Talk:2015 Senegal mid-air collision
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On 15 November 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to CEIBA Intercontinental Flight 071. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ceiba Intercontinental Airlines Flight 71. 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/20151024131523/http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/6v.aim/6v.aim.php to http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/6v.aim/6v.aim.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016160657/http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/6v.aim/6v.aim.php to http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/6v.aim/6v.aim.php
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) 17:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 4 September 2018
[edit]- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Ceiba Intercontinental Airlines Flight 71 → 2015 Senegal mid-air collision – Mid-air collisions are rare events that stand out among all other air accidents, therefore a title that refer to the event as such would be a lot more meaningful (see for example 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision and others). WP:AATF allows for deviations from the standard format, if more common names exist, and the article itself (including many sources) explicitly mentions 'Senegal' and 'collision', when referring to the accident. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, in the collision in question, Ceiba Flight 71 is the one the made it safely to the ground. It was the other aircraft (without a flight number) that crashed with the loss of all on board; another reason why the current title is inadequate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dont have a problem with the change as you say it reflects that more than one aircraft was involved. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Did the crew of the CEIBA know what happened?
[edit]It's not clear to me from the current version of the article if the crew of the CEIBA knew they had a mid air collision with another aircraft. Or if they didn't what they believed had happened. My original thought was clearly they didn't know since I assumed standard practice even when everything is currently operating normally after such an event is to proceed to the nearest airport you can safely land, since you never know what may have broken and what may further deteriorate in flight, I mean part of their winglet was missing. I assume they only heard a noise and maybe observed the "brief oscillation and an uncommanded yaw" but otherwise had no clue what had happened (perhaps thinking it was a bird strike or something) as everything seemed okay and so decided it was important but not urgent so proceeded to their base rather than the nearest airport they could land at or their origin destination (if they felt there was nothing to worry about at all). But maybe I'm wrong. It would be helpful if this could be clarified in the article, and also especially if they did know, if there was any controversy over their decision. (Just because it was fine doesn't mean it was a good idea.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect information
[edit]The information on this page seems to be incorrect. For example, in the info box, it says Total fatalities 224, but in the Accident section, it says [...] where it landed without further incident., and The 737-800 was repaired and returned to service with CEIBA Intercontinental. In January 2019, the aircraft was re-registered to Ethiopian registration as ET-AWR. in Aftermath. --184.22.13.181 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 15 November 2025
[edit]- 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. (non-admin closure) Destinyokhiria 💬 19:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
2015 Senegal mid-air collision → CEIBA Intercontinental Flight 071 – Per WP:AVTITLE, the name of an article about an accident involving a scheduled commercial airline flight should be "<airline> Flight <flight number>". Sample articles about mid-air collisions between airline flights and light general aviation aircraft include Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182, Aeroflot Flight 811, Aeroméxico Flight 498, All Nippon Airways Flight 58, Allegheny Airlines Flight 853, American Airlines Flight 28, Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 2254, British European Airways Flight 142, Capital Airlines Flight 300, Cubana de Aviación Flight 493, and TWA Flight 553. The "<year> <place> mid-air collision" name format is normally used when an airline flight is not involved or both aircraft are commercial are flights. Nothing indicates 2015 Senegal mid-air collision is the common name. Also Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is a similar mid-air collision to this one and that article uses the aircraft with the flight number. Zaptain United (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – This is one of the rare cases where I believe that the current title should be used instead of the "usual" format. A lot of the sources seem to focus more on the crash of the Hawker Siddeley and the general aftermath of the collision (court cases, etc...) rather than of CEIBA Intercontinental Flight 071. [1] [2] [3] [4] The current title also follows the "where and what" guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Aviation incidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)



