Talk:Dan-Air

Fair use rationale for Image:Dan-Air Logo.jpg

Image:Dan-Air Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is now superfluous. Somebody else has already filled in the template as requested (dated June 6, 2007).

Pimpom123 12.40, 8 June 2007 (GMT)

Reverting to older version

I have re-saved the older version because a) Dan-Air was indeed a major operator of the 1-11 and 748, in the sense that, apart from the Comets, these two aircraft types were operated in larger numbers than any of the other types in its fleet during the airline's most successful period in the 1970s and '80s. b) The wiki links of some of the aircraft types in Dan-Air's historic fleet list are duplicated elsewhere in the article. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that a link to the article dealing with each main aircraft type mentioned in this article is sufficient, rather than linking to each sub-type mentioned herein.

Pimpom123 08.25, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

Just a few comments, the term major operator indicates that they operated one of the biggest fleets compared with other airlines, which can never be true of the 727 with less than a dozen operated. They did operate a number of One Elevens but the fleets of British Airways and British Caledonian for example were far bigger. I have changed the para again as a compromise. The list of aircraft operated was added as this is used in other defunct airline articles to give a quick guidance to readers of the types operated. Perhaps this list should come before the text, as the links in the list are easier to navigate from. Not all aircraft types in the list are mentioned in the text. The article looks like a direct extract from the referenced book (which could have copyright issues), I was just trying to make it more like other articles!. MilborneOne 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article really looks better now after including your changes. Well done! By the way, regarding your comments that the article looks like an extract from the referenced book, I have actually read the complete book and compared the referenced sections with what the author[s] of this article has/have actually written here. Though I agree that there are similarities, at least he/she/they has/have taken efforts to use their own words, rather than exactly copying word for word. In my opinion the person[s] concerned should at least get some credit for this. Pimpom123 13.32, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

OK understood, I think the large number of citations give the wrong impression, but I accept your check against the book and recognise the hard work involved. On another unconnected point we should really get rid of most of the Facts of Interest section by incorporating the information into the main text. MilborneOne 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought about integrating the 'Facts of Interest' section into the main text a number of times to avoid someone else flagging it up as "trivia" though these are verifiable facts. In my opinion, the best way to do it is to add three more [sub-]sections, which could be entitled 'an overseas base' (dealing with the airline's long-term association with West Berlin), 'industry firsts' (incorporating the fact the the company was the first UK-based commercial airline operator to employ a female captain on its jet fleet among a team of four lady pilots in the mid-'70s) and 'scheduled service developments' (outlining the firm's long-term commitment to build a network of regional scheduled services as well as its subsequent decision to transform itself into a "mainline" scheduled carrier plying trunk routes). However, I haven't yet figured out where to place the fact that Dan-Air changed its policy of exclusively employing female flight attendants only in 1986 (I remember reading an article that their refusal to employ male FAs prior to that time was driven by the Aids scare in those days and the fact that a siginificant proportion of male FAs worldwide have traditionally been gay. But I couldn't recall the title and the date of the publication. Nor did I come across any other related info that could corroborate what I remember reading.) The additional info about the 727s (additional set of emergency doors and stall-warning system on -100s) can be subsumed under the 'aircraft operated' section, the 727-related info specific to the Berlin-based aircraft (additional fuel tanks to increase range) can go into the aforementioned 'overseas base' section. If you've got any alternative, better ideas, then please let me know. Pimpom123 13.42, 12 June 2007 (GMT)

Sounds like a good plan -I will help when I can.MilborneOne 11:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to get started this week-end. Pimpom123 14.14, 13 June 2007 (GMT)

Have begun amending the structure. Will continue working on it later today and during the coming days. Pimpom123 11.07, 16 June 2007 (GMT)

Have now removed the 'Facts of interest' section and incorporated the contents into other relevant sections. Shall spend next couple of days to make the article appear less disjointed. Will also correct some minor factual mistakes and expand on the background where necessary. Pimpom123 10.21, 18 June 2007 (GMT)

Have completed the above task. Expanded the 'Scheduled service development' section to give it coherence and arranged events in chronological order. (Working on this arduous task reminded me why I actually prefer having a 'facts' section at the end of an article. It allows you to quote additional facts that are important in the context of the article randomly, without following any particular order or being compelled to "fill in the gaps".) Have also added an information box including the Dan-Air logo. Have added further references as well to avoid other Wikipedians flagging it up as unreferenced. Pimpom123 13.39, 21 June 2007 (GMT)

Just my opinion but thanks to user Pimpom123 the article now reads a lot better, I still think moving the Facts of Interest was a good move. Well Done. MilborneOne 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgement of my efforts, user MilborneOne. Pimpom123 07.49, 22 June 2007 (GMT)

Have incorporated a slight change regarding D&N's flotation in the early 1970s. The figure the author[s] of the original article had mentioned [£100,000] looked suspiciously low to me. So I decided to check it using the reference stated. This clearly mentioned that the entire group's market cap was around £5m at the time of flotation. Pimpom123 13.13, 30 June 2007 (GMT)

Have also amended the sentence explaining the "stick pusher" stall protection system after reading up on it in relevant sources. Pimpom123 09.00, 4 July 2007 (GMT)

Have corrected inaccurate info regarding Dan-Air's position as Britian's leading charter airline vis-a-vis Britannia Airways during the late 1980s when the former was ahead of the latter measured by the size of its total aircraft fleet only (by that time Britannia had already overtaken Dan-Air in terms of the number of pax carried, as far as I know). Have also made a minor change to the section dealing with the introduction of Dan-Air's new livery and corporate image from 1980 onwards because that livery first appeared on a Boeing 727-100 (G-BFGN) according to a contemporary article in Flight International (I think the relevant article was published in March 1980). Pimpom123 10.32, 19 September 2007 (GMT)

Have added further amendments (tweaks). Pimpom123 13.53, 20 September 2007 (GMT)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dan-Air Logo.jpg

Image:Dan-Air Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue has already been sufficiently dealt with on June 6, 2007 (see section bearing same title above) Pimpom123 10.57, 13 September 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.36.140 (talk)

Please refer to latest image template. Pimpom123 13.58, 20 September 2007 (GMT)

Reference formatting

This article cites many different pages of the same book which makes the footnotes a bit unwieldy. It can be fixed by using named references and the Template:Rp tag. It does take a while to do though. See the Air Europe article for an example (it actually cites the same book). Chris Bainbridge 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right, as far as your suggestion for tidying up the references is concerned. However, you are mistaken with regard to the source of most of these references. They are not from the same book as in the Air Europe article. Only the author is the same (Graham Simons, I believe.). Hopefully, someone will find time to do it. Can't do it myself because I am a bit tied up with other work this weekend. Pimpom123 14:10, 27 October 2007 (GMT)

The Air Europe article also cites Simons, Graham M. (1993). The Spirit of Dan-Air. Chris Bainbridge 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Important Dan-Air milestones

Have made some minor corrections to the sequence in which the annual passenger number milestones were listed after comparing the info in the Wikipedia article with the sources cited. ttd_369 10:55, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Scheduled service developments

Have made some minor corrections as well (regarding the launch of the airline's LGW-NCL domestic trunk route in April 1974). Have also referenced this by adding hyperlink to relevant Dan-Air related article archived in flightglobal.com ttd_369 10:58, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

Aircraft operated

Great pictures, the one about the Ambassador and HS 748 that have been added to the article recently. Can anyone provide a picture of a Dan-Air 727, as this aircraft type played an important role in their development? I remember a beautiful air-to-air publicity shot of their first 727-100 that entered commercial service in April 1973. I think that aircraft's registration was G-BAEF. If anyone can provide the picture I'm talking about or anything similar, then please go ahead and add it. Pimpom123 16.00, 10 July 2008 (GMT)

