Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Image

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone replace the aircraft image with an image without any watermarks or photographer logos for the plane? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 15:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources: liveatc

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For what it's worth, the primary source referred to by the Reuters article (which is not linked to, however), is here (As of May 22^[update], it's on top of the list). The description they give seems accurate and Reuters is a trustworthy source, but if anybody is interested in checking it too, it can be done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Victims

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

User:WWGB seems to be under the impression that the executive of a national bank and director of a national television show are somehow not notable. Bizarre. ——Serial^# 15:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Would those people qualify for an article under Wikipedia:Notability (people)? If so, they'd be notable. Also check if they have articles in non-English wikis. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

~~Both of them fails WP:N.~~ --Saqib (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess one of the two survivors Zafar Masood who is president of Bank of Punjab merits notability now. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Now the article writes 3 survivors, but the introduction still is "The city's mayor, Waseem Akhtar, said that there had been no onboard survivors". This should be cleared up, right now it is not clea how many really survived. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The article suggests that there may be four survivors. But Waseem Akhtar did say that. So both statements are true? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To complicate matters the info box gives "2". So yes, not the clearest information. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The number of survivors has now been resolved. But I suggest that the statement by Waseem Akhtar, even though it was incorrect, should remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't understand why this section just talks about COVID-19 and the demand for travel after, it's completely unrelated to the incident no? --MattBinYYC (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed this was implying that the crash could not have happened six days earlier when domestic flights were still suspended. But this can hardly be "aftermath". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Zafar Masud

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My search only showed up Zafar Masud, and his LinkedIn profile and Twitter account also spelled his last name Masud. Most news agencies also had the same spelling too...Not to be confused with the same name who was a Pakistani air force officer. KMagz04 (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that the name is spelled Zafar Masood and red-linked at the article for Bank of Punjab. But if most English sources say Masud, maybe that's a better spelling. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803

Why has this article been moved from its correct title of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303? WP:AVIMOS states that where a flight number is known the article title takes the form (airline) (flight number) (disambiguator [if needed]). Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And what's going on with the cut-and-paste moves? This is getting confusing. This article is now linked to the Main Page.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand either...There were a few (one at least by me, but that was the original articles) good faith page moves, and I think one which lost the history, but somehow I think it's been sorted: the history is certainly complete anyway? (Whic, per WP:ATT, is the main thing.) ——Serial^# 12:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

~~Mjroots move protection, it should be clarified that, actually it had only been moved once, which hardly a "Move war" makes. ——Serial^# 12:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)~~

Scrub that. Mjroots, I think there's two' copies of the article! ——Serial^# 12:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: - this is the talk page of the title I moved it to in error - Flight 3803, not Flight 8303! Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Castrovalva effect

Mjroots I'm now totally confused; so there is one article, but two talk pages?! ——Serial^# 13:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, yes. Will copy the text over to here and that will fix the issue. Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess Schrodinger would hae been a better title for this secion :) cheers, ——Serial^# 13:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up at #Recent merge. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive/less

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yes very clever, @Wbm1058: thanks for your processwonkery, it's very useful. Those sections were deliberately archived because they had ceased to be of relevance. They were each with regard to previous moves/versions of the page which had been resolved and would only serve to sow greater confusion among newcomers to the talk. Yes, as such, we are better off without them. ——Serial^# 16:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up at #Recent merge. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Flight manifest

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have the actual flight manifest with me but don't know how to upload it without the fear of it having removed or me getting blocked. Any help would be welcome. Guy in the Mall (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wot does it look like, Guy in the Mall, is it just a page of text? ——Serial^# 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guy in the Mall: See WP:NOTMEMORIAL - does the manifest add any useful information? We know the numbers of passengers and crew, which is usually sufficient. Ground casualties (if any) currently unknown, but possible. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Usually flight manifests are just text, essentially a list of names. Sometimes they may have nationalities added. @Mjroots: I recall back in the 2000s and early 2010s just adding flight manifests as external links (but not in the article itself). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WhisperToMe for clarifying; I was a little concermed in case nowadays they had pictures, personal details etc. Cheers, ——Serial^# 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You're welcome. I couldn't find the said manifest on the PIA website and I'm not sure if Pakistani government agencies have posted it, so I'm not sure which details are on it. There was a South American case where the airline also posted national ID (except in one case, passport) numbers and flight origins of the victims, though all the victims were deceased. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's flight manifest. --Saqib (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that being an external link. Note the passenger ID #s are blacked out so I don't see BLP issues with this. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

PIA also posted a manifest which only has names, seat numbers, and genders - no other information. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent merge

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

A recent page merge by Wbm1058 has lost much of the history; I wrote ~90% of "this" article, but you wouldn't know that from the history! See [1], for example. Sup? ——Serial^# 09:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, you were involved in these early page moves, if you remember; any idea what's happened? ——Serial^# 09:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The article was originally created at the correct title. It got moved three or four times before I restored it to the correct title, although I did briefly have it at an incorrect title (flight 3803

). I did see mention of a copy-paste move having been made. Merging page histories is not something I have ever done. It's quite complicated and best left to other admins who are competent in that area. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

History

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 was created at 10:17, 22 May 2020 by Ahmer Jamil Khan (Creating article about crash 10 minutes ago)
2020 Karachi plane crash, a content fork, was created at 10:47, 22 May 2020 by Serial Number 54129 (30 minutes later)
at 11:04, 22 May 2020 Serial Number 54129 moved page 2020 Karachi plane crash to 2020 Karachi Airbus A-320 crash (general trend)
at 12:29, 22 May 2020 RedBulbBlueBlood9911 moved page 2020 Karachi Airbus A-320 crash to 2020 Karachi Airbus A320 crash (A320 is the proper model number of the aircraft)
at 12:49, 22 May 2020 Mjroots moved page 2020 Karachi Airbus A320 crash to Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 (per WP:MPE, WP:ITNC and WP:AVIMOS)
at 12:54, 22 May 2020 Mjroots moved page Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 to Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 (typo)

I've placed a {{copied}} template at the top of this talk page and on Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 documenting the merge of this fork into the original article. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Yes, it became somewhat (read: completely) byzantine; but, if the edits themselves are still in the article, how come they don't show up in the history, or here? I thought a WP:HISTMERGE would do that? But yeah, these cross-referncing section headers are cool. ——Serial^# 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As documented by the template at the top of this page, the edits to your fork prior to the merge are HERE in the page history of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 (the "typo" title). Occasionally I "ignore rules" and co-mingle parallel histories but not for something this extensive. Algorithms for determining authorship based on page histories may vary between the different tools that do this. I'm not familiar with all the algorithms. A more sopisticated algorithm would examine the parallel history at the fork but a less-sophisticated algorithm may give extra credit to the editor who merged the content (in this case, Mjroots). That's unfortunate, but to avoid this issue in the future I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with the naming conventions for the topic area, and look a little harder for existing articles before starting a new one. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you'd prefer to lecture me on content, and considering the best thing you ever seem to have written is a list of Simpsons episodes, I'll take your advice with a pinch of the proverbial, then. All the best! ——Serial^# 15:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

When I ran for adminship, I pointed to Timeline of DOS operating systems as my best effort at creation for a single article (started by someone else, but "finished" by myself... someday). I've made no substantial contribution to the content of List of The Simpsons episodes. As I said, I don't know the details about how the stats are determined, but it says I'm only responsible for 4% of "authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces". As for the 33.3% "by added text", I'll guess that's a result of my stopgap efforts to get the page out of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, where that list has frequently landed in the past. I'll guess that when I substituted some templates transcluding large amounts of content, I was inappropriately credited with "creating" content where all I did was substitute a transcluded page. My work on that list has been virtually entirely focused on solving technical issues with content presentation there. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Survivors found

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Moved from Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803

Page editors not letting me add, proper references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudpak (talk • contribs) 12:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Proudpak: The updates have been applied! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:N is only for creating articles. People only notable for one event can be mentioned based on the WP:1E. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Victim nationalities

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Before you add victim nationalites, be sure you have a source for what you say. There's no source that claims all passengers bar one were Pakistanis. Be careful and don't resort to your conjectures even if you may think it's obvious. What you think is obvious is not necessarily correct. Addition of number of nationalities without any source explicitly saying so, will be reverted. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Since people won't listen to me, and keep adding 98 passengers as Pakistan nationals without a source saying so, I have removed the passenger nationality table. No one is trying to discuss it. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So far, to my knowledge, PIA has not released any nationality count. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

