Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Direct Flights Involving Plane Changes

Question: Should direct flights involving plane changes be included in the destination list? the WP:AIRPORTS page only states that

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 most domestic United States direct flights, 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. 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.

However nothing is said about direct flights from the US to other countries which have a stop in the US such as UA895/6 SIN-HKG-ORD-PHL and vv.(change of plane at ORD) or UA890/1 HKG-NRT-LAX-JFK (plane changes at LAX and NRT),UA958/949 SEA-ORD-LHR vv (Plane Change at ORD), UA938/923/959/919 DEN-IAD/ORD-LHR vv (Plane change at ORD/IAD). These aren't domestic flights as they all continue to an international destination so should the final destination be listed on the respective airport pages? Blahx100 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If is common for an airline to list extra flight numbers from many cities to a hub with a final destination elsewhere. The guideline is there to prevent listing flights like this. In the case of US958 the flight begins at SEA as a 319 and changes to a 777 at ORD before heading to LHR. So LHR should only be listed as a destination at ORD. Vegaswikian 07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The criteria is the following: if an airline lists a direct (one-stop) flight multiple times, for example different flight numbers for PDX-ORD-IAD and LAX-ORD-IAD, where segment one is different, but segment two is the same (an airline often does this to avoid airport taxes at the transfer point), then the flight is disqualified from being listed as PDX-IAD and LAX-IAD. It can only be listed from PDX-ORD + LAX-ORD + and ORD-IAD, rather than PDX-ORD + PDX-IAD + LAX-ORD + LAX-IAD + ORD-IAD. In other words, if an airline loses operational flexibility by forcing the connection to be made (in which the second segment cannot proceed without the successful completion of the first segment), then it is worthy of listing.--Inetpup 07:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • On the Singapore Changi Airport article, I have removed Atlanta from the list of United Airlines destinations but one anon user on that page keeps readding Atlanta to the list (UA 895/6 SIN-HKG-ORD-ATL with a plane change at ORD). I didn't know that you can take a United 747 from Singapore all the way to Atlanta. I mean come on...the gates that United use at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport are waaay too small to handle a 747. Bucs2004 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, one user keeps constantly adding Orlando to Delta Air Lines on the Dublin Airport article thinking that Orlando has direct, non-plane changing service from DUB. But any idiot knows that it is a faux-direct flight. I have finally block that user for 2 days from editing on Wikipedia. Bucs2004 18:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is starting to get a bit frustrating, over in the BKK article.. UA flies over to NRT, then continues to SFO with the same flight number, yet we know they shift the planes around (diff regos) although at times they may be of the same a/c type (eg 777). In that case, we might as well list QF as flying from SIN only at LHR, and flying from SIN only at SYD, as its knowledge that QF may switch 744s around at SIN. There needs to be something to make this clear, or we may as well get rid of the desto lists all-together as unmaintainable --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree. It's pointless to maintain these destination lists. There are sites that do it in a more flexible manner. It's hardly encyclopedic. --BetaCentauri 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Airport Sections in Non-Airport Articles

What is the consensus on what to do with sections within other articles that reference a given airport. For example, in an article on Mobile, Alabama there is a transportation section that mentions the two airports. Should we develop this with an infobox and more detail or should we create a separate article for each airport?JBEvans 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The airports should have their own articles. I wouldn't put a box in the Mobile article or you could end up with several conflicting boxes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several editors who seem to be very willing to cleanup basic airport stub articles. So as long as you can provide the basic material for the airport, it will get some attention, like having the infobox added. The result may still be a stub, but it will look like a good article from the way it is formatted. Vegaswikian 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Airport diagrams

For anyone that is interested/cares: User:Cburnett/airport diagrams. My airport diagram HOWTO to convert the PDFs the FAA serves into SVGs. I welcome input on the process and expansion ideas on the HOWTO. I'm not a member of this project so please comment on my talk page or the talk page for the link above if you see fit to do so. Cburnett 04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Airlines & Melbourne Airport

User:PikDig is trying to imply that PR can fly to Sydney from Melbourne, however Australian pax cannot book this leg, while on the PR website, you can book the leg. However, as far as I am aware, Australian government regulations prohibit international carriers from carrying domestic pax on domestic legs they may fly (eg JL flying BNE-SYD). There it should not be listed, am I correct? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are correct. Bucs2004 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sox23 adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sox23 - Just thought everyone should know. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bangkok's Airports

Since Don Mueang is now open for domestic flights only, should Bangkok be disambiguated? Bucs2004 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For example:

OR

Also, on the Singapore Changi Airport article, User:PikDig have disam Bangkok but one anon user have left it not disambiguated.

Former routes

Former routes was previously discussed on here, and is now archived (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive6#Discontinued Service). It has been discussed in relation to SeaTac, and is being discussed in relationship to SFO. The conclusion seemed to be that they're out of scope for articles.

I currently know about such sections for:

(the list goes on, but it seems somewhat prevalent)

From what I understand, the main arguments against such a section are:

  • Where do you verify such information? It can't be from people's memory, as that would be original research and unverifiable.
  • There's significant churn, if an airline de-hubs an airport, then there will be many former routes to small towns. Do you only mention the major cities? Is all of the historic service notable, or are only long haul routes?

Opinions? Comments? --Matt 15:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dump all of those sections. Unverifiable and unencyclopedic. DB (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I say keep it. Reasons? (1) Because it shows whether an airport is one the decline or upswing. (2) It shows linkages of the local economy to those of the connecting city, particularly international economic linkages. (3) It shows shifting patterns of traffic. (4) The info is available as non-original research by viewing article history in Wikipedia. Thanks --Inetpup 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion of non-original research because Wikipedia cannot be Wikipedia's source. I think this is covered by WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). Even if it we could use Wikipedia as a source, it does not go back far enough to cover 2000. We need an external site that lists historical service to cite it on wikipedia. I somewhat disagree with your first point because it might also show a region's decline or upswing - which is coupled with the airport's decline or upswing, but not necessarily.
I think some of the information is interesting, but I don't think it should be listed in a laundry list. Some of the information should be incorporated back into the articles, but not all. --Matt 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly it is addressed by WP:NOT. What is encyclopedic about a list of former destinations severed by an airport? Yes, there are some exceptions, but those are exceptions and are notable for some reason. If you want to include all of that in wikitravel then go right ahead. There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a travel guide. Also keep in mind the fact that many editors would rather not see any destination information at all here. So by just using destinations and not routes we reach a consensus that everyone has been able to live with. Destinations are important for an airline. They may or may not be for an airport. It seems that in the end, the reasons for including routes has more to do with pride or a perception that where you can connect from by a non stop flight is a mater of local importance. As I said on the airline page, the articles are out of control. I guess the same is true here since editors are also putting history in as trivia which should be avoided. Maybe the answer is to do away with lists of former routes. For those that have historic importance, they should have been included in the history section. If they are not there with supporting text, then they are not important to the article and should be deleted. Vegaswikian 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Dump them. Former destinations and/or routes are even less verifiable than current destinations. The destination lists of many airports are getting a bit out of control already. Although I think they should be kept I think that adding former destinations will only add clutter and less important and relevant data to already large pages. When thinking about many airports that have been around for decades, there could be at least twice as many old destinations than there are current, especially if a former airline had its hub there. And how are we, if we include them, to dictate which airlines or destinations are worthy of noting? NcSchu 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that these sections will quickly grow absolutely huge, considering the number of dehubbings and defunct airlines. They'll overwhelm the rest of the article. FCYTravis 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the encyclopedic value of attempting to exhaustively list former destinations. Besides the problems with verifiability and completeness, routes change frequently and do not necessarily provide any illumination of the increasing or decreasing prominence of an airport. In the rare case of a particularly significant or historic former route -- like the first air route between two countries -- it should be mentioned in the History section in the article's text. --MCB 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it really starts to be listcruft if there's no distinction made for how important a former destination is. dcandeto 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support a historic section on former routes. I use as my example PIK and GLA. PIK used to be the Transatlantic Gateway for Scotland, served by AC, BA, NW and some now defunct airlines et al. Some of the BA routes were stop offs on route to/from LHR and took domestic passengers. In the early 1990's, this status was lost and there was an indecent haste (yes - my point of view) to move to GLA. Most of these scheduled routes have now gone, however extensive IT services now exist at GLA. I would maintain that an encylopedia would tell the reader how the usage of an airport has changed over the years. I would acknowledge that verification is difficult, however if I wanted to find out about operations at GLA in the 1970s, the GLA article does not provide the reader that information. --Stewart 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most people are in agreement that former route information, when in a prose format and relevant and notable to the history of the airport, is great. However, a laundry list of past airlines and destinations is what we've been discussing. Those don't assert notability of the routes. --Matt 14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that these former routes sections will be extremely hard to keep accurate, and then, what constitutes a former route, do seasonal charters count? How will we be able to source such additions, especially in former hub situations, and even moreso for airlines that currently still exist (such as US Airways in PIT, it would have to have a very large section seeing how often they drop and pick up routes there). I'm also concerned that it would be easy for anyone to add any destination they want onto those lists and we'd have no way of proving them wrong other than our own common knowledge which violates policy, and, as someone already pointed out, it would give more reason for users who are against the destination listing alltogether to vanish the whole thing (both current and former routings), which would in turn destroy the whole process we have set. A "current" list of destinations is easy to source directly from each airline or airport website, but not former routes and destinations we'd need specific websites with "public" timetable archives or credible nostaligic sites or books to cover them. For example, it'd be rather difficult to keep together a full list of destinations TWA once flew to from St. Louis, or Pan Am from Miami, when these airlines no longer exist and in their decades of history at these airports must've had them flying and discontinuing countless routes that we probably won't be able to find full sources for anyway, all we would have is common knowledge routes and that defeats the purpose of the whole section anyway. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 15:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I count at least 7 for deleting the lists (me, Vegaswikian, DB, NcSchu, MCB, dcandeto, SmthManly, and we could even include NW036 and Sox23 from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive6#Discontinued Service). We have one against (Inetpup), and one it seems partially against (Stewart, please forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you're saying). I think we have a consensus. I'm removing SFO's. --Matt 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am against blanket removal of route lists. Former routes are no less encyclopedic than current routes; Wikipedia is not a travel guide! If the old routes can be sourced, they have as much right to be in than current (read: SPAM) routes. As for SFO, I found it highly interesting that Finnair flew from SFO to Helsinki, one of the longest trans-Atlantic routes, and most likely one of the longest routes from SFO. I also think that the space allocated for former routes was not excessive. As a compromise, I would leave at least former international routes. -- Petri Krohn 03:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If anything, I think you've made a stronger case for the removal of the current routes than for restoration of the former ones. (By the way, SFO-HEL, while undoubtedly of interest to some, is not a particularly long route, and Helsinki is closer to SFO than Paris, Frankfurt, or Milan.) --MCB 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport is being discussed concurrently with this discussion. Tinlinkin 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gates in articles

Some airport articles include the number of gates that an airline uses. I believe that in the past we had decided to not list specific gate numbers since that was considered directory like information that was not encyclopedic. The problem with including the number of gates by airline is that it can be subjective and can change without any reliable sources for citing. And what number do you use? Is it the number of gates the airline pays for? Is it the number of gates that they use? Does it include any overflow gates that the airport may assign on a regular basis? How do you count gates that are shared with another airline (do we add it to both or give each 50% credit)? I think it is better to not list this by airline in the airport articles. We don't really gain anything by including them other then more reasons to update articles. Vegaswikian 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This also doesn't work very well at airports with low gate ownership, like most European Airports. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Port Columbus International Airport: GA Nominee

I have put the Port Columbus International Airport article up for good article review, but have yet to receive any response. As the GA page is extremely backlogged, I figure that notifying people here might help get it reviewed. Feel free to review it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Thanks. Polypmaster 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago South Suburban Airport

Abraham Lincoln National Airport and South Suburban Airport articles seem to cover the same concept of a third regional airport south of Chicago in the Peotone, Illinois vicinity. I'd like to get these merged, but I need assistance with the appropriate name for the article. It is clear that they are both proposed plans in nearly the same location, SSA seems like the more generic name and the one that the FAA seems to prefer SSA to describe the concept, but using a world view most every major city could have a south suburban airport, so maybe Chicago South Suburban Airport would be better than just SSA. It's an Illinois political football, and a new user seems offended by the current main article's name of Abraham Lincoln National Airport creating the newer, unsourced, SSA article. Any advice or input is appreciated. --Dual Freq 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How about merging them into Proposed Chicago suburban airport? This leaves you with an article name that does not match any specific proposal. Then have the various proposed names redirect there. The article can discuss the details of each proposed name. If and when an official name is chosen, then the article would be moved to that name. Vegaswikian 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I combined them to Proposed Chicago south suburban airport. I've posted notes at various places and no one else seems interested. If someone else has a problem with the name, I'll be watching here for comments. --Dual Freq 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Airports in Israel COTW in WP:Israel

I have put forward airports in Israel in general as the COTW for WP:Israel reason being that much of the information is in the hebrew wikipedia and just needs translating. I will be sure to post here if it is successful though. Flymeoutofhere 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

aircraft list

Recently an unregistered user added a list of aircraft served at Port Columbus International Airport. I feel that this irrelevant and should be removed, but I wanted a consensus before I removed it. I cleaned it up in the meantime. It is also unreferenced, so this may be a moot point. Thanks for the feedback. Polypmaster 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • How do you know if an aircraft that is flying in today continues? How do you know if it has stopped it will not continue? Bottom line unencyclopedic material. Please look at the other cleanup I did to the article. Vegaswikian 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. Just trying to keep it a GA class at least. Polypmaster 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Case Airport

Just a question. I recently created an article about Grand Case Airport on the French side of Saint Martin. It seems to have two IATA codes; both SFG and CCE are used (you can check that here). How come? Has is something to do with different activities on the airport? Maartenvdbent 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Focus city definition

I think we need a better definition of a focus city. Our current article is not much help since it is mostly about the concept and does not really give me a clue on what would make a city a focus city for an airline. The only things I have found are 'an airline has a large presence and often operates flights to other areas and an airline is the predominate operator. The latter would rule out any airline operating a focus city in any busy airport. The former is slightly better but wholly subjective. I bring this up because of a request to add LAS as a focus city for LAS. Vegaswikian 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted that discussion. Airtran has a bunch of future destinations from LAS, so it might fit as a focus city. What are other's thoughts on this?

Oregon Airports

Good day all, I have started a List of private-use airports in Oregon. In addtion, I will be updating the List of Airports in Oregon soon as I get it completed. (I have not segregated them into types or added IATA/ICAO data). Feel free to take a look and pitch in all you like. Any advice or input would be appreciated -Trashbag 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankfurt International Airport

Please see the discussion at the talk page on a possible rename for the article. Vegaswikian 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport FAR

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Destination of Thailand Airports

List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports is an article I recently stumbled upon, and by looking at the article, it obviously looks like a replica of the destination section of all the airports listed on the said article. I suggest that the said article be deleted. -chris^_^ 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD comes into mind. —210physicq (c) 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a prod. If it gets removed, I would suggest afd; I believe an afd nomination would be quite successful. DB (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Looking at the page history, I saw it was already unsuccesfully prodded, so I nominated it on afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports has the discussion. DB (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben Gurion Airport FA Candidate

Hi Airport Fans, I am a member of WP Israel, and I am working on passing Ben Gurion Airport as a FA. Please support us at the FAC, and please help fix any issues that are brought up. --יהושועEric 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Airline list

As I suggested at the Ben Gurion Airport FAC, there should be a nicer way to list the airlines and destinations on airport articles. Long bulleted list are not customary on FA articles; there should be something more aesthetically pleasing. I suggest a template of some sort be created for this purpose. nadav 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"The way we do it right now is the worst, except for all the other ways that have been tried." I think we're open to suggestions for sure, but I'm not sure how the information would be arranged more neatly. FCYTravis 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, the list can be put in multiple columns. But I thought one of those creative template designers might have a go at it. I'll request it that forum. nadav 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
How about {{tl:Navbox generic}}? Look at the examples included. Don't know if there is a maximum on the number of lines.
v • d • e
Airlines using terminal 1
Airline 1 destination 1 · destination 2 · destination 3
Airline 3 destination 4 · destination 5 · destination 6 · destination 7 · destination 8 · destination 9 · destination 14 · destination 15 · destination 16 · destination 17 · destination 18 · destination 19
{| class="navbox nowraplinks"

