Jump to content

Talk:List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2013Articles for deletionKept
September 2, 2013Featured list candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 4, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that between 1944 and 2012 there were 508 high fatality aircraft accidents and incidents, across all seven continents, in which 53,419 people died?
Current status: Featured list

Pre-FLC comments

[edit]

Some quick things I've noticed.

  • Needs a proper lead, per WP:LEAD.
  • Don't start with "<title of list> is a list..."
  • En-dash constistency needed (e.g. " 2001 – 2011" vs "1959-2011")
  • WP:YEAR for ranges within the same century should apply.
  • "other National Aviation Authority agencies" seems overcapitalised given our article of the same name.
  • Not at all keen on FP, it's a bit synthetic in my mind. Most people are only interested in "no survivors" or "one sole survivor" in such incidents.
  • Remove spaces between refs.
  • Check your columns sort (e.g. distance is wrong).
  • Hyphens in sortable columns, what value do you want them to sort as? (Plus, I imagine they should be en-dashes.)
  • Avoid leading zeros on human readable dates e.g. 01 Aug... no point.
  • The bare URLs are a little odd, we tend not to see those if using the {{Cite web}} template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory title

[edit]

I think Wikipedia's stature could be enhanced a bit by getting rid of contradictory titles, such as this one: "List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities." If ANYONE is killed, then it is by definition (ICAO, FAA, EASA, US Federal Code of Regulations AND Wikipedia itself) an "ACCIDENT" and is NOT an "incident." [[1]] EditorASC (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed here [2] Wykx (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion??

[edit]
  • Responses to proposed deletion of this list because it is alleged that it is "a jargon filled duplication of other lists already on wikipedia".
  • This list is far more comprehensive in scope and quantity than most other aviation accident and incident lists.
  • New information, not contained in any other list, has been added.
  • This list has higher sorting functionality than any other I have seen.
  • This list has exhaustive references to both internet databases and national aviation authority original accident and incident reports.
  • Frankly, I think this deletion notice is absurd.--Godot13 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate your defence of the article and we are all welcome to our opinion, I will formulate some replies as you have challenged the proposed deltion I will more than likely raise a more formal articles for deletion request. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


OK I have had a more detailed look at it - perhaps we can sort something out if this survives AfD, some of my concerns:

  1. Any reason why the limit was 50 are not accidents with a lower limit notable.
    Because if you listed every fatal incident, it'd be huge. See, for instance, List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players etc which set healthy precedent on keeping lists down to a manageable size. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but do we have any evidence that the stats that are used relate to the 50 or above limit, is that what the aviation authorities use? MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why we need that? This is an encyclopedia and we're trying to make manageable articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Any table that uses jargon does not help the general reader, and table that has to have a large explanation section will confuse most people.
    Are you going to contribute to the FLC? Several have and this issue hasn't been a major stumbling block. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If the featured list process passes this sort of article then the process is seriously flawed so I wouldnt contribute to it. Featured List is used to indicate good examples of lists when it some cases they are clearly not. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you believe the use of wikilink, explanatory text and key tables to be "seriously flawed", perhaps it's very wise that you don't contribute to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Appears to be lots of original research going on in the article
    Please be very specific. Tag OR where you see it. Just giving a general comment like this is totally unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly all of the stats in the article are unreferenced and many appear to be home grown rather than sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and Each accident or incident has been reviewed using Google Earth to find the location closest to the crash site is clearly to referenced facts but made up stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But the articles you suggest should be used in place of this have no references at all..! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I know its not that important but have you tried looking at this list on a tablet or smartphone, not pretty
    No, it's helpful to know that, but right now we have no major direction on mobile devices. However, on all my mobile devices it looks fine. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "not pretty"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The table comes out with no lines and it is so wide it is difficult to see what is going on, but I dont think we have any actual guidance of tablets and smart phones. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, helpful to know, but not right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ASN is not actually the most reliable source it just collects stuff from other references.
    Is it an WP:RS or not? Please be specific. If it's an RS then we are content to use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fanboy website that collects information so would be considered a self-published source. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so we'll need to root it out across the whole Aviation project. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A lot of the stats and stuff would be more suitable in Aviation accidents and incidents
    Please be specific. These general comments are really unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK just to be clear nearly everything other than the actual list and an introduction should be in Aviation accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? That article is a shambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The table is bloated with stuff that is not really notable and is covered in the related accident article:
  2. Total - OK
  3. Crew - OK
  4. Passengers - OK
  5. Ground - OK
  6. FR - fataility rate - most people would never have heard it (not used in other accident articles) and would suggest you could get rid of it
    Just about the only thing I agree with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Type - Not really relevant to a list you would for example not come here looking for just commercial accidents we have other lists for that
    Which commercial accident lists are you referring to? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? That list is a disastrous mess, has little to no referencing and provides no opportunity to make comparisons between crashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Incident - OK
  9. Aircraft - OK although some of the Boeing customer codes and airbus engine codes are not really notable and not really needed
    Which "customer codes" are not "notable" in your opinion? Can you be specific please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them, they have no relevance to the accident or to the reader, all they tell you if you can read them is who the original customer was. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even recognise what "customer codes" you're referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
eg 71 fatalities Uberlingen mid-air collision "Boeing 757-23APF" (the German investigation report identifies the type as a "B757-200") and 290 fatalities Iran Air Flight 655 "Airbus A300B2-203". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's what I had suspected. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopaedia, why should we dumb it down? If the information is available, there's probably no major issue with reporting it as such, as long as the type is linked correctly. These customer codes seem to be used widely across all the crash articles themselves, I presume you would advocate the removal of those as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Location - OK
  2. Phase - Not really needed all this is covered in the related article
  3. Airport - Not really needed we already have a location
  4. Distance - Had to think about this one its all a bit confusing and not needed as it is also in the related article
  5. Date - OK
  6. Ref - OK

