Jump to content

Talk:Nav Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:NAV CANADA)

Radar

[edit]

Here's the list from the map. I counted it twice but can't find the 47th

  1. Sandspit
  2. Holberg
  3. Victoria
  4. Vancouver
  5. Prince George
  6. Kamloops
  7. Grand Praire
  8. Calgary
  9. Edmonton
  10. Fort McMurray
  11. Medicine Hat
  12. Saskatoon
  13. Regina
  14. Thompson
  15. Langruth
  16. Winnipeg
  17. Dryden
  18. Big Trout Lake
  19. Thunder Bay
  20. Hearst
  21. Sault Ste Marie
  22. North Bay
  23. London
  24. Hamilton
  25. Toronto
  26. Ottawa
  27. Montreal
  28. Mirabel
  29. Chibougamau
  30. Quebec
  31. Sept-Iles
  32. Goose Bay
  33. Brisay
  34. St John's
  35. Gander
  36. Stephenville
  37. Sydney
  38. Moncton
  39. Halifax
  40. Engby
  41. Iqaluit
  42. Kuujjuaq
  43. Chisasibi
  44. La Ronge
  45. Stony Rapids
  46. Yellowknife
46 is the correct number of operational radar sites (those used for Air Traffic Control). An additional site is in use for testing and development. This is located in Ottawa and is known as the "Ottawa Transportable Radar" (although it is in fact no more transportable than any other system). This is the one seen from Ottawa airport - the operational one is a few km further south. The system is identical to operational radar systems located across the country. This radar has, for a short period, been used operationally while the regular Ottawa radar was shut down for maintenance.
There is also another system with identical electronics, but not in the standard shelters, at the Nav Canada Training and Conference Center in Cornwall, Ontario.
Sites in Brisay, Kuujjuaq, Iqaluit, Chisassibi, La Ronge, Stony Rapids and Yellowknife are of the newer BI6 type.
The list also says "Engby" - I'm assuming this is either a mistype of "Digby", or a small place near Digby that I am not aware of.

Radtek67 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

FULL DISCLOSURE

I work for NAV CANADA in the Communications Department.

Note that the edits I intend to the make will be to improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia and not to enhance the image of NAV CANADA.

To do this, I will correct factual errors and replace out-dated data with current information. For example, the number of NAV CANADA Flight Service Stations (FSS) listed in the Wikipedia entry (June 23, 2009)was 59. That number was out-of-date as of May 7, 2009, when the FSS in Fort McMurray ceased operations.

Any other edits will cite a third party neutral source.

Note also that:

NAV CANADA operates Canada's air navigation system as a monopoly, so there is no market share to be gained by self-promotion nor does the company have competitors to treat unfairly.

NAV CANADA, as a non-share capital corporation, operates on a break-even or cost recovery basis. There is no profit motive as there are no shareholders.

Albert Metcalfe (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph

[edit]

I made a few edits including:

Information about the transfer of the ANS including that NC paid $1.5 billion for the system; Changed the description of NC from organization to corporation as the company is chartered under the Canada Corporations Act Part II; Changed (ANS) from Air Navigation Service to Air Navigation System; Added footnote linked to the Transport Canada news release verifying the terms of the transfer. Albert Metcalfe (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed it - looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-

Thanks Ahunt. Your new section "2008 - 2009" recession is accurate and a welcome update. May I suggest deleting the previous section "2007-2008 market losses" as it contains stale information and quotations (first quarter results). The one addition you made to that section, i.e. "In July 2009 the company indicated that C$66M worth of "asset-backed commercial paper investments should be recoverable over the time that the Company continues to hold them" could be incorporated in the 2008-2009 section.

The "asset-backed commercial paper" info is chronological but incomplete as it does not mention the January 13, 2009 approval of the restructuring agreement by the Superior Court of Ontario.

Moreover, I think an inordinate amount of space is being used to describe the ABCP crisis that affected the worldwide financial markets in an article about Canada's Air Navigation System. It should be mentioned but ABCP has not affected NAV CANADA's operations.

I was going to edit that but I'll leave it to you, or wait for your response on this.Albert Metcalfe (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the 13 January restructuring agreement? I could use that to summarize and shorten the part on the ABCP issue. I agree that it is currently too long for the rest of the article. At the time the issue came up it looked like it could be a more serious problem for the compnay than it has thus turned out to be, so far. Generally these sorts of crises tend to be over-written up, rather than under-written up, as it is much easier to cut them down later if they prove minor, rather than chase around trying to find refs years later when they prove to be a major story that has to be incorporated retroactively. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, the issue did command greater attention and concern in 2007 and 2008.Albert Metcalfe (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a CBC story. Does that work?