How is Legacy.com reliable? I notice it is an obituary website but I doubt it collected its own information concerning the nationalities of 98 people onboard the plane being Pakistanis. WWGB, you added it but can you explain where foes it usually get its information from. And from wherever it does, do you have any proof that it verified the nationalities. It refers to CNN for full story, but the article it links to only mentions the American national, CNN does not mention numbers of Pakistani nationals. If that it's source, the article cannot be taken as reliable. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Legacy.com is not on the list of deprecated sources so I have no problem using it. I don't need to "explain" or "prove" anything. WWGB (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WWGB It is not deprecated, but that doesn't make it automatically reliable. Especially, I beleieve I can claim its articles are unreliable. As I have said there is no explanation of its methodology and it seems to use a CNN article as a source (which doesn't mention any nationality). There is sufficient and legit ground for doubting its reliability and therefore I believe I do have a right to ask for proof. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempted landing

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"The other survivor, engineer Zubair, told Geo News the pilot came down for one landing, briefly touched down, then took off again." But this is from a source we are no longer allowed to use: [2]. Perhaps there are other sources for this, but I guess Geo News is perfectly usable? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note, the DM also says: "Witnesses saw the plane attempt to land up to three times before the crash happened on its fourth attempt." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this may help: [3], [4], [5]. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

They say different things? Two of them seem to say there were two attempts to land. One says there were three. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The FR24 data would be the most authoritative pending official statements from authorities (it's a dedicated aviation website, the data is based on ADS-B which is generally reliable...), though of course witness statements such as the one below help... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that eyewitness accounts may be mistaken, for many different reasons. We also have potential translation issues here. But the one I've copied below does seem remarkably plausible. Especially if the ADS-B data backs it up. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"The PIA plane was flying very "smoothly" but while attempting to land, it "jolted" thrice and then the pilot "adroitly lifted" the aircraft off the ground, only to crash moments later, recounts Muhammad Zubair, one of the just two passengers who miraculously survived the fiery crash". Basically the same thing DM mentioned. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure if any of those have been recently updated. Perhaps I was confused by use of the somewhat archaic word "thrice". The first source now reports quite a clear first-hand description of what happened:

"It tried to land twice but its wheels were not coming out. And its belly touched the runway before the pilot pulled it up again. The second time he did that I saw one of its engines was on fire because it had brushed the runway. It didn’t return a third time but crashed here,” said Ijaz Masih, who witnessed the crash of the Pakistan International Airlines flight PK8303 in Model Colony, just a stone’s throw away from the Karachi airport on Friday afternoon."

I suggest we use that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

New info

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

More injuries on the ground than the 2 survivors. It was a poorer neighborhood during Friday prayers, meaning they were out to pray at mosque.

Also, final recording is available with captain saying there is engine trouble then calling mayday and ATC responding both runways are open before it stops. There's also video of the plane after crashing and as it crashes.

https://www.twincities.com/2020/05/23/turbulence-warnings-before-pakistan-plane-crash-killed-97/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.91.226 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think each of these details has been covered in the article, apart from the Friday prayers. Was the mosque damaged at all? I'm very surprised there were no deaths of residents. If 25–30 people have been hospitalised, there may still be some of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The mosque was not damaged, but it's suspected that women and children were injured more due to men being away on Friday prayers. But I decided not to add this, the injuries are only 8. If it's covered significantly, add it. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says: "Faisal Edhi said 25–30 people were hospitalised, mostly due to burns"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That's an info before I inserted Sindh government's figure. I don't know whether Edhi is wrong or his claim is older than Meeran Yousaf saying eight were injured. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have decided "the injuries are only 8". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned why in an edit summary: official statistics. They don't seem to have changed yet. Plus, the government is more likely able to correctly count and have more resources at its disposal. So I'll prefer them over some charity's spokesman. I do not see any reason for the government to lie. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The government may simply be mistaken, not necessarily "lying." Currently the article has contradictory, although fully attributed, statements. Should the statement by Faisal Edhi be removed, simply because it was made earlier? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Utilize the latest information. Because there's always updating, casualty decrease isn't rare. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there an official Pakistan Government website we should be using for this information? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm not a Pakistani I can't help you with that. I just found Meeran Yousaf saying eight were injured in a news report. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's probably ok for non-Pakistanis to use too. If there is one, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say its not "okay" to use. What I meant was that as a non-Pakistani, I am unlikely to know about such a website. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We'll I'm sorry you can't help. I think we'd both need to actively search to find one? I'm unable to even find a Ministry of Transport for Pakistan and it's not clear to me from the Government website which department has any responsibility for air travel. There's just a link to PIA, which in turn seems to have nothing at all about this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, as far as the relevant government divisions are concerned, I believe you're looking for the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority and the Aviation Division. That said, their websites do not appear to mention the accident at all, either.

