Talk:Oceanic Airlines

Was N707CK really in service with Ocean Airlines?

@Altenmann: Thanks a lot for finding sources and expanding the article! I'm wondering about a detail though: Was N707CK really in service with Ocean Airlines? I think it might be an error in the source. Did the author confuse Ocean and Oceanic? Would be a curious coincidence if the airplane was used by similarly named real and fictional airlines. I looked at commons:Category:N707CK (Boeing 747-269B(SF)) and commons:Category:S2-ADT (aircraft) and they don't mention Ocean Airlines. Of course, that's not strong evidence. I'm just a bit skeptical. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I should have looked for sources. :-) Did that now and found [1]: "S2-ADT, deliver date 23/09/2004, Ocean Airlines". I guess that curious coincidence really did happen. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a funny coincidence and I was wondering whether it was not a coincidence :-) And yes, there are a number of technical sources, but I decided not to refbomb; I just listed the regs, so that airfans can track them for themselves. --Altenmann >talk 07:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The section "Lost" may be considerably expanded using the refs from Lost, Confirmed Dead, and Find 815, but I decided to ignore this low hanging fruit. --Altenmann >talk 07:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Expanding with alleged trivia

I can't say I think expanding the article with what amounts to a list of appearances and some "behind the scenes" trivia is particularly an improvement. There's a reason I didn't add any of that stuff when I rewrote the article back in April. TompaDompa (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with your concern. Bit IMO appearances and "behind the scenes" not exactly trivia are valid content, as long as it comes from RS which directly discuss the subject, not just mention it in passing. For example, the aggressive marketing campaign around Lost involving OA (I didnt bother to describe) was covered abundantly. --Altenmann >talk 16:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I take a WP:ANALYSISBEFOREEXAMPLES perspective on this. Merely listing examples doesn't really tell us anything informative about the overarching topic of Oceanic Airlines (it's WP:RAWDATA, basically), and things like the real-world registration number of the airplane used in Executive Decision also doesn't really tell us anything informative about the overarching topic of this article (although it could perhaps be argued that it does about the making of the film Executive Decision, and might be worth including at that article). TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

These guidelines apply to trivia sections and popcult articles, such as River Lethe in popular culture, to weed out factoids, such as "Singer Bopper mentioned Lethe in his latest rap about being stoned" . Whereas in the case of OA, its presence in films is an inherent part of its notability, therefore is belonging. Please notice I included only occurrences mentioned in RS that specifically cover the subject. I didnt include occasional sightings of OA, such as clips from Lost and Executive in other films and games. --Altenmann >talk 17:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is functionally an Oceanic Airlines in fiction article (it's all fiction), so I'd say the same considerations apply. Collecting raw data about appearances in fiction is essentially stamp collecting, even if we get that raw data from reliable secondary sources. Analysis of the overarching topic is what makes for quality articles on topics like this. A handful of examples to illustrate the point that appearances are typically [in] works that feature plane crashes and other aviation disasters, with which a real airline would prefer not to be associated could be helpful, but then we have to write those examples to serve that purpose. If there are other pieces of overarching analysis in the sources that we can use, further examples may be helpful to illustrate that additional analysis. Organizing the article structure around individual examples does not strike me as a good idea at all, as it makes it much more difficult to primarily cover the topic as opposed to the examples. TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

What is wrong with "raw data"? "Mikas Holecek was born in Brno" is raw data. Delete it? Nothing wrong with organizing around notable occurrences. If you do not like sections, collapse them into prose. For example in bios it is not uncommon "an axctor in this film did so and so... In that film he flunked." Or a writer wrote this book, in which he vented his frustratio with his father. Then he wrotee gthat book where he described hoiw he wss bullied in high school" . I can give more exemples where the narrative follows some "stepping stones". --Altenmann >talk 21:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

As Uncle G said in the essay WP:CARGO back in 2008, Fiction is not fact and Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. TompaDompa (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how a personal opinion is relevant to this issue. There is no "raw data" concept in Wikipedia guidelines. --Altenmann >talk 04:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You compared the way this article about a fictional airline is written to the way a biographical article would be written, which I thought was a silly comparison. It is well-established that writing about fiction is different from writing about real-world subjects (see e.g. WP:Writing about fiction). Hence my reference to an essay that makes the same point. The concept of raw data is part of Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy (specifically, WP:RAWDATA), which says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. [...] TompaDompa (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not delete the text whose cited sources directly indicate the relevance to the subject without establishing consensus first. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

