Talk:BKS Air Transport Flight C.6845

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viscount G-APJU[edit]

Per Airportdata.com and Pprune Viscount G-APJU was slightly damaged in the accident. Question is, can anyone find a reliable source for this info? Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was sold to Indonesia in 1970 so I suspect not that badly damaged. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Flight http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201470.html of the 8 August 1968 it was Viscount G-APKF that was slightly damaged. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh that title is ridiculously long![edit]

Why do you need such a huge title when the flight number is given? The flight number is 6845 according to ASN and the final report. [1] and [2] Username006 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) @Andrewgprout: @WilliamJE: @Acroterion:[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.

3 editors, including the proposer, support the move, although one of them (Sciencefish) has indicated support for two different names and it is unclear which is their final position. 3 editors oppose the move. Accordingly there is no consensus and since there has been no activity for 20 days, it seems unlikely a consensus will emerge. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


1968 Heathrow BKS Air Transport Airspeed Ambassador crash → BKS Air Transport Flight 6845 – First of all, that name is atrociously long which no one will use and if the flight number is given, why need to keep it so long where it makes no sense? Username006 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose No evidence given that the flight number is popularly known to such a degree that it makes a sensible candidate for a title. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there may indeed be a better name but no evidence that the proposed name is it. A redirect from the proposed name is a good idea but will mainly benefit those with esoteric knowledge of the subject. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. I suggest that the way to shorten this would be to remove either the operator or the aircraft type, as a 1 minute google suggests that no other Airspeed Ambassadors and no other aircraft operated by BKS Air Transport crashed at Heathrow in 1968. An equally not comprehensive google search suggests though that BOAC Flight 712 is the primary topic for "1968 Heathrow crash". Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Because, if I search up the current title, I only get around 5,000 results but when I search up BKS Air Transport Flight 6845, it gives me 62,000 results. I would also like to mention that why would you exclude the flight number? I've always seen redirects to this title with a shorter name. And I moved the same exact page in Deutsch Wikipedia and users thanked me for that. Also, people usually use Wikipedia as a 'source' , in which they create their own reports and Wikipedia follows those secondary reports. Let's take the primary ones over the secondary ones. Also, removing the aircraft model or the operator from the title is not exactly ideal as no other page does that apart from the 1996 Air Africa crash which I'm also against. I'm also against the title change of Air New Zealand Flight 901. The common name hits hardly a million results whereas Air New Zealand Flight 901 hits 14 million results. Username006 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe maybe you should simply realise the searches as described above are rubbish at confirming what you think they do. How many of those 14 million hits have anything to do with the subject of the article? That is what is important. If you detail the searches you did for these examples I can help you refine them somewhat to get a more sensible result - although such reults will always be somewhat questionable.
And some advice - WP:PRIMARY WP:SECONDARY please read and understand and a side order of WP:TERTIARY. Also nothing in Wikipedia should be self referencing and pretty much isn't - if that is what you are suggesting above. And remember my comment on your talk page about over replying on such discussions as this. We know what you think - adding more and more detail countering every comment is more likey to harm your arguement than help it, save it up for when it is really necessary.Andrewgprout (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, just because it isn't common, doesn't mean that it is incorrect to use it. Every single title name may not always depend upon what was the common name. I mean this is not even a common name. For e.g. 2008 Colombia Kalitta Air Boeing 747 crash was renamed to Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164, despite it being rather common (well not really tbh). This page says it all: [3] Username006 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we go ahead with move? I'm requesting a move here too for the same reason:[4] Username006 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying here you have established any consensus here for a move. It is statements like this just make above that make me question competence here. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout:Have you even replied to my earlier doubt? No. If no answer, I need to raise it up again manually. I can't make a 'bold' move as you say so this is my only option. Anyway, requesting for a move here too: [5] Username006 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to wait. There is no hurry. And it is clear above that I have commented on this requested move so I do not understand your comment. Andrewgprout (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: I gave you 2 days of time so that's not a hurry and no you did not comment on my doubt. Username006 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about this:

::::Look, just because it isn't common, doesn't mean that it is incorrect to use it. Every single title name may not always depend upon what was the common name. I mean this is not even a common name. For e.g. [[2008 Colombia Kalitta Air Boeing 747 crash]] was renamed to [[Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164]], despite it being rather common (well not really tbh). This page says it all: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions] [[User:Username006|Username006]] ([[User talk:Username006|talk]]) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Username006 (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you disappeared anyways, Oh well.... Username006 (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Username006: Please STOP harassing people to answer - you do not have any right to do this. You have been warned several times by administrators about this. If your comments made particular sense, maybe people would be happier to engage with you.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout: My comment is making sense, but you are not understanding my question. And you did the same thing on the page of TAM Airlines Flight 3054. I don't like this habit of you disappearing to my answers. If you lose, accept it. Don't just stay idle and expect me to close the discussion. I mean, everyone's gone. Respond to my question up there, which I have put in nowiki code. I bet now it is clear what I'm talking about. Username006 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Flight number 6845 is now referenced in the article. Per Accident article naming conventions in WP:AATF: For commercial aircraft with a known flight number, the standard article name structure is:<airline> Flight <flight number>, BKS Air Transport Flight 6845 is correct. Sciencefish (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sciencefish: What do you mean it isn't referenced? ASN is a source mentioned in the page and it states that the flight number is 6845 and so does planecrashinfo and so does the final report. BKS Air Transport flight 6845 is correct. Therefore, I'm not counting your vote strength. Username006 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information if used, it should be in the article and then referenced. See Wikipedia:Verifiability I've edited the infobox to include the flight number, which is noted as C.6845 in the report. The correct article title would be BKS Air Transport Flight C.6845. As for your statement Therefore, I'm not counting your vote strength. Please read WP:RMCLOSE, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be involved in the outcome. Sciencefish (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sciencefish: I'm sorry, I was irritated, because I have a lot of work pending to do. However, we don't include the IATA, in this case "C." unless it was a letter in the flight number for e.g. British Airtours Flight 28M. The reason that I didn't count your oppose strength is because it was totally controversial. That's all. Username006 (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: Yep, disappeared again. Username006 (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I've been going through all recent move requests by Username006, strucking them all down (and Username006 ought to learn how to conduct themselves in discussinos and on WP in general), but this one does have some merit. The official report states the flight number as quoted, and our established convention is to use that in article tiles, if availble from reliable sources. Plus the current title is indeed unwieldy like few others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeday-UK: Okay Username006 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox aircraft occurrence[edit]

@Username006: Given the change of the custom infobox title from BKS Air Transport Flight 6845 Crash to BKS Air Transport Flight 6845 with the reason: We also exclude the word 'crash". It's only true if the title is not set and a custom title is used. Who is the We in this case, you or Wikipedia guidelines for infobox titles? Sciencefish (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sciencefish: Generally used. Username006 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 04:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1968 Heathrow BKS Air Transport Airspeed Ambassador crash → BKS Air Transport Flight C.6845 – I'm myself surprised that this failed to go thorugh a move. Clearly the flight number was given and per WP:AATF and per WP:AVINAME, this should be moved. Also, please read WP:OWN as it is being violated here. However, unlike Username006, this should include the 'c.' and no, that is not the IATA as having a decimal point there is invalid in an IATA code. IATA's generally have letters A-Z and numbers 0-9 but not special characters like that. Also, I'm reverting back to this name per consensus, we should not include such names.KlientNo.1 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, move Sciencefish (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it follows the naming conventions specified by WP:AATF -- however I am confused as to why the "C." is included, can you please provide clarification here. TiggerJay (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tiggerjay: That's because through the final report and through an ICAO circular:[6], they both mention it as C.6845 and not 6845. Even I do know that it is a bit weird but it cannot be the IATA as IATA's as said above can only include letters (A-Z) and numbers (0-9) but not such special characters. KlientNo.1 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – To the general reader, the current title reads like a string of disjointed words that are also peculiarly confusing (an ambassador crashing because of its airspeed while being transported in the air?) --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denied Per above andrewprout reason.101.10.2.232 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @101.10.2.232: It does not matter whether the flight number was popular or not. I can't see any wiki evidence stating that if something was not popularly known, don't include it. Again, this is a violation of WP:OWN. Even if there was wiki evidence, I would still not support it as the current title given is too unwieldy and unsupporting of any wiki evidence. Even WP:COMMONNAME will not support such a title. KlientNo.1 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BKS_Air_Transport_Flight_C.6845&oldid=1206318219"