|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Headquarters_of_Airlines_-_being_specific_or_general Next time, please directly contact me. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I will revert most of that edit to Airlink:
- Let's review this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airlink&diff=375931303&oldid=375921329
- 1. "Modderfontein" links to Battle of Elands River - That is an article about a historical event, not primarily about a place - While the development is on the "Modderfontein" site, based on the Battle of Elands River article I can't tell if the "Modderfontein" in Gauteng has anything to do with the battle
- 2. The "metropolitan municipal authority" as you refer to it must be in those South African airline infoboxes in all instances. By "town" or "city" I mean a municipality, an organization with a functioning municipal government. WP:Airlines decided that the town/city should be in the infobox.
- Ekurlheni is the municipality ("town/city"). "Modderfontein" is not a municipal government. Even if South Africans don't think of saying "I live in Ekurlheni," (there are communities like that where people do not think about the municipality first) we are obligated to say "this is in Ekurlheni" unambiguously in the infobox and in the lead, because the municipality is of utmost importance no matter what land or country it is in, and the municipality is more important than the neighborhood (or "suburb" or the South African "town"). Wikipedia requires standardization and precision.
- 3. The removal of the entire "Head office" section, with the citation, was not acceptable.
- Firstly, referencing is absolutely crucial in all Wikipedia articles, and it is far better to over-cite than under-cite.
- Secondly, every company needs to elaborate on its specific head office facility if additional information about it exists. The head office is the most important facility of a company. Unless the head office is a notable building itself (say, MetLife Building) the detailed info about the head office belongs in the company article and must stay there. If it is a notable building then the bulk of the info can be in a separate article.
- You can argue that "head office" still doesn't justify a section all to itself, so I can rename it "corporate governance" or "corporate affairs" and add other corporate info to the section, without removing any of the detail.
- 4. Placement of municipalities in airline infoboxes is obligatory. The "excessive detail" prohibited by WP:Airlines includes non-notable buildings and specific addresses, not municipalities. All of the posters said that the "city/town" should be named. "Ekurlheni" is the municipality so it is the "city/town." Places like "Modderfontein" and "Kempton Park" are to be treated as neighborhoods and parts of the "city/town" as they are not municipal entities.
- 5. The change from Greenstone Office Park to Greenstone Hill Office Park was good, so that was left in. I must have accidentally omitted "Hill" when typing in the building name...
Coanda's claim to first jet engine
If you have a lot of spare time, read the arguments at Talk:Coanda-1910 regarding that aircraft engine. The basic facts of it are in severe dispute, so there is no reason why we should put it in the aircraft engine article. As I wrote in Talk:1910 in aviation, we have three avenues open to us when there is a major dispute about facts: "the first choice is to find which facts are correct and present them; a path which requires one side of the dispute to be utterly unreliable. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith is reliable, and many people think that Henri Coanda is reliable (though I disagree), so this path is not open to us. The second choice is to present both sets of facts as disputed, with attribution to proponents of each version. This "1910 in aviation" article is not the place to debate the Coanda-1910 aircraft, or to debate the possible faulty memory of Henri Coanda. The third choice is to present only facts which are not disputed, such as Coanda being a very intelligent and dedicated aeronautical engineer and inventor, the man who discovered the Coanda effect. This is the path I wish to take here."
For the aircraft engine article, it seems to me that only undisputed claims should be listed, unless space is dedicated to the presentation of both sides of a dispute. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
About your question at Inclusion (education): See  for one example of a food allergy significantly affecting a school. (The parents originally demanded that no person in the entire school be permitted to possess any product containing peanuts or tree nuts, including coconut-flavored sunscreen.)
The point of this paragraph is that most physical disabilities aren't educationally significant, and consequently the student with the disability shouldn't be placed in a separate educational program. If touching a peanut might make you very sick, you have a "real" invisible disability, but it's not one that affects academic performance. Kids with this category of disability are the ones most likely to be fully included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I expanded on the response to your helpdesk question.
Undoing my edit of 'Provinces of South Africa'
Thanks for undoing my edit of the table on this page. I overlooked the fact that some of the cities in the 'Largest Cities' column were already linked in the 'Capital' column. Shovelyjoe (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)