Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 537

I'm sorry, but...

Has Bridoux been prosecuted or punished somehow for his negligence? 212.248.42.90 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He was sued and judged he was NOT responsible, Eastern was : https://boundarystones.weta.org/2021/08/17/death-over-potomac-mid-air-plane-crash-leaves-dc-looking-answers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Df (talk • contribs) 23:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2025

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 FOARP (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Eastern Air Lines Flight 537 → 1949 Washington National Airport mid-air collision – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and the "where and what" convention under WP:DISASTER. The proposed name better reflects the involvement of a second aircraft, it's more consistent with other Wikipedia articles about mid-air collisions, and the topic of the article is more obvious to the uninitiated. Carguychris (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  The current title is misleading because it implies to those unfamiliar with the topic that it was a single-aircraft accident, it is inconsistent with both the relevant article titling guideline (quoted below) and with the majority of comparable articles (31 of 56 articles about mid-air collisions involving airliners are titled using the "where and what" convention, only 25 use the flight number (1948 Gatow air disaster uses neither). There does not appear to be a single common name for this incident, but when searches excluding Wikipedia and published before 2025 (as an easy way to exclude results about the recent mid-air collision and thus not relevant) only a small minority use the commercial flight number alone; most indicate that multiple aircraft were involved. The current title therefore meets only one (concise) of the article titling criteria, failing the other four. Thryduulf (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Df (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Naming convention — Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Aviation_incidents — says :

  If there were two or more aircraft involved, or if the flight did not have a flight number assigned, use the "where and what" convention

  Df (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I was looking for this by looking for “style” but that didn’t work. I misread the “or” logic initially. I’ll change my !vote to support. Dw31415 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support: per above. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposed title is not a common name (Google search without quotations vs with quotations). Most sources refer to the event as Eastern Airlines Flight 537, "1949 collision" or "1949 tragedy" (uses Eastern Air Lines Flight 537). Of the 56 pages listed at Category:Mid-air collisions involving airliners, only 30 articles follow a <year> <location> <event> format. That's barely enough to consider the proposed title consistent with other pages about mid-air collisions. "the topic of the article is more obvious to the uninitiated." Wouldn't short descriptions fill in that role? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – To add to Aviationwikiflight, most collisions (including ground collisions) that do go by a <year> <location> <event> format do because they either don't involve a commercial fight with a known flight number, or they involve two commercial flights. Generally, collisions involving a single commercial flight are named after the flight. Most exceptions to this are either old and/or obscure accidents that were originally created with that title (ex. 1963 Ankara mid-air collision) or accidents that were originally titled after the commercial flight but have been changed fairly recently (ex. 2016 Halim Airport runway collision). Then of course there are the two most recent accidents that seem to have shed a light on this ambiguity and lead to some of those renamings: 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision and 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision. A broader discussion on how to title collisions involving a single commercial flight is probably warranted, but I do believe in most cases the article naming conventions of going by a known flight number works better with WP:COMMONNAME, especially considering more well known accidents like Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182 (it also leaves way fewer articles to move). ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, the collision involved two planes, not one. Accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and the arguments above by Aviationwikiflight and ThatFlyingSquid. I am quite surprised that the nomination seems to claim that the proposed title is more concise, when it is twice as long as the current title. The current title is not ambiguous in any way - I can find no evidence whatsoever that there has ever been another notable Eastern Airlines Flight 537. As such, there is no need for a longer title for disambiguation reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aviationwikiflight, berchanhimez and ThatFlyingSquid. I agree that the current title appears to be the COMMONNAME for this incident. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose If the aircraft which collided wasn’t a commercial flight, but the other aircraft WAS an commercial flight, then we should use the commercial flight name, such as Aeroméxico Flight 498 or Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182. Protoeus (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Protoeus I think you've got your negation a bit muddled there, but you seem to be saying that we should use the commercial flight number if there is exactly one commercial flight involved? If so, why? Why does it matter whether a mid-air collision was between two aircraft with flight numbers, between no aircraft with flight numbers or between one aircraft with and one aircraft without? None of the guidelines or naming conventions make any such distinction, none of the discussions I've found leading up to it make any such distinction, and none of the arguments made in this RM explain why we should make a distinction. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf though I know that recent colision articles have that format, the majority of the ones I explained earlier have this format, thus WP:COMMONAME applies here. Protoeus (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  The title of our articles does not determine what the COMMONNAME of an event is, but even if it did that wouldn't answer the question I asked. Why should we make the distinction you seek to make? What benefit does such a distinction bring to the encyclopaedia and/or its readers? Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NCWWW states that If there is an established, common name for an event … use that name. Most sources use “Eastern Airlines Flight 537” when referring to the accident, hence the title of the article reflects what most sources use more commonly. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  That still doesn't answer the question I asked. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Aviationwikiflight: The same convention says: "If there were two or more aircraft involved, or if the flight did not have a flight number assigned, use the "where and what" convention stated above" [not the flight number] Df (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NCWWW or more specifically WP:COMMONNAME both supersede WP:DISASTER § Aviation incidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support, per nom natemup (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – on grounds that the accident (much like the 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision) did not occur at Washington National Airport; it happened near it, so the proposed title is somewhat misleading. I might support a better title worded around a mid-air collision, but I also note that the event is wiki-notable only because it involved a commercial flight (that is a mid-air between two fighters would be unlikely to have its own article), so the current title is not unreasonable. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why an event is "wiki-notable" is completely irrelevant to readers, whether it would have been notable if something different happened is even more irrelevant. What matters is that this is a notable mid-air collision between two aircraft, a title that misleadingly implies that there was only one aircraft involved is definitely unreasonable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah it's so definitely unreasonable that it took a mere 19 years for anyone to object to it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  It did not occur within the terrestrial limits of the airport, but between 2 aircraft both on final approach to the airport. And the official CAB report title is "Investigation of Aircraft Accident: EASTERN AIR LINES AND P-38: WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, WASHINGTON D.C.: 1949-11-01" despite it was not on the airport itself, and despite the airport not in Washington DC either but in Virginia. It's not misleading.

  Naming it by the location of the crash (Alexandria) would by misleading (though exact) since nobody knows the event under that location name. The 2025 collision happened within the limits of Washington DC, but it is not significantly different.

  Both crashes are closely related to Washington National Airport, its landing patterns, ATC communication problems and (too?) high traffic since many VIPs (congressmen, government officials, generals, etc.) find convenient to fly there... Df (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  If you open the ROSAP link given in the article, the actual title of the CAB report – and not the title of the web page – is EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. AND P-38 AIR COLLISION--NEAR WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 1, 1949 So yes, the proposed title is misleading. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per @Df Dw31415 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per @Deeday-UK Fadedreality556 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject District of Columbia, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, WikiProject Disaster management, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to gain a more thorough consensus Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title remarks how the two planes colliding is what caused the aftermath. "Eastern Air Lines Flight 537" on its own doesn't necessarily convey or carry the same weight for everyone. GalacticOrbits (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify, in this instance, the two aircraft colliding is what caused Flight 537 to crash. Although this doesn't necessarily mean that I support the use of this title when multiple aircraft are involved. For instance, Air Vanuatu Flight 241 shouldn't be named 2018 Bauerfield International Airport runway collisions since the damage suffered by the two Britten Norman Islanders are only supplementary and do not define why Air Vanuatu Flight 241 crashed. GalacticOrbits (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.