Talk:TWA Flight 800

message: 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)
replies: text: Forgot to post the article that mentions TWA though they are not the focus of the article: Airlines act swiftly to help relatives New U.S. law required detailed emergency plan. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWA's response 

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: TWA Flight 800 →  – Another incident involved TWA Flight 800 (1964). Whenever the flight number is used at least twice with the same operator, we write the year on both articles (for e.g. Japan Air Lines Flight 472 (1972) and Japan Air Lines Flight 472 (1977)) and only this article is exempt from that. Also per WP:AATF. Username006 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 December 2021 

message: So , could you explain this revert  you conducted? I don't understand why you described it as "Not an improvement" or "unconstructive". Thank you for your kind understanding. Username006 (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 into excessive detail. – The Grid (talk)  17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 as Malaysia 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)
replies: text: Username006: no, adding all possible flight numbers in the first line of the lead is not 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)
replies: text:  Thank you. Username006 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please explain this revert