In the last few days there have been a few questions using the tag that deal with an ongoing investigation and thus tend to be borderline on topic, if not fully off-topic.

Should we have a tag popup similar to the one we have for the tag?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Yes, please...... $\endgroup$
    – Jae Carr
    Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ At first glance this seems like a sensible idea. The other option would be to merge the tags (make accidents a synonym for crash-investigation) but I don't think that's a correct solution. $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @voretaq7 the popup text would be different, imho the tags should remain separate. $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Federico The pop-up text could actually be the same; I wrote it (with your help!) with this scenario in mind. And I agree the tags should be remain separate, I don't think they're the same thing. $\endgroup$
    – Pondlife
    Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Pondlife well, the tag has a different usage, so I would adjust the text. $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Dec 1, 2016 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Federico Yes, that's true. Some minor change would probably be enough. $\endgroup$
    – Pondlife
    Commented Dec 2, 2016 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ @JonEricson can I ping you? $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Feb 1, 2017 at 13:44

1 Answer 1


I would propose a pop-up text that would look like the following (simple adjustment of a few words from the pop-up):

Tip: Questions about investigations get better answers if they:

  • are specific to a part of the investigation, rather than a blanket question (don't just ask "what happened?")

  • can be answered factually and accurately (speculating about ongoing investigations is explicitly off-topic)

  • refer to reliable sources like aviation authorities and official accident reports

  • focus on the aviation aspects of the accident

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think "are specific" is a little vague (ironically). I would put something like "are specific to a part of the investigation, rather than a blanket question (such as, 'What happened?')" $\endgroup$
    – Jae Carr
    Commented Dec 3, 2016 at 2:26
  • $\begingroup$ @JayCarr thanks, added $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Dec 3, 2016 at 7:45
  • $\begingroup$ I would be inclined to say "related to the investigation" rather than "a part of" - this way, you would encourage questions that are generally applicable to aviation (but were raised in relation to a recent accident) rather than questions that suggest theories based on the press reports during the investigation. $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    Commented Dec 3, 2016 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ @sanchises Right, but the intent of the phrase "are specific to a part of the investigation" is to try and stop people from asking questions that are related to the accident, but are very broad. So we're trying to stop people from saying, "Why did the plane crash?" and would prefer something like, "Why did CRM break down on flight AF447?" Honestly, being more specific in this case will very much help, especially when you consider that most crashes are fairly singular events (so questions regarding them are unlikely to be widely applicable, no matter how hard we try.) $\endgroup$
    – Jae Carr
    Commented Dec 6, 2016 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ @JayCarr fair enough! ;) $\endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    Commented Dec 6, 2016 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ if those downvoting don't comment or offer an alternative answer, it's kinda pointless. $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Dec 9, 2016 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ Federico, not true, actually. This is a meta question of the "should we do some thing" variety. This is an answer to that question. Down-voting a meta answer can simply mean you don't agree with the direction of the answer, but are unable/unwilling to better explain. In other words, the down-voter likely disagrees with the "we should merge crash-investigation with accident-investigation", so is in effect casting his/her (wasn't me) vote to not merge. So, it's not pointless, but it's also not helpful, beyond the 'vote'. $\endgroup$
    – CGCampbell
    Commented Dec 11, 2016 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ @CGCampbell but the "we should merge" is not this question/answer $\endgroup$
    – Federico
    Commented Dec 12, 2016 at 7:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is done, with the language specified here. $\endgroup$
    – Shog9
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 23:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .