A fact from 1976 Anapa mid-air collision appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 February 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
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 articles
What is the value to readers of the names of the crew of the two aircraft? I suggest we remove that detail. --Macrakis (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its standards to do so. Featured articles and other "Good" and "A-class" articles have crew lists.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a guideline that's documented somewhere? If it is, where is the right place to discuss it? I think it's a bad idea. After all, I don't see a full crew list for the most prominent air incidents I can think of:
for American Airlines Flight 11 (9/11), no crew list at all. Of course, they weren't flying the plane at the time of the crash, but they allowed the hijackers to take over and for that matter the flight attendants of the Anapa crash weren't flying the plane either.
for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, only the names of the pilot and co-pilot, which may be of interest since the investigation did look into them in some detail. But not the other 10 crew members, especially not the flight attendants;
for Tenerife airport disaster, the captain is mentioned multiple times by name, and he has his own WP page, but the other crew members are not named.
The crew of these flights has done nothing else notable. They died, of course, but so did all the passengers. The only name that is possibly of interest in this incident is that of the air traffic controller, who apparently was primarily responsible. But even that really isn't encyclopedic information in the sense that it helps the user understand anything. --Macrakis (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Japan Airlines Flight 123 has the list and bc its a pretty well-written article I base my articles on its formatting. It has aircraft and crew information. Not to mention that we may one day know the number of flight hours these pilots had, which is relevant. Also note that every air crash investigations starts by looking at the crew, their past and flight experience etc. But I would like to focus on ADDING to articles instead of DELETING from articles. If you can't find a stub to improve I have some suggestions.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no documented guideline?
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are many things that are verifiable and true that don't belong in WP articles. Many things that are fundamental, and of crucial importance, to accident investigators don't normally belong in these articles: the date of the pilot's last physical, and its results; the take-off weight of the plane; the amount of fuel on board; the weather along the plane's path; the maintenance history of the plane; etc. etc. They only belong in the article if the result of the investigation shows that they are important. For that matter, the full passenger list of all these accidents is a crucial piece of information for the families and friends of the passengers, but we don't include it in the articles.
I disagree that we should always focus more on adding to articles rather than removing. Sometimes removing makes articles clearer. Wikipedia articles are not essays by John McPhee, where sometimes the cumulative effect of overwhelming detail is artistically desirable.
If you look through my contributions, I think you'll find many cases where I've added material, and other cases where I've removed material.
Where do you think would be a good place to discuss this issue? Is there a wikiproject for transportation accidents? --Macrakis (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, bring it up there, not here. And I disagree about mentioning weather. Because of the order the article is written, if weather was good the entire time I like to note that in one sentence or less in the synopsis paragraph because it is automatically out of consideration before investigation. If weather poor, it is often a notable secondary factor that led to a deviation from standerd procedures, or a change to airport pilot less familiar with, etc.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But honestly if you want my opinion, the last thing Wikipedia needs is another rule or guideline.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things that are "out of consideration"; whether before or after the investigation is irrelevant to us here. If there's no question about the weather, or the pilot's health, or the maintenance schedule, etc., there's no reason to mention them. A Wikipedia article is not an accident investigation: it reports the conclusions of the accident investigation. I would hate to have articles on accidents include "The weather was clear; visibility was 10 miles; the pilot passed his most recent physical with blood pressure of 121/82 (etc.); the pilot's only medication was low-dosage aspirin; the pilot's marriage was apparently stable and there are no allegations of domestic trouble; the pilot had never shown any suicidal inclinations; no anomalies were noted during the most recent inspection of the control surfaces, the inflight computer, the Pitot gauge, the cabin pressurization system, ...; none of the cargo originated in a hostile country; none of the passengers were identified as potential terrorists; the post-mortem autopsy found that the pilot's cause of death was trauma subsequent to the crash; there were no drugs in the pilot's blood, no brain abnormalities, no indications of a cerebrovascular accident; etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. All those things must of course be excluded by the accident investigators. But we have the luxury of knowing their results, which tells us what is worth noting and what is not.