So have a look at my comments and simplify the table and get rid of the more important stats stuff to Aviation accidents and incidents and then I may support this replacing List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I'm a bit confused, I never proposed using this list to replace List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. They are two completely different animals.--Godot13 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:MilborneOne, interesting response but all this "in the related article" is meaningless. The purpose of a decent standalone list is to actually gather the most pertinent information together that would actually interest a reader (like "where was the plane when it crashed?", " where was it going?") in summary, and link to individual articles for more information. I know the Aviation project seems determined to delete as many articles as possible, but most of your objections are personal opinion and have no real substance in terms of what constitutes a good list article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As somebody who has created a few accident articles I think the comments are tad unfair, I certainly dont have any agenda on deletion. The list should be a pointer to the related article where all the facts are, trying to add all the facts from the related article is what bloats all these types of lists, as I have suggested above some of the info would be of help but would be far better handled with text rather than a sortable table. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An odd presentation in the table is the nature of the incident. A key classification of aviation incidents is usally some form of what happened - eg flying into terrain, mid air break up, collision. The table column "Type" gives an indication but having to refer to the bottom of the table each time to see what the cryptic TLA doesn't seem convenient for a reader. Combining Type with Flight phase would give a better reading experience though sorting on that column might have to sacrificed as a result. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable idea. But TLAs are used all over Wikipedia, and a key is ... the key understanding it. You must have read articles with keys before? It's not confusing if the key is presented up front is it? A little like a map. Maps have keys to help readers understand what PH means. It doesn't have to say "Public House" all over the map because there's a key. It's not really cryptic, just convenient. Or would you suggest we don't use acronyms or abbreviations at all on Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the key is distant from the text, and could be presented better and there is a difference between TLAs taken from sources (the phase of flight) which already have some currency in use and those that seem (I couldn't find a reference to these) invented.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can move the key. No big deal, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding content; why not limit the list to "top 200". Avoids an arbitrary lower limit and adapts readily to further incidents. Generally large lists are split up into smaller lists or use some convention for inclusion that comes from sources or defining attribute (Panamax ships) or some date (1945 as the end of the Second World War). GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. Large lists are not split using the "top x" convention at all. They are split by number, e.g. List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that large lists are split as top-anything. And some lists are split by location (Lists of universities and colleges by country), alphabetically (List of aircraft}. There are lists for ranking worst/biggest that take a round number: List of the world's 100 worst invasive species, List of 100 largest law firms by revenue, List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population, List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we've just proved that both types of cut-off are widely used across Wikipedia. Job done. Next topic? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of location - two things

[edit]

I shifted the bit about reviewing locations against google earth to a hidden note for editors as it's related to the construction of the article.

The other bit about location names is not clear as to purpose. "The names of locations are as they existed at the time of the accident or incident. However, when sorted, countries are arranged alphabetically according to their present-day names."
I understand this to mean that a pair of hypothetical crashes in Yugoslavia in 1967 and 1968 would appear in the list between crashes in Bahrain and Botswana (location in present day Bosnia) and between Senegal and Sweden (present day Serbia).
This seems counter-intuitive since they occured in the same airspace/regulatory framework. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is sorting on a hidden key rather than the displayed name with the result that what is seen makes sense - at the moment when sorted by location the 1976 Zagreb collision appears before Cuban incidents and Britannia Airways 105 (Lubljana, 1966) before Somalian ones but both occured in the same country.
There are two possibilities.
  1. Give the countries consistently according to what they are called now.
  2. Give the countries consistently according to what they were called when the incident happened.
Both will work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per your suggestion, all countries are now sorted and displayed by their current name. For only those countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, the USSR has been hidden. (If we went with the number 2 option I think we would still wind up in trouble with inconsistent names...) Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing accident/incident and pre-1944

[edit]

"The first aviation incident with more than 50 fatalities occurred on 23 August 1944 when an U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber crashed into the center of the village of Freckleton, England, UK."

That is the first fixed-wing aircraft incident. The rigid airship USS Akron (ZRS-4) went down on 4 April 1933 leading to deaths of 73 of 76 aboard. It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd forgotten the French ex-Zeppelin Dixmunde, 50 killed on 21 December 1923 when it blew up in mid-air off Sicily. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, thanks for the help. A shame we have an AFD running in parallel now people are finally clubbing together to be helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement and AFD often run together in my experience. AfDs take time to run and there's no point in not fixing something that needs a fix while it's still visible to readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why we have a FLC process and why it was running when the AFD came along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I'd suggest the criteria was widened slightly to include aircraft operated by the military in times of peace even if they weren't strictly transports. The current strict exclusion of reconnaisance/patrol excludes these two from the list. I don't think opening it up would allow anything else in since most military "combat" aircraft carry a small crew and large fatalities only occur when the end up falling on civilians. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you've already said, we'll need to see how the AFD pans out because it would be a terrible waste of community time to weigh up all these various comments just to have the article deleted. I would wait for that, then make a proposal here on the talk page in an appropriate section so that it isn't overlooked. Of course, as the FLC is running, that would be a good venue to make any suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tables

[edit]

I have removed the crash-by-manufacturer and crash-by-month tables as I can't see the value in comparing these data. Are we supposed to infer that we shouldn't fly a 'plane in July? Or that we are all better-off flying in a Mikoyan-Gurevich (a manufacturer of one- and two-seat fighters) aircraft because only one of them has been involved in a 50-deaths-or-higher crash? YSSYguy (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would probably have been more appropriate, given the volume of interest surrounding this page, to have discussed it first. I would agree that the by-manufacturer table is misleading. It needed, at the least, to include a total number manufactured by each manufacturer for context, for the cases such as you noted i.e. MiG. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as Cessna, Mikoyan-Gurevich and Piper (to name three) have never built an aircraft capable of carrying 50 people, the number of aircraft built by each manufacturer does not convey anything useful either. YSSYguy (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, without context, the table isn't useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree.--Godot13 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about including a manufacturer table for at least 10 crashes? That way, minor players are excluded. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the 10 manufacturers whose aircraft were most frequently involved in crashes? In order for it to be truly representative (not misleading), the necessary context would need to include the total number of aircraft produced; more specifically, the total number of relevant aircraft (excluding those too small to even hold 50 people). This is the reason I put the note after the aircraft stats.--Godot13 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Model suffixes

[edit]

In my opinion the use of Model suffixes detracts from the average person's understanding of the list. Those within the aviation industry or with a high degree of interest know that a Boeing 757-223 is a Boeing 757-200, or that an Airbus A330-202 is an A330-200, so why not just call them that here as this is a non-detailed overview, and then have the more-detailed info in the crash articles? I had considered just using "Boeing 757" or "Airbus A330", but that becomes a problem for the Boeing 737 as there are four different articles depending on the Model. YSSYguy (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with that, there's room for some justified rationalization of the model numbers given. Aside from the examples for Boeing you've already mentioned. Eg give Vickers Viscount 800 instead of the current "Vickers 803 Viscount" , Sud Aviation Caravelle III for "Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravalle III" and anything rather than "Lockheed L-1011-385-1-15 Tristar 200" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree per my mention further up on Boeing customer codes and the Airbus engine codes. MilborneOne (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These customer codes appear in the articles themselves. Shouldn't we be consistent with the disaster articles we link to? Or are the customer codes in the disaster articles somehow not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly happy with using the codes in the articles either, but consensus seems to be that they are included - possibly because the most-used ref ASN (which, being a website of the Flight Safety Foundation, easily qualifies as a RS) invariably uses the codes. I anticipated the question, so yesterday I made this edit - anyway that's a more-general issue that should be discussed elsewhere. YSSYguy (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that the list is designed for comparison between events - otherwise why have sorting on for the columns. To that end, it is better for a reader if relatively minor differences between aircraft of the same overall variant are not overplayed. To give an example - the Bristol Britannia 313 was built for El-Al, the Britannia 314 for Canadian Pacific, but both are in essence the same aircraft and grouped under the Bristol Britannia 310 series. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable as long as the types remain reliably sourced. However, I am surprised that you're doing all this work and yet want the article to be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is an excess of OR-type selectivity in the scope of the article and expressed that opinion. And as I said elsewhere, whether deleted or not, an article lingers for a week or more and can be accessed by many readers in that period. And that's aside from the legitimate and illegitimate mirrors and re-users of the wikipedia content. While content exists, there's no reason not to improve on it. And if I had anything better to be doing, I'd be doing it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you have grave concerns over certain aspects, could you express specifically so perhaps User:Godot13 (who nominated this at FLC) can assist you in resolving them, rather than doing it single-handedly, while we wait for the snow closure of the AFD? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching the changes and they are appreciated. Perhaps we can do this through the FLC process (which I would invite you to join). This would be more inclusive, coordinated, and perhaps dig into the minutia necessary to make this a truly great list article. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

Once we get the snow closure of the AFD out of the way, the one point of real interest that came out of it was a concern over the size of the page. I was wondering if there was any appetite for two lists, i.e. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in 50–99 fatalities? It would probably split the page roughly in half? (Then both lists would be more manageable and you could have two lists at FL rather than just one!) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the stats stuff would be better of in Aviation accidents and incidents it doesnt actually reflect the accidents with 50 or more fatalities and would be better in the overview topic, this would reduce the size, that said I dont have problem with two articles but it would be interesting how you split the stats if they are not moved out. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, but that's not uncommon these days! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you disagree but I still can get over the fact that most of the introduction and stats is nothing to do with the actual list of accidents which is perhaps why it was nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you'd have to ask User:WilliamJE more about that. (But in any case, a lead which is perceived to be not that relevant to the main article should never result in an AFD, simply a discussion with the main contributors on how to make the article better. Still, this isn't the style adopted by some editors and projects). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we are actually discussing deletion but improving the article, that said I still have not seen an explanation why most of the intro and the stats are not actually related to the actual list, seems strange to me. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MilbourneOne- The intro and stats are custom tailored to/from the list. How is that unrelated? If you moved it to another article it would then be unrelated. @TRM- would it be acceptable to have a single aviation fatality FL that had 2 different linked pages? In other words: lead, table description, with the 100+ fatalities and then a linked or second page (part of the same list, but with a separate table) with the 50-99, but both are tied to the same intro and table keys? With an understanding that any page addition in the future (i.e., 20-50) would require FLC approval. I think that would make one list a central reference, instead of get some info here, some there, etc. Would something like that work?--Godot13 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've got several topics which span across a few different lists based on numbers or letters. My suggestion is usually the adopted scheme. You could try to write a top level GA or FA to tie all the lists together, that's been done before as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll understand that after this experience, I do not want to engage the Aviation Project with a reformatted version of the list.--Godot13 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that'll be unavoidable. We'll cope. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant turning it into an article versus a list... I plan to see the list through to the very end!--Godot13 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MilbourneOne , you were the one who made the hypothesis that the AFD may have resulted from a particular interpretation of the lead (to whit: "most of the introduction and stats is nothing to do with the actual list of accidents which is perhaps why it was nominated for deletion.") The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man > No idea what the rationale was for the AfD I was discussing the original proposed deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godot13 > OK we start with an image of an aircraft that would never carry more that two persons never mind 50, We have to wade through to the end of the second paragraph before a 50+ accident is even mentioned. Then table "Fatality records for incidents involving a single aircraft" doenst relate to the main table which only start at 1945. Perhaps we can address what these have to do with the list.I have some reservations about the descriptive stats but we might need a separate section to sort that out. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is of the first fatal powered airplane accident in history. Why would that be relevant? (If that's one of your top issues then we should be okay.) 50+ is in the title and in the first sentence, I'm not sure how deep you really need to "wade" before getting what you need. Finally, the intro table puts 50+ accidents/incidents in context by describing the lead up in terms of fatalities over time. You have reservations regarding everything associated with this list, so there are going to be a lot of sections... Perhaps you could just tell me what this is all really about? I've expressed willingness to make changes, edits, etc., but not to chop up the list for you to move things about at will.--Godot13 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whats this about - I find a new article it has major issues so I propose deletion, another editor sends it to AfD, I spend a lot of time telling you what I think is wrong, but everything raised it deflected with indirect discussion so perhaps I should ask you what is the agenda. You and the The Rambling Man have made some valid points so I have reviewed my list of comments and I was happy to let some of the issues go, but as I am trying to discuss them and come to a consensus I appear to be stone walled at every observation. I would rather work with other editors and use a sound foundation in the table you have spent time and effort on and make this a featured list, it is not that far away we just need to work together. So perhaps we need to stop the accusations of being a deletionist or a cabal and find a compromise, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, perhaps if you had approached me with your concerns (by means other than recommending deletion), having recognized, as you say above, that time and effort went into this list, our interactions might have started on a different foot. There are other aviation editors who are cooperatively working on the list right now who I am happy to work with. The reference to stonewalling is interesting as I have only said I did not want to chop up the list and send parts of it elsewhere. I have worked my ass off on this and want to make it work. But when some editors go into FLC and either Oppose from the start, with no explanation as to why, or oppose without giving the nominator an opportunity to make changes, that doesn't send a message of cooperation...--Godot13 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the rapid prod then the rapid AFD is purely indicative of a non-collaborative approach from a few members of one single project. What was wrong with trying to discuss the article's shortcomings at the FLC? Turns out that even some of those project members who still actively support the deletion of the page are now starting to work on it. One way or another, there's been a colossal waste of community time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for contributing to the FLC, the correct place for this kind of ongoing discussion, particularly as the AFD is snow-worthy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Inclusion criteria" section

[edit]
  • The criteria for inclusion and exclusion in the list is what describes the parameters of the list. It's descriptive... I'm not sure that it is subject to citations, but you certainly seem passionate about it...--Godot13 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article sprang into existence fully formed - like Athena from the forehead of Zeus - and as such I'll say there was no requirement for nor expectation of consensus. Once an article becomes subject to the scrutiny of others, then the discussion of consensus starts. Outside the question of the existence of the article in the first place I haven't seen disagreement that any of the incidents named shouldn't be in the list. And a lack of disagreement tends to indicate acceptance if not actual consensus. Now I have suggested elsewhere that perhaps the loss of the USS Akron and the French airship Dixmunde - both military aircraft and in peacetime - are accidents that should be considered for inclusion and perhaps there will be a formal discussion that produces a consensus.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Akron and Dixmude

[edit]
  • Based on the criteria for exclusion (as it currently exists) I think the French airship Dixmude could be added. The article does not explicitly state her role and the final voyage appears to have been transport-related.
  • The USS Akron appears to have had capacities as both aircraft carrier and reconnaissance and I do not think would qualify as a transport ship. I have reservations (not opposition).
  • However, both occurrences appear to be unquestioned accidents (versus an attack or other incident).

