Talk:Concorde

Ticket prices?

I've heard a lot of different things about ticket prices over the years. What exactly were they? This would be interesting to add to the article. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article here mentions that round-trip ticket prices just before the Concorde was retired was $10,000 USD

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/18/supersonic.flight.future/index.html

66.46.102.135 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In May 2003, Air France were quoting $10,507 full-fare roundtrip from JFK to CDG. I paid $6,340 one-way from LHR to JFK for a flight on 7 September 2003. But I don't think it's reasonable to try to address ticket prices in this article because prices were not static over the years. How can one reasonably attempt to catalog such a thing? Now, if somebody were able to find a citation to say that on average a ticket on Concorde cost some percentage over a first-class subsonic ticket (assuming such a thing exists and assuming that such a percentage differential remained fairly static over Concorde's in-service lifetime), that might be a reasonable addition somewhere. But to try to use hard numbers is an exercise in futility. 1995hoo (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly want to add it if we can find references to prices, particularly if they were at multiple points in time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Frances Spufford book 'Backroom Boys'(Faber & Faber ISBN 0-571-21496-7) the chapter on Concorde ('Faster than a Speeding Bullet') there is some stuff about how Concorde was marketed by BA, especially just prior to privatisation. Apparently in the seventies a ticket cost 25% more than a subsonic first class ticket for the same route. Market research then revealed most people thought it cost a lot more, so they increased the prices. He also describes how Concorde was amortised differently from a normal airliner. The new policy allowed BA to make Concorde profitable (especially as they paid a fraction of the true cost (that including R&D) for the airframes.Tombo1bo (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary unit

So... Here we go.

My position is that SI should be primary as even if UK was not metrified France uses SI since the beginning of 19 century. According to MOSUNIT when the choice is arbitrary SI should be primary. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, much as I think that 'english units' are horrible and should be taken out and shot, this is an aircraft specced out in the 60s prior to metrication in the UK and: "With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. In US articles, this will usually be United States customary units; for the UK Imperial units for some topics and metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric")."- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But, well, this aircraft is a joint project of EADS and BAE (France and UK). Here the choice becomes arbitrary (Concorde is associated both with the UK and France) therefore SI should be used. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because as I understand it, they used ft and inches in the english-speaking UK and metric in France. IRC all the contemporaneous English speaking documentation I've seen is in feet and inches.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

English language wiki, serving a community primarily in the US and UK. If this was fr.wikipedia, then you'd have a point. In period, in the UK, Concorde and its capabilities were discussed in Imperial terms (I believe that even though the airframe drawings were metric, the engines and many subsystems were still Imperial). The UK is still today primarily measuring distances in Imperial units, whatever the dictat of Brussels.

Secondly, when you replace a round-number primary unit with some obscure arbitrary number (e.g. {{convert|50000|ft|m}} to {{convert|15240|m}}), it's a strong hint that you're going the wrong way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rather surprisingly the British parts of Concorde were designed in Imperial measurements, and the French parts in Metric measurements. And yes, the parts did all fit together properly, at least after a few minor teething problems. The first UK aircraft designed soley in metric measurements was the Hawker Siddeley Hawk in the early-to-mid seventies.

And it was originally built as the Sud Aviation/British Aircraft Corporation Concorde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.38 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Style differences in referencing

The introduction of two different citation styles is now integrated into the article. It probably will not matter much but there is an inconsistency in the use of citations that may be jarring. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