Saynotodrugs12, please read WP:INDENT; as an outsider this thread is a bit difficult to follow. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, M Imtiaz. Yes, alternate indents are ok until more than two people want to discuss! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: It's not so clear from the homepage, but I found PIA did release a press release and a passenger manifest WhisperToMe (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I could not find those. I guess it's unrealistic to expect any government department to issue casualty details so quickly. I'm not sure that would even happen in UK or USA. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. by the way, that passenger list differs from the passenger flight manifest already posted in the top thread of this Talk page.

Victim notability

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Since none tried to use the talkpage again, can anyone who's removing the name of survivors tell me under which rule (link it) you are removing their names. And what makes you think they are non-notable? Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

And here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_Liberator_AL523_crash#Question

We don't name the dead, survivors, those who miss the place unless they are wikipedia notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

edit confict

@Saynotodrugs12: Firstly WP:3RR is a thing and I believe you should look at reverting your last edit as it is clear you are edit warring and could easily be blocked from editing for this already. Secondly it is very unwise to edit war against multiple different editors who are reverting your edits with sensible similar explainations, perhaps you should listen to what they have to say. Thirdly WP:BRD is a good way to behave when an edit you have boldly made (which is allowed and even encouraged) - what this means is that by rights it was you who should start the discussion on the talk page. Fourthly while there are guidelines and practices on Wikipedia nothing is cast in stone, that is to say not everything that comes up can have a specific rule that totally answers a situation, so asking blindly for a rule will often land on deaf ears. Sixthly notability on Wikipedia is a word with a specific wikipedia meaning - it means the subject has enough, significance, mana, interest (whatever) to have its own article, in the case of accidents and many other articles there is a well established consensus that incidental people without such notability are not normally named in articles, also noting that notability almost never acrues from a single event. That means that in this case notability can not be established because of being involved in the crash. Most of this is fundamental to editing Wikipedia, I know you are relatively, but not absolutely, new here so perhaps now is the time to read some of the help pages and learn from what others are telling you not fighting them. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Listen up WilliamJE, I asked you for a rule prohibiting mentioning. All you are giving me talk pages of other articles. I don't care if some other people may think their names should not be included. Unless it's a rule, their opinion is irrelevant, policies are greater than even collective opinion.

