Talk:List of traffic collisions (2000–present)

Adding to list

As per the AfD discussion, only accidents which have their own wikipage should be included in this list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Noting that this is clearly no longer the policy, as we have AfD discussion with AfD-merge outcomes to this page; see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Galicia bus crash. Klbrain (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of notable traffic collisions (2000–present). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816013626/http://www.antena3.ro/stiri/rutier/microbuz-lovit-de-un-tren-la-iasi-cinci-persoane-au-murit_77984.html to http://www.antena3.ro/stiri/rutier/microbuz-lovit-de-un-tren-la-iasi-cinci-persoane-au-murit_77984.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808054808/http://www.radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=327362 to http://www.radioformula.com.mx/notas.asp?Idn=327362
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-bus-train-crash-kills-6-in-commuting-horror-1.1858868

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of notable traffic collisions (2000–present). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194629/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/independent-probe-for-cameron-highlands-bus-crash/ to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/independent-probe-for-cameron-highlands-bus-crash/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Links to nonexistant articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To include crashes with five deaths or more on this page, even when no article exists. Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

---

As stated in some related AfDs we should remove red links or even whole entries on this list, which don't have their own articles. Please comment. A09 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If these entries are removed, crashes with over 50 deaths would be deleted, and there would be far less crashes in the article despite their notability. Hopefully articles about these crashes will eventually be created, but for now I think they should be kept. greyzxq ^talk 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Greyzxq: Maybe a limit of X deaths should be enforced, just like it's done at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 etc. That way we prevent loss of track of bigger events. A09 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It already is, only crashes with five deaths or more are included. greyzxq ^talk 21:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

to fix this i have been going through in my own spare time creating the articles most are very basic just showing data about them however they are still being created everyone is welcome to add to it but what i have / am doing is creating the article :) Dubstar44 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2023 (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.

Inclusion

What if a traffic accident has an article, but not 5 or more deaths? Should it be included? I think so, but I am not sure. - Sebbog13 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it significant because it is a notable incident on its own, or are there extraneous factors that make it so? There's a reason for example why we don't include 1-death crashes even if the person has their own article. Borgenland (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Three deaths. Not known for having a notable person dying in the crash. Hadsel bus accident - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

At this stage I'd be leaning against it, especially as it is a stub. Though I understand that some editors may believe there is a higher threshold for notability due to it occurring in a country where road accidents are not a WP:ROUTINE affair. Borgenland (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: Articles on Norway-related topics usually aren't great. - Sebbog13 (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand. At this stage I think it would be better if there is consensus from other editors, assuming that the article survives other issues regarding WP:NOTABILITY. Borgenland (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hit the template limit

Needs a split, doesn't even need discussion. Can someone just quickly execute a split? grapesurgeon (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traffic collisions (2015–present), where the previously existing three lists were merged. I kind of agree with the argument brought forward there that only accidents that have their own Wikipedia article should be listed. Might be better to cut it down than to split it. On the other hand, looking at all the articles that have been merged into this list (see the talk page header), that's giving me a headache. Renerpho (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Compare Talk:List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#Adding_to_list, the RfC above, and the rest of this talk page in general. Renerpho (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea perhaps cutting down is better grapesurgeon (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally I’d prefer raising the minimum number of dead from 5. And in practice I only add entries with 10+ dead. Borgenland (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. Imo there are multiple possible remedies to these issues; rather than let this discussion fizzle out I'd prefer quick action. Hitting the template limit is a bit ridic, this page should have had intervention earlier grapesurgeon (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If I manage to access a computer I am planning to split off the 2020s. Borgenland (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd possibly be ok with that too, but I do agree with Renerpho and the previous threads that many of these seem pretty run of the mill. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@BlockatePollop2 Like this edit I feel is documenting a routine incident. I think 5 minimum needs to be bumped up; many of these things don't have lasting coverage and at a macro scale are just meaningless statistics. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Borgenland Splitting off the 2020s won't really help because the 5.5 years of the 2020s take up as much of the page as 2000-2019 does, so the problem will just come back in a few years. The problem is way too much WP:RECENTISM. @Renerpho, Grapesurgeon, and BlockatePollop2: I went ahead and removed anything that either didn't have its own article or had less than 10 fatalities. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht oh BlockatePollop2 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think increasing the threshold to 10+ makes sense. That has decreased the size of the article by something like 20-30%, which should buy us some time. Renerpho (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. However, we're still at 943 refs; still ludicrously long.

A split may still be needed. If we just give it a few months we'll likely hit the template limit again. grapesurgeon (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd approve of a 2020 onward split btw @Borgenland. Last 2019 ref is ref #438. Total refs is 878. So around a half split for the article. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve provisionally and boldly implemented the increased threshold. If things hit the fan again I will consider a split. Borgenland (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. Imo in a year or so it will again; I think last time it broke around 1200 refs, and we seem to be documenting the 2020s more rigorously than the previous decades. I'd personally like a preemptive split (the article is long and takes a while to load/edit). grapesurgeon (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)