Talk:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Major WP:BLP problems

The MChS has now announced that 45 people were on board, and that they confirm 2 survivors so far. Around 2 dozens bodies have thus far been retrieved, the rest are missing. Can I ask why, then are people announcing that the entire are dead, when there is no evidence of this, only speculation. We don't speculate with WP:BLPs, it is a major violation here on WP. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong plane

Not the RA-42333, but RA-42434:

http://svpressa.ru/society/news/47593/

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1768051

85.141.197.4 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Similar incidents"

I've removed this section as it's not directly applicable to this article - it is available here as it might make a good standalone article. — Joseph Fox 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you already as it is completely applicable to the article. It is essentially a See Also section which is very common in these sorts of articles. But I do agree that it might make for a good list article in its own right in addition to being mentioned here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware, hence bringing it here. It is not "essentially a See Also section" - the amount of prose in that section rivals that in the article itself. — Joseph Fox 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It does right now, but it won't as more facts come out and the rest of the article fleshes out. No reason to remove it at this point only to have to readd it later. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I concur with the initial removal, and have removed it again. The news reports are six hours old right now, so we don't know what it's "similar" to (nor should we be speculating about it at all; this is an encyclopedia, not WikiNews), and adding a list of every plane crash in any country to involve any sports team in a 50-year period is excessive. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Also agree. I'd rather see that list brought to mainspace and used instead. Resolute 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
We certainly do know what it is similar to. Similar in that it was an air crash that involved an entire sports team. There is no speculation there. As for any sports team, perhaps that is excessive, I would probably limit it to professional sports teams to make it a narrower band. But please lets not back and for revert each other, the whole point of bringing it here is to discuss and come to a solution which can then be implemented as per the BRD cycle. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I re-added it. Seems like a perfectly good example of a see also section. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The see also section, as per Wikipedia:SEEALSO#See_also_section should contain links which are for some reason unable to placed within the article itself, but which if read will give editors a better understanding of this very article. The articles that were placed there are simply a dump of articles with a single connection - plane crashes which had sports teams on them - Munich Air Disaster gives a reader no better understanding of this article. It's like internal wikispam. A better thing would be a list, as suggested, or perhaps even a category or a template. A list would likely be better, and could be suitable, however, even then a link to such a list would be able to be exist within the article proper anyway. Just don't dump internal wikispam, because they are no more relevant to this article, than is say 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with a category (surprised there isn't one already actually) and the list. I would put the list article link in the see also until it can be incorporated into the main body of the article (assuming it can't already be). -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
When I added the section and the first example I was just aware of a couple such incidents. Now, when the list has grown to substantial size, it could warrant a list-article of its own, and a mere link to that article from a "see also" section in this article. --MoRsE (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A template would also be useful. Jmj713 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with templates as that would be creeping into template spam. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MoRsE on this one. Once everything has been confirmed as far as casualties from this one, I will start work on a list with these. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the see also section as it stands as per some consensus that is above, as it is totally wikispam, and is totally irrelevant to this article. And if someone wants a referenced list of accidents involving sports teams, here's a ref. I just to god that someone doesn't revert it, and then add the other half dozen of totally irrelevant incidents to an unneeded see also section ;) --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This appears to have been done at List of accidents involving professional sports teams, though clearly more work is needed to make it a proper list. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
List works for me too. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Really?

a table where you say one person survived?......80.192.22.60 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Being BOLD and changing surviving peoples to italicized rather than having their own column. Not so much a markup issue as it is a matter of respect to the deceased. No need to have an entire column devoted to denoting two people survived, it just rubs salt in the wound. avs5221(talk|contrib) 01:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons

I am modifying the table to indicate the nationalities of the late squad. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

RA-42434

RA-42434 should redirect here, since it didn't have a flight number, and the tail number has been reported in news reports. It's the most prominent use of the registration number, plus is easier to spell than Lokomotiv Yaroslavl. 65.94.77.134 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Seems reasonable to me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Cause

According to the latest reports, the flight data recorders have been recovered, and the investigation believes the causes to be either a technical failure or human error. Jmj713 (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to be facetious but other than being shot out of the sky aren't those the only two options for any crash really? Either something went wrong with the plane or a human did something wrong? That isn't really narrowing it down at all. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I was assuming "technical failure" wasn't referring to the faulty takeoff, as first reported. Jmj713 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Antenna Mast

Is the "mast 91-meter high" information really correct? It is hard to believe that there is mast almost 100 meters high right in the landing and takeoff path located only 450 meters from landing strip.