WP:1E allows mentioning of non-notable people even if notable for just one thing. And Andrewgprout, learn 3RR it's about mote than 3 reverts in 24 hours (or if you intend to continue reverting even without 3 reverts). Now neither I have made more than 3 reverts nor I have intention to continue reverting. Don't try to lecture me. The names of the survivors were already there, you and others removed it and changed the status quo. So now insert the names back, stick to WP:STATUSQUO. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Village pump (policy): There is ... consensus that these scenarios (victim lists in tragedy articles) should be handled on a case-by-case basis. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, you have added the names of two non-notable victims, Ansar Naqvi and Khalid Sherdil, here. What criteria are you advocating to select individuals? I'm assuming you would not want to add the names of all victims. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Sorry, I didn't see this section until now. As far as this article is concerned, I don't think my position would stray from the village pump discussion whose summary states mentioning notable victims should be treated on a "case-by-case basis". The rest of the links are not actually helpful given they're not an elaborate guide, Wikipedia policy, or even relevant I would say. In this case, one victim was a television journalist on a Pakistani news channel; the other was a high-ranking officer who formerly headed a major government department. Note that just because a person doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet isn't necessarily a verbatim indication or a pass to determine that they're non-notable to mention. This would especially be true for Pakistan-specific biographies, where a large number of notable people actually don't get Wikipedia articles very quickly. Notability in this case is to be decided by the preponderance of sources and coverage of the subject in numerous reliable references, which should be very easy to verify since Wikipedia depends on the merit of sources and coverage. Of the countless references covering this plane crash, including BBC, the most widely-named and identified passengers have been Naqvi, Sherdil, the Bank of Punjab's CEO (Zafar Masud), and the actress of course. Therefore my addition was simply a reflection of those, based on the coverage given to them. I have not said anywhere that the "names of all victims" need to be added, and to imply that would be highly misleading. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I said I was assuming "you would not want to add the names of all victims."? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My bad! For some reason, I also assumed it was you who removed the entries. Pinging WilliamJE, please refer to above. Mar4d (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Personally, I'm not that upset about one or two names, if they have been named in world-wide English language press coverage. But the general consensus in these aircraft accident articles seems to be to not add any. It makes life a lot simpler. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mar4d: This has been discussed ad nauseam. See the list above, which isn't even complete. There is also Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 710. American Airlines Flight 191 has had a similar discussion somewhere. Over five talk page discussions and the consensus is unless the person has a WP article or is a member of the cockpit crew they don't get mentioned. Write the article on the person....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

...William, what some consensus think don't matter. They aren't the be-all and end-all. Nor can they break policies. Mentioning names of people involved in famous incidents is allowed. And the banker Masud is independently notable. So you have no reason to remove his name. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to get involved in this matter any further. However, I do disagree with removing these particular names and will stick to my input above; if there are reliable references and coverage from mainstream sources focusing on a specific passenger, and it is apparent (after reviewing the "case-by-case" suggestion from village pump) that they are notable for some reason, then I don't see the harm in mentioning them in the victims section. There must be a reason that the sources chose to cover in greater detail only those individuals over the many others who were in that plane; and based on this, I also don't think we would be "memorialising". The requirement that only a person with an article gets a mention is overly stringent and doesn't seem to reconcile with the point that notability may be contingent based upon coverage in sources (which is what Wikipedia works on anyway). Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, Saynotodrugs12 may not be participating in this discussion for a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please adding

(Use Pakistani English date=May 2020)

to the article because this article actually written in Pakistani English. I can't edit it because it was semi-protected. 36.77.95.117 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@36.77.95.117: Those notices go on the talk page. The appropriate notice was put up there. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Which features distinguish it as " Pakistani English" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My understanding is that usually formal standardized English in Pakistan (as used in publications like Dawn) is similar to British English, but there are Pakistani terms - including numbering terms such as the lakh and crore - thrown in (as per ENGVAR English needs to be universally understood, so any references to Pakistani numbering needs to be accompanied with standard British/American ones). The article Pakistani English goes into other details. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP says: ".. this article actually written in Pakistani English." My question is: "Which features distinguish this article as being written in " Pakistani English" exactly?" Apologies if that wasn't very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Ok, so this relates to the usage in this particular article. So far there's one example: "neighbourhood" is the spelling used in the countries of the former British Empire, Pakistan included. The ENGVAR templates are also meant to be prescriptive, to tell editors to use the variety of the specific country. De facto people should just write in British English except if numbering comes up (I'm not sure if there's any difference in aviation terminology between the UK and Pakistan), but de jure ENGVAR requires this article use the formalized English in the media of Pakistan. Template:Pakistani English could be modified to tell people to generally follow British English. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm unaware of any differences, between the UK and Pakistan, in aviation terminology. Yes, the template could be modified. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I checked the templates and found it's based on Template:English variant notice. I may need to have Lua editors allow the addition of a notes section. I wish to add the following: "Do note that the formalised English used in Pakistan is similar to British English, so when in doubt follow British conventions unless/until other differences are encountered." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Are they the ones from Northern Laos??

