Talk:Avianca Flight 052

message: "Had the plane not exhausted its fuel supply, there would likely have been a fire which would have claimed more lives."
Had the plane not exhausted its fuel supply it would never have crashed therefore there would not have been a fire... Or have I missed something?! I've removed the line anyway. -- cjp116 16:11 (UTC) 28th October 2008
* The Mayday program stated that there was no fire because of the lack of fuel. But it was a good call to remove the line. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of the accident (I remember this very clearly since my best friend was living in the area) there was much surprise in the media that so many people had survived. So I think an explanation for this is granted. Aldo L (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless line 

message: The "airline operational control dispatch system" mentioned in this article requires clarification or definition.  As it is currently written, it is unclear what the article is referring to. A quick online search turned up no definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.204.162 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "airline operational control dispatch system" 

message: Wasn't this the crash that brought about changes to the way seats are mounted to the floor (a new mounting system was mandated as a result)? Per the NTSB report
Seventy-two of the 74 passengers who survived sustained serious
injuries. These injuries consisted of multiple lower leg fractures and
dislocations, head injuries, hip fractures, spinal fractures, and multiple
lacerations and contusions. The legs of passengers probably impacted the
lower seat back frames of seat units in front of them. Simultaneously,
passenger seats most likely collapsed and twisted downward and to the left,
resulting in hip and spinal fractures. As the impact sequence progressed,
separation of the seat units from their floor attachments probably pushed
passengers forward into other passengers, seat units, and other wreckage
debris, causing head injuries and lacerations.
Also:
The aft cabin section was open at its forward end. Most of the
seats in this section were found separated from their floor tracks. The
floor panels were displaced, the aft galley and lavatories were displaced,
and food from the galley was scattered throughout this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.83.57 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seat strength 

message: To save clogging the FAC nomination page I'm posting thoughts here.
*The first paragraph of 'Rescue' should be in the section above ('Crash') apart from the last sentence '(flaps and slats') which should be in the investigation section somewhere.
*Some of the section headers have all words capitalised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done. -- Veggies (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. There is an embedded link for the aircraft registration in the infobox, shouldn't be there and is returning a blank page for me. There seems to be a mixture of citation styles throughout the article (WP:CITEHOW), no expert but it has to be consistent. If I get time I'll read the book articles and see if there is anything to add. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC comments 

message: Unlike similar articles, there is no information about passengers nationality. Anybody can find a reference and complete the article? Monfie (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  passengers nationality 

message: According to the NTSB, the date of the crash was July 19, 1989 but the article states January 20, 1990.  Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9104.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.243.33 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date check 

message: Today's DYK says both guys swallowed condoms. The articles says only one guy and the other had "packets". The refs say one had condoms and the other packets of latex. These don't all match up and should be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.211.236 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just corrected the article, so the Main page is now wrong. You could try Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_the_current_Did_you_know... zzz (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I added another source. The New York Times tells a different story to the Associated Press, in this instance. zzz (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoms 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. The alternative/official number is given in the infobox and the lead sentence.  wbm1058 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Avianca Flight 52 →  – The flight number of this airliner was 052 and not just 52. ASN, planecrashinfo and the final report mention it:  and  and  all mention it is 052. I don't think there is any policy of excluding a 0 as seen in several other pages such as Lauda Air Flight 004 or Singapore Airlines Flight 006. The callsign is also incorrect. It was Avianca 052 as seen in the CVR over here:  in fact, another air tragedy of Avianca has been named with a 0. Username006 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose  052 is exactly the same as 52, who says flight numbers are 3 digits?  Please stop using other Wikipedia pages to justify petty moves such as this one. Consistency in these things is not required, inconsistency is even to be expected as things like this become ingrained in the public consiousness in unpredicatable ways, we should follow this unpredictabilty and not try to make sense of it. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So we must give incorrect information on Wikipedia? We must ignore all kinds of sources that say the flight number as 052? So we must ignore officialness? Had the 0 not been there, would have I complained? Why do you think that 0's are even included? And never did I say that flight numbers have to be 3 digits. And reason being that it is used as 52 is because people just use Wikipedia as a source and make their own sources. And you are wrong that 52 is the same as 052. Here you are:  Username006 (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is exactly my point it isn't incorrect it is only different.Andrewgprout (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  The official report, in this case, overrides the publicity. A common name should not be used on a flight number. I can agree that it may not be called Avianca Airlines flight 052 as said in the final report, but it should be called as Avianca Flight 052. And most people will not follow a redirect. What most people will do is for e.g. they will watch the Mayday Air Disaster clip and get more info about it here by typing in Avianca Flight 52. The callsign should be visible as AVIANCA 052 and not AVIANCA 52 as that was the official  flight callsign and not so that to cover up the flight number AVA052 in the infobox orelse there would be an arguement about to change it. And shortly, I will ask the author of the two diagrams to change the Flight Number to 052. Username006 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I think you actually need to read WP:COMMONNAME as suggested above.  Also WP:OFFICIAL may help.  Wikipedia can at times be a very counter intuitive place and you are falling into all those rabbit holes here. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already gone through it. I still think that this should be called as Avianca Flight 052. Reason being that a correct title obscures the common title. Common titles can be used such as in Gimli Glider or Azores Glider but these titles never change the flight number. Here, the flight number is changing so we are, in turn, giving incorrect information Such as the callsign. It was AVIANCA 052 and not AVIANCA 52. I fixed that. We are doing that so that the readers think it Wikipedia is correct but it definetely isn't. That's also the reason why the recording between the ATC and AVA052 is not given. It would be very obvious that the flight number is 052. Username006 (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  Then what do you think the official reports are even for then? Official reports may not override common reports, but in this case it is. Here, the common name is clearly not working out as we are losing out on information to show to the public such as the voice recordings between the ATC and AVA052 and also, like I said earlier, incorrect information is present in the page like the callsign which I fixed. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Official reports are WP:PRIMARY sources that are for whatever official purpose they're for, which nearly always differs somewhat from Wikipedia's purposes. The English Wikipedia preferably follows WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources that WP:USEENGLISH and are WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  I agree. This also helps in distinguishing an article from other articles with the same the flight number and thus, creating less confusion. Username006 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  United Airlines Flight 93 has no zero because it never had it from the start. Most of the flights don't have a leading 0 because they never had it from the start. Please be a bit more knowledgeable about what you're saying. Reason why both Flight 1 and 001 are used in the DAB pages IS because they are similiar but not the same and it is very rare to use a 0 from the beginning. We must differentiate the flight numbers between 52 and 052. 052 is the correct number to be used here and same for Air France Flight 66 as 066 than 66. A correct flight number is better than having a common flight number. Username006 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought all flight numbers were padded to three digits in certain official databases? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's incorrect. ASN is much more reliable than BAAA-ACRO on flight numbers with 2 digits because for some reason, BAAA-ACRO always mentions a 0 if it is a 2-digit flight number whereas ASN follows the final report and accordingly, justifies the flight number. Only certain flight numbers are padded to three digits and this is one of them along with Air France Flight 66. Username006 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I've been mislead by unofficial sources, you can discount my vote strength.  I would like to read an article on when and why airlines behave differently in this regard before I actually change my vote, though.  It's certainly possible that the common name would include a leading zero.   It's also possible the common name does not have a leading zero despite official records using one.  I note Korean Air Lines Flight 007 as an example where the COMMONNAME clearly includes the zeros, and also note that even there some sources did not use the leading zeros. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new york times and BAAA-ACRO are some examples where the flight number is not very clear and thus, is not a reliable source to take upon the article. I'm not saying that they are unreliable sources, but in case of the flight number, they are. However, ASN is a very reliable source to get inforamtion in as it follows the final report. The correct flight number is in the final report and that is what we should follow. The final report gives a guaranteed accurate flight number. I'm okay if we use common names in pages such as Gimli Glider but here, the flight number is an exception to that, as in, inaccuracy and unreliability. The official and correct flight number is better than the common one. I'm okay if the name is Avianca Flight 052 and not Avianca Airlines Flight 052 but, here we should not use the common flight number to simply mislead people by thinking Wikipedia is giving correct information when it is not. Username006 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose as the majority who voted Oppose, this page will remain the same. The page is just the same whether it has 0 or no 0. Just don't mind all the starting 0 as some of those flight numbers are just a number. There's no need to be confused. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Username006 just accept it. Don't push it yourself, the majority voted Oppose wins. So, there's no reason why you still want to request to move this page. As for the other users mentioned on Andrewgprout, 052 is exactly the same as 52.  Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why do you think there is a separate flight number with included 0's? Username006 (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if 52 is the exact same as 052, and if 052 is more technincally correct according to user Thincat, then why not use it? Isn't it better to use it? Username006 (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Username006 there is some logically that you don't understand. If you know the meaning of Flight number, then understand it. Flight number or flight designator is a code for an airline service consisting of two-character airline designator and a 1 to 4 digit number. For example, this page, Avianca 052 is still read or written as Avianca 52. Even with 0, it's still pronounce as Avianca Fifty-two. separate flight number with included 0's? I personally do not know but, there's a reason why it has 0 in the starting point. But for me, it's not that important to move.. What fit a nice name, that’s what they put in. There are very different flight numbers, so, don’t be forced to move or not, because what matters most, is victory. God bless. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is hard to understand your message. Please improve your grammar. God Bless to you. And from where in Earth did victory come up from?Wikipedia is not about victory or winning as said here:  Username006 (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Support per Tevildo's comment on other flights with leading zeros. The main decider for me is the fact that, other than a couple slip ups all of which came from controllers, the callsign was "Avianca zero five two". If 052 really is "exactly the same" as 52, why go with the one that is demonstrably less correct? ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree. Username006 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

text: So we include the "official"? flight numbers and call sign in the infobox and mention the alternative number in the lead sentence, so anyone searching for them elsewhere should search on both numbers before giving up. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your answer. Username006 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your concern that someone might search "FlightRadar24" or some other source for Avianca Flight 52 and not find it. By mentioning the alternative name Avianca Flight 052 in the lead sentence we expect that the reader would try searching "FlightRadar24" or some other source for Avianca Flight 052 after their first search attempt failed. wbm1058 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually another reason why I'm moving this page. 😉 Username006 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 July 2021