Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use this project page for discussion of issues with listing destinations in airline articles.

See category:Airline destinations

Contents 1 Regional airline destinations 2 Code shares 3 Order of continents 4 Suggested standard for listing hubs and season service

[edit] Regional airline destinations

Where should regional airline destinations be listed?

• Under the name the service is under United Express as an example
• Under the airline actually flying to the city SkyWest as an example
• Both

Vegaswikian

[edit] Code shares

Should these be listed in destinations? They are not really destinations that the airline flies to. With code shares, not all flights are available on the airline you are code sharing with so listing provides some level of information. I guess the answer is based on what purpose is served by these lists, if it is a travel guide then they probably should be kept, if it is to document were an airline flies then they should be dropped. Vegaswikian 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If they must be listed, add them in a seperate section. In the meantime, may I remind, that Category:Airline destinations is not a travel guide, and should not be limited as such.--Huaiwei 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of continents

Most airline destination lists have continents listed in alphabetical order, and a few have them in geographical order from west to east (although I like the idea of starting with the airline's home continent). I think the second makes more sense; does anyone have any comments on this? Dbinder 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The second does make more sense. I am still planning to build a master list of all destinations so that everything is listed the same. For example the islands off the US south east coast are not always listed the same. Using a common list fixes problems like that. But having this list and saying move the home continent to the top, but keep everything else in the same order, would be easy for any editor to do. My vote now would likely be that listing the home continent first should be optional. Vegaswikian 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• I personally do not see how the second option should make any more sense, for an alphabatical listing helps prevent POV issues, and promotes greater content synergy and standardisation. This is particularly true in multi-airline lists, such as in Oneworld destinations, Skyteam destinations and Star Alliance destinations. In [1], Dbinder appears to take the opinion that North America should always come first because the founding members of these alliances are either from NA or Europe. So why NA, and not Europe? Do wikipedians need to expend time and effort arguing over continent orders?--Huaiwei 10:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You created an argument by making this personal. I think putting them in geographical order makes sense - otherwise Australia and New Zealand (Oceania) come between North and South America, and order of regions in Asia is jumbled (Central, East, South, Southeast, Southwest). If you want Europe to be listed first for the alliance destinations, then go ahead and change it. The main reason I had North America first instead of Europe was to start from the West and go east. Dbinder 11:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You created a personal argument by bringing it to my talkpage. So what if Oceania comes between the two Americas? Since when are the order of regions in Asia "jumbled", when they, too, are alphabetically listed? In fact, the orderly manner in which Asian entries are represented clearly is a cut over the confusions over how the Americas are being presented. This is not so much an issue of whethere I want Europe to be listed or not. I am demanding to know why you would start from the West and go East, since you statement that NA and European airlines being "pioneers" in global alliances dosent quite explain the preference of one continent over another? Colonialism version 2.0, or something else?--Huaiwei 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems that you are incapable of having a discussion without making snide remarks (Colonialism 2.0), so I have no desire to continue this conversation. Dbinder 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Its about time I am relieved from this kind of habitual nonsense day after day. Back to the discussion.--Huaiwei 12:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Anyway, North America is somewhat screwed up; I've seen several versions. Some have the US, Canada, and Mexico as separate sections, some have them together. Some have Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands under the US, others have them under the Caribbean. On a related note, Europe has the same issue with the Canary Islands and Azores under Western Europe or North Africa. It makes more sense to have territories where they are geographically located (if the US Virgin Islands should be listed under the US, then shouldn't the British Virgin Islands be listed under Western Europe, and even more extreme - New Caledonia should be under Western Europe, since that's owned by France. As for the order of continents, I think listing them geographically from northwest to southeast with the airline's home continent first makes sense, since it will read more like a textual map of the destinations. Dbinder 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created Airline destinations and I'm merging in Star Alliance destinations now. I have only completed Canada. I have not addressed issues like the Virgin Islands yet, but make suggestions here or on the talk page for the article. I do plan on expanding to heading level all of the countries. I don't know why this was not done in the past. Vegaswikian 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Except for North American carriers, I can understand the reasoning behind combining the US, Canada, and Mexico into one subheading. Dbinder 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, as has already been done for the Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, countries with a large number of airports should be subdivided by region or state. I'm going to work on Japan, but I think PRC, Russian Federation, France, etc. should also be done. Dbinder 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I was looking at doing more. My gut says that if you do one country at a heading then you need to do all for that region. Also by floating the TOC to the right, I think it makes the length of the TOC less of an issue since you can see the text along with the TOC. The merges are going slowly as it takes time. I also noticed a lot of red links for airports. The USVI ones were red and since I knew they existed, I checked. The names were wrong in the articles I used to create the list. So once the list is 'completed', we can use it to fix a lot of broken links in other articles. Vegaswikian 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess that a decision will need to be made about if and when to deviate from the standard. In an encylopedia, keeping with the standard improves the perception of quality. Vegaswikian 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, a user has been moving the Canary Islands from North Africa into Spain. I don't feel like starting an edit war over it, but geographically they're in North Africa. Care to comment? The discussion is on the Airline destinations talk page. Dbinder 00:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested standard for listing hubs and season service

In looking at several lists, I like the ones that list Hubs, and by extension focus cities, in bold. I think we could also list Seasonal for seasonal services in italics. Avoids the format issues as these can then be simply added after the airport. How does this sound? Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)