According to pictures here - http://avherald.com/h?article=4428da13&opt=0 - the airport elevation above sea is 91.7 meters (Google Earth also confirms it). This seems as too much coincidence with 91 meters height information about the mast - probably somebody made that statement about the mast height reading the airport map wrongly, or it was mistranslated. There is couple of antennas marked on the map on that link - they are marked in range of 92 to 110 meters. Since none of those numbers is lower than 91 then I am quite sure they mean elevation above sea level - it is hard to believe there is 10 masts there and none of them smaller that 92 meters. Looks that the masts are max 18 meters high, and the one which was struck only a few meters high, which seems more likely.

Also the video here http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/238742/ shows that the plane was barely off the ground, maybe not even a few meters (judging from the the plane shadow), when it hit the surveillance camera pole/mast. Roman (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation Tag

I have added a citation tag at the 'Background' section--Hallows AG(talk) 08:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationalities

We should start this section. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Ukrainian nationality law you can not combine your Ukrainian nationality with one of another country. So I am not convinced these 3 "Russian-Ukrainian"-players (as currently stated in the list of perished players) are not noting more then Russians with roots in Ukraine... (or they did something illegal?). Except mabay for Alexander Vyukhin who played for Ukraine men's national ice hockey team although he was born in Russia (?). I don't know much about hockey but do players usually play for a national team "in there neighborhood" where they have the most change to win a prize regardless of the country they where born in?
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The other two were born in Kiev when he was apart of the Soviet Union, so I would assume they were given either dual citizenship or solely Ukrainian citizenship based on their birth place. Vyukhin I'm not sure about.--Giants27(T|C) 21:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Solved it (read the reference...), they had dual citizenship. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Player/coach footnotes

I removed the notes for Stanley Cup winners etc. but was reverted without discussion by User:Jmj713. Please explain how those notes are relevant to this article about the plane crash. Perhaps they should be footnotes to the roster table on the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl team article, but they are completely irrelevant here. Further, I don't see any relevance of the player's position for the table in this article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the notes, frankly they serve no purpose on Lokomotiv's page either. However, I think the player's position is important to the article since it sheds light on who is who. The thing with this crash unlike other plane crashes is that this one was carrying a sports team, so there will be some sports injected into it. Much like if a plane full of soldiers crashed, you'd list their rank as well. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on both accounts, one of the reasons this crash is even more notable than other crashes is because of who the people in the crash were. And part of who they were is made of their major accomplishments. This all colours the crash directly. -DJSasso (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Andrwsc and Shootmaster. I think position is important - it actually helps demonstrate the scope of the loss to the team - but the awards are superfluous puffery. Resolute 00:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree as well. These are important individual achievements, and the World, Olympic, and Stanley Cup championships are the highest achievements a hockey player can receive, so they're quite appropriate, in my opinion. Jmj713 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
They are relevant to the player biography, yes. But irrelevant to a plane crash article. I know that it is not intended this way, but to me it feels like the article is screaming "care about this guy more because he succeeded in the NHL". Resolute 01:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Even so, nonevery few of the news reports (i.e. our reliable sources) that I've read today make any mention whatsoever of Stanley Cup victories, NHL awards, etc. They only go as far as to single out the players who were NHL veterans. It seems like a bit of synthesis on Wikipedia's part to highlight those additional accomplishments in this article, which is about the plane crash, not about the team or its individual players. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
To reiterate, I don't think this should be mentioned in this article. However, saying none obviously discredits National Post as a reliable source right? Since this report mentions many of the things we are talking about. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well, fair enough... I hadn't seen that one yet. However, that was a "summary style" article (in Wikipedia parlance) about the people with NHL ties, not an article about the crash. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
LA Times is another source that lists achievements. Jmj713 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be better to use the content of the Template:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl roster hardcoded (i.e. subst) into the article as player list. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions the olympic gold here. All Swedish sites focus on Stefan Liv for natural reasons but also tend to mention Jan Marek, Karel Rachunek, Josef Vasicek and Pavel Demitra (and sometimes a few others, such as Salei). (Ex: SVT, GD, SVD. The European media also considers World Championships results, etc, not just NHL. Lejman (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What awards someone may have gotten are absolutely irrelevant to this article. Whether someone played in a Stanley Cup team 25 years ago is irrelevant to the article on the crash. Perhaps instead of concentrating on such ice hockey cruft, editors could concentrate on adding content to the article on the effects that the crash will have on the KHL. There is plenty of that info out there, but none of it is in the article. No more irrelevant cruft please. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
As this article is under the Ice Hockey Project as well, major player achievements are not "cruft" for us. Jmj713 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
They are cruft on this article. If major player achievements are important, they belong in articles on the individual players or on the team itself. Not on an article on the aircraft crash, which is the subject of the article. Refer to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash; do we see a list of awards that people who died have received? Or their accomplishments? An allowance has already obviously been made for having the "position" they played being placed in the article. Their awards, on this article, are useless cruft. There is already pretty good consensus above for the removal of the crufty awards information. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The awards help give an idea of who the victims were and why this was such a big deal. As for consensus I don't see one here I see as many people objecting to their removal as supporting... -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you see that consensus. I see four editors who favor removal of those notes (Andrwsc, Shootmaster 44, Resolute, and Russavia) and two who disagree (Jmj713 and Djsasso). Muboshgu also favors removal without having commented about it here. Lejman comments above about the external sources without commenting on the inclusion of notes in the article, but even if you assume support, that's still 5 to 3 !votes against. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
First, consensus is "agreement, accordance, unanimity". Second, "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely. Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting." I'm not seeing anything of the sort; it's either remove or keep. I'm always in favor of more information, not less, and I believe in preserving information, not deleting it. Things can always be improved, edited, rewritten. Deleted content rarely gets restated. Jmj713 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I know what consensus is, thanks, but my comment was a rebuttal to Djsasso's I see as many people objecting to their removal as supporting. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes 4-2 (4-3 when you count the person who added them) is pretty much as many people objecting to their removal as for supporting it which means I see no consensus for removal...even if you only do 4-2 I hardly call that a consensus to remove when its only 6 editors commenting. Note I never said there was consensus to keep them, just that there was no-consensus to remove them. Two very different things. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl memorial at Arena-2000.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lokomotiv Yaroslavl memorial at Arena-2000.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Title of flight crew

There seams to be some sort of mixup in the title of the flight crew.
Under Investigation you can read: "Captain Andrei Solontsev had 6,900 hours of flight experience, 1,500 on Yak-42s, and first officer Sergei Zhuravlyov 15,000 hours, although only 420 on the Yak-42, according to Okulov."
But under Flight Crew:
"Igor Zhivelov, First Officer" and "Sergy Zhuravlev, Mechanic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.174.64 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Galimov

The page has conflicting information as to whether Alexander Galimov, who was in critical condition, has died or not. The references for his later death (admittedly translated via Google from Russian) do not mention anything besides his surviving the crash and being in critical condition. I'm removing any references to his death pending further information.--BDD (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea until we have more information...here is a list of all the passengers: [1] --MoRsE (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
They've changed the article since I read it (also through Google translator). Initially, it reported his death and now it says he is in intensive care. This is great news, but changing articles make this a difficult thing to edit. I removed all mentions of it now that Lifenews says otherwise. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
His article states he died, maybe that needs changing too? so hard to tell with current events. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reportedly, Galimov is still alive. Jmj713 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Galimov is now confirmed dead: http://news.mail.ru/inregions/center/76/6758957/?frommail=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.36.210 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The media reported that he was dead for a while, however this was not the case. He is still in critical condition... source— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.64.72 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

He is officially alive, conscious, though 90% burnt according to the latest news (00:47, 9 September 2011 (Local time) - source Alekorloff (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

