Talk:TAROM

message: Please, whoever's posting information about TAROM buying 747s from SAA and opening new routes - a reference is required. The same applies for Tarom's interest in buying A380s and 787s.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.214.17 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now then, children, behave, just discuss the matter civily! - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Norbert, your pic that was on this article (of the Tarom A310) has four serious lies on it. First, you say it was taken by yourself. No, it was taken by Jussi Keffunen. Next, you say it was taken in 2005. No, look at Airliners.net which shows it was taken on September 19th 2003. Third, you cannot "release it to the public domain, it's not your pic!!!!!!!!!! Fourth, it's not OK to use a.net pics as I think you've been told already. Why do you do these strange things? The pic has been removed - Adrian Pingstone 17:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal A310 pic [[:image:Tarom.a310.750pix.jpg]] 

message: Arthur Norbert, you have put several pics on the Tarom page, only one of which was legal (the 737 pic of mine you found on Commons). Can you explain to me what is making you do these daft things, especially considering how much work you put into downloading off a site, preparing Image Descriptions, captions, uploading and putting on the article. So all your effort is totally pointless!! If this goes on someone will surely start procedures to ban you from WP. Please explain your problem because I am spending far too long chasing after you- Adrian Pingstone 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His reply is above (first line is "OK Adrian, you can delete the pic ......") - Adrian Pingstone 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chance to explain 

message: For user Ardfern: Can you be more specific in pointing the exact source of the information regarding TAROM's fleet changes ? There is no info on the official site  and from my knowledge the IL62 and the BACs are discontinued from some time now (at least 10 years). Thank you Cristibur 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet change info 

message: I added the photo of the new A318 uploaded from Romanian Wikipedia; I also removed one of the 737 photos Cristibur 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you have removed the 737 pic. This pic is one of the only two flying pics on the article, is good quality (unlike some of the badly lit pics now in the article) and there's plenty of room for it. So I've put it back - Adrian Pingstone 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought there are too many 737s (I left you a message on your talk page). Next time I will start the debate first. Cristibur 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied here. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos rearranged 

message: I propose changing the name of the article from Tarom into TAROM, since it is an abreviation for Romanian Air Transport. Royal Dutch Airlines is KLM and not Klm; the same thing for other acronyms like NATO, for instance.Cristibur 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change 

message: Romanian ministry of transportation, Mr. Radu Berceanu announced recently that the 2 planes will be rechecked  (they require D-check) (Romanian only). The article doesn't say whether the planes are going to be selled or re-introduced and on which routes.
So, for the moment, they are not operational, but there are good chances of seeing them at work in the autumn Cristibur 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the 2 A310 

message: I have deleted the following information from the article
* Information on the models - this is a hobbyist thing and has nothing to do with the operations or history of the airline   --Russavia 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant info. 

message: :Image:Tarom-logo.png 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 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 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tarom-logo.png

message: TAROM has a code-share agreement with Lufthansa for the Timişoara - Munich flight. You can check it here. (Open the downloadable version) 74.13.213.120 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TAROM codesharing agreements

message: :Image:Tarom-logo.png 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 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tarom-logo.png

message: :Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg 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 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

