Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft: Difference between revisions

 

Line 84: Line 84:

:::::But I also understand your thinking and reasoning. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 04:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::But I also understand your thinking and reasoning. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 04:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good point. India is one of only two countries with a higher population than the US, and British english is deeply embedded there, to this day. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 04:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good point. India is one of only two countries with a higher population than the US, and British english is deeply embedded there, to this day. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 04:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

* [[commons:File:Luxair flight 9642 crashsite.jpg|Luxair flight 9642 crashsite.jpg]]<!– COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2025-11-22T12:51:05.675930 | Luxair flight 9642 crashsite.jpg –>

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 12:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

This article is full of present tense statements, as if these accidents and incidents are ongoing. MOS:TENSE says, “Generally, use past tense only for past events…” Present tense is generally favored in articles (e.g., “Obama and Trump are former US presidents,” not “Obama and Trump were US presidents”), but not when describing events that have already happened. In the case of air crash articles, they are always in the past. (We don’t learn about them until they’ve happened. If they haven’t happened, we don’t know that they will happen, so it’s a WP:Crystal ball issue.) This article needs a bit of fixing. I’ve done 2022-present. Dcs002 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 had a mix of items in past and present tense, but the farther back I look, the more uniform the present tense becomes. Why is that? Historical events are in the past, not the present, and writing about them in the present tense affects readability and goes against the MOS. Am I missing something? I know some history buffs like to write in the present tense about battles and such, and that’s fine, but we have a standardized Manual of Style here. I’ve changed 2022-now, and I’m going to pause here. If someone can justify this deviation from the MOS, I’ll revert my own tense edits. Dcs002 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s called narrative present, and whichever form anybody favours, it should really be decided which is the proper one to use for such an article — and then we should be consistent across all entries. Kelisi (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the Manual of Style, it seems clear that we already have a decision on what is proper to use. (I gave the reference to MOS:TENSE above.) I don’t think it could be more clear, even if there is a term for that use of the present tense. Our articles need to be internally consistent, but they also need to be consistent across the encyclopedia – consistent with other articles. Dcs002 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I whined about this below three months ago, not even knowing of MOS:TENSE. I’m glad there’s clear guidelines on it.

Now all I need is dozens of hours of free time to devote to cleaning it up. I wouldn’t balk if others jumped in as well. Perhaps if we collaborate to break up the task into odd and even years by decade, it’ll make for lighter work…? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already been switching to past tense, working one year at a time. I started at the beginning and am currently up to 2003. I was planning to keep going until past tense is used consistently all the way up to the present. I think it would be confusing to allot even and odd years to different editors. It should be continued incrementally, editing only one year in each edit, so it is clear there is nothing anomalous in the earlier sections. Dubmill (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s collegial, collaborative editing like this that brings a tear to a veteran editor’s eye. That’s for both Dubmill and Kelisi, who responded below to my older comment. I’ve been editing now for literally decades – plural – and often I have to give up on an article because the work required is just too daunting to even start (not hard work per say, but tedious and massive time sink).

Thank you both! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my thanks as well. I’ve faced edit warriors before, and it’s grueling and dispiriting. It really is nice to see a different response. Thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: This is a test flight to certified the take off capability with a single engine failure. The role for this flight is as same as XL Germany Flight 888T which have been added Ohok12 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about the claim that the recently-added hot air balloon accidents meet the accepted criteria for inclusion on this page. Sure, a balloon is technically a type of aircraft, and the balloons in question were carrying 10 or more people who can probably be assumed to be fare-paying passengers, but it seems to me nevertheless that these are somewhat stretching the usual definition of “commercial aircraft”. What do others think about this? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hot air balloon accidents should instead be added to List of ballooning accidents. Nayyn (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While cleaning up a recent edit, it became clear that the article has no consistency in use of past tense vs present tense. That is to say, countless entries say things such as “X on board die”, “X on board are killed”, opposed to “X on board died”, “X on board were killed”.

Since all entries are by definition records of past events, consistent use of past tense would be called for, in my opinion. Before making sweeping changes across the article (which I’ll likely have to parcel out in small chunks, probably by year), I wanted to run it by those interested. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve done most of it. There may be the odd present-tense form that I’ve overlooked, but there couldn’t be many. Kelisi (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the most recent edit, switching the ‘center’ to ‘centre’ per the template ‘Use British English’. No objection to the change, however, it seems odd to me to have any specific variant as the ‘formal’ variant for a huge, global list of events like this.

I wonder if it might make more sense to have both tags, with a hidden caveat –

{{Use British English|date=November 2025}}
{{Use American English|date=November 2025}}
<!– USE THE ENGLISH VARIANT APPROPRIATE TO WHERE THE CRASH OCCURRED OR THE FLAG OF THE AIRCRAFT –>

Note that I’m not making a strict proposal. The wording and choice of wording could be different. It could be –

{{Use British English|date=November 2025}}
{{Use American English|date=November 2025}}
<!– Use British English for British flagged aircraft, American English for others –>

Again – just ideas. Or, scrap the whole idea, but I’m not convinced British english is the correct choice for everything. And beyond that – it’d be a whole new massive string of review and edits to go through either way. Maybe just drop the variant tag entirely?? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can have two templates dictating what variant of English we can use in the same article? Sounds contradictory to me, but I understand that it changes depending on the location of each incident? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s sort of the general idea. I see no real reason for the article to have a “Use American”/”Use British” tag in the first place. It would make the most sense to remove the template, and just write based on what makes the most sense for the entry. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: Let me present my thinking.

If we do remove the British English tag and not add anything else: Editors, probably newbies, may not know what variant of English to type in. They could accidentally add content in American English and then there may not be enough consistency anymore. Sure, they could simply look at other incidents in here and copy the style but what’s the point if, to keep consistency, they’re gonna type in British English anyway?

If we keep British English and add American English, too: I think this way, it may confuse editors of what variant of English to type in. And if we add that invisible note, there, again, may not be enough consistency.

If we replace British English to American English: The whole article is already written in British English so why should we waste time changing every single word to American English? I think British English is more used worldwide due to its influence globally. I’m sugarcoating it, it’s because the United Kingdom colonised a lot of countries worldwide. And many of those countries have developed their own variant of English like Indian English, Australian English, etc, which are really similar to British English.

If we keep British English and add nothing else: This maintains consistency. And, again, British English probably is known and used more globally, so I think a ton of people will already be familiar to the British English variant.

These are just my thoughts and concerns, but not necessarily facts but do you agree with my reasonings? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand what you’re getting at, on all fronts. My only arguments, and not even ‘counter-arguments’, are that newer editors rarely seem to even look at or see the ENGVAR declaration at the top. Plus, if you’re only editing a section, it never shows up – and most edits tend to be within sections, rather than whole-article.

That tends to argue against the ENGAR decl at all, since its rarely seen by editors.

I think in terms of raw numbers (that is, into the many hundreds of millions) I think there’s more American english speakers than British english speakers, but I’m still sore over the Battle of Lexington and Concord, so I’m biased, heh.

I think it’s best just to let it lie. The article is ginormous, so any global change is a global amount of work – and in this matter, it’s too small to even bother. I’m good with that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I say “British English probably is known and used more globally“, I’m including other variants of English very similar to British English, like Indian English, Australian English, etc. Not directly between the United Kingdom vs the United States.

But I also understand your thinking and reasoning. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. India is one of only two countries with a higher population than the US, and British english is deeply embedded there, to this day. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]