Talk:Kuala Lumpur International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Kuala Lumpur International Airport was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for Kuala Lumpur International Airport: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Please check grammatical and spelling of the article.
  • Expand: Animal Hotel, Security, Aircraft maintenance, Design,
  • Update: Ground Transportation
  • Other: Cite facts using. Dates should be in yyyy-mm-dd. Template : <ref name="">{{cite web|title = |publisher = |accessdate=|url=}}</ref>
Priority Kuala Lumpur International Airport  

Contents

[edit] Indeed EgyptAir fly to Nadi

I thought it was a joke at first but I checked on today's flight information on KlIA's website and EgyptAir indeed fly to Nadi, Fiji. So now I'm adding Nadi in EgyptAir's destinations.

--Yit4s 02:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad sentence in opening paragraph

"Kuala Lumpur International Airport, which is one of the major aviation hub in Asia region along with Singapore Changi Airport and Bangkok International Airport in South East Asian countries." [It's grammatically incorrect; this appears to be left over from an earlier write. This sentence also does not make logical sense and its meaning is unclear. Regional hubs should be ranked by passenger traffic, cargo traffic or other concrete criteria; this is written as an opinion.] 202.82.171.186 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Future plans

I don't think 'future plans' should be a subsection of the section 'history'. Future plans should be a section all to itself. Tkuok shern

I strongly object this proposal as history does not just talk about the past.Marcusaffleck 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why should '"FUTURE" Plans' be talked about in 'History'? Tkuok shern 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airlines & Destinations

Here i would suggest that we incoporate Cargo Airlines and Former Users into Airlines & destinations section as what Singapore Changi Airport,BKK Airport and HKG Airport article has incoporated them in for easy reading. And i would also like to suggest to put the New Airlines for year 2xxx into the section as when you put those new airlines together with the others, it looks a bit messey with those words like [starts xx,jan,2006] .Marcusaffleck 09:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that. There aren't any other articles that mix cargo and former airlines in with current passenger carriers (I just looked at Singapore and Hong Kong). DB (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What i mean is start with a section called Airlines & Destination, put one sub-section A for current airlines, sub-section B for Former Airlines, sub-section C for Cargo airlines and Sub-section D for NEw Coming Airlines. Not mixing all cargo & former airlines in one current airlines section. Marcusaffleck 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that should be fine. You could go ahead and change it. I doubt anyone will fight over a minor rearrangement like that. DB (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since someone has agreed, so i will proceed. Marcusaffleck 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] latest passenger volume

KLIA Passenger Movement 1996-2005 source www.malaysiaairport.com.my & MAHB 2005 annual report.

YEAR Volume 1996 NIL 1997 NIL 1998 6,524,405.00 1999 13,172,635.00 2000 14,732,876.00 2001 14,538,831.00 2002 16,398,230.00 2003 17,454,564.00 2004 21,058,572.00 2005 23,213,926.00 2006 -na-

Like to argue some articles here as well like:

1. "The location, over 70 km from Kuala Lumpur was viewed as inconvenient"; guys it's only 50 km from the city center.

2. "contrary to the government's assertions, Subang could still be expanded'. Errr with 23 million passenger and maybe more today..we will be in deep shit if we still use Subang airport plus we don't even have any space to build a second runaway at subang.

3. "The first phase of the airport was designed with a capacity of 25 million passengers per year, but 1999, the first full year of operations, saw only 13.2 million. [1] However, traffic did eventually increase and 21.1 million passengers were recorded in 2003 — although this, too, fell short of the original estimate of 35 million by this year". Ermm guys don't you guys do any more readings before writing any facts about passenger estimate for 2003-2008. 35 million is not an estimation for 2003, it is an estimation for 2009. KLIA only short of figures around 3-4 million for its passenger estimate for 2004. Read and understand it first before making any statement here.

202.186.31.190 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)nasimento202.186.31.190 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that this is an encyclopedia and you're reading the history section, which explains why some people opposed the new airport. The section could use a few more cites though. Also, I believe 70km is still an accurate measure of the shortest distance by road. It's 57km by KLIA Ekspres, and KL Sentral is still quite a distance south from the city center. Jpatokal 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
HUH? How sure are you the distance between KL Sentral & KL City Center is about 20KM? You must be kidding...how frequent you travel around KL?i can bet, it is less than 20KM. We shouldn't use the word "by road" as it has almost short and straight roads from KL CITY Center to KLIA. therefore, 60Km is more appropriate. Marcusaffleck 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree, 70km is too much even by road. 'KL Sentral is still quite a distance south'? Can you define your interpretation of city center? For KL citizens, Bricfields where you can find KL Sentral is already part of the city. The new KL- Putrajaya Highway will shorten the distance for 1/3 from its original estimation. The 20 KM distance from KL Sentral to KL City Centre is absolutely ridiculous unless you think Gombak is the city centre for KL. ‘Over 50 km’ is the best phrase to describe this. I will also edit certain parts in the history section. Like to hear some comment about it.

~~nasimento~~

[edit] Names

I've removed the ridiculous slew of names from the beginning of the article. Only the Malay name is official, and it's already listed in the infobox. Jpatokal 07:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Malay: Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur) (Chinese: 吉隆坡国际机场) (Tamil:கோலாலம்பூர் அனைத்துலக விமானநிலையம்) (Japanese:クアラルンプール国際空港) (Arabic: please fill in )


All those names that we placed in is to enable foreign people who don't know how to read Malay and it has no harm to the article!Place it back again.

