Talk:Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that one of Aeroflot's worst accidents occurred in August 1979 (1979-08), when two Tupolev Tu-134s collided over Dniprodzerzhynsk in the Ukrainian SSR, claiming 178 lives?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s.

Wikipedia

Aviation: Airlines / Accidents / Soviet

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the airline project.
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy / History Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nomination

The nomination was passed.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed tags removed

@The Banner: Regarding this [1], if sources gave enough information to identify the locations then add the correct ones when removing the tags. I don't think you could do this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was fooled by the fact that both links were not tagged as disambiguation page (see: Krasny, Russia). As such, Wikicleaner does not see them as links to disambiguation pages. I will take more care with that.

But by the way, you seem to know that is was a link to a disambiguation page. Why did you not solve the link? The Banner talk 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it if I knew the right target pages. That's the reason the links were tagged.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking is also an option... The Banner talk 18:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's better to leave it this way.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]