User:N8wilson/FR4798

Motivation
This is primarily a personal exercise but hopefully that doesn't prevent other authors from also finding it helpful. I recently came across an article talk page that generated interesting questions about the applicability of WP:AVINAME and specifically, the portion of it that addresses aviation accidents. The convention, with some exceptions, directs authors to name articles in the pattern of &lt;Airline name&gt; Flight &lt;Flight number&gt;. To put it simply, several authors pointed out the obvious: a flight number doesn't really say much on its own and most readers are not very likely to know it. That fired up my own curiosity and launched me on a quest to understand both the WP:AVINAME convention and how it relates to larger Wikipedia policies with an emphasis on WP:TITLE.

Below is a genuine attempt to organize my thoughts after a thorough journey across a variety of pages in the WP: space from guidelines, to policies, to essays. I don't claim correctness for any of this - just one author's perspective. If I learned anything on the journey it's that Wikipedia is a bit fluid by design. Writing an encyclopedia isn't a fully concrete discipline like math or chemistry. It requires both policy and flexibility. Sometimes that flexibility diverges from previous guidance and sometimes it helps us shape it.

If you're reading this I hope it prompts you to think about Wikipedia's overall article naming policy. I expect there are parts other authors will support but I don't expect to see everything the same way every author does. Disagreements are invited. Ping me on the talk page if you notice a glaring omission or have a perspective you believes deserves a mention (or more) here.

Incidentally, I also learned some fascinating things about notable flights on this journey as well. Portions of that experience are included as examples in my notes below. If something on Wikipedia sparks your curiosity, I encourage you to take some time to dive in. Learn for yourself, process the information a way that makes sense to you, and share it with other authors.

Discussion of flight number pattern in article titles
Articles about flights on Wikipedia seem to have a pretty big problem: almost nobody knows what a flight number means. Aviation professionals are an obvious exception of course. Average readers are another story though.

Naming conventions proposed by the WikiProject for Aviation (commonly linked as WP:AVINAME) cover several categories: articles on aircraft, airlines, airports, accidents, and biographies. This essay is a discussion specific to naming articles about notable events in aviation using the pattern of &lt;Airline&gt; Flight &lt;flight number&gt;. Specifically, the goal is to examine when this policy meets and does not meet the criteria outlined in the broader Wikipedia policy on article titles.

Although this convention is recommended for articles about aviation accidents, it is discussed here as a pattern for any notable event in aviation for which the focal point or primary topic is a single commercial flight.

Basic Applicability

 * Does the flight have a flight number?  This typically means it was a commercial flight rather than a privately operated or military flight.
 * Was only one such flight involved?  If so, it typically becomes the reference point for the event. If an incident involves multiple commercial flights, a descriptive title is usually preferred as indicated in WP:AVINAME.
 * Were the events of the flight notable?  Although determining what is notable can sometimes present challenges (see below), the events of the flight should always pass the general notability guideline ("GNG"). Not every accident meets this criteria (see WP:AVINAME for details) whereas some incidents or events in which no accident occurred may still pass this guideline and merit an article.

Recognizability
The recognizability criteria is easily criticized as the biggest shortfall of WP:AVINAME with respect to the flight number pattern. Flight numbers after all, are just codes that refer to a specific route and schedule. It's unreasonable to expect the general public - perhaps even those familiar with the subject of the article - to memorize and recall this code. Questioning the recognizability of flight numbers as titles is not just a valid concern, it's expected. Let's break down the components of recognizability one portion at a time. The WP criterion states: "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

name or description
Rarely is a commercial flight given a name other than its airline-assigned number but it does happen. Two such cases currently in Wikipedia are treated similarly with one minor difference.


 * Air Canada Flight 143 was brought to a safe landing after running out of fuel and became known as the "Gimli Glider".
 * US Airways Flight 1549 lost all engine power shortly after takeoff but made a safe water landing earning the title of "Miracle on the Hudson".

In both cases the flight number and affectionate nickname are used to reference the article. The minor difference is which serves as a redirect and which as a title. When a specific flight has also earned a name like this, it should be either the article title or a redirect to it. In practice, reaching a consensus on which reference to use as the title might be difficult until long after a flight receives a name. Until that time, consider it an implementation detail and move on to other editing.

