Jump to content

Talk:Aerolíneas Argentinas

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

Unsignes comments

[edit]

Which is the goal of these unsigned, "personal" comments made in spanish (and left untranslated), in an encyclopedia written in english? Can anyone please explain? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comet Picture

[edit]

I like the picture, but its a BOAC comet, not an Aerolinas Argentinas one. Anyone else noticed this? --w2ch00

Fleet

[edit]

I don't think that stating that the 747-400 being put in service are used but "modern". They are used and old. The 747-400 is an airplane that has almost 20 years since launched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.226.71 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet/Destinations info all wrong

[edit]

OK so someone is messing up with the fleet info. We don't fly or plan to fly to Asia, nor have any 773 on order. Check the news for the latest fleet announcements made by Marsans (so not AR). Also there are less 747s operational (3 -400 and 1 -200), the 340 fleet should be sub divided in 4 -200 and 1 -300 for making it clear, and we certainly don't have 35 737s working! This is not a simple rant, I edited the page but it came back like before, and I can't make any editing anymore, for whatever reason. Oh, Having 3 flights a week to Bogotá/Auckland hardly makes them FOCUS CITITES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.249.226 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Whisper To Me, I don't know how to reply by PM. Fine, keep the cholera part if you think it's worth it. But either you or someone else is messing with the fleet info, and worst, adding wrong info about future destinations like ASIA. How come? do you people have any idea of what you're doing? now that I call vandalizing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer is to find a source (I.E. the Aerolineas Argentinas timetable), cite it (give a URL), and *revise* the destination list. For the fleet, find a source for the new fleet information. The Aerolineas Argentinas website is a Wikipedia:Reliable source, so please use that for destinations. I do not know if the fleet info is also on the AA site. WhisperToMe 06:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is no timetable. The destinations can be found at the website. And while so is the fleet info, trust me, we don't have that many aircraft operational. Just give me a proof that we are going to fly to asia. Yeah, we, I freaking work there. Don't tell me to find a URL or a source when a lot of info is simply wrong and made up. I am not vandalizing, I'm correcting the wrong info. VERY WRONG INFO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link, sorry but I don't know how to post properly.

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Aerolineas%20Argentinas.htm

Remember, the MDs were transferred to AU in exchange of some 732s, so they do not appear, and any aircraft is ordered by Marsans, not AR, meaning that those planes may come in different numbers, if come at all. Mal karma 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information

[edit]

The firm incurred massive debt, and operating profits were not realized. Iberia bought from Aerolíneas Argentinas two 10-year old Boeing 707 aircraft for the price of US$1.57 each.

Those were some cheap aircrafts. Is that information correct? James Hetfield (talk · contribs)

I don't recall real figures, but it was widely commented that Iberia transferred capital from Aerolineas. It would be nice to have a source for the fugures quoted. By the way, sometimes a "nominal" value is used in transactions of this type (need to find facts, eg when the USAF ceded Sabres F-86 to the FArArg). Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aerolineasargentinaslogo.PNG

[edit]

Image:Aerolineasargentinaslogo.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.

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 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality" tag - Why?

[edit]

Can anyone please explain why this article is tagged as "non neutral"? I've read it and could not find an "advertisement" style, nor any evicence of a "tendency" being supported. Maybe quoting/referencing is not adequate enough, but the content does not seem (IMHO) to support any aprticular point of view.
Having said that, I couldn't find also in this discussion page any rationale supporting the current "tagging". Maybe it would be adequate to replace these tags with one related to "Cleanup Required". Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever actually flown this airline? This is too positive about an airline that is largely perceived(by the majority of its passengers) to be poorly run and has very poor passenger service(cancellations, delays) and a very old fleet(one of the oldest in the world). John

    • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for people to give subjects positive nor negative views. If there is a link with a percentage of late flights for Aerolineas then you can put the percentage here and provide the link, but plainly saying it is one of the worst at anything, that is point of view. That said, those were the only lines where I saw the POV tag could be placed for, and I removed them, it would be more appropiate if you said "according to (source+internet link), only 5 percent of Aerolineas' flights go on time."

Antonio Sexy Pervert Martin

Here you go, dont really see the point though because somebody keeps editing this article by removing anything negative. http://www.expediacorporate.com/daily/edit/alerts/October/2007_November8_ARCancelsFlights.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.146.75 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? it's only one link saying some very old news. This page can easily become an AR bashing forum if things like that are allowed. Besides, I don't think most people editing here travel AR much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much being the appropriate word because one flight with AA is enough, I'll never go back, LAN's service is far superior and a heck of alot more reliable. Rgs Patsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.146.75 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, it seems to me that some people are using Wikipedia to vent frustrations experienced as passengers of this airline. This is not a forum for that, I'm afraid.
To "John" and "Patsy": I've flown several times this airline, both international and domestic routes. I have my own opinion of its service (ups and downs), which cannot be supported with facts and verifiable sources as Wikipedia requires. And as I've also flown other domestic and foreign airlines, I can compare (my own) experiences. So I believe that Aerolineas is not much worse (or better) than most other airlines currently flying. Kind Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Renationalization

[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7518674.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of corruption and mismanagement

[edit]

Some pretty serious sources should be cited to substantiate these accusations if they are to be mentioned on an encyclopedia. Codik (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fake website

[edit]

Although it's been reverted a long time ago, I'd like to point out that someone with the IP: 76.167.244.236 changed the URL of four different airlines to a fake website claiming to be the english webpage. These websites were actually of a travel agency that has domain names similar to those of the airlines. I'm guessing that this might happen again (given a commercial interest). I don't know if there's any use in blocking this IP now, but I leave this note so that if someone finds an odd link like I did (on the Santa Bárbara Airlines article) they can be sure that it's a fake and revert it. JunCTionS 00:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Aerolineas

[edit]

I've found difficult to find additional "verifiable" historical sources about this airline. A good (albeit brief) article I've found is in the argentinian aeronautical magazine "Aeroespacio"; I've included the link in the "External links" section of this article and I'm copying it below:

Will keep looking for more historical info, to improve the corresponding section of this article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

embraer

[edit]

why is no mention of embraer deal ? [1] --Jor70 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention as this article contains fleet information for Aerolineas Argentinas fleet, as for the Embraer order is for Austral as subsidary for the airline. See Austral as it is stated under there. Zaps93 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thks --Jor70 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movies on flights?

[edit]

I heard that they aren't showing movies on flights to Australia anymore. To save money. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidanb (talk • contribs) 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish hub?

[edit]

Whatever happened to Aerolineas Argentinas' Spain hub? I believe it was in Santiago de Compostela and they flew Boeing 737's to England. --Antonio el Che de Caguas Martin (dimelo!!!) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate URL

[edit]

http://www.aerolineas.com.ar WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“Early years to privatisation” section

[edit]

Please do not add information that is not verifiable by third-party sources. As per Wikipedia policies, all information not meeting with this criteria is subject to prompt delete. Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think the gallery should be made more akin to Wikipedia style, the blue border seems overpatriotic . Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery was removed.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A340-300 in SkyTeam livery

[edit]

So far, I have reverted three edits ([2], [3], [4]) claiming the airline has incorporated an eighth Airbus A340-300, this particular one wearing the SkyTeam livery. Whether the claim is true or not, the sources provided do not mention that the aircraft in question is the eighth the airline has. A reliable source must be used to confirm this assertion. I've requested semi-protection of the page ([5]).--Jetstreamer Talk 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737-800 order

[edit]
  • "Boeing, Aerolineas Argentinas Complete Agreement for 20 Next-Generation 737s" (Press release). Boeing. 21 October 2013. Archived from the original on 22 October 2013. When the order is finalized, it will be posted as a firm order to the Boeing Orders and Deliveries website.

Not a firm order yet, according to the source above. I've therefore reverted the last two edits. Please be more careful when adding content and please, read the sources you add.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time in a week that I've reverted ([6], [7]) the edit made by DGT15 (talk · contribs). The very same source provided by them in the most recent edit (see above) clearly says that this was an agreement, and not a firm order:
Please do not reinstate this until the aicraft manufacturer or the airline confirms the order.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated ([8]) the latest edit made by the user, yet partly. There's no reason for not mentioning in the article that the agreement took place. However, I left the fleet table without modifications until the order is confirmed.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More archived sources for the agreement

[edit]

--Jetstreamer Talk 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Customer Service Heading

[edit]

My edits on Aerolineas customer service have been removed. Citing insufficient sources. References have been provided - including to ratings of the airline by the site TripAdvisor.com. Since this is a site updated by many thousands of travellers, and relied on by millions more as a source of reviews, I would consider this at least as "reliable" a source as wikipedia. Coverage of the airline's customer service and popular perceptions is a valid topic within this wikipedia article. So long as the coverage cites references then it shouldn't be an issue. I understand that wikipedia is impartial but if there is valid information then it deserves to be published. The "sanitising" of articles by interested parties should be discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bald white guy (talk • contribs) 11:43 14 January 2014

You need to assume good faith here Bald white guy, I dont have a problem with a properly referenced and balanced criticism section but your addition did not provide any reliable references. You cant really say Aerolíneas Argentinas has a reputation among travellers as one of the world's worst airlines for customer service. without providing a reliable source and TripAdvisor by its nature is not a reliable source. I am not sure who Pantanal Escapes is but appears to be an individuals opinion if there really was a "riot" then we should be able to find it mentioned in reliable sources like the riot in 2008 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22630041/ns/world_news-americas/t/stranded-travelers-riot-argentine-airport/#.UtUnnLSOKik although the 2008 riot is related to industrial action and not customer service. That said as the additions have been challenged you should not add it again without gaining some consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the "reputation for poor customer service" is a defendable statement and balanced. Social media such as TripAdvisor are a valid source of opinions and perceptions about companies and their products (in fact, reflecting customer perceptions was the whole point of adding the heading). It shouldn't knocked just because it isn't "traditional" media. At the end of the day, wikipedia is itself social media. An event doesn't need to be reported on CNN for it to have happened or be referenced. Traditional media won't always be there to report on a scene. Even blog posts are a justifiable source or reference concerning current events (newspapers and TV now commonly reference them among their own sources). So long as the source is identified then readers have sufficient information to make their own call. Either way, I think the heading should stay because it adds meaningful and verifiable information about the subject matter. Bald white guy (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can suggest you read up on what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, it doesnt include in nearly all cases uncontrolled commentary sites like TripAdvisor and most blog sites or self published sites like Pantanal Escapes. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that opinions are always biased, sites including traveller ones are clearly not reliable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I take issue that you are sanitising articles and the removal is unwarranted. Customer perceptions are important when you're talking about an organisation. SkyTrax is the official rating relied on by the airlines. Some of the (e.g. Air New Zealand and Qantas) use this in their advising as a positive rating on their customer service. It is a rating which is trusted by the airlines. TripAdvisor mightn't be perfect but it is also a source relied upon by travellers worldwide, and customer ratings are a core part of their business. Their ratings for accommodation are referenced by many commercial booking sites particularly for accommodation so that potential customers have some idea about the service they're booking. The quality of service is an issue for this particular airline and it deserves mention because (again) it provides meaningful information about them. Rather than including the (sometimes inflammatory) remarks about this airline from travel forums, I've used surveys and travel-industry accepted surveys or ratings. The recent event in Buenos Aires also deserves mention IMHO. Maybe it hasn't been covered in the press but had reliable reports of the occurrence from passengers arriving in Sydney, some of whom took video of the event which is being uploaded onto social media also. Once again, although social media mightn't be wikipedia's traditional view of a source, reporting that it exists is nonetheless valid.

Yet again, although wikipedia isn't a travel guide, recording of customer perceptions as recorded in industry-accepted sources such as SkyTrax and TripAdvisor is a valid. The text that I've written is balanced, and other contributors have an opportunity to add alternative information and sources if they exist. My gut feel is that the content of this article is being controlled and sanitised by industry insiders with a vested interest in the airline industry and removing anything potentially negative. I can see why wikipedia is having issues attracting new contributors when content is being censored by self-appointed sanitisers. Maybe this is an issue for more official wikipedia moderators.Bald white guy (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith Bald white guy all we are asking for is for you addition to be reliably referenced and balanced, like everything on wikipedia we have rules about attacking other editors motives. It has been explained that Trip Advisor is not reliable source or is much of social media, so find a balanced report on criticism and it can be added. Any body with a gripe can upload to Trip Advisor without any editorial control so is unlikely to produce a balanced view. I find it hard to believe that a riot in the last few days doesnt get any mention in the media and produces only results from 2008, and despite what you think social media is not a reliable source for wikpedia. Have a read of some of the guidelines on this stuff (WP:V and WP:RS for two) and try to understand the bigger view, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go-around incident removed

[edit]

The recent go-around incident at Barcelona-El Prat Airport (BCN) has been removed ([9]) on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABLE. Furthermore, the edit unexplainedly removed sourced content. Please discuss here before attemtping to reinstate the BCN incident. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old HQ

[edit]

This states: "Paseo Colon 185, Buenos Aires, Argentina" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archived references not used the article

[edit]

Jetstreamer Talk 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 113 external links on Aerolíneas Argentinas. 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) 13:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerolíneas Argentinas. 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) 08:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of information for subsidiaries in infobox

[edit]

Regarding this [10] edit, {{infobox airline}} indicates that the field destinations should be populated with ″The number of airport destinations currently served by the airline (former or future destinations should not be included).″ Furthermore, fleet_size should include ″The number of aircraft currently in service.″ In both cases, it is not considered the inclusion of affiliates or subsidiaries, or otherwise they should be mentioned explicitly in the template documentation.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what it says on the infobox description, but nowhere does it say anything about not including separate numbers for subsidiaries or clarifying that the numbers do not include subsidiaries. It doesn't even say that in the parts you quoted, so it seems to be a misled interpretation or simply a personal preference for the article. Delta Air Lines, KLM, Lufthansa, Air Canada and Qantas include either combined or separate information about subsidiary fleets and routes in their infoboxes - clearly the authors of those pages do not have the same interpretation and see the value of not denying readers important information based on a pedantic and nonexistent technicality. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the information you mention from some of the articles above. I will remove the rest of them on exactly the same grounds. Maybe this is a matter to be raised at WT:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've left my comments on the page. I'm not sure why you also removed the "see also" link to Austral's fleet in the fleet section of this article since that has nothing to do with the infobox in question and it's common practice on WP to point readers to information which might be of interest to them in relevant sections of the article, ie. wanting to know what the subsidiary fleet might be composed of after looking at the main fleet. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Flight 2553 - part of Aerolineas Argentina

[edit]

I looked to this article to see information regarding a plane that crashed killing all 74 passengers and crew on 10th October 1997. The history of accidents must be incorrect as it is not mentioned at all in this article. "The accident remains the deadliest in Uruguayan history". There is a Wikipedia page on the crash.PE Cambridge (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral_L%C3%ADneas_A%C3%A9reas_Flight_2553

As far as I know no one has ever received any compensation from this crash. Why is it not listed in the accidents?

11 October 2017 PE Cambridge

The crash is mentioned in tha article for Austral. This article deals with Aerolíneas Argentinas, not with its subsidiaries.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were separate airlines at the time and have been separate for most of their history. Austral only became a subsidiary of AA after renationalisation in 2008. At the time of the accident, I believe Austral was a subsidiary of Iberia. It would make as much sense to cover it on this page as it would on Iberia's page, though neither really make sense. On the Austral Líneas Aéreas page, the accident is listed among others. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English variety consistency

[edit]

Explaining myself here after I reimplemented some edits which were previously undone by @Jetstreamer which made this article consistently (at least as far as I could tell) utilize American English. The relevant policies here as far as I know are MOS:RETAIN and WP:ARTCON, which require that articles retain the variety of English that they are written in unless they have a direct national connection to one or the other and that the article be consistent in one style. The article prior to my edit was inconsistent, admittedly slightly more British English, than American English. According to MOS:RETAIN: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." I reviewed the earliest versions of the article which is clearly in American English ("recognizing" not "recognising", "traveled" not "travelled", "airplane" not "aeroplane"). Given the existing inconsistency and this finding, I felt that standardizing things to American English was an improvement (especially since I'm not comfortable enough in British English to edit for consistency the other way confidently). Obviously, if there's a consensus that British English is preferred for some reason for this article, that's fine with me but I would ask that someone go through the entire article for consistency since the pre-edit version was inconsistent. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a "Use British English" category, which was present long before you started editing Wikipedia, so this is the language to be used.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, can you show me where in the policies cited that's a factor? I don't see mention of a category changing anything in MOS:RETAIN or WP:ARTCON. I'd argue that the need for article consistency and earliest version would trump a category.
In the meantime, I'm re-implementing my edit. If you feel that the article should be in British English, I really don't mind but please actually go through the entire article for consistency rather than reverting to an inconsistent version. I think that's the spirit of WP:ARTCON :)
Also, you're reverting my other edits which you haven't objected to in any way. If you have issues with the additions (sourced to what I think are reliable sources but if Clarin is somehow objectionable, I'd like to understand why :) And, not super important, but I couldn't find any reason to believe that Aerolineas still provides free transport between the two airports which you keep adding back. Do you have a recent citation for that?
Thanks! Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I see you added the tag for British English. Was there any discussion anywhere that created a consensus that British English somehow has a "natural connection" to Argentina or was this simply under MOS:RETAIN? If it's under RETAIN, appears to me that my analysis of the policy above would trump the tag.
I'm not hung up on this as long as we can follow WP:ARTCON, though. The status quo was inconsistent which is not how articles should be. Per my analysis of policy, I think adjusting the parts of the article in British English to be consistent with the other half of the article and its original drafting to American English is appropriate. However, if you wanted to go through and change everything to British English so it's consistent, I don't object to that.
In the meantime, though, if you have a problem with my other edits, both sourced additions and removal of unsourced material, I'd appreciate an explanation rather than unexplained reverts -- I seem to learn new policies each time we have a discussion so if there's something I'm missing wrt those edits, would love to have it pointed out to me. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aerolíneas_Argentinas&oldid=1222851760"