Perhaps the exclusion criteria could be clarified in the following manner:
Incidents involving any military aircraft other than transport (e.g., fighters, ground attack, bombers, surveillance, and aerial reconnaissance) were excluded unless such airplane was involved in an occurrence with an included category of aircraft, or (subject to consensus) the crash of such aircraft was unquestionably accidental and did not occur within an active theater of operations. If this was adopted, then both airship accidents would meet criteria, without (to the best of my knowledge) needing to make other additions.--Godot13 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it just needs to say that military accidents are limited to non-combat accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes… Something like that makes a lot of sense and is simpler. If there is no objection I would be happy to add it, as well as the two airships. It also occurred to me that without such an addition, both theUkranian AF and Italian AF airshow disasters would not qualify to be on the list.-Godot13 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through sources for the Dixmude has conflicting numbers of fatalities: 48, 50, 52, and 53. Anyone care to weigh in on this?--Godot13 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
To my mind, [52] from Flight has the highest reputation, and is reporting a few weeks after the loss. ([50] is an interesting 1931 publication reusing other writers material for a textbook. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A article in the London Times in December 1923 has a list of four officers, ten passengers and 38 crew:
  1. Naval Lieutenant du Plessis de Grenendan (in command)
  2. Naval Lieutenant H.A.M. Roustan
  3. Naval Lieutenant Marcaggi
  4. Naval Lieutenant Bourdier
  5. Naval Captain Yvon (passenger)
  6. Naval Captain Hennique (passenger)
  7. Naval Captain Berretta (passenger)
  8. Naval Captain Le Franc (passenger)
  9. Naval Captain Renon (passenger)
  10. Naval Lieutenant Levesque (passenger)
  11. Naval Lieutenant Convents (passenger)
  12. Naval Lieutenant H. Roustan (passenger)
  13. Goislard de la Drotiere (passenger)
  14. Dr Pelissier (passenger)

and 38 crew per "The Missing Dixmude." Times [London, England] 28 Dec. 1923: 8. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 10 July 2013. I make that 52. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, we should add this if consensus agrees! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These airships will allow a couple of new engaging sentences for the introductory section; one can now write something like "nn years later, in the immediate post-WWII period, most aircraft still carried fewer passengers than...", and/or "it was not until [date] that an aircraft crash passed the death toll from the..."
  • As there were no objections, the changes to the intro and additions to the table have been made. Please tinker with the intro info on the airships so it is to your liking. Perhaps an image of either airship would go well underneath the existing intro image? Just a thought.--Godot13 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section image

[edit]

Has been replaced per a suggestion at FLC review. If anyone prefers the old image, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASN accident

[edit]

Perhaps to gain a reduction in size and tidy up the code the use of Template:ASN accident should be considered. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, one of the other editors at the aviation project stated: "It is a fanboy website that collects information so would be considered a self-published source. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)". Is it or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats only my opinion we really need to take it to the reliable source noticeboard to gain a consensus, but waiting for somebody to have time to do that I cant see why we cant use the template. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked that in one place you'd claim it to be a "fanboy website" but on the other hand say "take it to the reliable source noticeboard to gain a consensus". What is your position? Have you taken it to the RS noticeboard? What is the point of this section? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you have lost me, I have said else where that I dont think it is a reliable source but until that view is supported I thought I would suggest something that would reduce the page size which has been stated as an issue. I would think that somebody will take it to the RS noticeboard at some point but it is not a high priority, if you have time then you are welcome to raise it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a source of inconsistent reliability, or confidence in its reliability. Some entries give their sources, others don't. I was looking through one of Flight Internationals yearly Air Safety articles trying to find a source for an aircrash. Didn't find it, but I cross-checked one of the other entries on the page against the ASN entry (via the article here) and found inconsistency in the numbers but the ASN entry is hard to check because the source is given as "Soviet Transports".
If the use of a template speeds rendering for the reader or editing for the likes of us it ought to be considered. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the search term “Aviation Safety Network” in Google scholar resulted in 10 35 pages of results. Below are selections from the first three pages where the Aviation Safety Network was either cited as a reference or portions of ASN data were used in original research. (Some of these require purchase or subscription, but the citation of ASN is clear). This was first search (no digging) and the citations below represent less than 30% of the results. I believe these are all from academic journals or published books:

Given this information in advance of any possible RS noticeboard activity, such a posting might be viewed as (another) waste of the community’s time and efforts...Godot13 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I think the use of the ASN template is a good idea. Since I have been accused by several people of Wikipedia:OWN, please feel free to make the necessary changes. However, if no one objects, I will be happy to do it myself (once AfD and FLC procedures have been concluded). Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Aeronautic Board reports

[edit]

The links to the CAB reports in the references do not appear to always function. Twenty-five occurrences cite CAB reports. Each report has been archived and a secondary link provided.-Godot13 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section move

[edit]

I would like to move the key to the main table from after the table (where it is currently located) to before the table (its original location). Two editors have suggested this and I tend to agree that the terms should be clear before the main table is reviewed by readers. Feedback on this issue would be appreciated.-Godot13 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have recommended this as part of the FLC discussion. As things stand now a non-expert is forced to constantly scroll up and down, up and down, up and down, all the way over this HUGE table, in order to understand the terms used therein. Placing the key as close as possible to the column headers will alleviate this issue. What it comes down to is readers have to be able to understand the terms used before being able to successfully navigate this table; putting the key before the table therefore puts the necessary information in a logical order. Rejectwater (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree the reader could be at the bottom of the table and have to scroll up to the top which is not much different. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but there are no column headers at the bottom. Anyone new to the topic could start at the top, learn all the different terms in both the column headers and the rows from the key, then be able to go down through the rest. Rejectwater (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key as it stands is less than optimal. It is a large one, in part because the narrow columns are not self explanatory. The explanations in the key have further notes to them (eg note 20 to the explanation of the airport code. The table could be better served by the shortest possible explanation preceding the table and the detail following. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A short key, perhaps in table format (?), at the top, with notes as necessary providing more detailed descriptions at the bottom? Rejectwater (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drawing on the comment by Rejectwater I am posting a very rough overview key table below. If this is generally on the right path, I would appreciate some help which exceeds my table-building knowledge: I would like to add two more columns, one in front of each of the abbrev. columns that span several rows. "Deaths" would encompass "Tot" through "N", "Type" would cover "COM" through "EXS", "Distance" would cover "(none)" to "area of", and "Phase" would cover "STD" to "UNK". Each of these newly added categorical terms would be linked to the detailed key after the main table.

Thanks in advance-Godot13 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but this way I think will comply with MOS:DTT. I have made some changes of my own as well. Rejectwater (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. By breaking it into two table it helped me figure out what I was trying to get at. Are you okay with this presentation? I moved the dagger and 1* up since it is related to deaths. -Godot13 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a minor quibble, but differentiating between abbreviatations and initialisms shouldn't COM for commercial be better rendered as "Com.", MIL as "Mil.", UNK as "Unk." I know certain organizations like to use all caps for certain things in their writing (military types particularly) but we have the luxury of reading at leisure and not under fire.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. There is a mix of abbreviations (COM, MIL) and initialisms (INB, INH, EXG, EXS). Since these (Type) are all in the same column I put them in all uppercase to be visually consistent. I have no problem changing the MIL to Mil. and COM to Com. For phases of flight, the references I have used seem to use upper case for the abbreviation (but that doesn't necessarily make them right). Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. I have no preference on the caps v. lower case question. Rejectwater (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table above has been added to the list immediately before the main table.-Godot13 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ASN template

[edit]

I did mention this earlier but it got lost in the early discussion but should we look at using Template:ASN accident to help reduce the clutter? MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's horses for courses. Loading even more templates may reduce the page size but increase the load time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

I'd like to say thank you for this list, Godot13! I'm sorry I missed all the discussions above, I would have loved to have chipped in on this one. This must have taken ages.Jinnythesquinny (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to know that it is appreciated. You're quite welcome.-Godot13 (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One to add

[edit]

The 1948 Air France Latécoère 631 disappearance claimed 52 lives. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over significant figures

[edit]

Discussing purely the content of the article, I agree that to add "about 1600" to 92 and produce "1,692" is wrong. "1,700" would be better but prone to confusion; "circa 1,700" better still. I know that produces difficulties for table formatting, but that tail should not be allowed to wag the dog. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree, hidden code in tables can handle the sorting, and there is a symbol for approximately: " ~ ". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with Prosfilaes adding "~" before the four numbers in question. It is more accurate (the calculations offered are simply wrong). However, for the edit not to be disruptive, the functionality of the table (i.e., sorting ability by number) must remain intact.-Godot13 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realise you disagree, but it seems to me that as it stands the information is incorrect and it is more important that the information be correct than that it sort. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, I'm not entirely sure how you could interpret my sentence above as disagreement...-Godot13 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, footnotes have been added in connection with the two incidents in question explaining the nature of the approximate numbers.-Godot13 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an edit which makes the information correct would be disruptive even if it broke sorting. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about adding a "~" or "c." before two numbers (not actually changing a figure) in a table containing well over 1,000 others, I would question (given the explanatory footnotes) whether the information is wrong to begin with (or could simply be better stated). But on this issue (drive by editing with no concern for the functioning of an article after the fact) you can say that we disagree. -Godot13 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think first we disagree that the information is or is not correct. I feel that it is definitely incorrect as it stands. What I hope is that some editor who knows how can fix it without the sorting being broken. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've noted this problem some time ago, but now I see someone is complaining about that. Let me weigh in. There is no way of knowing how many people died on the ground as a consequence of any of the crashes individually (for instance, some were in neither tower, but actually on the ground. Which plane killed them? We can't know. There aren't such stats), but we can know how many died on the ground from both planes altogether, and that is 2606 (take a look at Casualties of the September 11 attacks). So I suggest that those who died on the ground can be inserted estimates like the ones that are there, but whose sum will be approximately 2606 (for example, working from those that are there, 1600 from AA11 and 1000—not 900—from UA175), and with a symbol indicating it is an approximate value. The same should be done for the total of each of those crashes. A footnote should also be given saying that, although there's no way of knowing for sure how many people died on the ground as a consequence of either crash individually, it's known that the sum of both is 2606. If you have nothing against it please do it. Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 13:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, who misindented all my posts? I did it, anyway; still seems to sort OK. I also added the relevant header to the G and C columns, although I admit an aircraft accident with an indeterminate number of crew fatalities seems implausible. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible but not impossible, even on a small plane "The 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash resulted in the death of estimated sixteen people" - though I suspect its word choice around uncertainty rather than an actual estimate of the toll. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkbeast - My compliments on your solution to retain sortability and represent the approximate status of the first two records, very nicely done!-Godot13 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I've just done something else. I've changed the estimated deaths on UA175 to c.1000, as I had proposed, so that the sum of c.1600 and c.1000 will be c.2600 (because it is actually 2606, as I've said before). I've also added an explanation of this to the notes present in the accidents. I think this is better. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 09:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the two flights, how about having them on a single table row so the ground deaths can be applied across both as one number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difficulty with Sim(ã)o(n)'s edit is that it doesn't reflect the sources. The best estimate of ground fatalities from UA175 is circa 900, and if the figures don't add up to 2,606 or 2,600, that's just too bad. The difficulty with GraemeLeggett's proposal is that the table can't be sortable correctly if two rows are stuck to each other. I've been bold and attempted to clarify the situation by entering the total explicitly; the outcome is somewhat ugly, but does reflect the sources as best as I can. It might not be totally clear, except 1) presumably there are about three people on Earth who don't know about the WTC attacks and 2) in the default sort order the two incidents head the table, next to each other. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation needed"

[edit]

"note the high selection bias of this statistic, since incidents with less than 50 fatalities, likely to have low FR"

Does this need a citation? It seems obvious; consider the very low end of the scale (for example, an incident with 0 fatalities must have 0 FR). Since many aircraft have many more than 50 people aboard, any accident with a high FR involving them must have more than 50 fatalities.

