Talk:Delta Connection Flight 4819

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Delta Connection Flight 4819 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Aviation: Accidents

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Toronto Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto 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.TorontoWikipedia:WikiProject TorontoTemplate:WikiProject TorontoToronto
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps, showing entire flight route, be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

Requesting circular move

@Dan Leonard Thanks for moving the page, but you were following my typo for the flight number. The correct article name already exists at Delta Airlines Flight 4819. I've put in a request at WP:AN, but are you able to perform the move? Thanks. guninvalid (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a page mover, sorry. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CP24 in Canada reports as many as eight people were hurt in the emergency, though the extent of their injuries was not immediately clear.

BigKrow (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 people hurt at least... BigKrow (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

40 MPH winds

BigKrow (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking that this information be added to the article? Please provide a source that references this. Also, be bold! guninvalid (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/delta-flight-crashes-upon-arrival-toronto-pearson-airport/NJO5ZQG3UJA4HDAMJBE7ETRT34/ BigKrow (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced information to the article like you did at [1], thanks! Pretzelles (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im watching Fox news right now I'm doing my job BigKrow (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are getting this from Fox News, then please cite the segment or news article. You're on Wikipedia; please follow Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. guninvalid (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that with another source. LucsLee (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very unclear what the wind was... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g02djlv7o#:~:text=Toronto%20Pearson%20Fire,and%20a%20crosswind. Timtjtim (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://metar-taf.com/history/CYYZ#:~:text=METAR%20CYYZ%20172000Z-,27027G35KT,-5SM%20BLSN%20BKN038 Can't just pull from the metar? Similar wind values are on the 1600 local metar. Keita2282 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

editorial: deletion nomination

RESOLVED

AfD has concluded. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

UPSIDE DOWN passenger jet, catches fire, some injured evacuated by helicopter, major international airport closed but… not worth keeping? I don't understand this place. WTH😲 Doug Grinbergs (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to contribute to the deletion discussion, please do so at the discussion itself, not here. guninvalid (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This incident meets all criteria for an article. It should not be deleted. Sneakysasquatchfan (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the very lack of deaths and/or serious injuries after an airliner flipped upside down on landing makes this noteworthy in itself. You wonder if the person who nominated this article for deletion would have done that same thing with US Airways Flight 1549, because nobody got hurt in that one, so I guess it's not noteworthy amirite Eddiehimself (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And Air France Flight 358, the one that happened at the same airport. Sneakysasquatchfan (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And China Airlines 120. 2605:A601:A694:900:89BD:26FF:700E:64B3 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2025 (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.

Requested move 17 February 2025

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: not moved. WP:SNOW closing, wide consensus to not move the article from its current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) RachelTensions (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Connection Flight 4819 → ? – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. guninvalid (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name Astropulse (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Current Name - This flight is a Delta Connection flight, which is not the same as a normal Delta Airlines flight. The current name is sufficient enough as it is. ~~~~ DRWiki1102 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess of redirects. Now that things have started to settle down, we really should put any further moves through move requests. What should the title of this article be? guninvalid (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Move Present title has clear showed that's a Delta Connection flight, instead of a Delta Air Lines flight. Which also match the statememt from Delta. Awdqmb (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, you are arguing for keeping the title as Delta Connection Flight 4819, correct? guninvalid (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which also match with the statement from Delta. Awdqmb (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 4819. Concise, and it's WP:COMMONNAME per sources. guninvalid (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Air Lines implies that it’s a mainline flight. Endeavor Air fight 4819 is what I’d go with if we change the title, but I think the current title is fine. SchindHaughton (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Delta Flight 4819 which is also used in WP:RSes. guninvalid (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous movers: @Dan Leonard @MSWDEV @Astropulse guninvalid (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for setting this discussion up. @Guninvalid :) MSWDEV (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Connection Flight 4819 This is a Delta Connection flight, not a Delta Air Lines flight. Delta Connection flights are very commonly misconstrued as Delta Air Lines flights which are not the same.
Regionally operated flights via Delta are operated by a regional carrier such as SkyWest Airlines or Endeavor Air in this case while doing business as Delta Connection. These flights are not directly operated by Delta Air Lines and I fear naming the page as "Delta Air Lines" would be inaccurate and create a further misunderstanding that this flight was directly operated by Delta Air Lines as one of their primary non-regional flights.
Delta even refers to the flight as "Delta Connection flight 4819, operated by Endeavor Air" directly in their news articles on https://news.delta.com/ MSWDEV (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might be using this bot system incorrectly. I think my original post above should be "No move" or "Oppose Move"?

Anyways. Delta themselves use Delta Connection as a dba/brand as a way to discern flights that are operated directly by Delta Air Lines versus flights that are operated by regional carriers such as SkyWest Airlines, Republic Airways or in this case Endeavor Air. MSWDEV (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like the previous one operate under American Eagle. Which, I will maintain my opinion: Keeping difference between parent and their regional brand. Awdqmb (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No move, current title is sufficient and is the plurality of what news/sources are calling it at this time. Specifically oppose changing name to "Delta Air Lines" or "Endeavor Air". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Connection Flight 4819. It is sufficient enough. I don't think we need to move it. LucsLee (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LucsLee: Please ensure you comment at the bottom of a discussion when you add comments, not at the top. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposer has provided no rationale whatsoever (it is literallly the placeholder text), current title makes sense so why should we move it? 2A00:23C8:AB1A:DA01:9544:19C3:16F4:41F2 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name I think this is a fine name, maybe add more information about the flight in general. Justjourney (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain current name of Delta Connection Flight 4819. No clear reason to call it something else. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - the nominator not only doesn't propose any target, they also don't give any reason at all. Malformed RM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly opened this to put a clear end to the mess of people moving and unmoving this article. I've given a small argument but I'm not particularly concerned how this particular move actually goes. This is closer to a RfC then to a RM as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name. Unnecessary. The current title name is sufficient enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support move Sources have been using both "Endeavor Air Flight 4819" and "Delta Connection Flight 4819" (as well as the god awful "Delta Air Lines Flight 4819"). Suggest using the Endeavor Air title after having the Comair Flight 5191 precedence. Delta uses both "Endeavor Air Flight 4819" and "Delta Connection Flight 4819".: [2]. Delta Connection does not have an IATA flight number so it would be impossible for it to be a "Delta Connection flight". Even sources mention that the flight was operated by regional subsidiary "Endeavor Air" (see: [3], [4], [5]) hence the name change. We have been having this discussion over and over again of whether we should use the operator name, the brand name (or now even the mainstream airline name). This has been going on for years now, this should end here with a healthy discussion on what should be used in general for the title for all regional aviation accidents. GalacticOrbits (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IATA or ICAO code should define the use of flight number. And both airlines invloved used their brand name refer the flight in their official statement. I think United (and old Continental) will also do this in same circumstances. Awdqmb (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should. Endeavor Air calls it "Endeavor Air Flight 4819" while Delta calls it both "Delta Connection Flight 4819" and "Endeavor Flight 4819". Not a single Wikipedia article uses the "Delta Connection" name in the title. The callsign and flight numbers were aall under Endeavor Air so the operator would be "Endeavor Air" and hence, Endeavor Air would be responsible for the flight. Delta Connection isn't an airline/operator, it's just a brand name. The true operator is Endeavor Air (definitely not Delta Air Lines). GalacticOrbits (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed earlier in the mid-air collision article, the media calls it whatever it feels will get the most attention. Think we should wait to see what Canada's TSB or the NTSB calls this accident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about similar ones, like American Eagle, United Express, Continental Express and Northwest Airlink? All these have accident pages directly named after them, although none of them are "real" operater, but just regional brands from major airlines.

There was no accidents really named after Delta Connection, because all invloved airlines for now have more popularity to use, like Comair or Atlantic Southeast Airlines or Skywest Airlines. But that doesn't mean all future occurrences should also avoid using Delta Connection, right? Awdqmb (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For these airlines, some of their incident articles use the brand name while others use the true operator.

AVAir Flight 3378 and Flagship Airlines Flight 3379 for American Eagle; CommutAir Flight 4933 for United Express; Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286, ExpressJet Airlines Flight 2816 for Continental Express; Colgan Air Flight 3407 for Continental Connection; and Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 for Northwest Airlink.

American Eagle Flight 4184, American Eagle Flight 5452, American Eagle Flight 5456 for American Eagle; United Express Flight 2415, United Express Flight 5925, United Express Flight 6291 for United Express; Continental Express Flight 2574 for Continental Express; and Northwest Airlink Flight 2268, Northwest Airlink Flight 5719 for Northwest Airlink. This inconsistency is well against the consistency in article titles and should be resolved.

I think resolving this would require an update at WP:AATF for generalizing a conventional name to regional airlines via a thorough discussion. Even the NTSB refers to these accidents very differently if you review each report so on second thought, waiting for the report would be rather trivial. The FAA reported this to be "Delta Air Lines Flight 4819": [6]. If this discussion were to take place, I believe we should name it to the regional operator name as opposed to the brand name it was operating under since that brand technically can't operate a flight (no IATA or ICAO flight numbers). GalacticOrbits (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest those differences may because WP:COMMONNAME. Like, here at Kegworth Air Disaster, we don't call it British Midlands Flight 92, or Munich Air Disaster, which we also don't call it British European Airways Flight 609. So, here I suggest to use a more common name. But at least I oppose to use its parent, since they will directly tell you DL1234 is operated by Endeavor Air DBA Delta Connection. Awdqmb (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're indeed correct, the common name has been in use for these articles but the problem is that the media is very unreliable with the names of airlines involving regional operators. For U.S. airlines, the NTSB has also never zeroed in on a name (see the reports for Continental Express Flight 2574 or American Eagle Flight 4184 versus Trans-Colorado Airlines Flight 2286 or AVAir Flight 3378)

WP:COMMONNAME, although a great guideline to follow, has been causing severe inconsistencies within these articles and its about time to settle on a generic standard for such incidents. GalacticOrbits (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Delta Connection Flight 4819 is an appropriate title.
Support move - In the past, when an accident involved a regional airline operating under the brand name Delta Connection, the name of the airline is used in the page title. Just look at the page titles for the Delta Connection accidents listed on the template for Delta Air Lines. The page titles for every Delta Connection accident has the airline in it except for the one involved in the LAX Runway collision. - Omega13a (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, WikiProject Toronto, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Minnesota, WikiProject Ontario, WikiProject Aviation, and Canadian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Support move to Delta Air Lines Flight 4819 I support a move as I feel that a general audience doesn’t understand what Delta Connection or Endeavor Air is. They just know they bought a ticket from Delta. That’s by design, US carriers have made very little effort to explain the difference. However, that’s not really the point I want to make... I think a broader discussion needs to be had about how we name these flights and in turn how we name these pages. This is not the venue for that discussion. I would suggest that this needs to be a request for comment from the broader Wikipedia community. Personally I believe that only having talk page or Wikiproject discussions has failed to include a broad cross section of editors who can be a “voice of the reader” — they just get too bogged down in rather pedantic arguments about operators, brands, ownership structures and callsigns — and ignore that we are supposed to be writing an article encyclopedia for the general public and not a specialist trade publication. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name - In a quick survey of media articles, I found references to all three: Delta Connection Flight 4819, Delta Flight 4819 or Delta Air Lines Flight 4819. I think the current name for the page is fine. I would not be opposed to the simpler Delta Flight 4819, but I think the current name is accurate and fine. - Dyork (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current name - renaming it to Delta Flight 4819 would imply that it was operated by Delta Air Lines, which it was not ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Delta is calling the flight Delta Connection flight 4819 or Endeavor flight 4819, but not Delta Air Lines flight 4819 ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current name/Oppose, per everyone else. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current name 'Delta Connection Flight 4819' - Most articles of this nature use the regional brand (rather than mainline brand or operator name), cf. American Eagle Flight 4184 and United Express Flight 5925, since the general public are unfamiliar with regional operators.

Tonyle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 February 2025 (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.

Important info?

List of airports receiving diverted fights

https://x.com/flightradar24/status/1891619324495827414 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned in #Aftermath - "Montréal–Trudeau International Airport and Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport were reported to be in the process of accepting "several diversion flights" following the incident." SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a picture of the aircraft involved

I was wondering if we could use this picture of the aircraft involved if we’re able to get permission to use it…https://www.flickr.com/photos/39384553@N03/7851920030/ LawrenceAndTheBitesOf87 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - if you can contact the author + get appropriate permission. Timtjtim (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2600:1009:B17A:655:C80F:7040:2233:3098 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change thumbnail

May we use this photo as the thumbnail? It shows the whole crash site as opposed to the current one that shows only the front nose. YYZBrennan (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo currently being used is a lot clearer than the one you linked, granted the relatively small size of the aircraft and the snow doesn't help. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free image is not allowed when free images exist. Period. I've changed it back off of the non-free image for that reason. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be passive aggressive... "A non-free image is not allowed when free images exist." would have sufficed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it sounded passive aggressive. I didn't mean it that way - I merely meant that non-free images aren't allowed when free images exist "regardless of the reason, with no exception", etc. I used "period" as a shorthand for explaining that which would've been better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point!

Also, I do like the high resolution of your photo @YYZBrennan albeit a significant portion of the photo is snow on the ground and it is somewhat more difficult to see in thumbnail format.

I assume you work at YZZ considering your username? Are you able to provide a better close-up photo? MSWDEV (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't work at YYZ; this was only what I was able to see from public spots as an aviation photographer. YYZBrennan (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, have another photo of the right wing and tail sperated from the aircraft sitting on the runway.

Photo YYZBrennan (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could be added somewhere else in the page, SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be added under the crash section. YYZBrennan (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s probably the best place for it. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it. YYZBrennan (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what policy is this? This is the first time I have been made aware of it. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be in regards to W:NFC MSWDEV (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, here is the specific link to the right section: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." MSWDEV (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists the criteria for using non-free content. Specifically criteria one No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I was wondering if we could use this picture of the aircraft involved https://live.staticflickr.com/8308/7851920030_ace4601d30_o_d.jpg 2600:1009:B17A:8133:65CA:1B6F:6B6E:5A48 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That image is copyrighted and not released under a free license. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done 2600:1009:B17A:655:C80F:7040:2233:3098 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metric rather than Imperial

Should the article not use Metric measurements first since the incident happened in Canada? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should, especially given the fact the article was created in Canadian English and there is no consensus to change that. I've edited to ensure they are km/h first followed by mph and knots conversions for what I saw at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the notable exception of the former Soviet Union, International aviation uses feet and knots as the primary units of measurement. The article should reflect this. Mjroots (talk)

Aviation does use knots as the primary wind speed... so I'd at most support a change to knots (with conversions to km/h and mph in that order). But if a non-knots unit is going to be given as the primary unit, it should be km/h. Not mph (with km/h and knots as conversions). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

knots is used in aviation, but I'm not sure it is nearly as easily imaginable as km/h, mph for the general audience. Anyways, I agree, it should be km/h as the primary unit if not knots, and if knots, km/h first in conversions. Keita2282 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots

who are the pilots? 2607:FEA8:5CE5:B00:2694:DA98:45F7:11FE (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will be revealed in the investigation report, not sure how it is relevant in this context though. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not sure how the pilots are relevant to an airplane crash? HmmInterdasting (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why, only relevant if it was pilot error. That will all be revealed soon. Currently that information is not needed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to claim Coulter's law this early in an investigation is not fair to Delta. Clearly there's no need to know the pilots, because we never learn those in other crashes. 68.57.254.60 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the investigation report has been released or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the pilots names should be on this article. The names should be included for the same reason that the captain's name is included on the "RMS Titanic" article and the pilots names are included on every plane crash article I've ever read prior to this one. It's about describing an historical event. HmmInterdasting (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLPNAME. Just because they were pilots doesn't mean they deserve to have their names on Wikipedia. For their own privacy, we prefer to keep names of living persons off. guninvalid (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most investatigations won't reveal pilot names for the sake of privacy. If names are discussed, they are really only used internally or in court cases for negligence. Most investatigations of pilot error will only list their credentials but leave their names off for privacy. guninvalid (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPNAME SimplyLouis27 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video

A video of the crash has been posted on X (formerly Twitter). Shows a lack of flaps, high rate of descent, undercarriage collapse and flip over. Might be worth adding in an External links section. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution against it per WP:ELNO #1. There's nothing in the video that wouldnt be included in a full article. guninvalid (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a very hard landing. There are surprising similarities with Jeju Air Flight 2216 though fortunately a much better outcome. We can add the flight crew debrief to the article when it's made public. --Ef80 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are useful if links die, imo. 68.57.254.60 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be security camera footage from off the end of the runway showing the crash. Can someone find a copy and upload it? Does it meet the WP:TOO in Canada? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone find a suitable photo of the plane from the wingless side? The curent photos are of the dismembered wing and tail, and the fuselage from the side where the wing is still attached. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get a picture of that side, but it was hard due to the police shutting down that area. YYZBrennan (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The flaps and slats were deployed - why was there a lack? NSX-Racer (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been mistaken about that. Just before the landing it may be that the flaps can be seen down. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding Good News

I love Wikipedia and even donate once a year. That being said. Why, when a miraculous story like the Delta Plane Crash in Toronto, with no deaths, doesn't warrant a place on the "In The News" section of the Wikipedia Home Page? Only plane crashes with deaths get those spots. For once, some good news. It should be giving the front page. 97.115.141.196 (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it up with WP:ITN. They rejected the proposal for this to be posted on the ITN section -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised not to see it there. It seems to have been rejected because nobody died, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to me, especially when so much peripheral trivia is accepted there. --Ef80 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. If you would like to take it back, I would certainly voice support. But consensus is against us and some other incidents where people did die were dismissed as routine, so I see no reason it will be accepted on a second nom. guninvalid (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think WP:STICK applies here. WP processes result in some strange decisions sometimes. --Ef80 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wind in the lead

I wondered, is everybody happy with that, I feel like it just doesn’t really belong in the lead. I think it would fit best into something like “circumstances”. Thoughts? Squawk7700 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feels undue. Feels like we're leading the reader, in Wikivoice, to come to the conclusion that the wind was the causal factor in the crash when we don't know (and it seems unlikely.) I move to remove it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done guninvalid (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]