Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11|
|Settled issue for this article: break out Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate entries from China in the passenger list and other areas dealing with the citizenship of individuals. Please see Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 2#Hong_Kong for details.|
|Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Search was copied or moved into Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with this edit on 23:09, 28 October 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Timeline of events was copied or moved into Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with this edit on 19:31, 6 December 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 March 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Mini-Series About Missing Malaysia FlightEdit
Mini-Series About Missing Malaysia Flight
Ghyslain Wattrelos’ wife and two children were on board Flight MH370
- "Ghyslain Wattrelos" MH370 site:fr
Is the area searched in intro the wrong number?Edit
Did the numbers get messed up in the intro? It seems like the Ocean Infinity search became entangled with the initial search in the intro (as, according to the search section, a total of 1,843,000 sq mi), or am I reading this incorrectly?
"After a three-year search across 120,000 square kilometres (46,000 sq mi) of ocean failed to locate the aircraft, the Joint Agency Coordination Centre heading the operation suspended their activities in January 2017. A second search launched in January 2018 by the private contractor Ocean Infinity also ended without success after six months."
"Between 18 March and 28 April, nineteen vessels and 345 sorties by military aircraft searched over 4,600,000 km2 (1,800,000 sq mi). The final phase of the search was a bathymetric survey and sonar search of the sea floor, about 1,800 kilometres (970 nmi; 1,100 mi) southwest of Perth, Western Australia. With effect from 30 March 2014, the search was coordinated by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC), an Australian government agency established specifically to co-ordinate the search effort to locate and recover Flight 370, which primarily involved the Malaysian, Chinese, and Australian governments.
In January 2018, a private U.S. company named Ocean Infinity resumed the search for MH370 in the narrowed 25,000 km2 (9,700 sq mi) area using the Norwegian ship Seabed Constructor. The planned search area of site 1, where the search began, was 33,012 km2 (12,746 sq mi), while the extended search area covered a further 48,500 km2 (18,700 sq mi). By the end of May 2018, the vessel had searched over 112,000 km2 (43,000 sq mi) of the area using eight autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). The contract with the Malaysian government ended soon thereafter and the search was concluded without success on 9 June 2018." --Stevehim (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean/compare. I did not find 1,843,000 sq mi in the article. 1,800,000 sq mi were searched after the disappearance = surface search. After that, 120,000 square kilometres (46,000 sq mi) of underwater search. After that (2018) 112,000 km2 (43,000 sq mi) of underwater search. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- The figure in the intro of 120,000 km2 (46,000 sq mi) refers to the detailed sea floor survey. In the Timeline section, it states: "From October 2014 to January 2017, a comprehensive survey of 120,000 km2 (46,000 sq mi) of sea floor..." This relates to the painstaking seabed search, which lasted for 2 or 3 years, and not the initial visual search of the ocean, which was carried out by naval vessels and aircraft in the early days of the disappearance, covering over 4,600,000 km2 (1,800,000 sq mi) of ocean. Ocean Infinity then searched a total of 112,000 km2 (43,000 sq mi). So I think the figure in the intro is correct, but I agree that the presentation of the figures is a little confusing and this maybe needs to be readdressed to make things clearer for the discerning reader. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Manifest tv showEdit
The manifest tv show was made after this event. Should it be included? The idea they jump into future and return after time travelled, was the novel bit ;-) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
User:KennethPark1 is edit warring to include details of a work of fiction saying "The work of fiction can prompt ideas and invigorate discussions" this is original research and NOT acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree - there's no way a work of fiction can be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedic article. Even if a precedent were to be set, I'm not convinced of the novel in itself - Google has no idea who "the sky robber olaf junegrass isbn 9781798478523" is, and brings back no relevant results. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Items included in "In popular culture" are often difficult to judge in terms of notability. Works of fiction can certainly be included if a strong connection can be shown by a secondary source. I have not searched for anything myself. But it seems that even the primary source, i.e the novel itself, may not be widely known. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found it on Goodreads, so it exists. . Britmax (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- And is it a "good read"!? I see Seon Howard gives it "5 stars". But his extensive review does not seem to mention Flight 370. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Mentioning a work of fiction is appropriate in "In popular culture" sections, but only in a few circumstances: the plot directly incorporates the subject or (in certain circumstances, namely when the book/film is independently noteworthy) where the author notes that parts of the plot were inspired by the subject of the Wikipedia article (and even then, only certain Wikipedia articles would be appropriate to mention).
- This book description is not relevant enough to the article. The Amazon page that the user included in an edit I reverted says: "While the aircraft in the novel is not Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that mysteriously disappeared five years ago, the book gives new ideas for solving the MH370 mystery. The on-board incident described by the author may open a new avenue in the investigation. As such, “The Sky Robber” could be of interest not only to the readers, but also to investigators and aviation authorities." There are a couple red flags that this is spam: the author hasn't made other contributions to Wikipedia and seems to be trying hard for the mention of the book to be included (contributions), the first attempt to add the remark was made on the same day the book was published by an independent publisher, the Amazon page for the book that I mentioned has one review (archive URL; it was NOT a verified purchase, but claims that the edition reviewed was the Kindle edition) that ends "Moreover, as the advert indicated, the novel may provide an interesting theory of what may have been behind the disappearance of flight MH370." (this seems fishy like it was written just to support the inclusion on Wikipedia), the attempt to add the book is a few days before the 5th anniversary of the disappearance when this article will likely get lots of views (that might not be suspicious by itself, but is when considering the other factors). AHeneen (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I propose we do something about the inclusion of presumed fatalities in the infobox. It's safe to assume all aboard have died, yes, but since there are others who disagree and since there's some theories floating around, I think it would be best to just remove the fatalities and injuries parameters altogether. Firstly because although presumed by many, including myself, it is unverifiable—adding presumed in parenthesis doesn't negate this. Secondly because it may be welcomed by those who do still believe in alternative outcomes. Lastly because of neutrality. Any thoughts? Jay D. Easy (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)