@Martinevans123: One language difference that may come up later is the use of Indian numerals: the placement of commas is different, and number amounts not present in UK or US English such as the lakh and crore are used. For example in Dawn this 2003 article about PIA states: "He said the PIA has reduced over 60 per cent night stops in Europe which had been costing the PIA from 30 to 40 lakh rupees." If South Asian numerals are introduced, I'd add the UK standard in parentheses afterwards: "40 lakh (4 million)". Placement of commas may differ too, though it seems like Dawn uses Western comma placement in numbers. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Done I don’t see any harm in adding this. SK2242 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that, as far as I can see, it's written entirely in British English, including the work "neighbourhood." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on finding a way to amend the Pakistan template to address that. The numbering system seems to be the main difference and that may come up in amounts related to compensation (I do not know if Pakistan CAA uses those amounts in its technical reports) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That's a fair point about about "amounts related to compensation". Perhaps it's just an issue of novelty for me, being used to only ever seeing templates for either BrEng or AmerEng. I'm assuming that adding this template, even though it's currently seemingly redundant here, will help future editors and readers. Perhaps there are other articles for Pakistani air accidents or incidents that have used this template. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! I checked the Pakistan CAA site to check for examples related to aviation and I found "Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1960" which states: "[...]months or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both." on page 15 of 21. On Wikipedia I would express something like this as "one lakh rupees (100,000 rupees)" for Pakistani/South Asian and non-South Asian readers, respectively. As for the template, back in 2010 I added it to Airblue Flight 202. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

One other thing I found: some Pakistani newspaper articles may use UK/US numbering. This one about the Airblue crash states: "Rs500,000" and "$35 million". It helps to see what conventions the Pakistani newspapers use: if they use western numbering, go with that. If they use Indian ones, include US/UK conversions. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

While this is about India and not Pakistan, I found an article from an employee of the Oxford English Dictionary pointing out that Indian English users tend to use lakh/crore with their own currency and UK/US numbering with foreign currencies. So amounts in U.S. dollars, British pounds, or euros will likely use UK/US numbering. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the spelling neighbourhood the same in Pakistani English as it is in British English? If so, I have no idea how we know whether it's in British English or Pakistani English. The only issue that anyone has raised seems to be numbering conventions, but it seems that isn't always consistent in Pakistani English anyway. I see zero reason why British English should be assumed by default if it's unclear which variety is used. The same for New Zealand English, Australian English, Malaysian English, Singaporean English, Irish English or Indian English etc. In other words, the actual accurate statement is that currently, this article is in some variety of English that could be Pakistani English, or New Zealand English, or Australian English, or Malaysian English, or Singaporean English or Irish English or Indian English or yes British English or ..... In any case, WP:Engvar would seem to be clear that for an accident that happened in Pakistani, involving a Pakistani airliner, on a Pakistani domestic flight, affecting mostly Pakistani passengers, would be in Pakistani English; first variety chosen be damned. So whatever variety of English this article is in now, it should be in Pakistani English. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Although I'm not sure any variety was deliberately "first chosen", whether damned or not damned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that there are two different citations for the compensation amount from two different Pakistani papers, one expressed in Pakistani numbering (Pakistan Observer) and one in Western numbering (Dawn). Therefore I support both numberings being expressed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not added these numerials to the article, because IMO, South Asian English tends to be different in matter of commas in a number such as Indian Pakistani or any other South Asian English media tends to more example like 1,00,000 lakhs/crores as opposed to 100,000 lakhs/crore. In order to understand any non-South Asian readers, any compensation value regarding airbus crash should be placed in both South Asian and Western/non-South Asian/International numbering system respectively. 36.77.92.3 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I do notice at least some Pakistani newspapers in English have used Western comma placement. Check the articles from Dawn. However I notice amounts in lakh/crore have been put in this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we change title?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

People who would come on this page would want the details related to the crash. It took me a while to find this article. So, can we change the title that says something along "2020 Pakistan Airbus A320 crash" or "2020 Pakistan flight 8303 crash" or something along those lines?

Amazingcaptain (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, Amazingcaptain, this is the convention we always use for aviation accidents and incidents. See WP:AVIMOS#Accidents and an eerily similar failed proposal at Talk:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752/Archive 1#Rename article (January 2020). Managed to type this on the third try... so much for editing on phone. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Ran into this from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Accident_article_naming_conventions -Amazingcaptain (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that explains it even more clearly. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides, you can establish any reasonable redirects to this article. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Skull images

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Is there consensus to display human skulls on this talk page?

I've removed them twice, but have been reverted. Given that people affected by this incident may come here to seek or add information, it seems especially inappropriate.

Can anyone say what advantage displaying mages of human skulls brings to the page (I note that no one adding or restoring them has yet done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The skull image is part of Template:WikiProject Death which is used on thousands of talk pages, including those of fatal plane crashes. If you object to the image, you should take it up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Death to have the image removed from the template, rather than cherry-pick individual talk pages where you think it does not belong. This is not the place for such a discussion. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Many people - including me - have repeatedly explained to you why the skull pic is on the banner & why the banner is on talk pages of many articles. As stated by several people during a discussion at the Death project, on many talk pages of articles & in edit summaries, the skull (which is clean & whole, not smashed & bloody) is on the banner because it's a universal symbol of death & thus is an extremely appropriate & relevant image for it. Articles about transport incidents in which people were killed are explicitly within the scope of the project.

We're not going to assume good faith in regard to this, because it's been explained to you many times. You know the rules & are a highly experienced, well-educated editor who knows what you're doing in this regard is wrong.

People who are so sensitive about death that they'd be upset by very briefly seeing an image of a clean skull would not choose to read an article about a fatal crash, let alone its talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Let alone open an obscure collapsed template in the middle of another bunch of templates ;) ——Serial^# 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Beware: WikiProject Death may contain death?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to him during some of the many discussions he's taken part in following his removal of the banner that the banner is collapsed, to which he says that it's a problem that the whole banner is for some editors visible for a (split) second as the talk page loads.

This discussion in this section begins with the assertion that consensus needs to be gained in order to put an applicable project banner on the talk page. Of course it doesn't - consensus regarding the project's scope was established there years ago. I've never known a years-long edit war in regard to any other banner. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

" Let alone open an obscure collapsed template" The images are visible during page load, before the project templates collapse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Andy, visibility during page loading seems to be a function of layout of the page (e.g. number and order of other project banners) and personal page set-up (especially zoom percentage). I have enough zoom enabled that I never see it at this Talk page. If seeing that image distresses readers such as yourself that much, there ought to be technically a way of enabling a block of it's display, perhaps via display skin? At least that seems to me to be the only way round this issue at present. But wasn't there some agreement in the past that "local consensus" could be reached, at any individual Talk page, to remove the project banner? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a slow internet connection is another reason that collapsed banners are initially open for some readers as the page loads. However, none of the tiny number of people who are distressed by clean, whole skulls would choose to visit the talk pages of articles about fatal crashes. No-one comes to such an article, then its talk page, unintentionally.

I've read & contributed to many discussions relating to the years-long death banner edit war & haven't seen anything even close to an agreement about excluding the banner due to a local consensus. Also, there isn't a local consensus on any talk page to remove it & the Death proj doesn't say anything about any exceptions to its scope. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The skull image has been removed from the banner on this page only. I have no problem with that. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The image was also removed from the banner on several other talk pages, in each instance after the banner was removed & reinstated multiple times. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps I mis-remembered that. Perhaps it was just a suggestion that any such agreement ought to be made at WP:WikiProject Death, as it could potentially effect so many article Talk pages. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Extensive discussions, including on the Death Project, have taken place in regard to this issue, during the years in which the on-off edit war has been occurring. There's never been anything close to consensus to change the scope of the project, nor the application of the banner to talk pages. The large majority of the removals of the banner from talk pages of articles which clearly fit the project's scope are done by the same account. The banner was altered, but that was for a different reason. The alteration was to remove a skull and crossbones from it due to it being vague & misleading because it's a symbol of many things, including piracy & poison. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

stray comment, now moved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Saynotodrugs12, I think you may have misplaced this comment? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The mobile version of the website is bugged, I didn't misplace it, I posted it in "Victim natioanlity". Someone needs to fix it. I'm moving the comment using the desktop version. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. I sometimes get that bug on my PC. I find it's always wise to check something has appeared as expected. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)