Asset-backed commercial paper's long road back </ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Metcalfe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is great - thanks for finding it! Let me see what I can do. - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have combined the two sections and removed many of the extranous dates and details there, reducing the text significantly. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a good job synthesizing the two sections. Thank you very much. I made one more edit in keeping with the updated nature. I replaced the January 2009 quotation from the CEO with a similar one from July 2009. Both quotations were lifted from the quarterly results news releases.

Am I citing and footnoting correctly? Feel free to pass on any suggestions or tips.Albert Metcalfe (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The format for refs you are using is fine, although that last quote's ref you added was a duplicate ref, so I replaced the citation with a "sebsquent cite" instead. Personally I prefer doing citations in this format:
<ref name="Baugher_f4_41"> {{cite web|url = http://home.att.net/~jBaugher1/f4_41.html|title = Phantom with Israel|accessdate = 2009-07-15|last = Baugher|first = Joseph F.|authorlink = |year = 2009|month = July}}</ref>
just because it is compact, while providing more information for the reader. There is a huge pile of ref templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates! - Ahunt (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that. Albert Metcalfe (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more note while I think of it - the ABCP section would make more sense if it listed the actual amount of ABCP purchased, as it already lists the hoped-for return, but in searching through the company website I couldn't find that number. Has it been made publically available somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to track that down. Albert Metcalfe (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Governance

[edit]

I added a section describing NAV CANADA's corporate governance. This information is factual and contributes to the overall content of the entry. It does not promote the company's interests.

This information is available on the NAV CANADA corporate website but I cited two independent articles as sources.

I welcome all comments and suggestions. Albert Metcalfe (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I just did a little format tweaking! - Ahunt (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Corporation

[edit]

While in common parlance NAV CANADA is referred to as "not-for-profit", officially and legally, Nav Canada is incorporated as a "non-share capital corporation" pursuant to Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. (See "TRANSPORT CANADA Commercialization of the Air Navigation System Lessons Learned Study".). I made that change in the information box.

Because "non-share capital corporation" is an arcane term, I left the description "not for profit" in the narrative portion. It appears in the first sentence. However, not for profit, does suggest a charitable organization which is somewhat misleading. In further edits, I would consider the company operates on a "break even basis" or a 'cost recovery basis."Albert Metcalfe (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - changing it to reflect that would be more accurate! - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

This article uses the term "NAV CANADA" instead of "Nav Canada" throughout the article. I have changed this based on the Manual of Style outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), where it states: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". If there are no objects within reasonable time, I will also move the article. Regards, Arsenikk (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization is only used because that is how the company spells their own name, in all caps. I agree that the MOS should prevail over trademarks. Nav Canada is currently a redirect to this article. Other editors may have opinions, however. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well seeing as that part of the MOS can't even be bothered to agree with the MOS over this issue why should this be changed? Get the MOS to be consistent on the trademarks page first then the articles can comply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify how the MOS contradicts itself. I cannot find anything, but I may have overlooked something. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that particular bit of nonsense permits "aBc" but not "abc" or "ABC", such as iPod or eBay. Allowing exemptions like that makes a mockery of the MOS and to a certain extent gives the appearance of preferential treatment of certain companies. It also conflicts with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the entirety of the "Deciding an article title" on the link given above, I think that the common usage name NAV CANADA should be the correct title. It says we should decide by concensus, "usually guided by the usage in reliable sources." Most of the links on the page go to sources that use the all-uppercase version of the name. I think we should, too. XqRG (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that publish company press releases verbatim use the official company all caps, whereas reliable news sources use conventional upper/lower case. See CBC article - Flight plan misfiled, Nav Canada admits or Globe & Mail article - Flights cancelled as ash cloud heads toward Canadian airspace for some random examples. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date tagged

[edit]

The article has been tagged as out of date, so what needs updating? - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nav Canada. 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) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nav Canada. 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) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As similarly posted by an apparent past employee in 2009, I am disclosing that I am an employee of NAV CANADA, working in its Communications department. It has been brought to my attention that certain details in the article need to be corrected or updated. As such, I will be reviewing this article and updating it incrementally.

The intention of the edits will be to improve the quality of the information on Wikipedia, with a focus on correcting factual errors and outdated data with current information. Czexadian (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. If you haven't read WP:COI and WP:PAID you will want to review them. The best way for editors in a conflict of interest to improve articles is to post the proposed changes (along with with references) here on this talk page and then other editors can review and incorporate them. Overall that approach saves time. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. The sources, not yourself, need to be posted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nav_Canada&oldid=1204215550"