Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014

MH370

I think currently it would be better to list Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 as "missing" in brackets, with regular typeface, smallcapsing 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash instead in order to not to forestall the events. The search for MH370 hasn't been closed so far and the article still lists the flight as missing. Otherwise there may be a risk of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Brandmeister^talk 14:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that was the deadliest accident of the year by writing it in small capitals is pretty much saying you're sure the flight has crashed and everyone has died when you have absolutely no way of knowing it. However, I think we should, in addition to the indication "missing" between brackets, say also that this incident can be the deadliest of the year. Maybe we could write something like "(missing—may be the deadliest)" instead of just "(missing)", to show that we can't be sure either that the Algerian crash was indeed the deadliest. That's the only change I would make to your proposal. Otherwise, I totally support it. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked into ways to explain that MH370 could be the deadliest as a footnote and also looked into revising the footer. Neither idea was practical. Rather than "(missing—may be the deadliest)" would it work for people to have "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (missing with 239 passengers and crew)"? I tested the template using that wording and the extra text fits fine. This way it's a factual statement without needing to mention the faintly POVish "may be the deadliest". --Marc Kupper|talk 05:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Try reading this talk page discussion[1]....William 10:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have just responded to that discussion. I think I have debunked all of your arguments, and shown how unreasonable it is to affirm the aircraft has crashed killing all onboard without actually knowing it. Please respond, or I shall change the template again in order to comply with WP:NPOV and with avoiding WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless it was alien abduction, which another editor said not me, the plane has crashed. It can't be in the air. I replied elsewhere. You don't have a consensus for your viewpoint....William 14:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WilliamJE, consensus for the current status of MH370 is developed and maintained on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article. For now, the consensus status is "missing." An important factor in that status is that investigators are also calling it "missing." They are looking for the aircraft or evidence that it had crashed. The aircraft appears to have flown to the middle of the Indian ocean and at the last estimated location for it was well out of range of any landing sites. That all hinges on if the Inmarsat data is correct, and if the interpretation of that data is correct. The Inmarsat estimate was bolstered by that an underwater pinger were detected in the area they predicted as the final location of the aircraft. Nevertheless, the aircraft is still reported as "missing." --Marc Kupper|talk 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Update, regretfully, it seems we can remove "bolstered by that an underwater pinger were detected in the area" from my previous message.^[2] --Marc Kupper|talk 22:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Amazing! Even the investigators themselves have agreed it is very unlikely that one of the indicia they had that the plane had crashed in the ocean is in fact true! One more of the arguments they based themselves upon to consider the possibility of a crash is now regarded as having been probably an error—nothing but a false alarm! Once again, William, where's your proof that the plane has crashed, killing all onboard? If it did crash, how come they have not found anything to support that theory? Why can't we be rational and affirm that all we know is that we don't know? Man, I'm changing that template. We've been having this discussion for a week now, and you obviously have nothing to support your theory. Let's be honest. I'm going to change that template, on grounds of WP:NPOV and avoiding WP:CRYSTALBALL—and I'm doing it now on grounds of WP:SNOW. The next time you undo my edit, please present proof the plane has crashed and everyone onboard has died. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, William, because planes only have three possibles statuses: "in the air", "crashed", or "abducted by aliens". There is no such thing as being "on the ground". Who has ever seen a plane on the ground? That's impossible! Planes are airborne all the time! They never touch the ground! Well, but anyways, that's not what I said. I have never said the plane was still airborne. Once again, you're using a straw-man argument by refuting something you claim I said, but which I never did in fact. Please stop doing that. It leads you nowhere. It could have landed somewhere. You have no evidence to disprove that. I'm not saying it did; I'm just saying it may have. You also have no proof it has crashed, so you can't tell for sure it did. And what do you mean by saying I don't have a consensus for my viewpoint? Actually, I do! The article's talk page says: "The consensus for the infobox is to leave it as "Missing" until the plane is actually found. Do not change it to "crashed" or any variation of "crashed." See these sections and this archived discussion for details." So there is a consensus to keep the plane as "missing". Again, I'm not saying it didn't crash, but only that you can't tell whether it crashed or not. Have you noticed everything is pointing against you? Have you noticed how I have always debunked all of the arguments you've ever used so far, whilst you have never refuted any of mine? Instead, you keep getting straw-man arguments, and other loosely-based arguments that are leading you nowhere. I've already responded to your comments in the Task Force talk page. I've refuted all of your arguments there too. If you don't say anything new soon that actually shows how you are right, I shall follow Marc Kupper's suggestion and include it on the template. I'm sick of this chit-chat that is only delaying the communication of an impartial viewpoint. You don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this debate and proving the plane has crashed until absolute proof actually arrives. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 21:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Marc Kupper, that's a good idea, but there's a problem: it does not indicate, as we meant to, that it's possible that this incident may have been the deadliest one. Unless you look it up, to anyone who reads that, the Algeria crash may have killed more than 239 people. I don't understand: what exactly is the problem with my idea of having the indication "(missing—may be the deadliest)"? You're saying it's "faintly POVish". Do you mean it kind of defends a viewpoint? How? It just presents doubt. It just shows that we can't be sure either that it was or that it was not the deadliest. I could go with your idea, but even that has a problem, and I'd like to understand what's the problem with my idea. Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Initially I was thinking of just "(missing)" but knew that a good number of editors would say MH370 should be flagged as the deadliest incident for 2014. I looked into ways to acknowledge this with a footnote or editing the footer line. Neither was practical unless we made a copy of {{Aviation accidents and incidents}}. I then saw that using "(missing with 239 passengers and crew)" would be 100% NPOV and factual. We can still leave the Algerian flight with 77 confirmed fatalities highlighted as the deadliest for 2014 until MH370's status is officially changed to be having 239 fatalities.

The "faintly POVish" aspect to "(missing—may be the deadliest)" is that it's introducing a concept (that the aircraft crashed with all aboard killed) that's not supported by the official consensus which is "missing." They are still looking for definitive evidence that it has crashed. I personally am not that strongly attached to any of the versions. I am interested in finding a wording that puts an end to the constant edit/change/revert I see here. Since 7 March 2014 there have been 96 edits by 40 editors with nearly all of them regarding the status of MH370. What I'm seeking is wording that won't trigger an instinctive "that is wrong" followed by an urge to revise the template.

That said, we are free to develop our own consensus on how MH370 should be reported in this template. It does not need to be the same as the consensus for the main MH370 article though disregarding that article is likely to induce astonishment and the urge to edit. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Marc, I wouldn't disagree much with you. I still don't quite understand what's the problem with my idea, but that's OK. I will trust your word that it's not the best, since not the most urgent is getting rid of these opinions that the plane has crashed for sure, when they can't really know it. I'll do that if no-one says anything new soon. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 21:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, it looks like the discussion on the talk page of the aviation accident task force has been closed. Since no proof of the crash has been presented, and all the arguments used by the ones who believed the plane had crashed have been refuted, I guess the template can now tell the truth, which is for certain all we know: the plane went missing, and it had 239 people onboard. The template now says that. I have also added a hidden note requesting editors not to change it due to the conclusion achieved in these discussions. I actually request that no-one will change it now. Until the plane is actually found and everyone is confirmed to be dead, we should still keep the plane listed simply as "missing", and not as the deadliest of the year. Thank you, guys, for your collaboration! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Guys, it looks like this tenplate has been blocked, and it now says MH370 is the deadliest accident of the year. Administrators want us to achieve a consensus about what to do. I propose now the following: that no incident be smallcapitalised, since we actually can't tell if the Algerica crash was the deadliest either. I suggest that we simply keep MH370 with the normal format, and add a note in parentheses saying "(missing with 239 passengers and crew)". This will show how we can't tell which one was the deadliest, and how we suspect that MH370 may be the deadliest, since it's missing with 239 people onboard. I think there is no need to rush into saying straight away it has crashed, since we can't have proof of it yet. Please comment, and present any objections you have. I'm interested in reaching a consensus as quickly as possible. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 19:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Template protected

I have protected the template from editing can you guys come to a consenus rather than reverting each other. MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Hello administrators, I'd like to make a request to make the 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash the deadliest incident of 2014 listed on this template per recent discussions on this talk page. There a consensus has already been reached that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which is currently listed as the deadliest incident of 2014, should not be, as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but should "report what reliable sources say" (GraemeLeggett). In this case, these sources that we have only report the plane as missing, not as crashed. Nobody has any evidence that MH370 ended up somewhere, and so nobody knows what happened to it. For the time being, I ask you to edit the template so that the Algerian Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash is listed as 2014's deadliest. Thank you. TehPlaneFreak! talk 16:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that it is always the wrong version that shows when something is protected I am really looking for a reasoned consensus that will stop edit warring on the template. I think we need to wait for others to comment and to see some agreement either way before the template is edited or unprotected. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think that GraemeLeggett closed the discussion by saying, "Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources treat all those aboard as dead, then for the purposes of the articles we can treat them as so. Should the situation change then so would the article and its inclusion in lists, categories, navboxes as necessary." The user suggests that no reliable sources say that every occupant of MH370 is dead. I'm not sure if everyone agrees with this consensus, however. TehPlaneFreak! talk 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TehPlaneFreak. To show how we are right, let me make a resume of all the arguments that have been presented by both sides, as well as their responses. Our arguments are coloured green and theirs are coloured red. The lead arguments are marked bold.

• There is no proof that the plane has crashed, nor of how many people died: no wreckage or dead bodies have been found; investigators are struggling to do so, and to be able to finally claim the plane has crashed. It runs counter to logic to make such a claim without proof of it.
  • The governments of Australia, Malaysia, and China, as well as Malaysia Airlines, have all claimed the plane has crashed, killing all on board.
    • They can't tell that. They're talking about what they don't know. No wreckage has been found—so they can't tell that plane crashed—and no bodies have been found—so they can't tell how many died. The fact that some governments say something doesn't make it true.
    • Additionally, many of the victims' relatives have already claimed to doubt those governments' statements, since no proof has been found of the crash.
  • There have been many other instances where planes have disappeared and no wreckage has been found.
    • Even on those cases, you can't tell whether or not those planes crashed, or how many died from those hypothetical crashes. Of course, if they happened a long time ago, the occupants can be presumed "dead in absentia", but that's only a long time afterwards.
  • Unless it was abducted by aliens, the aircraft cannot still be airborne, so it must have crashed.
    • That's a straw-man argument. We've never said it was still airborne. It could just have landed somewhere. Or it could have crashed, but with many survivors—maybe it crashed near an island, and some, most, or all of the occupants managed to swim there. Plus, that argument seems to ironise by assuming being abducted by aliens is an absurd possibility, but it may actually be true, if you think about it. It's very unlikely, certainly, but it's possible.
• Wikipedia is meant to keep a neutral viewpoint, which means, in this case, present both possibilities, and it's not supposed to be a crystal ball, which means it should not make forecasts, since they may be found not be correct.
  • (No response so far)
• There is a consensus on the talk page of the flight's article to keep the plane listed as "missing", and not as "crashed", until the plane is actually found.
  • (No response so far—in fact, amazingly, it has happened a few times that someone said we didn't have a consensus to keep the plane listed as missing—read the edit summaries—, when this is obviously a lie. We do have a consensus for this.)

Oh! And, additionally, the discussion on the Task Force talk page was closed by saying we should reproduce what reliable sources say. But reliable sources don't say the plane crashed, killing all onboard. Instead, they present both sides. They say they governments say something, but the families criticise the governments' statements due to the lack of evidence. Just another reason we should be impartial and present both sides of the question—this includes not jumping to conclusions right away, and instead simply declare the plane as "missing".

I think this shows how we are right. So far, no-one has been able to present us any argument to support the idea of listing the plane as "crashed with all onboard dead" that would be left unresponded—on the contrary, we always got the last word on every sequence of arguments. This shows that either they are wrong or they are unable to defend properly the truth (which I find unlikely—if something is true and they profess it is, they should be able to defend themselves). The only reason they manage to seem right is that they keep alternating between and repeating each of those arguments, but they all have a reasonable response, as I've shown. But they have no argument that can stand. So I think this basically means we are right. Hence, I request that the following changes be made to the template:

• Remove the italic bold smallcaps from MH370, and instead use that format for the Algeria Lockheed crash.
• After the name of MH370, add the following note in parentheses: (missing with 270 passengers and crew)
• After that note, add the following hidden note: Please do not list this incident as the deadliest of the year; the plane has simply gone missing, and there's no proof it has crashed or about how many have died; for more information, see the discussions about it on the talk pages of this template and of the WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force.

Well, I believe I've made my point. I've summed up all the arguments presented, and shown how they have nothing to support their idea—instead everything is in our favour. We are right, and I believe that is what any rational person will conclude if they analyse our discussions. Thus, I actually urge you to make those changes I've requested, in order to defend what we know is for certain the truth: the plane is missing, and we know nothing else. Please change it according to what I've requested. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 19:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Occam's razor favours the simpler solution. This means that we should favour the possibility that all died, versus the less likely theorems. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Those guys are refusing to accept logical arguments! Shall we keep saying the plane has crashed, even though we have no evidence of it, just because some stubborn guys refuse to change their minds? Is that what Wikipedia is suggesting? We've all said what there was to be said. The discussion on the Task Force has been closed. And we refuted all their arguments. We have obviously won the debate! Why shall we not change the template according to what we have proposed, since they have no more arguments against it? I'm not saying any of the "less likely theorems" are true. I'm just saying we can't tell whether those are true or whether the plane crashed. The simpler solution is not saying the plane crashed: it is instead to acknowledge our lack of knowledge in the subject. It is to say "We don't know", and present something that will comply with both possibilities. If we say the plane crashed and everyone is dead, and someday it is revealed that is not true and everyone is alive, it will be basically revealed that Wikipedia lied! Wikipedia is under the risk of being considered a liar if you guys keep being stubborn and not accept simple logics! Why shan't we do it? We have nothing to lose, do we? Instead, if we claim the plane has crashed, we do have something to lose: our credibility if it is found that such a thing is not true. Let's please be rational and tell what we know to be true: the plane is missing with 239 people onboard. Period. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 20:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but I don't see a consensus at this time to revert to your version of the template. The idea is that a discussion should take place where everyone reaches an agreement on what should be done, and I don't see that here. Perhaps you could consider some other approaches, like removing the "Deadliest incident shown in Bold SmallCaps" text completely, or adding a "†" after the MH370 flight, linking to a short note explaining that the plane is missing? If you're willing to be flexible about what is done here, there are a number of ways that a real consensus could develop. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a bad idea at all to remove the format for the deadliest accident. In fact, right now, we can't tell which one is the deadliest. It is, however, very risky to saying everyone died on MH370. Nobody can know that. It also looks like the discussion in the Task Force was closed (no idea why, since you say consensus hasn't been achieved), and William seems to have stopped insisting. Looks like you guys are all determined to claim the plane has crashed, killing all onboard, even though you have no proof. I honestly feel disappointed. But, nevertheless, just think about something: if they refuse to agree with us, although they can't present their arguments, shouldn't we just move on with our way? I mean, you don't see a consensus here, but you do see that they have no arguments standing. I've managed to respond appropriately to every single arguments they've used. And I actually made above a resume of the arguments used, to show how they have nothing to show for their position. Since they can no longer provide any justification, they're just being stubborn. Should we really make it their way just because they're being stubborn and are refusing to accept our arguments? Anyone who analyses these discussions will come to the conclusion that we are right. So why not following who is right? Just because some guys refuse to change their minds? Is that what Wikipedia hopes? That all stubborn guys will stop being stubborn before a solution can be achieved? Well, I don't agree with that. I request one more time that you consider again my resume of the arguments, as well as the fact that they have nothing to show for it—nothing to show that they're right. If you prefer, maybe you could make the following change to the changes I've proposed: do not mark any accident as the deadliest one yet. Apart from that, please do what I've requested. Just don't keep MH370 as the deadliest because we really can't tell if that's true. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As my name was mentioned, I may as well put my 2p/oar in. I had the last comment save the closer, but I think I have been misinterpreted. My approach is that as reliable sources are reporting that the authorities are looking for the wreckage of a crashed plane, and treating those aboard as lost, that is the approach to be taken here. As Holly says "They're all dead, Dave". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't reporting everyone is dead. They are reporting that the governments say everyone is dead and that the families are doubting such a thing. Reliable sources are presenting the two sides of the story. So, if you want to mirror reliable sources, you should provide the two sides of the story. "Looking for the wreckage of a crashed plane" does not mean "treating those aboard as lost". It means "trying to figure out if the plane crashed or not and how many people died". It means precisely that they don't know it yet. So we definitely mirror reliable sources by saying what we know: the plane is missing, with 239 people onboard. Some say it crashed, some say it didn't. That's irrelevant, since neither side has proof for their claims. Let's please be rational and claim what we know for sure. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Once again, I have deactivated the edit request template. You have asked, it has been declined. Reactivating the template is disruptive. The page is protected, just because the page was protected on (what you consider) the wrong version doesn't mean that it is going to be changed to another wrong version. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the template would be the wrong version for saying what the MH370 article said? The flight's just missing. The MH370 article lists no fatalities, no known survivors, nothing. However, with MH370 being crowned the deadliest incident of 2014 in this template, it would be contradictory to the MH370 article itself. This template was only meant to list whatever aviation incidents occurred in 2014. That being said, it lists MH370, whose article lists it as missing and includes a note to not edit the casualties without consensus. If MH370 is indeed confirmed to have crashed - with its "crash site" found - then maybe we can change MH370 to the deadliest incident of 2014. You may argue, "Hey, they never found Flight 19. Do you think that the pilots in Flight 19 are still alive?" Sure, you could say that those who disappeared are dead, but only after a considerably long time has passed. MH370 didn't disappear sixty-nine years ago, did it? It only disappeared two months ago! Anything could have happened to it! If it had disappeared a really long time ago, then we could say that MH370 crashed. But again, anything could have happened to MH370 since the two months after its disappearance. My soliloquy ends here: I suggest that we change the template's deadliest incident to the Algerian Lockheed crash, because it's supposed to list articles of aviation incidents, and if MH370 has confirmed fatalities - which it does not as of now - then we could make it the deadliest incident of 2014. TehPlaneFreak! talk 22:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @TehPlaneFreak and Sim(ã)o(n): I've deactivated the {{edit protected}} template again. This misuse of edit requests is now becoming disruptive, and if either of you restores the request template without a consensus to make an edit, I will block you from editing for a period of time at my discretion. You need to actually discuss the issue before you can reach a consensus, rather than simply reactivating the template without waiting for replies from other editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I closed the discussion at the WP because there was nothing constructive coming from it. Now, they never found F-BDRC either. That accident is marked on the relevant accident template as the deadliest to have occurred in that year, without all the heat, light and noise that we have had over this flight. Is anyone seriously going to suggest that the 52 people on that flight are alive in absence of any concrete proof of their deaths? In both cases, the most likely scenario is that all on board are dead. Should the case with MH370 be proven to be otherwise, then the necessary changes will be made. You've got at least three experienced admins (myself, MilborneOne and Redrose64) all saying pretty much the same thing here - the "average man in the street" would probably say that they are all dead. That is what Wikipedia should portray until there is reasonable evidence to state otherwise. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Man, did you even take a look at the resume I've posted right on this very same section? You're not the first to use the argument that other planes have disappeared with no wreckage being found, and it already has a response. Allow me to quote myself: "Even on those cases, you can't tell whether or not those planes crashed, or how many died from those hypothetical crashes. Of course, if they happened a long time ago, the occupants can be presumed "dead in absentia", but that's only a long time afterwards." The reason why there isn't any heat, light, and noise over that flight was that it happened over 60 years ago! Let me put it clear: you can't compare the odds of survival of the occupants of a plane that disappeared three months ago with the odds of survival of the occupants of a plane that disappeared several decades ago! You just can't! After a long time has passed since the disappearence of a plane, its occupants can be presumed dead. But that cannot be applied yet to MH370. I hope this will be clear now and I won't be forced to debunk this argument again. The most likely case scenario onboard MH370 may be that they're all dead, but there is still a considerable likelihood that they're still alive. If they're found to be alive, and you change back the template to not being the deadliest, it will look like they will have resurrected from the dead! Moreover, "the average man in the street" is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia is often made to change the mind of "the average man on the street" if he has the wrong idea of something. I think MH370 should definitely not be listed as the deadliest until proof of the occupants' deaths arrives or until a reasonable amount of time passes by (and this could be a few decades), so that we can assume they are very likely to be dead, as with many other flights about which you've given examples. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sim(ã)o(n): - "the man in the street", a.k.a. the man on the Clapham omnibus is a concept used in English Law. It is perfectly reasonable to consider what conclusions he would draw from the available evidence. Flight endurances of commercial civil aircraft are measured in hours. As we are now well into months since the aircraft disappeared it is extremely hard to conclude anything other than "crashed". Mjroots (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The article you've pointed out says that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" is a reasonable person. One of the characteristics of a reasonable person is that he should not jump to conclusions, but instead analyse everything, in order to come to the most possibly reasonable conclusion. Reasonable people should question everything they are told, and request evidence of anything they are told which they can't confirm straight away. I don't find it hard to conclude anything other than "crashed", and let me explain why. The most instinctive response should be: "A plane disappeared from radar? Where? OK. Send those guys up to that zone immediately. The plane must be there. Let's search for any survivors." When they've been looking in that area for some days, and found nothing, it should be reasonable to conclude that the plane did not disappear because it crashed, but rather for some other reason. From the moment you think that way, you should believe pretty much anything could be possible. From the moment you find the plane did not crash where it disappeared, you should assume it could have flown until it would have run out of fuel. This means you should assume anything could have happened to it. It wouldn't make much sense to still believe firmly that it crashed. Let me just speculate on a few examples of things that may have happened to MH370:

