Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 222

Crash location coordinates

Can someone check for a more precise coordinates for the crash location? I only included a pair of rough coordinates (to 0.01°, ranging about 1 km) corresponding to the inhabited area of Xixi village (西溪村). — Peterwhy 18:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I updated the coordinates as the destroyed houses in Xixi village, according to the quoted report (in Chinese) by Taiwanese Aviation Safety Council. The coordinates are rounded according to WP:OPCOORD, and different from that in zh: article. — Peterwhy 07:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hanyu or Tongyong Pinyin

Since there are a number of transliterations necessary here, we need to be consistent as to what romanisation system is used. For example: should the town be Husi (Tongyong) or Huxi (Hanyu Pinyin), if we use Husi then the village should be Sisi not Xixi. I know this becomes tricky for articles relating to Taiwan (case in point the Husi article where Huxi is used everywhere except the title). It seems that Hanyu is now the preferred pinyin per the MOS, therefore Huxi and Xixi should be used here. –Wine Guy~Talk 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about the case for Husi/Huxi. Linked from Husi, Penghu, the external link to Husi Township Hall calls the township Husi, and I assume that is a governmental website. And this governmental website for Penghu County Government calling the township Husi and the village Sisi.

The MOS you quoted, WP:PINYIN, says, "English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters, except where a non-pinyin form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources." — Peterwhy 04:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the government sites use Husi/Sisi; I do seem to be finding Huxi/Xixi in news sources, both about this incident and in general. In my experience I would have expected the opposite—the Hanyu on "official" pages and and Tongyong (or Wade-Giles) everywhere else. But that gets into the politics, which @Ansh666 alludes to below. At the end of the day it probably makes little difference. I would stick with Huxi/Xixi for now mainly because it seems to be what news sources about this incident are using. The thing to be avoided (IMHO) is Husi/Xixi, as it was for a while yesterday. Disclaimer: Most (90%) of my limited Chinese knowledge is Mandarin (and Hanyu), and while the other 10% comes from Taiwan I certainly defer to anyone with more local understanding. –Wine Guy~Talk 15:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jiang Guanxing

Was this man Taiwanese ? Shouldn't this be Chiang Kuanhsing ?Lathamibird (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe this falls under the Hanyu/Tongyong question above. I've seen it transliterated both ways in English press; also Li or Lee for the family name of the captain. Since I added the Chinese, hopefully that question can be cleared up by someone with a better understanding of the languages involved as well as the WP conventions. –Wine Guy~Talk 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(note: since this is really the same question as above, I've lowered the header level, making this a subsection.)

I'd be inclined to go with the Wade-Giles for names, since as far as I'm aware, most Taiwan natives/residents still transliterate their names using that system. Place names are a bit more tricky, though, since there are many different systems: larger, well-known places use Wade-Giles (e.g. Taipei, Taichung, or Kaohsiung), while smaller ones generally use Hanyu (at least on the Taiwanese mainland); even within cities, different systems are used: it's common to see Hanyu on Taipei road signs, and I believe Tongyong is used in Kaohsiung (which is where I am currently) and other southern cities, which Penghu has more of a cultural tie to. Personally I think the policy on transliterations should follow a rule like WP:ENGVAR, but... Ansh666 05:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I look at this a bit more it seems pretty clear that Chiang Kuan-hsing is correct (as opposed to the hanyu Jiang Guanxing). The sources that I've seen using Jiang have been English editions from mainland China, hence the Hanyu. Most other sources use Chiang, so I would say that's what should be used here. I think I was looking for a consistency like that encouraged by WP:EngVar, but Chinese language is a whole lot more complex (as I find out every time I try to use my very limited skills). –Wine Guy~Talk 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ehh, as a mostly-native speaker and reader (first-gen ethnic Chinese-American whose parents came from Taiwan, to be politically neutral) I wouldn't say it's more complex; most Chinese speakers, wherever they live or come from, wouldn't give a damn about whether it's spelled "Chiang" or "Jiang" in Roman letters: it's all the same in Chinese. The part that's more complex is the politics behind the different systems and why they're all in use at the same time, which I won't go into here. A good guideline would be what I spelled out above, but given the politicking I mentioned I doubt it would really catch on. Ansh666 14:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions section

Which entries should be included in this section?　Taking a cue from MH17, I'd suggest only having involved parties - Taiwan (ROC) for obvious reasons, China per the traditional offer and refusal of help, the president or whatever of the airline involved. Ansh666 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Despite MH17 it is not normal to have a "reactions" section as they have little encyclopedic value. That doesnt mean that a statement from the airline cant be included but "so sad" standard reactions from heads of state and others are not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

re "each reaction has relevance considering TW's international position", just because a relationship is important, it doesn't mean or imply that a rhetorical response from that party to a minor air crash is important. We should be paying attention to actions, not words. The rhetoric is needless and unencyclopaedic, and should have no place in a WP article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Reaction section including EU and Vatican's comments are highly relevant in Taiwan's case. Other messages of condolences were offered through unofficial channels. If the accident happened on a normal country, of course I wouldn't have added condolences from EU and Vatican. But it is notable in the case for Taiwan. Moreover, concerning your opinion that condolence rhetoric is not fit for WP, I think we ought to look at the context, on a case-by-case basis. If it were true that this rhetoric has absolutely no place in an accident article, then I think you have a lot of work to do deleting this rhetoric on articles of other "major" accidents. Lasersharp (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to conduct any proper survey to know that the majority of flight accident articles do not have any reactions section. Where they do exist, it's always a half-completed attempt to collect at ragbag of bland and unencyclopaedic sound bites from assorted leaders (with little or no action), suitably decorated with pretty flag icons. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I share your stance against excessive flags and quotes. I think we only differ on whether the statements from EU and Vatican are relevant. I argue that if we were to remove those, then I think we should also remove PRC's comments as well. However, I rather keep all of them to show a spectrum of reactions in light of TW's unique political status. Lasersharp (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a very minor accident, and I'm not convinced that "Taiwan's unique status" is all that relevant per se. I have no problem removing the PRC comments along with those of the Vatican and EU, which are pointless rhetoric as well. If anything needs mentioning is that their offer of assistance was turned down, pretty much as I did here. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Still cant see any relevance to the accident, these are all standard "were sorry about your accident" that happens all the time, is not notable to this accident and doesnt really have any encyclopedic value. Suggest section is removed but the airline comments may have some value elsewhere in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

failed landing?????

This does not read right. It did not make a landing it crashed. Try attempted landing.

Also the first landing attempt did not fail it was aborted.

Perhaps you should get someone who knows something about aviation.

And there is more.

"It was en route to Magong, Penghu Islands, from Kaohsiung when it made an emergency landing in Penghu County. The flight's first landing attempt at Magong Airport failed. The pilot then requested to make a second attempt at 19:06,[1] after which the control tower lost contact. The plane crashed in the township of Huxi, causing a fire involving two homes.[9] On the ground, 5 were injured." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it didn't make sense. I've rewritten the relevant passage to concur with the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ASC news releases

• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=541
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=548
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=549
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=550
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=551
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=547
• http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=553

Here are news releases from the ASC WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives of documents

Documents in English:

• Final report: http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/ASC-AOR-16-01-002-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGlUiBKu
• Preliminary report: http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/4369a410-bbc6-4df9-9349-2b534a9e7cac.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGltPilN
• Factual Data Collection
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/fd5d9537-1abc-4356-aecf-ae731fa32503.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGm1P4Jy
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/92eb4361-8242-47b8-a1c0-26ea7381d514.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGm6r5Y0
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/91a05e6c-3301-45c8-996f-e7a80e06b736.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGm9D0cF
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/b2271c6f-cc00-4093-b0c8-856c6734beef.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGmGOoqd
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/c53d8b1c-13de-4c6c-9ae7-5af95ce91034.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGmK5G67
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/b09f36dc-af2b-43fa-9ff1-3a3133767183.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGmPt4Nk
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/277fa347-3087-4244-bafe-b28fc7107c89.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGmVmZVP
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/82424933-1f41-49a5-ab47-8029f97cc8a2.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGnPHRmY
  • http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/79b82cd3-3c13-4328-ba12-4d3e8e7c35b7.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGnhigs1

Documents in Traditional Chinese:

• Final report: http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/ASC-AOR-16-01-002.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGoZOgHL
• Preliminary report: http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att/b5be2815-07d6-4283-b991-8820fbfb76b8.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6fGodgpfP

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TransAsia Airways Flight 222. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/taiwan/10985887/Taiwan-plane-crash-latest-live.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/taiwan-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)