Even the signs in KLIA are multilangual. It doesn't hurt to put the name of the airport in the languages particularly the languages shown in the signs at KLIA. Zack2007 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it does hurt, because it makes the first sentence completely unreadable. You can stick 'em in the infobox if you insist. Jpatokal 04:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How does it hurt you? A knife pierce trough ur eyeball?? Jus leave it alone!

Even the world best airports do also put their foreign names on the article,why not KLIA?

[edit] Palembang is in fact the new service

It is stated in the airasia website, check it out. (on the right side of the frame)... yes! it is in the AirAsia Webpage Marcusaffleck 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i told u! >;P

[edit] Aeroflot Services

Since Aeroflot is going to resume it's flight,Aeroflot will be removed from Previous Users Section to avoid conflict.Futhermore,all additional airlines are based on the informations adopted from their respective webpages and are correct Marcusaffleck 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it would be good to include the source that is available from the airline's respective websites, and not just a link to an article by a Malaysian newspaper. After all, the burden of proof lies on the person adding the new information. Elektrik Blue 82 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
can sumone tell 60.52.19.105 that aeroflot should not be there if it is NOT FORMALLY announced??????? sigh
Zack2007 10:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
this is the link i can find about aeroflot service moscow-kul to be resumed in 2007[[1]]

[edit] Re IPs adding unsourced information

I'm going to officially request for semi protection, as many ppl having to rv unsourced information from IPs after being warned is indeed becoming a waste of time. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While blcoking certain IP, don't mind look for Aeroflot official press release?

have tried, but its not there yet... Zack2007 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw one, from Bernama Malaysia. It says it is confirmed and Russia's Media publised it.

Isn't it wikipedia policy (or at least it is understood) that the source should first be in their respective website (and hence the source from newspaper is a bit secondary).. Well, to be safe, better wait till they really announce it on the website. Zack2007 08:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATTENTION

In Briton daily, it seems that three carrier in Briton is palnning to start a route to Kuala Lumpur which is Virgin Atlantic,bmi and BA.Aer Lingus is also palnning to inaagurate flights to KLIAVirgin Atlantic would starts st's flights if MAS does not intend to renew their code-share agreement <== can you please provide the link?

guys, with all this news about future airlines coming to KLIA, what bout we have another headings that say Future airlines or Potential Airlines... then we can put all these, and move them when they are confirmed in their website etc. How's that everybody? Zack2007 08:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
i didn't mean that it has to be out of thin air to list this future potential airlines. Obviously, like aeroflot, the star and bernama did mention about it. It has not yet announced or confirmed in their official website. so, if like we want to list an airline there, we have to source them with a good reference. i dont know, thats what i felt. Zack2007 08:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to list future airlines in a separate section either. If the airlines themselves have announced the route, then fine, go ahead and add it. But if the source is just a newspaper, then unfortunately, that is not reliable. Remember Harry Truman and the 1948 US Presidential Elections. Elektrik Blue 82 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey,i'm just sharing these information withu guys,i don't mean to put in onto the list?what is the big deal? Marcusaffleck 13:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etihad & Thai Sky Airways

Hey guys, why Etihad is not in the list? What about Thai Sky Airways where their webpage shows KLIA is one of their destination?

I can understand that Etihad is not officialy confirmed, so at least wait for a while untill its officialy confirmed on the Etihad website themselves. Also I'll ask wheres the page (or timetable page) where it states KLIA for Thai Sky Airways? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thai Sky used to fly to KUL (I've seen their planes there), but they've recently suspended all operations. Jpatokal 04:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Sahara

hi, i think Air Sahara no longer serves kuala lumpur as their destination. So should it be removed? Mike86

hey...they never started services in the first place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izanee (talk • contribs)
they did serve klia from chennai, but then the service has been suspended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.92.58 (talk • contribs)

in the webpage, it shows that it is planned operated to KLIA soon,might be 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.75.68 (talk • contribs)

what webpage? --} (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Air SaHara homepage Marcusaffleck 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i cant still find it? can u plz provide the link here? Mike86


here it is [2] Marcusaffleck 09:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah i saw that route map, it was a proposed one indeed. i tot they hav released a press release. however, Air Sahara used to serve chennai - kul - chennai b4 in 2005. if they wish to return kul again, perhaps Air Sahara is not suitable to be listed in previous user section. Mike86

[edit] Transaero Airlines

i checked out the site, indeed transaero airlines will return flight to kul by Jan 2007. but i wonder if they will make a stop in bangkok? Mike86

Direct Flight ii think

Checked their site, no press release, but it shows up on the timetables per Jan 2 2007. It says its a direct flight so I dont think it'll be making any stops. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biman Bangladesh

hi, i found out that Biman Bangladesh would serve DHA - SIN - KUL - DHA route. and sometimes it will serve from dhaka to kul by bkk too. is that supposed to mean that we should include bangkok and singapore in the article?