• It may have crashed, killing all onboard;
• It may have crashed in the ocean, but with some survivors who may have swum until they reached a nearby island;
• It may have landed on the ocean, with survivors who managed to swim to an island (in 2009, the incident with US Airways Flight 1549 proved how it is possible to land on water);
• It may have crashed on an island, but with some survivors (In 1972, a plane crashed in the Andes with some survivors who were only discovered two months later! Here's an example of how a plane disappearing and not being found over the following two months does not mean everyone is dead);
• It may have landed safely on an island, with all onboard having survived (if you think it is impossible for a plane to land in a place with no runway, TACA Flight 110 proved the opposite).

There may be other possible outcomes. And none of these can be refuted by existing evidence. Since, so far, any of these is possible, it is not by any means reasonable for "the man on the Clapham omnibus", who is a reasonable person, to conclude that it is certain that MH370 crashed with no survivors. Let me stress that, if he can't even know whether the plane crashed or not, he definitely cannot tell how many people died onboard. You said: "It is perfectly reasonable to consider what conclusions he would draw from the available evidence." Well, from the available evidence, I think what any reasonable person should conclude is that there is not enough evidence. No wreckage, no bodies, nothing! If you want to reflect what "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would say, you should say you can't tell whether the plane crashed or not, nor how many people died onboard. Are you really so willing to put your hands in the fire to say the plane crashed with no survivors? Really? Do you really want to jump to conclusions like this? Well, you do whatever you want. I just think you are being unreasonable, unlike "the man on the Clapham omnibus". Please reconsider your opinion. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sim(ã)o(n), the people investigating this incident are quite aware of possible outcomes, understand the performance of the aircraft very well, and also have access to data that has not been made public. They stuck their hand in the fire and said "All lives are lost" and "Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond a reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived."^[3] That was on March 24th and nothing has come up since that that would change that statement. It it not our job as Wikipedia editors to second guess this. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

They can't confirm that. If you request proof, they can't give it. As far as we know, the plane is just missing. Assuming it crashed is guessing in the first place. Wikipedia is not for guessing, regardless of how many governments support that guessing. The plane simply may not have crashed. It may have landed somewhere. It may have even followed another route. Even if it crashed, you can't guess how many people died. It is the first time I'm told "A plane has crashed, and all its occupants are dead" without being shown a single piece of evidence of it. And these governments are trying to convince me such a thing makes sense. Forget it! For me, the plane is missing. Period. Let me add that, in the article for the flight, it has been agreed to leave the flight just classified as missing, and to give no casualty number. Why should we contradict them? There is no evidence of any crash or any deaths! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 16:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

Please replace the current template with the sandbox version which gets rid of "deadliest crash of 2014" all together and adds a note that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is an unconfirmed crash as there are no reliable sources that I'm aware of that have stated it is impossible for the plane to have doubled back and landed someplace. In fact, I read a blog (unreliable, I'm aware) by a scientist (so he claimed) on the web (so it must be true sarcasm) that the fact that there have been insignificant amounts of wreckage found increases the likelihood that it in fact did not crash but made a safe landing someplace and has been dismantled and will likely never be found (entirely hypothetical, but to the point). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @Technical 13: this seems like a reasonable solution, but any solution needs to be discussed first to make sure that it has a consensus. If a discussion here results in a consensus for your version, please reactivate the request template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Support, removing the "deadliest crash of 2014" altogether as a good compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Two governments, Australia and China, and one airline- Malaysian Airlines, all say the passengers are dead. Several editors don't want to believe what they're saying because they say there is no evidence. There is evidence- An airplane took off three months ago, hasn't been seen since, is out of fuel, and three parties to this incident say they died. Evidence for them being still alive- Squat! The allegation against the governments or airline is- they don't know anything. How do these editors know they don't? Basic mistrust of government or corporations doesn't count as a reason. As for no wreckage- Aviation accidents with no wreckage being discovered isn't unheard of. One of which, Flying Tiger Line Flight 739, is also tagged as having over 50 casualties but nobody is protesting. Those editors who want to remove the tags on MH370 aren't clamoring for that flight, why wouldn't the same standard be applied there. We only have the government's word and there is no evidence and who knows those people are on a deserted island somewhere just like MH370 right?...William 12:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

William ... we are trying to find a consensus. You are not going to get agreement on your view. So we look for a middle ground. The best option seems to be to remove the contentious part altogether. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You have my answer I don't agree. Please note, these editors here[4], here[5], and here[6] agree with me. And since when do only editors who agree with you can reply to this thread? Your statement 'You are not going to get agreement on your view' seems to pretty clear attempt to discourage anyone but persons who agree with you....William 13:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Will, let me try to clarify. This template isn't the place to get consensus on either view of whether the plane crashed or not. This is only a template to list this years accidents, and since there is no current consensus as to which flight has a verified reported death count, then any POV claims that this crash was more tragic than the other (works either way) are unverified and shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

William, you do not understand. The governments can say whatever they want; that doesn't make it pure truth. They still need evidence. Is there any evidence it crashed? You say: "An airplane took off three months ago, hasn't been seen since, is out of fuel, and three parties to this incident say they died". Well, let me show you how that means nothing:

• 1) The simple fact that a plane has taken off and has never been seen again in three months does not mean it crashed, since it could have landed somewhere, and that would also comply with the fact it hasn't been seen;
• 2) Being out of fuel doesn't mean it crashed. Plus you can't tell if it's out of fuel or not. It may have landed somewhere before it ran completely out of fuel. Your assumption that it has no fuel, which is, in turn, based on the assumption that it was airborne all the time, does not mean it crashed. It could have landed somewhere;
• 3) The fact that three parties say everyone onboard died means nothing. They have no evidence of it. Again, how can they tell they're all dead? They can't even tell whether the plane crashed or not! They just keep looking for it, and they have found nothing! Not a single piece of an aircraft! Not a single part of a single human body! Nothing! How can they tell they're all dead? They can't! They don't know what they're talking about! Even the investigators, who know more about the investigation than anyone else, can't tell whether the plane has crashed or not!

You say: "Evidence for them being still alive- Squat!". Well, guess what? Evidence for them being dead: Squat! You say: "The allegation against the governments or airline is- they don't know anything. How do these editors know they don't? Basic mistrust of government or corporations doesn't count as a reason". OK, let me put it in another way: it's very unlikely that they know what they're talking about, and, if they do, they're hiding important information from us. If they are so sure the plane has crashed and killed everyone onboard, they should be able to present evidence to support such a claim. But it looks like they can't. Can they? Ask them how do they know it. What will they tell you? There are only three possibilities: 1) They know no more than us, and are just speculating and assuming their speculations are just truth, so they're just talking about something they don't know anything about; 2) they know exactly where the plane is, since they have already found wreckage and/or bodies somewhere in the ocean, and they have found no survivors in the area, and they are deliberately hiding that important piece of information from the investigators, which basically means that two governments and one airline are committing a crime of obstruction to justice; or 3) they know the plane did not crash, they know exactly where it is, but they are keeping its location a secret (for some reason about which we can only speculate), and so they're lying to us. Either way, this shows how it is possible that the plane may indeed have landed somewhere. Whatever they know, they can't prove what they're saying, so we can't just assume the plane has indeed crashed. But you go on: "As for no wreckage- Aviation accidents with no wreckage being discovered isn't unheard of. One of which, Flying Tiger Line Flight 739, is also tagged as having over 50 casualties but nobody is protesting". Well, there is a significant difference between that flight and MH370: Flying Tiger 739 disappeared more than 50 years ago, whilst MH370 went missing barely three months ago. As TehPlaneFreak said, referring to Flight 19: "Sure, you could say that those who disappeared are dead, but only after a considerably long time has passed. MH370 didn't disappear sixty-nine years ago, did it? It only disappeared two months ago! Anything could have happened to it! If it had disappeared a really long time ago, then we could say that MH370 crashed. But again, anything could have happened to MH370 since the two months after its disappearance". This applies also to that Flying Tiger. It happened a long time ago, so everyone onboard can be presumed "dead in absentia". Regardless of how many examples you present about planes that went missing, even those planes can't be said for sure to have crashed. Its occupants can only be presumed dead after many years have passed. You guys keep using the same arguments over and over again. And I have already debunked all of them, as you have been able to see. Let us please stop this discussion and be rational: no evidence has been found. Let's reflect that in the template.

Additionally, guys, maybe the best place to keep discussing about this now would be on the first section of this talk page, where I have started a new comment hoping you guys would present your support and objections to my suggestion. But maybe we should talk more there, not here below a protected page edit request. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Will, my goal him is to neutralize the situation. It doesn't matter if they are all alive or dead, the point of the matter is until a reliable news reporting agency reports that the plane has been found and there are # number of bodies on board, then it can't be listed as a verified incident. So, what my edit request here aims to do is remove the "deadliest" wording (it's really not a competition), until one of three things happens: 1) The plane is found and there is a causality number; 2) The plane is found someplace and there are survivors; 3) Another plane crashes which exceeds the passenger count on MH370 in which case this won't be an issue any more. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Moving forward straw poll

There was a request on June 1st that requested to make the 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash the deadliest incident of 2014 listed on this template by TehPlaneFreak. This has been heavily contested by (an)other editor(s), who insist that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is the deadliest crash of the year to date. There seems to be a stalemate in the discussion between these two opposite sides, and as such, I'm posting this RfC to get some more feedback on how to deal with this situation. I've modified the base template for this to allow the ability to mark none as the deadliest crash. The question posed here is: which crash, if either, should be listed as the deadliest of the year? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dicussion

Per rough consensus, I have removed mention of the deadliest accident from this template, for now. This can be re-added later if consensus changes or if further information arises. Hope this is the best compromise for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The template looks much better to me now. There's just one problem left, though: it still marks MH370 with italics, giving the feeling that we know that at least 50 people died there. Well, since we can't even confirm that at least 50 people died, I propose that we just take one or both of the following actions:

• Removing the italic format from "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370";
• Adding a dagger with a message saying that 239 people were onboard, and that their deaths are unconfirmed.

The sandbox of this template has both changes incorporated. I would prefer to see both implemented; if that's not possible, at least I would like to see one of those changes implemented, preferencially the one of the dagger, so as to signal specifically to any viewer that the crash and deaths are unconfirmed.

However, I won't insist much with this. I don't even know the exact text that would be best to insert in the dagger. In the sandbox, I wrote "unconfirmed; missing with 239 people onboard", but maybe there would be something better. That's just the sketch of another thing I'm proposing. I would like to hear some other opinions. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 21:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we please reconsider the change to the template? It seems unreasonable to effect a global change that impacts dozens of pages because of disagreement over a single contemporary incident. It was informative to be able to see which incidents resulted in high numbers of casualties and which was the deadliest in any given year; now it feels like the template has been given the Harrison Bergeron treatment to the point where it has no utility other than as a chronological list. There are dozens of unsolved disappearances of aircraft and ships, many of which are listed on their respective pages as disasters with no survivors. Unless we are willing to go back and change all of them to reflect the possibility that the occupants are possibly still alive, then maybe the dagger is the best solution, where it would signify that if a missing vessel is indeed lost, it would represent a high-casualty incident. Thank you for listening. -- Javelin98 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash

1. — The Lockheed crash is a confirmed one, while there's no evidence of the deaths on board MH370. Even if a claim about the MH370 comes from a reliable source, it should present a convincing evidence, otherwise it may be another speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Listing the Lockheed crash as the deadliest and the MH370 event as missing in the template would be a fair representation of the current situation. If at least a piece of the debris (if it exists) is found in the ocean (not even a black box or a single body), then I'll change my opinion, but currently it is as it is. Brandmeister^talk 19:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

1. Following reliable sources is the ideal, but for all practical purposes MH370 is the deadliest incident this year. When the passengers are found safe and well, the template can be changed, but until that time MH370 is it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where the obvious cannot be stated because of some rule. I suppose a note to the effect that some official site still lists the flight as missing could be added to account for the possibility that MH370 will be found in a hangar one day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
2. I took a look at what the investigators/searchers are saying and noticed a pattern in that they are looking for where MH370 crashed or its final resting place. For example, a May 29, 2014 report has direct quotes from investigators that include wording such as "the final resting place", "most likely crash site", and "Opposition lawmaker Tony Burke offered his party's condolences to the victims' families."^[7] As early as March 24, 2014 the relatives were told "All lives are lost." and "Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond a reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived."^[8] The www.aviation-safety.net is cited by over 10,000 Wikipedia pages.^[9] Aviation-safety.net seems to be a WP:RS and is reporting 239 fatalities.^[10] Despite this the families of some victims are hoping their relatives are still alive. As this seems like a "significant view" per WP:NPOV I could see adding a note to the template that the aircraft is missing and the fatalities have not been confirmed. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

   I forgot to source a couple of things in my message. For the first sentence "I took a look at what the investigators/searchers are saying..." I used Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#External links and looked over recent reports from the various agencies. For "Despite this the families of some victims..." a source is this which is the same article I cited for the March 24, 2014 statements. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Both with a note saying MH/MAS370 is unconfirmed

1. If you want to be consistent with the previous years templates and show the deadliest flight, we should show both with an asterisk for MH.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither per my June 2nd edit request

1. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. — Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 18:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Because we can't tell right now which one is the deadliest: there is no wreckage of MH370, no bodies, and no evidence of crash, so we shouldn't try to foresee the events, since Wikipedia is no crystal ball, and we should keep a neutral viewpoint; plus, the article of the flight treats it as missing, and it would be contradictory to have a template in that article saying everyone is dead.

   I can agree, however, to add a note to that flight saying the Australian and the Chinese governments, as well as Malaysia Airlines, have concluded the plane has crashed, killing all onboard, but we can't go any further than that. They can say whatever they want, but we shouldn't take their word for granted. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

3. — TehPlaneFreak! talk 00:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I used to support the sentiment that the Algerian plane crash should be classified as the deadliest incident of 2014. However, now that I ponder about the current situation, I've changed my mind. Neither MH370 nor the Algerian C-130 crash should be classified as the most fatal of 2014. Of course, MH370 might not be airborne as of now, but nobody knows for sure as to what happened to it. The fact that MH370 crashed might be likely per the current situation, but nobody, and absolutely nobody, can prove that it crashed. Meanwhile, the Algeria Lockheed crash has the most confirmed fatalities; however, MH370, which disappeared, had more occupants than the Algerian C-130. That's why I believe in making neither the deadliest incident of 2014.
4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Gray (talk • contribs) For something as simple as a template - where it'd be confusing to add footnotes and explanations - it seems simplest as a compromise just to leave off the "deadliest" marking if there's a dispute rather than have any kind of notes, caveats, etc. However, my strong second preference would be for simply listing MH370 - it seems deeply unlikely that everyone involved is not dead by now as a result of the disappearance, and I think most reliable sources seem to reflect that.

Edit request to add incidents for Gazavia and Bedford

Please update the template to add: 2014 Gazavia Mil Mi-8 crash and 2014 Bedford Gulfstream IV crash. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like we need to delete these from the template. Both of the articles got deleted per G8. Both had seemed seemed legit enough at the time I requested adding them to the template. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 June 2014

The Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down occurred at 00:51 local time on 14 June 2014, so the date should be corrected. Tdl1060 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tdl1060: - do you have a source for this? Please add the relevant information to the article and I'll be happy to oblige. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - The CCTV footage shown on RT showed that that was the exact time when it crashed. However, none of the sources cited in the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article, or any other article mentioning the crash support the 13 June claim. Each say either "the night of 13-14 June" or "early Saturday".--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tdl1060:, I've changed the date. Will try and find that footage and expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to unprotect?

Is it now time to unprotect this template? The current situation where both accidents with more than 50 casualties is marked but neither is in bold smallcaps seems to be the preferred one for the moment. If there is not going to be any more warring over this issue, I don't see why the template cannot be unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I have removed the protection, please note that any user that makes changes to 50+ entries without gaining a new consensus may be seen as being disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposing change to MH370's state as 50+ deaths

Hello again, guys! I don't want to be stubborn, or anything, but there are just a few more things I'd like to say. I am very glad that the change that I, together with several other editors, have requested has finally been made to this template. It looks really much better to me now.

Now, there is just one more thing. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is still listed in this template with italics, indicating that, at least, 50 people have died in the incident. My point is: not even that can be proven. It can't be proven that all died and it was the deadliest of the year, and it similarly can't be proven that at least 50 people died either. I have requested that this would be changed when I made a comment—with this edit—on the section "Discussion" of the request for comments of this talk page. But no-one seems to have noticed that in the past week. So I come here again to make another proposal, and to ask what you guys think of it. I suggest that either or—preferentially—both of the following changes be made as well:

• Removing the italic format from "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370";
• Adding a dagger with a message saying that 239 people were onboard, and that their deaths are unconfirmed.

The best would really be doing both. If you just want to do one of them, I suggest that priority be given to the second one (adding a dagger), since that is the one that will actually give viewers a clearer picture of the uncertainty and lack of confirmation surrounding the deaths of those onboard. The sandbox of this template has both changes implemented, so you can see more or less how it would be. Let me repeat: I would prefer to see both changes included.

However, I will not insist over this. This isn't really as significant as saying it was the deadliest of the year. Now that the page is unprotected, I haven't yet made this change simply because I'm guessing someone will disagree, and another edit war may be started unnecessarily. That's why I'm requesting opinions from you guys first. Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 22:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you just drop it, this is only a minor navigation template not an article it really is not that important. MilborneOne (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that, regardless of the extension of the impact that something we do will have, it is always good to do things the best way we can. More like a matter of principle, I guess... I'm not insisting over this. If you insist back too much, I'll drop it. But I'd like to see if someone would agree with me, so perhaps we could move on with this, and actually only show what we know for sure: the plane is missing with 239 souls onboard. I'm waiting for some more opinions... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't list this as 50+ deaths because no bodies were found yet. If nothing was found, then it would be as if the plane hasn't physically crash and just landed at some unknown location. Sam.gov (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also if someone would show us an official article that the plane actually crashed and there were at least 50+ deaths or nobody survived, then we'll move forward with this. Sam.gov (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. The point is this has already been moved forward with, and I'm proposing that we undo what is done now, meaning the incident would not be in italics. Indeed, no fatalities have been confirmed. Many governments have claimed that it would now be reasonable to assume that everyone is dead, but there isn't yet any physical evidence of such. No plane wreckage, and no bodies. Thank you for your opinion, Sam.gov! Let's wait for more opinions before proceeding with the change. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 19:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the idea of consensus is to keep raising the same issues until you get the right answer, you just have to remember it doesnt really matter this is a simple navigation navbox not the place for complex notes or labels, it is just to let users move between articles. Some of the arguments above do point to the need not to have more than 50 or even the deadliest entries marked at all as it doesnt actually matter for moving between articles. As this is one of a series of templates then the removal or any change probably needs to be discussed at the task force talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

These requests are rapidly heading towards the realms of disruptive editing. I'd strongly advice both of you to let the issue lie at its current position. I asked for the template to be unprotected because I took the lack of further requests as a sign that everyone at least accepted the current position, even if they were not totally happy with it.

I can just as easily fully protect the template. It won't bother me as I'll be able to edit it as and when necessary to add new articles, as I was able to when it was fully protected before. I also have a banhammer. I can, and will, use it if necessary! Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots, I don't think this is heading towards disruptive editing. My request for opinions is not disruptive editing. I haven't even made any request for edits. All I'm doing is a proposal for something to be changed. I'm just asking for opinions, and yours is very welcome, but I don't think you should threaten to protect the template again in response to this. I made this suggestion—instead of putting it in practice now—precisely to avoid disruptive editing, and I think we're actually heading towards preventing it, not causing it. I was not (nor am I now) planning to move forward with it if I found significant resistance (which seems to be the case now, so I'll be probably soon dropping it). I just wanted to know if a significant number of editors agreed with me. If that were the case, I would do it, knowing I would have some support. But this doesn't seem to be the case, so I don't think I'll do it.

I accept the current version. But I think it could be better, and I'm trying to see how many editors would agree with me in making a certain change—to try and make it better. No bodies have yet been found, so why saying at least 50 died? But, as I said in my first comment, I don't want to be stubborn. If I find too much resistance, I'll drop it. I don't think you need to protect the template again; much less do you need to ban or block me. (By the way, what's the difference between a ban and a block? I still don't understand...) I've learnt my lesson, and I will avoid causing disruptive editing again. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, this proposal of not listing MH370 as with more than 50 fatalities has been on for eight days and, so far, three people have given their opinions, which—I believe—can be summed up in these sentences:

• Sam.gov — "We probably shouldn't list this as 50+ deaths because no bodies were found yet."
• MilborneOne — "[I]t doesnt [sic] really matter this is a simple navigation navbox not the place for complex notes or labels, it is just to let users move between articles."
• Mjroots — "I'd strongly advice [sic] both of you to let the issue lie at its current position. I asked for the template to be unprotected because I took the lack of further requests as a sign that everyone at least accepted the current position, even if they were not totally happy with it."

So, this is what we've got: one user agreeing with me and providing a reason (no bodies found); one user saying it is not very important, and it doesn't really matter (but this doesn't show opposition to the edit, since that means it's also not very important if it's not listed as with 50+ fatalities—thus, an apparent neutrality); and one user advising us to drop it, claiming the current position is accepted by all (but not displaying direct and fundamented opposition—instead threatening to protect the template again, and/or ban those who cause disruptive editing).

Well, I guess this means there isn't great opposition to my proposal. MilborneOne only says it's not very important, which shows comprehensible neutrality about the subject. Mjroots is regarding this request of mine as heading towards disruptive editing, and seems to suspect that the version I'm proposing will not be accepted by everyone, unlike this one; however, as I've explained in my response, my request was made precisely to determine whether or not this position would be accepted by everyone; and no-one seems to be directly rejecting this idea: no-one is directly saying that this is a bad idea, for one or another reason. And I have the support of Sam.gov on this.

So, in a final analysis, it seems to me that there is no direct opposition to my request. I guess I'm going to be bold and do it, waiting for a normal bold, revert and discuss process if—and only if—someone disagrees. So, please, Mjroots, do not revert and protect the template again, and do not ban or block me, just because you think what I've done was disruptive: I don't think it was disruptive if nobody shows to be against my edit. Let anyone who disagrees revert the edit and present a reason. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 17:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OK Sim(ã)o(n), in the spirit of WP:BRD, you can apply the B part of the process. I'll not revert you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the edit. Lets try it and see what happens. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots! But, apparently, all the italics and bold smallcaps markups have been removed from the entire series of these templates, because consensus seems to have been achieved at the task force talk page. I would personally prefer those markups, and I have manifestated my opinion, by stating why I'd prefer that—which is basically a matter of usefulness: I would find those indications useful. But if I'm part of a minority—which, in this case, is made up of... um... me, and... um... no-one else—then, OK, whatever... Maybe it's even better now. And websites like that of the BAAA have similar (and better) statistics. You don't need Wikipedia templates for that...

Anyway, guys, again, thank you all very much for your comments and for voicing your opinions! Though I may disagree with some of them, I respect all, and it has been very nice to debate with you all over these past few weeks! Thank you! And I hope this is the end of it... Happy editing! :) -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Talk to me!} _{See my} efforts! 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Cygnus CRS Orb-3

I would not consider Cygnus CRS Orb-3 to be within the scope of this navbox, thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a aviation accident or incident. What happened was a rocket launch failure. So I removed it....William 11:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur, and removed it the time before WJE. But it came back, even after I requested the restoring user come here to make his case instead of reverting again. - BilCat (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. To explain why I originally added it: I came across this template through 2014 Virgin Galactic crash, and I was reading in the news how that crash had followed another earlier in the week, so I was surprised not to be able to find a link to it in this template/on that page. There didn't seem to be too much difference between the two - both VSS Enterprise and Cygnus CRS are rocket-powered, so if one belonged here then why wouldn't the other? (Although of course, there are differences with wing surfaces and lift characteristics...) Also, there didn't seem to be a better template to use in addition to, or in place of, this one that would also cover Cygnus CRS. As such, I added it to the template. Since then, I saw it was added to a see also section in 2014 Virgin Galactic crash, which I was content with in conjunction with its removal from this template, although I see it's since been removed... I think it would be good if there was a navigational link between the two topics, but I'm not currently sure what form it should take. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)