Jump to content

Talk:Voepass Flight 2283

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teribus13 (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 10 August 2024 (→SIGMET citation lapsed and needs update: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 9 August 2024

Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 → Voepass Flight 2283 – As per WP:COMMONNAME, lots of the sources seem to refer to it simply as Voepass < DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Oppose: United Airlines can be referred to as just United, but United Airlines Flight 232 is called United Airlines Flight 232, not United Flight 232. Neither is American Airlines Flight 11 called American Flight 11. So why would we call Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 just Voepass Flight 2283. Though I do not know Portuguese so maybe calling it Voepass Flight 2283 is accurate. Alexysun (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was the "answer to the move page question". I said it was my answer. The redirect addresses the ability of readers to navigate to the correct article with the name mentioned by the OP, which is not the name of the airline. General Ization Talk 21:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slightly different issue. "TAM Airlines" is literally the English translation of "TAM Lihneas Aereas". The proposal above is not to move to "Voepass Airlines Flight 2283" (though I would still be opposed). General Ization Talk 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus Maybe the name "TAM Airlines" is wrong, because at the time that airline was truly called Tam Lihneas Aereas. Though obviously if you translate it to English it's TAM Airlines, but I guess it depends if they had an official english name? But then that brings into question the Chinese airlines names and if they have an official english name, because if they don't it wouldn't be viable to put Chinese characters as their name. Alexysun (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexysun: I apply this name for having an shortened name that it’s also encyclopedic, if the name had just the name Airline or Airways i wouldn’t apply this. Protoeus (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a small correction: the term is Linhas, not Lihneas. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all major Chinese airlines have their official English name. So it's not a problem. Awdqmb (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awdqmb: Yeah, that’s the point, however Brazilian airlines normally don’t have English names. Protoeus (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infact in us wikipedia, most South America airlines aren't named in English. Such as Aeroméxico, Cubana de Aviación, Aerolíneas Argentinas. So I think we should follow traditions. Awdqmb (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the top of the linked page. WWGB (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian airlines tend to exclude the "Linhas Aéreas" from the name as it is difficult to pronounce for an English speaking audience. Plus, that's the logo of the airline and for minimalism, the airline tends to exclude it. The remainder of the article mentions "VOEPASS Linhas Aéreas" 3 times, so it's pretty clear with what the airline wants to be called. GalacticOrbits (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title should be (and already is) a redirect for articles with a shorter names, see: [2]. We don't call Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 as "Garuda Flight 421", or as seen above, we don't call United Airlines Flight 232 as "United Flight 232" as these are only alternative shorter names. People colloquially tend to exclude the "Airlines" or in this case "Linhas Aéreas" from the name, however, Wikipedia shouldn't follow this as it is not encyclopedic. GalacticOrbits (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we change this page into a shortened name, should other pages similar to this also be changed? Such as Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 to Austral Flight 2553? Awdqmb (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Oppose We believe that it is better to use the Portuguese name, even in the English version. This is because the airline's head office is in a Portuguese-speaking country and it is expected that it should be displayed in its native language.LendingNext (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities

I see some sources that say there were 58 passengers, and 4 crew members, They were 57 o 58 passengers? I don’t know. Protoeus (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviation Herald is reporting that the airline is saying that there were 57 passengers on board. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read that on Simple Flying they said 58 passengers, which demonstrates that the website is un-reliable, I first asked this question but then I remembered that Simple Flying is un-reliable. Protoeus (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to question its reliability but since this was breaking news, wouldn't it be normal for information to be inaccurate at first with a correction coming in later? I mean, the airline revised the death toll of the accident showing that this isn't really a case of unreliability. News agencies reported on what was known at the time, which was that there were 62 on board. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name list of passengers and crew members can be found here. Major news outlets are updating the news for 57 passengers and 4 crew members.
Official numbers provided by IML(Legal Medical Institute, coroners) are yet to be released. 179.247.246.26 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per CNN, the airline itself has revised the fatality count to 61 (57+4). General Ization Talk 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGMET citation lapsed and needs update

Change needed for citation - SIGMET icing between 12,000-21,000 feet (citation 11) to following archived source, as original SIGMET is no longer available through conventional weather services as effective time has passed. It is the pertinent SIGMET for severe icing that the aircraft was flying through at time of occurrence.

https://dd.meteo.gc.ca/bulletins/alphanumeric/20240809/WS/SBGL/15/WSBZ23_SBGL_091525___24273

Permanent meteo.gc.ca (Government of Canada weather service) source Ofcgow1012 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The airspeed seemed all over the place for the entire flight. I was wondering if it was ice on / around the cockpit on one of the first pictures of the wreckage. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft was definitely in a fully stalled condition and in a spin in the videos. Severe icing would do that. 2601:2C7:8E01:1600:95BD:4A88:A986:92CD (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could honestly just be bad ADSB, but the groundspeed readouts towards the end made me think ice. Normal descent to zero to falling in less than 2 minutes. Ofcgow1012 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FlightRadar 24 had said on their X (Formerly known as Twitter) page [3]here that the ground speed data for the aircraft had been inaccurate not only for the flight in question, but previous flights, therefore should be considered erroneous.
On their blog post about the incident [4]here they have a graph of the air speed which they consider more reliable. Teribus13 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Motitasmeow25 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Vuelo 2283.png
Flight 2283, Note the fluctuation in speed throughout the flight, dropping dangerously to 122 km/h.

 Not done - file was deleted from Commons as a copyvio. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voepass_Flight_2283&oldid=1239615242"