He has died. I'm Russian, so I don't need Google translate to read the sources. Here's just one of them: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=567269 78.106.41.59 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's extremely sad. Unfortunately, not unexpected, as the injuries were so vast and severe. I think, though, that the edits that followed, like this sentence: "Of 45 onboard, all but one person (the flight engineer) perished" (and the one in the Background section) misrepresent facts, as he did survive the crash, but later succumbed to his injuries. So, in my opinion, those sentences must still read he survived the crash (because he did), perhaps noting that he died afterwards. Jmj713 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed unsourced information

I have removed unsourced information (i.e. fails WP:V) from the article as per this edit. Firstly, please remember that this is an article on the actual crash, and a background of the team is actually quite irrelevant as a background of the crash. More relevant background is the information relating to the past operation of the aircraft, the airline, etc. Such information belongs in the main article of the team. Anyway, regardless of this, the section itself is totally unsourced. It is the WP:BURDEN of editors who are inserting information into articles to ensure that information is sourced to a reliable source, and it is also the burden of editors who are reinserting information after it has been deleted to ensure that information is sourced. This is a core policy of WP, in that all information needs to be sourced to a reliable source. Discussion firstly should take place to see if this information is even relevant to the article on the crash, and if wide consensus says that it is, it needs to be sourced inline with core WP policy. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also WP:PRESERVE. Jmj713 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with the need for background on the team. There needs to be some information on the team in this article to satisfy a general description of the team and the purpose of the flight. For more specific info, go to the team article. Practically, I think the paragraph was probably too detailed, not integrated into the article and did not have citations. I suggest adding a re-edited version of the paragraph. In less detail? In the 'People on board' section, or where? Sources should be available from the thousands of articles written since the crash. I would support that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: current title kept. HeyMid (contribs) 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash → 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash – The current conventions within the naming of aviation accident articles is for the naming to be in one of two ways. If the flight number is known, the convention is (airline, flight number), e.g. Singapore Airlines Flight 6 or Iran Air Flight 277 or even Pan Am Flight 103 (not Lockerbie bombing). If the flight number isn't known, the convention is {year, airline, aircraft type, type of accident), e.g. 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the common name, but there is no such name for this crash. Names such as Munich air disaster become common in time, usually after some years. Also, it should be mentioned that plane is not used in WP as it is ambigious; the word aircraft is used instead. The current name is not the best format to follow, and it is certainly not a common name for the disaster. Hence, there needs to be a change to the article name in some way, shape or form. More info on article naming conventions is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions. Russavia Let's dialogue 10:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support renaming per stated rationale. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has already been discussed under Talk:Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_plane_crash#Article_name, I disagree for the same reason as many there, the main notability of this crash lies in the fact that there was a KHL hockey team on board, it has strong similarities with the 1993 Zambian national football team crash. Lejman (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose still for the same reasons as the move request above. This is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME when mentioned in the news they mention the team and the crash, not the plane type. It is more notable than the average plane crash because of the team on board and I would note there is precedence for naming crash articles with teams aboard in this manor see 1993 Zambia national football team air disaster. I would note that your example of Pan Am Flight 103 is the common name for that disaster at least in North America so its not a very good example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
You claimed, only one hour after the crash, that "2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash" was already the WP:COMMONNAME. I disputed that, and you said it soon would be the common name for it. Can I ask, why, some 2 days after the crash, only 6 out of 5,000 news sources are using this so-called common name? The truth is, there is no WP:COMMONNAME as yet, and why guidelines exist for the naming of aircraft accidents, which is why the suggested new name is being mooted at the name to move to. An answer on your "common name" argument would be appreciated. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Try using Google without the quotation marks. Jmj713 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it has been claimed that "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash" is the common name, hence, one uses the quotation marks in order to test just how common that name is. And that is what the link above shows. Only 6 sources out of 5,000 use this so-called common name. So just when do WP guidelines come into play here? --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I get 15,500 when I do a search for "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash" and I get 566,000 if I do "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl" "plane crash". Seems a lot more common to me than the name you are suggesting where I get 160 for "Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash" so explain to me how it is not the more common name? You are aware the google filters searches based on the country you are in right? So your numbers could be very skewed and is why google results aren't the most reliable. We are supposed to name articles so that they are the easiest for someone searching to find. Someone searching for this page is going to type in the team name in some form or another and not the type of plane that was being involved. Blind adherence to convention is a bad thing. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Take it easy :P I also tried those google searches, for comparison "Yak-Service" Yakovlev "Yak-42 crash" gives 460 results. His 6 results are not due to national google filters but because he searched formal news sources. That said, it doesn't have to be a formal name for the crash to be what people relate to it as, which is why the current name is to be preferred.Lejman (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the search I ran is correct. It is of Google news only, ignoring what non-reliable sources call it, which would be found in normal web search. 6 out of 5,000 only use your common name. Yes, blind adherence to convention is a bad thing, but so is trying to create one's own WP:COMMONNAME whilst totally ignoring long-standing guidelines for the naming of aviation accident articles. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Except that isn't true either, because google news don't include the only reliable sources, many sources in a normal google search are also reliable. Not to mention that even unreliable sources go to prove that the common use by the average person is one way or the other. Again we name articles to match what people are most likely going to search for. Clearly with 500,000+ mentions in this form, that is likely what people are considering it. Common names can change overtime, they aren't set in stone immediately and never change. Right now it appears this is the most likely way to reach people searching for this article on various searches. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Like the relevant title guideline, this isn't about "creating a common name"; it's about selecting the most useful description. Following the guideline usually accomplishes this, which is why it exists. But exceptions sometimes arise, and this is such an instance. Our practices determine our guidelines, not the inverse. —David Levy 13:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DJSasso. Also, this crash is more known for the team involved, not the plane. HeyMid (contribs) 11:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Plane crash predominantly mentioned in connection with the KHL team. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is an atypical case in which it makes sense to deviate from our usual naming conventions. It's true that the event does not yet have a common name, but readers seeking the article are likely to use the hockey team's name.
    Also note that while "plane" is an ambiguous term, "plane crash" is not (hence its use by reliable English-language sources around the world). "Aircraft" (without the "fixed-wing" qualifier) is the ambiguous term, as it also refers to numerous other vehicles (such as helicopters and airships). —David Levy 12:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The team on board the crash is the notable factor of the crash, So, as DjSasso pointed out two days ago, it is now the WP:COMMONNAME. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:17 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose most referents to this plane crash refer to it as some Russian hockey team plane crash, or KHL plane crash, not Yak-Service. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand Russavia's POV, but sometimes logic should trump form. We already have several precedents (and yes, I know Wikipedia doesn't work on them) to justify a more descriptive title for a disaster such as this. I'm not going to go down the common name angle, but more one of "this just works better". I think the current title makes more sense to a reader than the proposed one would. Resolute 13:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If it were an airline scheduled flight, I could see the point of using a different article name. Since it was a special charter carrying a sports team, the current name is better. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The crash is known for the team on-board, not the flight number.--Giants27(T|C) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The members of the team were the only passengers on the plane. In situations like this in the past, the title of the article has generally reflected this or the location it occurred. DJSasso has brought up several exmaples of this. The flight number is usually not a part of the article title. The situations where the flight number is part of the title and a sports team was a part of the tragedy is usually a scheduled flight with at least some passengers that weren't a part of the team or it's traveling party. Patken4 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have seen many reports regarding this both on TV, in the print media and on the internet. Few articles I've seen even mention the airline name. What I have seen generally is that a charter aircraft carrying the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl team crashed. I don't see how it takes years for a common name to exist. To be somewhat facetious I don't see the Kennedy Assassination referred to as the 1963 Lincoln Continental Shooting. This is largely what this move would be akin to. I am in favour of allowing this to be a redirect and if the Aviation types want to call it this on airline crash lists or whatever, I have no problem with that. But the page should stay at the current name. If a name were to be changed, I'd say a slight tweaking to 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash would be appropriate. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    As explained at WP:PRECISION, our convention is to be only as precise as necessary to distinguish a title from other uses of the topic name. Because no other "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash" has occurred, we needn't append any part of the date. —David Levy 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the above. There is no confusion between this crash and another involving the same team, as David Levy notes - so why complicate matters? The fact that the requested name is a redirect means that you can link from 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash where appropriate, to preserve the formatting of a list of similarly-named incidents, but that the article itself can remain at the simpler and clearer name it uses presently. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There are many possible ways to title this article, yet all of them are artificial, so we might as well follow our own conventions in this matter and at least title it consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2011; 13:48 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alexander Sizov Article?

