Jump to content

Talk:Graham Hill plane crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move

[edit]

1975 Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd Piper PA-23 Aztec crash, although formally correct, is not a very meaningful title, for the accident in question (and strictly speaking, 'Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd' is not an airline). Graham Hill plane crash seems more appropriate, much like John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash, another accident in which a notable person died at the controls of a light aircraft. If there are no objections, I'll update all the links to the old title. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deeday-UK - That was a very poor choice of title. As you recognize, the title I chose, after very careful consideration, followed the convention of (year)(operator)(aircraft type)(event type). It is a particularly poor title as "plane crash" is not encyclopedic. A plane is either a woodworking tool or a species of tree, not a form of transport that flies. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that plane crash is not ideal. However, it is also a very common expression. The title should also refer directly to Graham Hill somehow: the guy was notable, he was the pilot and that was essentially his private aircraft (even if operated through a Ltd company); this was really 'his' crash, and a title that reflects it ultimately serves the reader better. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that we shouldn't be using the word "plane" in the title, as it is a colloquialism for "airplane". The term "crash" is similarly sensationalist and not encyclopedic. How about Graham Hill aircraft accident? John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash needs renaming as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahunt: - "crash" is accurate and better portrays the event than "accident" does. We could go with the location and aircraft type - "1975 Arkley Piper Aztec crash" if we're not going to use the operator. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that article title, but shouldn't Hill's name be mentioned in the title? - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky one, that. Hill was the pilot, not the operator of the aircraft. Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd was the operator. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true and your suggestion does follow the guidelines. Across the encyclopedia we seem to not have a unified approach on this issue. On the one hand we have John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash and then we have 2014 Falcon 50 Vnukovo ground collision, even though a notable person, Christophe de Margerie, was killed in it. Further titling includes The Day the Music Died (Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper), 1963 Camden PA-24 crash (Patsy Cline), Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan, Bill Graham helicopter crash, 1969 Newton Cessna 172 crash (Rocky Marciano), 1977 Convair CV-240 crash (Lynyrd Skynyrd) and so on. Some of these do not follow the guidelines. I really think we need to agree as to whether we are going to follow the guidelines we already have, or change them and fix some articles. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we take on board the policy at WP:COMMONNAME, and especially WP:MOSAT which says we should use commonly recognisable names where they exist, rather than our Project's rather awkward alternative? The identity of this particular operator is obviously an obscure train(plane?)spotting issue and the pilot is far more commonly recognisable. I would be happy to support a move from "plane" to "airplane" but any other change discussed appears to be a violation of policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is also Death of Aaliyah. I notice "plane crash" gets over a hundred times more hits on Google than "airplane crash" (970k vs 8k, in the News section). I'm not bothered either way, but 'plane' and 'plane crash' in particular seem to be getting more and more common, so there's no shame in using them for a concise, meaningful headline. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion, although interesting, is detracting from the purpose of this thread, which is the title this article should have. Suggest that the discussion of other articles not conforming to the naming convention is held at WT:AIRCRASH.

Given that the aircraft's operator is not an airline, and using it produces a rather unwieldy title, I'm filing a RM for a better title. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2018

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Although there is some limited support for a shorter title, overall there is no consensus to move anywhere at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Graham Hill plane crash → 1975 Arkley Piper PA-23 Aztec crash – Per above discussion, this title is in accordance with the naming convention for aircraft accident articles. I feel that having the name of the pilot in the article title puts too much emphasis on him, and may be in breach of NPOV. Having "plane crash" in the title is unencyclopedic. Leave that phrase to the redtops. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea but I still think "crash" is a bit tabloid for an encyclopedia and we should use "accident" (despite the constant use of crash in these article titles!) MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the same argument I presented above, that "accident" was more encyclopedic and less sensational sounding. So how about 1975 Graham Hill Piper PA-23 Aztec accident, then? - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a crash. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was. In this sub-thread, appreciation of the WP:CRITERIA policy is sorely lacking, especially with respect to naturalness and conciseness. I can only suggest that the rest of you read the whole of WP:TITLE a little more closely. It is a policy and cannot be overridden by what we say here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A search on existing article titles reveals that "Xxx plane crash", "Xxx airplane crash" and "Xxx air crash" are used pretty indiscriminately. A strict reading of WP:CRITERIA on consistency suggests that we should agree on just one of these and move large numbers of articles to it. That search also revealed wide variations in "Xxx". IMHO the present discussion is a storm in a teacup and any proposals should be carefully researched before being framed and discussed in a Project-wide context at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide and the WP:AVINAME style guide updated accordingly. Note that AVINAME currently only applies to airline flights, so is long overdue a review. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But WP:AATF covers non-airline accidents. It says For articles on air accidents without a flight number, the title should be in the format <<year>> <<airline>> <<aircraft>> <<event>> or if this is not possible, <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. The original title of 1975 Grand Prix (Bahamas) Ltd Piper PA-23 crash followed the first if you take <<airline>> to mean "operator". The suggested new title follows the second <<year>> (1975) <<place>> (Arkley) <<event>> (Piper PA-23 crash). Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It also says, "Exceptions: if the event has acquired a popular name, that name should be used," let us not forget that part of the task force convention. A quick Google makes it abundantly clear that the crash is remembered mainly for Graham Hill and not the other way round. Actually I didn't even know this AATF convention existed. It's not even a guideline (which is probably why I missed it), so what is its status? May I suggest that for sanity's sake it should be merged with the Project guideline. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this all got a bit mangled when somebody tried to create (in good faith) a "project" guideline from all the guides and essays in the sub-projects which means some of them have drifted apart over time. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I have just said elsewhere, I think renaming to 1975 Arkley Piper Aztec crash (we don't need the cumbersome and largely pointless model number) would be a good move. Although this incident was mostly brought to people's attention because of Hill's involvement, that isn't its only notable feature. Six people died in the incident and reducing five of them down to footnotes in Hill's life sticks in my throat a little. This is especially true as Tony Brise has had quite a bit written about him (not the least of which was David Tremayne's excellent book) which also discusses the circumstances and effect of this incident. We use 2008 Biggin Hill Cessna Citation crash as the article title for the incident that killed Richard Lloyd (racing driver) and David Leslie (racing driver), and in that case it provides a good, descriptive, neutral title that both pages can then reference from. Pyrope 16:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't agree. With due respect to all concerned, Graham Hill is far and away the most famous of the victims (Amazon currently lists at least four books about him) and was also the pilot of the plane. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC) And to put it another way, any other title would need the popular Graham Hill plane crash to redirect to it. Most of these other suggestions are far too long-winded and counter-intuitive to be typed in by a hopeful visitor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most famous, yes, but not the only one who has books (and other things) written about him, and not the only one notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Redirects are there for the precise purpose you outline; arguing that we shouldn't do something because we'd have to set up a redirect is like arguing you shouldn't drive anywhere because you'd have to use a seatbelt. We don't commonly set up a page with a specific person's name in it unless they are the only person of note who has died in an incident. We don't refer to the 1977 Convair CV-240 crash at the "Lynyrd Skynyrd crash" or Air Canada Flight 797 as the "Stan Rogers fire", do we? Buddy Holly's terminal flight is, quite creatively, listed at The Day the Music Died. I count around 8 significant redirects to that page, including Buddy Holly- and Ritchie Valens-specific ones and, much as I respect Valens, you'd have to argue that Holly is a far greater star than he. Poor old Big Bopper doesn't even merit a redirect, apparently. Pyrope 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pyrope's suggestion is acceptable to me. I'd forgotten the Cessna Citation crash, which also omits the model number, which is not that important in the great scheme of things. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Having originally changed the title from the first, cumbersome one to the current one, I'm now at a point where one day I think Graham Hill plane/airplane crash is the best title, and the next one that 1975 Arkley Piper Aztec crash would be more appropriate. If we change it to the latter, then the former would automatically become a redirect, which would ensure that readers googling 'Graham Hill plane crash' are taken straight to the correct article. I would go one step further and list this article in the {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1975}} template as Graham Hill plane/airplane crash anyway (even if the article is moved to 1975 Arkley Piper Aztec crash), which would be much more meaningful to a reader browsing the template. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request rename

[edit]

I'm requesting that it should be renamed Embassy Hill plane crash. 79.78.104.111 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to explain why you think that. Start at WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because all of the people who were killed on the plane were members of Embassy Hill so it would be cleaner to readers to see. GarethThomas2000 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would fail WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't move this page when this discussion failed to produce a consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from not being the common name the suggested name looks confusingly like a geographical location. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is just one reason I moved it back. Pages should not be moved when there is a discussion that shows objections. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:RM should have been used to inform other editors of the proposed move. @MilbourneOne, GarethThomas2000, and Foxerman: if you still think the page should be moved please follow the instructions at WP:RM. Ypu may also want to look at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA because none of your arguments so far are based on policies.
SSSB (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't have pinged MilbourneOne there, my bad.
SSSB (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is okay, you didn't ping User:MilborneOne, because you spelled his username wrong. I think the key argument here is that a move discussion needs to lead to a consensus before a move is made. So far there is no consensus to move the page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And GarethThomas2000 is blocked as a sockpuppet. No idea why you want to involve that user... Tvx1 14:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didnt know he was blocked as a sock puppet...
SSSB (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request rename

[edit]

I'm requesting that it should be renamed Embassy Hill plane crash. It had all six people on the plane working with Embassy Hill on the day the plane crash, all six were killed with their stories to tell. It would give more detail if the page had more information (e.g. 2004 Hendrick Motorsports aircraft crash) as that had most of their members working for the same team thus that was named after their team instead of an induvial. They were a team and they closed because their plane piloted by their boss crashed. College2021 (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Hill_plane_crash&oldid=1227261697"