The only people who need to be called individually are either those who are well-known for some other reason (Senator X was on the flight) or those who have some concrete connection to the accident itself. If it was determined that the flight attendant poisoned the captain, that's one thing. But other than that, why should we mention the flight attendant? His or her life is no more or less important than those of the passengers, and I hope we agree that a list of the passengers' names is out of place. --Macrakis (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between briefly noting the weather as is standard simply by "Weather was reported to be mild with visibility at X" than stating "the pilot passed his most recent physical with blood pressure of 121/82 (etc.); the pilot's only medication was low-dosage aspirin; the pilot's marriage was apparently stable and there are no allegations of domestic trouble; the pilot had never shown any suicidal inclinations; no anomalies were noted during the most recent inspection of the control surfaces, the inflight computer, the Pitot gauge, the cabin pressurization system, ...; none of the cargo originated in a hostile country; none of the passengers were identified as potential terrorists; the post-mortem autopsy found that the pilot's cause of death was trauma subsequent to the crash; there were no drugs in the pilot's blood, no brain abnormalities, no indications of a cerebrovascular accident" blah blah. Weather is noting is routies, especially in Soviet accident articles bc so many Soviet accidents WERE caused by weather or related to weather it seems weather was more often a factor than not. And of course every mid-air collision article needs to note visibility for obvious reasons to answer the question "well when could the planes have seen each other?" Now please take this to WP:Aviation bc I am very busy and not much time for pesky little things like this with so much content yet to be translated.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it makes no sense to list all the things that did not cause the accident. In fact, you could argue that it is WP:OR to single out clear weather (as opposed to, say, good pilot health) as a non-cause. In the case of accidents determined to be cause by weather, of course the weather should be mentioned. For now, I will just remove the mentions of the flight attendants, which are clearly not relevant to the accidents, except of course cases like Nadezhda Kurchenko. --Macrakis (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply mentioning basic weather is standard, and isn't exactly original research bc weather information is usually mentioned in nearly every article about said crash. Pilots stay informed about the weather with regular alerts and it determines the runway (often location of accident) etc. It is for explaining in the prelude to the crash, and again is a HUGE factor in these accidents. Stop worrying about weather, most of us like to know and its a sentence (or even 1/2 one) not a paragraph. How is "Flight # took off at 12:00 UTC, 16:00 local time in clear skies with mild winds" overly excessive? You appealed to the slippery slope argument, now get off this page and go bug someone else. Remember that Wikipedia is the primary English source for many of these accidents, so as much information should be translated as possible because most people won't be able to get it anywhere else. Don't like reading 5,000 bytes of info? Don't delete, just click to the section headers to get to the parts you want to read. Or read the 2-sentence summaries on ASN, but don't dumb-down the wiki. The target audience is people interested in the subject at hand, not some second grader playing the Wikipedia game. Now go expand one of these and quit making trouble. I won't reply anymore bc I have better things to do than argue with someone who will make every article 30-second-soundbite-ready.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? This discussion has wandered far away from article content. And
1. Civility? LOL you're in for a surprise when you encounter Jetstreamer or anyone else. When I was the newbie people literally took turns biting the newbie, no one else is different or special. Are you new here? If you're new, please create a good article an beware that people like Jetsteamer are so hostile if you think this is bad you're in for a surprise. Get thanked for adding categories to articles? He'll take the time to un-thank you for "not good work".
2. This isn't "my" article, but I can tell you this discussion doesn't belong here bc your last dozen posts here aren't about the actual mid-air collision of the article. Not the mid-air collision here? Get off this page and go type your complaints at WP:AVIATION, you can't just throw a tantrum on a random article with a crew list when there are thousands with crew lists.
3. I did not go ad-hominem, I don't know much about you and couldn't care less about who is making an argument. It's your EDITS not YOU thats a problem. It's a problem to me that ANYONE cares more about minor details than content translation/creation. Get off the wrong page, bring up your complaints with a DEPARTMENT, not an ARTICLE, and goodbye. Crew lists weather etc are about Aviation article format, not Anapa-collision specific so drop it here and bring it up with people who have time for this. :(--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I've been contributing to WP much longer than you, have made many more edits, and have started many more articles.
But that shouldn't matter.
I will of course bring up the question on WP:AVIATION... but I wanted to see if we could come to a consensus here first. Your calling my (I think calm and civil) discussion here a "tantrum" seems to indicate, um, "no". --Macrakis (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on issues that affect many pages should never be attempted to be reached on article talkpages. Doing so makes it hard for others to find discussion. This affects many pages, so why bring it up here? It doesn't belong here and you keep coming back. THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT BELONG HERE AND I WILL NO LONGER DISCUSS THE CREW LIST ISSUE WITH YOU OR ANYONE ON THIS PAGE. Civility is subjective, but I don't want to waste my time on this here. Again, find a stub to expand instead or translate some content. We don't want gnome-ish edits, we need content translation. (This isn't just addressed to you, its to everyone that doesn't create much content)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.svg){kind=small}
