Talk:Dan-Air

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Formatting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citation overkill

message: What should the reference be at the end of the lead paragraph?2.31.101.222 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. See WP:LEDE.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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  (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  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  19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  19:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langford Lodge Airfield 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified