Talk:British Caledonian in the 1970s

Multiple Issues
Have removed the tags because most of these aren't justified in my opinion. Contrary to whomsoever inserted these tags, the article isn't a mere reflection of the author's opinion and I also don't find it confusing. For a start, the author has provided plenty of references that are verifiable. Reading through these establishes that what he/she has written here largely reflects what has been stated in the source material, expressed in the author's own words. As far as the lack of context is concerned, this will become clear when referring back to the main British Caledonian article, as this article is a continuation and further elaboration of the former that contains many additional facts about the airline. And, what does the person who put the tag mean by an "airline expert". Are these the people who have written other aviation-related articles for publication in Wikipedia that seem to be written by plane spotters for plane spotters? I feel one of the good things about this article, which I agree is far from perfect, is precisely that it stresses the commercial context rather than merely being a description of an airline company that flew X number of planes from Y to Z. The only criticism contained in these which I consider justified is that the introductory para could be expanded. ttd_369 13:05, 4 March 2008 (GMT)

Multiple Issues 2

 * There article can be made more concise as there seems superfluous material and unnecessary wording that does not belong and makes the article very long.


 * The article is about the 1970's.  There is a significant amount of material in there about the 1980's that should either be merged or moved into the British Caledonian in the 1980s article.  --Coviepresb1647 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Issues (1+2)
This article is redundant. All the information has already been included in British Caledonian (main article) and British Caledonian in the 1980s (subsidiary article). Hence this article can now be deleted. Aviator369 02:30, 19 August 2009 (GMT)

Removal of contents
GraemeLeggett: I re-reverted this article to an earlier version for the following reasons:

Your edits amount to hair splitting and have removed a lot of info that can be validated and may be of interest to readers other than yourself. Also, why edit other people's entries unless they are obviously wrong, in terms of fact, grammar or spelling. Their entries (especially those from occasional and, perhaps, less experienced contributors) may not be compliant with all the Wiki protocols, but then, so what? As far as I can see, most of these people have sacrificed part of their spare time to make their contributions in good faith, only to see them reversed by you and a few other editors. This can really put some people off, who as a result of your unconstructive attitude may choose to give Wikipedia a wide berth in future. That would be a real shame because Wikipedia is an open medium. This means it isn't some sort of unaccountable bureaucracy under any individual's control, including yourself. Yes, like almost any other article on this medium, this one merits improvements. So, by all means continue making your contributions to improve the article's readability. For example, I agree with you that there are far too many citations. However, I disagree with your edits to some of the photographic captions. While some of these are indeed quite long, they do contain important information that should remain there. So, in future, please give more respect to other users' contributions before you decide to change things unnecessarily.
 * GraemeLeggett has been putting in a good deal of valuable effort to tidy up the mess he found. Your implication that he is not among those who have "sacrificed part of their spare time to make their contributions in good faith" is offensive and in itself a breach of WP:AGF. You do not own (WP:OWN) this article, either. In general, photographic captions should not contain information additional to the main text, they are there to explain how the photograph relates to the text. If any specific content deletion still bugs you, by all means bring it up here, but wholesale reversion is not appropriate. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Steelpillow: I'm not one of the contributers of this article and have just casually read your comment on this page. Many of the points you and Graeme Leggett made may all be valid - from your point of view. But don't you think that you're going way over the top by accusing the anonymous contributer who remarked - from their point of view - that edits he/she reverted were not constructive and not done in good faith breached some sort of protocol to which you refer above? By all means, explain to people who revert edits without or with insufficient explanations (justifications?) that their attitude/conduct is unhelpful but don't shove your protocol into other people's faces as a justification for your actions on this medium. Protocols are just guidelines to facilitate interactions between users on this medium; they aren't legally binding rules. After all, the last thing the majority of the user community want is to see Wikipedia taken over by a small minority of hyperactive busybodies who seek to impose their views on others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Steelpillow: N.B. Specifically, your comment that Graeme Leggett spent a great deal of his time and effort to "tidy up the mess he found" is a highly subjective view that may not be shared by other users and in itself comes across as highly objectionable and very narrow-minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.221.231 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Several editors have supported and helped with these edits to improve this article so it better follow Wikipedia MoS policies and guidelines. Focus to the issues with the article content, not the editor(s) involved. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. 91.194.221.231 wrote; "I'm not one of the contributers (sic) of this article" Yet someone from this apparently static IP address has been making periodic edits at least since this one back in 2012. The "anonymous contributer" (sic) who made the opening remarks in this discussion was using the same IP address too, and shows the same style of engagement even down to the same spelling mistakes. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on British Caledonian in the 1970s. 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/20110709151809/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1987/fulltext/219c04.pdf to http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1987/fulltext/219c04.pdf

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) 20:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BritishCaledonianDC10 .png