Jump to content

User talk:Compdude123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.244.206.178 (talk) at 06:07, 27 January 2012 (→‎Make your case at United Airlines: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note at File:Horizon brand new.jpg

Per WP:NFCC #1, where it says "...or could be created", we do not retain non-free content until such time as free content is available if free content CAN be created. One or more planes now exist in this livery. All it takes to generate the free content is for a Wikipedia editor to take a photograph of one and upload it here under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another case example; Livestrong Sporting Park. This stadium just recently completed construction. While it was under construction we permitted the use of the artist's conception image File:SKC stadium.png. Now that the stadium is complete, and in fact has been used at least once, free content imagery can be created of it. So, it goes away now. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. Guess I'll put a note on the Horizon Air talk page with a request for someone to take a picture. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in edit summaries

With all due respect, that edit summary wasn't very nice. The user has been helpful in a variety of other articles, a simple undoing of his edits with a more helpful explanation would have been more appropriate, especially since it's a very common mistake. Please remember to be civil and to avoid biting the newcomers. Thank you - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Guess I need to be a little more careful about what I say in my edit summaries. -Compdude123 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines

Hi, I disagree with you reverting the edit to Alaska Airlines. The reason i removed it because of This Policy. Thats just the rules, i dont make them. To have this information in the table it would be against the policy. --JetBlast (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this policy before, but I had no idea that it discouraged the information you removed. The policy page isn't really clear, as it doesn't specifically state that inflight entertainment (IFE) info is not to be included in the table. If it did say "You should not put any information about the type of inflight entertainment installed on certain aircraft types" then I wouldn't have reverted your edit.
Also, many other airline articles list stuff about In-flight entertainment in their table. Anyway the Wikiproject Airlines policy is not all that clear as to what goes in tables and what doesn't. This should be brought up on the WikiProject Airlines talk page before you remove this info from other airlines' tables. And I'm probably not going to be the only user reverting your edits. Anyway, enough said. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly sates "Other material should be limited to seating, aircraft on order and route information" - So this means do not include anything else, for example WIFI and IFE. It cant start listing things not to include as it would be unmanageable, so it has listed the things to only include in the table. If you would like to bring it up please feel free but to me thats very clear. --JetBlast (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, it's not very clear, because a lot of other pages have this information in the table...or maybe people aren't looking at the policy page. Again, this should be brought up on the talk page. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the later, i have come across a few people who had no idea it existed. --JetBlast (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, I'll just get rid of the stuff related to wifi and keep the "3 entering service in 2012" or "2 leaving service in 2012." I can see why you removed the wifi stuff, but not the "3 entering service in 2012" stuff. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image requests

Hi! Let's review this:

"Remove image requests--do we really need images for every single office in other countries?"

  • Yes.
    • But maybe one or two office pics for every article, not every office in every single country for every single company. Just ones that can be clearly signified - That means one or two office pics per airline
  • The trick with image requests is to put them in as many appropriate places as possible. And just because I have a "requested image" doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used in the final article per se, but it will go in the commons.
  • You can't just ask on the commons. You have to ask on EN too. If there is a local language (DE, ES, FR, AR, JA, etc) you ask on that one too
  • For Iran Air I am asking for multiple office pics, since we can:
    • A. pick and choose which one is the best
    • B. Use them on Japanese, German, Italian, etc. Wikipedias
  • Even if the intention is to use the pics on non-English Wikipedias, you should still ask on EN because English is widely spoken around the world

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-humbug! It's sure easy to hit the save button without considering all the reasons why those image requests might be there. Anyway, I've reverted my edit and I'll make a note on the page as a reminder to myself and others not to delete these requests. —Compdude123 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at commons:Category:Iran Air, there is indeed a photo of the airline's Japanese office, see File:Akasaka Habitation Building -01.jpg. (I know that the image request says "Do a closeup version with the facility open!" and that the particular image isn't a closeup, but an image of the whole building may be more recognizable to readers.) There's also an image of the Schiphol (Netherlands) World Trade Center, where Iran Air has an office. Both of the aforementioned images are in the articles of their respective languages. But as of yet, there's no image for any of the other offices requested on the talk page. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty :) - Thanks!
As a note, the current Japanese image portrays the garage door closed, meaning you can't see the inside of the Iran Air office. What I want is an image where you can see the inside, during normal business hours, like File:66-68 Piccadilly.jpg
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Emirates (airline), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Perth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited SkyWest Airlines destinations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burbank and Santa Barbara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Airlines

Thanks for clearing up the ambiguity here. I wouldn't know a 757-200M from any other. Sadly this article seems to suffer from rather high levels of vandalism and tendentious editing, so thanks for helping to get it back on track :) Pol430 talk to me 19:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Anyway, they are the only ones to operate the 757-200M. They just operate one -200M aircraft, and I believe their other 757 is just a regular 757. I'll try and keep an eye on this article and stop any vandalism before it totally messes up the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transaero

