Aviation: Accidents Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Interesting template but I would use a different color than red for the "deadliest accident". At first I thought the article was missing then realize its just a just a morbid color choice. --MarsRover (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the key, the colour should be orange. Is there any reason why it is red instead?? (i.e. unsolved crash investigation?) --79.79.133.122 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this for these templates:

v t e ← 2008 Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009 2010 →
Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics  ·  Deadliest incident shown in smallcaps
Jan 15 Makhachkala Il-76 collision Jan 15 US Airways Flight 1549 Jan 17 Gabonese helicopter crash Feb 07 Manaus Aerotáxi crash Feb 11 Porthcawl Mid-Air Collision Feb 12 Colgan Air Flight 3407 Feb 25 Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 Mar 12 Cougar Helicopters Flight 91 Mar 19 Quito B200 King Air crash Mar 20 Emirates Flight 407 Mar 22 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash Mar 23 FedEx Express Flight 80 Mar 25 Medair TC-HEK helicopter crash Apr 01 North Sea helicopter crash Apr 06 West Java airliner crash Apr 17 Mimika Air Flight 514 Apr 19 CanJet Flight 918 May 03 Táchira helicopter crash May 20 C-130H Hercules crash Jun 01 Air France Flight 447 Jun 30 Yemenia Flight 626 Jul 03 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash Jul 13 Southwest Airlines Flight 2294 Jul 15 Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 Jul 19 Afghanistan Mil Mi-8 crash Jul 24 Aria Air Flight 1525 Aug 02 Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 9760 Aug 04 Bangkok Airways Flight 266 Aug 08 Hudson River mid-air collision Aug 11 Airlines PNG Flight 4684 Aug 16 Russia Sukhoi Su-27 mid-air collision Aug 26 Aéro-Frêt Antonov An-12 crash Sep 02 Andhra Pradesh helicopter crash Sep 04 Air India Flight 829 Sep 09 Aeroméxico Flight 576 Sep 22 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision Sep 24 Airlink Flight 8911 Oct 21 Azza Transport Flight 2241 Oct 21 Northwest Airlines Flight 188 Oct 29 California mid-air collision Nov 01 Yakutia Il-76 crash Nov 09 Kenyan Beach 1990D crash Nov 10 Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 Nov 12 RwandAir Flight 205 [etc]

The date format for each entry should remain constant as MMM-dd, i.e. three-letter abbreviation for month, two-digit number for day. The italics/smallcaps system avoids the bold used on article pages. 212.84.106.20 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The small caps looks really weird. I have to admit that I prefer the bright yellow used in the other templates. And the italics is hard to spot. The whole idea behind bold was to make it obvious which ones were very deadly. Maybe bolded italics instead? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I was trying to avoid using bold as that's used by Wikipedia when the article you're looking at matches a link in the template. But I know what you mean. How about the columns? Seems much less cluttered to me than the long wrapped list of links. 212.84.105.10 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i just came here to comment that bold seemed like a strange way to highlight the crashes with 50+ fatalities, because the current article is always bold. I'd agree with bolded italics as an alternative. Julianhall (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The columns are a cool idea, but really only make sense for years that have a lot of accidents -- like 2009. I made the ((Aviation accidents and incidents in 1973)), for example, and that only has 11 accidents, so the columns would actually look strange since it would force white space at the edges of the banner and make it much larger than it already is. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Years with, say, 20 or more accidents, sure, columns would make it easier to find a given article. Less than 20, probably not.

Re: bolded text. True, it's used for the current article, but honestly just italics by itself doesn't make something stand out, mostly because it's generally used for emphasis, so readers are trained to not see it as "jumping out" but rather an in-line sort of emphasis, so it really needs to be paired with something that makes it stand out. The best way is bolding the italics, or changing color, but having two color changes is, frankly, confusing. Small caps really just doesn't stand out, especially for people (like me) with huge monitors and text that stands about a 1/2 centimeter tall on the screen. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're in agreement about bolded italics then? Good.

One further question, the orange colour used to highlight the deadliest incident is a different shade to the one used in the key. This is slightly confusing, does anyone know why this is? Julianhall (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented something along the lines of the above, using italics for incidents resulting in more than 50 deaths and bold smallcaps for the deadliest each year. I think this is the only combination that will (1) avoid the plain-bold Wikipedia uses for any link on a page that is to the page itself, while (2) permitting a distinction between a deadliest incident involving fewer than 50 deaths (bold smallcaps only) and one that involves 50 or more (italic bold smallcaps). 212.84.98.102 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please start an entry about the Robinson R44-Astro, callsign 4x-bdm, crashed in Netanya, Israel on 24.11.09.

4 people had died including Ran Lapid, the pilot. The most exprienced helicopter pilot in Israel.

It happened due to a terrible technical problem, and is still under investigation of the NTSB and FAA.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.73.22 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That accident is probably non-notable per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably lead to grounding af all R44's when investigation ends. 84.109.73.22 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I agree with several of the original participants in the discussion that the small caps look weird to the point of unprofessional. If trying to highlight the deadliest crash, perhaps it would be better to use a typographical symbol such as "†" or "*" as is usually done on templates to highlight particular entries? TheGrappler (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: - as you've removed my addition of the Air Force One photo op incident to the template with the rationale that it "doesn't belong here", I'm invoking the D part of WP:BRD.

As the template is named "Aviations accidents and incidents in 2009", the event was clearly "an aviation incident" and occurred in 2009, I believe it meets all necessary criteria to be included. I would be interested to hear why you think it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an aviation accident or incident. Was the plane at risk? No! Was it investigated by the NTSB? No! I will remind you about the discussion[1] we had a few years ago. Would it go on that page? No and it shouldn't go in the template either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]