Talk:Singapore Airlines Flight 321

Coordinates
Can I add the coordinate/the specific location of the occurence? I have determined the specific point on the flight path where the aircraft made a rapid descend. BroBro1222 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. I am not an expert on this however. LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. BroBro1222 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * SQ321_20240521_route_map.svg
 * Route map added. Can someone please check that the location of the incident is correct? Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the correct one. BroBro1222 (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, what software did you use to make the route map? BroBro1222 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! According to a comment in the first zh:file:SQ321_20240521_route_map.svg upload, zh:user:王桁霽 made it in Adobe Illustrator. I removed the 8 MB embedded bitmaps, added the incident marker, remade the text labels and added the radial gradient in Notepad++, before uploading it to Commons. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this discussion, but would this be considered original research? Worth looking at, as sources quote the preliminary report as saying that the aircraft "dropped around 178 ft (54 m) over 4.6 seconds" and that the widely-reported 6,000 ft "drop" was a controlled descent taking place "approximately 17 minutes after the turbulence event". (link to source) --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The co-ordinates in the infobox at one stage erroneously pointed to the spot where the descent to Bangkok started but were since updated - I can only presume they are based on FR24's published data but it wasn't cited. The only other original source is Singapore Airlines' statements about the Irrawaddy Basin, which is a very vague term that essentially runs the length of Myanmar.  The preliminary TSIB analysis states the location only as "the south of Myanmar".  -- Rob.au (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Time of extreme turbulence
The article doesn't state when it happened and I'm unsure whether the time given in sources is reliable.

Please share your views on Reference_desk/Humanities.

Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 07:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Flightradar24.com/blog here says "Based on ADS-B data sent directly from the aircraft, at approximately 07:49 UTC on 21 May, the flight encountered a rapid change in vertical rate, consistent with a sudden turbulence event." I'm not sure why this is not reliable. Also not sure why no main news outlets have reported it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It also says "At 08:03 UTC the aircraft changed course and began a diversion to Bangkok. SQ321 landed in Bangkok at 08:45 UTC (15:15 local time), where it was met by medical personnel." which is corroborated by existing main news outlet sources (except Flightradar do have a typo in 15:15). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't use blogs, though. CreatorMH (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123. CreatorMH (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh well, then we'll just have to do without it until some WP:RS decides to believe them and publishes it. It's quite a significant omission for any air accident article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, that article is by Flightradar24's director of communications, and should be considered an official statement from Flightradar24, not a user-contributed blog article. It should be okay to reference as a primary source, so long as Flightradar24 itself is considered reliable. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback,, and  I'll quote http://flightradar24.com/blog/1-dead-dozens-injured-in-sq321-turbulence then. Please amend it if necessary. Cheers, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321&oldid=prev&diff=1226136485: Feet and minutes are "comparable" in that they are both units of measure. The purpose of MOS:NUMNOTES regarding mixing figures and numbers spelled as words is to avoid jarring mixed formats nearby each other. The sense of "comparable" is a writing (linguistic) comparison (i.e., are the numbers doing similar things as parts of the sentence?) not a comparison in the field of usage (e.g., are feet and minutes the same type of units of measure?). "They sold 13 sheep and 2 birds." Are birds and sheep comparable to each other? Comparing them as animals by their taxonomy is not relevant. In the sentence, they are comparable in that they are part of the list of sold items. "They sold 13 sheep and 7 reams of paper." Sheep and paper are even less comparable as objects (one is an animal and the other is an inanimate object), but that argument is irrelevant to the writing issue. They are comparable in that they are both part of the list of sold items. A unit of measure would not be comparable to counting discrete objects (e.g., five people traveled at 15 mph), but units of measure are comparable to each other, as devices to convey quantitative, measured amounts. Furthermore, spelled-out units of measure can use figures or spelled-out number words per MOS:UNIT and are not subject to the "0 to 9" rule. Any thoughts about this, ? Cheers. Holy (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I for one strongly disagree with your interpretation. It makes no sense to treat every quantifiable measure as being the same. Time and distance are different dimensions, i.e. not comparable, to use the MOS's wording. In fact they should be contrasted using different formats, per the next bullet under MOS:NUMNOTES: "Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in  twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes, not 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It says "Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes, not 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes." which by my interruption means it should read "descent of 6000 feet in three minutes." not "descent of 6000 feet in 3 minutes." SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "adjacent quantities" guidance does not apply here whatsoever. It only applies when you have numbers immediately next to each other that would be difficult to parse if they were both figures (10 3-minute periods or 12 15 mg tablets vs. ten 3-minute periods or twelve 15 mg tablets). The "comparable" is a linguistic comparison, not a comparison of the nature of the objects or terms themselves. Hence "They sold 14 sheep, 2 birds, 7 gold bars, 2 licenses, and 3 rights of passage." Linguistically, all the numbered items perform the same function; thus, they must all be expressed in figures or spelled-out numbers, not both. It would be nonsensical to think that we must analyze and compare the nature of sheep, birds, gold bars, etc. to determine if they're "comparable." This is a matter of linguistic style. That's the only measure to determine if this "comparable" rule applies. If you are able, peruse edits in Wikipedia that apply MOS:NUMNOTES and you'll see how it is applied. Holy (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the adjacency point doesn't apply, I still don't see why distance and time should be regarded as comparable. Would you say, given the example "He earned 100 dollars in three hours", that dollars and hours here are comparable and need to be in the same format? Or kilometres and degrees in "They marched 25 kilometres in minus-forty-degree temperature"? If so, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between you and the other editors here over the MOS's meaning, which might need to be ironed out on MOS-talk. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Paul_012 on this one. Distance and time are not comparable measures, they measure different things. It is OK to write that the plane descended 6,000 feet in three minutes. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)