message: Apart a subjective point of view, I cannot see any link between TAROM and the Polish Airlines logos; the fact that a Polish designer draw something that looks (arguably) like the above-mentionned logo cannot be considered as an objective reference in my opinion. There are many airlines today using flight (or bird)-related logos. Following this logic means that other airlines' logos (Lufthansa, for ex) would be based on the Polish designer's work ?!
The purpose of editing is improving an existing article. I don't believe that adding this information helps.
Cristibur (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are denying a rather striking, uncanny similarity in the space of possible airline logos featuring stylized birds. I sourced and illustrated this similarity, but you chose to obliterate the very mention of it, in essence, censoring, hiding the information.  The logo of Lufthansa looks nothing like the logos of LOT and TAROM, but the latter two do look remarkably similar: the used convention of a stylized bird in flight expressed as a particular angle projection -- from below (note the shortened angled lower wing, the upper angled wing, and the relative wing sizes and orientations), the silhouette being the same, and the convention of inscribing the bird in a circle (probably referencing the disk of the sun).  I included the Gronowski 1929 image precisely so that the information would be readily examinable.  The LOT design was done in 1929, and there had not existed anything like it, not in aviation, not in art. But the TAROM design was adopted in 1954, during Communism, when intellectual property wasn't exactly respected in Eastern Europe.  Yet, I am not passing judgment on TAROM's designers (who remain anonymous -- I was unable to uncover any mention of them, nor have I received a reply from TAROM after writing them a couple weeks ago), whereas the Polish design is a work of art by a notable person, a pioneer of the modern art poster, winner of Grand Prix at several World Expos, etc.  I think you may be acting out of partisan sentiment, and I would strongly suggest, that you not any more remove my addition to the article, which is topical and informative, but allow it to stand, and if you have doubts, let consensus emerge on this talk page, what to do with it. Meanwhile, I will return it, having explained and justified its addition.  I will even make the source better, to LOT's page about the history of this design.  This information is true and sourced. You should not remove true and sourced information, just because you don't like it. That's against Wikipedia policy. Instead, you should look for information about the designers and the history of TAROM's logo, so that you could augment the article with even mroe information. That's how Wikipedia works. Respectuflly, --Mareklug talk 09:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again: who says that the similarity between the logos is striking? You are. For me or for someone else might not be that striking. I believe that this makes the matter subjective. The Wikipedia policy (that you referred before) it is very clear on subjective information : not allowed. I don't need to look for information regarding designers, since it was not me who planted this here. So, unless you don't find an objective statement concerning the similarity, I have no other choice but to consider the issue subjective information, and treat it accordingly. Regards, 74.210.86.27 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please adhere to the WP:NOR. If the similarity is so striking there must be a source to back up the claim. Information in the source about the LOT logo is not questionable, the questionable part is why is the story about LOT logo located in TAROM article? Subjectivity and personal view has no place in Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please adhere to reality. The resemblance of the two logos and their chronology is undisputable. Since the LOT's logo is much earlier and was conceived by a famous artist, Tadeusz Gronowski and won a design contest in 1929 held for LOT's logo, TAROM's adoption of a similar graphic in 1954 seems derivative. In any case, after removing "strking", the fact of this resemblance can be stated, as well as the historical/authorship context. In any case, I mentioned this edit conflict and asked whether noting the resemblance is ency on the Airlines WIkiproject's talk page. --Mareklug talk 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:OR is a policy, not something that can be tossed aside. Same with the policy on notability. This is original research, and while I agree things are similar, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be putting forth original ideas and research, and isn't supposed to be the one creating notability. Consensus is clearly for non-inclusion of this information, and it shouldn't be re-added unless consensus changes. Thanks --Matt (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LOT logo

message: Final reports from the BEA:
* English: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1994/yr-a940924a/htm/yr-a940924a.html or http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1994/yr-a940924a/pdf/yr-a940924a.pdf
* French: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1994/yr-a940924/htm/yr-a940924.html or http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1994/yr-a940924/pdf/yr-a940924.pdf
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1994 Orly incident

message: * http://www.tarom.ro/en/tarom-company/procurement-procedures/tender-notice/notice-for-request-for-offer-for-the-procurement-of-dry-ice.html
It mentions a "Corp F Building"
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Corp F Building

message: In the early days, at least a few DC-3 were operated. These had retired by the early '70s, but they re-appeared as static exhibits in parks, either as cafes or as playthings for the young pioneers. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC-3 use? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on TAROM. 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/20100628014029/http://www.skyteam.com/news/headlines/20100622.html to http://www.skyteam.com/news/headlines/20100622.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630083621/http://www.skyteam.com/news/headlines/20100625.html to http://www.skyteam.com/news/headlines/20100625.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126053355/http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_public/airlines/airline_profiles/airlines_romania/tarom.htm to http://www.airlineupdate.com/content_public/airlines/airline_profiles/airlines_romania/tarom.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on TAROM. 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/20170421012925/http://www.tarom.ro/en/about-us/tarom-company/history/ to https://www.tarom.ro/en/about-us/tarom-company/history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624074245/https://www.tarom.ro/en/about-us/news-and-media/press-releases/details.html?news=414 to https://www.tarom.ro/en/about-us/news-and-media/press-releases/details.html?news=414
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So, there have been various edits regarding the current fleet of TAROM. Looking at the official site, it does seem that the list shown there is outdated and maybe we should replace it in this article. I found another current fleet list on Flightradar24 and from what I've read on wikipedia, Flightradar24 seems to be considered a reliable source. Alin2808 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAROM fleet 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I added this plane to the former fleet list, as Tarom is noted as one of the former operators on the Tu-134 page.  My edit was reverted, as it was “not sourced”.  How ridiculous the reversion is! 1. Nothing else on the former fleet list is sourced! Revert it all immediately! 2. As I noted on my edit and mentioned above, it’s already in another Wiki article. This is ridiculous! Boscaswell talk 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot based your edits on Wkipedia articles, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Jetstreamer  11:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tu-134