As the person who implimented many of the recent changes and improvements, I feel I must point some things out. Firstly, the references on this article have been a complete shambles for years, having taken a look back in the history, many were just urls and editorial titles. There has never been a set standard par say, it has been just a complete mess. Several used the proper manual layout, several others used the automatic citation formatting, and most of the references had neither, just left as unfinished stubs. Most of the formal references, those worthy of recognition and paying heed to as legitimate, have been upgraded to the automatic citation template, and a great deal of detail was added in where it was once lacking. By no means is this article now magically better, but considering how long obvious flaws have been at a standstill, I think it was a massive step towards improvement. I am in favour of the citation templates, as I find them easier to work with, they're quite clear in what information must be entered as standard, rather than the manual imitation method. Speaking personally, I have a ton of problems with this article and its citations, but I think the inconsistency of the templates behind the information display is far from the most pressing. We actually have a ton of references that simply do not have any value at being references (sources written by nobodies with no reputation or legitimate stake), and I think I shall motion for all references to 'concordesst.com' to be struck off from the article. This article needs a severe shake-down to clear out the worthless crud and replace it with respectable, confirmable, published and acceptable sources. Kyteto (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this edit (bulk removal of correctly used reference formatting templates) as acceptable within a community project. It is one in a sequence of very similar edits by Bzuk, to a range of articles. Some of them have followed immediately upon the addition of those same formatted references by another editor. To declare an interest, some of those were mine.

Let's get some common ground out of the way first:

* I agree that formatting of refs is often poor and this should be improved. I do a lot of editing work in this area myself (and naturally, I object to its immediate reversion).

* There is some reasonable difference of opinion over cites that include bibliographic references, and those that separate {{reflist}} and a bibliographic list. Personally I see room for both in different articles, depending on the size of the lists and the number of cites to each ref. That's a separate issue though and we should discuss it separately, for clarity.

AIUI (and from past attempts to raise this with Bzuk), they have some disagreement with the typographical style generated by WP's commonplace citation formatting templates. I can understand this, but don't see it as a pressing issue: it's a reason if anything to go back to the template and rework the format it generates (that's reasonable enough).

My advocacy of formatting templates is that it allows us to do exactly this. If we set up the citations to use them, then we can easily make bulk improvements to their formatting behaviour afterwards, without needing to re-work every page that used them. We're also increasingly in a world with tools like DBPedia, where the ability to handle structured data, not just formatted typography, becomes increasingly valuable. The route to that is through templates, the route to using templates is by making calls to them from article text (and extending the template implementation can follow later).

I have no doubt that this argument will be shot down forthwith. However I still see Bzuk's actions (and this one editor in particular) as inappropriate in a community project. Following other editors around and {{subst:}}ing their work out of existence immediately afterwards is not an encouraging action to others, especially not when it makes so little overall effect (if one way of working was clearly superior, we'd all be doing it that way naturally). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates have a role to play but they have to be used with some discretion and it still begs the question of "garbage in, garbage out". BTW, no one is following other editors about, this article is only one of many in which I contributed years ago a photo of a Concorde in Seattle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

As to working with templates, as a former librarian, I used template formatting over two decades ago as the first machine language cataloging was introduced and the numerous libraries that I converted to computer-based circulation and record keeping, all used variations of standard templating. There is a huge difference in the templates that are currently in use in Wikipedia. There is only one style created, that of the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide to the exclusion of all other formats, Chicago, Terbian, and the most prolific of all in social sciences, the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide which predominates all published works in this field. A number of efforts to redesign the templates to allow various formats have been rebuffed which leaves only the option of a APA-style template or "scratch" cataloguing or written out entries that fit the Wiki citation structure. Templates are neither mandated nor recommended, they are a "tool" and when an article is already in place that has a "standard", it is considered the style to use. If an article is completely re-written into a new standard, that is also acceptable and other editors then use that standard as their guide. The comments here should be directed to the advancement of the article and these comments may be more than is necessary but I do wish to address some of the previous concerns, mainly that when a major revision of an article is contemplated, it is contingent on the contributing editor to use the talk page for a discussion, although that is not always the case, it is considered "good form." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC).

So what's your point? That the format generated by the template isn't how you'd like it? Or that the formats used are inconsistent? Now I have a lot more sympathy for the second view, because WP's formats might not be the best of all possible reference formats, but they're pretty good and generally fit for purpose. I'm still waiting to hear what it is that they can't deliver, and that we need across aviation articles.

As to consistency, then the idea that longhand coding by hand is going to be more consistent is laughable.

Are you also planning to take this "Wikipedia is just doing it all wrong" approach to WP generally, beyond aviation? Because otherwise it leads to a situation where aviation is using the One True Hand-coded format, at odds with the rest of the encyclopedia. You can't buck the system. Choices practically available here do not include having one editor re-work every reference on every page by hand, which seems to be what you're advocating. Our best hope, in practical terms, is to encourage ther use of one set of standard templates, and to encourage these templates to generate the best formatting they can. Not because this is the best possible format, but because everything else just doesn't scale to a project of this size. You might plan to re-format the whole pagecount by hand but that isn't going to happen, nor is your presumed army of gnomes going to execute your delegation of it either reliably or consistently. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Garbage in, garbage out" applies equally to both templates and hand formatting. It's an irrelevance here. We both agree that such situations (which includes half-populated information for a ref) should be fixed, and we both appear to make many edits doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there are only two-three editors currently interested in the topic at hand, and that at least two prefer a template style citation format (regardless of the earlier comment that styles should not be changed to suit preference and established styles are typically adhered to...), let me propose the following:

1. Correct the use of the templates that were recently installed- come on, the date structure was wrong, authors, second authors and order of author's names, publishers and titles mixed up; all of these were wrong. I have made some corrections to the templates merely to show the inconsistencies. It seems that each new reference notation again introduces more errors, which the submitter either does not recognize or is due to the limitations of the templates being employed.

2. I can live with a completely new template format throughout, but that should be what is consistent, one format not two or three as is presently in use. My original comments notwithstanding, the templates to me are more of a hassle than not especially when someone uses them for convenience, expediency or some view that they are more accurate and may and still may be of use in conversion in the near/far distant future, and still inputs the data incorrectly. I would rather rely on an experienced editor (one of my jobs for three publishing houses, and my career as a librarian involved cataloging and reference notations) who does enter data in an accurate manner, but regardless, the argument is a non sequitur as two voices trump one and I will abide by the use of template style if that is the consensus view/decision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of 1, I think you might be overstating the problem. The date structure was wrong - On four references out of 70. I very quickly learnt and adapted to this particular page's tendancies regarding date. (and on other articles that style is not strictly 'wrong', on quite a few articles I've worked on, it is common to put accessdates and original dates-of-publishment in different styles so that you could easily tell them apart, not done here though, but I've picked that up now) I also see it as a strange notion that you've introduced quotation marks around the publisher's names. You also appear to have done it inconstently E.G. "British Airway"s, in another incident "British Airways"; the S keeps jumping in and out on other publishers' names such as "New York Time"s. So far I'm only aware of two incidents of titles and publishers being accidentally swapped, and it is an easy enough fix in hindsight. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. My particular one in this instance is finding and sourcing information where nobody has bothered to, in spite of Citation tags and failing B-grade status due to referencing. I also would like to point out again that the references on this page have always been inconsistant, and I have done quite a bit of effort to bring them into one unison standard. Each reference should at bare minimum have a title, publisher, and date, and naturally an url for a web resource as they usually are. A metaphor may be laying the foundations before tiling the roof, despite both of our efforts there are still references in need of aid, and I don't have infinite time to dedicate to fixing every single nitty-gritty flaw. But we are making massive improvements; I think this page has seen more effort to improve it in the last week than it has in the last two years. I am coming to the end of my additions at least, if that is any comfort. Kyteto (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From going through some FA reviews, the magazine and most media publisher names are supposed to be in italics. This does not apply to manufacturers with press releases and other web sites. I can not find where this is mentioned in the Citing policy pages at the moment though. This article is cited way better than a month ago. It has had been tied for worst in number of maintenance tags for WP:Aviation (see cleanup list). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Every cataloging and bibliographic style uses the same format of identifying the main title and publisher. You have to understand the actual entry system of the template in order to use it consistently. Typos do creep in because a vast number of the templates introduced new errors, and these typos which you noted are being corrected, what can't be as easily rectified is giving a background in what systems are in use and how to use them properly (the "nitty-gritty"). The "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome then is in play. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

