Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
1. July 2005 - November 2006 2. November 2006 - December 2007 3. 3

[edit] Flags (again)

User:Tobibln is adding flags to all the airline infoboxes (in the Headquarters field), I have reverted a few but just thought I would check what the project position was. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw and reverted at SkyEurope, can put it back if consensus has changed, but I don't think it has. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on his/her talk page to see if it was discussed anywhere else and asked him/her to come here. Looks like they are adding flags at great speed through the airline articles to notice! MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As always with these unnecessary flags, my view is that they are not needed. There has certainly been no consensus on adding them to infoboxes, nor an attempt to seek such consensus here on the project page or as far as I can see on any of the discussion pages for the airlines User:Tobibln has already changed. Suggest a reversion of the changes until a discussion can be concluded here. SempreVolando (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah I went to do that when I saw yours. Saw messages in another language -- could also be something carrier over from another language wiki as well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The user also appears to be linking stand alone years in the infobox which the MOS says should not be linked. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

saw but didn't revert that because I can't ever remember when years should and shouldn't be linked. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My understand is that a year by itself should not be linked. Likewise for month and year. By linking a full date (month, day, year), you allow it to be displayed in the format of the users defined preference. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering. If a few members in this wikiProject find themselves constantly reverting a feature added by other users, dosent this not reflect something about true concensus on the ground?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I question what you refer to as "a lot" and "a few". "A lot" of users vandalize pages in many different ways, but this doesn't mean their actions are correct because it is frequent. It is both a WP:AIRLINES and WP policy to not overdo the use of flags. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. WP:AIRLINES is in no position to establish "policy". The issue of "overdoing" flags is highly subjective. There are plenty of good quality articles which will have far mroe flags than any of these destination lists can show, and no one is citing "WP:Airlines" or any other policy against this practise. If there is indeed a notable number of users out there who think these flags are useful, should that not be considered when this WP decides on their fate? Even in the most recent "voting exercise", it was just five no votes (and one of my conditional no vote) against an unknown number of folks out there who keep re-adding those flags. Are the silent "flag-adders" invited to participate in these discussions at all?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No body is stopping them. In fact, a message was left on the aforementioned user's talk page referring him/her to this section. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the subject was only one user (who was asked to comment) adding flags to the infobox nothing to do with destinations or hoards of other users adding flags. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another of Huaiweis silent flag adders User:EZ1234 has been invited to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I am in any way related to the editor called User:EZ1234?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets get rid of these flags, they seem to annoy alot of people. User:EZ1234 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the flags in the destinations in Estonian Air? User:EZ1234 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and incidents

The following has been agreed by the Airport project -

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

Can we agree something similar for the Airlines project ? with perhaps just the last line changed to remove other airports. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The criteria seem good to me. If an incident is notable for inclusion on an airport's page, I don't see why it wouldn't be notable for an airline's page, and vice versa. So having consistent standards between Airport and Airline articles makes sense to me. The only thing that might make sense would be to move the "other" in the last line from "other airports or airlines" to "airports or other airlines". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. Also since it covers incidents we probably need a few other wording tweaks so:

The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with wording, we do need consistent guidelines for both airport and airline articles and this will be a useful addition. SempreVolando (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the new words - still in the same spirit as the airport criteria - would help in the constant arguments about inclusion or not. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all criteria. Good idea as these sections often become very overcrowded.Bthebest (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a pointer on the airport page to this discussion. So if there are no objections, we can update both project pages with identical wording. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No comments after a week I have updated the project guide with the amended wording. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Any possibility of coming up with a template for the "Summary" table on each of accident pages? I've visited several and while (most) of the data is the same, the order and presentation is different. Some tables included derived data, others duplicative data. I've never proposed a template before, so I'm not sure where to do this. Heck, I don't even know if this is the right page. (NetJohn (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Schedule changes for frequency of service

In many airline articles, there is a section about service changes. While it might be OK to list changes that add a new destination or drop an existing one, I think that listing frequency changes is not encyclopedic. The agreement that I think exists, is that listing the locations served is encyclopedic. No one has ever made the case the frequency of service is encyclopedic. I think we should drop all mention of changes in the frequency of service. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New and dropped service can point to the direction the airline is flying to (ex: business or leisure markets). There is no reason they should be removed from the articles. There is, however, no reason that added/reduced frequency should be mentioned in the respective airline articles. Sox 23 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with what was stated above. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I continue to believe that a logical case-by-case approach is far better than an outright blanket ban, in this case on any mention of frequency changes. There are some changes in schedules which can be much more significant on their own, whether it represented a major change, or involved a key market for the airline or the industry. I would also think it is alright for airline articles to basically list schedule changes, including new or suspended routes relevant in the latest available FY or timetable, or to only highlight important ones if there are too many changes in that period. Taken as a whole, analysing all changes for a fiscal year (or usually half a fiscal year as per each summer/winter schedule published) can tell alot on the airline's growth for the next six or 12 months, and the airline's short-term growth strategy, which can certainly be of encyclopedic value. Compare this to the vague unsourced statements currently pepppered all over airline articles saying "the airline is growing fast" without really saying how, where, and how much in a clear, concise, quantifiable and verifiable manner.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

