Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft page. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
 | This page contains a translation of List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft from en.wikipedia. |
Simplify[change source]
Wouldn't it be easier to simply restart the article, rather than simplify a 220,000 byte article copied from EnWiki? George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it would be easier but it might make for a much better article that readers might actually read. Simplifying an article like this might start with simplifying the concept. For example, limit it to just accidents or by decade (as several articles). Sourcing is another issue. It's always easier to find sources first then create the article. Otherwise, you're trying to find sources for someone else's statements and facts (needle in a haystack approach). As it is the article is just too large. it's a good case for not every enwiki article belongs on simplewiki. Rus793 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, maybe we should change the name to List of aeroplane accidents in 2014 (or something similar)? This article shouldn't ideally be here (as you said), but there is really no need to QD it. George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 15:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the subject has potential so I wasn't thinking QD myself. A name change (or changes if multiple articles) would handle the scope. I'd suggest something like List of commercial aircraft accidents 1919 – 1929, if by decade (the first being a decade + 1). Or, something like: List of commercial aircraft accidents 1919 – 1949, List of commercial aircraft accidents 1950 – 1975, etc. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be strictly a list format. By quarter-centuries it would allow some text discussing various safety improvements in the industry in that period, improvements in commercial aircraft, the formation of the NTSB in 1926, etc. Oh, and just so we both know what we're talking about here, for 2014 the article lists four accidents. Take a look here to get a better idea of what it missed. While this site includes more than just commercial crashes, there are 28 pages for 2014. The original article may have overlooked a few. Rus793 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Suggested some changes on my talk page. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the subject has potential so I wasn't thinking QD myself. A name change (or changes if multiple articles) would handle the scope. I'd suggest something like List of commercial aircraft accidents 1919 – 1929, if by decade (the first being a decade + 1). Or, something like: List of commercial aircraft accidents 1919 – 1949, List of commercial aircraft accidents 1950 – 1975, etc. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be strictly a list format. By quarter-centuries it would allow some text discussing various safety improvements in the industry in that period, improvements in commercial aircraft, the formation of the NTSB in 1926, etc. Oh, and just so we both know what we're talking about here, for 2014 the article lists four accidents. Take a look here to get a better idea of what it missed. While this site includes more than just commercial crashes, there are 28 pages for 2014. The original article may have overlooked a few. Rus793 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Simplify[change source]
Hello, reader. My name is Redolta, an editor on this Wiki. I have a option I choose to show. This is to rather "simplify" this article. This would be done by deleting most of these crashes from the page. The only things to remain on the page will be crashes that were very "notable" I think this is a good choice to make because this will take away from the total number of "bytes" on the page. This will also get rid of many red links. For an example of what the article could look like, please click here. Please write down if you like this idea or not. Thank you, and have a nice day. Redolta📱 Contribs 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Red links encourage future articles so we don't delete them simply because the article or stub does not yet exist. The best way, although it would be very time-consuming, is to create the support articles. Deleting individual crashes would require an examination of each one to see if it is "very" notable—which is not really a criteria. An event is either notable or it isn't based at least on the General notability guideline. So if it made the news it probably should be here. I think that splitting the article may be the better approach. But we need to agree on what criteria to base the split on and who is willing to work on it. Rus793 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)