Talk:Eritrean Airlines

Untitled
Is there a chance of finding a better image for this airline, we should keep the one we have until we can find one. Segafreak2 20:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi people,I just added a short parapraph on Eretrian airlines attempt to start flights to Pakistan.This did not seem to have taken place,but I added a newspaper link to the external links section as a source for the paragraph. If it's suppossed to be placed on a different part of the article,people are free to move the link in the right place.Thanx! Nadirali 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived news
--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eritrean Airlines. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://allafrica.com/stories/201109270221.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

EU ban yet flies to Milan
So, its banned from the EU yet flies to Milan? Can someone explain? XS2003 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Banned airlines can fly to Europe with non-banned third-party aircraft.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent mass removal
I have reverted this set of edits, which seems related to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Actually, airlines can be included and excluded in the EU ban list, and the table reflects the way this particular carrier was considered by the EU regarding the ban. Moreover, I recommend the IP to read WP:VERIFY regarding the removal of inline citations.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 21:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed the table is because it is not useful - it merely repeats information which is already in the text and doesn't make it clearer - yes WP:VERIFY says that every information should be sourced, however when half of the sources in an article are used to prove one point (as in this case), then it might be better to remove some of them, or cover that information more vaguely - simply writing that it has been banned since 2012 and hasn't been removed from the list since then, with sources for the first report in which it has been banned and the last is enough - information is verifiable and true - and if the airline had really been removed from that list at some point, it would have been covered in WP:RS.
 * Also, this is the only article that I know of where a table is used for this information - most articles on banned airlines simply say they are currently banned without giving any date (if the fact is even mentioned), and the only other airline I could find with a similar situation (this one) simply has the dates (with appropriate sources, which can be considered reliable) when it was un-banned/banned again without linking to 10 EU reports.
 * As such, I will be removing the content again and keeping only the essential. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the only article having this information. As I mentioned above, airlines can be banned, de-banned, and banned again, so the list is certainly encyclopedic. Again, your attitude is WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff. So, I'm reinstating the information you removed. If you want to discuss this with a broader audience I invite you to start a thread at WT:AIRLINES. It is appropriate that you start it since it is you the one that wants this info removed from the article.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say that there are other articles which use a table in this way (I've looked through some (and haven't found anything), but I don't have too much time to waste on this), then the burden of proof is on you. However, that is irrelevant since each article is different and unlike other topics where pages are very similar (example: musical composition of the same style by the same composer) and consistency is an issue, this is not since most airlines are very unique.
 * Quote: "airlines can be banned, de-banned, and banned again, so the list is certainly encyclopedic" - that is not the present situation - so far it's only been banned since 2012 and hasn't been un-banned in the meantime, so having a table does not provide the reader with more information (it doesn't make it clearer/easier to understand either). About your WP:VAGUEWAVE of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please read my argument better - I am actually providing reasons for my position, so if you disagree please at least give me the impression you've read my stuff and aren't just disagreeing because you like the article in it's current state. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I read everything you wrote. Let's put this in the following way. Eritrean Airlines (B8) was firstly banned in December 2012. How can you prove that B8 has been banned from operating into Europe since then? The lists of banned airlines from December 2012 and May 2017 including B8 only confirms it was banned at the time they were released, it says nothing about the meantime.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

correction: was first banned, not "firstly" You still don't need a table for that - you can just say "the airline has been banned since 2012 - period." Citing all the EU reports might be what the verify policy says, however, it's ridiculous that of this article's 31 references, 10 are used for that one single fact - you could potentially just group them as one ref instead of it taking 10 points in the reference list. (eg. ). That is more efficient and less distracting to the reader than having many separate ref tags , which clutters the page. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the correction. Regarding the inclusion of references, I just followed the inline citation guideline, so the table has each entry properly sourced. Ten or so references put together would actually fall into citation overkill, something that is certainly distracting. Anyway, are you in agreement with the fact that, so far, there is no other option to support the inclusion of the airline in each of the ban lists released by the EU since 2012?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding citation clutter, is it really necessary to cite both the official list and the press report? I'll remove the press reports since they are not crucial and only needlessly clutter the page. By the same standard, having 10 references for the fact it's been banned is also falls under WP:OVERCITE - the page even says "Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications" - EU banned airlines list are, despite small changes between editions, still essentially reprintings of the same content as far as we are concerned for this page - they all say that the airline is indeed banned. If you still insist that we need to cite all reports to maintain it's been banned for the whole period, then maybe we can (as I proposed) just merge all of them into one. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, merging all the references into a single one seems a reasonable solution that will wipe out the table as well. I'll try to do it this the weekend. Agree with you that the companion press releases were unnecessary.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Destinations table
Ok,reverting new information provided by me just because the style/layout didn't fit is a no go. So lots of excuses by me for making such a huge mistake.

Someone else will maybe love it to re-add the info I was providing - but by carefully looking into the oh-so-important style/layout questions first. I am out. --Metrancya (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Aviation has guidelines. You may want to take a look at WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST, where you will find the formats agreed by consensus for destination tables. If you do no agree with them you may want to change the style by proposing new ones.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing logo
This page is missing the logo of the airlines. It is available on other pages (e.g., Arabic's) Ahmed Salah FCB (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Added logo BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)