[edit] Etihad to launch service

hi, i finally found the articles which provides detail info about etihad to launch service to kl, the exact date, frequency and also the flight numbers. so plz do not remove it from the page. thanks.Mike86 11.11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed,Etihad is recuirting people to work in the new KLIA office

[edit] Expansion of the page

hi, i think klia's page can be expanded with more information. i found some of the important information are not listed inside, besides, we can add more pictures like klia transit or klia express pictures. on top of that, some of the shoplots and restaurants that are available in both klia and lcct can be listed too, as well as facilities, post office, police station, luggage counter etc. Mike86 19.55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, some more pics could be added. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So... anybody is going to do it? ive limited information though i used klia and lcct frequently Mike86 14.41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the article has too much useless information and should be cut down. Eg. is it really relevant that the budget taxis are Daewoo Tacumas? There's also a lot of marketing fluff in there, all spectaculars and state-of-the-arts etc. Jpatokal 10:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Did a first round of liposuction. Jpatokal 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Those info are not redundant, yet play essential roles for anyone who wish to visit malaysia and travel to the kl city. i think the fares for every types of transport should be amended and clearly stated as this is one of the steps to help malaysia government to thwart the frauds. Mike86 22,12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#IINFO: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Detailed travel information like fares and schedules belongs on Wikitravel (which has a pretty good KL guide already), not here. Jpatokal 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not true. we dont have to elaborate the details of each transports available to connect klia to the kl but at least, we can list down the fares for each. i saw lots of international airports such as changi, suvarnabhumi, narita, etc provide such info. the fares listed there is one of the guides to help travellers to get to the city and i can understand that Wikitravel is to guide tourists about the main attractions and places to see of the tourism hot spots. i believe u have got the wrong idea. bear in mind that we are listing down the transport fares from klia to kl/lcct to kl, not the transport fares within the kl city. Mike86 14.24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I repeat: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Wikitravel is, and it has a whole section about getting to/from KLIA. Jpatokal 10:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If u insist on that, a link of such might have to be included in ground transportation section as a step to help viewers to get more information of the transportation. Mike86 20.11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of "me insisting", WP:NOT is an official policy of Wikipedia. Jpatokal 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

...and again. "Passengers are reminded"? "Passengers are advised"? This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. Jpatokal 02:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I have one suggestion, to include the countries' flag in front of the carriers in the Airline & Destinations part,should i proceed?Marcusaffleck 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikiproject Airports is not to, as it takes a fair amount of bandwith to load up (esp those with dialup connections). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the copyright for the Image:KLIA_from_satelite.JPG. I extracted from http://www.wikimapia.org and i think it is suitable to be put in the infobox, but I have wrongly put the copyright. can someone help me?Zack2007 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QZ doesnt fly to KL from Surabaya

Sorry for my comments, what I meant is that ALL QZ (Indonesia AirAsia) routes must radiate out of Jakarta. Hence, the AirAsia flights between KL and Surabaya is carried out by AK (AirAsia) Zack2007 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

this is not true, i just checked out klia flight schedule as well as airasia webpage, obviously there are flight code with QZ between kl and surabaya route, u could check it out in the airasia website. Mike86 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Nepal

...has passed on. This airline is no more. It has ceased to be! It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't rolled back the edit, it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its reservation processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-AIRLINE!

Proving a negative is a little difficult, and they do seem to have one flight hanging around in KLIA's e-timetable, but take a look at their web page [3] (or lack thereof) or find some other source to show they're still flying... Jpatokal 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why, i've requested for semi-protection for this page. Marcusaffleck 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From Manang Travel Agency website, Air Nepal still flies to KL and that schedule is until at least March 2007.
According to KLIA e-timetable website, Air Nepal flies on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday even after March 2007. Maybe someone needs to go to KLIA itself to find out whether AIRNEPAL (SZ) still flies or not. But the mounting evidence say so. --Zack2007 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I always checked the daily flight schedule in klia website, obviously i havent seen the shadow of Air Nepal in klia for quite a period. ive read an article where Air Nepal was having financial crisis and ceasing all operations. on top of that, PB Air of Thailand always flied on behalf of Air Nepal to klia. Mike86 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I've just returned from KLIA 2 days ago. Since this matter arises, i've checked with the KLIA officials, it seems Air Nepal still flies to Kuala Lumpur Marcusaffleck 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"You've checked with KLIA officials"? Just what does that mean? Jpatokal 14:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've ask people working with KLIA. Marcusaffleck 05:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Your cab driver or who? Jpatokal 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess service could be restored in sometimes, indeed Air Nepal never made an official press release where they will stop flying to kul, as well as Air Sahara which used to serve maa - kul - maa route. The strange thing is Air Sahara is spotted in klia in december and rumoured to have schedule flight to kul by 2007. Marcusaffleck, i guess u could check with the officials in klia about Air Sahara's position in klia too. Mike86 5:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm flying this thurs again..perhaps i can check too...Marcusaffleck 06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Nepal International Saga

From User talk:Zack2007

quote begins... btw in this free-for-all-to-edit wikipedia. you have to understand that here in wikipedia, there are just as many wikipedians that choose to contribute not for fame unlike some people who throw their weights around that they edited most they are more senior or what so ever nonsense.and to the fact that i sounded harsh, i offer my apologies here I AM sorry. so it was that marcus. if he were to go and check the IATA website too beside asking that "offical" from KLIA, he would have known that Air Nepal International(SZ) is NO LONGER in operation. I would love to have airlines in KLIA but this does not change the fact that Air Mepal International is no longer in operation. http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/ There is currently no Airline allocated to IATA Code SZ. Ask him if he needs me to call the international office of IATA too. Where is his credibility as a wikipedian. Does he not know that wikipedians are not always right and that he should not throw his weight around that he is a wikipedian? Finally please tell him to move on. and to check his sources before he accuse that i am wrong. i did my homework.218.186.8.13 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ....quote end


and marcus for goodness sake stop your nonsense. one airline gone doesnt change the fact that KLIA is a hub in the reason. We have more airlines coming in next year. Learn to let go. SZ is long goen from KLIA. And for the last time i am reverting back. SZ is gone from KLIA218.186.8.13 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heloo....i'm not making any nonsense. I'm just trying to help? For goodness sake, just semi-protect this article...Marcusaffleck 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Whoa, this is getting out of control. Ok let's examine the case. We have a few proofs to examine now. Let's see:

From Internet sources:

  1. KLIA e-timetable - SZ still flies to KLIA three times weekly.
  2. Manang Travel Agency - SZ flies until March 2007 (and may continue)
  3. IATA website] - SZ is nonexistence
  4. Airline codes website] - SZ is listed as historical airlines (Air Nepal International)
  1. I found something nifty. Flight Information on KLIA website has the latest flight observation as it happens live. (it tells whether the flight has departed on the day or delayed etc) - on the right hand frame, put your departure/arrival city. Let say if you put Kuala Terengganu, a pop up will show whether the flight has departed/arrived or not. Try putting Kathmandu. No flights departing today. So guess what then... :P. (p.s - it somehow doesn't work when you put Kuala Lumpur as ur depart/arrival city)

From word-of-mouth:

  1. Marcusaffleck said he called KLIA officials and was given an affirmation that SZ still flies to KLIA
  2. 218.186.8.13 said that he called KLIA and was told that SZ has ceased all operation.

I want you guys to examine the evidence plus reconfirm the sources to reach a common consensus. I have reverted the article to the status quo. Please no UNILATERAL editing before common agreement takes place. Thank you

218.186.8.13, drop your attitude. Asking people to move on to say that you know it all and others doesnt. are you omnipotent? they have their views, so do you. How could people believe you with that attitude, even in the real life. please be considerate and CALM DOWN!. --Zack2007 07:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

i did not say i know it all. i called KLIA for goodness sake and i did my homework. do you need me to call IATA office now to clarify?218.186.8.13 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)An airline does not need any press release what so ever so prove that it has stopped operations. garuda indonesia(ga) quietly went to beijing withdrew it and returned just recently. its flights to guangzhou were also cancelled without any press release. and as you have pointed out air sahara(refer up) now i have already presented my side of the story with IATA airlinescode both backing me up. Don't forget taht IATA is the international governing body of airlines.218.186.8.13 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)as as for KLIA, many website irregardless of whether they are airlines or airports often might not update their website

So now everyone has agreed? So according to the latest live update of flight information, there is no SZ flight flying to KLIA anymore. Please take note that. And if we ever encounter problems notifying whether an airline flies to KLIA, please use the "flight information" link on KLIA website. Thank you. --Zack2007 12:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has always been my stance since day 1 but apparently some others claim they "asked" some "staff" at KLIA or checked that outdated timetable of KLIA and some travel agency and doubted the credibility of IATA and higher management at KLIA.202.156.13.3 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)SZ ceased flights since last December not this year. BTW if I am still doubted, that one and only aircraft of SZ is no longer in operation and has been taken back by 9Q(PB Air) and is now flying for Viva Macau202.156.13.3 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KLIA Logo

i am thinking if klia logo could be uploaded in the page. what do u all think? mike86 7:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Can someone get it off the KLIA website? --Zack2007 08:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is any taking KLIA logo?

