Jump to content

Talk:Air France–KLM

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


Fair use rationale for Image:Cityjet.png

[edit]

Image:Cityjet.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.97.162 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is outdated.

[edit]

Now that the Air France logo has been tweaked, the space between "AIR" and "FRANCE" in the Air France-KLM logo has been removed as well. Anyone good with SVGs? SergioGeorgini (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of AF-KLM offices

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary texts

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

asking for an aircraft/incident section

[edit]

Tenerife airport disaster, operator KLM (before the merger), is not mentioned, and seems significant, as the largest airplane disaster in history by fatalities. Asking for an accident/incident section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster Yen10k (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its because Air France-KLM is a holding company and not actually an airline, accident and incident stuff is in the individual airline articles (KLM and Air France). MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, that makes perfect since, found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM#Incidents_and_accidents, no need for this section that i put here on the talk page, can be deleted Yen10k (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air France–KLM. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air France–KLM. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 07:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet

[edit]

Fleet overview was here for 5,5 years. Why does it disturb someone? Where to put this overview? Fleet management is common at holding level (e.g. they ordered the B787 and A350 for the holding and the distribution is not fixed) so there is a reason for a fleet overview section here.

Deleting information is only reasonable if that information is false (at least unproven to be true) or for some other reasons misleading. This is not the case here. Maybe the holding company does not legally own the aircraft, but they definitely belong to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloghadamsoftware (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is "does this company operate any aircraft?" The answer is "no". There could be links to the Air France and KLM fleets, but this company does not have a fleet. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links are not enough. It forces the user to summarize manually. Why deny such a summary from the user? You can call it "Fleet summary", or "Merged fleet" or something, but the holding indirectly owns all the aircraft, and has a common fleet management when it comes to new aircraft. Baloghadamsoftware (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This listing is obviously a maintenance nightmare. If the fleet of one of the subsidiaries changes, and the Wiki article is updated by an editor, than this article is no longer verifiable (that is one part of why Wikipedia can never be a reliable source). Arnoutf (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, an airline holding company does not operate or own any aircraft and listing the fleets operated by the held airline companies is really just synthesis, the fleets dont operate together or are interchangable, and have no connection. Each airline has a list of aircraft types which are easily accessible for any reader that is interested. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my recent edits to cull misleading and/or unattributed information and irrelevant guff from the table, I also support outright deletion, for the same reasons as are given by MilborneOne. YSSYguy (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has run almost a week and seems to have come to a conclusion. The consensus is that the fleet lists of the subsidences do not belong here, so I will remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not delete it from franchise brands as well, e.g. United Express, American Eagle or Delta Connection? What you wrote above is completely true for it. It is very sad that some people do not contribute positively just delete something which was there for more than 5 years. Nobody was hurt by that. I renamed it, it was well explained. Baloghadamsoftware (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion, no one else agreed with you. See WP:CONSENSUS. As far as other articles go, you need to bring that up on the talk pages for those articles. This discussion was about this article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was not the one who created the Fleet section. Some guy created it long ago and nobody tried to undo his/her contribution. I was surely not the only reader of this page for 5.5 years. Then came a guy who never made any constructive contribution to this page, just deleted the section. So if it was not deleted (and even maintained by different users) for 5,5 years, there was surely an agreement between the real editors of the page (the ones who contributed in a positive way) that this section was useful. I am for example not really interested in the financial part, but would never try to delete it because I know it is useful for others. I am constructive, not destructive, sorry. Baloghadamsoftware (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how long something was in the article, page contents are decided by consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air France-KLM or Air France–KLM?

[edit]

On the article, it switches around between Air France-KLM and Air France–KLM and as far as I can see AFK officially use Air France-KLM using a hyphen rather than a dash. Is it accidental that the article uses en dash instead of hyphen or is there a genuine reason for this? Professional Adriazeri (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an en dash per MOS:ENBETWEEN, which covers compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. I see you've moved the page to the hyphenated version; we really don't want a move war so I'll wait for others to weigh in before undoing the move. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above that the current title violates the typography as stipulated by the MOS, and have reverted the page move; please start an WP:RM if you want it changed. (That said, if this title does change, the category Category:Air France–KLM should be renamed as well – this was not the case when the topic starter initially moved it). 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France–KLM&oldid=1241858475"