Formatting

Per WP:OVERLINK, I have removes links to plain English words and repeated links; per WP:MOS, I have spelled out acronyms on first use. Ground Zero | t 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ground Zero: I've reverted your recent edit adding another reference because it doesn't improve the article one bit. If you really want to add a new reference, please don't leave it "naked", ie add an appropriate description (author, title, page no[s] etc.). And to be consistent, you needed to convert other links to source materials that simply link to another website into proper references as well. One word of caution: before you do this, please keep in mind that this otherwise excellent article already suffers from "reference overload". If you really want to tidy up all those references (incl. simple hyperlinks), you should have a look at how it was done in the Air Europe article and follow that article's referencing format.Aviator369 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Checking each of the sources cited in the article actually reveals that what looks like citation overkill at first sight actually is lots of individual articles/books/journals containing different bits of information that the original authors chose to include in the narrative, ie I didn't come across an instance where the information is exactly the same. Therefore, the citations should remain. Furthermore, the article is reasonably well-structured and contains information relevant to the subject. For the aforesaid reasons, I also took out the maintenance tag. Having said that however shouldn't stop editors from using a more succinct citation format. On a slightly different note, I do object to the previous editor's arrogant and presumptuous editing comment to the preceding author, "you don't have a right to remove maintenance tags"; who says so and why, regardless of what some protocol may say. Let's not forget, Wikipedia is a universally accessible source that any user can edit presuming good faith on the editor's part. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and whoever expressed that comment should remember that he/she is not its self-appointed administrator (in a bureaucratic sense) or self-styled chief law enforcer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.109.207 (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, all articles are affected by WP:CITEKILL. If a sentence needs more than three sources to be supported by the companion references, that sentence clearly can be split into multiple ones, each having a less number of references, don't you think?. On the other hand, I never said the only editor able to edit articles was me. Rather, I noticed the user who removed a maintenance tag without providing a valid reason (actually, s(he) didn't provided any explanation at all in the edit summary) not to do so, as I also did with you in the corresponding talk pages. The difference is that you left the above comment so the issue can be discussed. Nevertheless, I still believe the article needs cleanup.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

When a single sentence in the lead - which is after all meant to be but a summary of the rest of the article - has 14 citations then something is wrong. And this is not the only article affected by a "blight" of citations at the end of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here are not the citations themselves -- I've checked them as far as possible; they seem to be valid as far as the contents of the article is concerned -- but the citation style used, ie adding different pages of the same source again and again, especially, citations referring to muti-page articles in flightglobal. Furthermore, I saw that the Air Europe article uses a citation format that takes up a lot less space than those used in most of the other articles I've come across in this medium (though I'm not entirely sure whether this makes it easier or more difficult to check out individual citations). To sum it up, I think it is all right to use multiple citations if these shed light on different aspects of an article's subject matter, which seems to be the case in this article. However, the citations style should be a lot more concise and succinct than the one the aritcle's original authors chose. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.109.207 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The citations are a problem when you have a sentence that looks like this: "the year the airline operated its first transatlantic flight.^{[10][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]}. Presentation of the references is a partly a problem because the template {{cite | has not been used properly, and also because a repeated source is not stated once in the Bibliogrpahy and then a short reference style used in the citation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am semi-protecting the article for two weeks. If interested editors could evaluate the sources and determine which ones best support the content that would be great. For example, the fact that the airline started in 1953 with one aircraft does not need five citations; the facts are totally supported by citation #2. The IP authors who developed this article need to look around the wiki and see how our best content is presented. Even our featured articles that are sourced primarily to websites do not use anywhere near this number of citations to support each fact. One or two solid cites for each fact is considered adequate, and is preferred to what is happening here. -- Dianna (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree with much of the above under this section, someone has been too keen and deleted the related article about the 1966 Piper Apache fatal accident in this article's "Accidents and incidents" section. Can someone explain why this has been done and would it be possible to restore it? (And, by the way, an additional space needs to be inserted in front of the opening round bracket containing the aircraft registration, G-ATZF.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.153.17 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that from you, but let me tell you that you agree with much of the above while the page is protected for the second time, after you deliberatedly reverted valid cleanup edits made by others, plus countless removals of a maintenance template, even when most of these actions were preceeded by notices for not doing so that were left in the talk pages of the different IPs you were editing from. Regarding the removal of the accident you mention, you may contact directly the user who did that and ask for an explanation. Nevertheless, your recent activity is not justified just because you're uncomfortable with this very single edit.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for your information: this IP address belongs to a shared laptop in my house, and I'm not the one you are referring to re countless unconstructive edits of this article (though I co-authored the original article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference?

What should the reference be at the end of the lead paragraph?2.31.101.222 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See WP:LEDE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality

I have removed the "B" category as this is clearly a low quality article. The overlinking and citation overkill makes the article almost unreadable. Although the additions have been in good faith it may be easier to revert it back before the mass edits that made a mess of it. Any ideas? MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Just plug away at it. If you find a paragraph with multiple cites, see if any are citing a particular point for a given sentence and if so move the cite to the fact it supports. If two cited cover the same point, then see if one can be removed. Equally if a fact in the lede is cited in the main body of the article, remove the cite from the lede. It's not a speedy process, but it does work. One could shift the test of the cites to the references section and just link to them - that would make cite trimmming easier but makes it more awkward for editing by section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As with citation overkill I have looked at a number of sections but the refs dont really cover the text mentioned and throwing lots of disconnected news bites onto the page doesnt help. Lot of references to The Spirit of Dan-Air which I have not got but as a self-published book we probably need to stop using it and use the better sources particularly if the article is ever to climb the quality ladder. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find other British airline articles using sources by the same author/publisher. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Langford Lodge Airfield

Looking through the recent editing history I find that User:Jetstreamer objected strenuously to IP address 91.125.152.14 altering the text in the section [1] (last item in the section) to reflect the fact that Langford Lodge is in fact in private hands these days and has been for decades. The comments made by Jetstreamer on reverting were: Rv last two IP edits again. The source provided does not mention if the airfield was private or not, and thus the change does not conform with WP:VERIFY. Noting this I changed the text to reflect the fact that the airfield is a private one and to satisfy Jetsreamer's apparent need for verification included the reference http://www.abct.org.uk/airfields/langford-lodge which is from Airfields of Britain and confirms the field as being used for "leisure and industrial purposes" at this time.

Jetstreamer then reverts this change by me, going back to the inaccurate statement that Langford Lodge is a military airfield and give the edit summary: Undid revision 596924355 by 87.112.38.157 (talk) Reference added doesn't suppor the fact that the the aircraft landed on another airfield. What's the purpose of this reference?

I see that Jetstreamer is patrolling this site and has reverted many changes. I'm absolutely positive most of those are valid and helpful to the article. I am concerned however that perhaps enthusiasm may be over-riding common sense at the moment on an article which is heavily over referenced and which I intend to edit to remove many of the unnecessary refs. This can only be done if Jetstreamer allows other Wikipedians to carry out good faith edits to the article.

@Jetstreamer: Would you be kind enough to comment at this juncture. I'd like to hear what you would like to see as proof that Langford Lodge Airfield is in private hands and no longer connected to the military in any way, barring the fact that the largest owner (Martin Baker) manufacture ejector seats and other escape equipment for the air forces of various countries?. Would you like the reference I supplied or do you no longer feel it is necessary to provide a reference?

Would you prefer me to ask for an RfC to help you make your mind up? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The ABCT source does not actually state that it was in private hands at the time of the incident. It states its current purpose and that the period it was in use. Perhaps there is a better source that incorporates all the elements of the confused landing and the then-ownership of the airfield. Or perhaps the incident isn't actually that important and could be removed completely. Personally I do not see evidence of ownership of the article in the editing history. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be extremely easy to add a different link which does prove the airfield was in private hands in 1989. The reason I used the one I did is because it is concise. As I remember it the incident was of critical importance and was very instrumental in the loss of passenger numbers to Dan Air. What particularly concerns me about the editing history is the insistence on a reference to show the field is privately owned and when it is provided the reference is reverted for another reason. Seems odd to me. I didn't suggest WP:OWN btw, that would breach WP:CIVIL I merely referred to misplaced enthusiasm. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If the incident "was very instrumental in the loss of passenger numbers to Dan Air" then it belongs in the history section of the article. At the moment there are a number of elements given why Dan-Air went out of business. And if the mis-landing was one of them it belongs there with due weight. And the nature of the airfield is probably immaterial to quote Oscar Wilde. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That may well be the case Graeme. I saw the lead section and references as more urgent however and hope you agree? If I tidy up the lead, do a bit of culling on the referencing and then have a look at the article section by section would you be willing to help out even as an interested observer? SonofSetanta (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@SonofSetanta: I really appreciate your enthusiasm and thank you for your contributions, but let me tell you that is not about what I'm expecting from others but to comply with the policies in this site. According to WP:VERIFY, all additions and/or modifications should be backed by a reliable source. As GraemeLeggett already pointed out, your addition does not provide information about ownership of the airfield the incident took place at at the time of the incident, it only shows that it is currently privately-owned. I own neither this article nor any other, I've just reverted to show my disagreement on your edit. It is evident that both GraemeLeggett and me are in the same position regarding the matter, so I'll ask you to either revert your changes or request further comments. If nothing is done within a week, I'll remove it myself.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the gist of your previous posts to others on this article and on your own talk page I had already assumed you wouldn't agree to the change I made and had another, longer, article to link to, which although isn't as tidy does clearly state the airfield was in private hands during that period, so I have substituted it. I don't believe Graeme Leggett is in the same position as you. He seems infinitely more flexible in his approach and I respectfully suggest you adopt a similar manner yourself. Remember that it is important to be polite to other Wikipedians, to show WP:GOODFAITH and to practice WP:EQ at all times. I had hoped you would accept the tidier link but the one which is there now definitely supports the statement. It remains however that the article is over referenced and the references need to be culled. I trust I will have your tacit support at least whilst I carry this out? SonofSetanta (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@SonofSetanta: Just to put things clear (and please correct me if I'm wrong): I have not been impolite to you and I never assumed bad faith. Separately, I can commit myself not to revert any modifications you make to the article and voice my opinion here. You have my word on that. But please do not make mass modifications that will turn them difficult to be checked against the latest accepted versions. Go ahead.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, can we establish that you are content with the reference now being used to verify that Langford Lodge is under private ownership and has been since 1953? (I think that's the right year). I have no intention of changing any of the facts which are specialised to aircraft enthusiasts. I don't have the knowledge. What I do have is sufficient command of the English language to rewrite the lead so that it forms a more cohesive piece of prose without altering any of the information it contains. The same goes for other sections of the article. I believe I have the ability to check each reference and where they are duplicated or otherwise superfluous, I intend to delete them leaving only one reference per fact if possible. I won't be starting any of it until at least tomorrow. If you feel there are any deletions you can make then I would appreciate it as it will make my job so much easier. SonofSetanta (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The reference you added looks fine to me. The current version of the article is just horrible. Everything you can do will be welcome. At first, I started monitoring this article because a number of IPs made unexplained mass deletions and removed maintenance templates from it, but I subsequently become a little bit more involved. I will assist you with everything I can.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Between us I'm sure we can make it at least a little more presentable, to the point where the maintenance tag can be legitimately removed anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Project commenced

I have begun to tighten up the grammar and phrasing of the leader. As intimated yesterday I do not intend to remove any information from this article. My only interest is in making it more aesthetically pleasing and compliant with the manual of style. Jetstreamer if you or any other aircraft enthusiasts notice any errors or wish to introduce anything new, now (for the next few days anyway) would be a good time to get stuck in. I intend to carry the work out on the article directly rather than using my sandbox. I'm grateful for any assistance. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That'll do for today. Graeme I noted your work too - thank you. I'll hopefully be back tomorrow to carry out more condensing and citation weeding. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had some practice with British Eagle though still needs work (final - two sentence - paragraph of lede has fourteen citations) and British United Airways. Other articles on British independents of the same period have similar issues. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued assistance. I can't understand why the article is so overloaded with citations. Somebody has taken a lot of time and effort to do that. Never mind, we'll keep at it until we have it tidied up. I see no input from Jetstreamer but my guess is he'll have looked in and seen all is going well thus far. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: I said I would raise any concern regarding the cleanup of the article, and here's my first one. I don't see the need for this edit. I added links to archived versions of every page of the reference (i.e. took the time to archive them one by one) and these were removed. Don't you think the links added makes the article better? Archiving prevents future linkrots and doesn't modify the structure of the mainspace.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

With flightglobal archive which is stable and unchanging, an archive link is largely unnecessary. That said, if you feel they are useful then I'll not challenge in future but there is a template parameter (|deadurl=no) to set if the link is still live. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noted you added that parameter in other articles. That'd be great here too. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've no objections to archiving either. Just keep an eye on what I'm doing so it doesn't upset your precautions. At the moment I intend to continue removing excess refs and tightening up grammar if I can. The reference removal is the main criteria for me, as per the maintenance tag. After that's done I can get a better look at the structure of the article but realistically, seeing it as I do now, I think it's pretty well written. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Strictly speaking, the current number of references is not an issue to WP:CITEKILL, which is the main concern here, but the fact that three or more sources are required to support individual sentences actually is. I've been checking the changes made by both GraemeLeggett and you and, so far, I'm (almost) sure you did not remove a reference from the article (I mean, you just relocated them). Should I find a reference removed, I can place it here so it may be available for future needs. One more thing regarding this point: I believe GraemeLeggett once recommended (unfortunately I don't remember the article) to include each of the complete references inside the {{reflist}} template, so that you only need to bother with the call to each one of them rather than dealing with the massive content inside <ref></ref> each time you modify anything. Some editors are against this procedure, but my experience says that it works fine. Separately, many users believe the lead should not include any citation at all and I agree with that assertion. Needless to say, the rest of the article should be tidied up so that the lead can be beefed up in order to include all the topics below it. Hope my comments are useful.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are very useful. My major problem is: not being an enthusiast myself I have to make sure I'm not removing references which are needed or leaving the same references all the time (from the same origin) otherwise I'm opening up more problems on the article, which is why I prefer to do a little work and then allow you and Graeme the chance to put eyes on it and correct anything I may have been overkeen on. I wasn't able to indulge yesterday but I will be having a little weed out later on today. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm anti-lumping everything under reflist code - while an article is in development - it makes formatting/correcting sources harder. There are a few current problems with the referencing at the moment. Having several cites at the end of the paragraph could be hiding one or more problems

1) duplication of effort. All the cites support the same statement. Only one source is needed, so the extraneous ones can be removed

2) combination of cites. Between them the cites give overlapping information that support all the text in the statement but no single cite says it all.

3) Original research. The cites reference individual bits of information which have been put together.

A second problem is cites which are not specific. eg "Simmons p 34, 56, 199-201" (made up example) - one would think that the statement is supported on one or at most two pages. If information is repeated through the book, then this is also a form of overcite of itself, the same as writing "Simmons p34", "Simmons p56"...

GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Further edits

Sorry for my absence. I don't always get the time to drop in.

I've now removed a couple of references which I thought were surplus to requirement from the section Dan-Air#Beginning. I'm halting there to allow the rest of the team a chance to ensure nothing's been upset by their removal. I've copied the first paragraph of the lead to my sandbox and edited out what I believe is information surplus to requirement. You can view the item here: User:SonofSetanta/sandbox. If we're in agreement this can be pasted into the article. The text I have removed is already in Dan-Air#Beginning and the lead still alludes to it. What I'm trying to do is ensure the lead is an overview of the article but doesn't contain a full explanation of the items it refers to.

Also, I have downloaded a good quality Dan Air logo which I think would sit well in the infobox and brighten the article up. How would we stand on copyright for that - anyone? I'm afraid copyright is a weak area for me. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan-Air. 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/20160106103707/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1987/219british_airways_caledonian_group_plc.htm to http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1987/219british_airways_caledonian_group_plc.htm

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) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan-Air. 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/20130909114827/http://www.ronaldv.nl:80/abandoned/airfields/gb/N-Ireland/antrim.html to http://www.ronaldv.nl/abandoned/airfields/gb/N-Ireland/antrim.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202671.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202672.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202673.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202674.html

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) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy-edit / copyright & clutter (citation overkill) issues

I removed the related tags at the top of the article (while editing it in good faith) because I found in a number of instances (not only related to this article) that regarding copy-edit / copyright issues we're actually talking of a chicken-and-egg situation here: how are we going to prove beyond reasonable doubt who copy-edited from whom (Wiki authors from external authors or the other way around) and who violated whose copyright? For example, I noticed that articles in the aviation press (both online and in print) often copy-edit from related Wiki articles. Some websites even import Wiki contents wholesale. Hence, in the specific example where a previous contributor had concerns that other contributers might have violated the copyright of "Dan-Air remembered" by copy-editing certain contents, how can he/she be so sure that this was a one-way street and didn't also happen the other way around? I personally find it unethical (to say the least) of people who are paid for writing contents in publications that unlike Wikipedia aren't free to access and always warn of the consequences of violating their copyrighted articles when they in fact sourced part of their info / data etc in Wikipedia for free.

With regard to clutter (excessive citations), I feel that most of it has now been removed, and the article looks and reads much better than before. Maybe, someone else, can have a look at the few remaining excess citations and do some research to see which ones can be deleted. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dan-Air. 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/20110814064531/http://danairremembered.t35.com/dan_capt_alan_carter_page.htm to http://danairremembered.t35.com/dan_capt_alan_carter_page.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ronaldv.nl/abandoned/airfields/gb/N-Ireland/antrim.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201220215/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/straight-and-level-18-apr-2006-205965/ to http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/straight-and-level-18-apr-2006-205965/

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) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)