is there enough information on this person for an article to be made? He is now known as the only survivor of a notable plane crash so I was just wondering here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sizov is notable only for this one event, so it would be inappropriate to create an article about him. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Red links concerns

Not knowing about Orel Air Enterprise, Tunoshna River, or Okulov, what basic evidence is that these are notable? Red links are supposed to be for articles to be created shortly. Could someone create some stubs? For Orel, the company has to be notable for some reason - did it have scheduled flights? For Okulov, is he an elected politician? I think the River might be notable by default. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Red links are also for articles which should be developed. WP:REDLINK for further info. All 3 are notable, and should have articles created, otherwise I wouldn't have redlinked them to begin with. Orel is an airline. Okulov is the former chief of Aeroflot, and Yeltsin family insider. The Tunoshna is a river. Google is your best friend. ;) --Russavia Let's dialogue 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Reaction" or "Reactions"?

Should the "Reaction" section in the article be renamed to "Reactions"? My point is that there are more than simply one reaction. Or is "reaction" an uncountable word in this case? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 09:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Fairly sure it's "reaction" in this case, acting as a plural noun. Like, the reaction to the event. Both are correct grammatically but in this case we would elect for the collective plural. — Joseph Fox 09:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Lokomotiv Yaroslavl, which was a member of the Kontinental Hockey League"

This part of a sentence in the lead feels misleading: "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl, which was a member of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL)". This suggests either that the club no longer exists, or that the club will no longer play in the KHL. None of these interpretations are true. Either we have to add "at that time" in front of "was", or we have to simply change "was" to "is" because they will play in the 2012–13 KHL season. Any thoughts? HeyMid (contribs) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is true because they are playing this season in the league below the KHL. So currently was is correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see a copyedit to the sentence. Either the meaning of the sentence is unclear, or my non-native English is the problem. If the latter, I don't think the sentence needs copyediting. But, there may be other non-native English people who read this article. HeyMid (contribs) 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The "was" part has actually been removed by another editor now. HeyMid (contribs) 10:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 05:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Documents

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Nobody is going to be able to find this article by this name, is there a shorter, more anglicized form for this?? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Yaroslavl is the name of the hockey team. There is no anglicized form of it, much like any other sports team. So it cannot be made any shorter, however this is a better title than we had before which was the airline/flight information. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"Lokomotiv Yaroslavl" is already the English transliteration that is in common use. Resolute 23:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this should be the name of the article, is there a flight number related to this particular plane? Can we reduce it to just Lokomotiv plane crash? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Not really, this is the most likely search item because its the team name. Even if they only get part of the name right it will show up in the search. -DJSasso (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The only possible other names would be 2011 KHL plane crash or 2011 Russian hockey team plane crash... not much to choose between them, and the current title is more descriptive. Though they would work as redirects. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We need to find a more encyclopedic title. The inclusion of "plane crash" is not it. Normal convention is (Airline) (Flight number) or (year, airline, aircraft, type of accident) unless there is a compelling reason not to, such as British European Airways Flight 609, which is housed at Munich air disaster. So, perhaps Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster would be more in keeping with this, otherwise 2011 YAK Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash is the alternative title. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
They should all probably exist as redirects, whatever the title of the article. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I found the flight number to this crash on the Aviation Safety Network web site, so why not call it Yak Service Flight 9633? And003 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Article name

I believe the original name 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash should be kept, since what makes this disaster so notable is that the entire hockey team is gone. The mode of transport is unessential. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly and per WP:BRD it should be put back to the original name while it is being discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article to 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash based upon common standards for naming of WP:AIRCRASH articles. If the flight number is known, we would name it Yak-Service Flight XXX, but flight number isn't known, so we use the format year, airline, aircraft type and then the word crash. Now, WP:COMMONNAME may see certain articles being placed at Munich Air Disaster, but these names usually evolve over decades. A common name does not evolve within 1 hour of a crash. Please respect style guidelines for WP:AVIATION articles in this regard. And if moved, because I won't move back, please consider this. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A common name certainly can occur within an hour. The reason this crash is so notable is the hockey team on it. This is why its gained as much notability as it has. To remove that to conform to a random arbitrary wikiproject standard does a disservice to the wiki. Article names are supposed to help the reader/searcher. They are more likely to search for the original name than the one you suggest. Also please put the article back to the original name while this is being discussed as is the standard when your original move was objected to. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that since this airline is not widely known outside of Russia, it is unlikely anyone would ever search for it under this name. However, in fairness to all the projects involved, I'd propose a compromise. Leave the page as per this aviation related name (since I think if you want to say anything their MOS is likely the trumping one since its a plane crash) and have the 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash redirect to this page. I guess the lone problem is that the search engines will not pick up the redirect. In the next few days, when the official reports come out then I would say we defer to how the aviation officials refer to it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There's also the 1993 Zambia national football team air disaster. I strongly believe this move should be reverted. Jmj713 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and move it back, it shouldn't have been moved the second time after it was objected to in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "2011" portion was superfluous (because there is no other "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash" from which to distinguish this one). —David Levy 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Today I found the actual flight number for this crash. It's YAK Service Flight 9633. Is there a way that the title "YAK Service Flight 9633" can be used as the name of this article? And003 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

An Unknown Force From The Earth Could Have Slowed The Plane Down

Unbelievably perhaps, a mystery force from the core of the Earth could have acted on the aircraft to slow it down. Due to the lack of evidence of the brakes being applied, this is the only logical conclusion available. This force creates a lateral deviation to the left as well as additional down force. If one does an investigation of mystery crashes, including light aircraft, they almost always involve an initial sharp bank to the left, loss of speed and altitude. The explanation is a simple one in that gravity is mechanical, with regular gravity being due to an equal number of right and left-handed Archimedes screw gravitons. A burst of neutron decay within the core creates an additional flash effect of left-handed gravitons which is concentrated into a narrow beam by the time it reaches the surface. This explanation can also be applied to mystery train and coach crashes, with the force acting on hydraulic brake fluids as well as the fuel, creating veers to the left in the case of coach disasters. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

Lede and article: cause of crash

The lede states at one point that the chief pilot was found to have applied braking force; later it says the first officer did so and had a nerve disease that made him unaware of the position of his feet. I do not find the latter statement in the body of the article, or in the one cited source that is not showing a template problem; where is it? Also which crew member was it, chief pilot or first officer? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mayday

Other air crash articles have it mentioned that there has been a Mayday episode about the incident. Should it be mentioned on this article as well? 88.113.110.174 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, it is not that notable, not even in the other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It's just that this is the first article that I've seen that has a Mayday episode, but it's not mentioned. For example Munich air disaster has it mentioned, and literally every other regular accident that I've seen. So that's why this bothers me a little bit, but I understand I suppose. 88.113.110.174 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It just depends on the degree of notability of the episode. Either notable or non-notable. MattChatt18 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Article title

@YSSYguy: The result of the above move discussion was "current title kept" and the proposed move was Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash → 2011 Yak-Service Yakovlev Yak-42 crash. The consensus title was therefore "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash", not "2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster". Second, per WP:DISASTER the term "disaster" should be avoided in page titles:

Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use fic event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like. The word "disaster" implies a certain level of destruction; only use the word if an incident was more destructive than most other accidents, and non-local reliable sources consistently characterize it as such over a significant period of history.

In this case (and since there's no flight number to use as the article title), "plane crash" is more descriptive than "air disaster". I cited both the above move discussion and WP:Disaster when I moved the page from "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster" to "Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash". Citing WP:Disaster, I've changed some other air crash titles to remove the word disaster:

AHeneen (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done – Fayenatic London 23:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_plane_crash/Archive_1&oldid=1145820344"