Talk:2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash

Merge
I brought in a link, but some more info may be found in Carterton hot air balloon accident(last pre-merge edit) that could be added here. --Dhartung | Talk 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh darn! :-s  As creator of  Carterton hot air balloon accident I totally concur with the 'merge' and re-direct. This page was first and is a better article.  I just wish I had known of it first, I did look for other articles before starting! I also posted creation (after over an hour admittedly) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, and I now have mentioned this page there as well.


 * Here is my original The Guardian ref in case it is of any use here. (you seem to have all the other sources I had already)




 * I'l be around to help out if needed later! Regards, - 220  of  Borg 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that it's of any relevance, but I noticed that there are four re-direct pages for this already. It seems that articles of this subject was created no less than four times by editors who didn't notice that it was created already, (myself included). D arth B otto talk•cont 09:11, 07 January 2012 (UTC)


 * True, though I created a redirect for a likely search term 2012 New Zealand balloon accident.  I started Carterton hot air balloon accident ‎ and spent about 2+ hours developing it, mostly on my own, just to be re-directed! I was beaten by 59 minutes! ('beat' you by 1:55!) :-/,- 220  of  Borg 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be 7 re-directs now. - 220  of  Borg 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's anything good to be said about all the articles doomed to become re-directs, I guess it says that we have a pro-active community! D arth B otto talk•cont 02:10, 08 January 2012 (UTC)

Balloons over Wairarapa
Apparently the Carterton area is very popular with balloonists, and is near Wairarapa where there has been a hot air balloon festival since 1999, and is set for 8 March – Sunday 11 March this year, see http://www.nzballoons.co.nz/, though the Wairarapa page makes no mention of it yet. Another event, Balloons over Waikato is set for Wednesday 28 March - Sunday 1 April See http://balloonsoverwaikato.co.nz/ Also see Hot air balloon festival, NZ section - 220  of  Borg 11:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wairarapa is the name referring to the Wellington Region east of the Tararua/Rimutaka Ranges, of which Carterton is part. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Might pay to help with a little local knowledge (I live in Greytown, New Zealand, 10km/6mi south of Carterton). Ballooning is one of the drawcards for tourism in the region - I'm unsure if it is related, but the Wairarapa valley experiences a north-western Foehn wind coming off the Tararua Ranges, which creates a dry downwind in the Masterton/Carterton area, which also creates suitable climate conditions for viticulture (they used to spend a day floating around over the wine village of Martinborough before they trimmed the schedule due to costs). Most tourists to the Wairarapa are day-trippers from Wellington or local tourists (international tourists seem to see the entire country between Rotorua and Queenstown as boring). I'm unsure why there isn't a section on Wairarapa tourism. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 12:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article name
Can someone confirm the general consensus for disaster articles is [year] [place] [event] - per WikiProject Disaster management? The page had been moved and reverted several times over the inclusion of the year in the title? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll quote from the Aviation WikiProject's Aviation Accident Task Force page: ''For articles on air accidents without a flight number, the title should be in the format < > < > < > < > or if this is not possible, < > < > < >. Further disambiguation may be by month (see 1926 Air Union Blériot 155 crash).''. The current title, including the year, is correct. Unless it becomes commonly known by another name, please don't move it from this title. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is Article titles. As noted at Consensus (also a policy), "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
 * Please explain the benefit of including "2012" in the title (and why we should stop there instead of using "January 2012" or "7 January 2012"). —David Levy 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We always use year and place because it is entirely feasible that other events could happen in the same place in the future (and have done so in terms of other types of crashes), which is why the consensus for naming is always to include the year of the event. The precision and disambiguation policy does not specify how much precision is unwarranted and thus, it is up to consensus to determine that. The consensus for crash articles has long been the format of year, place, and event. That is how it is. If you want it to not be that, then obtain consensus to change it. Silver  seren C 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We always use year and place because it is entirely feasible that other events could happen in the same place in the future (and have done so in terms of other types of crashes),
 * That's true of events in general. Another Amish school shooting might occur in the future, at which point that article likely would be moved to 2006 Amish school shooting.  For most events, we don't preemptively disambiguate.
 * The same principle applies to other topics too. It's entirely feasible that there eventually will be a second notable Aziz Ansari, but we don't preemptively use the title Aziz Ansari (entertainer) in preparation for that.
 * What special circumstance necessitates that crash-related articles be treated differently?
 * And again, why stop at "2012"? Another Carterton hot air balloon crash could occur this year (or even this month).
 * which is why the consensus for naming is always to include the year of the event.
 * Where was this consensus established?
 * The precision and disambiguation policy does not specify how much precision is unwarranted and thus, it is up to consensus to determine that.
 * The policy states that we should be "only as precise as necessary" to "distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name". Are there other uses of the topic name "Carterton hot air balloon crash" from which to distinguish?
 * The consensus for crash articles has long been the format of year, place, and event. That is how it is.
 * Where was the consensus established? Was this discussed outside of the aforementioned WikiProjects?  (That's a sincere question.)  —David Levy 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikiproject consensus is still higher than no consensus. If you cannot exhibit community consensus on the issue of naming crash articles, then the local Wikiproject consensus on such matters prevails. And this year thing has all been argued before. Many, many times before. Silver  seren C 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikiproject consensus is still higher than no consensus.
 * Does this mean that the matter hasn't been discussed outside of the WikiProjects?
 * If you cannot exhibit community consensus on the issue of naming crash articles, then the local Wikiproject consensus on such matters prevails.
 * Not when the local WikiProject consensus conflicts with a generally accepted policy or guideline, as explicitly stated at Consensus.
 * According to a generally accepted Wikipedia policy, we should be "only as precise as necessary" to "distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name". You haven't answered my question about what sets crash-related articles apart.
 * And this year thing has all been argued before. Many, many times before.
 * By the Wikipedia community at large? —David Levy 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)Using the logic it "could happen in the same place in the future", then the article should be named 7 January 2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash just in case there is another crash later this month. In the extremely unlikely event that there is ever another balloon crash in Carterton, then this article could have the year added to the title at that time. It is unnecessary to disambiguate by year where no confusion exists. WWGB (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Except there is a well-established and codified standard that aviation crash articles use the year. As for the link quoted by David Levy, WP:IAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Except there is a well-established and codified standard that aviation crash articles use the year.
 * How and where was this standard "codified"? Did a community-wide discussion occur?
 * As for the link quoted by David Levy, WP:IAR .
 * To which link are you referring?
 * Both policies themselves reflect consensus within the Wikipedia community. Article titles documents longstanding consensus that an article title shouldn't contain disambiguation beyond that which is needed to distinguish its subject from other notable subjects.  I still await an explanation of what distinction warrants an exception for aviation crash articles, let alone why it's necessary to enact one without consulting the community at large.  Consensus exists specifically to prevent that from occurring.
 * How does ignoring either of these policies help in "improving or maintaining Wikipedia"? —David Levy 04:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment from another editor: while I personally don't mind the way the events are titled (that is, including the year), my initial view is the same as that of David Levy and WWGB. Reading the two policies together, it would seem the year has been deemed unnecessary by a policy-level, 'pedia-wide consensus, and a subject area task force cannot override that. My view would be that the article should be titled 'Carterton hot air balloon crash' until such time as there is another such event. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, can someone justify why we need years on 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake and 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, among countless others, despite there being no "need" for the year? Its the case of the principle of consistency - in the same article as the principle of precision (Article titles).
 * Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lcmortensen, that seems a reasonable point (though actually, by coincidence when I read the article about the Hawke's Bay earthquake a couple of years ago, I was surprised the year was in the title :-)). I would also point out, though, that the policy point regarding consistency does say that consistency would "ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions". In this case, the "above questions" include conciseness. In other words, the policy seems to suggest that consistency is to be encouraged, but only to the extent that it does not conflict with the other principles (ie. it is secondary to them). So it still seems to me that the year shouldn't be there unless necessary. I'm not that concerned about this BTW, but do think Levy has the 'right end of the stick' on the policy. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We probably don't need years in those titles (unless they're the events' common names). Wikipedia contains many style errors.  —David Levy 13:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

An article about the balloon accident?

 * No disrespect to the deceased, but why does this event merit a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.164.25 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it has attracted international media coverage and therefore notable. WWGB (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And, "It was also the second-deadliest hot air balloon disaster on record after a 1989 balloon crash in Australia that killed 13 people." The worst being the 1989 Alice Springs hot air balloon crash. - 220  of  Borg 13:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read event notability also. --   Luke      (Talk)   16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recentism. And if you're going to include on the basis that it's the second deadliest balloon disaster, then why not also list the third and the fourth as well? This event is not of historical value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.164.25 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think this article should be deleted, bring it up at WP:AFD. You're not going to get a wide variety of opinions on the talk page. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article traffic statistics may be of interest: 42,932 views (so far) - 220  of  Borg 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very few considering the article has been visible on the wikipedia English-language landing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.93.212 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012‎
 * I'd say that was quite a lot considering the January 2012 al-Midan bombing only has 6k visits and that happened the day beforehand and has a "Juicer" tagline of being about a suicide bombing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.93.212 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cause of death?
It's not clear to me what the cause of death was. Was it electrocution, the fire or the impact with the ground? NorthernThunder (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because we dont know, you will have to wait for the coroners report or the official investigation to report. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to some sources, some victims jumped to their deaths. --   Luke      (Talk)   00:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

map
A map with the route and crash site would be extremely beneficial.-Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how do 11 people fit in there?
Anyone? Hurtuv (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)