Wikipedia

Talk:British European Airways

Latest comment: 5 years ago by PurpleChez in topic The Beatles' miscellanea
Learn more about this page

Airline codes?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any information about BEA's IATA & ICAO airline codes? They would be a nice addition to this article. Mstuomel 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Think it was BE for IATA (this was also their ICAO code, the ICAO didn't go 3 letters until the 1987).

Incidents

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How can a BEA accident have happened in 1976 when they seized to exist in 74? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.18.131 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

That's what I say. I'm flagging the section. -71.51.51.120 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Correct aircraft was operated by British Airways - paragraph removed. MilborneOne 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should not be the main focus of an encyclopedic article about an airline, to list all its fatal incidents. There are specialised websites of higher quality for that. Better put some beef on the history, network, fleet, innovations, logos, and summarise the incidents.

To answer the unsigned comment, the inclusion of accidents and incidents is in accordance with the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. MilborneOne 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Beatles' miscellanea

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's why I came here. I don't think it would be trivial to include a picture of one of the airliners with a sign reading "TLES" following the "BEA."PurpleChez (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

"BEA compulsorily acquired the aircraft fleets and routes of most UK private airlines"

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Two issues:

1) "compulsorily acquired": is this really the proper terminology here? I'm assuming were talking about a state takeover.
2) which private airlines? Most air carrier articles list not only the successor companies, but the predecessor companies too.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(1) changed the wording to use Nationalisation and (2) added some info on predecessors. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
That was fast! Good job! CapnZapp (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Single release by BEA - advice on inclusion wanted

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came across the single that BEA released, and added the following information to the article. Another editor wasn't sure if it was notable enough to be included - and I'm not sure one way or another! The text I had was as follows (I've put the details of the references in bold rather than use <ref> tags, as they shouldn't be used in talk space!):

  • BEA released a 7" single entitled "take-off" with the subtitle of "a journey in sound aboard the BEA Trident". Side one features the voices of Anthony Milward, Chairman of BEA, along with Captain A.S. Johnson ref: Initials confirmed at Flight International article Trident Progress, date=7 November 1963, url=flightglobal.com pdf archive of article, the Flight Manager of the BEA Trident Flight. Side two is a commentary on a flight. The cover shows a BEA Trident with publicity (fake) registration G-ABEA.ref: Take-off, BEA (catalog numbers 15969 (side one), 15970 (side two))

Opinions on whether it should be included or not would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in British European Airways

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British European Airways's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "battle":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I made some changes to various wikilinks eg from piston to piston-engined but specifically not [[piston engine|piston]] since "piston aircraft" is not an English idiomatic phrase - unlike "jet aircraft" where the word "engine" is elided. Similarly a number of repeated wikilinks where removed as well as those to commonly understood words. Some of the wikilinks were repeated within a few sentences of each other and words like pilot are well understood by most. This much is all in the MoS.

The tense of sentences seems to benefit on reading back by the modification of the tense from "xxxx launched" (which seems more appropiate to recounting an interelated sequence of events) to "xxxx was launched" (just enumerating things that happened). Such stylistic changes which are not covered directly by the MoS are always open to interpretation but generally some phrasing works better than others. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:GraemeLeggett: When will you stop messing about with other authors' hard work? Is it really necessary to give everything you happen to come across your personal "seal of approval" only because something doesn't conform to the minutest details of some arcane Wiki protocol? Please stop being so condescending and patronizing towards the contributions of others who have taken some liberty with this medium's numerous protocols and only correct them if there are factual errors and/or grammatical/spelling mistakes, or if something is controversial (open to challenge) or misrepresents sources cited.Devanahalli2008 (talk)

I've re-reverted to the most recent edit of Devanahalli2008 as follows for the reasons stated below:

Specifically, I've deleted the following additions of Longshot1944: 1. and between then and October 1954 used both Heathrow and Northolt (8 miles apart) for London. In 1952 the partly-completed dedicated BEA hangars at Heathrow were able to maintain the newly introduced Elizabethans and in 1953 the Viscounts both of which types only used Northolt for trials. 2. BEA's use of both Heathrow's crowded Northside Terminal (from 1950 till April 1955) as well as Northolt, 8 miles distant, can hardly have been ideal for BEA's employees or passengers. There was fortunately enough temporary apron space, however, on the nearby Runway 28R (closed originally for tunnelling)[1]

Although these do contain relevant facts, they make the relevant narrative disjointed by being tagged on to sentences that seem to be unrelated instead of being stated in separate sentences which seems to be more appropriate in these cases. Also, the wording comes across as unencyclopaedic as, for instance, in the sentence "BEA's use of both Heathrow's crowded Northside Terminal (from 1950 till April 1955) as well as Northolt, 8 miles distant, can hardly have been ideal for BEA's employees or passengers. There was fortunately enough temporary apron space, however, on the nearby Runway 28R (closed originally for tunnelling)". Phrases/words such as "... can hardly have been ideal for ..." and "fortunately" are best avoided in fact-based articles. These may be appropriate for articles published in lifestyle magazines but not for encyclopaedias. Furthermore, the above sentences don't state any reasons or don't do so explicitly enough. For example, why did BEA's Elizabethans and Viscounts use Northolt for trials only? Why did the airline maintain two bases -- Heathrow and Northolt -- that were only 8 miles apart? (Hint: when including imperial measurements and weights in an English Wikipedia article, please convert these into corresponding metric values using the relevant Wiki templates as not all readers may be familiar with the imperial system.) Last but not least, the style of writing also comes across as (somewhat) clumsy and grammatically incomplete. Keeping these suggestions in mind, please try to rephrase the deleted sentences and re-insert them in the appropriate places.

For the same reasons, I've also slightly rephrased the narrative in section "City centre check-in facilities" by reverting to the last version of user Devanahalli2008.

On a slightly different note with regard to User:GraemeLeggett's most recent edits, I'd like to re-emphasise what Devanahalli2008 already said previously, i.e., that it is extremely demotivating and discouraging for other users to have their edits that don't contain factual errors and/or grammatical/spelling mistakes, misrepresentations of cited sources etc. constantly re-edited by another user in the fashion of a school headmaster/mistress only to rigidly comply with some Wiki protocols. To others, this attitude can come across as their contributions not being valued and, ultimately, risks killing off creativity by making everything conform to certain predetermined templates. Please don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating completely disregarding existing protocols but would like to encourage more leeway for users of this medium when composing/editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.122.181 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

To revert one persons additions on the claim of disjointed narrative and encyclopedic tone and then by another revert claim that "This turn of events..." is a encylcopaedic phrasing seems contrary. However, the project advances by addition of material and then its modification. If User:Longshot1944 text is in the wrong place, an editor should move it to the right one, if it's got a clumsy structure, rewrite it. Edits do not have to be perfectly crafted at the first instance and frequently are not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1242115/
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British European Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British European Airways. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British European Airways. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_European_Airways&oldid=1206438362"