Talk:British Airways Flight 38/Archive 2

Investigation section
I'm not sure that the "newsfeed" style used in the investigation section is best for an encyclopedia. The main thrust of the investigation was the fuel delivery system, but the way it is covered in the article is somewhat disjointed, broken down as it is by special bulletin, and interspersed with other aspects of the investigation. I would like to reorganise the investigation section by topic thus: (i) fuel system investigation, (ii) rejected hypotheses (wake vortex, bird strike, PM's motorcade, FADEC malfunction), (iii) other findings (fire shut-off, MLG attachment). Any thoughts? 80.2.106.75 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture / Dramatization
This page has had a "Dramatization" page for quite some time now. To be consistent with other pages (see US Airways Flight 1549) I renamed this section from "dramatization" to "in popular culture" to be a single place to add references to various works (fiction or otherwise) that mention this event. However, this page has long had a reference to the specific episode of Mayday involving this incident, and is a useful reference for people wanting more information about this incident. They won't know to go to the Mayday page and look for it there if it's not referenced here. Please stop deleting without valid reason. Thanks. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before at WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force - Mayday has made entertainment films on a large number of accidents and as such is not really noteworthy to mention. The program is not a reliable source for anything other than itself so apart from a few rare occasions adds zero to the article and at best is trivia. Nothing wrong with listing the hundreds of accidents in the Mayday article but it has no value here or in other accident articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll need to link to that discussion, I'm not aware of it. And also, it is quite common for pages to have references to "in culture" or "in media"--the overall Wikipedia guidance is to keep such mentions to where the page's subject is material to the cultural reference.  In these cases, it's an entire episode of a TV show devoted to the incident.  Therefore it has obvious value to people reading this page; they are able to learn where Flight 38 is depicted in media.  They won't even know to go looking for that if it's not mentioned here.  Wikipedia isn't just a reference for aviation enthusiasts or existing fans of Mayday, it's a reference for everybody.  Please keep that in mind before deleting existing cultural references in the future. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I will add that what you deleted is not a use of Mayday as a reliable source for anything, but a description of a Mayday episode as part of the content of the page itself. Any discussion of whether Mayday is a reliable source for accident descriptions is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a reference to Flight 38's depiction in culture. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you mentioned that it was a "useful reference" and I was just saying that it isnt a reliable source. The fact that Mayday make an entertainment programme about every major accident makes them really not notable, nothing in the programme adds to the article. It would be unusual if Mayday didnt make a program. All we really say is that Mayday as usual have made an entertainment programme about this accident which is not noteworthy = trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the point of these references. This page is for Flight 38 and a reference for people seeking information on Flight 38. Obviously this page shouldn't list every episode of Mayday, that's what the Mayday episode page is for, but this episode is relevant to this page because the entire hourlong episode is dedicated to this crash. See WP:IPCV, which notes, "For example, it is appropriate if a city's article mentions films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting ... However, a Wikipedia article about a city with an 'in popular culture' section should not contain examples of films which make a one sentence reference to the city in dialogue, or songs which mention the name of the city in one sentence." This isn't a single line of dialogue, it's an entire TV episode. Similarly, it is appropriate if this page mentions A TV episode in which the crash itself is a prominent feature. Cultural references also help to establish notability, which helps prevent non-aviation people from trying to delete accidents and incidents, especially ones like this where there were no fatalities. They periodically get nominated for deletion, and being notable enough to have prominent cultural references is important. Not every accident or incident gets its own Mayday episode. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont think I misunderstand, adding a bit about Mayday is a bit of trivia that adds no value to this or the other articles. The fact they made an program on BA38 is not noteworthy (they do it for all major accidents). I find it unnlikely that the fact that Mayday made yet another program on an accident has any effect on that accident being notable. As the programme itself is not a reliable source it would be difficult for it to add anything of value to the accident description so again just trivia we dont need. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're definitely misunderstanding, because you're clearly confusing two entirely different concepts. First is whether a TV show like Mayday is a reliable source to cite regarding facts of the accident or investigation. Second is whether describing cultural references to a subject adds value to a page on a subject. The Mayday episode does not need to be a "reliable source" for anything in the second context, the fact that the Mayday episode exists 'is the fact that needs sourced'. A valid citation to the episode exists to show it exists. And you're being circular, my point was the fact that Mayday made an episode on this demonstrates it is in fact a "major accident." I think I've made my point as well as I can, and these cultural references have been present for years on many pages, so please don't go on a one person rampage deleting content until you can show clear consensus for a change across aviation incident articles. Thank you. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Mayday doesn't produce an episode for every major accident (unless one defines major accidents as those having been depicted by Mayday), and that makes it useful to know for the reader of this article (and others) if a particular accident has been covered by that series (or others). It's also useful to address that incoming path: Viewers of Mayday episodes will go to Wikipedia for more information.  If an article does not acknowledge that a Mayday episode exists, readers may feel encouraged to add (false/misleading/skewed) information from that episode to the article because from their perspective the information is new.  Mentioning Mayday episodes shows that the article's editors are aware of their content, but have chosen a (different) approach to inform about the accident.  --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I must agree with the above. While I've been going through cleaning up these Mayday references (adding a ref cite to the correct episode if it's missing, etc), I saw a couple of pages where someone had deleted a long-present Mayday cite, and after a while someone else added a new one. The new ones might lack things like proper cite episode cites, which I've endeavored to add on every Mayday (or other TV show) reference I encounter. So deleting these only results in people trying to put them back later (showing the demand for these references) which then sit without proper cites until someone passionate about proper citations (like me) recreates them. It does not benefit Wikipedia or its readers to delete useful and popular references on a subject's page, or to make editors repeat their old work. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Airways Flight 38. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121074242/http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm to http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/archive/heathrow_17_january_2008/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121074242/http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm to http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/archive/heathrow_17_january_2008/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Suggestion retracted by submitter. Lord Belbury (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

