I see my changes from 'she' to 'it' in referring to Concorde have been reverted. I have two problems with the article as it now stands; firstly, I believe (and I think, though cannot now point to it, that there is a consensus for this here) that 'she', while correct in reference to ships, is not the recommended style for aircraft. The more fundamental problem though is that at the moment we have a mixture of (mostly) 'it' and a few instances of 'she'. I believe that on aesthetic grounds the former is preferable, but I believe far more strongly that one pronoun, not two, should be used in this article when referring to the subject. What do others think? --John 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(discussion copied from my talk page)

Concorde is 'she'

[1] WolfKeeper 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[2]WolfKeeper 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

BA's usage doesn't have to determine ours, however. --John 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fleet air arm: [3]WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please change it back.WolfKeeper 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither BA nor the FAA determines our use in Wikipedia though. Unfortunately I am damned if I can find the MoS where (I believe) it points out that ships (but not planes) are called 'she' on Wikipedia. What we cannot have is what we had before I made my edits, with about 75% 'it' and 25% 'she'. That looks poor. My preference is for 'it', but having a mixture of both is unacceptable.

Do you mind if I copy this to Talk:Concorde? Somebody there is likely to know. --John 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(end discussion copied from my talk page)

... or 'it' ...

We only use 'she' to describe individual examples, where we wish to imply some emotional connotation - "She's a beauty", "She's caused me nothing but trouble", "I served on her for two years", etc. In the dialect of my part of South Worcestershire (England), machines like these are customarily referred to as 'he', even cows: a farmer may say of a favoured cow, 'he's a good milker'. All this is just casual usage. Strict English grammar reserves 'he' and 'she' for male and female animals, and for nothing else. The term 'it' is correct in all other circumstances.

This contrasts with our very unusual use of 'Concorde' as opposed to 'the Concorde' or 'a Concorde', where we have elevated 'Concorde' to a familiar name like 'Alice' or 'Bob'.

I have here the book Concorde The Inside Story written by Brian Trubshaw, the B.Ae Concorde test pilot and a man very emotionally involved with Concorde. He refers to prototype 002, which he flew on her first flight, as "her" (Page x). He refers to Concorde as a whole as "it" (page xiii).

HTH -- Steelpillow 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable summary of usage. However, while it may well be appropriate for Trubshaw to refer to a particular Concorde aircraft as 'her' and the programme as a whole as 'it', it does not follow in my opinion that Wikipedia needs to follow that usage. --John 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that because of the way people (particularly the English and French) see Concorde with some emotional attachment (and pride) it is also talked about as if their was only one Concorde. It would not seem wrong to call a Concorde she because in the mind of most people it is a singular artifact. This agrees with the statement above We only use 'she' to describe individual examples, where we wish to imply some emotional connotation MilborneOne 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to take this to a more central forum to generate a wider consensus. I am fairly certain that here on Wikipedia the convention is to use 'she' for ships and 'it' for aircraft, but I cannot find where I got that from. --John 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with it for aircraft but remember that Concorde is not an aircraft it is a friend! MilborneOne 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 3 conventions stated in the article that certain editors have placed that the wish others to follow:

1. British spelling, such as tyre
2. Absence of the article
3. Use of she rather than it

The spelling onvention is totally correct, and supported by both Wikipedia guidelines and multiple external sources. The other two apear to be totally unsupported by the reliable sources and verifiability Wikipedia is built on.- BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong; we have lots and lots and lots of British authored references all of which have the absence of the article (including the usage on the BBC website), and many of them are referenced from here. Another example I have here 'Backroom boys' by Francis Spufford, he has simply 'Concorde' about four times every page, and *never* has 'the Concorde'.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I know nothing about the French language, it would not surprise me if these last two conventions have their root in grammar rules. However, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we should follow English grammar rules of the appropriate region. Even ship articles tend use it to a large degree, even though she is permissible in certain circumstances. Given the way certain non-Americans fioght against the PROPER use of US spelling or grammer on AMerican-related articles, I have no doubt that if this were a US plane, such deviations would NOT be permitted, say, in the article on SR-71, as she has a status in the US similar to that of THE Concorde (military/civil aside) in France and Britain.- BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrugs, that's pure speculation on your part, and hence doesn't support your claim one way or another; and even if it did, it's still irrelevant if other parts of the wikipedia aren't following the wikipedia's guidelines. And actually the fact that you have to speculate suggests that you have nothing to back you up.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think it appropriate to re-visit the concensus at this time, and I will abide by whatever is decided. - BillCJ 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two were beaten to death and the more we looked into it, the clearer the evidence became, the she/it is only marginally more arguable, but I have added it, because the convention used by the only British owners of Concorde is entirely self-evident.WolfKeeper 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can find evidence that the male owners of high-performance cars call them "she", but I wouldn't recommend changing the pronouns in the articles either. I also don't think that pilots calling their aircraft "she" is unique to the Concorde. Why are we making gramatical exeptions here? This is an encyclopedia, not a love letter to a very-exceptional aircraft! I have no problem, however, adding a sourced item to the article in an appropriate place noting that the British owners called it "she". - BillCJ 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We have WP:RS evidence in the form of the published usage on websites and in books that have been subject to editorial control that this is the correct usage for this particular aircraft.WolfKeeper 07:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender of aircraft ships and cars etc

Also check out this video: [4]. That's Raymond Baxter referring to Concorde as her as she took off for the first time, and very nearly every mention is simply 'Concorde', not 'the Concorde'. They also refer to Concorde as 'She bought cities together' which is clearly talking about all Concorde.WolfKeeper 07:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also have books subject to editorial control that user the pronoun "it", and uses "the" intermittently. I'm not arguing that your usage is not used, just that it's not appropriate for an objective encyclopedia. Oh, and I assume he didn't actually say "bought", or are we now going to have to start using that spelling here too? ;) (Totally in jest!) - BillCJ 08:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find cases where people have used 'the Concorde' in some places or throughout, but the better the source is on Concorde the more likely they are to use simply 'Concorde', and to refer to the aircraft as 'she'. I think the wikipedia is supposed to accurately reflect a subject, not impose its own standards on it, for example, with weights and measures it's really bad form to change a measurement from ft to metres if the original was in ft (although we do permit conversions to be added for convenience). The other thing is that, ultimately, English follows usage, not the other way around, and this really does appear to be the usage.WolfKeeper 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with WolfKeeper on all of this. If BillCJ has references which back up the opposite case, let's see them so we can balance them against the references we have provided. I do think the burden is on BillCJ to provide a convincing case, and not just the speculation and unreferenced allegations we have at the moment. -- Steelpillow 10:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

However, on visiting the recent history, I see that WolfKeeper has changed many general references to Concorde-as-a-whole from 'it' to 'she'. I do disagree here - 'she' should be reserved only for references to individual aircraft (and even then there may be times when it is not appropriate). I believe that the references provided above by WolfKeeper and myself both back this up. -- Steelpillow 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You would expect that the collective would not be 'she' however the references do actually seem to support that usage, and particularly notably all the BA stuff I've found does.WolfKeeper 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on terminology was part of an earlier archived section. A consensus was arrived that corresponded to usage determined in the United Kingdom and France, the primary operators of the type. In brief, the aircraft is referred to as "Concorde" and identified in the ship/aircraft convention as "she" both of which are unconventional but accepted protocols as Concorde represents a significant iconic example. BTW, using the same logic that Steelpillow has employed, it is contingent on him to FIRST provide corroboration for the campaign he has launched to recategorise Concorde as "tailless" (along with numerous other aircraft which have been the source of contention in the individual articles as well as the project group's discussion page). Bzuk 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. As I said somewhere before, I have to get my books out of storage. It may take a few days.... P.S. I'm not advocating 're'categorising Concorde and the others, just adding an extra category. -- Steelpillow 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Males call them female and femails call them male, dont ask for a reference as that is that the way that it is, unless the name of the craft has a definate gender due to its name EG. the Queen Elizabeth cruse liner is female and is never male, but other crafts often change sex to the oposit of the driver / piolet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.89.161 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to add a comment about the proposed use by the RAF of Concorde as a bomber, first seen at the Farnborough Air Show 1968 Magazine. Where should this comment be placed within the Wikipedia article on the Concorde aircraft? Acb58 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nowhere, unless we can establish that it is verifiable and we can decide it belongs in the article. Neither is obvious to me at the moment. --Guinnog 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This note is interesting in that it is the only reference I've ever seen that collaborates information I was told in 1981 by a senior British diplomat. He stated that the US Government paid off all development costs of the Concorde in return for stopping production of the aircraft. The reason given was to stop the aircraft from falling into the hands of third party nations and conversion to a bomber. Trevor Heath, January 1st 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorHeath (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Most aviation lovers would know that concorde is clearly a marvel of engineering that took more than thounsands of aviation designers just to make the blue prints of it. This supersonic jet was fabricated by Britian and france, also it was the only airliner in the 20th century capable of reaching twice the speed of sound. However, sadly this aircraft retired because of the terrible crash that happened by Air France that claim the lives of 128 passengers. Many airline companies who owned concordes made numers of modification to assure the safety of their future passengers. For instance, the new concorde tires were capable of withstanding twice the pressure of its coventional tires. Also the wings were padded with bullet proof materials to prevent any penetration. But, even with all these improvements concorde lost its pride because of the low fuel efficiency of this great bird. Nonetheless, we can see the concorde on display in frech or english airports or in certain aviation museums.

Actually no, the Soviets had one as well as is discussed on these pages - the Tu-144. There were only two airlines that owned Concordes - Air France and British Airways. Concorde was retired because it was, according to both airlines, no longer profitable. AJKGordon 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore airliner had one as well. Plus, the fact that Concorde retired because it was not profitable is debatable.

Actually, no, Singapore Airlines never had a Concorde. They might have painted one up as a promotion or something but, as I said above, only Air France and British Airways ever owned and commercially operated Concorde. AJKGORDON«» 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• In another website I read a very interesting article on Concorde that said that it was not retired because it was not profitable, but because it was more profitable to fly passengers on B747s and B777s.

I feel I should get closure on this as I started the above discussion. Various editors have made changes that describe the lack of the article (i.e. no "the") and use "it" rather than "she". To my eyes this seems to work well. Any dissent or are we all happy? ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 10:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this. I'm happy with whatever other encyclopedias use, but AFAIC references to gender are emotive and as such, have no place in an encyclopedia. As for 'the', whatever is the cultural norm in the UK. Daytona2 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

>>Because of Concorde's visit in 1985, Continental Airlines added Cleveland-London service in 1999 and Cleveland-Paris in 2008<< 2008 ? Gregpalmerx 09:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just needs a citation. It's not suggesting that Continental introduced a Concorde service if that's how you read it... Perhaps a slight tweak of the text. ᴀᴊᴋɢᴏʀᴅᴏɴ«» 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The 2008 date looks suspicious. Both years are well after 1985 also. -Fnlayson 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've removed that before as vandalism, but I didn't check the edit history to be sure. Just remove it as vandalism this time, as it is definetely suspicious and dubious. - BillCJ 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I just removed it. Very dubious. -Fnlayson 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that before, but I googled it, it actually seemed legitimate(!)WolfKeeper 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, it didn't seem unreasonable at first either. -Fnlayson 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an example of a poorly written edit; I don't think it was vandalism. FWIW Bzuk 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, but without a verifiable source, we couldn't use it anyway. Anyway, I sincerely doubt anyone could prove that a Concorde visit caused a direct route to open 23 years later!! I would bet there are other US locations with recently-opened direct routes to London or Paris that never had a visit by THE Concorde. - BillCJ 09:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement was nebulous and unattributed so that was why I classified it as "bad writing" but not necessarily "vandalism." Nevertheless, the deletion of the submission is fine as it was also mainly trivial in retrospect. FWIW Bzuk 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) .

I have added both and changed the phrasing a bit. Many people do not know what a tyre is so I added tired in parenthesis beside it for clarification. I also added structural to the shockwave as it was a structural shockewave that caused the damage. There are other types of shockwaves such as sound, etc.. I would also like to remind people that Concorde was French as much as it was British. That isn't relevant to the English version of the article as there is a French version, but it along with the lack of a pointer to spelling guidelines for British versus other English spellings is causing trouble here. Could somebody please find the guideline referring to British spelling about British things and link it here so as to defuse some of this. Also, please leave tire alone, they should both be there for clarification since tyre is again, so unknown outside of GB by normal people. Please talk instead of reverting also, I originally reverted because I thought the comment ( ) added was visible in the article and was a mistake. I was busy rewriting the phrases to add back tyre with tire when it was reverted which was OK at first since I was rewriting but then reverted again which is not appropriate IMO. In fact, I see that they reverted again as I am trying to write this which is totally wrong. I believe a call should be made for an administrator to help make the article work for everybody. UB65 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Please read Wikipedia:Mos#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic and stop making these kinds of changes. If you really feel strongly that people won't know what a tyre is, adding a wikilink to tire might be acceptable, but the text in the article is British English and since we're following MOS so it's going to stay that way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be a bit less sarcastic please and actually read what I wrote before sounding off. BillJC already fixed it. UB65 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate you aggravating this situation User:Wolfkeeper. What you wrote on my personal talk page was inappropriate. UB65 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for absolute nothing, and I would do the same again, every time. I really don't appreciate you vandalising the article in this way. BillCJ's being way too easy on you, you repeatedly reverted without an edit summary, you failed to respond on the talk page, you removed comments in the article saying that you shouldn't make the changes you did, you insisted on adding American spelling that was inappropriate, I started off with a helpful comment on your talk page, which you ignored... I could go on.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not vandalize this page and you are aggravating the situation. It has been solved. I was busy trying to write on this article's talk page and did not see your comments on my personal talk page until later. You are not helping this situation at all. You also are making unfounded accusations. Please stop.

I just don't buy this in any way.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please also read: Wikipedia:Mos#Opportunities_for_commonality as this is what I was trying to do. UB65 (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no you weren't, and any trivial look at your edits shows this.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These accusations are not true, I am not a vandal and I have tried to explain what I was trying to do. Please stop making accusations and such. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. UB65 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being contentious in my edit summary. I honestly thought "tyre" was wiki-linked elsewehre in the article, but upon checking, I saw that it wasn't. I'm glad to see that the current wikilink to "tyre" to the tire page is acceptable.- BillCJ (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize too Bill. I thought I was being ganged up on and I was just trying to fix the problem. I wish I had thought of your solution myself as it would have averted all of this. UB65 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you might find that referring to English speakers outside the UK as "normal people" might raise a few hackles! AJKGORDON«» 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure this is NOT the place to discuss it but why is anyone using a British spelling for anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/ which is an American web site that uses American English. If a few British users can not put up with American spellings then those British users should request a separate sub-domain such as http://uk.wikipedia.com/. Please feel free to flame me on my user talk page or enlighten me as to where I should be discussing this. Donkdonk (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is the English language wikipedia. Go to WP:ENGVAR and discuss on the talk page there. Also WP:SPELLING -Fnlayson (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an extract from the template concerning such matters: "...you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles. For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style." ... richi (hello) 23:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article says (uncited) that after the Paris accident Concorde's record was '12.5 deaths per million flights'. That implies that it had flown about 8 million flights, which is impossible (e.g. 8 flights a day for 2700 years. Should it be "... per million passenger flights" (dividing by the number of passengers per flight, gives say, 100 passengers on 8 flights a day for 27 years, which sounds roughly right to me.) Does 'per million flights' in this context usually mean per million passenger flights? To this lay reader it implies simply the number of times it made a trip. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also saw this independently. With 14 aircraft each flying a daily roundtrip, that's 28 trips per day. Pe year, that 10,000 flights; per decade, 100,000.

Therefore, over 25 or so years, Concorde flew around 250,000 flights. 125 people died. Therefore, the death rate is around 500 people per million flights. I have edited the article to match this easily verified fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangles1 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://airsafe.com/journal/issue14.htm as it contains an explanation for the 12.5/million rating. UB65 (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have altered the Wiki article to reflect "12.5 fatal EVENTS per million flights." Of course, the 12.5 events would involve over 1,000 human deaths. I find it to be an odd safety metric, but at least we have a somewhat reasonable conclusion now. The 12.5 "deaths" per million figure was a mis-application of the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangles1 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading that during certain episodes of the cold war Concorde was used as a high-speed courier service when people and documents had to travel between Washington and London as fast as possible, and that, when this was done, the White House or 10 Downing St. would give orders to allow supersonic flight over land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.88.112 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like fiction from a good novel - no reason why the normal British Airways scheduled tranatlantic service could not have been used and the use of supersonic flight over land would not achieved anything as most of the flight was over water where supersonic flight was allowed. If it really was that important the military would have resources of their own to use. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the section titled "Environmental impact" a lady by the name of "Carol Vendi" is mentioned as helping fuel the anti-noise pollution movement in the United States with regards to Concorde and, as a result, being elected to the US Congress.

However, a search of the internet for "Carol Vendi" yields that the only references to this person happen to be in this article (or copies of it). Furthermore, no trace of her was found when her name was searched for her at the websites for the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the US Government's Congressional Biographical Directory which has a biography for every US Congress member since 1774.

Therefore, given the apparent non-existence of Ms. Vendi I took the liberty of removing references to her altogether. If the name was misspelt then perhaps somebody can reinsert the correct name.

Cheers, André Sihera (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The French grammar element "le", the definite article, is used simply to distinguish a proper name from a common noun (typically countable) of the same spelling. This occurs in a good number of proper names for geographic locations, artistic works, historical events, and vehicle names (particularly boats or aeroplanes, of which Concorde is just one).

A book entitled "Le Bon Usage: Grammaire Française" (tran. "Good Usage: French Grammar") Maurice Grevisse, 13th Edition, p722 (§465) cites that the practice of using "le" specifically with boat and aircraft names was first suggested by two French government ministers (François Piètri, Military Navy, 13 August 1954, and Raymond Schmittlein, Merchant Navy, 22 March 1955) who both proposed independently that the names of boat classes (e.g. frigates, destroyers, etc.) be prefixed with the definite article "le" as part of their name. This practice for boats was informally extended to aeroplanes more through lay usage than through governmental backing and this concept is extended to Concorde as it is viewed as an aircraft class as opposed to a single, unique design.

Hence, in French, "le Concorde" is used to differentiate the aircraft class proper name from "(une) concorde" (with or without the indefinite article, "une", and a small "c") which refers to a political agreement or peace arrangement between two parties. In this case the definite article "le" has no other special or singular significance other than that originally assigned to it within French grammar (e.g. it does not mean that there is "only one" Concorde).

Having found a french dictionary explanation of the usage of "le" in French proper names that specifically cites "le Concorde", I translated the salient points and updated the article accordingly. I also added, as a reference, a link to the original French dictionary explanation as I couldn't find an English reference.

Cheers, André Sihera (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit, the use of just "Concorde" is totally natural to me. However, I can understand how it would look very odd to other users of the English language. While this article may be about a British (and French) aircraft, it doesn't mean that this article is any more British than any other and imposing strict provincial customs to the language we use seems rather over-zealous and exclusive. My suggestion is this. After the Table of Contents have an Etymology section on the usage of the word Concorde and why the "the" is missing. This would explain a lot of things to our friends across the Atlantic and elsewhere while retaining the correct customary usage of the word. It would be common courtesy, something that sometimes seems to be lacking in these discussion. AJKGordon 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• A Etymology section would be a good addition. Although, I'd prefer it near the bottom of the article. -Fnlayson 23:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The custom seems to be for it to appear at the beginning of the article. It would also help readers to accept the odd omission of "the" before they read the rest and are tempted to edit it back in. AJKGordon 23:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware that Etymology sections are typically at the top. However this is not going to explain the origin of "Concorde". I guess putting it at the top would be helpful and not look too out of place. A couple sentences at the bottom of the Lead might be enough. -Fnlayson 23:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very reasonable suggestion and I would support its inclusion as an introductory section because this is where readers first start to read the article. As this explanation of the use of "Concorde" is only found in the invisible tag, readers presently do not have a ready reference to the etymology and use of the aircraft name. FWIW Bzuk 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

I like the idea, but it might be a bit clumsy, impact readability. Come to think of it, it's a bit surprising there isn't a tag to warn people that a particular article is written in colloquial english, and perhaps a small section at the end to explain the conventions used.WolfKeeper 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bzuk, AJKGordon’s proposal is a fine one. However, I believe that rather than have an etymology in the introduction, that there be single sentence in the intro (possibly parenthetical) noting the novel convention for referring to [the] Concorde. Any exposition on its etymological evolution should be reserved for the main body (and that could very well be at the bottom of the article – or anywhere else that makes good and fitting sense).

As for the use of “she” vs. “it”, the dominant usage should certainly be “it” (although more creative ways to get around heavy repetition of “it” would be commendable). Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, which calls for a formal, not colloquial, style. Although I don’t think complete neutering is absolutely necessary, it is probably best restricted to quotations. While individual aircraft do often get called “she” in the West, this is not as ingrained as with nautical usage – and it should be kept in mind that the masculine pronoun is used for ships in some cultures (e.g., Russian). Askari Mark (Talk) 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That would sort of be OR- the references use she, and not just for the individual aircraft, they talk about collective Concordes as she.WolfKeeper 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark makes very valid points and I have not seen a collective "she" ever, although I will bow to proper referencing on that point. I also agree with others that a simple explanation in the first section explaining the derivation or etymology of terminology can be the simplest solution. The tag looks positively obtrusive (read:UGGGly) and does not lend to an easy solution to the issue. This is an iconic aircraft that has an unconventional nomenclature, the tag should be left for some other issue. FWIW Bzuk 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC).

Since the "she" usage is rather occasional, I'm not clear how it would be awkward. In any case, I did not suggest changing quotes but rather keeping them as written – that's straight from the MOS. I've never seen a collective "she" either and it would be unnatural English given that it is a singular pronoun. The reason I don't think "100% neutering" is absolutely necessary outside of quotes is that there might be a textual construction following the quoted material where the "she" reference makes perfect sense. My point was that it should be used sparingly, if at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bill and Mark here. It is not about using UK spelling, or even UK English, it is about balancing our stylistic clarity as an encyclopedia against using correct terminology for the subject. To make an analogy, I am sure we could find a video of Jeremy Clarkson referring to a particular car as 'she'; but we could not extrapolate from that to changing that car's article to use 'she'. We might, however, present a brief terminology section if it can be referenced, to point out that certain sources use 'she' to describe this aircraft. The article itself, I maintain, should use 'it'. --John 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say, as I said in the previous section, it comes down to reliable sources. Jeremy Clarkson wouldn't really be a reliable source, whereas British Airways and the video of Raymond Baxter referring to Concorde as 'she' (AFAIK working for the BBC when he did it) probably does count as reliable to some degree. I haven't got hold of any of the books written by pilots lately to check what they wrote,^[1] but they would also be reliable for this I suppose (having been published, and presumably having gone through an editorial process).WolfKeeper 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The other way to go would just be to replace all the her's and she with Concorde, but it would be a bit repetitive, I'm not at all keen.WolfKeeper 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's a danger that this discussion will revert back to the style of previous ones where we'll get hung up on the personal preferences of editors for "she" or "it". So can we please concentrate on one thing at a time. (I will state from the outset that I am a fairly neutral observer in all of this with no expertise on the subject, only interest.)

Firstly, the question of why the word Concorde takes no article. It seems there is general consensus that this needs explaining due to the obvious jarring to non-Brit or non-Commonwealth English speakers. It should be covered in some form at the beginning of the article - either in a brief sentence or two in the introduction or in an etymology section directly after the ToC. Would somebody like to do this please? (I would if I knew the reasons why but I don't!) I would suggest something like:

• It has become customary in British English that the word Concorde does not take the definite or indefinite article when describing the aircraft as a class. "I flew on Concorde" or "Concorde flies at Mach 2" rather than "I flew on a Concorde" or "The Concorde flies at Mach 2" as would be common with other aircraft types. This is due to blah blah blah and is similar to the use of the word example. (This link might be useful). As the aircraft is British-French, this convention is used in the article."

Secondly, the use of "she" rather than "it". It seems that use of the word "she" for Concorde is not general convention but rather the preference of people closely associated with the aircraft such as pilots or marketing people at BA. Reading through this article from the BBC, they use "it". Even Bannister uses "it" in this BBC site talking about Concorde. As it appears to be a personal preference I suggest we use encyclopaedic language and stick with "it". If, however, we decide to use "she" then this should be explained in an etymology section along with the lack of an article and even perhaps why there is an "e" on the end of the word! AJKGordon 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No he does use 'her' in the visor description; although he also talks about 'its movable nose and visor system', arguably the it is the system (probably not but I think he messed it up) but he also says: 'streamlining Concorde to enable 'her to go much faster'. I didn't notice any other references to it or her though anywhere.WolfKeeper —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - so its 50:50 from BA's chief Concorde pilot and "it" exclusively in the first four latest news articles (1, 2, 3, and 4) listed on the special BBC Concorde site. Seems pretty conclusive that "her" is, while not unusual, a personal preference by some people some of the time and perhaps isn't the language that an encyclopaedia should be using in this article. AJKGordon 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say that Bannister just messed it up, but my case is that the Airline, the manufacturers, the pilots, and the museums all refer to Concorde predominately as her.

I mean, check out this classic movie by the manufacturers BAC, SNECMA etc. etc., called 'She Flies'!!![5], they use 'she' or 'her' throughout; and even the title is significant, they didn't have to call it that!WolfKeeper 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if they're not a reliable source about terminology about their own plane, who on Earth is?WolfKeeper 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reliable sources on English grammar usage are generally English grammar refernces and style manuals, not corporate and personal communications. English grammar refernces and style manuals what Wikipedia tries to follow, as it uses formal, not colloquial ussage. If a general British English grammar guide can be cited, not one industry-related, then you would have a much stronger case here. - BillCJ 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the whole line of discussion is moot as the archived consensus-driven decision is already made- "Concorde" is the prescribed terminology and "she" used to refer to the type (although used infrequently). The orginal request was for the inclusion of a disclaimer note and that should be the topic of the continuing discourse. I do detect a bit of manners creep, and would suggest that all parties remember to keep "cool," and not in the global warming sense... [:¬∆ FWIW Bzuk 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

We're reviewing the consensus here, BillZ. That's an acceptable alternative to an ongoing edit war, a la the F-22/Typhoon war. - BillCJ 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manners creep? Can't see it myself. Looks pretty cool to me. But yes, the suggestion was originally about putting in a line or two about the zero article. Seems that the consensus is that there should be just that nobody's volunteered yet!

Beautiful video, Wolfkeeper, thank you! But it's hardly contemporary and, as BillCJ says, it's commercial so probably not as reliable a source as, say, the BBC which in my very limited research prefers to use "it" today. And without wishing to be rude, your assertion that "Bannister just messed it up" is just that - an assertion :) AJKGordon 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about floating the explanation in a box under the introductory picture, something like this:

-- Steelpillow 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is more of what I was thinking we could use:

The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde is an iconic aircraft which has acquired a unique nomenclature. In common useage, the type is known as "Concorde" and this Anglo/French convention is used throughout the article. See:<|ref> British Airways tribute to Concorde and BBC concorde page<|/ref> Another variant, but I would not endorse the "floating" window example for many reasons, chiefly, it is wordy and obtrusive. FWIW Bzuk 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Looks good, Bzuk. You want to put it in? AJKGordon 08:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I just clarify that it is correct to use a construction such as "The Concorde supersonic aircraft....". In this case the "The" corresponds with "aircraft" and "Concorde" and "supersonic" are qualifying adjectives. GraemeLeggett 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We do already have some text on this in article under Concorde#Public perception (for want of a better place to put it.)WolfKeeper 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But it really hasn’t “acquired a unique nomenclature” – it’s simply a convention of British English, right? How about a simple parenthetical note like “(This article follows the usage of British English, which simply uses “Concorde” without a preceding article like “a” or “the”.)” Askari Mark (Talk) 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not the usual convention for aircraft. That is the whole point of the discussion. --- Steelpillow —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I frankly believe this is all making a mountain out of a molehill. All this talk of "iconic" and "etymology sections" and what-not is rather beside the point IMHO. The only reason for all of this should be to head off American editors who are ignorant of British conventions from constantly (re)adding the articles; my suggested sentence covers that. Non-editor American readers might think the "missing" definite or indefinite article odd, but it wouldn't make it unintelligible for them (the way slang can). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Askari Mark, I think you're missing several points. Firstly, it is already a mountain out of a molehill. I'm just trying to find a simple and effective way of describing what is an unusual form of grammar regarding an iconic aircraft but only used by some English speakers. As such it is worthy of our limited attention. Secondly, while your sentence is great, I don't believe it goes far enough in explaining why it is only Concorde that uses this nomenclature nor will it dissuade non-Brits from editing the article back in if they simply feel it's wrong. While the inclusion or absence of the article is of little real important in the grand scheme of things, it is illustrative of how Concorde is viewed in the UK and its iconic status there and therefore deserves something a little less perfunctory.

But, as you hinted, perhaps enough talk and waffle. I'll give it a shot. :) AJKGordon 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the lead should state what Concorde is before getting into usage of 'she' and omission of 'the'. Adding another sentence for that to what is already there will be fine, imo. -Fnlayson 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. AJKGordon 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

These are two spearate issues, though. Omission of 'the' I am fine with. Use of 'she' I am less keen on. As an encyclopedia article about an aeroplane (however 'iconic'), I believe we should use 'it', except of course in direct quotes. --John 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, for this sentence in the Lead:

In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as "Concorde" rather than "the Concorde" or "a Concorde".

the references BBC Concorde page and British Airways tribute are both general pages on Concorde. Anybody know the specific pages on those sites to cover the no article usage? A search on British Airways' site find the phrase "the Concorde" several times and none seem to support the sentence above. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those usages are relatively uncommon there, and don't seem to follow any pattern, although one thing is that it's evidently perfectly OK to say 'the Concorde SST' or 'the Concorde's landing lights', and quite frankly sometimes people seem to just mess it up, but mostly not. I bet the BBC have a written guideline about it though, if somebody could check that would be helpful. Note also that it's a 'common usage' not an absolute hard rule carved in stone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I looked and couldn't find a specific BA page on for this. The phrase "the Concorde" was/is the best search criteria I have. More specific reference links are needed to be of help... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BA themselves could be inconsistent on this issue. I uploaded the menu from my Concorde flight in 2003 as part of my trip report, and it's interesting that on the first page (headed "The Ultimate Experience") the menu says "the Concorde" but on the third page (headed "Wine List") the menu says "Concorde." Here's the link; to view a page, click on it, and then use the back button to return to the thumbnails. BA001 menu, 7 September 2003 1995hoo (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to be consistent about not using the article, should it not begin "Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde was", as opposed to "The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde"? Rphilipp (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. It used to read 'The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde supersonic transport' and 'the' was correct then.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde it is not the same as The Concorde if you wanted to change it then it would be Concorde was ... or I suggest just leave it alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat arguable, but I think it is actually wrong.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a google on "Aérospatiale BAC Concorde" none of the hits had 'the' in front except the wikipedia (which is not considered a reliable source!): [6]- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is something that I know but can't source online, except through inference from statements in non-reputable forums. Concorde's LHR-JFK routing was not the usual Great Circle passing near Iceland and Greenland: the faster route from Heathrow was out to the Bristol Channel, then accelerating through Mach 1 somewhere south of Ireland, to avoid sonic boom over land. I've seen the maps and lived in Reading where Concorde was the only flight to pass over, all other transatlantic traffic having turned north, so I've pretty sure of my ground.

Please can anyone find a reference for this and add it? We already have the routing south of Florida on a much less travelled (Mexico city) route, and it's another interesting implication of Concorde's unusual characteristics. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Try searching the forum at ConcordeSST.com. I believe the poster named Project Oxcart has posted a map showing the SST tracks (although it may have been under his prior username Bone Driver). I should note that he tends to make a lot of typos, but his information is pretty accurate. 1995hoo (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 1955hoo. I've had a poke around that site with no success - again, one can see many passing references to the Bristol Channel route, but nothing directly on why it was used. I'll keep searching. It may, ultimately, come to picking up one of those old-fashioned book things, I guess. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was a Concorde Flight Engineer with BA (that's my source). We flew subsonic from Heathrow to our acceleration point at Mach 0.95. The acceleration point did vary a little bit dependent upon atmospheric conditions, but was generally in the Bristol Channel at about 3½ degrees West or so (Southern Ireland doesn't start until about 6 degrees west). We counted down the miles to go using our INS, and at that point the pilot handling selected maximum throttle and called for the Flight Engineer to bring in the reheats in pair. From the acceleration point to Mach 1 took seconds.  :} Concorde001 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad that someone agrees on this. Do you happen to have a reference to show this routing, so we can add it to the article? Maybe a flight ops manual of some sort? (Sorry, I'm not an expert on the terminology). TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is what you're looking for: See this thread on the ConcordeSST forum and note Project Oxcart's first post with the links. The Photobucket link is what you want. You'd have to ask him about the rights to the image, however (he got it from someone on af001.com, but I don't speak French so I can't go over there and ask about it). 1995hoo (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just removed a lot of the external links as they do not appear to add any value. Apology if I have removed anything useful but the sample I looked at did not meet the criteria of WP:EL particular as it was looking like a link farm. External Links should add value to the article no just a long list of concorde connected links. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note [25] refers to the "Museum of Air and Space, Le Bourget, France". It should read "British prototype G-BSST (002), Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton, UK" because that's the photo it's linked to.

The photo is entrely relevant to the main text (about the visor), it's simply the Note that refers to the wrong museum.

I could not see how to edit this. HiTek213 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is fixed now. Added the page the image comes from too. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The infobox at the beginning of the article lists all four airlines that operated Concorde under the category "Primary users." It seems to me to be somewhat misleading to list Braniff and Singapore here because their Concorde operations were on such a smaller scale than BA's and Air France's as to be not even remotely comparable. There's a section further down the article that lists "Operators" (in which Braniff are left out for whatever reason) and it seems to me that it would be more reasonable to list all four airlines under "Operators" but to list only BA and Air France under "Primary users" in the introduction because "primary" implies that it refers to the airlines that made the most use of Concorde, without excluding the possibility that there were others, whereas "Operators" implies a more complete list.

Anyone have any thoughts? 1995hoo (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Braniff and Singapore operations was shortlived doesnt make them so un important they cant be in the infobox (that would be against NPOV). As Braniff operated both British Airways and Air France Concordes they were probably the biggest operator of Concorde! if you count the number of aircraft operated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if your point controls, then the infobox should just say "Operators" because there were only the four operators. I don't believe I argued that the Braniff and Singapore operations were unimportant, but I think it's unrealistic to contend that, where there were only four airlines operating Concorde, and where BA and Air France clearly and indisputably ran far more extensive Concorde operations than these other two carriers, the Braniff and Singapore operations were of a level of importance comparable to the BA and AF operations (especially when Braniff, in particular, were required by BA's insurance carriers to have BA captains and flight engineers present as observers). I don't see how there's an NPOV violation at all by deleting them, but perhaps the solution is to dump the wording "Primary users" (unless it's some sort of fixed template that can't be changed). 1995hoo (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Primary users" is fixed in the template, so it can't be changed on an individual article basis. Beware of placing too much weight on words in the infoboxes. The Aircraft infobox is used on thousands of articles, and some aircraft have dozens of operators. "Primary" is there to indicate that these 4 operators (the infobox limit by consensus) are more important than the others listed. In cases with only 4 users, or less, then naturally all the users will be listed. It's not meant to be a statement on their relative importance in such cases, just a list. - BillCJ (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Braniff Intl. & Singapore Airlines are listed after British Airways & Air France because they are less important. Should we put them in small font as well? It's just a list. Not an end all, be all thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the People Have Spoken. This is why I raised it here rather than going ahead and revising the article. I'll go take a look at the article and revise the "Operators" section if it hasn't already been done. 1995hoo (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I strongly agree with you. Which companies owned aircraft? If we are going to include short term leases then there are countless charter companies we can claim were operators. Hell, even Tony Blair is an operator according to that definition. Where there is an extensive list of companies that made extensive use of an aircraft it makes sense to list only the biggest ones in the infobox. Where there aren't that many it doesn't mean that we should artificially pad out the list with minor footnotes given equal status: that is misleading through undue emphasis. Indeed, in the case of Concorde it is significant that there were only two operators: the fact that no planes were sold over and above those ordered for each government's flag carrier show Concorde as a technical marvel but ultimately a commercial flop. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Singapore and Braniff operated Concorde flights for over a year each, so how short term disqualifies a user, one week, one month, one year, five years. Concordes were registered in the United States to allow Braniff to operate them and one Concorde was painted on one-side with Singapore markings not in the same league as week charter for Tony Blair. Also as BillCJ has stated above no reason why the entries in the Concorde infobox should be treated any different to other aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a chanche that a comparable aircraft or even the Concorde itself will operate passenger flights again within the next 30 years? Dagadt (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible because France and Japan started to work on new supersonic jet ('Son of Concord') that is expected to be in operation by 2015 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.190.155 (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to support the statement that in Britain concorde is regarded as British, and in France regarded as French. As an aside ive never met anyone who expressed an opinion about concorde that didnt realise it was a joint Anglo-French project. I was going to add a citation needed, noticed it already had one, and noticed it doesnt back up this assertion ( nor does it relate to concorde in any way ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.215.104 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be so - but only by the ignorant. No-one in aviation going back the past thirty-or-forty years or-so has any doubt about Concorde being an Anglo-French project. There was enough about it being-so in the news back then. I was in primary school in 1969 and even I knew it was a joint British/French aircraft. It was on telly often enough, usually with Raymond Baxter commentating.

The United States cancelled its supersonic transport (SST) programme in 1971. Two designs had been submitted; the Lockheed L-2000, looking like a scaled-up Concorde, lost out to the Boeing 2707, which was intended to be faster, to carry 300 passengers and feature a swing-wing design. Other countries, such as India and Malaysia, ruled out Concorde supersonic overflights due to noise concerns.[11] The web site on concord history makes no mention of the L-2000 loooking like a scaled up concord. This is POV and I suggest that it be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with POV it is not mentioned because it isnt that relevant, both the L-2000 and the Boeing 2707 (not swing-wing) looked similar to Concorde it is what happened when you design a supersonic aircraft in the 1960s from the same principles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find out the name of the Captain and all the crew who flew Concord 214 (G-BOAG)from London Heathrow to LIsbon in Portugal on December 4th 1990. This was a special charter flight for OKI the Japanese Printer Company who flew all its UK Dealers on that flight to a dealer conference. If anyone can help I would be grateful. answers to marlin1143@sky.com 90.208.194.48 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to look for that sort of information. Try posting your query on the forum at ConcordeSST.com. That flight was long enough ago that you may not be able to get an answer, but if anyone knows, it will be one of the people there. 1995hoo (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a phrase in the first paragraph titled 'general features': "Throughout the landing approach Concorde was on the "back side" of the drag curve".

Now I have around 30 hours solo flight time in sailplanes, not a lot, but i would say i have far more then your average persons knowledge of flight mechanics, yet i still couldn’t figure out what this was referring to. Perhaps someone who understands this could find a simpler way of expressing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Not really :-) Basically at low speeds concorde flew at a very high angle of attack, sort of stalled really (except delta-wings don't, exactly, stall). Raising the nose of the aircraft at those speeds causes the speed to drop and the aircraft to sink, whereas normally raising the nose gains you altitude. So Concorde more or less flew on throttle at low speeds, as I understand it.WolfKeeper 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Flying on the back side of the drag curve means, that you have to increase speed to lower your drag. Flying in you glider, this would mean flying very slow, below the speed of minimum drag. If you fo fly so slow on final approach, the problem is that you can't stretch you glide path by pulling on the stick. --Hbquax (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just changed 'furor' back to 'furore' on the groungs that in this context it is the correct English term. In his previous revert 1995hoo asserts that the OED lists furor as the anglicised term. However both terms are listed: for furor the correct sense is form 3 as listed in the OED 2nd edition:

3. Great enthusiam or excitement, a 'rage' or craze which takes every one by storm. Now chiefly N. Amer. (Cf. next.)

The next entry is of course furore:

1. Enthusiastic popular admiration; a 'rage', 'craze'.

2. Uproar, disturbance, fury.

Sense two seems the best fit there. Since furor is listed as a north American term I think we should avoid it in this article. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just switch to a more common synonym? Back and forth edits over this one word are not helping the article.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. "Controversy" or "protests" would work well. 1995hoo (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not remove the whole paragraph as none of it is referenced! MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm easy on either proposal. I simply object to what I perceive to be back door Americanisation. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see no mention of the very last flight Concorde took, to Filton in Bristol. Not exactly sure of the date (Nov 2003). Could someone with more info please add? Robruss24 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned at Concorde aircraft histories under G-BOAG. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but shouldn't it really be added here, it is, after all, rather important as it is unlikely to ever fly again.Robruss24 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a certain elitist attitude towards the entries under the Popular culture section. The Doctor Who serial Time-Flight, for instance, features Concorde as a significant part of the plot. Yet every time its added on this page, it instantly gets deleted as being "insignificant". The same also applies to Carry On Emmannuelle, whose opening sequence is set aboard a Concorde travelling between France and England.

Could those people responsible please give reasons why these are insignificant, rather than complain about everything that comes their way? At this rate, all we'll have for the Popular Culture section is a mention in the Airport film series and nothing more. 82.36.28.41 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:ATRIV, and WP:AIRPOP. These are policies and guidelines that govern thses kinds of sections, and the removals were in line with them. - BillCJ (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Concorde in Jamaica?"From Avianca to CanJet: MoBay Airport at Centre of J'can Aviation History" 76.66.196.218 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A user has added a unrefenced section about the visit to Greater Rochester Airport, I removed it as not notable and also the mention of a visit to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. While these may have been significant to the airport, to the aicraft they were just two more charter destinations. The Concorde fleet made many visits to airports around the world on charter flights. None particularly notable, I would suggest that we should not mention any and remove Rochester and Cleveland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, using another wikipedia article as a reference is not valid (against WP:Reliable sources). Just copy the reference(s) from that article if available. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. This article cannot possibly be a listing of all destinations to which Concorde flew. (There's a list on ConcordeSST.com that covers that.) I revised his original edit but didn't delete it because I wanted to allow for group consensus on the issue. For some reason he seemed to take umbrage at ANY revisions to his material (notwithstanding poor capitalization, improper use of the phrase "the Concorde," and redundant and unnecessary wording). I put a fairly lengthy discussion on his talk page explaining some of the problems with his material to try to make him understand some of what was going on, and hopefully that might shut him up. Please feel free to join in. Among other things, I am pretty sure that the 1999 European Ryder Cup team flew Concorde to Boston's Logan Airport for that year's competition. This fact alone proves that the 1995 trip wasn't notable. 1995hoo (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate what others above have said, this is a fairly important page in Aircraft catagory. Unfortunately it is one of the most poorly written pages I have seen on aircraft in wikipedia, probably the only comparable page is on the Apollo 16 mission. I saw so many times the word "so . . .", and there was alot of almost trivial scattered about. I would tag the various sentences that need help, but there so damn many of them. Can someone spend some time and fix the tone and grammar of this article, its like reading bread pudding.PB666 ^yap 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is inconsistent on the style used to refer to the aircraft registrations: Some are italicized, some aren't. While it's not a major pressing issue, it would be better for there to be consistency. I've not normally seen italics used in any other references to Concorde and I would vote for that style, as to me italics denotes a title or a particular style of something. On the other hand, it's obviously the case that with the names of ships, or of specially-named aircraft (such as Burt Rutan's Voyager), italics are generally the norm, and one might argue that in the case of Concorde the aircraft registrations are normally used as their names. I might dispute that insofar as normally it seems like the final two letters are treated as the name. But perhaps Wikipedia has some other convention....either way, I figure that I don't feel like provoking some sort of edit war if someone feels strongly about it. 1995hoo (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally always italicise registrations and aircraft serial numbers - it makes them stand out (they are not words, as-such) and also makes it clear to the layman that they are referring to one particular aircraft, rather than the type as a whole. The registration or serial is 'personal' to that particular aircraft, so I prefer to make it visible to the reader. Otherwise it can be possible for an unfamiliar reader to confuse a registration or serial and think it an unusual word - I have known unenlightened people try and pronounce them.

An anonymous user added what I consider to be a half-assed effort at listing the locations at which Concorde is on display following retirement. I undid the revision because it was utterly incomplete (no Air France) and because the edit summary indicated that the guy didn't know anything about the topic. More importantly, there is already a listing on Wikipedia of this information, and the list is linked in the "See also" section of this main Concorde article. Another user then undid my edit. As a compromise, I could see the usefulness of putting a "See also" link in the "Retirement" section reading something like: "See also Concorde aircraft histories for the post-retirement homes of the aircraft." (Or something along those lines.) I can understand why the new reader might not think to look down to the bottom of the page for this information. Anyone have an opinion? (The list of retirement homes used to be in this article and it was deleted by consensus in favor of the other one, if memory serves.) 1995hoo (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I added: at the bottom of the Retirement section, under Restoration. There's no point in having a Survivors or Aircraft on display section here with that dedicated article available. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we have the content already, and it's appropriately linked, then by all means delete a duplicate of it. We ought to have a clearly prominent list of survivors though (not just annotations to individual aircraft histories). "Where are the Concordes today?" is a question that people will come here looking to answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Fnlayson's solution is a good one. A "list of survivors" doesn't seem appropriate here for the simple reason that all but two of the aircraft are preserved either in museums or at airports. "List of survivors" to me sounds like something you'd use when preservation is the exception rather than the rule. But I might be misunderstanding what you have in mind, and if so please feel free to correct me! Your last sentence echoed the sentiment behind my prior suggestion of repeating the link further up in the article, which is what Fnlayson did. 1995hoo (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 off "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)

If you scour the archives, you will uncover a very lengthy discussion regarding the use of the an iconic nomenclature for the aircraft. FWiW, the reason for the "invisible" note is to alert "newbies" as to the reasoning behind the unusual use of the name. Typically, the "invisible" is established by consensus and is there for future reference. Bzuk (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Trying to develop a convention for whether to describe things in the present or past. Suggest: if it applies to the design and development: definitely in the past; if it applies to features/principles of still operating aircraft in general (eg. braking): definitely in the present; if it applies to the structure of Concorde: in the present: lots of structures still exist; if it applies specifically to the operation of Concorde, grey area... probably in the past. Do hypothetical future roll outs at events constitute a reason to consider that operation continues? Sorry if this seems like nit picking but it strongly affects the feel of the article. Trev M ~  01:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an often asked question. Just depends on how the sentence is worded. Something like "Concorde was designed to.." needs was. But "Concorde features a delta wing.." is present tense since it still applies. Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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 [7] 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)

Surely an auto-archiving system based on page size as well as time would be more appropriate? If a page is not unwieldy to use, it's an advantage to have old stuff sitting there! Base the page archival-enable size in the region WP advises prose content should limit (40-60k) and then look at the time it's been there. Maybe the issue of topics needing perennial posting could be addressed by having "sticky" sections, as in some on-line fora, which survive archiving (say by a small template in the section) which the bot then copies to the new page. As to whether a consensus could be reached on that, and who would implement it....! Trev M (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Size can be limited in a way. The number of post sections can be limited to a certain number (minthreadsleft=6 is default). See documentation at User:MiszaBot/config for details if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At Concorde’s altitude, the air density is very low; a breach of cabin integrity would result in a loss of pressure severe enough so that the plastic emergency oxygen masks installed on other passenger jets would not be effective, and passengers would quickly suffer from hypoxia despite quickly donning them. Concorde, therefore, was equipped with smaller windows to reduce the rate of loss in the event of a breach, a reserve air supply system to augment cabin air pressure, and a rapid descent procedure to bring the aircraft to a safe altitude.{ citation needed}

I think this is wrong, the windows were small to reduce the radiation in-flow as the glass was typically more transparent to cosmic radiation than the metal fuselage skin and reflective insulation. A secondary affect would be reduced air outflow in event of a window failure, but I don't believe that this was the design reason for them.Petebutt (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Most cosmic radiation is so high energy it goes right through the hull/passengers/everything without even breathing hard, never mind the windows. Shielding is more or less impossible. It's not a remote consideration; actually net cosmic radiation was lower for Concorde- the intensity was higher due to altitude, but they got to the destination twice as fast, so the overall effect was lower- a complete non issue. (They did have a radiation counter in case there was a solar storm, but AFAIK they never decreased altitude due to it.)- Wolfkeeper 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in some books, but I can't find a good online reference right now. Check out the second hit here though: [8] Nunn's applied respiratory physiology (1993): "Concorde, however, operates above the altitude at which oxygen would be ... Precautions include the small size of the windows, reserve capacity for ..."- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That ref has now been installed beside the relivant section. Nice find! Kyteto (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen masks have the primary purpose of keeping people in their seats to avoid overbalancing the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.54.26 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have just removed again this pollution, no propaganda and uncertain news/project on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.255.12 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the information is cited from reliable sources, you have no clear consensus to remove this info. It's been restored, again. Please do no not remeove again without a clear consesnus to do so. Thanks. (It took me a bit to find the discussion, since it's not under a heading that descibes it correctly.) - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you don't have results yet to believe it, it would not be the first time that the medias (and BBC of course) will be wrong, see in 2006. If tommorow the BBC say that a group will go to the moon, do you believe it without enough proofs ? It's the problem here, all the sources show a fact without enough details ....

"A group of French volunteer engineers is keeping one of the youngest Concordes (F-BTSD) in near-airworthy condition at the Le Bourget Air and Space Museum in Paris. In February 2010, it was announced that they intend to restore F-BTSD's engines so it can taxi.^[1]"

It's 100% wrong, only a part of SD is kept "alive" => mainly cockpit, electronics systems, nose, and one hydraulic circuit on the three, so no engines, fuel and all the important things you need to say "near-airworthy condition".

The taxi project is not the project of the team who take car of SD since 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.255.12 (talk • contribs)