-- We, as a project, need to remember that an encyclopaedia is supposed to remain somewhat static with only major, notable events being added over time; by all rights, information that is added now should still be in the article in 1, 2, 5, 10, 50 years time. This section in the Singapore article was removed by myself as it only includes frequency changes. Changes in frequency and new routes should not be included as WP is not an online timetable and not an extension of the airline PR department. The only things which our articles should be listing is new destinations, and even then this project needs to remember that half of the community at large does not agree with even destinations being added (refer to past Afd discussions), and the more that this line is blurred, the more I see myself agreeing with that other half. It is my opinion that new routes (as opposed to new destinations) and terminated routes (as opposed to terminated destinations) should not be included. Sox above mentions 'New and dropped service can point to the direction the airline is flying to', I disagree with this for the most part, as the articles should state via prose what markets the airline is serving, and the best place to put prose is in the article proper, and most definitely in the 'Destinations' section; placing it in the destinations section adds some credence to the current concensus of the project that destinations are needed as an integral indicator of the airline's operations. Looking at the recent changes, one done by myself, and the rest done in my name without my knowledge (and by the way, no I am not WP:AIRLINES), this is what I think should and shouldn't stay/go:

Singapore Airlines diff - the entire section should be removed, as it is only frequency change. Additionally, the prose says that these changes are major; I would hardly call 1 extra flight a week from Singapore to Chennai major; the entire section is simply a rewrite of this press release from the airline which details ALL schedule changes, but sourced to this news article. Interestingly, the news article doesn't see the need to detail all changes in their entireity.
Southwest Airlines diff - the entire section in its entireity should be removed, as it is only new routes (as it appears, so I will happily stand corrected if there is a new destination there); the article makes note that SWA utilises the point-to-point system over a hub and spoke system, so it is only natural that routes are added, changed, removed from their system timetable. I assume that Sox23 is referring to this article above, and I can honestly say that this list doesn't point to anything, other than new routes; remember, encyclopaedias are supposed to be written for readers, not for editors, a reader who is vanilla towards airline operations and Southwest Airlines would not have the faintest idea what market segments are being served by these listings. This is where prose comes into the equation, whilst remembering we need to ask ourselves how long is this section going to last? Is it going to remain in 1 month? 2 months? 6 months? 12 months? 1 year?
Air China diff - the one sentence that was removed and re-added should go, it is not sourced, so if re-added, re-add with a 'fact' tag. The section Air_China#Destinations needs total re-doing, routes removed, frequencies removed, aircraft changes removed (not notable in the overall scheme of things). However, one thing which is mentioned in this section, and which is applicable for all airlines across the project, is the creation and expansion of a hub at Shanghai. Whilst it isn't necessary to list all routes from Shanghai, this section should be expanded to explain why the hub was created, the major routes or destination regions from that hub, etc. I notice in the infobox that Chengdu is listed as a hub, yet there is exactly zero information on why and where. Other things such as how important is the domestic market for Air China? Very very little relevant and verifiable information on that aspect of the company operations, but we have lists of possible destinations to which service may start in 2 years time.
China Eastern diff - Bottom frequency section needs to be removed, the rest needs to be redone to explain shifting markets, etc
China Southern diff - removal was correct thing to do, the prose says all these flights are starting, and specific aircraft are going to be used, but due to postponement of aircraft deliveries, no announcements have been made.
Northwest Airlines diff - as per Air China and Shanghai hub comments
Air France diff - I believe it is correct to remove it due to the tone it takes and being unreferenced, however, reworded and expanded on more to do with the open skies agreement between the EU and US it could be shown to be a notable route for inclusion if some context is shown.
Spanair diff - as per Air China and Shanghai.
Swiss diff - as per Air China and Shanghai (brief Basle info gives something to work on)
Cathay Pacific diff - remove Sydney and Vancouver frequencies. Indian services as written lack context, is it part of an overall expansion plan or due to some 'unknown factor' relating only to India? Remove Colombo, in no small part due to it now being 6 April 2008.
Northwest Airlines diff - as per Air China and Shanghai, whilst as same time removing non-Northwest Airlines info (such as that relating to Mesaba, etc).
US Airways diff - as per Northwest
British Airways diff - as per Air China and Shanghai, whilst we also have some terminated destinations there, we haven't reached concensus on whether we should even be listing terminated destinations, community opinion via Afd is that we shouldn't, unless some degree of notability as to why terminated, I would leave out.
Austrian Airlines diff - all appear to be new destinations. Am thinking that to tabulate destination lists, and add commencement date column or some other feature like this would be better than way these are currently done.

I think it might be beneficial for project members to collaborate on a stub or start article, one which is not so much developed, and thereby no long term standards, and work with it, and perhaps look at the project guidelines and tweaking them where necessary. What say you all? --Россавиа ^Диалог 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Southwest Airlines article, these new routes are showing WN's recent focus on building up operations at DEN. (When "discontinued routes" was included on the article, it was showing WN's focus on eliminating trans-con routes [LAX-PHL, OAK-PHL, etc..] I don't see why that shouldn't be included. Factual, visual information like (these weren't frequency changes either; they are/were new/eliminated routes) that is more effective than simply having writing: "Southwest is putting a focus on building operations in Denver." This gives the reader the knowledge and then the specific examples of how the airline is going about doing this. I completely agree that routes with frequency changes should not be included, but new/discontinued routes I think should stay. (By the way- I didn't mean to say that you were WP:AIRLINES, just that when Huaiwei was deleting these sections saying "per Russavia" that there was no discussion at WP:Airports.) Did not mean to blame you. Sox 23 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder from where did Russavia get the faintest idea that this encyclopedia is supposed to be "somewhat static with only major, notable events being added over time". This goes against the very core idea that Wikipedia is a community project open for anyone to edit, and not one where edits are discouraged just because they add to the editing statistics. The notability of any article changes over time, and so does its contents. There is no reasonable guarantee that one can add content now and be reasonably sure that it will remain relevant 50 years or even 5 years later, because the summary style of our articles will inevitably render the least notable element removed to maintain a reasonable article length. Unless Russavia is an aviation guru able to predict the course that the aviation industry will take over the next 50 or even 5 years, I find it a wishful thinking to consider minimal editing as an "editing standard" that this WP should be adopting.

As I have already explained at length above, I do not call for absolute inclusion of all frequency changes, and if they should be included, be done so with reasonable length for the primary purpose of knowledge and research. Russavia regularly fails to directly explain why such inclusion would be non-notable or unencyclopedic, relegating everything as "listcruft" (or in this case, an "online timetable") or an "extension of the airline PR department". A list of recent changes in an airline's schedules can hardly function as an "online timetable" in any sense of the word, nor can it promote an airline in any direct, feasible way, certainly not any more than the existance of the article itself.

Wikipedia articles has always been writtern for anyone, be it casual readers to industry professionals. Jimmy Wales himself says that Wikipedia is "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language"[1], so who are we to question that vision? Wikipedia editors, when evaluating notability of any given subject, should not have a misconceived idea that these articles only target a specific segment of the global population by censoring supposedly "useless" and "technical" information, as what some are clearly doing (and which I have constantly opposed much to their chagrin). Fear of confusion caused to the uninformed should be turned into a motivation to research, write and expand our articles, not as an excuse to self-censor and negate the opportunity to educate them through our work under the veil of "consistency".

And I hope Russavia can provide better excuses than another "anti-PR exercise" when targeting Singapore Airlines related articles next time. If that exercise is indeed such a core concern to him, at least be reasonably consistent about it. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of static, I mean that not every single event needs to be covered. This means that seasonal changes to frequency of flights have no need to be covered. The frequency changes are to allow for adjustments in capacity, come October 2008 (or possibly sooner), those frequencies will be removed, and a new set of frequency changes (should not) will be added. And what about equipment changes on routes? Or how about re-timing of routes? It would really all that much easier if we created Singapore Airlines 2008 northern summer timetable and dump an entire timetable in there; at least by doing that, those flight numbers lists will be finally be useful (for the purpose for which they are intended for publich consumption). It is in that regard that 1) wikipedia is not the airline press office to advise of frequency changes 2) wikipedia is not a newswire 3) wikipedia is not a travel guide 4) wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate, meaningless information. WP:RECENTISM deals with the argument that I have quite nicely - we should not be writing articles with the view of replacing information every other month (or whenever the airline deems fit to pump out a press release to advise of obviously important information for the day-to-day running of their business, but which is totally out of place in an encyclopaedic context). As to my suggestion that all project members who want to see a common feel amongst articles work together on a single article for a week or two, see what ground can be made on article development any comments from any project members on that? Россавиа ^Диалог 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly fully agree that seasonal changes to frequency of flights should not be listed, something I have not recommended to add. All other comments above are a blatant attempt of overblowing the issue in a bid to shoot it down. Just who is suggesting to add schedule changes based on flight times and aircraft types? No one but yourself. And since the Singapore Airlines phrase has to be mentioned again, perhaps you may wish to list just which entry in that offending section falls within the problems you cite? Your skewed application of various policies continue to be a source of entertainment, Russavia. If Wikipedia cannot be an airline press office, could you kindly remove all information in all airline articles which has ever existed in their press releases? Ditto to all information ever reported in the press? How would a list of new routes be less of a travel guide or an "indiscriminate, meaningless information" compared to a list of permanant flight frequency changes? I do realise you simply could not care less about many aspects of aviation, but do the rest of the world's aviation enthusiats have to have their research clipped by your indifference?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frequent Flier Program

I notice that Frequent Flier Programs are included with the respective Airline article. Are there any exceptions? --Novelty (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Concensus has been that this is the way things should be, but they're regularly recreated anyway. Jpatokal (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean whether any FF program has its own article? I don't think so. I'm not sure whether any one would be notable enough to have its own article, except perhaps AAdvantage, though don't quote me on that. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, unless notable on its own, no article, just a section in the airline article. A redirect is optional. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Novelty (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Airways livery

I am going to put US Airways livery up at Afd. Is there any reason this article exists, apart from that it was split out of US Airways due to essentially being a gallery and taking up too much room in the main article? Even though it may be a 'sub article' it is stil in the mainspace, and it is lacking references from reliable sources (airliners.net is NOT a reliable source for anything) which discuss US Airways livery in any detail. The one sentence from an Afd discussion which always sits on my mind is 'The solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it'. If one must use photos on US Airways, the solution is:

Expand the history section, and remove both (TWO) photos of the A330 in that current section
Reduce the year by year timeline section from 2004 onwards
Insert images from commons in applicable sections and utilise the commons template which advises readers that there are files/media on commons related to this article.

Wikipedia is not a list of various links to airliners.net nor a fansite. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I fail to see why any airline article would need to have all of these sub-pages (fleets, airport lounges, flight numbers, flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people), non notable subsidiaries, frequent flyer programs (Aeroplan excepted due to it being listed on a stock exchange), articles relating to cabins for one airline, etc, etc) when Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines don't. Those are the featured articles relating to WP:AIRLINES, if that means anything. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to "flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people)", now that was actually quite funny. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really hate Afd discussions so I rarely get involved with them, but the article fails to explain why the topic is notable. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and incidents guidelines

In early April, I removed a large section of 'accidents and incidents' on the Northwest Airlines article. By following the guidelines of this project, it was my opinion that those incidents were not notable. The removal of these incidents was disputed by User:Golich17, as seen in this diff, which was in turn reverted by MilborneOne (he appeared to be in agreeance with the removal which I performed). Northwest Airlines is not the only airline I have done this with, I have done it with, from memory, Qantas, Aeroflot, Singapore Airlines, and a whole host of other articles. I think it is time that this guideline be discussed so that the entire project can read off the same page, so that we all know what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Seeing as we have a diff available for the Northwest Airlines article, I will explain why these incidents were removed, and it will apply as to why I have removed other incidents on other articles without prejudice. I hope that project members can discuss this, and perhaps tweak that guideline accordingly. I will place the guidelines which are on WP:AIRLINES here, so that one needn't go from page to page. The guidelines are:

Incidents and accidents

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;

The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;

The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

And here are my reasons for the removal of those and other incidents:

The incidents did not involve fatalities
The incidents did not involve hull loss (it is my opinion that hull loss needn't necessarily be reason for inclusion either)
The incidents did not involve changes to procedures, regulations or processes which affect either the airport, airlines or aircraft industries as a whole
The policy WP:NOT is forever in the forefront of my mind, and in relation to these incidents WP:NOT#NEWS is ever relevant. Whilst this policy is obviously more relevant to whether an article should exist on Wikipedia, it should also be used for content of articles of obviously notable entities. Whilst WP:NOT#NEWS discusses more on individuals, in relation to airlines we should be using it in regards to a) is the inclusion of incidents routine news coverage? and b) is the incident significant historically for the airline? It is my opinion that the incidents which I removed were included as a 'news coverage', and that they are not historically significant for Northwest Airlines. In the overall scheme of things they are insignificant.
Whilst not a policy, the incidents and accidents on airline articles are a perfect case of WP:RECENTISM. In the history of an airline such as Northwest Airlines which goes back to 1926 (according to the article), or Qantas, or KLM, etc, etc each airline would have had dozens upon dozens of bomb threats, emergency landings (for whatever reason), and other mishaps, yet these are not included. A big part for that is what is covered in WP:RECENTISM, but of course to include EVERY incident that has ever seen Northwest Airlines involved is pure overkill.

These is my opinion on why I removed these incidents. And for further opinions, I will say this. I am in no pointing the finger at any fellow wikipedian with what I say, rather I am squarely pointing the finger at the media. The media these days is evermore sensationalistic, and we as participants in building an encyclopaedia need to cut through the media bullshit and present articles which are concise, well laid out, and more important, informational and relevant to what a reader who is vanilla on any given article subject would need to know in order to have a well-informed, (hopefully more than basic) understanding of that subject. Inclusion of what I (and others, I will let those people speak for themselves though) believe to be irrelevant incidents in the overall picture of any given airline is not helping that vanilla reader to gain an above basic understanding of our airlines. And this is where we need to stop playing 'media'; by this I mean, it appears to me these days a passenger on a flight farts, the passenger sitting next to them doesn't like the smell, they go to a news outlet to complain, and the so-called news outlet runs with the story, making it the most sensational story one has ever seen. And when all is said and done, this incident is added to the wikipedia article for that airline. It is my opinion that if an incident can not be mentioned in an airline article with a link to an article on that incident, it shouldn't be included. If it isn't notable to hold up on its own as an incident, then it likely is not all that significant. Of course, this doesn't preclude obviously notable incidents which fulfill the guidelines from being mentioned, but where an editor has not yet created an article for that incident. I would even so far as to say that the guidelines should be expanded to include other factors. The guidelines in my opinion would be along the lines of:

