Jump to content

Talk:Alitalia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copyedit

The section SkyTeam could be integrated into the History section. MilleMiglia could have its own separate subheading. I think History is a bit fragmented. The references at the bottom should have publishers, dates, access dates and authors included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.152.251 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fleet Table too Complicated

Does anyone else think the fleet table is way too complex? Maybe it should be made more simple? --JetBlast (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What information could be removed? I believe it is in the same format as for other airlines, although there is the livery complication. Speed74 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well the livery bit is what i mean. Is it needed? --JetBlast (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the livery details as it's policy not to have this. --JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I updated the fleet according to a new source more current than the other. I removed the A350 signposted in order because I ordered from Aircraft Purchase Fleet Air One before it was built by Alitalia. The A350 has never been confirmed by Alitalia!
From the historic fleet I removed the Boeing 737 because they were always of Air One and Alitalia have never been to! But are in the historic fleet of Air One, in the page dedicated.
Regards, --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Start-class?

I think this article, especially as it is constantly kept up to date by Zaps and myself, is definitely worth more than the start-class status. Is anyone able to change this?85.27.110.254 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'm correct, the article needs to be reviewed by an admin. Your best bet is to ask an admin about this or read at WP:Airlines. Hope that helps. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am no airline expert, but did rate it start after this one was split from "old" Alitalia.
It is getting there and is much better than at that time
A quick review of B class requirements
1: Referencing and citation: Looks ok
2: Coverage and accuracy: Too heavy on history, current structure, governance, alliances etc are not sufficiently developed
3: Structure: Needs improvement, e.g. the Air-France KLM stocks as subheader of history? Also the lead should be the summary of the article and as such contain nothing that is not also in elsewhere
4:Grammar and style: Looks good
5: Supporting materials: Looks good
On that basis I would rank it at C in the current form (aviation project apparently opted out of C, so will list as start) ; getting it from C to B is going to take some work.
PS, assessment at stub, start, C and B class level can be done by any editor who is not involved in the article (ie has no confict of interest). The higher level quality labels Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates are centralised within Wikipedia. A class evaluation is done within the projects. Arnoutf (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Arnoutf! For the "B" Class status, we'll try again in a few months and see what it's like. 85.27.110.254 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Update at May 2011: I believe the main thing missing now is something like a "general information" section where some of the lead section info could be repeated and the breakdown of stake holders could be put, as well as the ownership of subsidiary Air One. (Created administration section). We could also do with a "services offered" section with descriptions of onboard product/services offered and to which the Magnifica enhancement info could be moved. (Done). Speed74 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Lead and other minor issues should still be improved, but I think we're getting there. Speed74 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
All done on 29 February 2012. We have a stable B-class article :-). Speed74 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

References

I saw the submission here, and noticed that the criterion on which this article failed for the B classification was references. I have referenced everything that seemed to be missing references, and removed some stuff for which I could not find references. I then resubmitted it; hopefully it goes through this time. Cheers, Falconusp t c 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleet issue

Regarding edits to the fleet numbers, please bear in mind that the only valid reference the article cites is CH-aviation. The information on CH-aviation is accurate, even if it is only updated once every few months. Wikipedia does not need to be updated on a daily bases following rumours of planes being phased out or delivered etc., as this is unreliable and likely to be challenged (see WP:CHALLENGE). A general idea of the fleet progression updated 2 to 3 times per year is perfectly acceptable for readers of this article. Of course if you find a new reliable ref which you believe is more accurate or updated more often, please post it and we'll discuss whether to change the fleet data. Forum sites and blog posts etc. are not acceptable (see the policy here - WP:BLOGS). Thanks for your understanding, Speed74 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

What source would you recommend for the article? The problem here is that the article is being swarmed by edits changing the fleet numbers without any justification at all, apart from occasionally a comment on an Internet forum page. In the about page, CH-aviation does not describe itself as amateur, and they even have paying services for detailed fleet and flights information. Speed74 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly better than blogs and forums but the best source is either an official airline website or one of the annual reviews by Flight or Aviation Week & Space Technology. As you have already said this is an encyclopedia and these yearly reviews can be adequate in most cases. ch-aviation is really just another spotters website although a bit more grown up than some. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if the dispute continues we can use the list in the onboard magazine of Alitalia (I have a Febraury 2012 copy) and simply update whenever an editor finds a newer edition. I think it is a pity as CH-aviation is more accessible and allows for easier updating while still providing sufficiently reliable information. As long as the list sticks to a reliable reference listed in the article, I don't mind which reference that is. Speed74 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to lack of agreement (see this Talk page), I have decided that the unquestionably correct way to continue is to provide the fleet numbers as shown in the latest Ulisse magazine available (for me February 2012) and only update if an editor finds a newer edition, and updates the fleet numbers according to what is written there. Just as a reminder, Ulisse is Alitalia's onboard magasine, so this is clearly following Wikipedia policies and I think I am right to consider that any change to these numbers would be disruptive. I will therefore remove CH-aviation as a ref and add Ulisse magazine instead, and I kindly ask any editors to first update the ref to a newer version of Ulisse before changing the numbers, and be honest! Regards, Speed74 (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Current Alitalia HQ

The firm AMDL said that it built the current Alitalia HQ from 2009 to 2011 -

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

USA cable?

I was confused by a recent edit partly because I have no idea what was meant by a "USA cable". Change of term or link to article would be appreciated. Tks, Speed74 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Nemo 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airport-technology.com/features/feature114082/
    Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Alitalia destinations map

The destination map of Alitalia should be cleaned up. For some reason, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait are shown as destinations, and yet Alitalia has never flown to any of those countries. Also, Georgia and Armenia are now served. Venezuela and Syria should also be removed.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the map, it doesnt add any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ranking of Alitalia

The ranking of Alitalia is sourced, so cannot be removed leaving the source in place. I advise to find a better or more recent source and to modify the edit accordingly. Alex2006 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alitalia. 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.

☒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 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

I'm not sure what the issue is, but I invite the two editors who are edit warring to discuss their dispute here. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I neither am sure about what the issue is. I'm bringing edits backed with references, and the other user removes them because "he knows it's false because he's working for that company". Well he either is a troll, or he works for that company trying to hide the uncomfortable truth about the company's past.
So, here we go.
So, if nobody will somehow counter my explanation, I'll reapply my changes tomorrow. --2001:470:7C50:48FF:0:0:DEAD:BEEF (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
One day is probably not enough time; please wait for consensus which will hopefully avoid any changes being reverted. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to that. A third party opinion is requested, then. --2001:470:7C50:48FF:0:0:DEAD:BEEF (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, requires thorough talk page discussion attempting to work out the issues before seeking assistance (and discussion carried on through edit summaries will not suffice). Moreover, 3O is only for disputes in which exactly two editors are involved and, though I'm not certain, it appears from what's said above and from the revision history that three editors may be involved here. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations made in this essay. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP address that was reverting the edits seems to have disappeared. So I'm going to restore the changes tomorrow, if nobody else has anything to say; I think I've explained them well and with enough references. --2001:470:7C50:48FF:0:0:DEAD:BEEF (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Dead Beaf kindly read the notes before you delete contributions from other editors such as that about the lounges in cities other than Rome and Milan. Also what do you mean exactly by 'hiding uncomfortable truths about the company's past' ? You make it sound like the company is run by the mafia or something. Also there is no mentioning whatsoever in Alitalia's corporate website that Etihad Guests is now Alitalia's Frequent Flyer Programme. The reference you provide is from Etihad's website and only refers to the possibility that Etihad's passengers have to accrue Etihad Guests miles when they fly with the Italian airline. Which by the way is obvious given that Etihad owns 49% of Alitalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.15.21 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear dead beef I don't know what it is you have with this article however your obstinacy and lack of respect for those who don't agree with your opinions leave me completely baffled. You say you have given references to justify your constant attempt to impose your version however you must understand that: if you base you 'theory' that Etihad Guest is Alitalia's FF program on the fact that Etihad's website states that you can earn Etihad miles when you fly with AZ then for the same reason also Air France's Flying Blue or indeed any other partner's FF program should be considered as Alitalia' own. Also when you insist in listing all the company names that came before Cai, well more than one person have tried to tell you that that is misleading. The partners that founded CAI took an existing company to start a new business and that is true. However,again, since this article is about Alitalia, it is absolutely misleading trying to pass on the idea that Alitalia stems from some company based in Solbiate specialized in heat insulation. In 1999 Alitalia LAI was still operating! Finally. Be advised that people who work for Alitalia write on here. Telling them that Casa Alitalia is not the name of the new lounges is a little bit stupid, don't you think? It took you a while to understand that, didn' it? It is true that Alitalia make other lounges available to their customers however they are rebranding and refurbishing alll their lounges to become Casa Alitalia. Out of curiosity is it just the Alitalia article that has become an obsession for you or are there anymore? Take it easy buddy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.154.98 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I further invite the other two users in a dispute to comment on their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

For Dead Beef I have added the information about MilleMiglia that you provided in the designated paragraph. It states that it now belongs (75%) to GLC. However MilleMiglia remains Alitalia's one and only Frequent Flyer Programme so please refrain from adding those that form part of GLC to the info box as this is about Alitalia and not the Etihad Partners Alliance. Also, many wikipedia users have agreed to the fact that the info you keep adding about Alitalia CAI's foundation is irrelevant and misleading. You still haven't explained which unconfortable truths about the company these users are trying to hide. Continuosly imposing your view as to what and how should be published in this article IS against Wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.254.169 (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

One article covering the airline's entire history

Please see my comments at Talk:Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane. Speed74 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alitalia/Archive_1&oldid=1136509613"