Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661/Archive 1

Archive 1

48?

CNN and NYTimes seem to now be reporting it as 47 passengers and crew (rather than 48). Could someone look into this and correct it if appropriate? Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The 48th passenger seems to be the ground engineer according to PIA press release. Wykx (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, NYTimes says there are 47 bodies [1] while acknowledging that PIA had previously said there were 48 people on board. Dragons flight (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed the airline has now corrected [2] so we should update to 47. Wykx (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be renamed?

I think the article should have the name of a redirect, i.e., ″Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661″. The current name definitely does not reflect its content. Actually, PIA takes the reader to a disambiguation page. Finally, ″PIA″ is just an acronym for the airline's actual name and article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Already moved.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW there are quite a few articles called "PIA Flight ..." so it might be worth being consistent and fixing them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.145.98.162 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverse Trust or Propeller going into reverse pitch (Ground Lock)

The sharp and steep dive as depicted in Flightwatch graph clearly shows that aircraft was having no lift which means no forward thrust instead negative thrust.

FDR readouts will produce exact cause 2605:6000:151B:F1:C153:2BA5:8E86:B5 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a part of the article that you think should be changed? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Faulty engine, a/c not fit to fly

The Times (subscription required) is reporting that there was a defect on one of the engines and that engineers had not cleared the aircraft to fly. I don't have a full subscription to The Times so am unable to fully verify the story. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"PIA chairman Azam Saigol told reporters: The ATR-42 aircraft involved in the crash had undergone regular maintenance, including an 'A-check' certification in October ... "I want to make it clear that it was a perfectly sound aircraft," Saigol said, ruling out technical or human error." [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2016

In the section "Crash", the verb "broadcast" is incorrectly conjugated. The rest of the sentence and section is the past tense, and broadcast should accordingly be in the "broadcasted" – unless the intention is to say the mosques are continuously broadcasting still. Arclighthouse (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you might read [4]. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Broadcast" is an irregular verb. The past tense conjugation of "broadcast" is usually just "broadcast" not "broadcasted" [5][6]. Dragons flight (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Chairman of PIA resigns. Does this need to be included?

The chairman of Pakistan International Airlines has resigned and sources in the web have clashing reports for the reason. Do you think the resignation needs a mention here? Vignyana (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is confirmed and a consequence of the crash, yes. WWGB (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References in infoboxes

I made the edit where I omitted the references in the infobox as they are already mentioned in the article. It doesn't need to be cited twice if it is already in the article text with a citation. It makes the infobox look lackluster and defeats the point of an infobox. Why was my edit undone? I don't want to revert anything without making sure. Tntad (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct WP:INFOBOXREF. WWGB (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Template:Infobox Aircraft occurrence doesn't mention any references and shows no references in the examples. But I'm not sure using them makes it "look lackluster and defeats the point". I don't think they are currently prohibited. Maybe you should open a discussion thread at the Template page to clarify this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I made a discussion at Template:Infobox Aircraft occurrence about this. It really does not make sense to have it referenced twice which is something I think is already prohibited. I guess we should wait until the verdict is decided there. Tntad (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, WWGB is quite correct about the general policy of WP:INFOBOXREF. There may be some special considerations for this type of infobox, I'm not sure. Hopefully discussion over there will bring anything to light. But I'd agree that edit summaries are useful when reverting an edit that is not obviously vandalism. That's policy too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)