Talk:British Caledonian in the 1980s

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Defunct Airlines task force.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Reorganising the article

Have now completed reorganising this sub-article - incl. the linked main article - a bit over the recent Bank Holiday week-end. Hope the result makes for better reading. Another way to reduce the article's size is to use the same referencing system as in the Air Europe article as well as to "tighten" it a bit further or to split it and create a separate linked sub-article for the period when things at BCal began going downhill (ie sections entitled Unexpected reversal of fortunes to British Airways wins the day), into which the other sub-article linked to the main article (Reasons for the failure of ... British Caledonian) could be subsumed. Maybe, other Wikipedians with an interest in aviation articles could help with this. This sub-article (and the linked main article as well) contain[s] a lot of detailed information that I personally consider very informative and therefore valuable. So, someone who knows how to tighten it further without simply deleting all that info, without changing the meaning completely (by leaving just a few disjoimted sentences) and without making spelling or grammatical mistakes should preferably do this. Aviator369 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

I have tidied links per WP:OVERLINK and WP:MOS by removing repeated links and links to plain English words, and spelling out acronyms on first use. These changes are consistent with Wikipedia style. Ground Zero | t 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While people interested in and well-versed in airlines and irports will know what and where "JFK" is, for the benefit of non-technical readers, it should be spelled out the first time it is used, as directed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which applies to Wikipedia articles. Ground Zero | t 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a lot of boldfacing of corporate names in this article. This reduces the readability of the article. I can find no support for his formatting in WP:MOS. WP:BOLDFACE says:

Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:

Table headers
Definition lists (example: Proof)
Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats

Ground Zero | t 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits

The first paragraph should provide a basic introduction to the article -- so explaining that BCal was an airline is important.

As this is a sub-article that follows on from the main article, attentive readers will already know that this article is about British Caledonian, the airline. Mentioning in the introduction once again that BCal was an airline doesn't add any new information at all and is therefore totally unnecessary.Aviator369 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on JFK Airport includes "International" in the title, so I am restoring that link.

Again (as above), the inclusion of the tag International in the airport's name doesn't add any new information and therefore is superfluous even though the article about the airport may be entitled John F. Kennedy INTERNATIONAL Airport. Anyone who has read the article about that airport, will understand for themselves that it is indeed a major international airport. (In fact there are many other airport articles on Wikipedia that carry this tag [International] without enhancing those articles value in any way whatsoever.Aviator369 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:YEAR, year ranges are written without an apostrophe: "Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE/AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not. A closing BCE or BC year is given in full (2590–2550 BCE). While one era signifier at the end of a date range requires an unspaced en dash (12–5 BC), a spaced en dash is required when a signifier is used after the opening and closing years (5 BC – AD 29)."

Before you are trying to blindly impose Wikipedia rules, try to use your common sense. Ask yourself whether using a dash, hyphon or [forward] slash as a separator really alters the meaning of anything in this and other articles. Rather than trying your level best to be a rule fetishist and wasting your time on unconstructive edits of other people's well-researched and reasonably well-written articles, wouldn't it be better to check those article's facts and to add missing information that is important in the articles' context or to alter information that is wrong? Try to put yourself into the position of the authors who have spend a considerable amount of their time to research and write these articles. I am sure most of them will welcome constructive edits from other Wikipedians, including you. But I am equally sure that they will feel annoyed and irritated at having someone continuously editing their articles whose main aim seems to be to stick to some not very meaningful rules at any cost, come what may.Aviator369 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly, brand, costs, entity and subsidiary are plain English words that an average reader can be expected to understand. These are not technical terms. They do not need to be linked -- see WP:OVERLINK. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments on Talk:Caledonian Airways, please review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and reassess your remarks. Also, regarding your comment about "having someone continuously editing their articles", please review WP:OWN. These are Wikipedia's articles, not your mine or anybody else's. I will address your other comments when I have more time. Ground Zero | t

I am still very disappointed in your aggressive and offensive manner. please review the Wikipedia guides I've linked in my previous comments. They will help you understand better how the Wikipedia community works, and how you can work better with other Wikipedia contributors, including me. Wikipedia is a community project, not a single-author work. It is not MySpace, but "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". You will have to accept that others are going to edit your work. And those edits will include making the article consistent with the rules and styles to which the Wikipedia community has agreed.

The Wikipedia community, likes all communities, adopts rules as it sees fit to govern not only the content of the project, but also the behaviour of its members. Describing edits that make an article consistent with Wikipedia style as "unconstructive" or a waste of time shows a lack of understanding about Wikipedia. I encourage you to learn more about Wikipedia so that your edits and participation can be more constructive. Ground Zero | t 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Caledonian in the 1980s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]