I believe it is inappropriate, inaccurate, and factually misleading to place the publishers of a journal, and the journal's name itself as one and the same. Not least because Journals occasionally change their ownership and publisher, hence pressing the two names together would make for a terrible mess when such a transition was to occur. It also confuses the issue more than a bit, as often publishers own a vast swaith of journals,(such as Vathek owning The Police Journal and The Journal of Criminal Law) or are only the publisher within a certain defined region or context (such as some articles having an online sub-publisher that's not the same as the physical circulation). To undo the template seperation, which makes the destinction quite clear in the long-hand coding and by the seperation, does not seem to be correct. It also seems to be contrary to the GA experiences I had on the Eurostar article, in '|journal = xxx' was given far more preference in use to '|publisher = xxx' for coding in that information when it came to the use of the Cite Journal template. To go against that seperation, and to mismatch entries in the long-hand cite coding, seems a backward step. Kyteto (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The template you are using does not allow for properly identifying the journal as the italicized entry, only the publisher, which makes it contingent on either modifying the template or the entry into the template. There is need to understand what each entry in a bibliographical notation actually does and how it will appear when a template formats that entry, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

There must be something wrong with how we are using the template then, because typical use of the template actually places the Journal name in italics without the need for manual formatting. For instance, take a look at how Ref 118 on the Eurostar article is coded and how it appears; it is managing to come out italisised and yet there is no manual usage of italics or forced misuse of the long hand code. Only problem is that I can't spot what is different that is making the Cite Journal ref coding there put references in italics, yet the same code here isn't apparently doing the same thing. If we can crack this mystery, then the difficulties with making manual coding work do not matter as we won't have to rely on that method for keeping the references consistantly stylised. Kyteto (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, the template had already italised the text without the need for the manual formatting, hence your attempts to manually format it had the opposite effect. Edits have now fixed it so that the references present as you desired, the manual formatting having been removed from the Journal cites. Kyteto (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear, as it wasn't working before for some reason, but it's fixed now. Templates are still a bugabear to deal with, but most of the ones in the article are now functioning properly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ConcordeSST.com

