This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Aviation: Accidents Project‑class | |||||||||
|
Click to come to the image page:
(I'm raising this matter here at the request of 77.100.222.101, but it applies to maritime incidents as well.)
I assert that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 ought not be subcategories of Category:Transport disasters in 2023, but 77.100.222.101 disagrees. Edit histories: [1] [2].
In summary, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so ought not be sub-categorised as such. Per WP:SUBCAT, "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." It is not the case that accidents/incidents can be expected to be disasters. Some are, but most are not.
Recent related discussion (participants: Hammersoft, Davidships, 97.113.8.72): Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion/Archive_4#category:_Disaster
Note that the argument applies equally to all accidents/incidents (not just aviation, maritime) and all years, so I can see that Category:Transport disasters in 2023 for example will probably need specific articles added instead of subcats.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I've remove Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 from Category:Transport disasters in 2023 again. [3] [4]. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this issue is significant enough to try to seek consensus. I added the 2023 aviation accidents and 2023 shipwrecks to the 2023 transport disasters subcat, which Mitch Ames reverted today. My two cents:
1) In terms of usability, I think users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters" instead of just "road incidents" and nothing else. Indeed, being a "disasters" buff and being puzzled why I wasn't able to navigate to all modes of transport under "transport disasters" like I could in years past is why I made the now-reverted change. If I am being reasonable and not biased in my usability expectation, I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."
2) Dovetailing on 1), I know that "we've always done it that way" is not Wiki policy but I do note that 2023 is the only year not currently falling under the convention in other years, and I would ask Mitch Ames if he is going to also going to remove the plane and ship categories from all previous years of "transport disasters" as well.
3) If we must grapple with a definition of "disaster" and obsequiously adhere to it for the purposes of these categories, I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition that also satisfies the "with possibly a few exceptions" piece notated above.
4) If the consensus agrees with Mitch Ames, than shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? I don't see the point of it if only "road incidents" qualifies. Mreleganza ( talk) 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
... there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors ... attempting to return them to the status quo, and [Mitch has] reverted 'em all. ... He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it.— In each of my edits I included a link to this discussion in the edit summary, and at the time of each edit, this discussion (up until about 2023-09-08, before your post generally agreed that accidents/incidents ought not be categorised as disasters. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category ... it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, ... Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc— It's not just transport; not all fires are disasters, especially not all arson, nor all attacks, nor all engineering failures, nor all injustice. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters— Why? As I've previously stated, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so why would you expect them to listed/categorised as such?
I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."— Using the word disaster in a way different to normal usage is not the solution. Perhaps we need a set of categories using the more general term "events" that encompasses accidents, incidents and disasters.
which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the ... definition of disaster?— Putting things that are not disasters into a category called "disasters" is simply wrong. In particular, it goes against WP:CATDEF and for subcats WP:SUBCAT "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent". (Yes there may be a few exceptions, but in general one does not expect incidents and accidents to be disasters.)
I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition— I disagree. Per WP:SUBCAT (with my emphasis here), incidents/accidents should be a subcat of disasters "if logical membership of [incidents/accidents] implies logical membership of [disasters] (an is-a relationship)". But that is not the case: one cannot say that an incident/accident logically is a disaster. Counting specific instances in a specific category is irrelevant - it's the logical relationship that matters. Consider a small category "X incidents" with 5 articles, 4 of which are disasters - count them, say it's a majority and include the category in "X disasters". Then I add 5 more articles about incidents that are not disasters to "X incidents" category - now the categorisation is wrong (the majority are not disasters). Simply adding articles (incidents) to the correct category ("X incidents") ought not require changing the category tree.
Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters?— We could add specific articles and/or subcats to a "disasters" category if the article/subcat is specifically about/for disasters.
... shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether?— No - you could still add articles to the "disasters" categories as well as the "incidents/accidents" categories. Categories can overlap.