[edit] Native Names

Again, this issue arise. It has been many many times this issue happens to both KLIA and Singapore Changi Airport. As China is growing, Mandarin is one of the most used languages around the world,therefore altough English remains the international language, Mandarin cannot be left out too. Hence, please never remove any Mandarin Name for KLIA and Jawi name for KLIA as Jawi words are part of Malaysian Culture. As Malaysian, I can say i'm proud of Jawi words altough i'm a Malaysian Chinese because it represents the Malaysian culture. Marcusaffleck 12:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about I can't understand you. It can't be left out but you are asking it to be removed? Regardless, only official and native name should be included, regardless if Mandarin is becoming increasingly important. For Chinese Wikipedia, please visits zh.wikipedia.org instead. __earth (Talk) 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What Earth said. This is an English encyclopedia article, and Malay is mentioned because it's the airport's official name. Jawi and Mandarin aren't. Jpatokal 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt hurt to add a few important languages in this page as it doest hurt and yet benefit passengers in KLIA which has all the important languages clearly printed on the sign board. Currently KLIA is annoucing in 4 languages which are Malay, English, Mandarin and Arabian. It is undeniably chinese and arabian people have been increasing in KLIA. I would take this issue very seriously and shall guard this page very frequenlty. I dont want to raise up the race issue here but i think both Earth and Jpatokal has been trying to bring down the chinese.Mike86 06:12, 14 January 2007.
Yeap! that's what i mean off adding some important language into the info box as it does not hurt. I don't mean others. K?Marcusaffleck 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Mike, this has nothing to do with race. And trust me, the issue has been discussed so many time even before your first edit. The issue has been resolved at page Malaysia a long time. The problem with putting such "important" language is this: why just Chinese? Why not add Indian, Arabic, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Swahili etc to? The only way is to include official and native name. That is all. Any other language should be discarded. And about Changi airport, the inclusion of Chinese and others are okay because Chinese and the other languages are the official languages of Singapore. Further, read WP:UE. If you need to justify the inclusion of languages other than native and official ones, please cite a guideline or rule. __earth (Talk) 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
yes rite. y dont u remove all the chinese names in all the pages related Malaysia like Penang or Ipoh. And please ask the government to remove all the chinese road names of the sign board in the city of Kuching. we add the name in other languages, not all, but some, which shall be useful to help the viewers or the readers. u cant expect them to go the zh-sites as ive visited zh-sites are usually having very limited information. i cant accept this gibberish reasons. as i understand that KLIA page has been too much interference compared to other pages. so arguments are very unavoidable. Mike86 9:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I intent to remove all non-official and non-native languages off Malaysian page. It has been done to page Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and others. About government, I'm uninterested in what the government does as far as this page is concerned. We're talking of Wikipedia, not the government of Malaysia. And it is not gibberish, especially Wikipedia has a guideline on it. You however have yet to cite the basis of you assertion to counter WP:UE. I suggest to provide a basis before you call others' reasoning as gibberish. __earth (Talk) 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
simple, look at the article for Switzerland, there are sooooo many languages, are they the official language of Switzerland, no rite...earth, i think your words are a bit too harsh as this page is open for discussing but not critisizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcusaffleck (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Actually, they are the official languages of Switzerland. The Swiss have 4 national languages, just like Singapore. You may check page Switzerland if you are unconvinced of my assertion. It is cited in the page. __earth (Talk) 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Earth. Plz stay out of this as i see it brings no disadvantages nor harm to the viewers. i would insist on the mandarin. it is forseenable that mandarin is getting more and more important in Malaysia as well as in the world. and becoz of this, Malaysia has included Mandarin to be a compulsory subject for all malaysians. it still somehow relates to the government coz the government is the one who decides the official language of malaysia, very likely to have an amendment of it. the mandarin is to be included becoz there is such a high demand like there is such a high demand to announce the flight info in mandarin and arabian in KLIA. Mike86 11:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Unrelated and irrelevant. We are talking about policies of Wikipedia (again, per WP:UE). We are in the business of recording something based on Wikipedia rules. We are not in the business of formulating national policies. __earth (Talk) 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Mike86, I am siding Earth this time. First of all, Mandarin language is an optional language to be taken in primary school, together with Tamil. (Now, maybe we should also add Tamil as well, right). Wikipedia is also about bringing information as clear and simple as possible without sacrificing its content. Noting that, it is enough to have an English (as title and because this is en:wikipedia) and Malay (as official language). Regardless of Mandarin as getting more important, it is still not an official language. Unless gov announces Mandarin as official, we have to give it a go. This is wikipedia, not KLIA travel guide. Distinguish those two. Think about it this way, if I buy Britanicca CD, and browse KLIA, would they show all the names (supposedly shown in KLIA signboards)?? --Zack2007 13:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that this is the en wikipedia and i also understand that Malay is the only official language of Malaysia. But we, the editors have the similar goals, expand and edit the page so as to help to ease the readers and give them more information. Mandarin indeed an optional language or alternate language, but i see it really no harm to be included in the pages. i cant see this is a vandalism or any sort of harm to the page only if i include other unnecessary and unimportant language here, such as Hebrew or Spanish. If it is really that hard for people to indentify the mandarin, pinyin can be preferably included. Mike86 3:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how cluttering the page with too many languages on an English Wikipedia is helpful. Singapore International Airport for instance has one of the worst lead sentences in Wikipedia, even if such addition of such languages are warranted to it being the national languages. __earth (Talk) 13:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think earth actually meant Singapore Changi Airport.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. __earth (Talk)

[edit] Reason for removal of languages other than English and Malay

Below are the rationale collected the discussion so far. Please add whenever new point arises:

  1. WP:UE. Use English.
  2. Cluttering. WP:LEAD
  3. the existence of zh.wikipedia.org. Besides, in the "In other languages" textbox, there's a link for the Chinese counterpart.
  4. Only English and native should be used. Again, as stated in WP:UE
  5. Precedent at page Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 13:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll just state for the record that I'm fully with Earth on this. Singapore Airport is a excellent example of what should not be done, and KLIA doesn't even have the fig leaf of "national language" in its defense. Jpatokal 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with __earth (Talk) in regards to that. --Zack2007 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Second that.– Matthew A. Lockhart (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnair pulling out services to KUL

Hi, guys. i dont really understand about the press release of Finnair pulling out services to KUL. On the other hand, i can still find articles about HEL-KUL flight is being confirmed to launch in 21 May 2007. [4] Mike86 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Finnair made a sudden decision following the financial and workers problem (aka protests and strikes by the workers). Here is from Int Herald Tribune --Zack2007 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Err, no, they're putting the capacity that was supposed to go to KUL to DEL/BOM instead. They're also pulling out of SIN at the same time. Jpatokal 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If Finnair is pulling out service to KUL which shall be scheduled on 21st May 2007, why it still opens the booking with flight code AY0093/AY0094? i need some explanation here, tx. Mike86 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jetstar/qantas

Usually the subsidiaries such as Silk Air under Singapore Airlines will have their destination written like this

This link is taken directly from Kuching International Airport article. It does not imply that Singapore Airlines fly to Kuching, but rather Silk Air. Would Jetstar Airways and Qantas should be written the same?? Advice me on that matter. --Zack2007 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I dont think so. coz Jetstar is a low cost airlines while Qantas is a full frilled airlines. In contrast, both SIA and Silk air are full frilled airlines. thus, i dont think it is appropriate unless it has directly involved Jetstar asia which is the sister airlines of Jestar. Similarly to Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia which are the sister airlines of AirAsia. Mike86 05:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
All the linked Jetstar Airways destination use this format, no matter whether Qantas fly there or not.
For example, Tan_Son_Nhat_International_Airport, have that format. I think it doesnt matter whether it is a no frill airline or not. Besides, the reason for Jetstar Airways do not flying to Changi Budget Terminal is because they want to offer a better connectivity between Qantas and Jetsar. What do u take on that? Zack2007 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If its Jetstar Asia, then technically they are not owned by Qantas, since Qantas only hold 49% of Jetstar Asia (Jetstar Asia is usually listed separately in various Asian Airport articles and not under QF). If it is the Jetstar Australia which is a fully owned subsidiary of Qantas, then yes, perhaps it should go under Qantas even if QF doesnt fly to the particular port. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i think this is quite true too. As ive visited Jetstar homepage, i found out that Jetstar offers connecting flight from KUL to Brisbane and Melbourne-Tullemarine, in which Jetstar operates the flight between KUL and Sydney while the connecting flights to Brisbane and Melbourne-Tullemarine from Sydney are operated by Qantas. Mike86 09:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jetstar

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, there's been a press release by Jetstar, but no confirmed dates, no ability to make bookings, and most certainly no decision about where the airplanes will dock! So lay off until they do.

And also, Jetstar is Jetstar, not Qantas, and as long as Qantas doesn't fly to KLIA, their name shouldn't appear in the article. Jpatokal 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't make booking?? It is confirmed and people have been making booking and there is a new offer ending today (wednesday) for cheap KUL-SYD with Jetstar. Try [5] and Jetstar official press release. I am reverting it back.
Did not you read what I wrote before? Many other Jetstar destination airports have Jetstar Airways under the heading of Qantas even though Qantas do not fly there. So you r telling me they should be changed? And therfore, Silk Air should not be under Singapore Airlines even though Singapore Airlines do not fly there?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zack2007 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

WP:AIRPORTS. You're supposed to use the two-layer listing if the airline X is operating on behalf of airline Y. Jetstar operates flights for Jetstar, not Qantas, and yes, if the same mistake is made somewhere else then it should also be fixed. Jpatokal 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought Jetstar really flies on behalf of Qantas (in practical terms), because Jetstar flies to destinations not currently flewn by Qantas (i.e. - SYD-KUL, MEL-BKK, AVV-SYD, etc). So in some way they do have some sort of bilateral agreement. This is similar to SilkAir and Singapore Airlines. Just because Jetstar is a low cost airlines doesnt make it a totally different entity than Qantas. Plus booking can be made between KUL-SYD-MEL where KUL-SYD is Jetstar and SYD-MEL is Qantas. Please enlighten about these. --Zack2007 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Jetstar Airways Australia (not Jetstar Asia) is a 100% owned subsidiary of Qantas, same like Silk Air is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines. So technically the Jetstar Airways flight would be a Qantas subsidiary flight anyway. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Subsidiaries. Jpatokal 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, wait patiently for the offical press release in detail from Jetstar then only we post it in...Marcusaffleck 13:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is undenialably that Jetstar is now offering booking for KUL - SYD route in Jetstar webpage. The inaugural flight shall be 9th September 2007. I agree that Jetstar shall not be categorised under LCCT as this route would be codeshared with Qantas and Jetstar is offering 3 different fares for this route, JetSaver, JetClass, StarClass. But the problem is im not so sure the plane is going to use main terminal building or satellite building. Mike86 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally there is official release, visit The Star webpage[6] which indicates Jetstar is a low cost airline,hence docking at LCCt. Marcusaffleck 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
“ Jetstar would be the second foreign low-cost carrier to fly into KL International Airport (KLIA), after Cebu Pacific Airways made its debut in December last year, the airport operator said.

“This will be the first Australian airline operating in KLIA. This operation will not only help to enhance network and connectivity, but also complement the Government's efforts to further encourage more low-cost carriers to operate to KLIA,” managing director Datuk Seri Bashir Ahmad said in the statement.

 ”

Usually, if it really will go to LCCT, thats the first thing that the article will mention. But no, it just say the second foreign airline to use KLIA. So it is a little bit ambiguous there. Now the only thing unconfirmed is whether main terminal or satellite. ALL i got is sumone claiming to buy a tix and said on it KUL-Main terminal. Not really convincing eh. --Zack2007 11:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Let's make it clear. Jetstar should be placed under Qantas as it is 100% owned by Qantas. Just like British Airways and BA Connect, KLM Royal Dutch and KLM Cityhopper,Alitalia and Alitalia Express,the are all categorised under their parent company. Refer to London Heathrow Airport and London City Airport for futher information and also proof of my words. While JetStar is low cost carrier, it will be in LCCt as what the newspaper says"it will be the Second full foreign based Low Cost Carrier" which indirectly telling that it will be landing at LCCT and it also refers the first one is Cebu Pacific.Marcusaffleck 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The first info about Jetstar being under Qantas, I second that. THe 2nd info is a little bit vague because technically it doesnt say Jetstar will use the LCC terminal. (It is ambiguous. I believe it doesn't use LCCt because if it does the news will say it loud and clear--the governmet will be so proud when someone use LCCt). I read from Malaysian Wing forum that they booked the flight and it said KUL-Main Terminal. Technically Jetstar is the second foreign low cost airlines to use KUL (KLIA no matter what terminal) after Cebu Pacific. (Lion Air is not really categorised as low cost carrier as it is not 'no frill' as it still give meals on board etc.) So you cant expect ALL low cost airlines to go to LCCt. It is a matter of choice and tactical strategies. After all, Jetstar and AirAsia in Singapore don't go to the budget terminal. my 3 sen. --Zack2007 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok since is this case, we temp put this under LCCt and wait until announcements made because Jetstar is a LCC rite, so we just put it under LCCt section first, then later we decide againMarcusaffleck 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia Airports Logo

Shall we upload this Malaysia Airports Logoon all the airports of Malaysia? Mike86 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CX PEN-KUL

Though it has connection from PEN-KUL and vice-versa, you are not able to pick up passengers who only fly to both passengers. You can't buy tickets for to PEN from KUL even in CX website. So that would mean we shouldnt put Pen as the destionation for CX. Am I right or not? -- Zack2007 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you cannot ride on CX from KUL going to PEN, then it should not be listed. The list is for destinations FROM the airport. If a passenger cannot disembark, or in this case, cannot even embark due to cabotage, then it should not be listed. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Today, Penang has been listed again on CX by an anon user. This time they have added a reference to it. Doesn't matter if you cite the source, CX still have no rights to trasport PEN-KUL only! I have removed it from the list once again!! Bucs2004 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination failed, 4 March 2004

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

I am failing this GA nomination mainly because of its extensive lack of sources and inline citations. It also has structural issues, particularly with the long lists of mainly unimportant information, whereas significant sections (i.e. Incidents) appear to be overlooked. Needs some cleanup and copyediting, as well as verifying. Good work so far though, please don't be discouraged and feel free to renominate at any time :) (if you would like any further comments please contanct me at my talk page). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KUL - SIN route operated by other airlines

I now have realised that the stopovers between KUL and SIN by all the involved airlines may not have the rights to transport passengers. For all the articles I have read, KUL - SIN route appears one of the most lucrative route which is dominated by both MAS and SIA only. The airlines that make stopover between this route are Air Sahara, Air Mauritius, Biman Bangladesh, Emirates, Japan Airlines, Pakistani International Airlines, Sri Lanka Airlines. If there is not such ability in booking flights between KUL and SIN by all above mentioned airlines and according to Wiki Airport Policy, Singapore should be removed like Penang was being removed in CX. Mike86 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Approximately 3 seconds Googling would have revealed that you, can, indeed fly on JL and UL. The other airlines do not, AFAIK, have carriage rights. Jpatokal 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jetstar Asia Airways and ownership

I am reverting to my edit, on Jetstar Asia Airways. Jetstar Asia Airways is 49% owned by Qantas, so it deserves to be under Qantas. This is similar to Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia which is 49% owned by AirAsia. What ways to justify Jetstar Asia Airways to be on it's own? --Zack2007 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

JetStar Asia Airways deserves to be standing on its own. Jannisri (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Qantas doesnt own Jetstar Asia Airways directly, they own 49% of Jetstar Asia's parent Orange Star. Thus technically Qantas aren't direct owners of the Airline, unlike the AirAsia subsidiarys which in part are directly owned by their parent Airlines. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've paid visit to the other airports page like Bangkok & Singapore, indeed Jetstar Asia is listed solely from Qantas. Mike86 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Flight to KLIA

I kept wondering why the people are adding Turkish Airline into the list that says TK will start flying to KLIA on 10th June 2007. I hope someone can provide the source for this information or just stop adding TK into the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcusaffleck (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Turkish Flight to KLIA

I kept wondering why the people are adding Turkish Airline into the list that says TK will start flying to KLIA on 10th June 2007. I hope someone can provide the source for this information or just stop adding TK into the list.Marcusaffleck 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KLIALOGO.JPG

Image:KLIALOGO.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KLIALOGO.JPG

Image:KLIALOGO.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Malaysia

Calling all Malaysian Wikipedians around the world!! It is high time for us to start our own WikiProject for Malaysia..any one can create/assiting me to create WikiProject Malaysia. Marcusaffleck 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Transaero & Gulf Air

Hi, guys! I found that Transaero is no longer serving Kuala Lumpur route. There were no Kuala Lumpur listed in the website at the flight schedule, even Mas, which signed the codeshare agreement with Transaero, has also removed moscow from the route map. I think Transaero should be removed or put as seasonal.

Gulf Air has increased the services to KUL but they do not connect Muscat with KUL anymore. Instead, they fly non stop between bahrain and kul. So i think Muscat should be removed. Similarly, Muscat has also been removed from the route map of MAS where MAS also codeshares with Gulf Air. Mike86 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Candidate, 2007-06-30

Oppose: By today's standards, this article does quite meet the Good Article criteria. For starters the article is full of unsourced statements, and there are far too many poorly written sentences, despite the overall good quality of writing. The flow from sentence to sentence also needs work in some cases.

On top of this, the amount of lists, graphs and tables is way too high, and the high number of images needs to be addressed. Because of this I cannot support the article at its current state. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

The article is well written but unfortunately is not well sourced. Many paragraphes and sections are completely devoid of any references. I would prefer an inline ref after every factual statement. The list of references is in a bad shape: no authors, dates, publishers. One ref lacks even title. There some problems in the structure: one sentence sections and paragraphs.

Some other suggestions. The subsection "A380 Upgrades" should be merged into "Future plans" subsection. Lead should be rewritten since it doesn't provide a summary of the article content.

Initially I wanted to put this article on hold but noticed "The neutrality of this article or section is disputed" tag in the "Taxis and limousine" subsection. So now I'm going to fail it. Ruslik 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sat Terminal Image

Im not sure if the caption is suitable, I know it's a pedants point but if you look to the background of the image there appears to be daylight. Am I correct or am I just seeing some bright light.

By the way, the pictures great other than that.

DannyM 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pix1.jpg

Image:Pix1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KLIA Schematic Plan

Since KLIA has made some changes on their master plan, i think its the time to redraw the schematic plan. I have the photos but i need someone to help me in drawing it. Not much changes, just the new side. The old side is still untouch. The drawing could be like BKK's oneJannisri (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Unfortunately, this article fails some of the GA requirements, and thus I cannot pass it. Things that need to be fixed to bring it up to GA standards are outlined below.

1) Many online sources do not have access dates
2) There are not enough references. As a rule of thumb, each section should have at least one footnote.
3) The article is too long. I would remove much of the information in the 'operations and infrastructure' section, including the following subsections which in my opinion are not important: air traffic control tower, baggage handling system, fire and rescue, animal hotel and meteorological services.
4) All the pictures are on the right hand side. The article could be made more aesthetically pleasing if some of the pictures are moved to the left.
5) The lead is not long enough. It should probably be twice as long as it is and incorporate more information from the entire article, not just statistics and history.

Please nominate the article again when changes have been made. Feel free to ask me any questions. Zeus1234 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air Mauritius

As a casual glance at their route map will show, Air Mauritius only flies to KUL in a triangle route with SIN, and is thus not a "hub" in any rational sense of the word. Jpatokal (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But Air Mairitius has their crew base here. I feel that hub doesnt mean the airline has to have onward connection to be hub. Instead, hub also includes crew base, main operation base etc. Jannisri (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Airline hub. Air Mauritius operates all of three (3) flights a week to KL, has no onward flights and bases no aircraft there, so no, that's not a hub by any stretch of the word. Jpatokal (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GreenGlobeSilver.jpg

Image:GreenGlobeSilver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLIA destination list/table

Why talk individually, lets people who contribute to this article give a say. First of all, the table does not conform the WP:Airports rule. You said the table benefits people because it is easy viewing. Doesn't the simpler list also easier to view? Not only that, it is easier to edit as well. My point stresses on that because the list gets changed frequently as airline destination is dynamic and changes every day. The table does not involve new information and increases the number of characters for the article. I vote for list for simplicity and easier of reading. It is also uniform with most airliner articles. --Zack2007 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for the new table presentation. Although it's not in WP:Airports, we always have to innovate to stand out from the others. Just like Incheon International Airport and Singapore Changi Airport, their articles stand out. We have to be bold, innovate to improve the readibility of the article. Moreover, by editing the new list, it's not difficult to edit. By just adding |-, | and stuff, your edit is completed. Marcusaffleck (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise from here that positions made on this issue by some individuals seem to be "politically motivated (in the wikipedian sense of coz)" than one based on objective reasoning. If anyone chooses to reject the table just because it originated from me, than I must say that is simply tragic as far as this project is concerned. Zack2007's view that the old table is "easier to view" is highly subjective. I personally consider the previous format extremely jarring to the eye. That the new format is more difficult to edit and adds more to the article size is nullified by the advantage of a clearer presentation and the introduction of a sorting feature, the later of which was actually the primary motivation on its introduction over at the Singapore Changi Airport article in the first place.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point.

That the new format is more difficult to edit and adds more to the article size is nullified by the advantage of a clearer presentation and the introduction of a sorting feature

Jannisri (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For me I prefer uniformity across all articles in wikipedia so that it is easier to read when switching between airport articles. Editing is easier because extra characters are not needed (only brackets and "star" characters). I do admit though new features like sortable could be handy, but i vote for simplicity and following the concensus. --Zack2007 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank God the real world dosent take this view in general, or we will still be living on a planet which is uniformly covered in jungle with tribes living a simple life in caveholes. Simplicity looses its purpose when it gives little value-add to the reader. "Easier" reading between articles is a moot point when there is no direct statistics showing readers readership patterns, or of any significant number of complains on "difficulty" in reading articles with some level of difference. These are self-imagined "difficulties" not backed up by imperical evidence, pushed forth for no better reason then personal laziness in handling a sligntly more complicated editing process.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review 2

I generally don't hit the quick-fail button, but there aren't nearly enough references in parts of the article.

  • If reference 3 is for the first 3 paragraphs of the History section, each paragraph needs to be cited.
  • "In November 2006, the Malaysian government announced that it had approved in principal the construction of a rail link between the main terminal building and the low cost carrier terminal. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2007." - unreferenced
  • Operations and Infrastructure - the first 3 subsections are completely unreferenced. So are sections "Fire and rescue", "Air cargo", and "Animal hotel", the last of which is very stubbish.
  • Subsection "Meterological services" is completely unreferenced.
  • Subsection "Low cost carrier" is completely unreferenced.
  • The entire section "Ground transportation" is completely unreferenced.

Until the references and sections marked as "needing expansion" are developed, I will have to fail the article. —Rob (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operations and infrastructure

I'm suggesting moving this all into its own article. Makes the main article more concise. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)