! | Express Airline 3 dba as Airline 2

|- | destination 4 · destination 5 · destination 6 · destination 7 · destination 8 · destination 24 · destination 25 · destination 26 · destination 7 · destination 8 · destination 9 · destination 14 · destination 15

|}
Airline 4 destination 41 · destination 42 · destination 43
Vegaswikian 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
How do you sort the Express carriers, then? FCYTravis 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No good answer right now. There is probably some way have them listed under the main name and indented in some way. Not sure how to do that. Vegaswikian 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added an ugly way to include the express carriers. Maybe someone can figure out a way to do this with more elegance. Vegaswikian 04:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the way we list airlines and destinations in airport articles is fine right now...they only look messy when an airport only has one terminal and every airline is listed under one section. I like Vegaswikian's idea but as of now, there is no way to include the "express" or "dba" carriers in a neat way. That's just my .02 Sox23 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there's really nothing wrong with them at the moment, and agree with nadav's second comment that we might just want to consider splitting up lists into two columns. The only downfall possibly with that is it might only look okay with higher-resolution monitors. NcSchu 14:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about leaving the way they are then splitting into a new article when they get too long, similar to Air Canada destinations? In a seperate article they could be linked easier. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this approach would result in AfDs. The material is borderline encyclopedic the way we are doing it. Pulling this information out into articles may not be defendable a encyclopedic. Remember that there were objections to including the gates since this made the information appear more travel guideish and less encyclopedic. 18:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dipolog Airport

User:Ariel c nunag keeps on editing Dipolog Airport which I keep on revising. He updates the airport with information that he claims from concerned government officials, for he said he works with the government. I really don't believe him. Can somebody please explain to him the rules of Wikipedia?! -chris^_^ 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations

All airlines destination articles has been renominated by another user (every single one of them) at the above link. You may wish to comment there. The previous nomination is archived here. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

London Airports

User User:Simply south has added a new template (Template:London Airports) to the Heathrow and Gatwick articles, I have deleted it from the Gatwick page as I believe it does not add any value when it is placed above Template:UKAirports which includes the same information. Just asking for opinions as I suspect it may get added back soon.MilborneOne 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that {{UKAirports}} seems to be designed to be used whenever {{London Airports}} airports is used, it would appear to be an unnecessary duplicate. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'd suggest taking this to Tfd and listing the smaller duplicate one for deletion. Vegaswikian 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I just thought it was seful as there are so many airports serving London. It is easy navigation (and also there are some airports not mentioned in UK Airports). Simply south 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What was interesting is that they both list 7, albeit different, airports. This is exactly the reason why you should not use two templates. The information gets to be inaccurate and confusing. Vegaswikian 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll just go for a voluntary merge. Simply south 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Airports

After looking at various airport articles, one anon user suddenly disambiguated Montreal as Montréal-Trudeau on most airport articles. Trudeau is the only airport in Montreal that has passenger service and Mirabel has no passenger service but only serves cargo flights. Should we disambiguate Montreal as Montréal-Trudeau or should we just leave it as Montréal? Bucs2004 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Desinations

I've been keeping a watch on various airport articles, and it seems to me that a huge list of destinations for each airline at an airport is completely unnecessary. It is an unmaintainable list full of useless information. No one is coming to Wikipedia to see whether Air France really has a flight from New York JFK to Paris. And tons of edits are required to maintain it, as the information becomes wrong once an airline no longer flies a certain route. I think that we should remove the list of destinations from all airport articles. —METS501 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between routes and destinations. There appears to be consensus to not include routes since they do change on a regular basis. However the destinations for most airlines don't change all that often. So these lists are not that difficult to maintain. Maintaining a list of routes would be a herculean task and we don't do that. As to value, there are not many sites that list destinations by airport. So it is difficult to find out what airlines actually fly into a specific airport and from where without going to the website for every airline. And yes, I have use wikipedia to do this type of search several times. Vegaswikian 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the "reach" information the destinations show for airports, showing which far flung airports you can get to from one airport. Even if you know what airline you want to check out, it's often hard to find what destinations you can get to from a given airport. So I think yeah, it's hard to maintain the destinations, but I think it's definitely useful. I also really like maps like San Diego International Airport, that visualize destinations. --Matt 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. If you guys don't mind maintaining the lists, go right ahead! :-) —METS501 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Coordination for improved productivity

Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Prospective/speculative users

As this is presently bubbling into an edit war over at Changi Airport, I'd like to suggest adding a point to make this explicit:

  1. Only airlines/destinations that have been announced by the airline/airport with a specific starting date should be added as future airlines/destinations.

Yea or nay? Jpatokal 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there are two parts to the statement: one is that only airline/airport releases should be valid, and two is that only services with a specific starting date should be listed. These can be considered separately. Jpatokal 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Nay. Kindly read WP:CRYSTAL and ensure this wikiproject complies with general wikipolicies. Verifiable speculation are permitted for inclusion, irrespective of whether they are from the airline, the airport, or from valid third-party sources. It is also worth pointing out that Wikipedia:Reliable sources actually prefers third-party sources over first-party ones. Is there are excruciating why this wikiproject should set rules by the whips and fancies of certain members?--Huaiwei 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea. There are plenty of news outlets that will publish complete BS about possible airline service. Unless there is something from the airline or the airport about the new service, I wouldn't accept it as a possibility. There have been past instances where speculation from Airliners.net has crept its way into otherwise respectable news outlets, and has then been mangled by the reporters to where news that a charter is making a stopover becomes a report of new service. While I'm not disputing news outlets as a verifiable source, I have found in the last years that when it comes to airline service, the only source you can trust for up to date news is the airlines themselves... --KPWM_Spotter 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is a basic fundamental of this website, so if you problems with wikipedia citing verifiable sources which sprout bull about anything you deem impossible, then this site is probably not for you. I certainly agree that speculations by Anet members are not appriopriate from this site. Speculations by reliable sources, no matter how impossible, are still verifiable, and are appriopriate. Could you show that all information which you deleted were crafted purely by unknown speculators, and not by any publication or other acceptable medium as listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources?--Huaiwei 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Huaiwei, but it'd be nice to "delistify" the list... /wangi 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean by turning it into a prose paragraph? Jpatokal 13:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Charter flights

Should charter flights/operators be listed a) in the main Airlines section mixed in with scheduled services, b) in a separate subsection or c) not at all? Jpatokal 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate sub-section under "Airlines and destinations". And my experience is prose is much better than an exhaustive list of these rapidly changing, seasonal and ad-hoc services. Thanks/wangi 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

John Wayne Airport (SNA)

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but should we label SNA as: Orange County or Santa Ana/Orange County? Sox23 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone... Sox23 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the old name was Orange County, and our article show it serves Orange County and is located in Orange County, and the web site says it serves Orange County, then Orange County seems to be a logical choice. Vegaswikian 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks Sox23 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
sure. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not go with what is on the FAA Airport Master Record? --Trashbag 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That brings up a good point. The article states that SNA serves Santa Ana. I think it should be Santa Ana/Orange County. What do you all think? Sox23 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

British Airways route through IAH

I seemed to have started a mini edit war between two separate but equally intent anon users who keep trying to add a new begin date for IAH-LHR British Airways flights. For those of you who don't know BA announced that it would start non-stop flights between the two airports replacing the previous direct flight via DFW but will also begin nonstop flights to DFW. My issue is with the IAH flights, because the previous flight was still a direct flight but not nonstop IAH was listed on the LHR page and LHR was listed on the IAH page per our guidelines. These users are now adding brackets that say "[non-stop flights begin March 30, 2007]" next to IAH and LHR, respectfully, but I find this addition redundant and incorrect. Since the lists are used only for destinations and there is no change in the final destination, why are brackets needed? I'd like some people to weigh in on this so that this situation doesn't get any worse. NcSchu 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopje Airport

Could we get a few more eyes on this. The government of the Republic of Macedonia has renamed it "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport" which has caused a fuss with the government of Greece. The airport authority is using the new name and some people feel that it should not be included (history) in the article as it's just propaganda (which may well be true). My feeling is that the the name should be included and an explanation of the fuss caused. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingsford Smith International Airport

A bunch of IPs has recently decided to remove legit info + started introducing information that is not reflected by official schedules into the article. Keep an eye out. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Long Island/Islip or Islip

I'm confused on how to state Long Island MacArthur Airport because technically in the masterlist it is stated as Islip but in most airport articles it is stated as Long Island/Islip. So how should it be stated Islip or Long Island/Islip? -chris^_^ 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I say Islip. I believe most airlines refer to it as that, and listing it first as Long Island is misleading: LGA and JFK are also on Long Island. DB (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
LGA and JFK are in New York City, while "Long Island" usually refers to only Nassau and Suffolk counties, and ISP is in Suffolk County. Dhaluza 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR issues with WP:AIRPORTS#Airport_article_structure

I have some real issues with this section of your article formatting guidelines as it really seems to go against WP:NOT#DIR. Specially, the issue relates to point two, dealing the listing of airlines and destinations and recommended formatting where the airport is serviced by airline X but the services are operated by/codeshare of airline Y. Providing such information really goes against the intended spirit of WP:NOT#DIR, and this is not withstanding the airlines and destinations sections of many airport articles are already difficult to maintain due to their length. Further to this, the provision of some of this information may require original research, which is something we obviously want to try and avoid. I would like to open up discussion on this formatting recommendation to see if we might adjust it and come to something a little more sensable that's more harmonious with wikipolicy. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are agreed guidelines not to list codeshares on the list at all. But personally I think it's fine as it is now, although I agree to an extent on subsidiaries, considering there has been the subsidiary listing issues over time, and secondly there are many editors which has stated in the past on this project, which are prepared to maintain those lists as such, and to provide sources to new services where possible, reference the destination lists where possible. Ben_Gurion_International_Airport is a example of a FA on a Airport article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming system for cities with more than one major airport

Browsing the various airport articles, I realised that in the Airlines and destinations sections, when it comes to cities with more than one major airport, some articles have one set of naming system while some others have another. Take for example Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. Some airports list it as Taipei-Taoyuan in their Airlines and destinations section while some list it as Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan. The same can be said for the Charles De Gaulle airport. Is there a naming system in place to tackle this problem? - 218.186.9.5 07:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The project page only states: Differentiate between multiple airports in one city using "-" (eg London-Heathrow) or (London Heathrow).
The name of the airport should be what it is commonly referred to, I guess. → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to be consistent on name, its either use the name that is commonly used and/or concise, or use it by their proper name.
This has to be consistently applied to all cities with more than one major airport. So if this means changing the airport names to the proper names, then this has to apply to all cities, which means changing Paris-CDG in some articles to their full name, and New York-JFK to their full name of New York-John F Kennedy., same with Taiwan Taoyuan Airport and all the other cities. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So who's in charge of deciding these type of things? - 218.186.9.5 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is in charge - wikipedia works by consensus. Propose something on a page like this - if nobody objects then you can change things. If people still disagree then they can change it back or get consensus on each article talk page. The article for Paris CDG is actually called Charles de Gaulle International Airport the real name most other variants link to it so it probably doesnt matter what you call it as long as it gets you straight to the right French Airport. MilborneOne 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't we be on safer ground using the officially assigned name? Wouldn't that link up to the best sources better? Could we use CITY-OFFICIAL NAME? JodyB talk 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been some discussion in the past about using their full names, and whether if it was too "long" to put it there. Hence, some editors think using a more concise or the commonly used name (eg 'New York-JFK' instead of 'New York-John F Kennedy') may suffice. Also many Taiwan editors in the past in related articles have stated that Taiwan Taoyuan Airport is more commonly referred to as just Taoyuan Airport. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about city followed by the IATA or ICAO code of the airport? (Eg. London-LGW (EGKK), London-LHR (EGLL)) They are internationally recognised, short and concise. - 218.186.9.3 10:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But that may not be helpful to the non-aviators who are not familiar with such codes. Some of the names would certainly be a bit longish but we're just talking about the article name, right? Subsequent usage could be shortened. 65.13.115.43 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Grrr, I forgot to sign in. JodyB talk 11:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it's the Airlines and destinations section of airport articles, when it comes to cities with more than one major airport. - 218.186.9.3 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bump -- could we come to a consensus on this? There's a low-grade edit war over at Changi Airport over whether a certain airport in Paris should be listed in the destinations as Paris-CDG or Paris-Charles de Gaulle. Jpatokal 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not go with city-IATA unless there is agreement on another standard for that city? This allows a default standard when there are disagreements and no consensus. Vegaswikian 07:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this? "If the airport has a commonly agreed one-word name, use city+name, otherwise use city+IATA code. London-Heathrow, Tokyo-Haneda, Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi, but New York-JFK, Paris-CDG. Jpatokal 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that. Since there have been so few comments and no objections to this, which has been discussed, I'd say go with it. If we reach a different consensus, then we can update as needed. But for now it is something. Vegaswikian 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So which means as TPE (Taiwan Taoyuan Airport), is usually referred to as Taoyuan Airport by locals although the official name is Taiwan Taoyuan Airport. If we were to enforce the full name on Paris-CDG and Taipei-Taoyuan to their full names. This has to apply to all airports as well. This means disam New York-JFK to its proper name of New York-John F Kennedy. As the disam for TPE has resulted in edit wars in various Airport articles, would it be suited to disam Taiwan-Taoyuan airport as Taipei-TPE and Taipei-TSA, etc? --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with Taipei-Taoyuan and Taipei-Songshan, which is what the proposed guideline recommends? Jpatokal 08:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of destination listing

I've tried to have this answered on Kingsford Smith International Airport but no-one can tell me. Why do airport articles have lists of what airlines fly from which terminal? This seems completely trivial and against the wikipedia fundamental of not being a list of indiscriminate information. Just because it is 'true' doesn't mean it should be there. We should be writing articles about notable information, not lists that are more like traffic signs outside departure terminals. Merbabu 06:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the same way that airlines are defined by where they fly, airports are defined by who flies there. And subdividing the airline lists by which terminal they use is a very natural way of splitting them up. Jpatokal 11:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable way to break up a long list. Why did you put this under the heading "Notability"? Notability has nothing to do with article content anyway. Dhaluza 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really talking about how to subdivide the list, but rather why there are such detailed lists in the first place? A list is not an article. That something is correct or exists, does not make it notable or relevant to an encyclopedia. It might be useful on a road sign or directory; wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate info. I can kind of see Jpatokal's point about what "defines an airport" but isn't there another way to assert such 'definition'? Is really about providing useful significant information to readers or more about editors creating more (indiscriminate?) material because they can? Is not quality more important than quantity? Merbabu 11:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
These lists are not indiscriminate; they are definite, specific, and fit their respective article. They are critical in defining the ranks of airports as global destinations. NcSchu 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are certainly 'definite' and 'specific' - that's obvious, but also my point. A phone book is definite and specific but we are not writing a phone book.
How do you thus 'rank' them for the reader? It seems important for editors to have lists, I'm just questioning how a reader could use them. It is why we are here - for reader use. Do we believe that readers are interested that airline A flies into airport X but not airpot Y? Aren't there better tools for that? Like a travel agent? Merbabu 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I find Wikipedia's airport/airline destination lists extremely useful. For example, just today I was trying to figure out how to get from Singapore to Cebu or Davao -- a glance at Changi Airport told me all the options. Travel agents would not mention (or even know about) about Cebu Pacific, because it's an LCC that pays no commissions. For many flaky airlines here in Asia, Wikipedia's destination lists are often more accurate and up-to-date than the airline's own site! Jpatokal 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
groan - OK, on this page I am simply going to be out voted as to what constitutes notable information in an article, indeed what defines significant information. I'd call this type of listing a directory which is not what i understand wikipedia to be. I don't know that we are meant to be playing the role of travel agent. We may as well start a phone book too. But, to challenge these listings here is like walking into a gun club to ban bullets. :-) I suspect if I asked the wider, 'non-airport', wikipedia community I might get a different approach? thanks. Merbabu 15:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
PS Jpatokal, just out of curiosity, what sources would use to make wikipedia's lists more up-to-date than airlines' own sites? --Merbabu 15:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There already have been Afds addressing this type of "list" and every time they've resulted in keeping them. Your argument seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT then really an issue of notability. And I don't think it's very difficult to see the notability of it. I might point out that your analogy to a phone book is flawed. You would be hard pressed to find a comparable resource. In answer to your question, news websites are the most commonly used resource. Although it does not happen often, it is true that airlines are sometimes delayed in updating this information. NcSchu 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Notability has nothing to do with article content Dhaluza 09:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the obvious counter-argument to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is, of course, WP:ILIKEIT. Although a bit of it seems to be going on here, I'm not going to win that argument on this page. :-) regards --Merbabu 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst airport articles are not intended to be travel guides, I do believe that destination information is notable, listing departure and arrival timetables would be too much...that would make it a travel guide. As some have said, it gives some idea of notability of an airport, especially smaller non-capital city and regional airports for example, someone from overseas could determine that Townsville Airport is less busy than Cairns Airport even though Townsville is a larger city than Cairns. It also gives some idea of the town's relationship to nearby cities and countries, even though this is a stub Kununurra Airport you can get an idea that Broome and Darwin are key destinations from Kununurra. Michellecrisp 08:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't tell that one airport is busier than another by the number of airlines and destinations served, you can only assume that it is. I see the Department of Defence runs Townsville, so the government may not allow other airlines to fly there. But the airlines that do operate there may fly enough to make it busier than Cairns. Perhaps there are enough military flights at Townsville to make it busier than Cairns. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New Articles Tab

Are we still using the New Articles tab? It hasn't been updated since January. --Pilotboi | talk 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

CRK vs MNL

It's been almost a year since I last brought this up, and I agreed with the consensus. I just realized on the Port Columbus International Airport page that they listed Bellingham as a Skybus Airlines destinations. Now my point is that Bellingham is about 50 miles away from the center of Vancouver, and Vancouver has about a population of 516,00 more that of the population of Bellingham.

This is what a certain user, who I argued with said. But what he and me were arguing about was whether or not CRK should be listed as Manila-Clark or Angeles City, for Angeles City is also 50 miles away from the center of Manila. And Manila has a population of 1,317,000 more that of the population of Angeles City.

So I'm bringing this up once again, whether or not we should state CRK, as Manila-Clark or Angeles City. -chris^_^ 10:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are six airlines that fly to the airport, and this is what they call it:
# AirAsia: Clark-Manila [1]
# Asian Spirit: Clark [2]
# Asiana Airlines: Clark [3]
# Hong Kong Airlines: Clark [4]
# South East Asian Airlines: Clark, Angeles [5]
# Tiger Airways: Manila-Clark [6]
So the answer is obviously not Angeles City. Jpatokal 02:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And the airport serving Angeles City is called Diosdado Macapagal International Airport, so why is it not Manila-Diosdado Macapagal then?--Huaiwei 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the airlines don't call it that. Compare eg. Houston-Intercontinental, not Houston-George Bush. Jpatokal 06:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Our destination lists are based on what airlines call them, and not based on wikipedia's naming conventions? Now that's new. Kindly explain why we can use unofficial names in this instance, but not in article names?--Huaiwei 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NC states that the most common name should be used and no consensus to the contrary exists on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (airports) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Airport names. However, naming conventions concern article titles, and PikDig's question was regarding airport destination lists, for which there are no guidelines of any kind at the moment. (Some have been proposed; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Naming system for cities with more than one major airport, where suggested criteria include "common" and "concise".) Jpatokal 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Now of course I know about WP:NC, but I kinda wondered if you are around long enough, and did enough research to discover that the current practise of naming airports in wikipedia is by their official names, and not common names, after a very lengthy and through debate amongst participants years ago. If not, Singapore Changi Airport will be simply Changi Airport, Tokyo International Airport will be Haneda Airport, and of course Diosdado Macapagal International Airport will be Clark International Airport. Kindly read through past discussions before assuming you in the position to ignore past concensus and attempt to impliment conventions which are not fully debated and agreed upon.--Huaiwei 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As usual you're ranting at straw men: I'm not proposing renaming DMIA or any other airport page, this discussion is about destination lists. However, out of academic interest, I would like to see the policy where your claimed consensus on airport naming is spelled out. Jpatokal 08:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know I was talking to straw men, so my apologies. I will makesure I address you correctly in future. And as always, you take an issue with specific cases, ignores existing conventions or concensus, and insist on a change without wishing to consider site-wide implications. A change in airport names in destination lists is not a decision to be made entirely independently from article names, for pretty obvious reasons. Past concensus to use official names over common ones was made by the community (unfortunately, I could only find a tiny remnent of the discussions here so far). Now I dont think community = me, do you? ;)--Huaiwei 06:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that there is no policy where your claimed consensus on airport article or destination list naming is spelled out.
Now, if I was snarky, I'd ask you what "change" I am "insisting" on, because I'd be interested in your answer. Regrettably for debating theatrics, though, I haven't even suggested my favorite name -- I've just offered up the undeniable fact that neither PikDig's option of "Angeles City" nor your idea of "Manila-Diosdado Macapagal" are used by any of the airlines that fly to CRK. Jpatokal 09:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the Port Columbus Int'l Airport page listing Skybus as flying to Bellingham as opposed to Vancouver, it is because Skybus actually flies into Bellingham, WA, but advertises the service as Seattle/Vancouver. They also advertise San Francisco but really fly into Oakland, as well as advertise Los Angeles but fly into Burbank, and they advertise Boston, MA, but fly into Portsmouth, NH. Sox23 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah but if we disam CRK as Manila-Clark, then what would we disam MNL as since most destinations that CRK flies to, MNL also flies to those destinations. I believe we could use Manila-NAIA. -chris^_^ 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have to? Frankfurt (FRA) is not disambiguated just because Frankfurt-Hahn exists. Jpatokal 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah but point is... won't it bring up confusion to our readers? -chris^_^ 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope. If people see "Manila", they assume NAIA, just like people assume Frankfurt Int'l (Rhein-Main) when they see "Frankfurt". Jpatokal 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it would be nice to come to some sort of consensus on this. Options suggested so far seem to be:

1) Nearest major city plus commonly agreed one-word disambiguator, or airport code if no such word exists

  • "Manila-Clark", "London-Heathrow", "Tokyo-Haneda", "Paris-CDG",

2) Nearest major city plus full official name as disambiguator

  • "Manila-Diosdado Macapagal", "London-Heathrow", "Tokyo-International", "Paris-Charles de Gaulle"

3) Local municipality

  • "Angeles City", "London-Hillingdon", "Tokyo-Ota", "Roissy"

In my opinion, #1 is both the closest to current practice, closest to WP:NC's "prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" guideline and the least likely to produce silly results. Discuss. Jpatokal 09:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Airport Infoboxes - Needs Attention

For a few monthes now, there have been two different infoboxes for airports. One using a system of sub templates (Template:Airport infobox), and the other using a single template (Template:Infobox Airport). The template currently recommended to use is the first one, as described in the Airport article structure. But on the talk page of the documentation for this template, there have been several discussions on using the new infobox. I just think that we need to make a single decision on which one to use, properly indicate and documentate which one to use, update articles not using the correct template, then get rid of the unused one. Who agrees? --Pilotboi | talk 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

After a quick look, I estimate that about 4000 articles use the older template, and about 2000 articles use the newer template. Just thought it was worth noting. --Pilotboi | talk 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the newer template gives more to the article and I like it better than the old one. Sox23 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Template has been changed. Topic closed. --Pilotboi | talk 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There may have been some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport. It makes sense to use the new template when adding an infobox for the first time or creating a new article. However, a massive conversion of all the multi-template infoboxes isn't really needed, since the new infobox has the same look as the old one. I think it's better to convert them on an individual basis so that the new parameters can be incorporated if needed, such as using "location" instead of (or in addition to) "city-served" and using "owner" instead of "operator" (or both). If the articles are edited via a bot or AWB for some other reason, then that edit could include an infobox conversion (similar to what User:CambridgeBayWeather did when updating the airline code templates for the Canadian airports). -- Zyxw 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

JFK Terminal 4

If anyone of you has been to JFK's Terminal 4, you'll notice it's separated into Concourse A & B. Shouldn't we re-sort the airlines in the JFK page and divide Terminal 4 into Concourse A & B? -chris^_^ 10:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? -chris^_^ 01:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the listing by terminal is just to get a guide to the size and scope of the terminal. MilborneOne 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, the two article's I'm most familiar with break it down past terminals and into concourses/boarding areas. (PIT, SFO). I don't think that breaking it down further is inappropriate. --Matt 16:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, just looked at PIT and SFO - looks just like a travel guide! - should not really be in Wikipedia, what gates the airline uses is not really notable.MilborneOne 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

USDOT China Route Bids

People are adding all of the applied for US-China routes (2008-09) to various airports' and airlines' articles. As I understand it, bids are many but granted routes are few. I think they all should be kept out until they are approved or appear on the airline's schedule. HkCaGu 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There was a discussion here for the US bid on a Shanghai route. The fact that they did not get the route made all of the changes factually incorrect. As you say, bidding is not the same as having the rights to fly a route. I would have no objection to changing the airport and airline project destination sections to prohibit listing destinations that have not been announced with a service date and all international agreements to operate the flight having been signed. Listing a destination that has not been awarded is inaccurate and hence should be removed on sight. A mention in the airline article about the fact that a bid was made is appropriate. Vegaswikian 23:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • My argument for keeping the bids in is that other proposed international service has been listed as "pending government approval". So, remove US-China from the discussion and just say, "should proposed routes that have yet to be approved be listed?". Vegas, it appears your vote is no. I have no opinion in either direction, as long as we're consistent. DB (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • 'Pending government approval' makes this a crystal ball statement which is not encyclopedic. Add in the fact that with multiple requests, several will not be approved and I think it makes a good case for not including. Even if the airline is the only one bidding from a city there is no guarantee that it will be approved if other airlines are bidding on different city pairs. Vegaswikian 05:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Los Cabos International Airport

Is there a clear consensus to list Los Cabos International Airport (MMSD) in airport articles? I've seen Cabo San Lucas, Los Cabos, and San Jose del Cabo. What one should we use? Sox23 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Start Dates

If the service of the airline will start within the year should we state it in airport articles as [MONTH DAY, YEAR] or just [MONTH DAY]? -chris^_^ 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[begins Month Day] (ex: [begins July 31]), but in the case of the future China routes (which are to begin in 2009) then we should probably put [Month Day, Year] because for example if the service begins March 31, 2009, if we put [Pending Gov't Approval; begins March 31], that gives info that it begins March 31, 2008, and not March 31, 2009. Sox23 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest always adding the year -- otherwise it will soon be unclear which year was in question. Jpatokal 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's actually on part of WP:Airports policy to list only month and date Sox23 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In context, the year should always be clear. If you add the year, then you need to link the entire date so that it displays properly for anyone who has turned on date formatting for their id. There is no need to link these dates since this is temporary data and frequently only short term. Vegaswikian 05:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page? Vegaswikian 07:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Caticlan Airport in the Philippines

This is following on a discussion here. I have been advised in that discussion: "Before renaming Malay to Caticlan Airport, Malay, Aklan see the masterlist then if you don't agree with Malay for being placed in the list, bring it up with WP:AIRPORTS."

I don't know how authoritative the "masterlist" is, but I note that List of airports in the Philippines says:.

Boracay / Malay Aklan RPVE MPH Godofredo P. Ramos Airport (Caticlan Airport)

As a practical matter, nobody knows Caticlan airport as "Godofredo P. Ramos Airport". Everyone knows this airport as "Caticlan airport".

Since I was referred here regarding this point, I thought that I would mention it here. -- Boracay Bill 12:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The easy part is the airport is called Godofredo P. Ramos Airport. That is the official name and we use it. The same for Newark Airport which has the official name of Newark Liberty International Airport. Now, the second part is the location. This is sometimes an issue, why is there a question about it being listed for Malay? Vegaswikian 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the assertion: The airport is called Godofredo P. Ramos Airport — that is only true for a very strange definition of the word called. Note that googling "Caticlan airport" produces more than ten times the number of hits vs. googling "Godofredo P. Ramos Airport".
Regarding the assertion: That is the official name and we use it, what do you mean by we? Are you saying that this standard to be imposed wikipedia-wide? By whose say-so? -- Boracay Bill 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The project guideline is here. Other significant sites that use the same name include this, or this. As an aside, Airline codes uses Caticlan Malay'. Vegaswikian 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I hadn't been concerned with naming an airport article, but rather with referring to an airport within articles — perhaps within airport articles but, probably more frequently, within non-airport articles. Since the airport article naming guideline which you pointed out says "... When creating airport articles, redirects should be created from any additional names that the airport may be known as", I have created the Caticlan airport page as a redirect to Godofredo P. Ramos Airport. -- Boracay Bill 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus on airport naming guidelines → see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Airport names. Current examples of official but unpopular long names not being used include Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Halifax Robert L. Stanfield International Airport and Kōchi Ryōma Airport. I, for one, think that most Philippine airports should be referred to by their popular names (=the city/field), not the official names. Jpatokal 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Williams Gateway Airport

When listing Arizona's Williams Gateway Airport in airport articles, should we use (Mesa) or (Mesa/Phoenix). The airport is more closely located near Mesa but advertises such as being "Phoenix's second airport." What would be better used? Sox23 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Mesa a problem. Newark Liberty International Airport has been listed in the IATA NYC code for years and it is shown as servicing Newark and not NYC. Vegaswikian 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I would use Mesa, per Vegaswikian's cited precedent that we don't call EWR "New York/Newark," even though they'd like to market it that way. FCYTravis 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks Sox23 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tour Operators

Does the project have an opinion on tour operators being listed. Their is a continual problem of an IP user adding Travel City Direct to Manchester Airport and Gatwick. Just removed BritishJET from Manchester Airport as it is a tour operator with flight operated by Hello. User:V-train keeps reverting the change with the latest comment that BritishJET markets and sell the flight. Still not an airline! and this is not Wikitravel but I dont want to delete it again without concensus. MilborneOne 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest it should be listed? It shouldn't be listed under Hello, since they don't sell or market the flight. But it should be listed in some way. I thought the way that made the most sense was the way WP:AIRPORTS says to list flights sold and marketed by one airline but operated by another. V-train 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I understand list flights sold and marketed by one airline but operated by another but BritishJET is not an airline! it is a tour operator. MilborneOne 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that it's not an airline, I didn't mean that section applied directly. I meant that paralleling it seemed to be the best way to do it. V-train 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does it have to be all one way or the other? I mean, couldn't it be something like BritishJET operated by Hello? That way, people know who would be selling the ticket and who would be operating the flight. --Matt 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I had done. V-train 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that makes a lot of sense to do it like that - I mean, I've never been on a flight like this, does the passenger even know what airline is operating the flight, except looking at the livery? Like when they check in at the airport, they probably just check in with BritishJET right? I'm inclined to think of it like an express carrier. --Matt 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Charter flights simply shouldn't be listed in amongst the scheduled airlines & destinations. Thanks/wangi 08:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

Recently, I keep seeing User:Jacklewis99 and many anon IPs making edits to Manchester Airport by adding "Chicago-O'Hare" and "New York-JFK" as destinations to Pakistan International Airlines and I have been deleting them. The next day later, those destinations have been readded again. I was just wondering should Chicago and New York be listed as destinations even though that they are international. If not, why are they not dsetinations? Why can't PIA sell tickets for those routes? Thanks! Bucs2004 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is to do with Freedoms of the air and in particular the Fifth Freedom (The right to carry passengers from one's own country to a second country, and from that country to a third country.). Normally airlines could not, without the fifth freedom approval, in this example pick up passengers from Manchester to Chicago although those that do not disambark can carry on what would be a Pakistan to USA flight. Just need to find out if PIA have fifth freedom rights on these routes ! MilborneOne 06:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
So, do we list them as destinations? Bucs2004 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Only if someone can buy a ticket from MAN to JFK, or MAN to ORD. /wangi 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And I guess, more importantly, if it's sourced. → AA (talk) — 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-categorised Category:Airports in Russia

As the Airports of Russia category was getting to be a long list, I have gone ahead and re-categorised Russian airports by way of which Federal subject they are located in. This will also allow for further expansion of these categories on a regional level if articles warranting a category "Transport in ......" is needed. There are still a few airports which aren't yet categorised, and will work these out in due course, but if anyone knows which subjects the as yet uncategorised belong to, feel free to put them in the right spot. --Russavia 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Alternate Landing sites

as an anon user who reads LOTS of the various airport pages, I have noticed something that maybe everyone else has missed. There is an extremely large number of claims concerning Space Shuttle emergency landing airports. Seemingly half of all airport pages I read (pages about an individual airport like KORD or KLHR) has some statement to the effect of "this airport is on standby as an emergency field for the Space Shuttle, because it has a very long runway." Fair enough, but MANY of the pages that claim this do not have what are generally considered an exceptionally long runway. Numerous fields in the 9000-11000 ft range make this statement, as do some longer ones (and some absurdly shorter ones). This would not be such an issue except MULTIPLE people in my town have told me, not on the internet, the same thing concerning the local 7000 ft runways (KRDM), which is patently impossible! So I am getting a little worried that this is some sort of urban legend. Does anyone know if there is a list of these places or a runway length cutoff? Right now it seems like half the airport and airbase pages with 10000 ft runways think this, and usually use language like "one of the few", "one of the only". So I am happy to try and sort this out but I figure you people should know first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.152 (talk) 22:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

this is what "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes" says after listing a massive number of current and former emergency fields: "In the event of an emergency deorbit that would bring the Orbiter down in an area not within range of a designated emergency landing site, the Orbiter is theoretically capable of landing on any paved runway that is at least 10,000 feet long, which includes the majority of large commercial airports. (In practice, a US military airfield would probably be preferred for reasons of security arrangements and minimizing the disruption of commercial air traffic.)" So should I start deleting these, especially for stuff under 10000 feet? Or do we leave it all in? I vote for removal because its doesn't seem any different than saying a 747 could land there, so it doesn't seem notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.152 (talk) 23:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

At the start of the program, SWF was listed as an emergency landing site. At the time, I recall the paved runway was about 14,000 feet with about 2,000 feet not maintained but usable. I just looked at the article and it appears that the airport is still 'listed' based on the reference. So it would appear that there may be some kind of a list. I think there is a difference between an airport capable of being used and one that would be considered. I know this does not answer your question but maybe the reference there helps. Or maybe that is the answer. If there is a WP:RS to support the statement it stays. If not it gets dropped. Vegaswikian 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen Airport