To address your concern, I removed the list of less notable occurrences not discussed in depth in sources. --Altenmann >talk 05:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm restructuring the article to be in a prose format, as you suggested. In doing so, I added some stuff about Oceanic Airlines footage from Executive Decision being reused in other works, and removed some stuff about the real-world airplane used for filming. Removing other examples because they are "less notable" misses the mark. The issue with the stuff about the real airplane used to film Executive Decision is that it's not about the fictional airline that is the subject of this article, but about the real-world airplane. The sources are not sources about Oceanic Airlines, the sources are about the real-world airplane. It's WP:OFFTOPIC for this article, though it might be a good fit for the Executive Decision article as "making of" information. TompaDompa (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources are about real planes that were used for OA, as discussed in sources cited, i.e.,, sourced direct relevance. --Altenmann >talk 14:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, no. That's an entire degree of separation. It would be like saying that sources about Executive Decision, a film that features Oceanic Airlines, ipso facto have relevance. Oceanic Airlines gets a passing mention but isn't remotely what the sources are about. TompaDompa (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, disagreed. Yes sources about Executive Decision that discuss OA are relevant, but they are redundant. And no in the links for real planes I provided (e.g.,"Simon D. Beck, The Aircraft-Spotter's Film and Television Companion p.81"), OA are not passing mention. --Altenmann >talk 15:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how you can characterize it as anything other than passing mentions. All it says to do with Oceanic Airlines as such is that the real-world airplanes were marked as Oceanic, the rest is all about the aircraft themselves. There is nothing there about Oceanic Airlines itself (if I want to be really charitable, I suppose I could say that it does say one thing about Oceanic Airlines, namely that it is fictional), and certainly nothing in-depth about it. What did we learn about Oceanic Airlines specifically, rather than the aircraft? Nothing. Compare that to e.g. this source's While it's perfectly understandable that airlines don't want to have their company names associated with disaster, television and movies have featured plane crashes practically since the mediums began. As a result, it's been necessary to create fake airlines that can be freely hijacked, blown up, and crashed without real life brand reputation implications. And of these many fictional airlines, one has been more popular—and consequently more ill-fated—than all the rest. Oceanic Airlines [...], which is actual analysis of the role Oceanic Airlines serves in works of fiction—i.e. analysis of the overarching topic. A relevant policy here is WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—"on the subject" is key here, and these are not sources on the subject of this article: Oceanic Airlines. TompaDompa (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RD requested. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: I would say that an actual book, if it does more than just mention the subject, is probably a substantial source. On the other hand, I also see "airhistory.net" used as a source, which, from its "About" page ([2]), indicates that it is a user-generated content site, so that shouldn't really be used as a source at all. It's hard to tell exactly what's in dispute here, but for fictional material, it probably should get more than just a passing name drop or mention to bear inclusion in the article. Maybe some of the rest could be better solved by discussing proposed individual items one at a time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Turn into disambig?

I have an idea how to preserve the title while avoiding WP:TRIVIA problem: to make it a disambig page:

Oceanic Airlines ...

• in Lost
• in Executive Decision
• etc...

Rationale: the independent content is based solely on two blurbs of curiosity/trivia writers with questionable expertise:

• (#1) "and other aviation disasters, with which a real airline would prefer not to be associated." - a strong claim that must be supported but solid sources. I don's recall any director or screenwriters say "we picked the name OA not to insult Northern Airlines." or "I micked the name OA because I lliked it in "The Ditching"
• (#2) "Daryna Tobey compared its prevalence to that of 555 telephone numbers" - apples an oranges. Unlike OA, the article 555 specifically writes that the use of 555 was a conscious decision, and the resulting hundreds of cases of 555 are no way "compared in prevalence" with OA, i.e., Daryna Tobay made an ungrounded sensationalist exaggeration, i.e.., a technically false statement. While it may be OK in entertainment columns, we do not add misguided opinions into Wikipedia unless it is a widespread misconception.

Opinions? --Altenmann >talk 21:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the suggestion. Are you proposing creating Oceanic Airlines (Lost), Oceanic Airlines (Executive Decision), and potentially other stand-alone articles for appearances in different works? TompaDompa (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Entries without articles are possible, see, e.g., Love (disambiguation)#Songs. --Altenmann >talk 14:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Were you thinking along the lines of:

Oceanic Airlines may refer to:

• Lost (TV series)#Oceanic Airlines
• Executive Decision#Oceanic Airlines

Or along the lines of:

Oceanic Airlines may refer to:

• Oceanic Airlines, a fictional airline in Lost
• Oceanic Airlines, a fictional airline in Executive Decision

Or something else entirely? TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The second option. --Altenmann >talk 15:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hm. That appears to me to be saying that this is not a single coherent topic, but several different ones that happen to share a name. I don't know that my reading of what the sources are saying would find that to be the case, but at any rate that seems like a question for WP:AfD since it would mean that this is not a topic that should have a stand-alone article (whereas AfD has found otherwise in the past). TompaDompa (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Right. It is changing the scope. Let me think whether my arguments (1) and (2) above will be convincing for a new AfD after merge discussion closes. --Altenmann >talk 16:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that those two pieces of analysis are the only things of substance that connect different Oceanic Airlines appearances to each other as an overarching topic in the sources that have been located so far. Other than that, it's basically just observations that the name "Oceanic Airlines" recurs in different works. For mine own part, I would say that (1) does not seem all that WP:EXCEPTIONAL a claim to me and so I don't think very strong sourcing would be needed for it (reasonable people could perhaps disagree on whether the cited source is adequate for the purpose), whereas (2) seems like an obvious hyperbole (the source's exact phrasing is References to Oceanic Airlines on television are almost as common as 555-prefixed phone numbers., which I reckon is probably off by at least two orders of magnitude) for rhetorical effect. I think (2) in particular is rather weak as a point in favour of a stand-alone article. Ultimately, I think this is probably a topic where we strictly speaking could have a stand-alone article, but (especially from a WP:WHYN perspective) I don't really think we should. I don't think a disambiguation page is a particularly good solution either, however—better to redirect somewhere if an appropriate target exists or outright delete if there is none. TompaDompa (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not a dab, it's a wp:SIA —Alalch E. 21:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)