Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Maintenance talk
 → New articles (archive) talk
Assessment department (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (15) talk
 → Good articles (54) talk
Collaboration department talk
Peer review department talk
Contest talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery talk
Portals
 This box: view • talk • edit  · changes
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


[edit] Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport

Uploaded pictures of airplanes and the aiport in Saskatoon. Don't know the airplanes' manufacturer, name or type. Which pictures should be in article on Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport. Located in commons at Saskatoon Airport If anyone can help it would be appreciated.SriMesh | talk 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airport naming conventions

When naming airport articles, is it proper to name the airport according to the offical FAA listed name, or the name referenced by state or local agencies? For example,. Franklin Municipal-John Beverly Rose Airport is the name listed by the FAA as far as I can tell, but other places reference it as either the "Franklin Municipal Airport" or "John Beverly Rose Field". Which is proper naming convention here? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. The two FAA sources you cite in the article (the FAA Airport Master Record and the 2005 NPIAS report to Congress) to support the name "Franklin Municipal-John Beverly Rose Airport" both list the name as "FRANKLIN MUNI-JOHN BEVERLY ROSE". Like most airports in the FAA's database, the facility name does not include the word "AIRPORT" (which can be found in a separate facility type field). The other source you cite is AirNav, but that website uses the same FAA Airport Data (5010) and simply combines the facility name with the facility type (a good reason why AirNav and similar sites should not be cited as a source for airport names). When expanding an abbreviated FAA name, the word "Airport" is not always added at the end of the name. For example "AITKIN MUNI-STEVE KURTZ FIELD" is properly expanded as "Aitkin Municipal Airport - Steve Kurtz Field", not "Aitkin Municipal - Steve Kurtz Field Airport" (note: AirNav actually handles that one correctly now, but it didn't in the past).
  2. Airports are named by their owners, not the FAA. Therefore, more weight should be given to the name listed on the official website of the airport or the airport's owner. The airport's official web pages on the website of the City of Franklin (the airport's owner) show the name (in text and in a logo) as "Franklin Municipal Airport". Another document on that website gives the name as both "Franklin Municipal Airport" and "John Beverly Rose Field". A photograph of a sign at the airport entrance (displayed in the article's infobox) also shows both of these names. Based on this information, the correct expansion of "FRANKLIN MUNI-JOHN BEVERLY ROSE" would actually be "Franklin Municipal Airport - John Beverly Rose Field".
  3. For an article name, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) suggests using the most common name. For most airports that is the portion containing "Airport" (for example, an article named Aitkin Municipal Airport and a redirect named Steve Kurtz Field). I updated the article in question with additional references indicating the most common name is Franklin Municipal Airport, therefore I think the page should be moved back to Franklin Municipal Airport.
-- Zyxw (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me look in my hard copy airport directory and see what it is listed as. Based on that, that should be the most common name referenced (at least by pilots). I can weight that against the other references as well. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (airports) and its talk page. It's about time we finally agreed on some guidelines for this... Jpatokal (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colombian Airports

Hello. We keep getting users with Colombian IP addresses who at least weekly invade Colombian airport articles adding flags, misguided information, one time charter routes as "destinations", airlines with only intention and no concrete plans or even authority to fly routes, or even airlines which the press has stated may start a route, and even airlines that are upcoming start ups with not even an aircraft yet purchased added as destinations "coming soon". They also perpetuate entire restyling of the article's to different setups such as no destinations, separating international and domestic destinations per airline with no international or domestic division of the airport, and adding information in broken English which they insist is correct even after their broken English is corrected (ex. using "National routes" as opposed to "Domestic routes", National being synonymous with the way it would be said in Spanish, it keeps being reverted back to national). The task is getting at times hard for one or two users to contain, at the moment it is at a slow period, but often IPs and new users come in and pretty much trash he articles with no sourcing and get into edit battles due to their insistance on unsourced accuracy. I'm asking for help from the wikiproject to add these airports to their watchlists and help us in keeping the articles accurate, sourced, and uniformed in styling as well as helping to verify unsourced information. Can anyone help? Thanks. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 18:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would getting them protected against IP edits help? HkCaGu (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Would there be enough justification for that? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have indeed noticed this as well. I don't think IP blocks will work as there's probably an issue with IP addresses being reassigned and such that would make it pretty difficult to prevent. NcSchu(Talk) 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was not talking about block; I was talking about protection, as in only registered users can edit. This way those users can be warned and be brought to attention of WikiProject guidelines. HkCaGu (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I should also note that it's definitely not just Colombian articles, it's pretty much all central/south American airports. I have one on my watchlist that was changed after only a week of my correcting it. NcSchu(Talk) 00:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An IP block would be a nice temporary fix, but we just need to get a few more users watching the articles, I'm the most active one there, and there's a few less active but regular users. If other LatAM airports suffer this, list them and I'll help out, I'm just getting tired of having to constantly be reverting entire articles, several times a day sometimes. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, I feel like we couldn't protect every single Latin American airport page. The only two pages I'm currently watching are Mariscal Sucre International Airport and José Joaquín de Olmedo International Airport. I'd be more than happy to add more to my watchlist and help manage those as well. I really don't have that many pages on my watchlist compared to most (~55), so I have room to grow. NcSchu(Talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You can go to any colombian airport article such as El Dorado International Airport, at the bottom there's an infobox linking everyone airport in Colombia together, try adding Cartagena, barranquilla, cali, medellin and medellin olaya herrera, san andres, santa marta, and a few others, all the ones with commercial service, the rest are normally empty. I'll add a few more to mine from other countries -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airports - where planes are flying to

I don't agree that airport articles should keep up with where airlines are flying. Simply listing airport capabilities, listing airlines that are hosted (with link to airline which may well have where they fly to and from). It think maintaining this extra unecessary listing is distracting to the airport since it basically has nothing to do with it. It is a perfectly good airport just sitting there with non-flying planes! :) Actually having number of flights from prior years would be useful, tons of cargo, budget of course. All that would be useful. But keeping even tiny airports up with where planes are flying to and from is silly, needless and distracting IMO.Student7 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with you. Just as which airlines fly from an airport is a property of the airport, so are the direct commercial destinations available from the airport. It also shows the reach of an airport, although that could be accomplished through prose. Though this isn't a factor in including it in Wikipedia, I find it terribly useful and interesting. --Matt (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is a perfectly good airport just sitting there with non-flying planes!" I'm not sure whether this is sarcastic, but it's just wrong. With non-flying planes, an airport is a parking lot. Destination lists are relevant and informative, and in fact do satisfy WP policies of inclusion (as any attempt to remove them has seen), but I think they should universally have tags that have them hidden by default so that they don't unnecessarily double or even triple the size of the article. NcSchu(Talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't quite understand the remark "..have tags that have them hidden by default..." Sorry. I'm not trying to be thick here. I would like to reduce the article size if possible. Student7 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You can see an example at Manchester Airport. The destination information is put into a table that is set to collapse on default. NcSchu(Talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I like that. Any chance of suggesting that in the outline, at least for larger airports?
My intent (before seeing this non-invasive example), is from editing places. Most newbies say "(the place) is right next to..." "you can get easily from this place to..." making it a travelogue for some other nearby destination. The place itself, of course, is important, not as a gateway to some other place. I agree that airports (and other transportation depots) differ in that respect. Yet it seems (again before this example) to diminish the place/airport itself, taking the spotlight from local facilities and focusing it on distant destinations which are adequately covered someplace else (or in this case, in an airline guide someplace, and better yet, kept up to date by someone else).Student7 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The destinations of scheduled flights from an airport tend to provide some valuable information about the airport itself. One can determine the importance of the airport in the air traffic network, the regional, national, or international nature of the airport, the types of passengers the airports serve (ie, tourist destinations, business destinations, international destinations, etc.). The destinations served are too integral of a part of an airport's business to leave out. Also, most other transportation related articles tell such information, such as the cities served by a rail line or major cities along a highway's route.nf utvol (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neat template in WikiProject

I was impressed with the easy to use template at the top of the WikiProject Aviation article. Makes it real easy to get around. Neat! Student7 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)