Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence

Bringing the aircraft picture inside the infobox (in some cases)

To formalise the proposal set out by user Tô Ngọc Khang in the above "plane1" discussion, the idea is to go from this typical usage (taking TransAsia Airways Flight 235 as an example, changing one image for copyright reasons):

TransAsia Airways Flight 235

Wreckage from Flight 235
Accident
Date	4 February 2015 (2015-02-04)
Summary	Loss of control and crash following pilot misidentification of failed engine
Site	Keelung River, Taipei, Taiwan 25°03′48″N 121°37′04″E
Total fatalities	43
Total injuries	17
Aircraft
Aircraft type	ATR 72-600
Operator	TransAsia Airways
IATA flight No.	GE235G
ICAO flight No.	TNA235
Call sign	TRANSASIA 235
Registration	B-22816
Flight origin	Taipei Songshan Airport, Songshan, Taipei, Taiwan
Destination	Kinmen Airport, Kinmen
Occupants	58
Passengers	53
Crew	5
Fatalities	43
Injuries	15
Survivors	15
Ground casualties
Ground injuries	2

B-22816, the ATR-72 involved, photographed in January 2015

To this usage:

TransAsia Airways Flight 235

Wreckage from Flight 235
Accident
Date	4 February 2015 (2015-02-04)
Summary	Loss of control and crash following pilot misidentification of failed engine
Site	Keelung River, Taipei, Taiwan 25°03′48″N 121°37′04″E
Total fatalities	43
Total injuries	17
Aircraft
B-22816, the ATR-72 involved, photographed in January 2015
Aircraft type	ATR 72-600
Operator	TransAsia Airways
IATA flight No.	GE235G
ICAO flight No.	TNA235
Call sign	TRANSASIA 235
Registration	B-22816
Flight origin	Taipei Songshan Airport, Songshan, Taipei, Taiwan
Destination	Kinmen Airport, Kinmen
Occupants	58
Passengers	53
Crew	5
Fatalities	43
Injuries	15
Survivors	15
Ground casualties
Ground injuries	2

Specifically, the guidelines would be as follows:

• Whenever the top infobox image depicts the accident itself, crash site, or wreckage (which is the preferred option, if available, according to current template guidelines), a pre-accident image of the aircraft involved in the occurrence (if available, or of another example of the same aircraft type) can be placed inside the infobox by using the plane1_image= parameter (so far used only for multi-aircraft occurrences).
• If the top infobox image is already an ordinary, pre-accident image of the accident aircraft (or of another example of the same aircraft type) then no additional images of the same or similar aircraft should be included in the infobox. That is no second pictures of the aircraft in a previous livery in the infobox, or similar duplication.

Admittedly, this new usage of plane1_image= would apply only to a minority of articles (as pictures of accidents or wreckages are often not available), but in those cases the result would look a lot neater and more logical, with the image of the aircraft placed right where the data about it is given.

What do people think? -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an example for using plane1 with photo of aircraft involved in service with a previous operator (if you don't have photo of the aircraft involved with a current operator). Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tô Ngọc Khang, that's a great example of what this proposal is not about. In your example, the top image already depicts the accident aircraft (or a similar one) in ordinary service before the accident. We don't need a second picture of the same or similar aircraft in ordinary, pre-accident conditions, either with the same or with previous operators. It is debatable whether such additional images even belong to the article in the first place (or belong instead to some plane-spotting website), let alone to the infobox. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked@Aviationwikiflight@Dual Freq@Krd@RecycledPixels@Midori No Sora@Maungapohatu Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes? Whatsup? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support proposal. I agree that the placement of the images would be much neater if they were arranged in the proposed format. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Maungapohatu, @Midori No Sora and @Dual Freq Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

occurrence_type possible values

The doc says that occurrence_type is one of "Accident", "Hijacking" or "Occurrence". But Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 says "Shootdown". Can you actually put anything you want in here? Should we document "Shootdown"? This is likely to become a question at Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. This was last discussed in March 2009 but no conclusion was reached. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments I wonder why we need to show the type of the occurrence? That most readers don't need to know, right? So here's my suggest: simply change it to a fixed Summary. After all we have a dedicated value of the real summary of the occurrence. Awdqmb (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a small addition: If that's an Hijacking, we can simply write on "Summary" values, so as the shootdown, which we have done in all pages using the infobox. So I think it's simply no need to show it. And in the other hand, most readers also have no need to know if it's an "accident" or "incident" in ICAO aviation accident & incident category. Awdqmb (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

I suggest to delete the parameter occurrence_type, and change into a fixed "Summary" title.

It has raised controversials and arguments around the values of this parameter. It's also not necessary, due to the readers don't have need to know about its type on ICAO accidents and incidents, and it's very common to duplicate with the Summary parameter.

Infact we have definded what value should be used on the doc, but even the example showed on the doc itself violate it! (Here at the Pan Am Flight 103 example on the doc, they used a "Bombing" which is not included in the explaintion.)

So according to all above, I'm now suggesting to delete this parameter and replacing it into a fixed one, which here I suggest just a single word Summary. But it may need bots to delete this from all pages using this value. Awdqmb (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between the "Summary" and "Occurence type" if description wlll be left intact? These are synonyms. Only you need to do is to just change a parameter's desciption to fullfill all the doubts. 83.142.111.107 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why I suggest to delete this unnecessary parameter. To be honest, are we really need two synonyms parameters to emphasize the summary of this event? We don't do the same on a similar template: Infobox public transit accident. Awdqmb (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – This parameter conveys useful key information; the question is rather agreeing on what values it should take, for which there is already an open discussion right above this one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  What "useful key information"? Infact we only suggest Accident, Incident, Occurrence and Hijacking on this parameter, according to doc. But infact most cases are only Accidents, and just like the doc description, Few notable occurrences are classified as "incidents". And to be honest, how many people have need to know what the classification is this occurrence on the The Convention on International Civil Aviation? And if it's the Hijacking or other cases, we will write again on Summary parameter, which these parameter will be duplicated.

  Just see the showed example on the doc, which is Pan Am Flight 103 case, we write a non-standard value Bombing, and then write Terrorist bombing again on Summary. So then, what "useful key information" it provided that Summary can't in this case or similar case? Infact we had another topic on this page, about if we can write non-standard values on this parameter, like the Shooting on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Awdqmb (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I just realized you may get something wrong: The open discussion above (That Post-RfC) is about the value of Summary. But I'm talking occurrence_type, which is a completely different parameter. Infact this value is located on the title of this infobox, and only use already defined words to show the type, not the little bit more detail of the occurrence. Awdqmb (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – The linked dispute is not about whether or not we should use "x" or "y" on the parameter (even if slightly related). The dispute relates to terminology which has nothing to do with the occurrence_type parameter. Looking again through the discussions, the only person who commented about the parameter is the one requesting the edit so the parameter really isn't controversial. I understand why it may be seen as unnecessary (especially since it only lists four parameters) but there is already a discussion above on whether or not more values should be added (which seems to be one of the issues pointed out) which would solve the problem. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  So that's why I suggest to delete it, as I also suggest this on the discussion above. Just like I said before: Do we really need 2 parameters to emphasize the summary? Yes, even we add more possible values to occurrence_type, I still can't really see its necessary to exist, as it will simply duplicate with Summary in most cases. Awdqmb (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)