Talk:Pegasus Airlines Flight 2193: Difference between revisions

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

I’m seeing two sets of passenger counts for this accident. One is what’s in the article (177 passengers plus six crew); the other is a report of 177 total occupants on board, including 6 crew and 171 passengers (Reuters UK and The New York Times examples). Currently it appears too soon to tell which is the correct occupant/passenger count, and either is plausible (Pegasus Airlines 737-800s can seat up to 189 passengers).

As this is WP:RSBREAKING, we’ll need to pay attention to sources and update the article accordingly to ensure the most reliable information is reflected. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else thinking this is bloated? Suggest culling all except the other Pegasus Airlines accident for now. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these images are more recent and higher quality than the current one. My biggest problem with the current image is that the wing is blocking part of the livery so it is preventing a clear view of what the aircraft completely looks like. These images are also much newer.

Zaptain United (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds after a week, I will change the image Zaptain United (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivebeenhacked, @Guninvalid, @Aviationwikiflight, @RandomInfinity17, @Tô Ngọc Khang Zaptain United (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fadedreality556 keeps reverting the image so I am here on the talk page Zaptain United (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wing blocking part of the word is not a problem to me, and I don’t anyone would care about it at all. And just because the two image you presented are “much newer”, it doesn’t mean that we should use them than the current image. It doesn’t make sense. And the current image is not of terrible quality, it’s good enough. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft image should show what the aircraft livery looked like in full. There was this similar discussion on EgyptAir Flight 804 talk page where one of the images had a sky background but the wing is covering 95 percent of the livery. It was decided to not use that one since it is covering almost all of the livery Same problem with this image. The aircraft image is used to see what the aircraft looked like completely. The 2017 image is really good in my view. Very good lighting and not much distractions in the background. Zaptain United (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EgyptAir_Airbus_A320_(SU-GCC)_on_finals_at_Ataturk_Airport.jpg

Here is the image I was talking about Zaptain United (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in EgyptAir Flight 804 stays in EgyptAir Flight 804. I don’t think that’s a good reason to convince others to change the image in this article. Others can say the same by stating that the current image is really good. It also lighting and not much distraction. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is dark and blurry. You can’t even read out the aircraft name. Zaptain United (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image is absolutely not dark and blurry. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is darker and dimmer with a darker blue background and yes, it is blurrier with the aircraft name and IATA logo being hard to see. Zaptain United (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main aircraft image is supposed to be the one showing the best view and quality of the aircraft. Zaptain United (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m gonna say this one more time. This image is absolutely not dark and blurry. I don’t know if you even bothered to click on the link to see what image I’m talking about or you’re simply saying it is to keep the argument going, it’s just not making logic.

First, you keep saying the proposed images are “newer”. Now you tell me this, why should anyone care about that? Why is that such a big deal that we gotta use the newer image?

Second, you keep comparing this article with other articles. “There was this similar discussion on EgyptAir Flight 804 talk page where one of the images had a sky background but the wing is covering 95 percent of the livery.” is what you said above. But what happens in one article stays in that one article. It shouldn’t necessarily dictate what goes on here. It’s ridiculous.

Third, I got really nothing to say about the letters of the airline on the plane because it’s senseless anyway, but IATA logo? Why is the IATA logo important to see in the picture? What worth does it bring to the article? Why should anyone care about that?

Overall, I don’t think all the arguments Zaptain United is making is enough reasoning why we should switch the image, given by the points I’ve made above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what we are looking for here is general consensus on what the photo should be. You don’t get to decide what photo you want without anybody else’s opinion. Fadedreality556 (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ZLEA, @KittyHawkFlyer, @10mmsocket, @Echoedmyron, @Ternant 728228, @4meter4, @11WB, @Grffffff, @Jahndah, @Katzrockso, @SportingFlyer, @Kelob2678, @TheRealWoofwoof, @The Bushranger, @4300streetcar, @Deeday-UK, @Tigerdude9, @Thebaldball, @Carguychris, @Just a teenage railfan Zaptain United (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GalacticOrbits and @Air Astana 1388 Zaptain United (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit tricky for me. These two images are of higher resolution, but I’m not sure it’s enough to justify their busier backgrounds. The age of an image is usually not relevant unless the aircraft underwent a livery change or externally-visible modifications, which in this case it did not. The first proposed image also has noticeably worse lighting. As for the second proposed image, I’m Neutral. – ZLEA ^TǀC 04:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZLEA: What are your opinions about the current image in the article? I understand that the proposalist is saying that there’s a bit going on in the image, but what I’m pointing out is that it’s not that hard to distinguish an A320 from a couple of buildings and a Dash 8. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]