Talk:British Caledonian

message: Have now completed reorganising this article - incl. the linked sub-articles - 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 and to create a separate article for detailed accident/incident descriptions. Maybe, other Wikipedians with an interest in aviation articles could help with this. The article (and the linked sub-articles 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 disjointed sentences) and without making spelling or grammatical mistakes should preferably do this. Aviator369 (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganising the article

message: 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 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking

message: I have unpiped the links to Rio de Janeiro and LA:
*There are a lot of "Rios" around the world - the words means "River" in Spanish and Portuguese.
*In the US, "LA" is an abbreviation for both Louisiana and Los Angeles, so using the full name of the city provides clarity of the reader.
Check these links: New York is the article about the state of that name. New York City is the article about the place where transatlantic flights land. Ground Zero | t 03:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities

message: First of all, sorry for using inappropriate language to get my point of view across. I'm really sorry if I came across as abrasive. I didn't know that you are one of the administrattors. I was under the impression that you're just a Wikipedia user who wants to impose his opinions on other users. Once again, I'm really sorry for that misunderstanding and hope you'll accept my apologies.
In a nutshell, what I meant to say was:
# Even though I agree that Wikipedia protocols are important and should be adhered to as far as possible, this should not have to be done in a "slavish" manner - ie, protocols should be guidelines, not straightjackets. For example, to my mind the first sentence in the introduction of the main British Caledonian (BCal) article makes it quite clear that BCal was indeed an airline without explicitly saying so because it explains that this airline was the result of a merger involving British United Airways (BUA) and Caledonian Airways. It also explains that the former was the largest ... independent airline in Britain ... at that time and that the latter was a Scottish charter airline. Why do you think that it isn't clear enough even to uninitiated readers that the author who wrote this (not me, by the way) is talking about a new British airline being created as a result of two other British airlines merging? Perhaps, it would help if you discuss this with other Wikipedians before changing anything. If the majority among Wikipedians agrees with your opinion, I'm prepared to abide by the majority's decision.
# On a slightly different note, regarding my dislike of expanding every abbreviation is two-fold as well:
## Long-winded and difficult to comprehend expansions of abbreviations can be confusing and off-putting for uninitiated readers - ie, they may lose their interest in reading the article beyond that abbreviation. Also, expansion of abbreviations followed by the abbreviation itself in brackets can be stylistically awkward - eg, writing ... British Europen Airways (BEA)'s ... looks stylistically clumsy and is better re-written as ... of British European Airways (BEA) ... to look better from a stylistic perspective.
## Since Wikipedia articles aren't printed, typed or hand-written documents that are published on paper where expanding uncommon abbreviations in the introduction itself is essential to the uninitiated reader's understanding, an electronic encyclopedia like Wikipedia offers readers who don't know what a specific abbreviation stands for the opportunity to place their mouse pointer over the hyperlinked abbreviation, which will display its expansion in the tool tip. If a reader is interested in reading up on what this all means, he/she can click on the relevant hyperlink that will take him/her to the related article. These possibilities are non-existent as far as paper encyclopedias are concerned. Therefore, don't you think that there's nothing wrong with being more lenient regarding compulsory expansion of each and every abbreviation in Wikipedia articles as this unnecessarily takes up storage space and clutters the article by making it more difficult to read?
# Your comment that as well as means the same as and: This observation is correct. However, it looks stylistically clumsy if different parts in a long sentence that explains something complicated, which is essential for understanding the background to what is explained, are joined more than twice by and. Of course, the best course of action in such cases is to split up long sentences into shorter individual sentences that are easier to read and understand. Unfortunately, this isn't always possible without making the information in those shorter sentences appear disjointed. Therefore, I think it's appropriate to use as well as in certain cases rather than repeating and several times in the same sentence. Aviator369 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction - response to points raised by administrator/moderator

message: I do accept your apologies, ask that you try treat all Wikipedia editors (not just administrators) with respect, and avoid name-calling and questioning their motives. Almost all people I've encountered here are genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia, although I may not always agree with the ways in which they are trying to do so. There are relatively few people here who are intentionally disruptive. I note that I have not been trying to impose my opinions, only trying to improve the style and formatting of articles in ways that have been endorsed by the Wikipedia community. 
With respect to the opening sentence, I find that the current version jumps into the subject without clearly defining what it is. I take direction from MOS:BEGIN on this:
:"First sentence: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?""
1. With respect to expanding abbreviations, I agree that ... British European Airways (BEA)'s ... "looks stylistically clumsy", and will try to find better ways of expanding acronyms in future edits. I still support the Manual of Style direction that acronyms be expanded, however, for the sake of clarity for readers. Readers should not be forced to click on an acronym to find out what it means -- that disrupts their reading of the article all for the sake of making a sentence shorter for people already familiar with the subject. Wikipedia has a large and international audience, and we should be writing for the average reader, not the already-informed reader. Also, Wikipedia provides the convenient option of creating a printable format for each article so that articles can be printed and read by those who prefer to do so, or who wish to keep a copy.  For those readers, the "pointing and hovering" option does not exist. 
2. With regard to your comment about "compulsory expansion of each and every abbreviation in Wikipedia articles as this unnecessarily takes up storage space and clutters the article by making it more difficult to read", I note that:
*abbreviations need only be expanding on their first use, and can be shown as acronyms on subsequent uses -- this, by the way, is not unique to WP:MOS, but I think you will find that it is direction that is common to style guides generally
*we do not have to worry about storage space, especially for something that improves the clarity for an article for readers
*I  agree with WP:MOS that it is not expanding the acronym that makes an article more difficult to read, not the reverse. Wikipedia is here to explain. Wikipedia:Explain jargon has a good discussion about writing for a wider audience than those already familiar with a subject. 
3. With regard to "As well as " or "and", I think tat in all of the cases where I changed the former to the latter, the new version is simpler and clearer. Is there a specific case where you think it is less clear now? In some cases, 'as well as" was being used to join a simple list of nouns, which really seems unnecessary. I agree that in some cases, it is even better to split up a long sentence. 
Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Ground Zero: Many thanks for taking your time and for your efforts to reply to the points I'd raised in detail. I noted your comments and agree that most of what you explained does indeed make some sense. Enjoy your week-end! Aviator369 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I note that an IP editor has reverted a disambiguation i made the other day of Halifax to Halifax Stanfield International Airport.  I am going to reDAB it, because otherwise it is unclear where the airline had stops as Halifax is not a clear link (did they stop in Halifax or Halifax or Halifax or...).  Please don't revert it again without explanation. Cheers, LindsayHi 08:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halifax 

message: The BCAL logo in the airline info box is NOT the original 1970s logo -- have a close look at the lion's tail by comparing it with one of the aircraft photos in the article showing planes wearing the 1970s livery (707s) and you'll notice the subtle difference (the type face is correct by the way).
Would it be possible to replace that logo with the "authentic", 1970s one?  Aviator369 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s BCAL logo in airline info box

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British Caledonian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://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
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.im.shinshu-u.ac.jp/staff/shibata/ch_3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello I'm VolgaDnper1488, I believe that this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably, I suggest that we move the articles history section to another page, That way the article will become shorter and easier to navigate and read.
cheers --VolgaDnper1488 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: First off, as noted in another Talk topic, the article is far too long and filled with too much trivial info.
Also, the Concorde background info is unresolved- nowhere is it stated that the leased Concorde option also never happened.
Finally, re the Hong Kong route, Laker was never granted permission to operate by the HKG authorities, but the article suggests otherwise. 37.159.5.178 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More issues