The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be indispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDisaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of theAviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists ofopen tasks andtask forces. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
One of the big issues of this crash was the way family members and the passenger list was mishandled. In fact,Swissair Flight 111 even mentions this as something to learn from. It's actually why I landed on this article because I wondered what TWA did, but having read the article, I do not see anything but a brief mention and it's not even elaborated on. If time allows, I will try to write a section on that. I feel that this is significant because it too was a contributing factor in the aftermath. In fact, in a very left handed kind of way, the TWA response is nodded too via the law change mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the Aftermath section.MagnoliaSouth(talk)08:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OpposeWP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. The incident was the only incident that involved TWA 800 that most people know despite another incident with different aircraft happened in 1964. If you want to move the article, why not creating DAB for base name?125.167.58.183 (talk)10:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for same reason, primary topic; I think the existing redirect is sufficient. The crash was important enough that the NTSB kept the fuselage for training. Comparing 1964 to 1996 pageviews over a two year span (Nov '19-21), the former accident has 26,528, the latter 1,534,337. Both articles saw a major spike corresponding to the NTSB decommissioning in July this year, meaning people probably confused 1964 for the modern accident, and adding a date could possible confuse more than help imho.Strangerpete (talk)12:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but I've never heard of the other one and find no compelling reason to confuse people. #bodyContent a[title="PlaneCeiling912 { background-color: ##FF0000; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; }19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, as a third opinion – I would say the level of precision is a bit much. I am reviewing the NTSB report and even they reference the plane as "TWA flight 800" and then "TWA 800". In other words, the existing page was sufficient. Adding to it would be going intoexcessive detail. –The Grid (talk)17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid: I do not mean to offend you by any means but I assume some form of consensus that using the IATA and ICAO in the brackets is the usual norm for the lead of an article. Such asMalaysia Airlines Flight 17. I do not think overprecision is a reasonable justification to revert. Also, going through the NTSB report, it is evident that the phrase TWA flight 800 is used more often than TWA 800.Username006 (talk)17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Username006: no, adding all possible flight numbers in the first line of the lead isnot the norm and to my knowledge no consensus has been established about it, despite some articles showing that information. Flight numbers are already clearly listed in the infobox, and adding them to the text does not necessarily improve it, unless the flight number has entered common usage (such as with TWA 800 and unlike TW800). --Deeday-UK (talk)20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note the addition of the icao/iata flight numbers in the infobox is fairly recent so some articles still have them in the lead paragraph although the lead should include the most common flight format, in this case TWA800.MilborneOne (talk)12:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit my initial revert and edit summary was mostly in response to the replacement of "TWA" with "flight" in the image caption text and the previous edit summary was ambiguous so I had no idea why this was changed. My revert edit summary "Not an Improvement" is not the same as "Unconstructive" which was your word above not used by me. I see such edits as this as not being necessary even though the result is of similar meaning and intent - and randomly twiddling with words is time wasting and ultimately disruptive. On the subject of the multiple flight numbers I see this as not particularly helpful to readers of the encyclopaedia.Andrewgprout (talk)00:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk page orWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.No further edits should be made to this page.
... that N221US, an airplane which had suffered a near crash due to rudder failures, had witnessed the explosion of the third worst aircraft crash in US history a month after ?
Neither article is eligible as they have not even been successfully edited in the last week, never mind 5x expanded. Please readWP:DYKG before nominating anything else.--Launchballer23:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article refers to crazy readings in the FQIS system. What was actually being referred to was readings in the engine fuel flow system, which had wiring adjacent to the FQIS wiring.
Article also says a flammable mixture will always exist in the fuel tank. This is incorrect, however it is conservatively assumed for certification purposes that a flammable mixture always exists. The actual amount of time it exists varies widely with airplane design, fuel type, environmental conditions etc.184.177.151.69 (talk)05:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you say makes sense. However, I think it would be good if the hatnote indicated where the other crashes occurred in addition to the year. How about:
If you look at this article since its inception in 2006 you will see clearly the very well sourced accounts of credible military witnesses all be replaced by 'nah it wasn't a missile bro trust us'. The death-by-a-thousand-cuts nature of the transformation makes it hard to blame on anyone, but it's clear as day. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it, but, you know who you are.— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.22.120.122 (talk)00:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
