Jump to content

Talk:Aeroflot

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

Archived sources not used in the article

[edit]

--Jetstreamer Talk 00:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Aeroflot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 80 external links on Aeroflot. 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) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for aviation source

[edit]

Okay, MikleffCoolX and CBG17, the pair of you are flat-out edit warring, and I want you to come here right now and discuss your changes, otherwise you could both be facing a block so other editors can work on the article without tripping up over your reverts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side of MikleffCoolX for Ritchie333

[edit]

In my opinion CBG17 tries to show that he is right, by explaining that Aeroflot purchase of 6 Boeing 777-300er is just a memorandum of understanding, when I first mentioned the source from Russian cite ato.ru. Okay, I thought maybe he is right. But on same ato.ru, was posted the next post, that the airline already made a full contract and it has mentioned the date of first delivery of the ordered Boeings. CBG17 again deleted my changes (maybe he doesn't know Russian), explaining that it is just a date when the orders were officially made. Alas, I found and posted the news article in English and guess what... He deleted it once again, by explaining the same reason, where in my talk page he said that the order was made by the group. I am really fed up conflicting with this person, but I am standing on the side of truth, not vandalism and I perfectly know English and Russian. I will show all my sources that I have provided previously and then we will make a final decision. If i was not right, or the information is hidden by other various reasons, then I bring my apologies, maybe I did not understand something. Anyways, I trust your view. Sources: [1][2]

Check the Boeing website for these orders and there are none shown and when I researched the only 2 sources you have provided are the only reports and no one else has reported these orders not even the airline has made a statement about them if it was a firm order then it would have been reported by the airline and Boeing to confirm this so until Boeing or the airline has announced the orders then it is just a memorandum of understanding. Another example of this is with Iran Airs orders for Boeing. Also I did not write on your talk page that the order was made i said it was approved the the Aeroflot Group so stop making false claims. User talk:CBG17 19:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CBG17. This is not a firm order yet, so the aircraft should not be included as if they were ordered already.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that MikleffCoolX might be connected to the ato.ru website as a contributor. Mistersun (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true that I am a contributor to the ato.ru website. The question is closed. If you are not sure, you may contact the website itself to find more information. User:MikleffCoolX 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://centreforaviation.com/news/aeroflot-board-approves-plans-to-purchase-six-new-boeing-777-300er-aircraft-710015
  2. ^ http://www.ato.ru/content/aeroflot-utochnil-sroki-polucheniya-dopolnitelnyh-boeing-777?slink=frs&pos=4

Giving Aeroflot's fleet a new section

[edit]

I was wondering if we can create a new article named Aeroflot fleet. All of the data under Retired and History and Recent Developments will be exported to this article, while the Current fleet and the lead will remain in both articles. I would like Aeroflot to have a section devoted to its fleet that has the same format as Vietnam Airlines while an article more in-depth to the airliner's fleet like Singapore Airlines fleet. :) - Josephua (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan to also create a new article named History of Aeroflot, in which all the information under the History section would be exported under the article, leaving a summary of 5 paragraphs in the history section of the main article to shorten the article up. There will be see also templates under the section titles of the main article that will link to the newly-created articles. - Josephua (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre wording/sourcing in article intro

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure how to go about flagging this in the article, so I'm making a note for anyone interested here. In the intro, the sentence "Aeroflot was involved in numerous accidents and incidents during its operations compared to any other airline." is, well, somewhat nonsensical. Namely, there's a first half of a comparison missing. It is also not entirely clear where this information is to be found in the cited source. Vadim Galimov (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vadim Galimov: I agree that this wording is awkward and I cannot find this mention of accidents in the source used. It is also used in Aeroflot accidents and incidents to say that with Aeroflot, five times more deaths happened compared to any other airline which is not in that source however the number of deaths is actually in a Telegraph article later referenced in the lead which states that Aeroflot was one of the deadliest airlines (and explains why) and now is one of the safest, so both articles should have this reflected as they currently do not. You are welcome to make changes that you believe would improve the pages or suggest them. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

[edit]

Hi guys. Forgive me if I'm just being sensitive, but the opening *really* seems to me like NPOV favoring Aeroflot. It almost reads like one of those infomercials, if you know what I mean. The from its inception sounds to me like the opening of a positive/NPOV (not at all trying to say positive always means NPOV) - and if I'm reading it right, it does: Aeroflot was the flag carrier and a state-owned enterprise of the Soviet Union (USSR). During this time, Aeroflot grew its fleet to over five thousand domestically-made aircraft and expanded to operate a domestic and international flight network of over three thousand destinations throughout the Soviet Union and the globe, making the airline the largest in the world at the time. Again, I'm sorry if I'm being sensitive about this. Thanks, KinneticSlammer (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airspace bans

[edit]

Why are all destinations removed from this article? They are suspended due to international sanction but not to the wish of Aeroflot, as far as I know. The Banner talk 13:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrolyot and Aeroflot

[edit]

These are two different entities. Aeroflot was created by first merging Dobrolyot, which was a "volunteer" (whatever it meant at these times) society (Российское общество добровольного воздушного флота «Добролёт») and Главная инспекция гражданского воздушного флота, which was a governmental structure, into Main Directorate of Civil Air Fleet under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which was later got a short name Aeroflot. It was not a business in the modern sense. It was a state management entity. The whole this enwiki article is mixed and messed up. --Altenmann >talk 00:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious description

[edit]

Is it appropriate to include "The worst airline in the world " in the description ? I ask y'all to look further into this 2405:201:2009:A843:947D:EAA1:D124:50E0 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aeroflot&oldid=1265817359"