Regarding sources, ConcordeSST.com has been established for many years (at least since 2001), is quite thorough and accurate, and has the respect of British Airways (and the participation of a number of individuals who were involved in the Concorde program dating back to the 1960s). There is no reason for one user unilaterally to attempt to dictate that citations to that site should be removed from this article, as it's by far the most comprehensive source available on the Internet for information about this aircraft. I appreciate the efforts the new user is making to clean up the citations, although I find it very frustrating the way he's strung together a lengthy set of one-at-a-time edits with vague summaries that make it very difficult for anyone else to review those edits in sequence due to the sheer number of piecemeal revisions. Noble efforts or not, though, I highly object to his unilateral declaration that a respected site that's long been a reference in this article is suddenly unacceptable, especially when it hasn't been discussed with the good number of regular contributors to this article. ("Worthless crud"? Who do you think you are to make that determination?) If there were a consensus that the site is unreliable, then I'd be more sympathetic to the proposition, but no such consensus was sought nor established. Moreover, the fact that Kyteto edited this article to claim that the retirement announcements were made on 7 April 2003—a basic "fact" that was easily verifiable as being incorrect—naturally makes me skeptical of his work. 1995hoo (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think the decision was entirely unilateral if I had already mentioned on this very talk page that I was uneasy with their level of appropriateness for an encylopedia article. I am highly concerned by the excessive level of prevelence they have received in the referencing of this page, and I do question if it is necessary to refer back to them in priority over that of the well known established media publishers themselves. I believe that we should cut down on the overuse of this one source where it can be verified by other and more traditionally accepted means; fansites, even those with a passing acceptance from certain groups, should be kept to a minimum. I have not been, and do not plan to, remove all the ConcordeSST.com references, but substitute them with more accepted legitimate souces where possible. And considering that you were equally baffled and confused as to how it was possible that the BBC got that information ahead of the offical schedual somehow, I think I can be forgive for that confusion. I don't claim perfection in my work, I just do my best on what the sources provide me with, mistakes will be made from time to time, evidenced by the veritable boatload that was present on the article before I even started editing. And it is my position that the weight of proof for legitimacy, of facts and sources, lies on the contributer, not the individual that removes them. Why should ConcordeSST.com be regarded as a legitimate site, why should they have the Lion's share of references, and how can we verify that they have not gone too far into editorialising the truth? I don't agree with an overfocus on any one source, no matter whom that is. Not to mention that you broke the 3RR on this page, which doesn't look too favourable on the "not a unilateralist" front. Kyteto (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To demonstrate the point that they have had a great deal of attention and focus by this article; before I started adding references to this article on the 11th of this month, the article had just over 90 references. Even right now, there are 23 individual citations leading off to ConcordeSST.com; they have held over a quater of the whole references for this article! If that isn't overreliance on one source of information, I don't know what is. There needs to be a balance, a range of different sources is much more preferable, likely to be correct, and more sensible. This means, naturally, that some ConcordeSST.com references need to be switched over to acheive balance, as well as new references from other sources added afresh altogether. I am happy with the citations for information that simply cannot be found elsewhere to be used from ConcordeSST.com, but those that can be dealt with by the newspapers and journals should be dealt with in those mediums, in the interest of simply having a more verifiable, and defendably accurate article that doesn't take the word of one site over and far more often than others. Kyteto (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations are too subtle and varied to judge "single-source over-reliance" simply by counting them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley. The fact that something is heavily cited doesn't prove that it's an unreliable source or that there is a lack of balance, as a single source is sometimes THE definitive source. I don't intend to suggest that ConcordeSST.com is the be-all end-all of Concorde information, but I do contend that it is by far the most comprehensive source available online and thus a legitimate source, especially in contexts such as the one that raised my hackles, where it's coupled WITH another source. Furthermore, it's completely inappropriate to cite to something that predates a fact. The USA Today article that was proffered for the retirement announcements to replace the very TEXT of those announcements (surely the actual text is a good source) was dated 9 April 2003. It is not valid to cite something that pre-dates the actual event as support for the statement that an event occurred on a particular date.

I do think your position was unilateral in that you raised the issue on this talk page barely two days ago and then used your position as the basis for removing a new citation. Simply noting an issue on a talk page does not establish consensus. Rather, it flags the issue for discussion with other people. The better practice, once an issue is raised here, is to wait a few days to allow for comment from other folks. There can be any number of reasons why it might be a day or two before the "regular contributors" weigh in on something.

Finally, Kyteto, you are flat-out wrong in your 3RR accusation. I count at most precisely three reversions and the rule says "no more than three." But even that's not accurate. My first revision ADDED a source because the BBC article you cited supported an erroneous date. ADDING a citation without deleting anything is obviously not a reversion. Later I undid an edit that removed a valid citation to ConcordeSST.com's reprinting of the retirement announcements. (That's one reversion.) As I say, you can't get a better citation than the text of the announcements, although if you want to waste your time tracking down the announcements on BA and Air France's sites (if they still have them online), then be my guest. Fnlayson then re-added the USA Today citation and I removed it (that's two reversions) on the basis that it's not a valid citation, since it's dated the day before the announcements and says "Concorde to be retired soon." An article of that sort isn't a valid citation because, while it was later proven to be accurate speculation via the course of events, it was still only speculation (though informed speculation, to be sure!). Don't throw around 3RR accusations when they're not accurate.