Incidents and accidents

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;

The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;

The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

The event resulted in the loss of the AOC of the airline and/or the airline going out of business/being completely grounded (obviously an incident which fulfills that is notable in the history of the airline)

The event whilst not fulfilling the above criteria was so controversial as to change perception of that airline, or had other major ramifications, or was historically unique in another aspect. The wording is not quite right, it does need to be tweaked - but the perfect example of what I mean by this is Qantas Flight 1 - there were no fatalities, hull loss did not occur, and industry procedures didn't change dramatically afterwards - however, it was notable considering the expense that Qantas went to in order to preserve their no hull loss record in the jet era, whilst at the same time the accident was held up as the perfect case of what can happen when airlines contract out maintenance to foreign entities [not to mention the bad press received in regards to having the Chinese repair the aircraft] - they are not necessarily my own opinions on that accident, although what I have written was widely written about in direct relation to that accident - that is the general gist of this inclusion factor. By historically unique in another aspect, I guess the perfect example is JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (although I will say it is my opinion that this article as it stands wouldn't fulfill this, due to the DirecTV aspect that is what is historical significant hardly rating a mention; of course that aspect is what make this incident in the least bit significant.

So that is my reasoning on why incidents have and will be removed, and my opinions as to how I think these particular guidelines should be worked upon; nothing I have done has been done maliciously, but rather in good faith and because of the way I have interpreted policies and guidelines has lead me to act in good faith in removal and/or addition of information in individual articles, or on wikipedia as a whole. I am hoping we as a project can discuss this particular guideline, tweak it as needed (if concensus as a project on a whole warrants it), and start implementing any concensus without prejudice across the board, with changes on individual articles outside of guidelines to take place not only on the article talk page, but on this talk page also, as it is better to discuss at a project level as it gets the project involved (I am taking a good stab here, but I don't think most project members know what is happening from one article to another), whilst at the same time changes outside of the guidelines could actually be a good thing that the entire project could benefit from - well that's my opinion anyway. I will turn it over to others for their input, and hopefully critique - as opposed to criticism - on what I have written above. Россавиа ^Диалог 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I supported your removal of the accidents and incidents as they fell outside the guideline. I dont think the guideline should be changed it is simple and clear as it has only just been agreed and unusually the same criteria is also used at WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AIRPORTS. But note that just because an accident or incident meets the criteria this does not mean that is has to be included as it also as you say have to pass notability and other criteria not just in todays newspaper. I dont think that we have to cater for every eventually incidents like QF1 although not meeting the guidelines can be accepted on an individual basis. If an article like QF1 stands on its own without being taken to an AfD it is probably notable in its own right and pro rata can be included in the airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MilborneOne. The guideline as it stands works pretty well. I am concerned that we are perhaps getting prone to running together the definitions of Aviation accident and Aviation incident. If aviation operations kill someone or cause major damage to an aircraft, that's an accident per both the NTSB and the ICAO definitions. If insufficient safety margins are maintained or there is only minor damage not affecting airworthiness, that's an incident. By WP:ADL, I believe that ALL accidents are notable if the aircraft is of an eligible type (by size and capacity). A few incidents may also be, but not very many actually get entries. I'm not sure why we maintain the incidents in the same list at all. It is rather confusing to new editors.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Low Fares Airline Association

The ELFAA keeps being added to airline articles in the infobox as an Alliance and a navbox - the navbox has been added as a copy and paste (adding the airlines all the categories the navbox has!) - the ELFAA is just a trade association and should not be in the infobox but just getting a sanity check from other project members. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ELFAA is not an alliance. I don't have a problem with the ELFAA navbox being used on member company articles, though it should be transcluded and not substituted or copy/paste the entire template content.-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have removed entries from infoboxes, added ELFAA cat and checked the navboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eos Airlines

I know that the airline ceased operations on April 27, 2008. Are they still doing charter flights or did they ceased only scheduled passenger service and retained only charter? Cause Eos Airlines has been added to Punta Cana International Airport as a charter airline there. I reverted it saying "airline went bankrupt" and an IP reverted it saying "still doing charter flights". I just wante to know if this is correct or not? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Article on CNN.com says "winding down operations". I take this to mean that there may be a few last flights to cleanup (the outbound to Punta Cana operated before the shutdown was announced) but that's it. There's no reason to be adding them to airport articles now. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Eos has been added again to Punta Cana International Airport. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-Airline codes

Hi! Just thought I'd bring your attention to this sub-page we've set up at Wikipedia:Templates with red links. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag icons again

I know this will come as no surprise, but I removed some flag icons from Singapore Airlines and was reverted as expected. I personally think that the section these were in, Recent changes, smacks of wikinews and really should be seriously considered for removal since it most deals with the no encyclopedic changes of flight frequencies. Is there any support besides the reverter to use flag icons in this case or even to keep this section?

I will also note that the reversion of my changes also removed the ownership information from the infobox without any mention in the edit comments. Given the history for the ownership information, I suppose we may need to discuss that as well. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly the removal of the ownership information without explanation was either due to the reverter not seeing that the information was added or because he was too lazy to only do a partial revert of your edit. I still don't see why flags are necessary at all for the section from which they were removed. If someone could possibly explain what benefit they have then good luck. I've restored the information you added to the infobox because it was valuable, sourced, relevant, and in good-faith so there was no reason to remove it. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did not add the infobox stuff. This is an ongoing issue over who the owner is. I think your edit comment sums up what I perceive the consensus to be on ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And it was removed again! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed flags before and we did have a consensus to not use flags in destination lists, the general feeling was not to add flags to the infobox but we did not come to a conclusion. And now we have another example of flag use. Perhaps somebody can suggest a guideline for when flags should be or should not be used, agree or vote on it and then have a clear guideline to refer to. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously can't think of why anyone could justify the use of flags in any circumstance. They don't help in identifying the country given that in all cases where I've seen them being used the country is listed directly with the place name. The only reason I've seen towards having them is that 'they look pretty'. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And yes, "looking pretty" is a very valid reason to add flags, just as "looking pretty" is the sole reason behind the countless hours of hardwork put in by countless individuals to basically make this encyclopedia look asthetically pleasing to the eye, or in other words, to basically "look pretty". If individuals in this WP has a major issue with a tiny aspect of "looking pretty", I would encourage you to take this out into site-wide context and try demanding that all uses of these flags for no reason then "looking pretty" be removed from this site. I am kinda amused that there is actually an effort here to create "consistently dull" aviation articles!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but tiny flags are not equal to large images. If you're trying to say that cluttering articles with these miniscule thumbnails improves the image of the article then I sincerely hope you are not in the field of art. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and now the size of "looking pretty" items are in contention. Are you seriously trying to suggest that "large images" are nothing more than "looking pretty" items and serve no educational purpose, and that only "images" in general are in that category? Have you not figured out that anything from fonts and colours to lines, boxes, and diagrams also falls into this "useless" category? Do you actually directly handle mass-distribution publications and have a hand in actually doing page layout design or any other form of digital graphic design to question anyone's expertise in this field, something which I have done for years?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The size was always in contention as far as I'm concerned. Do you think someone with even mediocre vision can identify the flags? I have excellent vision yet it's often difficult for me even to see what flag is being represented, thereby making the whole use of them pointless. I'm talking usefulness, and lack of. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have poor vision, and I can easily identify the flags, failing which I hover my mouse over the image and the country name appears, failing which I click on the image and a much large image appears along with full details of the locality indicated. Is this a major problem to a huge segment of the world's population to use basic initiative? I used the flags in the said article to avoid having to repeatly state the country involved, since the city is of more importance in that regard. However, I cannot assume everyone is going to know where each city is, hence the "flag shorthand".--Huaiwei (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the manual of style disagrees. The first item on WP:FLAG reads: "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody want to agree that we just add the statement to the structure guideline Flag icons should not be used ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In any context?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How tragic. Even Hu Jintao would display greater common sense and flexiblity than this over the Tibet issue. ;) Is this WP attempting to style itself as a authoritarian regime bent on making every small decision for its editors, regardless of circumstance?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand that all discussions have to start somewhere so rather than extend the discussion for many months I have put a stake in the ground at one choice. Also note that any agreements or consensus at project level are suggestions, the entry in my dictionary for suggestions does not use the word authoritarian. Please discuss why you think the no flag options is wrong and others can comment as they wish. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I perfectly understand that there is a bunch of individuals here who strongly believe that every aspect of these pages must be standardised to the last detail, and it is unfortunate that this group happens to be a dominating group in this WP. It is common knowledge that there are a sizeable number of wikipedians, especially those less aware of this site's policies and guidelines, who interpret guidelines as policies and insist on following them in every aspect. To insist on adding instructions in a guidline, including every minute detail considered "trivial" by this small group of individuals, is making a conscious effort to remove all possibilities of "exceptions" for whatever reason there may be. Adding every "concensus" into the guidelines is now considered the most fashionable thing to do to avoid "months of disputes" with "lesser contributors" who simply do not invest as much time in this site, but who's collective voice is ignored because they fail to talk here often enough. This is a classic example of a project overwelmed by group think, such that anyone who steps out of the line is automatically labelled as a trouble-maker. And each time this happens, more "rules" continue to be added to these "guidelines" to vindicate this labelling and to stamp out debate, not far different from authorative regimes on this planet. And who is the biggest looser of all these? Not I. It is the aviation-loving community out there who will never have a credible source called wikipdia to refer to when attempting to read up on something they love. Oh, I am sorry I digressed, but if you are basically wanting to find out why those peskily tiny icons should be added, I have already stated them. Then again, I arent surprised I am not heard, for what more can we expect from Stalinist regimes?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Or the other view is that we have editors who want to shape things to their liking and ignore the general consensus. Style sheets are not as restrictive as some would have you think. They are necessary in large works or periodicals as I learned in the 60s. You need to exercise care in how you use color and graphics so that you don't distract from the main focus of the article. Pictures can be good, and they can be overdone, if they are used to add prospective or to illustrate a point. Small icons that are in fact really difficult to read on many screens can be more of an annoyance then a benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But which up till this date, despite this view supposedly held by the very people I speak against, have been unable to actually take action against my "article ownership issues", a classic accusation made by those who simply could not convince a minority with comments which at least make sense. Would you not think such an impression would severely backfire, for it actually seems that this "article onwership" issue can just be very well applied to this very WP with its insistance on having all articles fall in line to the last details in ways I have never seen in any other WP? The so-called "general concensus" is fast becoming a mockery, for as I said, it is but practically the same small bunch of people who seem to persistently engage in group think, and this small group will persistently use their "numeric superiority" to ramp through many decisions because there is simply not many people out there willing to argue over little flags.

I have commented this many times, but usually it gets ignored (I suppose reality is too harsh to face): if this small group insists that what they are doing is good for this website, then may I ask just why is there hardly any progress in developing even a handful of articles to Featured Article status? Why is it that we frequently see many other FAs, despite falling under the same WPs, be able to attain excellent quality despite sometimes having notable differences from each other? Do their respective WPs have a long list of "dos and dont's" with all relevant articles expected to fall in line? Does this group seriously believe it is channeling energy in the right direction here?

I am now left to ponder over the relevance of style sheets in this debate (and I tought we are writing an electronic encyclopedia), as well as that highly original and amusing claim that flag icons are supposedly "really difficult to read on many screens". Have you brought this issue up to WP:FLAG and get them to enlarge them to your benefit, while I, with eyes certainly not at their peak performance, continue to experience absolutely no problems in seeing and deciphering them? Is "reading difficulty" the next excuse to remove them now? And I thought I just said all I am looking for is sensible, well throught-out discussions other then the "its listcruft, its useless, its not interesting, its not neccesary, it stresses my eyes" excuses?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that the flags add something to the dull airline articles. Even placing a small flag in the infobox would catch the eye of the reader. As well, flags show national pride and the reader would think that that airline proudly belongs to his or her country but this is just my view. EZ1234 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yep, flags will definitely get the articles to FA status for sure! </sarcasm> NcSchu_(Talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, just saying EZ1234 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the two FA Status or two GA Status airline articles has any flags !! MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in navboxes

An editor added state flags (for the state the airline is headquartered in) to {{Navbox Airlines of the United States}}. It was pretty ugly [2] and rather pointless. I've reverted the change. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet pages

What should be done about these? The VS and VX pages are just registration pages (an AfD have been placed on them, though, and the general consensus leans towards deletion). However, the AA and SQ pages go into historic fleet detail; I'm not sure if it's noteworthy enough to be kept. I think a consensus needs to be made in regards to historic fleet data, as it's not consistent; some airlines have that information, others don't, and I personally don't see how it's relevant. I've merged the EK fleet page, though, because, in all honesty, there wasn't anything in that page that the main EK page's Fleet section was missing. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that fleet lists should be removed, whether they are in a standalone article or in some other article. The rest of the articles in Category:Airline fleets should probably have whatever is left merged back into the main airline article. I have no issue with keeping historic fleet data (not detailed tail numbers, but lists that say e.g. from 19xx to 19yy, Hawaiian Airlines operated # L-1011 aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I went through and merged tables into the main articles; those main articles didn't have any vital information at any rate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin America fleet and Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet Cari^Me_Speak! 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines fleet

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (3nd nomination) Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan International Airlines

I think that there has been a mistake for listing Beijing Capital International Airport and Suvarnabhumi Airport as focus cities for PIA. I have removed them from the list of focus cities in the infobox since they only fly to 1 non-hub destinations (NRT is listed as a destination for PIA on the PEK page and HKG is listed on the BKK page) and to their hubs. Dubai would be a reasonable PIA focus city but Beijing and Bangkok??? I don't think so. Any comments. 125.34.65.92 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass airline navbox renaming request on WP:RM

See the discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aero Mongolia

Hello, everyone. The article on Aero Mongolia says that it is now defunct due to a flight restriction. But it did get its license back, because one of my friends went to the country by Aero Mongolia not long ago. Can anyone find some sources though? --Chinneeb_{my talk} 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags again (infobox)

Sorry to bring this up again but the last attempt to discuss this did not come to a conclusion. A number of editors have started to add flags to the Headquarters field of the airline infobox. Not a great fan of flags as I have said before but does the project have a recommendation either way. Only concern is that some articles have flags and some dont, so that if we use flags in just this context then all of them need to have flags, or if we dont like flags at all then recommend that they be removed. Any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still feel that putting the flags here fails the first point in the summary section of WP:FLAG: Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a redundant flag next to a place name in the infobox is useful to the reader. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As we have had no further comments consensus is that it is recommended that flags are not used in the infobox in accordance with WP:FLAG. MilborneOne (talk)

HOORAY!!! a conclusion has been struckEZ1234 (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jetstar Asia Airways

Can some others keep a watch on the Jetstar Asia Airways fleet section? We have an editor who wants to include the registration numbers. I have removed this twice so far. Not having the registration numbers in this article seems to be supported by the consensus discussions here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independence Air and redundancy

Resolved. all sorted, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Inetpup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) recently created, among others, Independence Air decline and road to bankruptcy, which appears quite redundant to Independence Air#Decline except for the format. Is there general consensus that we need these break-out sections. I don't think Independence Air is so big that the decline information can't be in the main article, although I think the destinations should definitely stay out. Thoughts? I'll be notifying Inetpup of the discussion in a moment. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that since the airline is defunct, the information would be useful in the existing Independence Air article instead of having a new article. By the way, there may be users who don't watch this page but do watch Talk:Independence Air, so we might want to either move the conversation there or just give a heads up. --Matt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no reason to have a separate article on this topic. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll link it there, there's been minimal activity on anything related to Independence Air and even when I posted here back in Feb, there was nothing. I thought odds might be that might get more eyes here. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to put it in the main article. I'm quite busy today, so I won't have a chance to work on it! Will someone merge the contents in? Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation (2nd filing)

As the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. The previous request for mediation was not succesful as not all parties would participate, however, I am trying again with this request. I have added a number of 'involved parties', however, if you believe you are involved in the disputes raised in the request, please add yourself to the 'involved parties' list and add yourself to the 'Parties' agreement to mediate' section. Perhaps we can now have these issues resolved in a timely manner. --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy of American Airlines Flight 11 now open

The FAC for American Airlines Flight 11 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!

[edit] Inflation of Qantas fleet numbers

Over at Qantas and List of largest airlines in Oceania there seems to be disagreement as to what figures should be used for the fleet of Qantas. The source which I have referenced is published by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is the official government record of the civil aircraft register. The source which User:Sparrowman980 uses to reference these figures is Qantas public relations in which they include subsidiary airlines. I have a problem with the use of PR sources at the best of times, and this is one of those times in which the failings of using PR sources are ever evident. First and foremost because we have a source from the ultimate authority of civil aviation in Australia with up-to-date and the most accurate records possible; if only because the accuracy of these records are mandated in Federal law. Secondly, the Qantas PR is just that, PR. They could claim they are Jesus Christ in the name of PR, it doesn't mean that Jesus Christ needs to be redirected to Qantas; in effect, what I am saying, is that they can make all sorts of claims in their PR, it doesn't mean that they necessarily hold true, or verifiable, which in this case, it isn't. The verifiability of their PR claims are easy to debunk due to the existence of the CASA aircraft register. When searching for Qantas Airways Limited as the operator, we receive 135 results (the link I provided above). Searching for QantasLink, returns 0 results; this is because QantasLink is not an airline, but a brand used to group together the operations of Eastern Australia Airlines, Sunstate Airlines and some operations of National Jet Systems. These subsidiary airlines should not be included in Qantas figures as the CASA aircraft register clearly shows that these aircraft are not operated by Qantas Airways Limited. Jetstar Airways should not be included in any Qantas figures as its flights are operated under its own name, its own air operator's certificate, it's own codes, it's own callsign; the mere fact that it is a subsidiary of Qantas should not be used to inflate figures of Qantas. This issue was discussed very briefly six+ months ago at Talk:Qantas/archive1#Fleet_size, and Sparrowman980 has used User:Fnlayson's why not comments as apparent concensus to use the inflated figures. Can we please get other opinions on this, as it is clearly my understanding that previous concensus on such issues is that subsidiaries and other entities should not be included in such figures. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

An airline is an airline, a group is a group. It seems pretty obvious to me. Air France/KLM is a group that operate two seprate airlines, AF and KLM. Therefore, their numbers should be listed separately when we are talking about airlines. They have not merged their operations. Delta and Northwest are two separate airlines, but they are planning on merging. Once they do, the numbers for both should be included under Delta. Unless the QANTAS Group airlines merge under one AOC, they should be counted separately for fleet numbers. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with your position. Qantas should contain only aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited, and exclude JetStar aircraft as it is a separately certificated airline. A good precedent for this would be US Airways, which does not contain the aircraft operated by US Airways Group wholly owned subsidiaries PSA Airlines and Piedmont Airlines and operated as US Airways Express. QantasLink can contain details about all the aircraft operated by various airlines under that brand, in addition to the operating carrier's individual articles. You'll see the same at US Airways Express. That said, at least the QantasLink aircraft are listed as being operated by a partner carrier, though I would prefer that they not be there at all. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Russavia we should not bolster the fleet tables for legally separate airlines. British Airways for example does not include the subsidary BA CityFlyer which operates as a separate entity. I also have a problem with these larger fleet figures then being used to justify being on top of the various my fleet is bigger than yours tables!! MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to bring to your attention to best example is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_airlines_in_Asia they give a clear picture of what is going on. Sparrowman980 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air India

...is the Wikipedia:WikiProject India collaboration of the week. Let's lend them a hand in getting this to FA! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)