Without a bestowed name, we are left with only the flight number to serve as a name but descriptive titles also meet the criteria for recognizability. To many readers, a descriptive title will be more recognizable and would seem to make more sense for articles about aviation events. Consider titles such as:

Diversion of Airline Flight 66 Hijacking of Airline Flight 14 Interception of Airline Flight 142

Decompression of Airline Flight 37 Engine Failure of Airline Flight 12 Controversy over Airline Flight 302

Disappearance of Airline Flight 59 Crash of Airline Flight 81 Rescue of Airline Flight 94

Descriptions of this nature could also be used post-number as in "Airline Flight 72 Disaster".

All of these at least improve on the recognizability of flight numbers alone. This type of description adds some context to help readers determine whether they have located the desired topic or not. If the pattern is ever changed, this seems a likely direction for it to take. However, there are counter-points to using descriptions also. Which description is appropriate if a flight is both hijacked and intercepted? ...diverted and lost? ...sabotaged and rescued? The descriptive portion is likely to generate non-productive discussion about what description is appropriate when the article appropriately aims to cover all notable events of the flight. By contrast, an airline name and flight number typically invites no such discussion.

Adding short descriptions can also narrow the perceived scope of an article's primary topic. This is difficult to see when there is only one article covering a flight but some very high profile flights may have multiple articles because there is sufficient notable content. Consider this group of topics that began to unfold in 2014: In cases such as this, it remains clear that the primary article covering the generally notable events of the flight can be found under the title Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Titles with descriptions like "Search for Airline Flight 22" rightly suggest that the disappearance is not covered in the article. Similarly, a premature addition of a description to the flight number may (but not necessarily does) communicate a more narrow scope than intended. (Personally, it seems more likely that a defining description could emerge from consensus but this is technically a possibility.)
 * Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
 * Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories
 * Analysis of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 satellite communications
 * Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
 * Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Some descriptive titles that omit the flight number entirely have also been proposed. I cover these under the "precision" section below. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia encourages all articles to have a short description which is increasingly used in-tandem with the article title to help readers identify the topic. This may be a more appropriate place for descriptive language.

familiar with, although not necessarily an expert
When addressing recognizability, the WP:CRITERIA implies that there are two assumptions we can reasonably make about the reader:


 * 1) The reader has some base level of familiarity.
 * 2) The reader is (usually) not an expert.

The second assumption gives authors concern over using flight numbers as titles as it should - at least if taken in isolation. No reasonable author would expect readers to deduce a notable topic from a flight number alone. The guidelines for naming however, begin with a different assumption: base familiarity. Put another way, the title of the article is probably not the readers first introduction to the topic. It is appropriate for authors to leverage this familiarity in selecting a title by asking, "In what way..." or "By what name..." readers are likely to have existing knowledge of the topic. While admittedly lacking in descriptive characteristics, flight numbers - combined with the operating airline name - are generally an appropriate answer to this question. It is a specific reference which is likely to be used by other sources in covering the topic. In some ways, this is the counterpart to the "Naturalness" section below. Familiarity can be seen as asking "How do other sources already refer to this topic?" while Naturalness asks "What naturally invites future authors to refer to this article?".

will recognize
WP:CRITERIA again echoes that a reader will have preexisting knowledge of the subject by using the term "recognize" here. In other words, recognize should not be taken to mean a reader can decode a flight number into its schedule and route. It just means that when provided with the title of an article, it is likely to trigger associated exposure to the topic the reader may have previously encountered. In the context of memory, recognition is typically a lower standard than recall and it usually involves being prompted with the information to be recognized. Consider the difference in the following two questions:


 * 1) Did you hear about what happened on United Flight 93?
 * 2) What were the flight numbers of the aircraft involved in the September 11th attacks?

The first question tests recognition - i.e. is the flight number familiar? ...does this information ring a bell? The second tests recall - given some related information can you recall a specific requested item? It's important to note that recall is not a criteria for article titles and this makes sense. Many readers arrive at Wikipedia without knowing the title of the article they seek but with the ability to recognize it. Search for "sport with swords" and you'll probably recognize the article title Fencing in the results.

One more important thing about recognition is that it probably fades with time. In the fourth quarter of 2001, most Americans could probably recognize the title "United Flight 93" with ease having associated the flight with heroic actions of the passengers onboard. Twenty years later however, even though 9/11 remains etched in American memory including the events of that flight, "United 93" begins to sound like just another regular flight number. It's more difficult to recognize that this number is historically notable. Although this is a fair criticism of the flight number naming pattern, the only remedy appears to be limited by time and the hope that more recognizable common name emerges. As in Gimli Glider or Miracle on the Hudson this can happen but authors should be careful to remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Resolving this historical loss of recognition is a problem created by time that is also best solved by it, if a solution becomes feasible.

This author suggests airlines retire flight numbers so that they hold historical significance.

Naturalness
"The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."

one that
This criteria begins with a very subtle acknowledgement that more than one title may suit the topic of the article and meet this standard. No superlative is used to require the most natural title or the title that best fulfills the rest of this criteria. In fact, several title may seem to be natural in both senses described in this criteria. So long as the chosen title is one that measures up to this standard, the criteria places no further pressure to eliminate all candidates except one.

likely to look or search for
In my opinion, the criteria of "likely search terms" is better suited to the WP:lead section because it can create some confusion for authors when selecting, or coming to consensus on a title. Different readers may be familiar with different aspects of a flight when they search for it. Some might search on the basis of the departure and/or arrival airports, cities, states or countries. Others might look for the name and/or location of a diversion airport, an emergency landing, or crash site. Still others might input the aircraft type, the carrier, time of day, or notable passengers onboard. Searching for a special livery isn't out of the question either. There's also descriptive words to consider like explosion, decompression, water landing, or even as in the case of Southern Airways Flight 242 the name of a public road involved. In short, "likely to search for" is very broad and seems to me unlikely to help authors narrow article titles to strong candidates.

Nonetheless, there are still a few important points with respect to flight numbers and search terms. Consider that the first attempt at a search is not always as successful as one hopes it is. When searches do not initially return expected results, readers are likely to look for additional terms that are more unique and identifying. This characteristic fits flight numbers quite well. When a notable event or incident has occurred, searches are likely to improve with the addition of the carrier name and flight number. This is true even though those same flight numbers might be still be in use for regular flights. That's because there is basically nothing notable about regular commercial flights that operate as expected.

Search terms can be viewed another way which seems more useful to me. In discussion of titles, I notice some authors tend to ask "What might a reader search for to arrive at this article?" I suspect this is partly due to the "...from other articles" phrasing later in the criteria. It's not the only valid interpretation though. We could instead ask: "How might a reader of this article search for other articles on the same topic?" In other words, when readers finish reading this article and want more information, the title should be the bit they copy and paste into a search bar somewhere. Maybe we shouldn't name an article "Air Canada Flight 143" if after finishing the article the reader would instead be more likely to search for Gimli Glider to find more information. Conveniently this lines up well with the question "What might an author search for when researching this topic?" which makes it easy to think about. Of course, other key words will always be part of that process but in general, and as previously mentioned, I find that the addition of a flight number improves search results for topics and descriptive terms without the flight number are less reliable. This also squares nicely with the rest of the criteria.

naturally use to link to the article
The word "naturally" reemphasized here is important. This criteria doesn't ask for an article name that sounds or feels natural. It specifically indicates article titles should serve as a natural reference for editors who are writing other articles.

Precision
"The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects."

Conciseness
"The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."

Consistency
"The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

Additional Policies, Guidelines, and Issues with the pattern

 * WP:COMMONNAME esp. the footnote "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.
 * WP:AVISTYLE
 * WP:DISAMBIG inclusive of WP:PTOPIC
 * WP:TITLEPTM gives hints to title names but is not directive.
 * WP:NPOVTITLE/WP:NPOVNAME as they relate to descriptions with WP:NDESC
 * WP:OTHERNAMES
 * WP:NOUN
 * WP:TITLECHANGES
 * Descriptions are redundant in categories and lists.
 * Consolidate a bunch of stuff under a "description in title" section.
 * Timelines for recommendations?

Recommendations section
Overall recommendation is to extend the WP:AVISTYLE/WP:AVINAME to provide guidance on WP:SHORTDESCs and bring focus to this aspect of identifying articles. Short descriptions can be easily highlighted with the Template:Annotated link which will keep references consistent with the short description wherever it is used. Some good candidate pages for this template include disambiguation pages, list articles, indexes, and see also sections of related articles. The WP:AVISTYLE could also be updated with "good practice" suggestions related to lists and categories.
 * WP:SHORTDESC
 * With flight in the title, is "aviation" needed? since it's known to be notable, is "incident" needed? Maybe it communicates a "non-accident" event. This is probably a good place for the description of events. Something like &lt;Year&gt; &lt;noun or descriptive gerund&gt; "in"/"over" &lt;Location&gt; might be a good suggested format.


 * lead sentences
 * These should extend the level of detail beyond that of the short description in a similar manner to how the short description extends the title. Give examples of suggested good lead sentences. This is a good place to include further notability, specific date, flight route, and the time and location of the event. It's also a good place to wikilink any surrounding or influencing events which have their own articles and lend notability to this flight.


 * disambiguation
 * prefer the use of   instead of  &lt;article title&gt;  This keeps list pages consistent, makes it easier on most editors, and encourages editors to participate in editing short descriptions.


 * list articles
 * list are maintained by hand so like disambiguation pages, lists should always consider the use of   instead of  &lt;article title&gt; . The Template:Annotated link automatically pulls in the current short description of the article. This keeps list pages consistent, makes it easier on most editors, and encourages editors to participate in editing short descriptions.


 * categories
 * Most categories will be sub-categories of . Reference Categories, lists, and navigation templates for further guidance.

Multiple notable flights by same name
See Flight number

Notable events
WP:AVINAME currently recommends the flight number pattern for articles about accidents. This is both incomplete and inadequate. It is incomplete because it fails to recognize that certain incidents, which are not accidents, are notable events that would likely fall under the same pattern. It is inadequate by its own admission because  A better recommendation would be to apply this pattern, as appropriate, to notable events.

Descriptions

 * Japan Airlines Flight 123 - 12 August 1985 plane crash in central Japan
 * Gimli Glider - Airliner involved in a 1983 emergency landing
 * Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 - Aviation accident
 * Southern Airways Flight 242 - 1977 aviation accident



From the "Flight 1" disambiguation page
The manually maintained page is shown first. The page created with annotated links is shown second. -
 * American Airlines Flight 1 (1936), a Douglas DC-2 that crashed near Goodwin, Arkansas in 1936 en route from Memphis and Little Rock
 * TWA Flight 1, a Douglas DC-2 that crashed in Pennsylvania en route from Newark to Los Angeles in 1936
 * Northwest Airlines Flight 1, a Lockheed Super Electra that suffered a fire on board and crashed in Montana in 1939 coming from Minneapolis
 * American Airlines Flight 1 (1941), a Douglas DC-3 that crashed near Lawrence Station, Ontario in 1941 en route from Buffalo to Detroit
 * American Airlines Flight 1 (1962), a Boeing 707 that crashed after a rudder failure in 1962 just out of New York towards Los Angeles
 * "Flight 1" (Mad Men), an episode of the television show Mad Men, centering in part on the American Airlines crash
 * CSA Flight 001, a flight that crashed in Czechoslovakia in 1976
 * Icelandic Airlines Flight 001, a Douglas DC-8 that crashed in Sri Lanka in 1978
 * Qantas Flight 1, a flight that overran the runway in Bangkok in 1999

Additional Notes

 * Naturalness
 * Note about the possibility of contriving natural sentences for any proposed title.


 * Recognizeability It is also feasible that in the near term, a non-expert having been exposed to news coverage of these events would recognize the notability of the current title even if by the carrier name alone.
 * Naturalness - Adding Forced grounding of imposes a standard on other articles that reference the events of this flight. Carrier names and flight numbers are used across languages and borders and they can be easily worked into prose of any type when linking from other articles. (Only "flight" relies on english)
 * Precision - “Forced grounding of” adds no precision. It would be more precise if there was more than one instance of Ryanair flight 4978 that was notable but that is not currently the case. A flight that happens without issue on a regular basis is not notable alone and therefore there is little chance of confusion. Few readers if any would expect to visit the wikipedia article by this title and find information related to normal operation of this flight.
 * Conciseness is lost by the proposed title.
 * Consistency is lost by the proposed title. (Note that the Evo Morales grounding incident did not take place on a commercial flight.)
 * Always going to be exceptions - use consensus and sound arguments.

Examples as precedent

 * Korean Air Flight 85 was an incident for which all notability is largely derived from other events of the day.
 * TWA Flight 840 hijacking and TWA Flight 840 bombing use descriptive gerunds to distinguish between two topics
 * Linea Aeropostal Venezolana Flight 253 (June 1956) and Linea Aeropostal Venezolana Flight 253 (November 1956) use dates improve title precision enough to distinguish topics. Similar examples at Flight number topic.