See also: Talk:Maritime incident#Incidents, accidents and disasters are not the same. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
An edit war seems to be breaking out over Horizon Air Flight 2059, which may be moved back to Alaska Airlines Flight 2059 (again) by the time I hit "Add topic". I previously proposed to move CommutAir Flight 4933 to United Express Flight 4933 per WP:COMMONNAME, but the proposal failed to reach consensus. There seems to be little consistency when naming articles about flights operated by a regional airline, e.g., Horizon Air or CommuteAir, under a major airline's brand name, e.g., United Express, American Eagle, Air Canada Jazz, etc. For instance, the article about American Eagle Flight 4184 uses the brand name rather than the actual operator. My personal opinion is that WP:COMMONNAME should control, which means the brand name would control in most cases, but I think some consensus is needed. Carguychris ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Why don't we mention the tragic event in the main title? Like for example 2001 shootdown Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is much informative than just the flight number, no? It's what we do with all other types of tragic events. Sidney.Cortez ( talk) 00:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there - I saw this edit @ Jetstreamer made on Royal Air Maroc correctly undoing an addition as unsourced. This accident actually has its own article 1975 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crash which was not linked in the uncited edit.
However, this led me to two questions which I thought I'd bring up:
Figured I'd just ask these questions here for you given your involvement and knowledge of aviation style/guidelines (and tag @ Steelpillow and @ Ckfasdf who are also knowledgable) for discussion. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The above copied from: User talk:Jetstreamer (with minor adjustments) to continue discussion here ~~~~ Avgeekamfot ( talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Aviation: Accidents Project‑class | |||||||||
|
Click to come to the image page:
(I'm raising this matter here at the request of 77.100.222.101, but it applies to maritime incidents as well.)
I assert that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 ought not be subcategories of Category:Transport disasters in 2023, but 77.100.222.101 disagrees. Edit histories: [1] [2].
In summary, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so ought not be sub-categorised as such. Per WP:SUBCAT, "When making one category [accidents/incidents] a subcategory of another [disasters], ensure that the members of the subcategory [accidents/incidents] really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent [disasters] also." It is not the case that accidents/incidents can be expected to be disasters. Some are, but most are not.
Recent related discussion (participants: Hammersoft, Davidships, 97.113.8.72): Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion/Archive_4#category:_Disaster
Note that the argument applies equally to all accidents/incidents (not just aviation, maritime) and all years, so I can see that Category:Transport disasters in 2023 for example will probably need specific articles added instead of subcats.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I've remove Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023 and Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 from Category:Transport disasters in 2023 again. [3] [4]. Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this issue is significant enough to try to seek consensus. I added the 2023 aviation accidents and 2023 shipwrecks to the 2023 transport disasters subcat, which Mitch Ames reverted today. My two cents:
1) In terms of usability, I think users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters" instead of just "road incidents" and nothing else. Indeed, being a "disasters" buff and being puzzled why I wasn't able to navigate to all modes of transport under "transport disasters" like I could in years past is why I made the now-reverted change. If I am being reasonable and not biased in my usability expectation, I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."
2) Dovetailing on 1), I know that "we've always done it that way" is not Wiki policy but I do note that 2023 is the only year not currently falling under the convention in other years, and I would ask Mitch Ames if he is going to also going to remove the plane and ship categories from all previous years of "transport disasters" as well.
3) If we must grapple with a definition of "disaster" and obsequiously adhere to it for the purposes of these categories, I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition that also satisfies the "with possibly a few exceptions" piece notated above.