You removed quite a few of my edits. I can agree with removing the edit about flying scrap. But you also removed properly substantiated notes from the... NOTES section. Is there a reason for that? Nomad (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just appeared to put a negative bias on Transaero. Your mention of Transaero operating the oldest fleet among Russian airlines wasn't sourced. I don't know about whether it operates one of the oldest fleets in the world because Iran Air operates MUCH older aircraft (their avg. fleet age is 22.8 years!) and so does Saha Air (they're the last commercial operator of the 707). Transaero's avg. fleet age, by comparison is 16.2 years, according to Airfleets.net. That's not much older than the three large US airlines, Delta (15.5 years), American (15.1 years), and post-merger United (14 years). Ok, Transaero may operate some old aircraft but they're not much older than these “Big Three” US airlines. And your sentence that says “Experts believe that expanding a fleet in such a way is economically inviable for this type of airline” was not sourced so that got the axe too. Same with the thing you posted in the cabin section. If you have a source, go ahead and re-add the information. I won't remove it if it has a reliable source. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are doing what Transaero do - you're comparing them to huge airlines. Delta has over 1600 airplanes and their average age is suffering from their fleet of immortal MD80's. And that's not a fair comparison - we all know that the pilots delivering the last A380 to the scrap yard will fly home on an MD-80. Transaero, on the other hand, has very few planes and ALL of them are old.
As for cabins differences, my only proof would be links to Airliners.net photographs that clearly show the difference in both colors and amenities. Would that be enough in your opinion? Nomad (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm "doing what Transaero does" in comparing them to huge airlines? Well maybe, but they aren't the only airline that purchases second-hand aircraft. And you have to keep a neutral point of view on Wikipedia and not add whole bunch of negatively biased info, but at the same time you don't want to make it appear to be written by the airline's marketing department. Aside from that, the biggest reason why I removed the info is that it did not have a reliable source. And about the cabin info, I'm not sure if a photo is really a reliable source. And also info about cabin amenities on each and every aircraft is not necessary and makes an article look like a travel guide, and you do not want WP articles to look like that. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:UNDUE, that is probably the best explanation of why I removed the info. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Air Jamaica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Compdude123 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Collapsable List - Hubs

Clearly we are not agreeing on this as we keep reverting each others edits. Your discussion hasn't gone anywhere so I think just me and you need to talk. Collapsable list if necessary (which it is) for Delta and United with there 10 hubs it is certainly necessary for Southwest's 12. But in general we need to fix what we are not agreeing on as we are getting NOWHERE. Will hear back from you soon. Cali4529 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree US doesn't need it and AA if they get anymore hubs or focus cities will but not yet... so I guess we have to agree on what airlines need it (talking American carriers). I am thinking B6, WN, DL, UA and the rest are fine right now without it. But we need to figure this out because its just us not agreeing because no one else cares... lol. Cali4529 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My view on whether or not it needs collapsible is this: Does it get so long that it protrudes into the history section when I expand all the collapsible lists? If yes, I keep the lists the way they are. If no, which is almost always the case, then I get rid of the collapsible lists. Clearly, in my opinion, it has to do with how it looks visually, not just a certain number of hubs/ focus cities. In the case of Southwest Airlines, well, the lead just needs to be longer and then it will be all right. The lead is much shorter than it's supposed to be and if we expand the lead, that will make it so that the infobox will be just fine without the stupid collapsible lists. With United, I'm not going to even bother changing it because the collapsible lists are indeed necessary but with Southwest and its soon-to-be-expanded (by me) lead, said collapsible lists will no longer be necessary. I also think that Pan Am's infobox could greatly use a collapsible list, or have some of the info moved out of the infobox and into other sections. Some of those items we have in infoboxes could use some trimming, like key people, we should only have founder, CEO, President, and Chairman, and not other info.

BTW, have you noticed that in the JetBlue Airways infobox, the president is listed twice? That oughta be fixed... —Compdude123 (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you are saying, I just looked at Southwest without collapsable lists and it is quite long so I really think SWA needs it. I agree CEO, President, Chairman and Founder. All other people are not needed. Cali4529 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe Southwest does need the collapsible lists. It's kind of in-between. The lead could be expanded too, while we're at it. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm glad we were able to talk this out. And i agree 150% that the lead needs to be expanded. Cali4529 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i think that SWA doesnt need one. But other airlines such as Ryanair do, Infact if you look in the edit history you will find i created it. --JetBlast (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Compdude123. You have new messages at JetBlast's talk page.
Message added 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JetBlast (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make your case at United Airlines

United Airlines. 72.244.206.178 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Compdude123&oldid=473467614"