The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
One of the big issues of this crash was the way family members and the passenger list was mishandled. In fact, Swissair Flight 111 even mentions this as something to learn from. It's actually why I landed on this article because I wondered what TWA did, but having read the article, I do not see anything but a brief mention and it's not even elaborated on. If time allows, I will try to write a section on that. I feel that this is significant because it too was a contributing factor in the aftermath. In fact, in a very left handed kind of way, the TWA response is nodded too via the law change mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the Aftermath section. MagnoliaSouth(talk)08:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OpposeWP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. The incident was the only incident that involved TWA 800 that most people know despite another incident with different aircraft happened in 1964. If you want to move the article, why not creating DAB for base name? 125.167.58.183 (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reason, primary topic; I think the existing redirect is sufficient. The crash was important enough that the NTSB kept the fuselage for training. Comparing 1964 to 1996 pageviews over a two year span (Nov '19-21), the former accident has 26,528, the latter 1,534,337. Both articles saw a major spike corresponding to the NTSB decommissioning in July this year, meaning people probably confused 1964 for the modern accident, and adding a date could possible confuse more than help imho. Strangerpete (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but I've never heard of the other one and find no compelling reason to confuse people. #bodyContent a[title="PlaneCeiling912 { background-color: ##FF0000; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; } 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, as a third opinion – I would say the level of precision is a bit much. I am reviewing the NTSB report and even they reference the plane as "TWA flight 800" and then "TWA 800". In other words, the existing page was sufficient. Adding to it would be going into excessive detail. – The Grid (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid: I do not mean to offend you by any means but I assume some form of consensus that using the IATA and ICAO in the brackets is the usual norm for the lead of an article. Such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I do not think overprecision is a reasonable justification to revert. Also, going through the NTSB report, it is evident that the phrase TWA flight 800 is used more often than TWA 800. Username006 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Username006: no, adding all possible flight numbers in the first line of the lead is not the norm and to my knowledge no consensus has been established about it, despite some articles showing that information. Flight numbers are already clearly listed in the infobox, and adding them to the text does not necessarily improve it, unless the flight number has entered common usage (such as with TWA 800 and unlike TW800). --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note the addition of the icao/iata flight numbers in the infobox is fairly recent so some articles still have them in the lead paragraph although the lead should include the most common flight format, in this case TWA800. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit my initial revert and edit summary was mostly in response to the replacement of "TWA" with "flight" in the image caption text and the previous edit summary was ambiguous so I had no idea why this was changed. My revert edit summary "Not an Improvement" is not the same as "Unconstructive" which was your word above not used by me. I see such edits as this as not being necessary even though the result is of similar meaning and intent - and randomly twiddling with words is time wasting and ultimately disruptive. On the subject of the multiple flight numbers I see this as not particularly helpful to readers of the encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