Merge AA11 & UA175

[edit]

Why is it that AA11 & UA175 are given separate entries in the table when more easily separable events like the aircrafts in the Tenerife disaster are listed together? 152.78.36.15 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation terms AAL11 and UAL175 where separate events, in the Tenerife accident the aircraft actually hit each other, not the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Tenerife disaster is not "easily separable"; if one of the planes had not been present, the other would have survived intact. Conversely one of the WTC planes could have missed its target (or pax regained control, or hijackers arrested at airport, etc) with no effect on the other impact. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AA11 and UA175 were two separate events, but the ground deaths are difficult to parse out. In at least three instances it is impossible to say which crash caused which ground deaths. From a moderate review of the facts, it appears that ground deaths caused by AA11 are 1598+ and ground deaths caused by UA175 are 828+. 343 firefighters died. 136 in the North Tower and 196 in the South Tower. I can find no information for the final 11. Additionally, one member of the New York Fire Patrol (not counted with the firefighters) died in the South Tower. Also, there are another 98 first responders that died. I cannot place the cause of their death as either flight individually. Finally there appears to be another 73 individuals that died, and I cannot find sufficient information to place the cause on either AA11 or UA175 individually. At least 3 of the 73 died from dust more than one month after the accidents. Parsing out what airplane caused the dust that ultimately fell each individual is tough and sort of supports the first 152.78.36.15's idea to combine the two. I do not know how the ASN came up with their numbers, but they appear inaccurate. If you are intent on keeping the two flights separate, I would recommend that we use verifiable numbers. Ground deaths caused by AA11 are between 1598-1779 and ground deaths caused by UA175 are between 828-1009. (I have seen numbers for UA175 upto 1055 ground deaths but that seems inconstant with all of the other available information.) Rather than using estimates, my suggestion would be to use 1598+ and 828+ as the values or use the ranges above. It is obvious that they are the first and second deadliest airplane crashes ever.
In addition to the foregoing, If we use the same counting system that was used for Korean Air Flight 801 (one woman ultimately succumbed from burns 65 days after the accident and was counted as a "survivor" and not a "fatality"), at least the individuals that died of dust months later should not be counted. However, it is my personal opinion that they should be counted as ground fatalities, just as the woman who died of burns from the air crash should be counted as a fatality and not a survivor.
Otherwise, this is a great list. Thank you for putting it together. It is much easier to use and informative than all other similar lists.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title

[edit]

I think the word "incident" should be removed from the title, since any crash that results in significant damage and/or even one fatality, is properly defined as an "accident," not as an "incident." That is the ICAO definition and is adopted and used worldwide by the accident investigative agencies of all major countries. EditorASC (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are a small number of entries that are incidents and not accidents with fatalities like AAL11/UAL175 and similar. MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, in ordinary English, an "accident" is accidental, not the result of malicious activity, and the title is in ordinary English. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation accident articles should be consistent and precise, using the professional nomenclature accumulated and defined over several decades by ICAO and the participating investigating agencies all over the globe. The American NTSB did repeadtedly use the term "accident," in its various discussions of the terrorist attacks on 9-11, which is consistent with ICAO standards and with many previous crashes caused by bombs. It is not up to individual Wiki editors to arbitrarily insert their own preferred POV definitions, with OR justifications like "is in ordinary English." The ICAO definition of "accident" relates to the extent of damage to persons and/or the aircraft. It has nothing to do with motivation and/or causes of crashes. EditorASC (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is under no obligation whatsoever to follow ICAO nomenclature in article titles. To the contrary, Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant policy - and it makes clear that article titling involves naturalness, conciseness and precision amongst its core objectives. There is nothing 'natural' or 'precise' about describing terrorist attacks for example as 'accidents', and accordingly the present title should remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

This IP edit has been reverted twice and has been made a third time by the editor. I’m looking for some input as to whether this edit is necessary, whether the existing statement “all passengers and crew were killed” requires further clarification with “and no one survived,” or if it is simply redundant. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not needed the statement "all passengers and crew were killed" is OK as is. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the reversion. It is surely completely obvious that if everyone was killed, no-one survived. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters

[edit]

There have been some helicopter crashes which killed over 50 people and I believe that they are aircraft too so I think it is possible to add them to the list. If there is a reason why they can't be added you can tell me. D.M. Krol (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable columns

[edit]

Can values in the column 'Tot' be made properly sortable with {{sort}}? – Editør (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the table so the 'Tot' column is sortable numerically. If I messed something up, I apologize. "wikitable sortable" seems to have some glitches. NameIsRon (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Size again

[edit]
Closing per request at ANRFC. oppose has the consensus, especially considering the people that voiced an opinion but didn't explicitly !vote. However, I will note that consensus can change so the answer may be different in the future. The WP:SIZE argument is compelling, but not if the solution is to just drop the content (at least not with the arguments presented)Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This article is HUGE my suggestion is to rename it to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities. I do not see how the removal of material under 100 will effect the quality of the article, it can even be split off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list is already of featured quality, so simply deleting sub-100 instances is out of the question. Dustin (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Featured quality does not mean work cannot be done, so it is not out of the question. United States Man (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was made a featured list in September of 2013, articles evolve all of the time I do not see how this would lose FA quality with the proposed rework done. To give an idea the page slows my internet speed down and im using Windows 7. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's fine for me. At worst, split up the article, but considering all the work that has gone into it, do not just delete massive sections of the article. Dustin (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay a split sounds fair, and im glad It works fine for you, per WP:SIZE though a split is not really a bad thing here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Task force notified of this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Id have to suggest that if the article is to be split, doing so based on the number of casualties doesn't seem the right way to do it to me. If people are looking for a particular incident, they may very well not know the exact number of casualties (which isn't always definitive anyway), but are more likely to know the approximate location or date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the subject matter has already been split by casualties, I'm not sure if you're suggesting this article itself shouldn't exist... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. As I wrote in the earlier AfD, "The cut-off point is arbitrary, but I'd say it is placed about right to keep the list within reasonable bounds". We've decided that '50 or more' is the appropriate cut-off point, and are now discussing whether to subdivide incidents further, and if so how. There is no particular reason that I can see why the criteria for subdivision needs to match the criteria for inclusion.
Incidentally, a split, regardless of how it is done, is going to result in difficulties - the article as it stands contains summary tables and other material which clearly has to cover the entire list, rather than subdivisions. It isn't just a matter of splitting the table, a fundamental restructuring will be necessary if we are to retain existing data and present it in a logical manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this list is too long, why is unnecessary sorting syntax being added to all the incident dates? I believe the column was sorting perfectly well without the addition of more syntax. If I am mistaken, please correct me.--Godot13 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sorting could have been corrected (originally) by adding data-sort-type="date" to the "Date" col. heading ... at least it works on an old version of the article, in Firefox. No time right now to check on IE or Chrome or Safari. There may be an alpha. entry in the column somewhere that disrupted the sorting, as was the case with the "Tot" column. NameIsRon (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I didn't answer your question. No, the Date column has not been sorting correctly. Go back before the 900-byte edits started, and try sorting on Date. When I tried it (to see why the edits were being made), I saw that it was just an alpha sort, so all the dates beginning with 1 (such as 11 January) were together, and then the dates beginning with 2 (21 November), etc. It is common on wikipedia to find problems with sorting. I was able to restore proper sorting to the "Tot" column with just a few simple changes. I don't know what caused the problems with the Date column. NameIsRon (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The date sort worked perfectly well until this edit, which introduced a non-date variable into the column. So long as all the dates are presented in a uniform manner, the sort works. For about a year there were no problems with the sort... until three days ago. Again, this new syntax is adding unnecessary size to the list and trying to fix something that isn't/wasn't broken.--Godot13 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Go back to 17 July 2014, the sort works... - Godot13 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that, and I stand corrected. When I looked back to see if the sort had, in fact, been broken at some point, I picked the wrong date. I don't know what caused the editor to start that project. At least the column I wanted to correct, "Tot", was actually broken (due to the "est." entries, which are quite appropriate), and the fix only took one modest edit.

