Jump to content

Talk:Asiana Airlines

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

Untitled

[edit]

So why did they stop flying to Canada? -- Visviva 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember Asiana has some half passenger half freight aircrafts. Any information? Baksando 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request to add info on the Boeing 777-400 (747-400 COMBI) from http://us.flyasiana.com/Global/US/en/homepage?fid=ABOUT11400#fleet05. Could someone kindly do that for me thank you. 66.222.217.37 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no such aircraft type(777-400). Asiana operates one version of 747-400(PAX) and two versions of 747-400(COMBI). If you were looking at the 777s, Asiana operates three versions of 777-200ERs.Mrarchitectkim 04:32, 25 October 2009 (UT

Oh yes. I stand correted. I apologize. it was 747 . Thank you 66.222.217.37 (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Asiana town in other languages

[edit]

Aside from English and Korean, here are names of "Asiana Town" in other languages:

So the names can be added to the Commons descriptions once the image of Asiana Town arrives! WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean page

[edit]

On the Korean page, the table says completely different things in the fleet section. The Korean page also has the IFE, in-flight catering, and ground services. Should we add that to the English page? 161.130.178.177 (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and accidents

[edit]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/201161834356235211.html

S Korea troops fire at passenger plane Troops shoot at jet flying from China with 119 people on board after mistaking it for a N Korean aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.230.129.95 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reasoning for this mention in the talk section as it doesn't appear to have any commonality to Asiana Airlines? Linkops85 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft shot at belonged to Asiana, but as they missed it by miles it is not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo flight Crash

[edit]

Reteurs (by way of Sky News) are reporting that a cargo flight has gone down into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Juju Island, South Korea. No online sources yet. Who.was.phone (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crash confirmed - Two crew on board, both perished. --Who.was.phone (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The crash has its own article here Asiana Airlines Flight 991. --JetBlast (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Class

[edit]

This article is missing information about Asiana Airlines's travel classes. Information is available on the Asiana Airlines web page. --ABXInferno (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFO Crash

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the news. Let's wait until we have reliable sources and not speculate about causes, damage etc. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, also the detail should be in Asiana Airlines Flight 214, this should only be a summary so no need to add every bit fact as it appears. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add onto User:Harry the Dirty Dog's comment, there is a Wikinews. Wikinews already has an article about this incident. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as a reader, do you really have to have the "Disaster" title at the top of the page? It seems over dramatic given the reports that everyone is accounted for - and I can't imagine that it does much to help quell the fears of family members who may be searching the internet looking on any site available for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.10.252 (talk • contribs)
Agree. Have changed it to "current event". Harry the Dog WOOF 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to get protection of the article against random facts and speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne since several anonymous IP edits that are not vandalism, can still be questionable as they would usually fail to cite sources and there would indeed be random facts and speculations. Several people who wish to contribute to Wikipedia would create an account. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added tag

[edit]

I added a tag that the article employs a non-neutral point of view and is written like an advertisement, particularly in the section regarding the in-flight services section, which is a mess. Rewriting would be very helpful. Thank you! Go Phightins! 22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have had a tidy up and removed the tags, it isnt that different now from other airline articles, if you have any issues please detail them here and we can go through them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better; my only lingering complaint would be that it doesn't have many sources ... seems a tad OR-ish, but thanks for the rewrite! Go Phightins! 00:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 July 2013

[edit]

Repair "Marketing" Section. Vandalized by VirtualRash. Please revert edit. 71.123.176.109 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done, thank you! VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crash picture in fleet section

[edit]

There was a picture of the crashed Flight 214 in the 'fleet' section with a caption of (paraphrased) 'An Asiana B777 lands at SFO'. That looks like somone wanted to be naughty and imply that this was a normal landing. I moved the picture to the 'incidents and accidents' section and amended the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crash image / COI

[edit]

IP editor 112.149.241.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has twice ([1], [2]) removed the image of the Flight 214 wreckage from where it illustrates the incident in the section "Incidents and accidents". Other edits have included removal of the {{newsrelease}} template, with no associated edit to address the issue ([3]), and numerous other edits that appear largely neutral. Most of his or her edits are to this article or related ones such as Asiana Airlines destinations. The IP address gelocates to Seoul, and I suspect it belongs to an Asiana employee or other individual with a WP:COI.

I've been recovering the image, because I believe it illustrates this portion of the article appropriately, but I realized that neither the IP nor I have adequately expressed that reasoning in our edit summaries (I've reverted with Twinkle, which presets the edit summary), so I'm raising it here. If there is a consensus to delete the image, I'll cease reverting. TJRC (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have my vote. I think its an appropriate use of the image. Trackinfo (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that IP editors originating in Asia continue to remove the image. I've added an explanatory comment not to remove. My position is that a single image, of either the most recent incident or the most prominent incident, for which a photograph is available, is appropriate for the section. TJRC (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT I'm afraid. I doubt that the IPs will read this, but here it is - "we show it warts and all".
If there are continued problems with the removal, drop me a note and I'll semi-protect the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Asiana Airlines/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good article, could easily be rated B class (or above) with proper referencing and a bit of a tidy-up. Wexcan 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Asiana Airlines. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asiana Airlines. 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) 16:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Many, many other airlines, including much smaller airlines than Asiana, feature their own fleet page. WHY NOT this???? SurferSquall (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. I find it unlikely that the fleet is specifically a notable topic independent of Asiana. Instead, those other fleet articles are there because the primary articles are too large to include intricate information about the airline's fleet. Since the article for Asiana is short, it can have a section dedicated to its fleet without being bloated. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user F4U,
I agree with your opinion. Such as Delta, the Singapore Airlines article is too large, and needed for separate articles. But this page isn't too large for need. Thank you for your kind and professional advice. KorFlyer88 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as a frequent viewer, I cannot still understand why the user, SurferSquall is messing with the page by keep adding the page. It is quite inconvenient to use. When I see that user's page, he/she is doing various of edit wars and vandalism. If I may, could you return to the previous version and block that user from unneeded edits? 1.242.84.212 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have seventeen warns and a year-long block on your talk page. How do I know you aren't KorFlyer on a different address? SurferSquall (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by others, the fleet page doesn't need. And as a viewer, it is quite inconvenient to see.
Refer to WP:WHENSPLIT, the only valid reasons for split are if the section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope. The number of words in this article is only 2011 words, per WP:SIZERULE, and total < 6000 words -> Length alone does not justify division.. even if it does get large, WP:HASTE states There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user User:Ckfasdf,
Thank you for your kind professional feedback. Since the article isn't too large, I thought splitting the article doesn't have a valid purpose.
Could you reverse the previous version? It will be very helpful.
Thank you. KorFlyer88 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Multiple editors have expressed their objection to the split (on this talk page, edit summary of this article and edit summary on Asiana Airlines fleet: Revision history. And refer to WP:STATUSQUO, the disputed point should not be changed during discussion (Status quo ante bellum), which is edit dated around April 2023 or before the undiscussed split happen. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate your contribution. If there's anything I can do in Wikipedia, please contact me at all times. KorFlyer88 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are several smaller airline articles that were split into separate pages. An administrator reverted your edits on this page previously because you did not receive a consensus. SurferSquall (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from multiple users, there's no reason to split basis on the policies.
Since the article is below 6,000 words, splitting is unnecessary. Please noted WP:WHENSPLIT, WP:SIZERULE.
Furthermore, I mentioned over again, like other users, splitting isn't needed and there are no connections of reverting from the administrator. I don't want to get involved in disruptive editing to get blocked.
Feedback from lots of pro users, remove to the previous version at once.
and Do Not reply of my feedback. Thank you. KorFlyer88 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot expect to make demands of somebody else and have them do it. There is no feedback from “lots of pro users” here. The administrator reverted the edit when you undid the split. Do not change it. SurferSquall (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The admin revert his edit due to edit warring, also the admin misses the version before edit warring. And your argument for split is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not quite compelling compared to WP:Guideline (in this case Wikipedia:Article size). Ckfasdf (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, on previous feedback, separating can be allowed if the article is too large, and over 6,000 words. But it doesn't match it. and mentioning the admin felt like an excuse, but it isn't matching with the policy.
Please check the split policy and change it at once.
I'll emphasize, DO NOT reply to my feedback, I don't want to get involved in your unexplained, unreasonable edit war. Thank you. KorFlyer88 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am replying to you because Wikipedia is a free website and you cannot stop me. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant here because the other airline articles that have been split into separate pages set a precedent for this. Wikipedia:Article size is irrelevant. SurferSquall (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is argument to avoid on discussion? Please read the title. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't quite follow your meaning. according to the policy and opinions from other users above, the split can be allowed when over 6,000 words.
Personally, it seems to be privatised. Since it is destructive, I won't reply. KorFlyer88 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The length of an article alone does not matter. Also, like with previous discussions, please learn proper English so that you make sense. SurferSquall (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since vandalism, depreciating of policy and other users, it seems to be reported of activities(incl. behaviour). Overall, I don't want to get involved in edit war offences. KorFlyer88 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple editors who object the split such as me, Freedom4U, KorFlyer88, VenFlyer98, and several IP editors. And yet, you still insist to make the split. I can't see how "split" is the consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Against splitting. The fleet section only includes tables and pictures. I do not think that is enough for a stand-alone article.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jetstramer,
It really helpful for this discussion. I'll also contribute continously, if is there anything to comment, it will also helpfu.
Thank you very much of your professionality. KorFlyer88 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asiana_Airlines&oldid=1205410923"