I don't know why I waste my time arguing about these matters. I don't expect to have time to comment further today (little thing called "work"), so kindly don't construe my silence the wrong way. 1995hoo (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. You readded the ConcordeSST.com twice so that's just 2 reverts. And the removal of the USA Today ref was justified for the predate reason stated. There was no reason given when it was first removed and I missed predate thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I apologise for the 3RR accusation. However I stand by my objection to the reference on several principles. One is that we should turn to more respected sources where possible; which discounts about six uses of the ConcordeSST.com site. Another principle is that the more aknowledged sources with a wider readership demonstrate a wider impact and circulation, once again preferrable in source material; in the case of the retirement of Concorde being demostrated as highly important new to the general public it means far more in terms of impact coming from the BBC than the same news upon a Concorde fansite. I am not satisfied that the fansite forfills the criteria of WP:Sources, which states under reliability "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; I do not think that the reputation of the site is to the same developed extent as the mainstream media, so this is once again another reason to turn to the mainstrem before the fansites, to this end it is preferable and more appropriate that Concorde news and events reported should be taken from the archives of news agencies well before we get down to the level of having to scoop the same info from the fan sites surrounding Concorde. Thirdly, using the example of this reference again (the one that was readded three times), it is a rehash that at the end actually accredits two seperate news publishers. Typically citations should be taken from the source, cutting out the middleman. Hence there is no need to refer back to ConcordeSST.com if they are in turn simply mirroring somebody else, just cite who they were citing to begin with (It'd be like somebody citing this wiki article for a fact, although it is a great work of fans and editors, just cite the source of the fact in the article to begin with); this policy is apart of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I also motion under WP:V that ConcordeSST.com may fall under "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", the quality or level of editor-ship with the fansite is not satisfactory, to the poin where often there are no names to tie to articles or overall responsibility for fact-checking and verification; another reason not to turn to them frequently. As mentioned before, I am willing to compromise on information that has simply been lost elsewhere and CANNOT be found elsewhere, but I strongly suggest that we embark on replacing instances of ConcordeSST.com citation with more traditional reference sources where the information can be verified through. Finally, a site being comprehensive does not make it implicitly valid or ensure it's legitimacy, Wikipedia is its own example in this case. Kyteto (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point about citing something that cites to something else is certainly valid; in a sense, citing something that cites something else is sort of like citing to an encyclopedia, isn't it? As I said before, if you want to track down the original BA and Air France press releases, by all means feel free to do so. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so because I don't think doing so would add any layer of verifiability over what's already there. I don't necessarily think it's reasonable to say that the mainstream media have a sufficient reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on matters relating to Concorde, but then I suppose it's fair to note in response that the mainstream media have not been cited for any of the technical data in this article.

I find your take in this comment to be more reasonable than your past comments because this time you've backed up your position on the issue. In your original comment you simply proposed the deletion of all citations to ConcordeSST.com without giving justification for it, and in an edit summary you said that you "prefer" not to cite to that site (recognizing, of course, that none of us—you, me, Wolfkeeper, Bzuk, whoever—is the final arbiter). Your second comment seemed to me to focus on the proposition that because there were a lot of citations to ConcordeSST.com, you felt it was inappropriate to cite to it. I don't believe that's a good reason not to cite to something. (I practice law for a living, so citation of authority is a major part of whart I do!) Your comment this time is more reasonable and substantive in my opinion. I do think there is a real value to maintaining the ConcordeSST citations in tandem with other citations for reasons of user convenience, though—that is, to the extent a replacement citation is to an "off-line" source, I think it's beneficial for the reader if there is also a citation to something online.

Incidentally, I forgot to make another point earlier about that USA Today article to which I objected. I looked at the article again and it specifically states that BA declined to comment on the future of Concorde service. While we know in hindsight that they did indeed announce the retirement of the aircraft, I think it's bad form to cite an article that says they declined comment on future service as support for a sentence that says they announced the cessation of service! 1995hoo (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for External links?

I wanted to bring up a suggestion for the External links. It is a photo gallery of the Queen's first flight aboard Concorde. This flight was the first time Concorde visited Barbados as well. It took place November 2 1977 from Barbados— London at the end of the Queen's Silver Jubilee. Link:

• Burleigh, Craig (2008). "Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee in Barbados ends with her first flight on Concorde on a record setting flight back to London Heathrow". Retrieved 16 January 2010. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |separator=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) -- CaribDigita (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Car alarms

There is some footage on YouTube of Concorde taking off with reheat and the noise/vibration sets off car alarms under the flight path on the climb out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.1 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but not really notable as it was a fairly common event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Museums

Is there a list somewhere where the airframes currently are ? --Jor70 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article, under the See also-section: Concorde aircraft histories Paaln (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice!, thks --Jor70 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On February 5, 2010, it was announced that the aircraft at Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace was to undergo a restoration program to return two of its engines to operating condition to enable the aircraft to taxi under its own power. Additionally, the aircraft's engines and systems are to be inspected and repaired. The effort will be undertaken by a group of volunteers, largely made up of a group of Air France technicians who worked on Concorde's before their retirement

I suggest to remove this text for the moment. It's only a press announcement (it has not its place in an encyclopedia), no serious study has been issued at this time. During the past, similar announcements have been done (example : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article605760.ece in "The Times" in 2006)... and the final result was : nothing at all!!! The same actors: we can suspect it's not more serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.70.120 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can give several reasons describing why this project is NOT SERIOUS. See my comments on Flight Global forums http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/forums/air-france-concorde-to-taxi-again-under-own-power-46134.aspx

Talk: page archiving nonsense

The reason that discussions are archived by bots is that no-one sticks around for 365 or 250 days to respond comments. Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for conversations that have comments every 364 days, or even every 150 days. That went out with modern postal systems; say, sometime in the late 1800s. If no-one responds to you after 120 days, then the conversation is over. I'll leave it at 150 days for now, but if this nonsense continues I'll set it to something more reasonable and standard, like 60 days. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't care less but that attitude stinks: effectively do as I say or I'll make things worse. There are very good reasons for preferring a long archival time: this is not the most active talk page so there is no massive gain from a short archival period. Added to that having comments hang around allows time for things to be addressed. To many times somebody raises a point and it does not get addressed promptly. Autoarchival encourages these these to be archvied with no-one addressing them and having too short a retention period simply compounds that. Once archived, it is awkward to refer back to a comment somebody has already made.

In any case, it is required by [1] that consensus is established before autoarchival is set up. Where has that been done, precisely? CrispMuncher (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I initially reset the auto-archive times to 100 days. Not 3 days, or 1 week, or 1 months. When that wasn't good enough, I reset it to 125 days. When that wasn't good enough I reset it to 150 days. That's more than enough time for any current or relevant things to "be addressed". And yet, that still wasn't good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the status up until a couple of weeks ago was that there was no archiving at all. Where was the consensus formed? It wasn't and as such it should be clear that the guidance indicates there should be no auto-archiving at all. As I said initially I'm not really bothered about it but it seems clear that it was added inappropriately in the first place and it should be removed as a simple procedural matter until a consensus has been reached. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Older discussions should be kept a little while so the same questions/issues are not brought up again just a short time later. They also serve as a reminder of things that may need to be done to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

150 days is not a "short time". These are Talk: page discussions, not geological eras. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did not say it was. I meant a short while after a discussion section was archived. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Talk: page discussions were being kept 365 days after all discussion ended. I shortened that to 100 days, then 125, then 150. Keep in mind, that's 150 days after the cessation of all discussion. The bot doesn't archive a discussion that started 150 days ago, it archives a discussion that stopped 150 days ago. To claim anything longer than that is needed or helpful is ludicrous. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the archive period should be agreed per article and I also agree with the points Fnlayson brought up, in the end we dont have to archive this page at all. So please get an agreement with those interested in the page before changing it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions don't appear to have any logical or rational basis. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

They dont need to just using experience on aircraft project articles, still needs agreement on this page, although as Fnlayson does most of the talk page archiving for the project and he added the bot to help I would defer to his judgement on the matter. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The section talking about how "not using the" is iconic

I'm an American, but I've dealt with enough UK people to know that leaving off "the" from Concorde doesn't raise it to another level. Australians and Canadians will also frequently write that way, from my observations. The paragraph used non-American sources, using their idiom, to back up what seems to me someone's misguided notions as to what leaving of "the" means. Maybe I've overstepped my bounds here but it seemed the right thing to do. I'm new to the editing biz after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaBear1965 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)