Talk:Air Inter Flight 148

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. Consensus that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME, and that it is preferable over the more accurate but more obscure proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – Although the above two moves disregard the proposed title, I still believe this title should replace the prior one. Reason being is that although WP:COMMONNAME could apply as seen above, the guideline makes an explicit mention that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.". Also, the WP:AVINAME policy should hold superior as '148' (if Air Inter did serve a route) and '5148' are two completely different flight numbers serving two completely different routes. Also, for those who mention that the French Wikipedia instates it is Flight 148, Wikipedia is not a source and cannot be trusted upon blindly. Also, flight numbers are exempt of common names, for instance, a move was conducted from Air Inter Flight 696 to Air Inter Flight 696Y: [1] despite the French Wikipedia mentioning the accident as flight 696: [2]. So this is not a question on which name is more common than the other. Flight 148 is grossly incorrect and should only be present as a footnote that the accident is incorrectly referred to as flight 148 and is not applicable for being a common title. Had a word with the Aviation Safety Network and they too changed the erroneous flight number to 5148 and they confirmed this through a 1992 timetable that flight IT5148 operated on the Lyon - Strasbourg route: [3]. Just because some rumor has it that it was flight 148 because of the deceptive callsign, doesn't mean we too fall into their shadows. And per the AVINAME convention we always use the IATA flight number, not some commonly used incorrect flight number.

Sources: [4] [5] [6] [7]

Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 10:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some uninvolved editors to participate. Thanks! @MilborneOne:, @PaPa PaPaRoony:, @Tigerdude9:, @Deeday-UK: Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Controversial move, needs more participation. – MaterialWorks 10:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 10:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 10:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I don't feel particularly strongly either way: Flight 5148 may be historically more accurate, but Flight 148 is in such widespread use (to the tune of 85,000,000 vs 450,000 hits on Google (see previous discussion) including, tellingly, on the French Wikipedia), that I don't see a problem with adopting it here, provided the ambiguity is clearly explained in the article (which now is, in the very first line). In a way, Flight 148 could be considered an abbreviated form of the full flight number: no big deal. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Flight 148" seems to be the clear WP:COMMONNAME after my source search. SportingFlyer T·C 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: & @Deeday-UK:, Once again, I'll reiterate this, 148 and 5148 are two very different flight numbers which correlate to two very different flight paths. One may argue that WP:COMMONNAME can apply but it very explicitly mentions: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." therefore WP:COMMONNAME CANNOT apply. This argument cannot be considered. Suggest to go through the definition of a Flight number. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq, is there evidence that Air Inter operated a Flight 148 that was different from the accident Flight 5148? If not (the onus is on you to find out), then there isn't much ambiguity in this case: Flight 148 would appear to be used exclusively to refer to Flight 5148, as a sort of abbreviated form. It would be a bit like when airlines refer to their aircraft by the last two letters of their registration, e.g. 'WD' for G-EZWD, as in this example (see the nose landing gear door). -- Deeday-UK (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up English-language written accounts of the accident and they all used Flight 148. The US FAA uses Flight 148. The call sign in the CVR was 148. Adding the additional 5 seems simply pedantic to me, sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Inter callsign was 148 DELTA ALPHA and NOT 148. This argument can be traced to the earlier discussion. Another example can be [8] where the callsign was Brit Air 937 QUEBEC LIMA but that doesn't mean that the flight number was 937. The flight number is what the IATA code was (e.g. AA965, DL1288 etc.) & in this case, it IS IT5148. The FAA lessonslearned webpage has its own set of errors such as naming the Helios Airways Flight 522 accident as 'Helios Airways Flight 52': [9]. For the abbreviation part, airline registrations have had abbreviations in the past, mainly seen on the nose gear but what does that have to do with flight numbers and could you give me some other evidences of airlines abbreviating flight numbers?

Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly in Europe is common for the callsign to be different to the flight number, this is done as a safety measure as all numeric callsigns can and have caused confusion in the past. On example not far from me at the moment is EZY61JR which is actually flight U2 2806. It would probably be quoted by the general public as Flight 2806. Although we quote these variations between ICAO and IATA in the end we should stick to the common name for article title. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, WP:COMMONNAME can't apply here. Unfortunately, there have been many aviation accident pages on Wikipedia which have had an incorrect flight number in the past which have only recently been corrected across the platform: [10], [11], [12] to name a few, despite it "going against" the tradition of WP:COMMONNAME for encyclopedic accuracy and this wiki is only one of them. It should be time that such unnecessary extensions of the guideline be abolished.

Also, a good example of where a common name would fit can be for instance, the Gimli Glider incident in place of "Air Canada Flight 143" due to it being widely known by that leading name, which also does not go against the inaccuracy factor quoted above. Another example can be Air Europa, in place of "Air Europa Líneas Aéreas" due to it being branded and known all across Europe as simply "Air Europa". Such titles have no discrepancies regarding their identity, and therefore, the guideline applies. But a sketchy flight number misconception which can potentially relate to two different routes? Well, it's best to then stick with what official sources call it and confirmation through official sources, with it even being mentioned in the final report, suggest that this was flight IT5148 and thereby per WP:AVINAME and obeying the laws of WP:COMMONNAME, this title should be considered with a footnote stating the discrepancy.

Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AVINAME is an essay whereas COMMONNAME is policy. It seems you're concerned about routes and not about what this accident is commonly known as. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note I was also a weak support in an earlier move. I now think the COMMONNAME is more important. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose per User:SportingFlyer. There does not appear to be any conflict or confusion arising from use of the common name. BD2412 T 18:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure AVINAME may be an essay but once again, the COMMONNAME policy suggests that inaccurate names should be disregarded. In that case, attention should shift to the guideline which asserts to call it with the IATA flight number. An alternative can be Air Inter Flight 148DA since ITF148DA was the ICAO flight number. However, 148 should clearly be replaced. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: No Consensus - no agreement on what the common-name for this is. No point relisting as the last !vote was a week ago. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – With the FAA's entry now referring to the accident with its callsign "ITF 148 DA": [26] from "Flight 148": [27], and none of the references in this article or the French article (or any reliable source for that matter) referring to the flight as "Flight 148" makes me reopen this move. WP:COMMONNAME requires reliable secondary sources to determine the subject's most commonly used name. In the case of this article, a search of the current title [28] brings up nothing more than either a bunch of social media links or a handful of self-published sources, neither of which can be considered as "reliable" sources, and should not outline what the common name of the topic should be. In contrast, reliable English news articles (as determined by WP:RSPSS): [29], [30], [31], all refer to the accident as "flight IT-5148" which per WP:AVINAME should be referred to as Flight 5148 in the title. Other reasons are discussed in the previous section of this talk page. GalacticOrbits (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, WikiProject France, and WikiProject Aviation have been notified of this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – A search for reliable secondary sources brings up multiple sources using Flight 148 instead of Flight (IT-)5148. See [32] [33] [34] for Flight 148 compared to [35] [36] [37] for Flight (IT-)5148. If we are strictly talking about french references, it's a mix of both Flight 148 and Flight 5148. Additionally, whilst the FAA source uses ITF148 DA, it does not use Flight (IT-)5148 anywhere in the entry. Whilst I understand that Flight 5148 is the official name, it seems like Flight 148 is the most commonly used variant. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]