This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents B‑class 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles Death Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Disaster management B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indonesia B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From Flightradar24 TnC: The provided information on aircraft position and identity, in particular, originate directly from the aircraft, which transmit this information through public radio frequencies, according to the ‘Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast’ (ADS-B). The information collected and published may contain errors, due to the intrinsic limitations of radio communications (e.g. limited coverage, interference, attenuation, special weather conditions etc.), due to erroneous configuration of the ADS-B devices on board, due to negligent data entry by aircraft crew, due to erroneous position received by the aircraft GPS and due to other factors beyond the control of the Flightradar24. Data is provided for informational purposes only and is not related by any means to the safety of navigation.

Consequently, we cannot provide any type of guarantee and are neither responsible for the correctness, validity, thoroughness and accuracy of that information published, nor for the suitability of their usage for purposes other than informational only. There's no editorial and fact checking process for this. Are we sure we gonna use it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, Flightradar24 is a tracking service highly respected in the aviation community, and is used by various sources, Indonesian and international, to give a glimpse of what happened. Until KNKT or NTSB released a report on what actually happened based on the CVR and FDR, Flightradar24 is a good temporary source.

They are also significant in the investigation: the track showed a hard right bank, but debris is found on the left, which aviation analysts marked as a mid-air accident (the plane broke mid-air and scattered to places). GeraldWL 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bloat the article with the utterly predictable drivel like "the President of Poobah expressed condolences to the people of Indonesia". Just list the fawning nations or omit it entirely. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reactions" section had only three entries: "... the leadership of Malaysia, Russia and Saudi Arabia". I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag with the edit summary " why only these three?", but this tag was hastily removed as inappropriate. "Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Pakistan" have now been added. The question remains - why only these seven? There is a larger question, already expressed by some other editors, over whether this material is really encyclopaedic at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, the citation needed and clarification needed tag is not for tagging incomplete information. However, I'd like to note that this is a one-of-a-kind section in an aviation crash article-- although articles like George Floyd protests may have one, I'm not sure if condolences from international countries are even valuable in this article. GeraldWL 12:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had hoped my edit summary would have made my intentions clear. I was seeking clarification of why those three countries were in some way significant. Which tag is best for "incomplete information"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, perhaps Template:Missing information would be viable. GeraldWL 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll add that one, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know others are missing? Perhaps only seven nations could be bothered to comment. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't know. Their comments may go reported. But is the information currently in the article, whether it's compete or not, really useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no. We don't need condolences every time a plane crashes. It doesn't add much value either.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We normally omit the the world leaders' meaningless "thoughts and prayers" stuff as it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and adds nothing of value to the article. The only reason we would add any of this at all, is if any of them had anything substantive to say. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe if they were responsible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

yes, that sort of thing... - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put an edit notice to stop people from saying that all passengers died before any official announcement.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, agree. However, only admins can create an editnotice page. I'll just create the template here.

READ THIS REGARDING FATALITIES OR DEATHS There have been numerous attempts on assuming that all souls onboard are dead, due to the severity of the crash. Although logically they may be dead, it is dangerous to assume so without official announcements from the search and rescue team. Please do not add fatalities or death numbers without official statements published via reliable sources.

GeraldWL 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me is seems 99.9% probable that all are dead. As with most air accidents of this kind, the remains of most victims are never identified, and so it is eventually assumed all are dead for legal/compensation purposes. But I agree an official statement is required. Usually one is issued even before the interim flight accident report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martinevans123, and believe that it is unlikely any survived the accident. That being said, given the gravity and sensitivity, I also believe that it is a good policy to wait for an official statement. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed all of the peripheral articles required to make the readers know about people/things that were involved in this accident. I would create them at some point, but it is always good to have a helping hand.

• Laki Island
• Lancang Island
• MV Baruna Jaya (1989)
• Regent of Thousand Islands
• Bagus Puruhito - head of BASARNAS
• Soerjanto Tjahjono - head of KNKT

Feel free to add more. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that only the first two might be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Puruhito was a three-star general who previously served as the deputy chief of staff of indonesia's air force — practically the second highest man in the air force. Tjahjono is Indonesia's equivalent to Robert L. Sumwalt. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means create your four articles. Their relative notability will be duly assessed, I'm sure. Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, that'd be hard to know the exact number. But I'm sure there's a category somewhere. GeraldWL 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current RAF Deputy Commanders to Chief of the Air Staff (United Kingdom) are Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew and Air Marshal Andrew Turner. I guess similar incumbents, for that position in the Air Forces for non-English-speaking countries, would be judged on their own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: No offense, but non-English-speaking countries is a bit condescending. WP:SOLDIER don't mention any specific countries and Puruhito fulfilled number 2, 3, and 5. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No condescension intended. My point it simply that en.wiki tends to focus on English-speaking subjects. Looking forward to your articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I understand your concerns. I usually pick military and politicians biography, because these two have a very normative and standard notability threshold - as described in WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPOL. I am very welcome to see things through different viewpoints, just the Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? <- that part almost rubbed me the wrong way. Fortunately, you explained it clearly above. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Well then. Have a nice day. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add in MV Baruna Jaya (1989), which has been involved in searches following a number of aircrashes in Indonesia. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I've added it as number three in the list. The list is ordered based on importance and urgency. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 01:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work so far by all concerned. Article is almost B class. Can we please ensure that all foreign language references include both a language parameter and a translation of the title of said reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some WPs have rated it at B class. I won't be churlish and downgrade their assessments, but the above suggestion would add the icing to the cake, so to speak. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. So we're just polishing the icing on the cake, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

The Navy has uploaded a much more shorter yet better quality footage of the search effort. Should this replace or complement the footage in the s&r section? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 01:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, feel free to upload to Wikimedia Commons then put it here. Make sure to use c:Template:PD-IDGov for the license. GeraldWL 05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I have put the footage in the section. I decided to complement instead of replace the previous footage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a drop of ... 5,150 ft (1,570 m) in its last seven seconds" is, by my calculations, a vertical downward speed of ~500 miles per hour (800 km/h). is this plausible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be 501.6234 mph, if the data can be trusted. But 7 seconds is not a long sample time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very plausible if the wings are not mounted, or just if the nose is straight down. I do agree though that the sample time is short and may give a high degree of sample error. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: The Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max hit ground at ~575 mph, so I guess it is plausible. 119.82.84.240 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 says "nearly 700" mph, but wasn't that groundspeed, not vertical descent speed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently aviation experts suggest that there may be a mid-air breakup, akin to China Airlines Flight 611 (if you saw the Mayday episode you know what I'm talking about). Until we have the NTSC report, it's better to keep. this data as it may be a hint as to what happened. Media outlets also cite FR24 frequently, so I think it'd be ignorant not to cite their findings. GeraldWL 01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "aviation experts" suggest that there may have been mid-air breakup, this might be added to the article. Although, as you say, before a report is issued this may be just speculation. I see that Forbes says: "A compact area also suggests that the aircraft was intact when it hit the surface, while a widely distributed wreckage area suggests inflight breakup, with wreckage dispersing as it falls" while Bloomberg says "Indonesian investigators said the crashed Boeing Co. jet ... broke apart upon impact with water, which could rule out a mid-air breakup." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise against putting speculations in the article. Saschaporsche (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still searching for these "experts". The preliminary view of the investigating team seems to be that it broke up on impact with the sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, NTSC also recently suggested that the turbine may have still be operating upon impact of the water; they used FR24 data and the shape of the fan blade for this. Idk, information is mixing up, which is why I suggest reinstating the "current" template. I think listing notable speculations can be appropriate using appropriate wording, plus the amount of coverage on speculation must be controlled. GeraldWL 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any source(s) for "aviation experts" suggesting that there may have been mid-air breakup, please share here if possible. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't overrate the information value of that Flightradar24 plot. It doesn't make much sense considering the preliminary findings making a mid-air breakup unlikely. ADS-B data is quite grainy and often very erratic in all aspects. As such it doesn't serve any purpose in the article as of now.2A01:598:9913:5F96:78E0:A074:F7AC:41DC (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree we shouldn't give more weight on it, I feel like it's valid information to be put. Temporarily while the CVR's being searched, NTSC relies on FR24 partially to figure out what happened. If NTSC reported accurate data from the FDR in a report, we could use that and delete the FR24 data, unless some of it is cited by NTSC (it's hard to explain it here but you'll see when it's the time). GeraldWL 14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf are you talking about? WWGB (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: There should be a blue tag indicating that the investigation is still ongoing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any clues what a "blue tag" is ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, Template:Current. GeraldWL 10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be appropriate to keep the template at least until the preliminary investigation report is issued? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed now the news has slowed down - meant for articles with lots of activity when events happened and the activity has slowed down to some extent. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, not really. The template says: "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is true for now, since there's a lot of mish-mash of information, seeable at the Investigation section. GeraldWL 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template is used on pages with many frequent edits. It has nothing to do with progress of the investigation. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the tag's contents as such? I think it's very crucial to put it for the sake of the readers, concerning what's said. GeraldWL 01:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is: "It was revealed that the passengers who did not board on Flight 182 neither had their COVID-19 testing results expired,[35] nor they were not able to afford the test prior to the flight health and safety regulations regarding COVID19."

I cannot figure out what is trying to be said here. Can someone who understands please rewrite this?

Thanks

199.46.251.141 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

I gave it a shot, according to the translated articles it looks like some people could not get on the flight due to not being able to produce negative COVID tests. It could still use some better rewording. - Alpacaaviator (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swap either and or for neither and nor and it makes perfect sense. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the overlong and needlessly detailed discussion of passengers Shelfi Ndaro and Feliks Wenggo, who apparently boarded the flight using fraudulent ID cards. I think it's important to—if possible—clarify whether the ID cards were literally fake, or were stolen or borrowed from similar looking people. However, the cited sources are written in the Indonesian language, which I can't read at all, and I know better than to trust Google Translate about a potentially fine distinction such as this! Could someone who is proficient in Indonesian please clarify this if possible? Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very wise move. I found an English language source, from Jakarta Globe, here, but not sure how reliable it is. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Quoting from the article: Shelfie used an ID card belonging to work colleague Sarah Beatrice Alomau. Whilst Felix got on the plane as his nephew Teofilus Lau Ura, or also known as Teo... "Beatrice never gave her identity (be it ID card or other documents)," Richard said. The English translation is awkward, but it sounds as though they were using ID cards taken from a similar-looking friend and relative respectively. However, to complicate matters, the statements [Beatrice] still holds her ID card to this day. "The problem here is that Sriwijaya Air allowed Shelfie to fly without presenting real proof of identity," he added.. strongly implies that Sriwijaya Air let them travel using ID that is not officially issued by the government and/or obviously belongs to others on close examination, but it is not clear which (or both). The waters remain muddy. We still need clarification from other sources. Carguychris (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to give people's names here - BLP applies here - both for the people whose identities may have been used (who are still alive) and the people who may have used the false identities (even if they are dead - WP:BDP applies to the recently dead). The article can, if necessary, discuss the issue without giving names.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further and state that unless this somehow caused the crash then it should all just be removed as an irrelevant distraction. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points. I have extensively edited the section to comply with WP:BDP and eliminate irrelevant and disputed information. To address the other point, given that the passengers' actions have received significant press coverage, I think the reference should be left in the article until the authorities positively determine that the passengers had nothing to do with the crash. Carguychris (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure if you scrutinized any given airline flight you would find ID issues with some people, it is probably not that uncommon or in anyway way relented to the crash. By leaving it in the article we are sort of implying that these people had some role in the crash in some way, when there is no evidence for that at this point in time. I'm moving the paragraph in question here until it can be shown to be of any relevance at all to the article. Please feel free to put it back in if it can be shown to be so:

During the recovery operation, it was revealed that two passengers had boarded the flight fraudulently using identity cards bearing the names of other living persons known to them. Both passengers were positively identified, along with the persons whose identities were used and who were not on the flight. A lawyer for one of the living persons contacted Sriwijaya Air's office to correct the misinformation, and criticized the airline for allowing the passengers to use improper identification, suggesting that an investigation be conducted to determine how they bypassed security.[1][2]

Can we please settle this one? Again the "missing" parameter has been emptied from the infobox. At the very least, it should state that those on board are missing. Four days on and not a single survivor has been located. It is not unreasonable to state that all on board have died. Nobody can survive under water for four days unaided. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All are dead, according to BBC and The New York Times. We are required to follow reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, I inspected the sources: none say that all are dead. NYT simply says "expected". GeraldWL 05:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not inspect close enough. BBC says "killing all 62 people on board." in the first paragraph. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the exact same thing. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, what expertise do BBC have in order to assume so? This is probably the logic thing again. As this is a recent events, news reports may be unreliable and require thorough inspection. Classic sensationalism, imo. The fact's that not all passengers have been found, so unless the investigators assume so, ourselves and media outlets stating that they're dead is all just own thoughts and are invalid. GeraldWL 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, BBC is considered a reliable source, and we follow reliable sources. Of course "not all passengers have been found", it's a high speed plane crash, most pax have disintegrated. You are welcome to start a RfC if you think the BBC is not a reliable source. You don't need to keep tagging me, this page is on my watch list. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though BBC is reliable, it's not good practice to just consider all their works reliable. If NYT publishes an article of misinformation, are they still a good link to cite? Of course not. For me, assumptions of dead as of now is WP:OR and cannot be put without an official statement. GeraldWL 05:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT says "No survivors from the flight are expected to be found", different than inequivocally saying they are dead. Source that are generally reliable can still be inaccurate at times, such as when we see sources that conflict (see Wikipedia:Inaccuracy). If the WP:WEIGHT of sources is inconclusive, we should make the most conservative statement, or say nothing at all.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing is OK, fatalities should be based on an offical statement or identification of the victims. --WikiHannibal (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Herald is saying "There are no signs of survivors". Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's merely "signs". GeraldWL 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we put near the top of the article "As of 13 January 2021, no survivors have been discovered," or something along those lines? Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpacaaviator, I expanded the lead. See if it's in your best interest. GeraldWL 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

survivors : 0 Alexhayton6734 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @Alexhayton6734: whilst I appreciate the reasons for your request, this issue is being discussed in the section immediately above. You are welcome to comment there so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be formed. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this article is currently being tagged to be consistent with British English. Is the article currently consistent? I'm not really a fan of ENGB, since some of its conventions (i.e. colour) are red-underlined in my desktop when in editor mode. I suggest using an ENGVAR that most editors here can handle with, so that we don't need consistency checks all the time, and revert edits just because they're against the ENGVAR policy. The list of ENGVARs are listed at the documentation of Template:British English. GeraldWL 14:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest we got with? The nearest major country to Indonesia that speaks English as its native language is Australia. Do we go for {{Australian English}}? Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Boeing 737 is an American aircraft but I might be a little biased, though I'd say that's more relevant than Australia being the closest country. I'm also not at all familiar with Wikipedia policy on this matter. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ENGVAR - "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." - in this case there are no strong ties to a variety, then we go with consistent usage in the article - if the article was started in British English, then it shouldn't be changed just because some editors arn't "really a fan of ENGB".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User talk:Nigel Ish, it was started as British English and that should be maintained. If your browser is set up for American or some other variation of English then just fix your browser settings to add an additional language and then choose which one to use. Easy to do in most browsers, like Firefox, for instance. The rest is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pare this down: The six extra deadheading crew were scheduled to board for NAM Air Flight 79 and take off on 07:00 WIB (00:00 UTC).[29] However, NAM Air Flight 79 was reported not operating, and the crew and passengers were transferred to Flight 182.[30] So was it only the six crew, or was it also some of the passengers? Again, I can't read Indonesian, and I distrust automated online translations of complex news articles. Carguychris (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were 6 active crew plus 6 inactive crew; the 6 inactive were "deadheading", i.e. riding in the back as passengers, but when doing this they still officially count as crew members. Alpacaaviator (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what he asked, though. Based on an automated translation, some of the passengers were transferred, too. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Were any revenue passengers transferred from the NAM flight to the Sriwijaya flight? The second quoted sentence implies that some were. Carguychris (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. At least 7 passengers were transferred to the Sriwijaya flight. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have your solemn word that this is explained in the second citation? Carguychris (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second citation doesn't specify the number of passengers who got transferred. It does confirm that several passengers from NAM Air had been transferred to Sriwijaya Air. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the section for brevity and clarity. Carguychris (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So can someone add a survivors column and type in 0 (presumed) 66.244.122.53 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Here at Wikipedia we don't speculate. We need a reference that says everyone died first. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have two reliable sources which say that everyone was killed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, that assume everyone was killed. In this particular case, they're unreliable. GeraldWL 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know they're "unreliable". When an officially statement is issued, they'll suddenly be "reliable" again? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, exactly. That's how things work. If NASA sent a rocket to space and BBC thinks that it might fall but it hasn't, it can't be reliable unless it truly fell. However we must use the sources confirming that it did fall and not the opinionated BBC source. GeraldWL 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know everyone's dead, don't we. But yes, that's "how things work" at Wikipedia. I'd only expect some rockets to fall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the moment this pandemic ends and I can gather with my friends, every of their talks will need a source. GeraldWL 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the crash, Indonesia's Aviation Safety Record is being questioned. In 2018 A Kion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed into the Java Sea after taking off from Jakarta, in 2016 A Boeing 737 Collided With an ATR during takeoff, in 2014 An AirAsia A320 crashed into the Java Sea during Bad Weather, In 2013 A Lion Air 737 Missed the runway and ended up in the water near Bali during bad weather, In March 2007 A Garuda Indonesia 737-400 Suffered a hard landing and ended up in a nearby embankment, In January 2007 An Adam Air 737 Nosedived into the Makassar Strait During Very Severe Weather. Indonesia's Poor Aviation History saw Carriers being banned from the EU in 2007 and it was only in June 2018 that the full ban was lifted, Also the U.S Lowered its Indonesia Safety Evaluation to Category 2, Meaning Its Regulatory System is Inadequate, Between 2007 and 2016. Aviation Experts Have Expressed Their Concerns Over Maintenance and Operational issues involved in returning aircraft and pilot to service after the slowdown of covid-19. Investigators will need to carefully examine the maintenance record for the plane and the training the pilots went through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarYT2389 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to add it in the article? Is this your personal opinion or there's a general public concern on this matter? PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Accident" is itself speculation. The Infobox and photo caption both list crash as "Accident". What is the Wikipedia guideline / rule on this labeling convention? There has been a movement away from calling automobile crashes "accidents". What is the convention with like the NTSB, or the European BEA? truthdowser (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]