British Airways Flight 38 → British Airways Flight 38 crash – Beyond the first sentence this article has nothing to say about Flight 38 as the regular London-Beijing route that continues to this day, it's entirely about the one crash event. Lord Belbury (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is the convention for all air accidents and incidents (of which there are very many). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Martinevans123. Also, I don't think that an article on the regular flight would make it into Wikipedia. That this flight number continues to be used might be an oddity, but it is the reason why the first sentence is in the present tense. Richard 06:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair points, I'll retract the request. From the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE this reads like it's going to be all about the regular flights, and isn't, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the disappointment. Let's hope our readers read further. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FIRSTSENTENCE says they shouldn't have to: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." and "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Checking through categories, it seems common to immediately clarify that the article is about a crash, in the first sentence. Maybe my attempt to rewrite it wasn't the best it could have been, but this should be said. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at Category: Aviation accidents and incidents in 2008 and these immediately appeared to be similar: Belavia Flight 1834, Centurion Air Cargo Flight 164, Eagle Airways Flight 2279, Qantas Flight 30, TACA Flight 390, Yeti Airlines Flight 103. But many others do mention “crash” in the first sentence. None seem to have that stand-alone sentence like this one. So the situation is not clear cut. I also note that a few articles have "crash" in the title. I'm not sure if there is any logic behind that or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate there's some synecdoche between "flight route" and "one individual plane on that route" when it comes to a crash, and perhaps the "Flight 123 was..." past tense of all the ones you link there is enough to set the context. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Aircrash articles where there is a flight number take the form "(Airline)(flight number)", disambiguated if necessary (usually done by year). Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I find it odd that a discussion was started and closed within 9 hours, leaving users little time to react. Formulating the first sentence as British Airways Flight 38 was a scheduled passenger flight, from Beijing Capital International Airport in China to London Heathrow Airport in the United Kingdom, which crashed just short of the runway at its destination. is flawed, since BA39 is still a scheduled passenger flight. On January 17, 2008, at 12:42 local time, the Boeing 777 operating British Airways Flight 38 from Beijing to London, having completed the 8100 km trip, crashed just short of the runway at its destination., which was proposed earlier, is more precise in that aspect. The addistion Flight 38 remains a scheduled passenger flight from Beijing Capital International Airport in China to London Heathrow Airport. in the introduction is not necessary – it is of no consequence there and it is already in the article. Richard 09:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I closed it myself as the person who'd raised it, as it seemed overwhelming that most article titles were following (what I now realise is) standard news reporting style of referring to a particular crashed aeroplane as "Flight XYZ". The closed discussion was to decide whether to move the article to a new title, rewriting the first sentence was just a side thought. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but that means that everything from 'Sorry...' on should not be in the 'do not modify' box. Richard 09:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We obviously have two issues here: the article title (seems to be strong consensus to retain as it is) and the opening sentence (maybe room to make more consistent across articles of this type?) Maybe open a new thread here? Or adjust as Richardw suggests. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The complicating factor here is that BA continues to use this flight number. Often, a flight number associated with a crash, is no longer used. Like I said: the proposition starting with 'On January 17' would be a possibility. It might be condensed a bit more:
 * In 2008, British Airways Flight 38, flying in from Beijing Capital, crashed just short of the runway of its destination airport, London Heathrow.
 * More detailed information (exact date, time, travelling distance et cetera) could be provided in the next lines / sentences. It is also possible to start the above sentence with 'On January 17, 2008'. Richard 09:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Either looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think, Lord Belbury? Richard 10:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Give me a minute and I'll edit the article accordingly. Thanks for both your input. Richard 11:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Flight number still in use
I removed the trivia about the flight number still being used but was reverted. As far as I know I cant see any reason why continuing to use the same flight number is noteworthy or unusual after a non-fatal accident. Still propose that the "still in use" para is deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Disaster category
I'm not really sure that it is appropriate to include this article in Category:2008 disasters in the United Kingdom. Based on experience of discussions about including articles in similar year disasters in the United Kingdom type categories, there is a general assumption that a disaster includes significant loss of life. The British Airways Flight 38 incident resulted in a number of injuries, but the article classes only one as serious, and there was no loss of life. Under these circumstances I do not think it can be classed as a disaster (and would note the term is not used in the article itself or any coverage of the incident that I can find). Dunarc (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now removed it from the category for the reasons outlined above. If anyone has any objections I am happy to discuss further. Dunarc (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)