4) If the consensus agrees with Mitch Ames, than shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether? I don't see the point of it if only "road incidents" qualifies. Mreleganza ( talk) 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
... there have been 17 edits from 6 different editors ... attempting to return them to the status quo, and [Mitch has] reverted 'em all. ... He's not trying to build consensus, he's fighting it.— In each of my edits I included a link to this discussion in the edit summary, and at the time of each edit, this discussion (up until about 2023-09-08, before your post generally agreed that accidents/incidents ought not be categorised as disasters. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
there's a strong case to be made for doing away with the "Transport Disasters" parent category ... it's invalid to categorize every aircraft accident on Wikipedia as a disaster, ... Same logic applies to buses, trains, ships, oxcarts, unicycles, etc— It's not just transport; not all fires are disasters, especially not all arson, nor all attacks, nor all engineering failures, nor all injustice. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
users will expect to see the accidents and incidents of various modes of transport under "transport disasters— Why? As I've previously stated, accidents and incidents are not necessarily disasters, so why would you expect them to listed/categorised as such?
I think such a concern trumps whether we are properly meeting a definition of "disaster."— Using the word disaster in a way different to normal usage is not the solution. Perhaps we need a set of categories using the more general term "events" that encompasses accidents, incidents and disasters.
which is worse - having a category with "disasters" in the name, where some of them don't meet the ... definition of disaster?— Putting things that are not disasters into a category called "disasters" is simply wrong. In particular, it goes against WP:CATDEF and for subcats WP:SUBCAT "ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent". (Yes there may be a few exceptions, but in general one does not expect incidents and accidents to be disasters.)
I think "the majority of these incidents resulted in fatalities" is a fair definition— I disagree. Per WP:SUBCAT (with my emphasis here), incidents/accidents should be a subcat of disasters "if logical membership of [incidents/accidents] implies logical membership of [disasters] (an is-a relationship)". But that is not the case: one cannot say that an incident/accident logically is a disaster. Counting specific instances in a specific category is irrelevant - it's the logical relationship that matters. Consider a small category "X incidents" with 5 articles, 4 of which are disasters - count them, say it's a majority and include the category in "X disasters". Then I add 5 more articles about incidents that are not disasters to "X incidents" category - now the categorisation is wrong (the majority are not disasters). Simply adding articles (incidents) to the correct category ("X incidents") ought not require changing the category tree.
Or removing the subcategory as whole cloth from the parent "transport disasters" category, and in so doing also removing the ones that inarguably disasters?— We could add specific articles and/or subcats to a "disasters" category if the article/subcat is specifically about/for disasters.
... shall we do away with "transport disasters" as a parent category altogether?— No - you could still add articles to the "disasters" categories as well as the "incidents/accidents" categories. Categories can overlap.
See also: Talk:Maritime incident#Incidents, accidents and disasters are not the same. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
An edit war seems to be breaking out over Horizon Air Flight 2059, which may be moved back to Alaska Airlines Flight 2059 (again) by the time I hit "Add topic". I previously proposed to move CommutAir Flight 4933 to United Express Flight 4933 per WP:COMMONNAME, but the proposal failed to reach consensus. There seems to be little consistency when naming articles about flights operated by a regional airline, e.g., Horizon Air or CommuteAir, under a major airline's brand name, e.g., United Express, American Eagle, Air Canada Jazz, etc. For instance, the article about American Eagle Flight 4184 uses the brand name rather than the actual operator. My personal opinion is that WP:COMMONNAME should control, which means the brand name would control in most cases, but I think some consensus is needed. Carguychris ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Why don't we mention the tragic event in the main title? Like for example 2001 shootdown Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is much informative than just the flight number, no? It's what we do with all other types of tragic events. Sidney.Cortez ( talk) 00:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there - I saw this edit @ Jetstreamer made on Royal Air Maroc correctly undoing an addition as unsourced. This accident actually has its own article 1975 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crash which was not linked in the uncited edit.
However, this led me to two questions which I thought I'd bring up:
Figured I'd just ask these questions here for you given your involvement and knowledge of aviation style/guidelines (and tag @ Steelpillow and @ Ckfasdf who are also knowledgable) for discussion. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The above copied from: User talk:Jetstreamer (with minor adjustments) to continue discussion here ~~~~ Avgeekamfot ( talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)