Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009

	Aviation portal This template 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 articles
	This template is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management

This template 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 articles

color

Interesting template but I would use a different color than red for the "deadliest accident". At first I thought the article was missing then realize its just a just a morbid color choice. --MarsRover (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:color

According to the key, the colour should be orange. Is there any reason why it is red instead?? (i.e. unsolved crash investigation?) --79.79.133.122 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative layout

How about something like this for these templates:

The date format for each entry should remain constant as MMM-dd, i.e. three-letter abbreviation for month, two-digit number for day. The italics/smallcaps system avoids the bold used on article pages. 212.84.106.20 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The small caps looks really weird. I have to admit that I prefer the bright yellow used in the other templates. And the italics is hard to spot. The whole idea behind bold was to make it obvious which ones were very deadly. Maybe bolded italics instead? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I was trying to avoid using bold as that's used by Wikipedia when the article you're looking at matches a link in the template. But I know what you mean. How about the columns? Seems much less cluttered to me than the long wrapped list of links. 212.84.105.10 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i just came here to comment that bold seemed like a strange way to highlight the crashes with 50+ fatalities, because the current article is always bold. I'd agree with bolded italics as an alternative. Julianhall (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The columns are a cool idea, but really only make sense for years that have a lot of accidents -- like 2009. I made the {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1973}}, for example, and that only has 11 accidents, so the columns would actually look strange since it would force white space at the edges of the banner and make it much larger than it already is. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Years with, say, 20 or more accidents, sure, columns would make it easier to find a given article. Less than 20, probably not.

Re: bolded text. True, it's used for the current article, but honestly just italics by itself doesn't make something stand out, mostly because it's generally used for emphasis, so readers are trained to not see it as "jumping out" but rather an in-line sort of emphasis, so it really needs to be paired with something that makes it stand out. The best way is bolding the italics, or changing color, but having two color changes is, frankly, confusing. Small caps really just doesn't stand out, especially for people (like me) with huge monitors and text that stands about a 1/2 centimeter tall on the screen. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're in agreement about bolded italics then? Good.

One further question, the orange colour used to highlight the deadliest incident is a different shade to the one used in the key. This is slightly confusing, does anyone know why this is? Julianhall (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented something along the lines of the above, using italics for incidents resulting in more than 50 deaths and bold smallcaps for the deadliest each year. I think this is the only combination that will (1) avoid the plain-bold Wikipedia uses for any link on a page that is to the page itself, while (2) permitting a distinction between a deadliest incident involving fewer than 50 deaths (bold smallcaps only) and one that involves 50 or more (italic bold smallcaps). 212.84.98.102 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya R44 crash

Please start an entry about the Robinson R44-Astro, callsign 4x-bdm, crashed in Netanya, Israel on 24.11.09.

4 people had died including Ran Lapid, the pilot. The most exprienced helicopter pilot in Israel.

It happened due to a terrible technical problem, and is still under investigation of the NTSB and FAA.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.73.22 (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That accident is probably non-notable per WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably lead to grounding af all R44's when investigation ends. 84.109.73.22 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small caps

I'm afraid I agree with several of the original participants in the discussion that the small caps look weird to the point of unprofessional. If trying to highlight the deadliest crash, perhaps it would be better to use a typographical symbol such as "†" or "*" as is usually done on templates to highlight particular entries? TheGrappler (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One photo op incident

@WilliamJE: - as you've removed my addition of the Air Force One photo op incident to the template with the rationale that it "doesn't belong here", I'm invoking the D part of WP:BRD.

As the template is named "Aviations accidents and incidents in 2009", the event was clearly "an aviation incident" and occurred in 2009, I believe it meets all necessary criteria to be included. I would be interested to hear why you think it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an aviation accident or incident. Was the plane at risk? No! Was it investigated by the NTSB? No! I will remind you about the discussion[1] we had a few years ago. Would it go on that page? No and it shouldn't go in the template either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]