I'd just ask these questions here for you given your involvement and knowledge of aviation style/guidelines (and tag @Steelpillow and @Ckfasdf who are also knowledgable) for discussion. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply I don't know much about air crash articles, so I have posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

    @Avgeekamfot: it's an interesting question. I guess the main question is on how we treat accident that involves charter flight for another carrier. I don't think we have guideline or consensus of such case yet, see WP:AVTITLE. And, I also think it would better to discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force instead of other editor talkpage. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    That's fair. I initially started writing on Jetstreamer's talk page to explain why I was undoing his revert, then it morphed into questions that I thought you + @Steelpillow would also be helpful with. I'll move this discussion where you suggest. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply The above copied from: User talk:Jetstreamer (with minor adjustments) to continue discussion here ~~~~ Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply To start with, linking to another article is not sourcing per WP:V, which is a basic policy. That's the reason why I removed the addition.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, to be clear, that's why I noted that you correctly undid the edit. But seeing it (I'm watching most of the alliance-member airlines) led me to the two questions I listed out above. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply My first thought is that this information appears to be WP:Glossary#verifiable, and it was reverted because it was WP:Glossary#uncited. (Please do click those links and read about the difference; it's important.)
    When you personally know that material is verifiable (for example, you are fairly sure you could find a reliable source for that information with a quick visit to your favorite search engine or by walking over to your bookshelf), then the best, policy-endorsed practice is for you to WP:PRESERVE that information by adding a citation. Another policy-endorsed practice is for you to tag that information with {{citation needed}} (I suggest pinging the adding editor so they know that some more work is needed there).
    What's not actually endorsed by policy is:
    • I treat the addition of good, relevant information that I personally believe could be cited as some sort of Mother May I? children's game, so if you don't add the citation the first time, you have to start all over, or
    • I revert information that doesn't belong in the article at all, and instead of saying that it doesn't belong in the article, I claim that it's just because it's uncited.
    (Of course, if you don't know anything about the subject, then you will mistakenly remove good information. That's a risk in our system.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply