Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 3 November 2007.  The result was keep. Xoloz 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice

message: This is my first draft version. Please feel free to comment and/or improve. Thanks, Crum375 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Started proposal

message: :"Each entry in this list must be linked to a specific corresponding Wikipedia article about the accident or incident being described; if there is no such article, write it first and then insert it in this list; if the article is deleted, its list entry will also be deleted"
I have a question about this statement. There are some incidents that are historicly notworthy, but don't have an article yet. Will they be removed until the article is made or can they just stay on the list and be linked to the article onece it is made. – Zntrip 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically researched this issue, which I think is paramount for the proposed inclusion criterion. My understanding of the current generic WP List guideline is that an individual article per entry is recommended but not mandatory. I think that in order for the inclusion criterion to be easy to enforce in this article we must mandate an existing article and link. I would recommend for the editor who wants to add an important otherwise-eligible event to add it in the disussion page and describe it there, to the best of his/her ability. Then odds are someone will create the article, assuming that it is as notable as the original contributor says. The advantage of this rule (along with the others) is that it makes inclusion decisions very easy and will prevent a lot of unneeded and time wasting arguments. Crum375 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made changes in the proposed guideline to reflect our encouragement of adding an entry that has no WP article into the list article's Talk page. Crum375 21:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have posted a link to this proposed guideline, with a brief explanation, at the village pump. Crum375 02:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump notice 

message: In cases where terrorist and criminal acts bring down aircraft, it's probably not a good idea to mention the perpetrator/s unless they've confessed or have been convicted in a court of law. If the suspected perpetrator/s have to be mentioned, they should be called "alleged" to avoid POV problems. This is especially true with respect to living persons, where libel might be a problem.
I would say something in the policy like:
Tell me what you think. --Charlene 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally and eventually, if the proposed guideline is accepted by consensus, the brief item in this list should be a very short summary of the corresponding WP article. Therefore, all WP rules that apply to the article would apply here. IOW, whatever is decided at the article level for liability/culpability, including the exact verbiage, should be replicated here, though shorter. If you are referring to my own recent doings, I admit to not reading the article(s), just doing janitorial copy/edit to convert the right format/style, so feel free to fix any factual errors or improper verbiage (which I just followed blindly while fixing the style/format). I know I should do research on everything I touch, and I often do, but I don't always have the time. Thanks, Crum375 23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concerns, and they're small, are libel and POV. If the list states definitively that a bombing was by Hezbollah and it turns out to have been by some group like the Tamil Tigers or by Sikh extremists, it runs the risk of misleading people. I suppose this policy would be better for the accident articles itself and not the list. Do we have a policy for notable accidents? --Charlene 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I think we should insist on article per entry. If we have an article, then all the normal WP rules apply, such as WP:BLP and in general WP:V and WP:RS. We should always stay on the safe side in making any kind of culpability or liability statements, and be extremely careful, relying only on court verdicts, final NTSB reports (or equivalents), etc. If there is no article, my own preference is to remove the List article, but if it has to stay then whatever entry is there must conform to WP policies, like a mini-article. This is a sticky situation, since right now we have no specific cited references whatsoever for the article-less entries, although we do cite ASN as a whole. If we were to start building in support references, we are better off doing it in an article, where there is no space limitation (we are well over the limit here). Anyway, if you find something you don't like, like an unsupported allegation or U.S.-centric POV, feel free to be bold and fix it. Crum375 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Care in assigning blame

message: This page is very useful for making the list better and more standardized. However, it needn't be in Wikipedia namespace, as in general we do not make "guidelines" related to only a single page. I think it would be best if either (1) this page is broadened to include other pages, or (2) it is moved to the talk page of the List, or a subpage thereof. (Radiant) 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I started the page in the talk page of the List, various admins moved it here. Also, I asked for comments on the Village Pump about how to do it, and got very little help. Crum375 13:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be telling - there isn't enough interest in the list of aircraft incidents to create an "official" guideline for it. That shouldn't stop you from improving the list, though. It is a good idea to add inclusion criteria to the list itself or its talk page. This page is simply more formal than is needed. You might try nominating the list as a "featured list" and see what feedback you get. (Radiant) 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is not enough interest; that is part of our problem. The people who do show up here are often drive-by editors who hear about some event and rush to insert it into WP, typically with disregard to formatting and inclusion rules. Overall there are big problems with this list, the most critical is that it cannot really survive longterm because if it were to include all currently allowed items, it would become way too big; it already is near 100kb. So we probably would need to make a hard decision about either breaking it up (e.g. into decades), drastically reduce the text per entry, or raise the inclusion bar dramatically. The ASN database, which has the more modern events, is a good predictor of sizes for these different options. Crum375 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your point about FLC, I did look at the various related featured lists, per Durova's suggestion at the time. There was nothing that was directly relevant, although it seems most try to fit into a table format, which has its advantages and disadvantages. In any case, it seems to me that we need to solve our essential mission issues, that I described above, before shooting for FLC. Crum375 13:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that since few people are interested in talking about this (despite your advertising) you are empowered to make the decision on your own. Be bold and make it a good list, or a number of smaller lists, as you say. (Radiant) 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the encouragement, and I do plan to take one of these steps, after consulting with the others (there are at least 2 'regulars' who do care and have participated in the discussions). My main problem is not boldness but time to do it ;^) Crum375 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Should this guideline apply to just List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, or also to List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by location and List of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners grouped by airline? Personally, I think it should apply to all. Akradecki 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can use this specific set of criteria, but perhaps a modified version can be used for each one. Crum375 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which lists?

message: You currently state that no incidents will be allowed for commercial aircraft regardless of size or circumstances. What, even this one? The only commercial aircraft ever to land in such condition? Especially considering the disasterous consequences of similar damage on Japan Airlines Flight 123 and United Airlines Flight 232? Or is the damage to the wing sufficiant to actaully call this an accident, rather than an incident? Or maybe just an extraordinary exception to the rule...? Blood red sandman 20:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many lists on WP for aviation related accidents/incidents. This specific one is specifically intended for the larger types of commercial aircraft. We would like to exclude cases of a cargo aircraft landing with an engine problem (for instance). As it is we have way too many events to realistically handle in this type of list without exceeding the recommended size limits (we are already x4 bigger than recommended!). The problem with exceptions is that it's a slippery slope, and I think it's better to possibly miss a couple than to have a fuzzy inclusion criterion. Of course I am open to other ideas... Crum375 21:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best comprimise here would be to change the Flight 232 entry to something like 
*July 19 – United Airlines Flight 232, a Douglas DC-10, suffered a complete hydraulics failure over Iowa. Despite the crew's attempts to control the aircraft using only the throttle, it crashed on the runway of Sioux City, Iowa, killing 111 of the 296 people on board. Flying an aircraft with this amount of damage has only ever been acheived once. 
That would give people who find themselves particularly interested by the entry easy scope of how serious the problem on Flight 232 was and just how unusual the accident is (much as, to take an obvious if disproportionate example, the Tenerife disaster entry tells us this is the worst disaster in commercial aviation histroy) but saves us from creating a problematic new entry. Blood red sandman 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that sounds good to me. Of course we'd have to fix it up to meet the other format requirements, like total length, tense and sentence structure (semicolons), but otherwise it seems OK. I must say though, to be perfectly frank, that I don't see a problem with mentioning the no-hydraulics landing precedent in the wiki-linked article only, as the typical readers here are not as keen about these issues as we may be, but I can live with it if you think it's very important (remember space is a critical premium in this article). Crum375 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current requirement "A civilian cargo aircraft carrying cargo for hire" is very clear — if the aircraft is not carrying cargo for hire, it is not includable. Crum375 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The classification of air accidents presented in the main article (Aviation accidents and incidents) is clear: "airliner accidents" and "military aircraft accidents". Let's take a recent case: crash of cargo An-12 near Chelyabinsk (civil operations, technical flight with no cargo, 9 dead). Is it a notable accident? Yes, at least it's more notable than any with no fatalites. Could it be included in "military aircraft"? No. So we should include it in "airliner" category. Was it a commercial flight? Literally no, but as the flight was a part of commercial operation, the aircraft could be determined clearly as "commercial". So the abstence of cargo and/or passengers on board of commercial aircraft is not a criterion for excluding notable accidents from the list.--81.195.29.204 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list article is already well over budget in length. So clearly we need to further restrict the inclusion criteria, not broaden them. The current subject of this list is commercial flights — training flights, repositioning flights and other non revenue producing flights are not included. Crum375 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are talking about criteria's explanation, not its restriction. All technical flights of commercial aircraft are generating revenue as its a part of commercial operation. For to perform the  flight with cargo/passengers from A to B in case your plane is in C, you have to firstly move the plane to A. And unlike training and demonstration flights they are an integral part of commercial operation. And speaking about restriction, I would firstly propose to remove all accidents with no fatalities. If the article's length is a problem.--81.195.29.204 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation is that we view "commercial flight" in the strict sense of a flight that was producing revenue, by either carrying cargo for hire or paying passengers. Non-revenue flights are often necessary, for training, testing, repositioning, maintenance, etc., but are not "commercial flights" per se. In the US, and many other countries, the laws governing non-revenue flights are different from revenue flights, and they may be licensed and operated under more lenient rules for aircraft and crews. Therefore, mixing such flights with commercial flights would distort the results. As far as the suggestion to restrict this list to "no fatalities", that would eliminate "incidents" by definition, since the ICAO and NTSB consider a fatality an accident. Thus the title of the list would change, and in fact its essence would change fundamentally. If you feel that another list, with other inclusion criteria, is needed, you are welcome to start one, and if its criteria are logical, it may stick. Crum375 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The present wording "A civilian cargo aircraft carrying cargo for hire" would be improved by the insertion of a clarifying term.  Either "A civilian cargo aircraft while carrying cargo for hire" or "A civilian cargo aircraft permitted to carry cargo for hire" would be less ambiguous.  If we exclude technical flights of cargo aircraft, should we not also exclude technical flights of airliners?  Or should we retitle the list to "..on commercial flights"?LeadSongDog (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the word "while" to clarify, per your suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements for cargo aircraft 

message: As was discussed above, there are stylistic advantages to having the article available as one big list, but technical considerations make smaller articles desirable. After a bit of fiddling, I've come up with this mockup of a possible solution that provides both, meaning we wouldn't need to arbitrarily exclude smaller aircraft. It's loosely based on the AfD and BJAODN pages. It does need a little cleaning up, and the divisions were totally random on my part - 1975-1999 is still too big - and if we do use it, we'll probably need some sort of 'portal' with no lists on it that most articles will link to, which may be a bit of a sticky wicket. Nonetheless, it shows the basic mechanics of the idea. We can split into as many articles as we like, yet make the entire list available. As long as people use section editing (and they kind of have to) the changes will be reflected in the main article. Also note that external links and a header will be added only once at the top and bottom of any page.
So, what do people think. Tear it to bits, folks! --Scott Wilson 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I think it's pretty good and maybe I can live with it. The price we pay in not having a single unified page is returned in more breathing room. But I notice you removed the 'notable' from the title. I think that notability, and a corresponding wikilink to an existing WP article, is important as it will allow the reader to focus on the more important cases and reduce the clutter from the less important ones. Overall, though, I think it's a good move. I await more opinions. Crum375 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the notable from the title purely to reduce the amount of typing I had to do; I'm all for the insistence on a link to an article; indeed, I suggested it much earlier on. The mockup is merely intended as a quick demonstration of the process by which the article could be split, and in no way should any of the details like that be considered an essential part of it. If we use it, it'll need to be carefully tweaked - for instance, we shouldn't be suggesting a hierarchy for the sub-articles, and the introduction paragraph will need tweaked so that people know what they're getting. --Scott Wilson 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I am in general support - let's see what others think. Crum375 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible splitting solution 

message: I revised the wording to encourage insertion of entries without an article to the temporary holding area. Please review/comment. Thanks, Crum375 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added a 'courtesy note', encouraging the remover of entries that appear otherwise eligible but lack an article to move it to the holding area. Review/comments invited. Crum375 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary holding area 

message: This guideline is now in force, per agreement on main list Talk page. Crum375 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's official 

message: The NTSB definition is inclusive of Loss of separation and Runway incursions.  While these are serious, it is questionable whether they individually should be notable except where there are lessons learned and applied.  Runway incursions have been near or at the top of the NTSB Most Wanted Safety Improvements since 1990, during which time there have been over 100 fatalities so caused (these so became Accidents) but the rate of incidents in the US is averaging more than once a day by FAA statistics, twice a day by ICAO statistics.
The guideline should explicitly address the notability of LOS and Runway incursion.  I would suggest that from an accident prevention POV, the specific aircraft or vehicle involved is irrelevant. The space is either under control or not. That said, I doubt anyone wants to create a specific article and list entry for every incursion globally, something much more restrictive is needed in our notability definition.  Suggestions? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support to specifically exclude LOS and RI from this list. The list is way too big as it is, and there are lots of fatal accidents from non English speaking countries that are missing. At the same time, I would exclude any incident (i.e. occurrence with no loss of life) where no significant new safety issue was exposed. We really need to cut down on size, and this would help. Crum375 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, to keep this list as trim as possible LOSs and RIs should be excluded. – Zntrip 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would others think about recommending that major LOS/RI occurrences be simply listed against the relevant airport article in lieu of here?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Incident presently includes LOS and Runway incursion 

message: Bold links are discouraged. Why use them in this article? 199.125.109.111 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the main talk page for related discussion threads. The reason is that we mandate one dedicated linked WP article per item. But each item has multiple hyperlinks, so it's difficult for a reader to know which one has the dedicated article. With bolding, it becomes easy, because only one wiki-link is bolded, and that's the main article. Crum375 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold links

message: I added that a government-operated aircraft with a civilian crew is eligible for inclusion if it carries passengers and meets the passenger seating requirements. Crum375 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governent operated 

message: This list article is getting to be very big (163,189 bytes currently), well over the recommended size limits. Here is one idea for keeping down the bloat:
We already exclude cargo flight incidents of any kind (and have restriction on acceptable cargo accidents). My proposal is to restrict passenger flight incidents to only those which involve a significant new safety hazard. So this incident would be rejected, because a landing gear not locking into place is not a significant new safety hazard. Comments? Thoughts? Crum375 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use date ranges like the lists for military accidents: List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (pre-1950), List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1950–1974), List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1975–1999), List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). --JD554 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed this before, and one reason I like the current format is that it gives the reader a nice overview of all major commercial aviation accidents, from the beginning of time, by easily scrolling over and stopping at points of interest. I think we would lose that useful and interesting perspective if we broke them down into subpages. Also, a single page is easier to maintain. Crum375 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Another possibility is to separate passenger and cargo aircraft, but by date is probably best. - BilCat (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer above. Accident causes are generally similar for cargo and passenger flights. Crum375 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Another option is to be more compact with flights, airline and aircraft types. If we simply say B747-400 instead of Boeing 747-400 we save some bytes. Likewise TWA800 would be much more compact than Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and WP:Redirects are free. The case can be made that the list is in gross violation of WP:Overlinking at present, and these changes would certainly improve that.LeadSongDog come howl 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with tighter links, though it would be a monumental task to go through the existing article and fix all the links. But what you think about the proposal to tighten requirements for includable passenger flight incidents? Crum375 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that the guidelines needs changing the new entry above is not really notable and has been sent to AfD. We have guidelines that control the articles themselves with WP:AIRCRASH so i am not sure we need anything other than perhaps excluding non-fatal accidents. Not sure about abbreviating the aircraft types, not everybody will know what they should be but we could remove a lot of the links, I cant see any reason for linking to the airline and the aircraft accident which might save a few bytes as in most cases the accident article has to be piped to remove the already linked airline. I would probably suggest we dont really need to link to anything but the accident article as the user can find all the information in that article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I too would prefer to keep this list in one article, but the only feasible way of getting it under control is to do as JD554 proposed and have each decade of the list become its own article. Even if we cut down the type of incidents that are included or trim down the sentences, the list will be growing every year and down the road we'll have to deal with this problem again. So I feel like breaking up the list is both doable and sustainable for the long term. – Zntrip 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to do that, I would still want a more concise list of the more notable commercial accidents and incidents, one that could fit within a reasonably-sized article, because I think it would be an interesting read as a single monolithic page. So one possibility is to tighten the inclusion restrictions even more for the single page version, and perhaps loosen them for the multi-page. If I had a choice, however, I would opt for just limiting the includability criteria for this one. Crum375 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Now why didn't I think of that? Of course that would mean verifying that the linked article has onward links to the type and operator, but in most cases it does. I'd have to oppose, however, the notion that survival excludes the accident. Some of the most interesting articles would be missed, i.e. US Air Flight 1549. At most that should constitute an argument for a content fork of the list to create List of fatal accidents on commercial aircraft, List of non-fatal accidents on commercial aircraft, and List of major incidents on commercial aircraft. I'd prefer not to go down that path as it would open the door to the near-endless debate over what constitutes a major incident. LeadSongDog come howl 20:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for restriction of includable incidents 

message: I note that this page is directed at the maintenance of one particular list. I've created a few lists covering accidents to a particular type of aircraft. Most of these don't have their own articles, although some of them should. Maybe we can put some blurb into the page to mention these sort of lists, which operate under different rules? Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of accidents per aircraft type

message: It seems to me this article's readability and usability would be much improved by a drastic reduction in the number of links. By design, this article is a chronological index into the specific WP articles about each incident, so what is the point of the convoluted double linking of the form Airline, Flight number, and the links to the aircraft type and the location? Anyone who wants more information about a specific incident can click on the main link and get it all there. The vast majority of the links here are superfluous; never likely to be used and just cluttering up the article, which would be much more usable if it were formatted like a disambiguation page. I propose just one link per incident, with a brief (link-free) description to allow the reader to decide whether to click the link for more detail.
(Also the guidelines need to be updated to take account of the deprecation of date linking several years ago.) 
Examples (based on the current guidelines examples)
:July 9 – S7 Airlines Flight 778, an Airbus A310, crashes on landing in Irkutsk, Russia; 128 killed
:March 23 – A TransAVIAexport Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 crashes - thought to have been shot down - in Mogadishu, Somalia, killing all 11 on board
Colonies Chris (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a good idea, but I suspect few of the list's editors will have read the above suggestion. Most will visit this guideline only infrequently if at all even if you did advertise this at the list talkpage. It might be necessary to advertise at other pages too. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the same suggestion on the article's talk page a couple of weeks ago; there have been no comments. Where else should it be advertised? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree with the suggestion I have never understood why we link the airline then make a convoluted link with the flight number to remove the airline name. Doubt anybody would go from here to the airline as most would want the accident article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsidering linking in this article 

message: These guidelines suggest that links should be in bold face. Why is this? MOS:BOLD describes the situations where bold face should be used, and links in lists is not one of them. 80.189.156.156 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Target articles from such list articles are normally bold.  Take a look at the main page.  See the bold linked articles?  They lead to other "primary" articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold face 

message: A stand-along accident page isn't useful at gauging importance, especially prior to WW2, when available detail, for aircraft and accident, aren't sufficient to justify splitting the page. Almost every accident listed prior to the 1930s was split by an enterprising editor to get them included here, but are of negligible importance, while most of the significant accidents are conspicuously absent because editors haven't pointlessly copied the material to a new page. 
That creates an enormous bias against historical accidents, which is why almost ALL of the most significant accidents are missing, having been deliberately excluded with pointless, arcane restrictions that have ZERO referential support. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA: list criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and be supported by reliable sources, and avoid original or arbitrary criteria. The current criteria meets NONE of those requirements, and doesn't even match the title. It seems to be a case of editors panicking as the number of entries was VASTLY larger than anticipated - perhaps as their knowledge is restricted to a period when accidents are at historical lows, and when every commercial aircraft incident gets a page, regardless of importance. The answer isn't arbitrary restrictions, but to manage the list to provide value to the reader, who should come away with an overview. As it stands, these fail miserably at their raison d'être because the inclusion criteria's biases are so enormous.
Seating limitations come from trying too hard to restrict the size of the list, but fail completely at distinguishing between significant and non-significant, are entirely arbitrary, and are unnecessarily confusing. The number of seats or passengers rarely makes an incident significant by itself. It simply isn't a valid criteria.
Akradecki gets it - included accidents need to have verifiable, non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and result in changes to procedures, regulations, or to the design, be unusual in terms of circumstance or the aircraft, or result in the death of someone famous, all of which can easily be determined with references. That is far less confusing and opaque than the current rules, and people can understand and support the reasoning for them, eliminating fights. The bias also extends to accidents outside of the US and UK, as those aren't likely to get a page of their own, even when they are significant and otherwise meet requirements for inclusion. 
The nature of this list (which in its current form is useless) suggests going by eras would be ideal. Nothing that requires the content be on one page, and arguments about keeping it together are moot since no overview is meaningful anyway as the page is so massively skewed. A split into pre-ww1, between the wars (1919-1939), WW2 (1939-1945) (commercial/non-war related), post-war (1945-1952) & jet (post-1952) eras would be easy to do. Not all such splits may be needed, but they at least offer non-arbitrary criteria. Start with pre and post WW2. Sorry for the length of the post. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the brief reply, but your arguments make sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria