Talk:BAE Systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.See comments |
 |
BAE Systems has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
BAE Systems is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
Contents |
[edit] Name/capitalisation
Advice for editors regarding the official name and capitalisation of the name.
BAE Systems' Identity Guidelines website gives the following advice:
- "BAE SYSTEMS" (in capitals) should be used for titles and headers
- "BAE Systems" is the form that should be used in body text and is not interchangeable with "BAE SYSTEMS" for body text (see here). *The name should never be abbreviated, i.e. "BAES" is strictly not allowed (this would imply that "BAE" is also incorrect, but it is commonly used).
- "BAe SYSTEMS" or "BAe Systems" is not correct, "BAe" was an abbreviation for British Aerospace. BAE is no longer an acronym, in much the same way that BP no longer stands for British Petroleum and AT&T no longer means Atlantic Telegraph & Telephone. Johnwalton 13:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) & Mark 21:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) & sugarfish 08:20, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Hooray! User:Mel Etitis has moved BAE SYSTEMS to BAE Systems. That is much better! Wikipedia should be bound by the rules of common English usage, not the BAE marketing department's 'Identity Guidelines'.
- I did it because, aside from decent English, the company's own Web site uses the lower-case version in the text; the upper-case version seems to be used only in their logos and headers. We're not bound by their house style-guide, of course. I'm glad that it made someone happy.... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- In summary:
- Good: BAE Systems/BAE
- Not good: BAE SYSTEMS (only BAE "guidelines" suggested it, and even BAE seem to have dropped it now)
- Wrong: BAe Systems/BAe SYSTEMS or BAe when referring to BAE Systems and not British Aerospace. Mark83 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legal name
The legal name for the company as it is listed on the LSE is BAE Systems plc and whenever it releases an official press release on the Regulatory News Service, it will list itself as such. If you visit the website, and check out their press releases, you will see as much. However, they also refer to themselves as simply BAE SYSTEMS as shorthand afterwards, so I understand that this would confuse people unneccessarily, I propose this page stays where it is. However, a link could be offered to its parent company - BAE Systems plc. Calexico (Talk) 17:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- We don't use "plc" in article names (see MoS Talk pages for a discussion of this). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link errors.
The Mike Turner the link in this article pointed at (this guy) is not the CEO of BAE. I removed it. Information about the correct Mike Turner can be found hereif anyone feels like writing an article about him.
[edit] Trial infobox
I haven't created this as a proper template until its suitability is decided. Please add comments etc. regarding this trial infobox. Does it aid navigation through BAE specific sites? Or is it merely covering links already very accessible on the main page itself?
One problem I can see myself is it could only be placed on BAE specific pages, i.e. it is far too obtrusive to go on Airbus for example. Mark 19:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Organisation" edit 25/11/05
I have made a major change to the organisation section, reducing it to subsidiary links only. Previously these were subheadings and a description of each division; as such the section was getting larger and larger and the TOC was rediculously long.
The change I have made is in line with other major aerospace/defence companies, e.g. Boeing. Also the titles of the companies are almost always self-explanatory and separate articles allow the information to be presented in a far better way than the summmary available here.
Also the BAE Systems template recently created will allow these pages to be linked well with other company pages. Mark83 13:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image request
A picture of BAE's HQ at Warwick House in Farnborough would be an excellent addition to this article. I can't find an image anywhere. Presumably it would have to be taken by a BAE employee with the appropriate permission as I doubt the immediate area is open to the public? Mark83 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, the area is restricted. The use of cameras / camera phones is prohibited across all BAE sites, so it may be difficult to get a photo of Warwick/Hertford House. Johnwalton 11:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
In an edition of Air Forces Monthly shortly after the merger they stated that BAE Systems stood for "British Aerospace Electronic Systems" - being an amalgamation of British Aerospace and the "Electronic Systems" of MES (the Marconi name being unusable due to the intention of GEC to adopt it). Does anyone know if this was a plan that was abandoned or simply the magazine getting it wrong? --Mark83 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] To do
The following come from my peer reviewing JS script:
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm. - As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day. Done.
- Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2] Done
The article looks a lot better now; I'll go through with a more in-depth look soon. AZ t 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Progress
- Expand lead - Attempted - I've had a go. I've attempted to both summarise the article and also provoke interest in the article.
- Non-breaking spaces - Done.
- Dates - Done.
- Reorder/rename the last few sections - Done.
- Weasel words - Done. - Though I'd welcome another opinion to make sure I haven't missed anything.
- Footnotes/punctuation marks - Done. Mark83 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Passed
1. It is well written - PASS
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable - PASS plenty of references, nearing FA level even
3. It is broad in its coverage - PASS
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - PASS - does comment on arms trade etc
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars - PASS
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic - PASS - images are all free
What you could do is cite the products and Joint Ventures sections. Do we know anything about BAE's future? Make sure dates and units use adhere to the WP:MOS and keep footnotes after punctuation. Its doing pretty well. :) Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It was just that the auto peer review tool I have installed kicked up a few things. Here they are: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 155 mm, use 155 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 155 mm.[?] - As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well I did check non-breaking spaces, however it was a while ago. The same for footnotes/punctuation. I'll check them all again. The final suggestion is of course right, I think that will be the biggest hurdle. Thanks again. Mark83 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
