Talk:Crossair Flight 498

message: The passenger mobile phone issue alluded to in the mainpage entry and in the article lead is nowhere described or discussed further down in the article. Is it speculation? If it's covered in another wikipedia article, please clarify that in a link to that article. PS. I haven't checked the article history - perhaps it's just temporarily absent.--Niels Ø 14:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was edited out between the 1311 and 1326 editions on 30 Nov (UTC).  According to the history page, someone (possibly a bold editor, but anonymous) deleted the section, saying "(→Other theories - not a reliable source.)"  Perhaps we should put it back in and tag it unsourced? Deltopia 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm conflicted about this.  It was the mention of a "2000 crash near Zurich" in an episode of Mythbusters about cellphones on planes that led me to find details on this crash and create this article.  But reading carefully through the official crash report, it looks like the authorities put absolutely no credence in the theory that the cellphone even contributed to the crash.  Whether rumors of that cause actually made countries ban cellphones is hard to verify, although the deleted paragraph was sourced.  -- Plutor talk 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds to me like we should report the FACT that this theory has been pit forward, esp. if it can be verified that it influenced the cellphone regulations.--Niels Ø 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is still important to have the section about it in there. Why would someone delete it? 68.35.201.102 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Second this. The source listed is at least enough to cite Niels Ø's item, if not enough to cite that the cellphones conclusively caused things. -Spyforthemoon 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it back; I found references in the UK's The Register, and if that paper is too sarcastic for you, it's on ZDNet, too. Scoutersig 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I recently expanded the article Crossair flight LX498 to get DYK status.  I based the structure of the article on the article TWA Flight 800 as it has been in development for a while.  A major thrust of the article is to explain why cell phones now are banned on flights during takeoff and landings.  User talk:170.148.10.46 deleted the entire section entitled "Other theories", including the section heading and the text, as "not a reliable source."  The source is reliable for the premise of the article - the industry believed the officially unsupported allegations and banned cell phones, probably thinking its better to be safe rather than sorry.  In addition to deleting the linked sources, I believe that User talk:170.148.10.46 deleted the section heading and the text surrounding linked sources so that few would be aware of what he did.  He left the lead paragraph in tact and the DYK statement, which explains about the cell phones.  Deleting the supporting statements regarding cell phones in the main body of the article and leaving the lead paragraph and the DYK statement about cell phones causes' confusion.  I believe that he timed his deletion to coincide with the articles appearance on DYK to have the most impact on the confusion he caused.  Initially having good faith, I came to my belief after reading his talk page.  User talk:170.148.10.46 talk page has various vandalize statements, including one which reads, This is your last warning.  The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to :Cognizant Technology Solutions, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-- Jreferee 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Other theories section re Passenger mobile phone 

message: This area needs to be expanded. -- Jreferee 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing that last part, I don't think it is relevant and the source, The Economist. (Sep. 7, 2006). Fear of Flying, requires a premium account to read.  I did a search and was able to find the full text here () and found that it was just a humorous piece and did not show any evidence or research that backs up the claim.  Also, the name of the airline in the source is Veritas, which is "satireV" spelled backwards. swaq 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell phone matter

message: Gordonw changed all of the flight numbers in the article from LX498 to CRX498 , but didn't move the page.  I almost reverted, but then I looked carefully at the references.  Two refer to LX498 , but the official report  says CRX498.  What is correct?  Anyone with any knowledge of European (or Crossair) flight codes able to shed any light on this? -- Plutor talk 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight number LX498?  Or CRX498? 

message: Sorry, forgot to sign the above entry! Gordonw 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which code? 

message: We have hit upon a problem regarding the naming of this article. The current title is most correct, but looks silly. There was a similar problem at the Comair Flight 5191 article, since, despite the media calling it Comair 5191, it actualy had two diferant names officially, Comair Flight 151 and Delta Flight 5191, both now being redirects (I think I got those alternate names correct from memory, but I'm not 100% on that), and was never called Comair Flight 5191. Consensus there was to leave the article at it's current title, since that was how it is most commonly refered to. I'm not suggesting we (nescesarily) should do the same here, but I am saying we can't leave it how it is - it looks silly for a start, and goes against unwritten naming conventions on the subject. Therefore, below are three possible, equaly viable names for the article. Please put your name by the one you support. Blood red sandman 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one's probably best, not using the codes at all. -- Blood red sandman 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This may violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions since it creates ambiguity. However, I did a google search for Crossair Flight 498 and see it being used.  Moreover, I seem to recall that if an airplane hull is destroyed for a particular flight, that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number as in Crossair Flight LX498 is retired as Crossair Flight 498.  See also Pan Am Flight 214, TWA Flight 800, Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870.  I won't oppose use of LX498 or 498.  (498 sound better and more memorial).-- Jreferee 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, after looking over :Category:Airliner_crashes_caused_by_pilot_error, I'm in favor of Crossair Flight 498 as it confirms my suspecision that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number on a hull loss.  Also, I did more research.  Even if the public did know Crossair Flight LX498 as Crossair Flight LX498 near the days surrounding the crash, the flight now is widely known as 'Crossair Flight 498'.  Look at the naming convention for Crossair Flight 3597 and, for another 498 flight, check out Aeroméxico Flight 498.-- Jreferee 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one else cares to chip in, and the only two editors (us two, if you'll excuse the appalling grammar there) who have commented favour this title, I'm gonna go ahead and move it. Blood red sandman 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Page Move 

message: This violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions since it optimizing the article for specialists over a general audience.-- Jreferee 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossair Flight CRX498

message: Support
:This one's probably best, not using the codes at all. -- Blood red sandman 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This may violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions since it creates ambiguity. However, I did a google search for Crossair Flight 498 and see it being used.  Moreover, I seem to recall that if an airplane hull is destroyed for a particular flight, that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number as in Crossair Flight LX498 is retired as Crossair Flight 498.  See also Pan Am Flight 214, TWA Flight 800, Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870.  I won't oppose use of LX498 or 498.  (498 sound better and more memorial).-- Jreferee 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, after looking over :Category:Airliner_crashes_caused_by_pilot_error, I'm in favor of Crossair Flight 498 as it confirms my suspecision that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number on a hull loss.  Also, I did more research.  Even if the public did know Crossair Flight LX498 as Crossair Flight LX498 near the days surrounding the crash, the flight now is widely known as 'Crossair Flight 498'.  Look at the naming convention for Crossair Flight 3597 and, for another 498 flight, check out Aeroméxico Flight 498.-- Jreferee 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one else cares to chip in, and the only two editors (us two, if you'll excuse the appalling grammar there) who have commented favour this title, I'm gonna go ahead and move it. Blood red sandman 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossair Flight 498

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions sets out guidlines on naming conventions.  Crossair Flight LX498 is what the majority of English speakers then most easily recognize.  Crossair Flight LX498 / CRX498 violates Wikipedia Naming convention policy as it creates significant ambiguity. Further, linking to Flight LX498 / CRX498 is not easy and not second nature to the majority of English speakers. Any specialists research into official reports will find CRX. However, the flight was widely known as 'LX498' to a general audience as this was the coding given to this particular flight on the day.  Thus, use of CRX498 over LX498 in the article violates Wikipedia policy by optimizing the article for specialists over a general audience.  Also, the article was moved to Flight LX498 / CRX498 without a consensus, which violates Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: Did the plane actually explode in midair?  It's mentioned as "witnesses reported" in the description of the crash, but skimming through the official report, I see no mention of it.  And given the causes listed, I don't see how there could have been any explosion.  I removed the category, but I'm more hesitant to remove the description if it was reported, but didn't actually happen.  -- Plutor talk 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midair fireball? 

message: The nomination is on hold, as I decided to be nice because I think you can fix it. I haven't detailed the problems and don't intend to until later today or tonight. The on hold will not "technically" begin until I post my comments. Sorry to make you wait so long, and thanks for nominating my butterfly article for DYK. IvoShandor 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. : ( I have been out of town, and busy securing myself new employment, my apologies, I will get to this asap...sorry. IvoShandor 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't worry about it, take as long as you want/need to ;-). And BTW, nice butterfly article, I genuinely enjoyed and was interested by it, which is why I thought it should go up on DYK. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's wait until the TfD has been completed. I'm happy to implement whatever the consensus is, here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria.
As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time.   My comments are as follows:
The article is well constructed and informative at the level of GA, however as the assessor I will require a few relatively minor adjustments as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted.   Please let me know directly if you need that extra time.
I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template  after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.
# Adjust both this (Oct. 1, 1999) and this (Jan. 31, 2000) to be in the same format as this one (January 10, 2000) in the section titled Background.
 Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment – on hold

message: Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article.  It is well presented and passes the WP:GAC.  I note for the record all of the editors that provided 5 or more edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment):user:Blood Red Sandman (20), user:Jreferee (17), user:Plutor (7), user:Gordonw (6).
Editors may wish to cut the following template  and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template:Well done!--VS talk 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|35px]]

message: The picture caption says: HB-AKK, pictured a year before the aircraft crashed
whereas the text says: The 33-seat Saab-340B airplane used for Crossair Flight LX498 had been leased to Crossair from Air Moldova since October 1, 1999.
The crash happened 10 January 2000 - ie three months after it was leased. So somewhere here there is an error.
--King Rikk (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the plane leased? 

message: The article contains the rather wishy-washy statement that the 
"crash report does not mention cell phone activity as a primary cause of the crash".
The report (section 2.1.6) actually goes further than that, 
emphatically stating that mobile phone activity DID NOT cause the crash.
I would like to update the article to reflect this unambiguous statement
(e.g. ),
but another contributor keeps reverting to the original. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is just badly written I have tweaked the entry to give a more balanced view. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's better than my attempt. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile phones 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Crossair Flight 498. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crossair.ch/e/profile/press/2000/profile-presse-00_01_11_Passagierliste.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130221083429/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/100100.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/100100.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified