Talk:Victoria International Airport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Links to merge in
[edit] Airport codes
So Lommer just reverted my edit to add the airport codes to the opening paragraph of this article, citing the fact that they are in the infobox. His (i'm assuming) edits are not incorrect, but i want to put down why i disagree.
- The codes are redirects to this aiport
The codes appear in bold at the beginning of the article, which is standard wikipedia style for alternate names for things (if something has multiple names) and those bold words should redirect to the article, which they do.
- This is standard accoss many airport articles
In all the airport articles that i have edited lately, i have been placing the codes just after the primary name, and before the alternate names. I am a big fan of standard layout, and i don't feel it should be altered if the codes appear in a table.
The table seems more like "extra info cleverly formatted" but should not remove the codes from the opening paragraph.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports doesn't seem to say much about what should be done when the info box exists, and perhaps that would be a more suitable place to discuss this. (Man, after checking my own link, the Layout page actually has the codes in the table and in the opening paragraph. However, this issue is still up for discussion, i think)
In summary, i support restoring my codes to the opening paragraph. Please comment
-- Fudoreaper 07:09:32, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
- You're right Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports is the right place for this discussion. I've duplicated your comment there (I hope that's ok) and started an informal survey. -Lommer | talk 17:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've reinserted the codes as per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. -Lommer | talk 05:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Opening
An anon edited here to change the opening from 1914 to 1939. After a minor bit of research I get both dates as the opening, 1914 and 1939. Any idea which is the correct one? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would guess that the 1914 date is the correct one and that the airport experienced a period of disuse in between. OTOH, it's easy to see how a statement like "The airport was founded in the first year of WWII" could be mistakenly interpreted to mean 1914, and the second source is considerably more detailed. Do any other sources indicate 1914? -User:Lommer | talk 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- the second link is no longer active, the first points to the following information "1914 — World War I began. The Patricia Bay Airport was constructed as a training site for the Allied Forces. (It continues to operate today as Victoria International Airport)." so, the airport used to be called pat bay airport but the name was changed after it was no longer in use as a military training site. Zarkov (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Victoria-Waterloo Service by WestJet
Okay, so I took out Waterloo, based on two things: First, the guidelines per Wikipedia: WikiProject Airports standard as stated here and I quote: "List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two." This meaning that on this article we cannot put down destinations that require a stop that requires a change in plane by the Airline Operator. Which leads to my second thing. Secondly, according to WestJet's website, after searching up their schedule for service between Victoria and Kitchener-Waterloo this is what I found:
Week of Feb 10 - Feb 16
Victoria to Kitchener-Waterloo
Flight Number Depart Arrive Stops Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
WS798/484 7:00AM 5:40PM CNX Y
WS90/484 9:05AM 5:40PM CNX Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Arrivals Legend
N/S The flight is non-stop
/1 The flight makes one stop, no change of planes
/2 The flight makes two stops, no change of planes
CNX The flight has a connection, change of planes
2CNX The flight has two connections, change of planes
Y There is a scheduled flight. Click on any Y to view fares or book that flight.
+1 Indicates next day
+2 Indicates two days
Between Victoria and Waterloo requires a stop, and a change in plane in Calgary, that is why I removed Waterloo. I hope to have made this clear, feel free to respond to this if you want. SFOetthekid (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