I have spotted a couple of minor problems with the initial order of the table. I'll just note them in a separate item here. NameIsRon (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose splitting. While I started this article, I am doing my best to keep any personal bias in check. @AndyTheGrumpThe benchmark of “50+” fatalities is used in the Aviation accidents template to denote incidents and accidents resulting in a particularly high loss of life. @ Knowledgekid87 I too use Windows 7 and have never had an issue with this article load or sort speed.
  • Support removing the sort syntax added since 18 July 2014 which is entirely unnecessary and only making the list size grow.--Godot13 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This page isn't anywhere near long enough to pose a problem of any kind. Many lists are much, much longer than this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The information in the article is all accurate, and it would be a huge loss to just delete so many instances. The list is already of featured quality. Dustin (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table: minor problems with initial order

[edit]

The note says "Initial sort order is by total fatalities (descending) and then by date (most recent to most distant)", but there is a "Tot=101" entry in the middle of the 99s, and a 93 entry in the middle of the 87s. I don't know if either entry has just had its "Tot" number edited in error, or if the Tot figure was edited correctly, and the editor just neglected to move the row to where it should appear. I know several editors have spent a great deal of effort in building the table, and I don't want to create more work by trying to fix something when I'm not sure what's wrong, so I'll leave this for the subject matter experts to decide what to do (if anything). I thought I had something clever to say about this, but it has eluded me. ☮ NameIsRon (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NameIsRon - I've found this type or error is based on one of two things: someone makes an edit changing the total number and forgets to move the entry to the correct location or it is a new entry incorrectly inserted. If the supporting reference validates that total number, then I move it to the proper place (total, date of incident).--Godot13 (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the two entries I was concerned about, and I see they both had originally reflected the number of fatalities from the crash itself, and then the total was adjusted by including deaths that occurred shortly thereafter. I had been reluctant to move anything in the table, because someone else was editing the Date column, but I see there's no reason now to hesitate, so I'll go ahead and relocate them: Eastern Airlines Flight 401 and Aerovias Guatemala Caravelle (HC-BAE). NameIsRon (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That table looks really horrible

[edit]

The table looks ugly and confusing to a lay person. There's too much space, and what are all those numbers and abbreviations on the left and right side??? When I first saw the table, I just felt confused.

Did you read the introduction and explanation the precedes the table?-Godot13 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Incident" should be the first column. It's the first thing people will want to see. The first thing people want to know are which INCIDENTS had the highest death tolls. The exact NUMBER of deaths should not be the priority.

The article was originally written as a death toll list, the idea was to be able to have the default sort be the loss of life from greatest to least (if you can consider 50 "least").--Godot13 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (yet again…)

[edit]

As per above, a different IP address is making the same redundant edit as before here, here, and here. While these are not in a 24 hour period, I do not want to get baited… for my own reference, does the 3RR rule apply to an editor who is reverting a specific edit as per prior consensus? Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and here.--

Inclusion criteria sections violates WP:NAVEL

[edit]

Seems to be some serious navel gazing going on here. Per Loki's Wager, I suggest we should just admit that 50 is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air, and maybe move inclusion criteria to a comment at the head of the article for editors only to see. -- Kendrick7talk 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 50 fatalities has been used by publishers like Janes which I am sure has been mentioned before on this page, I look around to see if I can find one of the relevant books if you want a reference to that. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, I totally understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere; it would be great if we could point to a WP:RS that draws the exact same line, but it's hardly required. Fifty is big and round and Wikipedia has to fly by the seat of its pants sometimes either way. But we're not generally supposed to have long explanations about how the sausage gets made, or even how we'd like editors to make the sausage, in the "main space". Perhaps that's ended up happening here due to long lost edit wars.
Meanwhile, I only ended up here because I watched the film (of the play) Charlie Victor Romeo the other night so I don't want to be too out of line if WP's aviation subculture is just doing its own thing. (And not to sound morbid, but that's a hell of a film about how the sausage is made.) -- Kendrick7talk 12:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A spin-off...

[edit]

User:Undescribed made a series of edits, some of which needed to be reverted, and then created List of aviation accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities which directly copies some of the present article verbatim and does not cite any sources (including the present article). Is the newly-created article necessary given the information is contained here? I put a low-level editing warning on the user's talk page. Should there be a comment regarding the cut and paste as well?--Godot13 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes regarding lack of attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. There are instructions (Wikipedia:Splitting) on how to split and do it properly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a copyright violation without the attribution to the sources or following the suggestions above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment left on article talk page and editor's talk page. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed for MH17

[edit]

The cause of crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 is incorrect. It has NOT been proven EVER that it was brought down by a ground to air missile. Read EVERY article on the net and you will see the NO real proof or determination has been offered or made as to what brought it down. The author/s has ignored all the information available because the American controlled media says a Ground Air missile but almost EVERY other publication (including those from Malaysia) either has no biased opinion or has taken into account eyewitness reports that it was brought down by a Ukrainian MIG. For the record, I am not Russia! I support unbiased news and true reporting so please either add a citation that this is just speculation for now, pending a final report. The article is also incorrect as it just regurgitates what America says! The article points blame to Ukraine Rebels but NO proof. "America indicated"..."It is believed"...all just speculation with no proof. What about eyewitnesses which saw what happened? My point is that the article is not well written and perhaps needs to be edited with JUST the FACTS, not speculation from American sources who offer no proof. It appears to be a combination of articles regurgitated from CNN, BBC and RT. Go to globalresearch.ca or realnews to get a different viewpoint or one of the other UNBIASED news sites. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be problems with the article, but you seem to be having problems with facts yourself. The BBC is British. RT is Russian. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I know who BBC etc is and what they represent. I never cited a fact in my comment, I have just asked for the article to be made a better reflection of what is being said and to not plant ideas of blame in anyone's mind. My reference to bbc, cnn and rt was just to say that the article only appears to copy what comes out of those government biased websites / news-sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More crashes?

[edit]

It says that it excludes 'attacks on military aircraft by an enemy combatant in their theater of warfare'. Surely these incidents should be included? I don't see any reason why they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.106.201 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the sentence actually make any sense its not clear what it is trying to exclude. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should that statement be removed and those crashes added then? United States Man (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I dont really understand what it means, can you explain what you think these crashes are that can be added? MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the exclusion criteria says it is aircraft incidents during warfare, such as one plane shooting down another, or one being shot down from the ground. I don't really know of any examples of this (so maybe there isn't anything to be done here), and I think that whole section should be rewritten to take out some of that confusing language. United States Man (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research, and there has only been two such incidents with more than 50 fatalities. For some reason, these have already been added to the list against the exclusion criteria. I have temporarily removed the exclusion section from the page, as it no longer serves any purpose. Feel free to add it back in if needed.111.69.106.201 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. United States Man (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Africa fatalities

[edit]

As the number of fatalities for the 1996 Air Africa crash is uncertain, what number should we use? There were 225 manslaughter charges to the pilots. ASN uses 237 fatalities. The CAA review 1990-1999 (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.PDF) as well as some media sources states 297 fatalities on the ground. Some other sources say 348 or 350+. Some witnesses said over 1000. In my opinion 297 is the most credible number as it comes from an official organization, so I have changed it to that number on the table as well as the wiki page for the accident. What do other people think we should use?111.69.108.222 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone fix the wretched dates?

[edit]

Though the column is sortable, but it's pointless because sorting doesn't work, even after I added "data-sort-type="date"" I don't know whether it's because of the leading zeroes are missing, or just this stupid backwards order is not supported for sorting. So I guess a standard ISO date is needed. But how to make the conversion?. Probably no-one will do it one-by-one for 700+ items... (Though the help (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems) claims that date sorting works for "Day, month, and year" it obviously doesn't. If you sort by descending you don't even get the inverse of the ascending order. The first is 2001-09-11 while the last for ascending is 1947-06-13) --Dqeswn (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, did it via regex

[edit]

It was a tad laborous still. But at least it works now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note of 2 accidents stat changes and order of occurence

[edit]

Delta Air Lines Flight 723. Change total to 89. Change passengers to 83. Notes: Change to Cross. Survivor died 4.5 months later,leaving no survivors.Move below Royal Saudi Air Force (453). Source:DAL Flight 723 Wiki page. Eastern Airlines Flight 212. Change total to 72. Passengers: change to 70. Move below Aeroflot Flight 2415. 3 died later. Source: Eastern Airlines Flight 212 Wiki page. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:80E3:A2F:D7A1:81A3 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Überlingen mid-air collision on the list!

[edit]

71 people killed. Please add. Thank you. Überlingen mid-air collision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazik144 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saratov Airlines Flight 703

[edit]

The above incident occurred 2/11/2018 killing all 65 passengers and 6 crew. Please add to list. Thanks and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Saratov Airlines Flight 703. Table placeholder now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that crash there has also been a crash in Iran that's killed 66 people. The Iran crashed planes name was Iran Aseman Flight 3704, and it crashed into Mount Dena in the Zargos Mountins. Unknown artist (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704. Table placeholder now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New addition to list and update (US Bangla Airlines Flight 211)

[edit]

Please add US Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (March 12) to list.(51 fatalities).Place above Malift Air. Also Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 needs to be updated, change 65 to 66,change 59 to 60, place above Egypt Air 804. Source: Aviation Safety Network for updates and info. Thank you and have a good weekend.2601:581:8500:949C:ECAC:1F18:3A5E:4DF2 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704

[edit]

Can someone change the above incident from 59 passengers to 60 passengers and 65 fatalities to 66 fatalities, and place over Egypt Air flight 804.Sources: wiki page, Aviation Safety Network, and JACDEC, and CAO report. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Although, in future, you could easily make this kind of correction yourself. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. Place over Egypt Air Flight 804. This I don't know how to do. With same # of fatalities, the incidents listed run from the most recent to oldest, in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you again. Have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy with "Type" Column

[edit]

I noticed that aircraft disasters are placed either in the Commercial (accident/incident)/Military (accident/incident) category, or in the INB/INH/EXG/EXS category. But what if an incident fits into more than one category? For instance, both the 1968 Kham Duc C-130 shootdown and 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash are listed as "MIL", but shouldn't both of them also be "EXG"? In addition, the table key also infers that the COM/MIL category is applicable to both accidents and incidents, which is even more confusing. Does that mean that an incident such as Pan Am Flight 103 can fit exclusively into the "COM" category because it was an incident? --Undescribed (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cubana Flight 972 placement

[edit]

Hello. Put Cubana Flight 972 above United Flight 232 and below Dan-Air. This list runs in reverse chronological order. Data is correct, unfortunately a survivor passed away today.Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another survivor passed today, sadly. Change 105 to 106, 111 to 112, place below Air France Flight 117. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Place below Air France Flight 117. The list runs in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you but thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 placement

[edit]

Hello and good day. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 is missplaced. Should be placed below Air India Express Flight 812 and above Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 1103 and Libyan Air Force. Entry should be polished up a little bit, missing info. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deliberate article bias

[edit]

This article has been deliberately titled so that may be biased to include the 9/11 attacks in my view. 9/11 attacks should not be included in an article that should be about aircraft accidents. There are plenty of other placee where that tradgedy can be memorialised, there is no need to deliberatly skew every possible article just to include it. The 9/11 attacks were not an accident (and they're far too significant to be trivialised as being called an "incident"). They should be reomved from this list, which should remain a purely aircraft accident list.

94.175.102.211 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two categories involved here, one is accident which is easy to understand. The other is incident. Hijacking and other non accident occurrences belong in the incident category. Please see Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence - Parameters. - Samf4u (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive Stats

[edit]

This section seems to be quite superfluous imho. Even the lead sentence that lists the total number of fatalities for every crash on the list. Every single figure in the descriptive stats section has to be manually updated after every new crash and it is an extremely tedious task. Unless there is a way to make the stats tables update automatically with every new crash, I think this entire section should be removed entirely. Any thoughts? Undescribed (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria excludes older incidents

[edit]

..old planes didn't carry 50 people. All that makes the list prior to 1945 are ridged air ships and any added ground-casualties. It's biased towards newer (bigger) planes which create bigger casualties. GreenC 04:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "deadliest" is a No-No!

[edit]

Deadly is deadly. Period. There is no deadlier than deadly. You seem to mean something else. Be more precise with your choice of words. 2001:9E8:36EF:F800:A064:20BF:5BBE:A099 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By deadliest, one implies ranking highest number of casualties. Deadly simply implies a casualty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.133.220 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_deadliest_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents&oldid=1208227894"