Talk:2012 Norwegian Air Force C-130 crash/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2012 Norwegian Air Force C-130 crash. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Page move
Was this page move the right thing to do? I think "Norwegian" ought to be part of the title of this article. __meco (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Normal practice is to leave an article that is at AfD at its original title until the discussion is close (but that alone doesn't mean a move can't take place). So in that sense the move probably should have waited. Secondly, I can't find a standard for whether 'crash' or 'accident' is used for aviation articles (my gut feeling is accident is a more common term, but I can't back that up any concrete evidence), and thus I find the mover's reasoning (via the edit summary) based on some grassroots campaign related to car accidents/crashes also problematic. Finally, it definitely needs to contain Norwegian or Norwegian Air Force, as with just the year it is far too vague. Other C-130 incidents (maybe not hull losses, though) are almost inevitable this year; so the title does need clarification. Ravendrop 00:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I moved it back to the original title. If the article is to have a different title, that can be discussed here prior to any further moves. __meco (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Dont have a problem with the current name, I think accident is better as crash is a bit tabloid and doesnt fit with an encyclopedia, but we can wait for a proper move request. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, "accident" is better than "crash". /Julle (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Dont have a problem with the current name, I think accident is better as crash is a bit tabloid and doesnt fit with an encyclopedia, but we can wait for a proper move request. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I moved it back to the original title. If the article is to have a different title, that can be discussed here prior to any further moves. __meco (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of discussion was carried out reaching a concensus on deletion of this article. Somebody inquired as to why I said that wikipedia is not a Scandinavian newspaper. The reason is because it is not!! It is obvious to me that the article has been hi-jacked by those without a balanced point of view. As we Aviation editors try to keep the project in perspective, it is annoying to see our efforts tossed away without a thought. The article is about an aircrash then WP:AiIRCRASH should hold sway and if it is'nt policy for Aviation accidents then it should be!! I think that we acquitted ourselves admirably by not getting in a bun fight and sticking to facts instead of fancies.Petebutt (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think we all agree that Wikipedia is not a Scandinavian newspaper.
- I have no reason to think anything but that you're acting of the best of Wikipedia. I'd love for you to acquit yourself even more admirably by not accusing the big number of editors who took part in the discussion of not having thought their opinions through and building their arguments on fancies rather than fact. /Julle (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
NATO and the Swedish political debate
As I pointed out in the AfD discussion, the crash sparked political debate in Sweden regarding the relationship to NATO. I think we should try to add this, if it can be done in a neutral way. There's a lot of opinion pieces, but those aren't, as such, good sources. Should any reliable source summarize the debate when it starts to vane, it would be nice if we could find said source and use it here. /Julle (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)