[7] This user has been editing several airports' Airlines and destinations sections into a table. After reverting them to the standard format, this user has reverted them back. Should we just let these articles stay the way they are or should we revert them? 24.17.229.120 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be reverted per the Airport article structure specified by the WikiProject Airports. Major changes to the structure should first be discussed there. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines and editing dispute on ownership issues

Can an Admin keep an close eye on this article, even having to protect the article if necessary? Two known editors are warring over ownership issues of the airline and the direction of the article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Coord

All airport articles with an infobox will require the coordinates line to use "display=inline,title" so the are picked up by Google Earth and appear in the box. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

List of airports able to handle landing and takeoff of the Airbus A380

There has to be a better title for this but I really can't think of one right now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to List of Airbus A380 capable airports, hope that's ok. V-train 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. It's all that fresh snow on the ground it must have frozen my brain. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Airports with glider operations

Any ideas on what to do with Airports with glider operations? I'm thinking delete but maybe there is something unique that we need here. Vegaswikian 07:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History, former flight routes and defunct airlines

I visited the Erie International Airport article today intending to adjust its contents because Delta Airlines recently stopped its service there. I found that this had already been done, but the only evidence of Delta's former presence was a review of the article's Wiki history. I was then surprised to find that airport articles routinely maintain only current airline and flight route information and remove information as it becomes obsolete. Using this approach, Wikipedia consistently loses historical information that could be interpreted in the history section of airport articles. The current status of airlines and flights can be derived from most airport web pages, but the evidence of increasing or decreasing numbers of flights or airlines, which could be retained somehow in airport articles, would seem to be a value Wikipedia could and should offer. I offer this as a consideration as you write your guidelines. --Pat 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pat, this has been discussed a number of times and the consensus is that historical information is, on the whole, not possible to verify and therefore are removed. I agree it useful information to have in an article and notable events do tend to be added to the history section where they can be sourced, but it becomes cumbersome and unencyclopedic to maintain a list of historical destinations or fleet airlines and destinations. → AA (talk) — 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Guess I'm an inclusionist. To me, encyclopedic means broad in scope or knowledge, but I won't rehash old discussions this group may have had earlier. Thanks for the explanation and have a nice day. --Pat 08:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gates at airport articles

I usually come across airports with their gates listed. Shouldn't we remove these gates as these gates change from time to time? -chris^_^ 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In the past gates have been considered as not encyclopedic and material for a travel guide. Feel free to remove them. The project page lists lists suggested article layouts and the gate numbers are not included. Vegaswikian 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists of airlines do not belong in an encyclopedic article - get them out

Having had a look at Frankfurt Airport and Munich Airport, I find that the larger part of the article is taken up by a senseless long list of airlines, even with even longer lists of destinations, but hardly any information on the airport itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel agency. At most, let us create separate articles like "List of airlines serving airport xyz". But in the main article those lists should get out. They make the article completely unreadable. cheers, --L.Willms 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you this is standard format for all Airports offering commercial service. Marcusmax 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You want to tell me that a list of airlines is everything which you are interesting in? Nothing about the history of the airport, nothing about the architecture of the terminal(s), nothing about the achievements of its builders? Why don't go to a travel agency, if you do not want to learn something new, but want nothing but a list of airlines by terminal and concourse of your next departure? Please don't confuse a telephone book with an biographical encyclopedia. Cheers, --L.Willms 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The appearance of this article is affected by the large number of destinations and the lack of material about the airport itself. If there was more about the airport this 'problem' would not be as apparent. Vegaswikian 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem: as long as those nonsensical lists of airlines hide the airports themselves, like the trees hiding the forest, nothing about the airport itself will be forwarded. I certainly am disgusted from contributing a single word to any of those Airport articles in the english language Wikipedia, as long as my contributions are drowned in a storm of an senseless list of airlines landing there sometimes. I would have quite some more material about e.g. Frankfurt Airport (I happen to live in Frankfurt), and thought I would like to contribute more, both information and photos, but as long as this goes under in a senseless list of airlines, I just don't want to waste my time and talent. Those who want such list should turn toward a travel agency, and not an encyclopedia. You wold not look into, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica to find a current telephone listing of each and every person in London, would you? And not in the phone book to find biographical information about the peoples listed, right? --L.Willms 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope that you will decide to contribute to these articles to improve the encyclopedia. As I said, the lack of information about the airport is part of the problem with these airports. Frankfurt Airport is one of a few that that has an extensive list of airlines and destinations. This is not the case for most airports. A guideline for content should not be based on a few exceptions. If the article is large and the number of airlines and destinations is also large, then this information could be split out to another article and linked so that it is available. However given the small amount of data in the article at this time, that does not appear to be a reason option at this time. Vegaswikian 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition, if someone doesn't want to look at the destinations and airlines, then he can skip over it. San Francisco International Airport is a good article, and it has the airlines and destinations. --Matt 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reformated the lists so that they use 50% less vertical space. Vegaswikian 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
These useless lists of airlines make the articles unreadable, and preclude any positive contribution to improving the article. Everything goes under compared to that unreadable mass of letters. How do you want to skip over that mass of junk, or continue to read in the first place? It is like reading a telephone book. Does anybody find that entertaining? Worse still, such lists are grouped by concourse, so it is not even a useful source for finding which airline is using that airport. That mass of letters tells every reader that nothing interesting and useful is to be found in that "article". That has to get out, and those who think they should and could rely on such lists, should better see a travel agent or look up some flight planner on the Web. Anybody who would ever want such would not not consult Wikipedia which is known to be an unreliable source. --L.Willms 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft movements

Which data should we use for aircraft movement stats? Should we use only commercial aircraft movements, or total aircraft movement (which includes private planes, etc)? kawaputratorque 07:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say (and have been using) total movements. That way one airport can be compared to another. Also if you list only commerical then the majority of movements may not be included. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'll use the total figure then. But i think in most major airports, majority of movements are commercial planes. Eg: Kuala Lumpure IA, less than 1% are non-commercial movements. Not so sure about other major aiports though. kawaputratorque 07:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I would think that you are probably right. A quick look at the stats for London Heathrow Airport shows 477,048 of which 476,189 are commercial. Toronto Pearson International Airport shows 417,183 of which 400,303 are commercial. On the other hand Boundary Bay Airport has 185,832 of which only 56,579 are commercial. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Flags in airport articles and airline destinations lists

After skimming through many airport articles (especially KIX, HKG articles), many users have been putting flags for airlines serving that particular airport. Do WikiProjects: Airports have a rule about adding flags to airlines and the airports theat they serve. Do flags really need to be included in the articles? What are your suggestions? Bucs2004 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Without reading through all the archived talk pages I am sure it was decided that flags were not a good idea (for various reasons) and I believe they were all removed from airport articles not that long ago. MilborneOne 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that flags should be used in the airport articles, however, I do think they make a nice addition the airline destination lists. Sox23 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 3#User adding flags to destination lists and I just remvoed them from the above two. If I find more I'll remove them as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Vegaswikian 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have also found flag icons added in the IAH article and I have removed them as well. Bucs2004 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Found a few more, including one that was in the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Open Call for Leadership Position at WikiProject Aviation

WikiProject Aviation is in need of Coordinators. Coordinators will be responsible for for taking charge of a particular duty. It is not an election so you can just sign up. The only real requirement is that you are a member of WikiProject Aviation. We are currently in need of at least 1 Collaboration Coordinator, 3 Review Department Coordinators and 1 Outreach Department Coordinator. Sign up here. Marcusmax 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

I note that on the project page, it is stated:

For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins <month, day>] or [ends <month, day>], respectively. Do not link the dates. ex: [begins April 23] or [ends April 23].

But the purpose of WikiLinking dates is so that they are displayed to the reader in their preferred style: i.e. North America v. Rest of the World. To have dates in the American format in articles about non-American airports is contrary to the WP:MOS, which states that national variations should concur with articles which have a particular national affiliation. For example, dates in Heathrow Airport should most definitely use the international format (day, month, year) and NOT the American format (month, day, year). I intend to amend the text on the project page to reflect this. Any comments? EuroSong talk 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason to change the date format. The MoS states that 'Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) can be ambiguous. Include the year if the meaning is unclear.' In these lists the meaning is clear and the link does not need to be included. Likewise, the Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context would suggest that these dates do not need to be linked. Vegaswikian 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not quite correct. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates clearly states that dates in the form of DD MMMM are to be linked for date preference formatting reasons.--Huaiwei 10:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

PUS-ICN on LH

On the Incheon International Airport article, an anon user has been adding Busan as a destination for Lufthansa from Incheon. I told them that foreign carriers have no rights to transport passengers from Busan-Seoul and therefore I reverted his edits once again. So, are my edits right or not that Busan should not be listed as a destination? Bucs2004 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can not board, it is not a destination. Vegaswikian 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So just what is meant by "boarding"? I supposed everyone from Australia must get off the plane at LAX and reboard to JFK, or maybe people get off JFK-LAX to reboard if QF is flying from LAX to more than 1 city in Australia (I personally don't know if that happens). Countless foreign flights operate between NGO and NRT--not as a domestic flight for immigration purposes, and for NW, the NGO-NRT flight let people connect at both ends. Things aren't that simple so we need a concensus somehow, like the direct-but-not-through-a-hub issue. HkCaGu 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Dont think it is as complicated as that. If you cant get on an aircraft and go to place "X" then X is not a destination. MilborneOne 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NW 1/2

Is NW 1 and NW 2 which flies LAX-NRT-HKG-NRT-LAX and it operates 747-400s on all the routes, is this direct or not? -chris^_^ 05:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • If it is the same aircraft, then yes. However it does raise an additional question. Do passengers have to clear customs at each stop? If so, they could be an issue as a direct flight. AT least this is true for the LAX-NRT-HKG NW1 flight and the HKG-NRT-LAX NW2 flight. Vegaswikian 06:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if this was just a one-time thing due to the problems, but it wasn't one plane yesterday. It was delayed leaving LAX, and arrived Narita at 6:32 PM at Gate 22, while the NRT-HKG leg left on time 3 minutes later from Gate 14. V-train 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the complete stats, but that can be researched on FlightStats.com by comparing gate numbers at NRT. Whenever I or my family members fly NW 1/2 I track the planes and found that at the NRT hub it's pretty much a random shuffle between the 4 B744s (x2 rounds daily) so more often than not it's not the same plane for a certain flight number. And for sure all passengers have to get off the plane for security check at NRT. (Today's gate numbers: http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/flight/today.html) Unlike the B744s, the A330s have a better chance of following the same flight numbers so I never bothered to remove those "direct" flights. However I think the same never-beyond-a-hub rule should apply to non-US hubs. HkCaGu 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Destinations without fifth-freedom rights

There's been some debate previously about whether flights without fifth-freedom rights (= for an A-B-C flight, the right to pick up pax at B and carry them to C) should be included. My understanding that the consensus was no, because it's misleading to list C as a "destination" for B if it's not actually possibly to board a flight from B to C, but this is not explicitly listed. Air Tahiti Nui and Air New Zealands's KIX-NRT flights have just been added to KIX, should they stay? Jpatokal 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they shouldn't be included. You're right, it's misleading to list them as destinations. --Matt 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if allowing "via" in these cases would end the controversy. For example, for PR at SFO or LAX, "Manila (via Guam)", implying that they literally fly SFO/LAX-GUM-MNL but you cannot get off at GUM. The new rule would say something like "use 'via' only for non-traffic right sectors". HkCaGu 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, via implies that passengers can board. Vegaswikian 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
And that wouldn't help anyway for listing of the flight from B to C, which is not "via" anything. Jpatokal 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, Lufthansa's PUS-ICN flights have just been added also on their respective pages. Should they remain or be removed. If so, please remove them from the respective pages. Thanks! Bucs2004 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar?

After going through the list of barnstars, I couldn't find one for WP:AIRPORT, only WP:AVIATION. Is there one that I missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaanaaq (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold airline names

Should we bold the airline names in the destinations sections of the airline articles? It looks better. -chris^_^ 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

anybody? -chris^_^ 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No. I suspect this would be against the WP:MOS. Bold should generally not be used. Vegaswikian 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure

[cross posted to the village pump] Anyone want to take a hack at Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure? The person who wrote the article's native language isn't English, and it clearly shows. The article is unsourced and needs major clean up. The clean up is too overwhelming for me, so I am here asking for volunteers to check it out. Seeing as there are not any other articles about the infrastructure of other airports, the topic of this article seems too narrow, and it may be a good candidate for merger or deletion. But before I do anything too rash, I wanted to get some other opinions and see if anyone thought it was worth attempting to clean up the article. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Maintenance

There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Former airlines in airport articles

Wasn't this issue already brought up and turned down? Sox23 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm pretty sure. I noticed yesterday after cleaning up after some anon user that a lot of British airports have both charters and former airlines listed, both of which I thought were not recommended. NcSchu(Talk) 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs to be added to the structure section. Vegaswikian 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Sox23 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft

Just for information I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft for AfD. MilborneOne 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Through flights destinations on Northwest Airlines

Should thru flights be listed as destinations? "International" destinations have been listed for Northwest Airlines on many airport articles. Has it been discussed not to list them? Thanks! Bucs2004 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should include them. Ex: Calgary has been listed as a destination of Northwest Airlines from New York-JFK; the flight goes through a NWA hub, so really YYC is a destination from whatever hub its coming from, and not JFK. Sox23 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! All edits at airports that have Calgary listed have been reverted.....please be aware that I wasn't the one who added Calgary as a destination. It was a IP. Bucs2004 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I know Sox23 21:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

A user has moved the destinations on the Manchester Airport page into three subpages, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 etc. When challenged on the talk page the user was addressing one comment in a peer review that said that the list could not be converted to prose so was moved to a sub-page. Anybody remind me of what the project view is on this, thanks. MilborneOne 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The last time I recall seeing something like this, the suggestion was to put the destinations into a template so that it could be included. However the reason for the action was to reduce the number of changes to the main article. Many editors are bothered by the number of destination changes which are not of interest to them. I would think that the template would work here. Also, the lists as created would, in my opinion, not survive at AfD. Vegaswikian 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I should add that if we do anything like this, the destinations should be contained in one place and not several. And the article/template name should be spelled correctly. Vegaswikian 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting (and perhaps uncivil) reply from User:And-Rew which basically says he does need to discuss the changes if they make sense as it is a priority task for their project! Any help appreciated on how we can deal with this. MilborneOne 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Just noticed that somebody has speedy deleted the destinaton lists! MilborneOne 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC) sorry they have just renamed the pages. MilborneOne 21:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a conflict of interests of projects. Your policy seems to be outdated and allows for long lists of destinations to be on articles. Manchester Airport is one of the UK's largest and serves the most destinations of any. At Greater Manchester WikiProject we would rather have relevant information on the main page and anything that is not totally important can be added to sub-articles. At my project we are BOLD with our edits and want to improve our articles without discussing every change made. Your policy of filling up the airport's main page with long lists of destinations and airliners may work for the smaller airports but it seems totally unnecessary to add all this information when there is plenty more to write about. The fact that you are asking for help to "deal with this" shows that you are not open to changes and are stuck with poor looking articles. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF? Vegaswikian 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

<<-- outdent. The keep decision was overturned for these articles and the AfD has been reopened here. Feel free to add your comments there. Since the outcome is of importance to this project, I believe that we should have many project members providing their opinions. Vegaswikian 20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport destination list up for deletion

After a peer review of Manchester Airport, it was suggested that the terminal destination lists be split into specific terminal articles. That was done - List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 were created and links to them are in the Manchester Airport article. Since then, all the terminal articles went to AfD. It seems a mess.

See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). --Oakshade 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

St or Saint

When I created the Quebec airports I used the name from the Canada Flight Supplement, which use the abbreviation St or Ste, but I just noticed that the communities tend to use the full form. Examples are St-Hyacinthe Airport and Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec or Ste-Anne-des-Monts Airport and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Quebec. The question is should the airports stay where they are or be moved to match the community name. I think they should be moved with the abbreviation left as a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I would use the 'avoid abbreviations guideline' and spell it out unless the community or the airport does use the abbreviated form. So I'd say expand. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have thought of that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mixing charter flights with scheduled ones in the Airlines and destinations (Terminals and destinations) sections

What is the policy on listing charters mixed in with the scheduled flights? I thought that this is to be avoided, and that charters like cargo flighs, belong in separate subsections. Could this be clarified? I am having an issue over this in WAW (Warsaw Chopin Airport), where someone is arguing that Amadeus listing is sufficient to list flights, which in reality are charter operations, b/c that is the permit they got from ULC (Civil Aviation Office), i.e. "nonregular flights" - (TACV, operated by SATA; Royal Wings; Eurocypria). --Mareklug talk 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd lean to a separate section. The fact that a reservation system lists it does not in any way change the type of flight. It does tend to obfuscate what type of flight it is. A charter is not regularly scheduled service. Consumer protections and alternative flights, if the charter is canceled, are usually rather different then if you are flying on a scheduled carrier, at least in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Northwest DTW-PEK

There has been some issues on whether or not Detroit-Beijing is truely a direct flight. Is this flight really direct? User:Xixidoubao‎ have added it twice and I been removing it from the PEK article and an anon user added it to the DTW article. The first leg of DTW-PEK is flown with a Boeing 747-400 and the fianl leg to PEK is flown with an Airbus 330-200. Therefore it should not be listed on the respective pages if it involves with such an aircraft change. Right? Bucs2004 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the aircraft type changes, it definitely should not be listed. Rule #5: "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." In this case it's not the same airport.HkCaGu (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Destination lists and displaying

Over time, there have been several issues raised with the length and impact of these lists. There have also been objections to the impact on the article when changes have been made only to the destinations section. If the destination data was moved into a template that had a default to open collapsed, the visual impact on the article would be lessened and could address several objections. If that template was included in an airport specific template that was included in the airport article from a subpage, it could also address the second problem. Something that we should consider? Vegaswikian 23:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently the system does not work in my opinion. It may not pose a huge problem for smaller airports but for the larger ones it just acts as filler for the article and diverts attention away from the airport itself and onto the destination list as it dominates many of the articles. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, i wonder if somebody could create an example for us to review and discuss. MilborneOne 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've always liked the idea of a collapsable list, I think it would solve a lot of problems. NcSchu(Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I threw something simple together using Bermuda International Airport's information (didn't have a lot so it was pretty easy ;) ). I don't know how it will work with a lot of information, though. NcSchu(Talk) 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not bad at all, it may be a bit big with some airports though. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
But it's collapsable and it's set as collapsed on default so unless you want to see it you won't, and those who do want to see it won't care about the size, will they? NcSchu(Talk) 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well in that case it should default to not collapse. Most people do not need to know all the destinations an airport goes to really. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
While it takes up more space, it does work. The title should be Airlines and destinations. I'm not sure that we need to include the airport name since it is already in that article, but if this defaults to using the page name, that may be a non issue. What remains is, do we include the template so that destination changes don't force a change to the article itself which some users have asked for. The default should be collapsed so that all pages behave the same. Otherwise we have the question of how many entries we need to change to the collapsed format. Keep it simple and collapse them all. Vegaswikian 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs all the users who first kicked up a stink about this to agree that the collapsable box will be ok and then I can start changing Manchester Airport. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the fool which took the lists from Manchester Airport to AFD needs to withdraw them if this is what will be agreed upon as I will simply move the content into new templates and nom for speedy delete instead of doing what which ever fool did by taking them to AFD without even bothering to ask why they were created. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Again WP:AGF. The problem is the person who created these articles violating WP:POINT. Vegaswikian 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the person who created these article was Being Bold and otherwise this project would still be stuck in its old ways of not recognising that all airports are different, some are large, some are small. The policy outlined on this project is not official and therefore I did no wrong, just seemed to have offended some people which caused them to kick up a stink about it as they seem to be scared of change. I hope this matter is settled now and you will allow Manchester Airport to develop as an article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I like NcSchu's template, although I agree it should be Airlines and destinations. How would we cope with multiple terminals; add more than one template or try to accomodate it in the template? MilborneOne 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have a separate table for each terminal. Otherwise for the larger airports, the table will completely dominate the article when it is open. V-train 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Another option would be to use sub templates for each terminal. Is there any need to sort by airline? Right now we break this apart by terminal. If we used a single table, the default order could be terminal and users would be free to sort by airline. Vegaswikian 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to make the concept I used a navbox, which isn't really used for this purpose, so I'll try doing it with a table and a longer example and I'll make it so you can switch between terminal ascending/descending and airline ascending/descending (if that makes sense, it's what Vegaswikian suggested). This will probably take a while. NcSchu(Talk) 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I added a new version to the same page as before. I'm not quite sure how well it came out. I used Newark Liberty International Airport's data for this one. Even with the text at 85% it still takes up quite a lot of room when it's fully extended so we might want to just stick to separate ones for each terminal. Also, if anybody wants to play around with the stuff I've done, feel free to do so on either the current page or some other one. Oh, also, I wasn't quite sure what do with subsidiaries/franchise partner airlines, so I just made them a separate row. NcSchu(Talk) 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think The second option is much better. One issue I have is airlines that operate out of multiple terminals. I think the simple solution is to just add all terminals in the last column. Another question is how do we list destinations from places like McCarran International Airport where there is basically 1 terminal with concourses and the airlines are listed by concourse except for the few that use terminal 2. Vegaswikian 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, how do we deal with charter and cargo operators when destinations are listed? Vegaswikian 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Subject to resolving any minor issues raised above, are there any major objections to blessing the collapsed table concept as part of the article structure guidance? Should the table be coded in line. Or should we save it and make it parameter driven. I'd vote for the later to make it easier for new editors. Vegaswikian 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just reviewing this page. Why not just use

{| class="Wikitable collapsible collapsed" width="100%" height="70px" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #E0FFFF;"| Airlines and destinations
|-
|

and

|}

at the bottom? See User:NcSchu/Sandbox for an example of how it would work with Manchester Airport. The advantage is that there is no need to convert all the airports. You just add it to the top and bottom of the existing lists. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, I didn't realize that was possible, but that makes it very easy to convert existing formats. The only downside is that you're unable to sort by columns, but I don't know if that's really a necessary part. NcSchu(Talk) 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I did that to Manchester Airport where the issue of the lists began. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed it on WP:ANI earlier and that's where I got the idea. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did have to add a 'br clear all' since the pictures were overlaying the show switch on some browsers with some screen sizes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Worrying use of Blog website to add new destinations

I've noticed this happening in a couple of airport pages recently. It seems a blog (new or old, I'm not sure), http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/, is being frequently cited as "proof" that a new route will begin. I'm not saying this blog is full of fictitious information, however it does not list any sources for its information and the blog itself, per WP:SPS, is not considered reliable. I just thought I would bring this to everybody's attention. NcSchu(Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Airport images

I'm not a regular aiport editor, but I've been working a bit on Illinois Valley Airport and would like to add some images to it. I'd love to add something like Image:KSLEDiag.png, but I can't find anything on faa.gov. Anybody know about this? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding the flight planning image, they are renewed fairly regularly and become out of date very quickly so we could get into a cycle of people replacing them every other week! The authorities also dont like them being used in case somebody is daft enougth to actually use one in an aircraft that is out of date (the example image time expired in September 2005!). Official diagrams for the rest of the world (not US) are probably copyrighted. MilborneOne 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:US-airport

There seems to be an effort here to include more external links. Possible spamming and sockpuppets. More comments would be good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines "Through Flight" destinations issue on Calgary International Airport

I know have bought this up before but User:68.146.69.1 continues to add "through flight" destinations to Northwest Airlines on Calgary International Airport. It is also the same IP that added as a Calgary as a destination for BDL, JFK, PVD, and IAD airport articles. I have revert his edits many times telling him/her to refer to WP:AIRPORTS as it clearly states that these so called "direct" flights should not be listed as they go through an NWA hub. I go to that article of couple of days later and it appeared again. What should we do? I am tired of reverting the edits. If he/she continue to add those destinations, please revert them. Thanks!! Bucs2004 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be the user doesn't know about the edit history and is confused about why you're doing this. I would put civil messages on the user's talk page and on the Calgary airport page to reach the user and start the discussion - the user might not have a clue what's going on. (I might be wrong, of course, I haven't looked at the edit history for the airport myself) --Matt (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason why the IP got confused is because the nwa site lists all destinations from a location by default. 哦，是吗？(review O) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (GMT)

MNL-China passenger transportation rights

I wanted to know why foreign carriers does not have passenger transportation rights between Manila and China? Bucs2004 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Planes...

Hello members of WikiProject Airports,

I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.

Please let me know if you;re interested!

Bluegoblin7 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Greensboro

How would we state PTI? In most articles it's stated as Greensboro, but in the masterlist, it's stated as Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem. -chris^_^ (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In most articles I've seen, it's listed as "Greensboro". Sox23 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong as a UA focus city

I just noticed not too long ago on the United Airlines and HKG articles that Hong Kong was added as a UA focus city. Is this correct? Bucs2004 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK UA's international Hubs (Focus Cities) are LHR and NRT MEBpilot (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Old infobox still being used

I've just created a category, Category:Airport articles using Airport Infobox template which lists almost 800 articles still using the old infobox. All of these should be changed over to the new (and in my opinion superior) {{Infobox Airport}}. As people work on these articles, the updated count will be available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is an automatable edit, and could be done with a bot, no? What is the procedure to refer tasks to bots? I think this would take care of it painlessly and quickly. --Mareklug talk 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone want to see if there is bot for this or is there someone who can write an AWB script to do this? Also the one I just looked at and converted had a lot more wrong with it, so this may not be the only cleanup these articles need. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't tried it myself, but there is an existing AWB plugin for this at User:Reedy Boy/Airport Infobox Migration Plugin. There are things it has a problem converting, so be sure to check your edits if you use it. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just added this category to several Australian airport articles for someone to follow-up with AWB or similar for conversion. Completed Codes YAxx to YKxx, YLxx to YZxx when I get a chance will be categorised as well if required. MEBpilot (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

2007-12-04 HOAX ALERT!

User:Vitrox92 and an IP or two have created a hoax on the airport in Ende, Indonesia by greatly exaggerating its importance. This user has added "Ende" to many airports and airlines. Everyone please help contain this and administrators may want to monitor and impose blocks as necessary. HkCaGu 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To make things easier, the links are H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport, Ende International Airport, User Vitrox 92's contribs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The same hoaxer/vandal continues to strike twice a day from dynamic IPs beginning with 125.164. Everyone please help watch this person closely. Those with admin privilege who happen to be online during the strike please block such IP immediately without warning. After the Ende Airport saga, he/she has been performing a dozen or so vandal edits within 30-60 minutes to various airlines and airports from an 125.164 IP, then leave. HkCaGu (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that Vitrox92 has been banned, probably the same anonymous user with IPs beginning with 125.164 continues to vandalize mainly Indonesian/Asian airport and airline pages. Between 04:38 and 05:22 UTC Sunday 9 December, these edits appeared from 125.164.163.84:[8]. If he/she is to return, administrators please block him/her immediately (pick your number of hours), otherwise by the time all the usual canned warnings are given, he/she will have gone home for the day. HkCaGu (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Arkanov92 appears to be the same guy. He's now started linking Pondok Cabe Airport (a tiny GA airfield) into airlines and other airports everywhere. Jpatokal (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He/she is now reincarnated as User:Arkanov15. HkCaGu (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
He/she just struck again. Why hasn't User:Arkanov15 been blocked? HkCaGu (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reversing his edits. Is there any admin around? HkCaGu (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I reported him and he got banned, for now. He'll probably pop up again soon under a new ID. V-train (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He's back! See Special:Contributions/Rockyroad92. HkCaGu (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Airport Type in Infobox

I've started looking into the information listed for various Australian airports on wikipedia. However the existing types listed as 'Public' or 'Private' are no longer in use by CASA, they are now listed as 'Registered' and 'Certified' and others.... should we start to convert these to the new format as listed in the AIP ERSA document? MEBpilot (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Australia but the UK CAA uses the terms Public Licence or Ordinary Licence. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you look at aerodrome you can see that the registered/certified also applies to Canadian airports as well. The use of public/private/military in Wikipedia just refers to the usage of the airport and makes it standard throughout and is more useful to the reader. What should be done is either move the "registered aerodromes" to "Name Aerodrome" (Stirling Airport to Stirling Aerodrome or Prince Rupert/Seal Cove Water Aerodrome to Prince Rupert/Seal Cove Water Airport) or, if not possible, because the operating authority use the word airport, then you could make note of it right in the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Baggage Handlers

A section on baggage handlers has just been removed (and reverted) on Belfast International Airport. Apart from the fact that it should be Ground Service providers or something like that I dont believe it is notable. Any comment please? MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Airport naming, once again

The "guideline" proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Airport names remains unclear and not agreed on, and in the meantime, ridiculous article names like Rivière Rouge/Mont-Tremblant International Inc Airport continue to proliferate. Could we try to achieve some sort of concensus on this? Comments over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Airport names, please. Jpatokal (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Destinations wikilink

OK I am new to the airport scene, but have just run into trouble by inadvertantly wikilinking destinations on Lae Nadzab Airport and being hastily reverted without explanation. So instead I have gone and wikilinked to the the correct airports serviced not the town/city. But now after checking the guidelines I see that it is not policy to wikilink at all. It seems to me that wikilinking is what wikipedia is all about - ease of naviagation. And with there now being, I guess, hundreds of articles for airports shouldn't perhaps the policy state to wikilink to the correct airport and not to the city/town? Nomadtales 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Destinations aren't wikilinked per WP:Airports policy. I don't know the exact reason but it's just how it is. Sox23 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw the policy and I can understand reasons for not wikilinking to Cities (most probably because there would be more than one airport), but why not wikilink to airport destinations? This is the beauty of Wikipedia - wikilinks. In the train world at WP:RDT they state to wikilink to stations in preference to the town/city. So what's going on here? Nomadtales 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the "official" answer, but I have a feeling doing such wikilinking, especially on larger destination lists, would serious blow up the coding. I know I wouldn't fancy sorting through that. NcSchu(Talk) 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not suggesting every article needs changing now, but certainly for new articles why shouldn't the policy be amended to state - do not wikilink to destination cities, only wikilink to destination airports. Nomadtales 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for more information. Basically having links for all of this would not be not relevant to the article. Also the style guideline to only link once would be a major headache for these lists. Vegaswikian 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How is a link to an airport you can fly to from a specific airport not relevant? Nomadtales 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It actually states on the page mentioned above that "Geographic place names ..." are something that should be linked to. And the one link headache is no more than would be on any other list - it would actually make it easier because it would mean less work. Nomadtales 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that if one has all that information in the article, it should be wikilinked, so that one can follow to the article on the destination and find the next hop of the flight. And than one also wants to know the departure times, days of week being served, and the price. One should not stop half way. But then that is better done by a real database based journey planner, and Wikipedia isn't one. That's why those lists of airports, even grouped by concourse, have to removed from the airport articles. Let's leave that to the travel agencies! --L.Willms 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep our own arguments in our sections. This is a different matter. NcSchu(Talk) 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered the question: do you want to use the full linking possibility of Wikipedia, i.e. wikilinking the destination airports, too, so that one can use the airport articles primarily for hopping by virtual air flights over the globe, or not? If the stuff is in there, it should be linked, shouldn't it? --L.Willms 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
After spending a couple of years on airport article upkeep on both the English and Polish Wikipedias, I have come to a conclusion that we should be wikilinking destinations, both the cities and the airports if present, and that the arguments against it (the wikiproject policy statement, increased bloat, too much work) are not germane or lack merit. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (primarily), but hypertext, and quick navigation from a given airport page to an article about the destination city or airport is appropriate and worthy of resources. For one thing, the reader needs a way to tell where the destination is and may not recognize it. Perhaps we should have a discussion about it? -Mareklug talk 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Having just fallen over exactly the same unexpected rule as Nomadtales (original post above) and been reverted, I absolutely agree. Destination airports are in my opinion relevant to the context of the article, and should be linked. I could reluctently buy the argument that they are not relevent to the context of the article, but that would indicate that they should be dropped altogether, not simply not linked. I would submit the current guideline in the project is contrary to the spirit, if not the policy, of WP and needs amending. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Destination airports not linked

Having just fallen over this rather unexpected project specific rule (destination should be listed but not linked) and been reverted, I'd like to propose the rule be deleted. As far as I can see, there are two possible views to be taken here. Either:

  • Destination airports are relevant to the context of the article, and therefore should be listed and linked.
  • Destination airports are not relevant to the context of the article, and therefore should be neither listed nor linked.

I cannot think of a rational argument for listing destinations but not linking them, that is not contrary to the spirit, if not the policy, of WP. I'd appreciate it if anybody can provide an argument as to why this guideline should not be changed. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this rule exists (apart from as discussed above - 'clogging' the code and the time and work it would take to bring existing artciles into line with a new policy). Certainly for some large airports with hundreds of destinations it would seriously increase the length of code and be quite a time consuming exercise, neverthless I am inclined to agree with you that these reasons seem a little indolent. Perhaps we can now discuss this further here and come to a final decision. In the meantime I have left your edits to the London City Airport page as they stand as this may also serve as a useful example for discussion. SempreVolando (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be linked, but I think it would be a huge effort to go through and link them all. However redundancy should be considered and duplicate cities need not be linked, cutting down on the amount of the work. NcSchu(Talk) 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
On a more pragmatic note, I feel that linking destinations does resolve some practical difficulties with the unlinked list. For example, without the link, individual readers are going to have to find out for themselves that the destination referred to as Nice is actually Côte d'Azur International Airport. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
While the example above is not too bad, I think that Grantley Adams International Airport is not the way to go. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the Grantley Adams article being an example of how not to present the list. I think we also need to agree on what we are linking to here. WikiProject Airports states list city names, therefore in my view any wikilink would need to link to the city, not the airport. (For example Manchester not Manchester). Am I interpreting this correctly or are we suggesting we link to the airport pages. In that case would the article become in danger of contradicting the policy that Wikipedia is not a travel guide? SempreVolando (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
With reference to the WP is not a travel guide issue, let me clarify that I am not proposing any change to the current text of articles, just to whether certain words are linked or not. I don't see how that change can have any bearing on whether the article is seen as a travel guide or not. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the airline isn't flying to the city, it's flying to the airport represented by the city name. Linking the city wouldn't actually help anyone as they'd still have to navigate to the airport, and when there's more than one airport in the city's area that can get difficult. It doesn't solve anything. NcSchu(Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Whilst the guideline does say 'list city' it is not clear from the context whether this is indicating a deliberate intent to list cities as opposed to airports, or simply a piece of lax language in distinguishing between listing and linking. In practice, most editors seem to actually list airports rather than cities where there is any ambiguity (eg. the listing of 'Milan-Linate' or 'Paris-Orly' on London City Airport, which predate my changes). -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's say there are ten airlines flying to the same city. Airlines A drop the route. Then somebody needs to find the next alphabetical airline to wikilink the city/airport. It could be a lot of work. The repetitive nature of destination cities is likely the reason wikilinks were not recommended, beside the length issue (for major airports). Airlines and their destination lists, however, don't have this repetitive problem. HkCaGu (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that maintaining repetitive linked entries in lists is a generic pain in WP, but we must always remember that the important users of WP are non-editing readers, not editors. I confess that I personally handle this one by quietly ignoring the 'don't overlink' stricture when editing lists, as you can see from London City Airport. I think this issue needs to be resolved at a bigger scale than Wikiproject Airports. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It says list cities because it's not possible to assume that the reader knows that a particular airport, Malpensa International Airport or Linate Airport for example, are in Milan. On the other hand it's usually clear to which city the aircraft is flying from the context of the article, for example a plane from London is not usually going to be flying to Faro Airport (Yukon). If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Airport article structure #3 it states to disambiguate which airport in the city is being flown to. I agree with NcSchu, that if they are to be linked then it would need to be [[Orly Airport (Paris)|Paris-Orly]]. Linking only the cities would be of no help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Chicago south suburban airport

Proposed Chicago south suburban airport has been edited recently and now includes strike out notation and other non-standard wiki issues. The same edits included some references and the prior version was not well referenced to start with. I initially reverted, but that would have removed cited information (though not online verifiable ones). The editor is apparently a single purpose account who used self as a reference and apparently has strong POV against the proposed airport. If anyone in the Airports / Aviation realm wants to clean it up or otherwise deal with it be my guest, I'm not going to mess with it. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ministro Pistarini International Airport

I have keep removing flags icons from this airport and Cdeujm keeps adding it back saying that flags make the artcle look better. Should we include flags? I am just afraid that he will add them back to the article. Bucs2004 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we decided not to include flags. I can't see how they would provide any actual benefit to the article, the argument that they "make the article look better" is irrelevant and relative. NcSchu(Talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we did but I keep removing the flags from that airport many times but it was added back in seconds. Bucs2004 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No flags. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support and suggest we use flags; maybe the premise "make the article look better" is not compelling enough, but i do not think looking better is a bad thing. I believe it would make the article contain more information and look more organized. Are there other reasons, other than extra editing, for not using flags? How are they irrelevant and relative?--Juliofdiaz (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry no flags - they are just fluff users can just click on link if they dont know which country the airline comes from. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I still think it improves the organization of the article, and just saying "it does nothing but to make it look pretty" is not a good argument against it. It adds to the page. Templates help organize articles, it also makes them look pretty, so imagine somebody saying "let's not use templates because they just make the article look pretty."--Juliofdiaz (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Flags add nothing other then making an article look pretty. We need articles that have good content and don't simply look pretty. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont think flags take away the good content of articles. If flags had a bad impact on the article, I would be with you guys; but I dont see how it makes the article bad. --Juliofdiaz (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) has some relevant content as to why flags should not be used. Accompany flags with country names is one of the most important. The first use of a flag would also require the entity be linked as well. Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations would also be applicable. Does ScotAirways get a UK or a Scottish flag? At the sub-national level for smaller airports with no international flights the use of country flag is redundant. Using too many flags is another reason not to have any flags. Look at Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport and imagine how cluttered that will look if flags are added, plus why the need to keep putting in US and Canadian flags. The most important thing is without flags nobody has to bother about which flag gets used. Thomas Cook Airlines, based in the UK, is owned by Thomas Cook Group, which it turns out is 52% German owned. So a UK, English or German flag in the airport articles? Wizz Air, based in Hungry but the "...lead investor is Indigo Partners, an American private equity firm..." So a Hungarian or American flag? All in all, a lack of flags results in a lack of fuss over which flag to use. As to them making the articles pretty, well that's subjective. I think that flags used in that way make the article cluttered, serve no purpose and make the article look uglier. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an actual answer; it makes sense after you explanation. thanks --Juliofdiaz (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

San Diego International Airport

Just came accross San Diego International Airport, and noticed it has such a long list of former airlines serving the airport. Isn't this agains this project's policy? -chris^_^ (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the same thing, but former airline destination articles were deleted. I'd say go for it - that much detail, difficult to verify, in list form not specifying about how these were important to the airport, seems unencyclopediadic. --Matt (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are all airports notable

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esterhazy Airport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Several templates I've been working on have been added to WikiProject Aviation. Should I add Template:Future airport expansion and Template:Future airport to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Templates?

--Ng.j (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ledenair

Articles about Ledenair and inclusion in airport articles appeared in August last year and Ledenair was was deleted as a hoax. an IP user has started adding Ledenair to airport articles again so it may be another hoax. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Westchester County/White Plains Airport

HPN has apparently been nominated for deletion. I'm not canvassing, but I'm not familiar enough with the deletion process here really. I know my grounds aren't that strong, and maybe the article should go, but I disagree with the reasons the nominator stated. I've read enough to know that 'just because article x exists doesn't mean article y should' is not a valid keep, but I'm not sure at all about this. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

future expansion

Any comments about Category:Future airport expansion? I'm considering proposing for deletion as ambiguous. What defines notable expansion? Is a larger hanger sufficient for inclusion in this category? Expanded holding areas? A new control tower? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's so vague as to be meaningless. Future airport, sure, but expansion? No. Jpatokal (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also just because an expression of intention to expaned is stated does not mean that it will ever happen. It's a speculative category. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not too much of a problem. We can always specify worthy entries for inclusion and weed out all speculative ones from the category. With only 24 articles in it at present, its not an impossible task to finish.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are indeed some airport expansions which are noteworthy, so much so that they are almost akin to being an entirely new airport. Beijing's Capital Airport immediately comes to mind. Dubai International Airport is another notable example, as is London Heathrow Airport. In each of these cases, it is the building of at least one passenger terminal building which makes it significant.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories that require maintenance to keep them on topic tend to be considered as ambiguous when they get nominated for deletion. If you want to try and clarify the introduction to make it clear what belongs in this category and then weed it out, I'll wait a while before I nominate it. However, it might be easier to simply delete what is there and then recreate the new category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for every airport?

Good day all, it’s seems I've started up a bit of conversation at the WikiProject Oregon Page. I'm relatively new here so I wanted to run my intentions by everyone. As you have seen above I have recently started an article for every airport in Oregon. My next objective is to knock off California. I have got my format down a little better to give the articles a little more meat then the airports I started in Oregon. Personally, I feel that every landing facility deserves an article as there is no way to say one is better then another. However, I wanted to get a consensus of our project to find out if I have your support to continue otherwise my work ahead is mud. Thanks for your time, --Trashbag (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When I did all the Canadian ones I didn't bother with the heliports. Mainly because I wasn't sure that a landing pad on top of a hospital needed a seperate article. But every aerodrome and airport listed in the Canada Flight Supplement is there and the heliports are in a list of heliports in Canada. On the other hand, if you look at List of airports in the United Kingdom you can see that articles for heliports have been created but they do appear to have some notability. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddball date format

I realise that American English is the lingua franca of the airline world, but why was it thought necessary by this project to disregard the advice given at Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking with regard to wikilinking dates, please?

This anomaly may slightly irritate some of our logged on readers that have different date preferences set, but, more importantly, leads to constant tinkering by editors that may be familiar with our Manual of Style in general but not this project's edict in particular.

I think you guys should at least add your local exception to our Manual of Style page I reference above! Alice✉ 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what's irking you? Thanks --Matt (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast and helpful response, Guys!
Here is the offending edit that is in conflict with the wiki-wide manual of style guideline I wikilink in my post above. See what the change to number 7 does? Alice✉ 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We do try to format the dates for the country the airport is located in. NcSchu(Talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In all other places in WP this is done by wikilinking the dates so that they appear in the reader's browser according to their local date preferences (if, and only if, they are logged on and have set a date format preference in their user "my preferences") Alice✉ 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I know. I was just explaining how I believe we accommodate both parties. I honestly have no real preference whether to use/not use linked dates, but I don't think it's that difficult to interpret a date whether it says "28 October" or "October 28" so I'm not sure I understand the basis of the MoS rule. NcSchu(Talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course you are right on both counts, NcSchu. However, there are less sensible people around that edit war on just such a quibble. And, being fair to them, there are lots of anons that will go in and change (say) the Commonwealth date format or British spelling in an article on the UK Houses of Parliament to US format without realising that this is an international encyclopedia; in these cases it's much easier to just revert them and point to WP:ENGVAR and/or Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking rather than enter into endlessly repetitive and boring "discussions" on the article's talk pages. (Believe it or not there is such an airline related revert war taking place not a million miles from where I write - figuratively speaking...). I also must declare an interest: I help write our MoS pages. Alice✉ 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this about the service start and stop dates? If so,, they are in the month, day format since the date is really not notable and by leaving the year off, we eliminate the need to link the date. Since it is not encyclopedic it does not need linking under the MoS and the format used is completely acceptable and makes clear it should not be linked. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You do need to read our MoS again. We do not link individual orphaned years or months (unless they are encyclopedically significant). We wikilink not to go to an article on, say, 11 January, but so that the whole date appears according to the user's local preference:
"Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users. It works only for users who are registered, and for all others (i.e. most) will be displayed as entered. Thus:
    • either [[January 15]] or [[15 January]] will be rendered as either January 15 or 15 January, according to a registered user's set preferences; and
    • [[January 15]], [[2001]] (US editors), [[15 January]] [[2001]] (others), [[2001-01-15]] (ISO), or [[2001 January 15]] will be rendered as January 15, 2001, 15 January 2001, 2001-01-15, or 2001 January 15, according to a registered user's set preferences." Alice✉ 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to add- for certain China routes (which begin in 2009), for dates not yet passed in 2008, the year is included. Sox23 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Then there is even more reason to follow our Manual of Style guidelines. Alice✉ 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if there is no good reason to have this oddball local rule about not wikifying dates (contrary to our MoS), may I nuke the local rule from the project page?

Especially as I can not trace any discussion whatsoever (far less a consensus) on this page either prior to or after the oddball rule's introduction? Alice✉ 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You may want to start looking here. That is just one of the past discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a helpful response on at least three levels, Vegaswikian:
  1. it was rapid
  2. it was unequivocal: you're opposed to following our Manual of Style in at least this regard
  3. it was informative; there has been prior discussion of this topic - but unfortunately the reason why our MoS recommends wikilinking was missed then as well (except by User:Huaiwei) and there seems to have been no cogent and compelling reasons advanced for this local aberration in the archive you helpfully refer to. Alice✉ 07:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Or should I add a fourth factor - that there is an outright willingness to ignore site-wide MOS because the only one who seems to dare to speak against that initiative was myself, the same person who happens to be frequently at odds with a group of "influential" people in this WP led by Vegaswikian? It is ironic that the very person who called for "a unified encyclopaedia..." with "articles that follow some style sheet" [9] can actually support a guideline which will result in a group of articles being at odds with the rest of the same "unified" encyclopaedia!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is always the human element to consider, Huaiwei, and I must admit that your analysis goes some way at removing my puzzlement at why there should be this oddball exception. I suppose many editors in this project may not edit outside the sphere of aeronautics and may be unaware of our encyclopedia-wide standards. However, looking at his erudite contributions, Vegaswikian does not fall into this insular category, so I'd welcome an expansion of his rationale for this tiny (but nevertheless rather perturbing and puzzling) exception to his usually consistent logic. Alice✉ 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
At the time this position was taken, this format was allowed under the various MoS guidelines. This was referenced in the old discussions. I don't have the time right now to dig through all of those and to research any changes to the MoS related pages. But the position we took was acceptable at the time under the various MoS articles. That not withstanding, there is nothing encyclopedic about the date, so beyond the possible date format issue there is no justification to link a temporary date in the article. It serves no long term purpose. Before you get into the date format question, there is the link itself. If the link is not encyclopedic and does not add information to that article then there is no reason to have the link. What encyclopedic purpose would be served by linking a future date? Remember editors are discouraged from having too many links as well as too few links. At least that is my opinion after reading the MoS sections about links. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you can't understand the rationale behind Wikifying dates (not "linking"). Perhaps if you read the guidance I've referred to out loud as if it were a speech in a play?
As I've previously said, we are not (repeat, NOT) linking for the sake of suggesting readers click on a coloured hyperlink to jump to an article on some future date. I know that when we have dates "autoformatted by inserting double square-brackets" they look as if they are entered in that format "as for linking" BUT THEY'RE NOT! They may look like hyperlinks, they will act as hyperlinks, they're coloured as hyperlinks - BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE THERE TO ACT AS HYPERLINKS! They are there purely and solely for the reasons described above and, therefore any arguments about too few links, too many links or relevant links are completely and utterly irrelevant BECAUSE properly formatted dates are just that - NOT Wikilinks!!!!
And I do take your point about the (Wiki)world changing - that's life, I'm afraid.
In an ideal world, the developers would have implemented a way to autoformat dates to logged-on reader's preferences without the autoformatted date hyperlinking to a (mostly) irrelevant article. But they haven't yet, sorry! Alice✉ 06:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are feeling frustrated by this exchange, Alice, I can fully sympathise with you. Perhaps you will soon realise why I have often been branded as a "tyrant" of this WP, and why I have chosen never to join this WP until sensible individuals who think logicically joins its ranks.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That is pure nonsense, Vegaswikian. Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking has been around for as long as I have been in wikipedia (and that is almost four years), and certainly exists at the time of its discussion. A blatant circumvention of the said guideline only materialised because few even noticed that discussion in the first place (and for that matter, this WP has always been dominated by a small number of users who usually pass "resolutions" rather easily without outside participation anyway). Also kindly stick to the topic at hand. The entire point of Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking is to allow individual users to display dates in the way they prefer. It is not an issue over whether linked dates are encyclopaedic. American English isnt too different such that you have difficulty understanding Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, I hope?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree with changing the project page until the discussion is finished! but I cant see why the guideline cant say - [begins <month day> or <day moth>] or [ends <month day> or <day month>] which happens anyway. Dont have any views on the linking, I think most people know that January 15 is the same as 15 January without the need for autoformating. The year bit has been discussed before, no views myself but I believe the concensus was not to use the year if it was within twelve months. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If it must be repeated, kindly read Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. No one is talking about the year, but the day-month/month-day linking format, so quit sidetracking from the main issue. Kindly do not assume "most people" constitutes only folks in the United States. What you consider as a "non-issue" is certainly an issue in the global arena when people write dates differently. Why else is there autoformating created to address this issue, and that it is a requirement as per the site-wide MOS for implementation? I do not consider this topic even needing a discussion, for it is clear circumvention of the MoS and should be corrected immediately.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, the place to have this discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Linking_full_dates
All I've done is alert the seemingly blinkered and insular editors here on this project as to what is happening in the big, wide outside world of our encyclopedia in general so that editors can be aware that if they follow the "rules" of this project (as formulated at present and, seemingly, in ignorance or because they are out-of-date as to our MoS) then they are doing the oddball as a conscious choice rather than in blissful ignorance of the consequences (at a minimum, more conformist editors may revert their edits as being contrary to our MoS). Alice✉ 06:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So after all that, you are both saying is wikilink the day/month combination this is not a big deal. I dont have a problem with that. But please note that WP:DATE is only a recommended guideline, and please do not assume all other editors here are north american. So the suggestion is simple change Para 7 of the airlines and destinations to:

7. For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins month day or day month] or [ends month day or day month], respectively. Do not use the year unless the event it is more than 12-months away.

Change
Dont Change
Dont care

I'm afraid it's slightly more complicated than that, since we need to take the principles of WP:ENGVAR into account. My suggested format would be:

7. For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins [[month day]]] or [ends [[month day]]], respectively. Do not use the year unless the event is more than 12-months away, but the order of month followed by day should be reversed if appropriate to a particular article according to the recommendations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting. Do NOT edit war over "American date formats" versus "Commonwealth date formats".
Alice✉ 09:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but letting the date be month day OR day month allows for regional variation as per the MOS that you keep quoting, the point about the above discussion was that autoformat will change it to the prefered format anyhow so it does not matter which of the two date styles you use, please vote on the recommendation or we will just go round in circles. It sounds like you are voting not to change it to the suggested words then. You are welcome to suggest another format if the above change is not supported but please give time for other users to vote. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There is no need to specify [[month day]] or [[day month]]. We just need to state that dates should be wikilinked as per Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. I am not sure what the above vote is actually trying to accomplish, but if it is to simply establish if we are amending it to follow Wikipedia:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, then it is an obvious yes vote from me. If it is a vote to include the exact workings as stated above, than I am abstaining.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We really have to stop being picky about every single thing. What we're voting on is to wikilink dates. Wording can be changed/argued about later, so for now let's just agree to put the dates in brackets. NcSchu(Talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nitpicking isnt my expertise, to be honest, but I have found that quite neccesary when dealing with certain members in this wikiproject. Would the initiater of the vote kindly step forward and make the purpose of this vote clear, failing which I am not voting.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
As expected, my vote would be to follow the MoS.
That means, technically, that we are not "wikilinking" (the software developers may come up with a fix so that autoformatted dates are not hyperlinked in future) but it does mean they go inside double square brackets.
As to MilborneOne's comment, although we should autoformat dates to be helpful to those readers who have both registered a user name and a date format preference, because the majority of our readers will have done neither, the date order should still be consistent in articles and follow the other rules about strong national links, etc. My proposal was trying to indicate that there needs to be scope for flexibility in the month day and day month order but that both formats need square brackets round them so that they are autoformatted. Alice✉ 19:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear - my proposal above is saying the month and day should be linked and can be month/day OR day/month - not sure why that is confusing as it is what the MOS guidelines refer to. As to which one you use month/day or day/month then that it not a project function but depends on the individual article, not a big deal as most articles already use one or the other by precedent we dont need to dictate which or mention every related wiki guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If it were not for this long clarificatory dialogue we are having here, I would say that this should be sufficient:
"7. For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), do not use the year unless the event is more than 12-months away."
- then those editors who know what the MoS guidelines are, could simply apply them.
However, the reason I came here is that I saw edit warring between MoS-ignorant editors and MoS-knowledgeable editors and then discovered that the MoS-ignorant (or MoS-disregarding) were using this oddball local project rule as a justification. That's why I think that further guidance might be helpful. The text should stand on it's own without reference to this discussion, which is why I used <nowiki></nowiki> to highlight the mark up needed:
"7. For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add "[begins [[month day]]]" or "[ends [[month day]]]", respectively. Do not use the year unless the event is more than 12-months away, but the order of "month followed by day" should be reversed appropriately in some articles according to the recommendations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting. Do NOT edit war over "American date formats" versus "Commonwealth date formats".
Alice✉ 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MilborneOne, while I know your intent is a well-meaning one, I have to point out that the statement we are voting for includes two other variables, ie, whether the year should be universally included, and how seasonal flights should be handled. Just because I wish to vote yes for following MoS, it doesn't mean I must agree with the other two variables. Thanks.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I understand, I was concerned with changing the linking/date presentation the rest of 7 was as is and if you are not happy with the bits of 7 that are the same as before then perhaps that should be a separate discussion. I would presume if you agreed it would be for the changed text only - it would not bind you forever on the unchanged text. Just trying to at least agree on one thing! MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for that then. As spoken above, past experiences with some other folks has been less than pleasant when it comes to voting for things which has sometimes ended up becoming binding without voters being fully aware of just what they are actually voting for. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No further comments received I have amended the project page within the spirit of the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One small pointer thou: The autoformatting will only work if the date is in the "dd mmmm" format. ie, no commas in between, the date in numerals and the month spelt out in full. You may wish to consider amending it accordingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes sorry I should have released - it was not intentional. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey I know its a good faith edit. I don't really bite despite my past history!! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with the knowledge of such things will create a bot to do this, but I'll start correcting the pages in my watchlist when I'm not busy. NcSchu(Talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Airports

Greetings everyone, Oregon now has an article for every active public use and private use airport/heliport/seaplane base within the state (I believe this is a first). Please take a moment to review a few articles and pitch in on anything you may know. Also, feel free to create links to individual articles so the don't appear orphaned. Any advise or feedback is greatly welcomed! If anything it's fun to check out the airfields near you may live or have flown. Some fun tidbits:

  • Oregon has 358 private use airports and 98 public use airports - a ratio of approximately 4 to 1.
  • Of the 450+ airports in Oregon only 10 are certified for scheduled airline service.
  • Ever see an airport that had a land runway and a water runway?

Special thanks to Canglesea and Trevor MacInnis for trudging through and assessing all the new articles. --Trashbag (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Trashbag has inspired me to do the same for all airports in New Jersey and Florida; I'm not as productive, though. Regarding linking airport articles to other articles, I have been linking new airport articles to the transportation section of the city served, e.g. Andover, New Jersey. More fun airport tidbits:

Airport guides by JAL for Japanese airports

Should the airport guides ( http://www.jal.co.jp/en/dom/airport/ ) listed here be linked from ALL Japanese airports, or only those with limited or no English language sites? JAL's guides are a must for small rural airports and Okinawa airports, but what about Haneda, Narita, etc.? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The airport-specific links ( such as http://www.jal.co.jp/en/dom/airport/japan/oka/oka_00.html ) are useful and I see no reason why they should not be added to each airport which has a guide available. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and SPA's at Template:US-airport

A single purpose account affiliated with Navmonster.com has added their site to Template:US-airport. This strikes me as a conflict of interest. In addition several other single purpose accounts, at least one who "heard this debate was going on" have shown up and claimed to have formed a consensus to change the template. I have suggested to leave the template as it was, but that apparently wasn't enough. Maybe I have misinterpreted the situation, so I would like other editors to look at the situation. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Had a quick look and never mind adding links I cant see the value of the template it is just a vehicle for external links that are not really needed. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Perhaps it would be easier to agree to remove the template from airport articles at project level then it wouldnt matter who it is advertising or site pushing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its transcluded in 450+ airport articles, and I was under the impression it was created to eliminate the large number of links that tend to get added to airport articles. Are you suggesting TfD for it and the others like Template:US-airport-minor? These SPA's would more than likely switch to adding their links to individual articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and asked them not to change the template to add their own companies. It might help if some others commented there as well. Thanks. As a high use template shouldn't it be protected anyway?--Dual Freq (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments regarding the template in question. Some valid arguments have been made for changes. It is my understanding that Wiki guidelines suggest owner/operators of websites NOT add their own sites as links. The guidelines DO suggest that these users offer their sites up for discussion in the talk pages. This is precisely the activity that has been going on for months in this case.

The only arguments against adding new sites to the template have come from a very few editors - their arguments not addressing the value of the additions, but rather the motivations of those suggesting the changes. When I, for example, suggested that an objective set of criteria be established to select external links, it was shot down by one editor. Why he doesn't want objective measure is beyond me and clearly shows he is biased against any change. Nonetheless, he believes that his opinion should override the opinions of others (I'm not referring to DualFreq).

Several of us have continued with the discussion AS IS SUGGESTED BY WIKI GUIDELINES and have come up with a proposed new template that would be more beneficial to the community at large. The 2-3 naysaying editors have offered no reasoned opinions about why the template should not be changed - they have simply asserted that it should stay as it is. Any editor offering civil, reasoned discussion in the public forum should be heard and considered, regardless of motivation. Attacking motivation is a simple straw-man argument - you can't win the debate, so you try to steer the debate to a different argument. I don't believe this is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Listen to all, give objective consideration, and refrain from implying that "certain" editors don't have an equal right to an opinion. Wikipedia doctrine seems to be clear that everyone be afforded the right to equal consideration in discussions. What we're seeing in this situation is that an ongoing discussion is being judged invalid/irrelevant by 2 or 3 editors without any consideration being given to the merits of the arguments. Gladtohelp (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Hi DualFreq. I was hoping you would respond to my comments. These are cut-and-dried issues. I would prefer that you be a part of the solution, but to do that, you have to participate. Gladtohelp (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

It pretty obvious what's going on here, and the template should remain the same until some experienced WP:Airports editors agree to change it. If you'd like to contribute to wikipedia, there is a lot of work to do. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Ongoing Maintenance or Wikipedia:AVIATION#Announcements and Open tasks, none of that involves adding your favorite external link. After a few months of good edits, I'm sure others would be more open to adding your company to the airport template. It doesn't look kosher when a low edit account tries to add external links to a high use template. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DualFreq, with comments like the ones you just made it IS pretty obvious what is going on. You refuse to engage in an objective discussion, instead making repeated statements strongly implying that MY comments are irrelevant. Don't discuss, just try to squelch the other side of the debate. Alexf made it pretty clear in his talk page: "As the Talk page of the template is not protected, discussion can continue there to try to hammer out an agreement in an amicable way". If you are not going to work on this in an open, objective fashion, I request that you recuse yourself from further involvement. I would much prefer an amicable discussion of the issues. Will you consider taking a more objective approach?
Incidentally, I made a very large number of edits to all the pilot ratings pages a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't have an account at that time so I cannot prove this, but I trust you will take me at my word. Since creating an account last year, I have made quite a few edits that had absolutely nothing to do with FlightCentral.net. I find your attempts to disqualify my opinions very unflattering. I doubt seriously that you are more knowledgable in this area than I am.Gladtohelp (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

2008/09 "Proposed" routes to China

I am getting a little worried about these routes listed here [10]. I am not sure if any of these "proposed" routes are happening cause many IPs keeping removing CA's TXL-PEK and DUS-PEK routes (from Dusseldorf International Airport and Berlin-Tegel International Airport pages) and i have been readding them since the webite listed above is a reliable source. Also, a editor started a discussion on the Dusseldorf Airport talk page about the Air China edit conflicts. Should we keep these routes listed on the respective pages or should we remove them since these "dream" routes probably won't happen. Audude08 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Northwest Asia Flight Number Reshuffle (May 2008)

NWA's decision to half-reshuffle flight numbers through its NRT hub is causing a lot of confusion. I haven't checked every pair of flight numbers, but one example is that NW 27 will go SFO-NRT-CAN (different planes) but NW 28 will go BKK-NRT-SFO (same plane type). How do we decide whether to include and what a direct "destination" is? I can think of two solutions:

  • 1. Count outbound only. Let BKK have SFO but SFO would not have BKK.
  • 2. Scrub all direct NW Asia flights' destinations because NRT is a hub, and all directs going through a hub should be excluded. HkCaGu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. PikDig have undid all my edits to PDX, MSP, MNL, and SIN articles because they change flight numbers for those flights too. I agree with you. But one exception is NWA DTW-NRT-PVG since that is a direct flight but it doesn't matter since Northwest will fly tetroit-Shanghai on March 25, 2009. Audude08 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the above bullet points are supposed to be one or the other. I favor (2) at least for NW because too often the aircraft can be swapped around, turned around, or mixed with Hawaii flights. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to check their timetables, and this is what I found out.
Current Flights
Flight# Route Aircraft
NW 1 LAX-NRT-HKG Boeing 747-400
NW 2 HKG-NRT-LAX Boeing 747-400
NW 3 MSP-NRT Boeing 747-400
NW 5 PDX-NRT-SIN Airbus A330-200
NW 6 SIN-NRT-PDX Airbus A330-200
NW 7 SEA-NRT-ICN Airbus A330-200
NW 8 ICN-NRT-SEA Airbus A330-200
NW 9 HNL-NRT Boeing 747-400
NRT-CAN Boeing 757-200
NW 10 CAN-NRT Boeing 757-200
NRT-HNL Boeing 747-400
NW 11 DTW-NRT Boeing 747-400
NRT-PEK Airbus A330-200
NW 12 PEK-NRT Airbus A330-200
NRT-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 14 NRT-MSP Boeing 747-400
NW 15 HNL-KIX Airbus A330-300
NW 16 KIX-HNL Airbus A330-300
NW 19 MSP-NRT-MNL Boeing 747-400
NW 20 MNL-NRT-MSP Boeing 747-400
NW 21 HNL-NRT Airbus A330-300
NW 22 NRT-HNL Airbus A330-300
NW 23 GUM-NGO Boeing 757-200
NW 24 NGO-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 25 DTW-NRT-PVG Boeing 747-400
NW 26 PVG-NRT-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 27 SFO-NRT-BKK Airbus A330-200
NW 28 BKK-NRT-SFO Airbus A330-200
NW 29 NRT-PUS Boeing 757-200
NW 30 PUS-NRT Boeing 757-200
NW 69 DTW-KIX-TPE Boeing 747-400
NW 70 TPE-KIX-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 71 DTW-NGO-MNL Boeing 747-400
NW 72 MNL-NGO-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 73 GUM-NRT Airbus A330-300
NW 74 NRT-GUM Airbus A330-300
NW 75 SPN-NRT Airbus A330-300
NW 76 NRT-SPN Airbus A330-300
NW 77 NRT-NGO-SPN Boeing 757-200
NW 78 SPN-NGO-NRT Boeing 757-200
NW 79 GUM-KIX Boeing 757-200
NW 80 KIX-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 81 GUM-NRT Boeing 757-200
NW 82 NRT-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 83 SPN-KIX Boeing 757-200
NW 84 KIX-SPN Boeing 757-200
Updated
Flight# Route Aircraft Begins
NW 1 LAX-NRT-MNL Boeing 747-400 June 1, 2008
NW 2 MNL-NRT-LAX Boeing 747-400 June 2, 2008
NW 3 MSP-NRT Boeing 747-400 does not change
NW 5 PDX-NRT Airbus A330-200 May 31, 2008
NRT-PUS Boeing 757-200 June 1, 2008
NW 6 PUS-NRT Boeing 757-200 June 2, 2008
NRT-PDX Airbus A330-200
NW 7 SEA-NRT-ICN Airbus A330-200 does not change
NW 8 ICN-NRT-SEA Airbus A330-200
NW 9 HNL-NRT Boeing 747-400 June 1, 2008
NRT-PEK Airbus A330-200
NW 10 PEK-NRT Airbus A330-200 June 2, 2008
NRT-HNL Boeing 747-400 June 1, 2008
NW 11 DTW-NRT-HKG Boeing 747-400 June 1, 2008
NW 12 HKG-NRT-DTW Boeing 747-400 June 2, 2008
NW 14 NRT-MSP Boeing 747-400 does not change
NW 15 HNL-KIX Airbus A330-300
NW 16 KIX-HNL Airbus A330-300
NW 19 MSP-NRT Boeing 747-400 May 31, 2008
NRT-SIN Airbus A330-200 June 1, 2008
NW 20 SIN-NRT Airbus A330-200 June 2, 2008
NRT-MSP Boeing 747-400
NW 21 HNL-NRT-BKK Airbus A330-300 May 31, 2008
NW 22 BKK-NRT-HNL Airbus A330-300 June 1, 2008 (NRT-HNL)
June 2, 2008 (BKK-NRT-HNL)
NW 23 GUM-NGO Boeing 757-200 does not change
NW 24 NGO-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 25 DTW-NRT-PVG Boeing 747-400
NW 26 PVG-NRT-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 27 SFO-NRT Airbus A330-200 May 31, 2008
NRT-CAN Boeing 757-200 June 1, 2008
NW 28 CAN-NRT Boeing 757-200 June 2, 2008
NRT-SFO Airbus A330-200
NW 69 DTW-KIX-TPE Boeing 747-400 does not change
NW 70 TPE-KIX-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 71 DTW-NGO-MNL Boeing 747-400
NW 72 MNL-NGO-DTW Boeing 747-400
NW 73 GUM-NRT Airbus A330-300
NW 74 NRT-GUM Airbus A330-300
NW 75 SPN-NRT Airbus A330-300
NW 76 NRT-SPN Airbus A330-300
NW 77 NRT-NGO-SPN Boeing 757-200
NW 78 SPN-NGO-NRT Boeing 757-200
NW 79 GUM-KIX Boeing 757-200
NW 80 KIX-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 81 GUM-NRT Boeing 757-200
NW 82 NRT-GUM Boeing 757-200
NW 83 SPN-KIX Boeing 757-200
NW 84 KIX-SPN Boeing 757-200
NW 85 SEA-NRT Airbus A330-300 March 31, 2008
NW 86 NRT-SEA Airbus A330-300 March 31, 2008

So should we update the NWA destinations with the flights above? pikdig (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. I'd still favor not "allowing" through-NRT NW flights to be considered "direct". As it is already the case, NW1/2 LAX-NRT-HKG are not the same aircraft most of the time despite the same plane type (B744). The A330 routes, however, seem to have more "flight number loyalty" (aircraft actually continue with flight numbers). If agreed to, maybe we can start the new "standard" (that I'm suggesting) on May 31. HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree to list down these direct destinations, since usually the same planes are used for the direct flight once in a while. The same aircraft was used for the LAX-NRT-HKG-NRT-LAX (NW1/2) flight yesterday (Oct. 22). pikdig (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that many IPs keep getting into edit wars with the NWA Asia Flights especially with the Portland International Airport seeing that Busan was continuosly added as a direct flight from Singapore eventhough that there is a plane change at NRT which violates the WP:AIRPORTS rule of a direct flight. So, here's my suggestion: Either remove all the direct flights because NRT is a hub OR Add all the direct flights that run under the same flight number. It is the only way that will make everyone happy and stop the edit wars.Audude08 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK let me make a motion: Delete the word "domestic" before the word "hub in "Airport article structure", "Airlines and destinations", Point number "5". In this case, NRT is a NWA hub. All "direct" flights gone. NRT is a UAL focus city, "direct" destinations stay. HkCaGu (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I go with HkCaGu. pikdig (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! Most IPs also delete direct destinations for UAL going thru NRT and NRT is not a hub. Audude08 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but just let me try to understand this. Three wikipedians are now trying to tell the world that a destination's status as a "hub" or a "focus city" directly dictates whether flights through them are "direct" or not?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the way I read it. The way I read it is that's what we list on the destinations lists, not that we're changing the definition of "direct". --Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think folks here have to be alot more honest to themselves. It is blatantly clear that the definition of a "direct flight" is being used as a listing criterion, except that these folks arent using the term as they do so in the industry. Are we now condoning misinforming our users through the omission of flights which would have been considred direct outside wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents/Accidents

When listing events under an airport article's "Incidents/Accidents" section (or another comparable section), how notable should an event be to warrant a listing? Is widespread media attention sufficient, or should major effects be required for listing? "Major effects" could include significant damage to a plane or airport facilities (eg. from a collision, hard landing, or a fire), injuries to those on board or on the ground, and loss of life (though the involvement of the latter would obviously be grounds for inclusion).

I am asking this because many users add events that are basically routine procedures (like diversions/emergency landings due to a minor problem on board the plane). Some of these events may receive a large amount of attention from the media due to either slow news days (when there is nothing else to report on) or "sweeps-week" type events (which could cause sensationalism in some media outlets), making the "incident" seem more major than it really is.

So, what should be grounds for including events in an airport articles "Incidents/Accidents" section? What makes some events more "notable" than others? MRasco 07:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many incidents added are minor, non-notable events which happen regularly at all airports (diversions, minor "emergencies", etc..). They are often wildly reported in the media as you have correctly noted, especially on slow news days. When adding incidents / accidents to airport and airline articles, I have always based the criteria for inclusion on the basis that either injuries or fatalaties were sustained by passengers, crew or those on the ground, or the aircraft suffered substantial damage or was written off, or both. The Leeds Bradford Airport Incidents / Accidents section is I feel a good example, not full of dozens of minor non-notable events (which have no doubt occured during the history of the airport) but instead three serious incidents / accidents, adequatey referenced. Would be interested to hear what other editors think as the WikiProject guidelines are weak on this topic (only brief mention is made at WP:AIRLINE relating to the loose criteria for inclusion). SempreVolando (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with most of SempreVolando comments, although I would say in my opinion that accidents/incidents with just injuries are probably not notable. Problem if you just say injuries you could include persons who trip down the aircraft stairs and sprain a leg! (Not sure the LTE A320 incident linked above is particularly notable). MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with MilborneOne, having posted my comment above I re-read the LTE incident on the LBA Incidents / Accidents page and considered that it probably doesn't warrant inclusion (though no doubt some minor damage to the aircraft was sustained). Perhaps we could construct (or in the case of WP:AIRLINE improve) a form of words which could be used in the project guidelines? SempreVolando (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Starter for comment:

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.

MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These criteria seem good to me. I agree with both SempreVolando and MilborneOne on this issue and feel that some guidelines for this ought to be posted on the main project page so that there may consistency among the airport articles here. I also concur with SempreVolando in that this issue should be addressed in WP:AIRLINE as well. MRasco 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If nobody objects than we should update the project page but with 160 odd people in the project we should leave it open for a week for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me–those are more or less the same guidelines I've used to dictate the relevance of an incident or accident previously. I think what it comes down to is whether or not the incident/accident will be memorable after the initial media blitz has passed. NcSchu(Talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections from me on the proposed wording. SempreVolando (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks no objections - Airport article structure has been amended. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There was a discussion at WikiProject Airlines over a common standard. A new proposed rewording has consensus there. I'm pointing to that discussion since it would be nice if both projects used the same wording. The new proposal preserves the intent of the current one on this project. It is rephrased to better include both accidents and incidents. If you have any comments, include them there. If no objections surface, then someone will update both project pages in a few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Navbox:Busiest Airports in Europe

User:Stevvvv4444 has added a navbox Busiest Airports in Europe to most of the european airport articles, i had reverted it at the London Heathrow Airport article on the grounds it added no value. It has been added in again by an IP user comment what is the harm in keeping it. I have reverted it again as one day later it still does not add any value. The navbox is a list of the 50 Busiest Airport in Europe two years ago. If you really wanted to go to a different airport you can use the category system. Perhaps we should have the 50 busiest airports in the World two years ago - we can not just keep adding nav boxes. Just looking for other opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found it to be a really pointless navbox, seeing as though a navbox is supposed to be an improvement to the article whereas this just adds a messy and jumbled list of airports to it. NcSchu(Talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete It's a pointless repetition of the article which can be more effectively dealt with by a See also to the article. How ever did this get clearance to enter the template mainspace ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

With no support for keeping it after two-weeks I have removed the navbox from airport articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Many people are removeing direct destinations from this page for Northwest Airlines. WP:AIRPORTS guidelines say to include nonstop and direct flights only. But nooooooooooooo they won't listen and want to list nonsotp flights only!!!! HELP! Audude08 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the guidelines as I recall provide some wiggle room at hubs. However, many people do not know about the difference between the two. Many equate direct with non stop and that is completely inaccurate. I don't know how we educate everyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-standard formatting of airline destinations

I noticed that on some airport articles, the list of airlines and destinations is not the same as with the one stated on the project page. Shouldn't we change the format of those airport articles that do not follow the project format. And how 'bout the dates, should we really link them 'coz I noticed most airport articles not linking start and end dates. pikdig (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was agreed to link the dates to abide by the MoS since that's basically the policy above all guidelines/policies. Can you elaborate a bit on what formats are different? All Airport airlines/destination sections should be in the same format. NcSchu(Talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The format of the airline destinations for Singapore Changi Airport, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, and Incheon International Airport to name a few. pikdig (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the format on Incheon is okay (though I personally would prefer the destinations being justified left instead of center). However the format of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur is just awkward. But I don't think any of these are necessarily violating our guidelines, they're just organizing the lists in tables. When you ignore the tables they're pretty much the same. NcSchu(Talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually posted a question about the format for Singapore on the article talk page but I not going bother reverting it. Audude08 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that would just start an edit war most likely. NcSchu(Talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not recall ever seeing Audude08 engaging in a discussion on the said format, at least not in Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Airlines_and_Destinations.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to question the format....that all!! GOLLY!!! Audude08 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure you could. But I believe I do reserve the right to question the existance of a "posted question" which I probably missed if it existed, or do I not?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This has also become an issue for all of the articles in Category: Airports in Argentina, where one editor is copying the format used in the Spanish Wikipedia articles:
I've already corrected four of the those articles and posted a response to the user's talk page. Perhaps other editors here who have the time and are so inclined could fix the remaining 31 articles in that category? -- Zyxw (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Flights to Newark

Should we list the flights to Newark, New Jersey in the airlines and destinations lists of airports as simply "Newark" or "New York-Newark". On Kuala Lumpur International Airport, it was listed as "New York-Newark" and I changed it to Newark but it was changed back to "New York-Newark". Thanks!! Audude08 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It should stay "Newark", since the airport is located in New Jersey (not New York City), and its official name is "Newark Liberty International Airport" (not "New York-Newark..."). MRasco 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess you should revert the other edits I made. Some users say that flights are marketed as "New York-NewarK". Audude08 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
One thing to remember is that there is that there is an NYC iata code that includes EWR, LGA and JFK. However per consensus, we should always use the name as it appears in the destination master list. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay Newark, but I'll 2nd Audude in that a number of flights are listed as New York-Newark on the departure screens. I've seen it mostly at LAX, but there are others as well. It's how they differentiate between New York - JFK, etc. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Continental is pretty much the only airline that I've ever seen use the "New York-Newark" construct on departure screens. United's departure screens, American's departure screens, generic airport departure screens, have all just said Newark. Unlike JFK/LaGuardia, Newark isn't just a name for one of New York's airports, it's... actually in Newark, New Jersey. *gasp* FCYTravis (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kuala Lumpur International Airport still has Newark listed as "New York-Newark" for Malaysia Airlines but it keep getting reverted. Audude08 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You Americans may understand the difference between New York and Newark, but for us furriners, Newark is the airport we use to get to New York. Check out the official sites for Singapore Airlines [11] ("New York-EWR"), Malaysia Airlines ("New York" -- they fly to EWR, but don't even mention it!), Scandinavian ("New York" again with no qualifiers), etc etc.

We've had this discussion before (see eg. [12] for the debate regarding Angeles City Manila-Clark Clark Diosdado Macapagal International Airport), and I think it's high time we finally sorted this out as policy. My proposal is simple: [main city served](-[disambiguator]), where "main city" is the largest source of passengers nearby. For example, in Newark's case, most passengers come from NY. Jpatokal (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but for EWR, most passengers do not come from NYC. While I don't have numbers to base this on, I have been using EWR for over 45 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Newark has a population of 273,546, while New York's population is 8,274,527 (30x larger). Are you seriously telling me that the average Newarker uses EWR 30x more often than the average New Yorker? Jpatokal (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually think that EWR is only used by people living in Newark? It is the airport of choice for many people who don't live in Newark. If EWR is so popular with those in NYC, then why is LGA and it's short runways and other issues still open? Where are the mass transit options from? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Once more: EWR gets some 33m passengers a year, the population of Newark is 0.27m, and the population of NYC is 8.2m. Now, are you seriously telling me that the average Newarker uses EWR 30x more often than the average New Yorker? Because that's what it would need to ensure that EWR has more Newarkers than New Yorkers. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you need to understand that the airport does not only get passengers from Newark. It is THE airport for Northern NJ and other areas. NYC is not the major source of passengers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another point, the airport is not just located in Newark, it is also in Elizabeth. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I also just found out that some people actually drive from Syracuse, New York to fly out of EWR. So much for have a local draw. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because some airlines market EWR as "New York", that doesn't mean EWR is in New York City. In the US, Skybus Airlines used to fly to Bellingham International Airport (north of Seattle, WA) and they marketed it as Seattle/Vancouver, but that doesn't mean BLI is in Canada (nor should it be described as "Seattle-Bellingham" or "Vancouver-Bellingham"). Likewise, while CO, SQ, MH, and some other airlines market Newark as "New York", EWR is not in New York City, and shouldn't be labeled "New York-Newark". MRasco 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Your statement tends to ignore the fact that the airport is in, and serves, the major city of Newark, New Jersey. For a similar example, Oakland International Airport serves a broad section of the San Francisco Bay Area, but we don't call it "San Francisco-Oakland." We don't call Bob Hope Airport "Los Angeles-Burbank," nor do we use "Miami-Fort Lauderdale" for Fort Lauderdale International Airport. FCYTravis (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
None of your hypothetical examples are common names, and neither is the disparity in the size of the local city and the nearby bigger city anywhere near as large. Jpatokal (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That is false. The disparity in size between the city of Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million) and Burbank (pop. 105,400) is greater than the disparity between New York (pop. 8.2 million) and Newark (pop. 281,402.). Burbank is equal to 2.7 percent of Los Angeles' population, while Newark is equal to 3.4 percent of New York City's population.
Furthermore, Bob Hope Airport is much closer to Los Angeles than Newark's airport is to New York - in fact, part of Burbank's airport is actually in the city limits of Los Angeles!
I stand corrected on the size, but your strawman remains one, as nobody ever calls the airport "Los Angeles-Burbank". And this isn't even an exception to the rule: LA has precisely one major airport, LAX, so no disambiguator is necessary. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And almost nobody calls the airport "New York-Newark." FCYTravis (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You have failed to demonstrate that "New York-Newark" is as common as the simple use of "Newark." While we all agree that "New York-Newark" is used, it is a definite minority usage, promulgated by the airline that hubs there and by international airlines which use it as a surrogate for New York's airports. The vast majority of airlines, including all domestic U.S. airlines except Continental, use Newark alone. FCYTravis (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The "vast majority"? Should we start counting? Please find me even one non-American airline that consistently uses the name "Newark" alone -- even Porter [13] ("New York (EWR)") and Air Canada [14] ("New York, Newark, New Jersey" (!)), right across the border, put NY first. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It is original research to claim that what some airlines might call the airport on their route maps is necessarily equivalent to what they call that airport on departure/arrival boards. For example, for years Southwest had "San Francisco Area" appended to its marking for Oakland on its route map, because the airline did not serve San Francisco directly. But no departure board ever listed that airport as "San Francisco-Oakland." Similarly, Southwest's route map currently tags Albuquerque as "Santa Fe Area" and Fort Lauderdale as "Miami Area." That certainly doesn't mean that departure boards are going to say "Santa Fe-Albuquerque" and "Miami-Fort Lauderdale." FCYTravis (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Newark is a large enough city that we can't just ignore it and call the airport what we like. I don't know half of the cities I see on destination lists but that doesn't mean the list should be generalized beyond belief to suit me. If people are unsure and type "Newark" into the search engine there is only one airport that comes up in the disambiguation page. The only reason airlines use the phrase "New York-Newark" or some variation of those two cities is for advertising. They are trying to sell their products (tickets) and because New York City is such an attraction they want to attract those passengers to the EWR flights in addition to the JFK flights. We shouldn't be basing our decision on their terminology. NcSchu(Talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly tickled by some comments that "New York-Newark" should not be used because EWR isnt in New York City proper (but is in New York metropolitan area).

So until a more sensible reasoning may be put forth, I am not quite ready to buy that argument wholesale just because a majority speaks up for it.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that almost all of the examples you list are officially called those names-we are not changing anything. There is no official use of "New York" in Newark Liberty International Airport's name. NcSchu(Talk) 15:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Almost all? The last I checked, Six of the examples cited above do not have the respective cities as part of their official airport names, yet includes the city in the respective lists. Almost all, you say? And since we are at it, are you now suggesting "official names" are the primary criterion for listing airport names now? Could you care to explain each of the exceptions to this "rule", including those beyond the list above?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Could be a bit more civil? Upon going to each and every one of the above airport's respective websites, they each use the respective cities as part of their names/logos. I'm merely suggesting we shouldn't invent names for airports, because that is clearly what we're doing here. EWR is in Newark, New Jersey; it's IATA and ICAO codes of EWR and KEWR, respectively, are listed as "Newark/Newark Int'l" with no mention of New York; it's official website only mentions that it's in the New York metropolitan area (after it states its exact location in New Jersey), not that "New York" is at all part of the airport's designation. How many more primary sources do you need? NcSchu(Talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Define civility, unless cold hard facts are difficult to face. I understand you are somehow related to New Jersey. I wonder what happens when a fella from Chiba comes around and demands that "Tokyo-Narita" should simply read "Narita" because "Narita" is a rightful city on its own merits (in whatever way he chooses to define this). Is he demanding for an "invention" of names? Not exactly, for "Narita" is actually the correct, official name, not "Tokyo-Narita", which is an "invention" as per your definition. As a matter of fact, I have actually been prefering "Newark" over "NY-Newark" thus far. What I am merely doing, however, is to point out an untenable argument, and the obvious inconsistencies already existing in the current format which makes a complete mockery out of it.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
When disambiguating cities that is served by multiple airports (City name-airport name), we should use a dash. Like Tokyo-Narita for example Narita is the name of the airport serving Tokyo. So its Tokyo-Narita. For Newark, the airport is called "Newark Liberty International Airport" in Newark, New Jersey but it serves the NY metro area not NYC. Audude08 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words, Narita International Airport gets labelled as "Tokyo-Narita" because it serves Tokyo, while Newark Liberty International Airport is labelled "Newark" because it does not serve New York City (but it serves the NY Metro Area, which incidentally includes NYC!)? You have sources to support the second statement?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We label it Tokyo-Narita because it is listed as Tokyo-Narita on basically every destination board, ever. I've never seen one list "Narita" without Tokyo. That is not true of Newark. Every U.S. domestic airline except Continental lists it as "Newark" on destination boards. I have never seen the "New York-Newark" construct used except by Continental. If "New York-Newark" gains common currency and becomes the de facto standard way to refer to the Newark airport at some future point, then this should be reconsidered. FCYTravis (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Huaiwei, Your tone is coming off to me as very hostile, which is why I asked if you could become more civil. I have no issue with labeling "Tokyo-Narita" just "Narita" through the same reasoning as I demonstrated above. Yes, I have may have some biases (don't we all?) because I'm from New Jersey, but that doesn't erase the fact that I've proven my point above with facts. I don't necessarily support FCYTravis's logic because there's no real way to determine when a certain terminology becomes common. NcSchu(Talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was actually much more amused than hostile at that juncture, but then again, text has never been a perfect indicator of emotions, so no hard feelings on my end. I understand we all have biases. What is a concern to me, is if the inconsistencies are due to systemic bias or a strong tendency to champion local airports over rival (and larger) ones. I hope it is the former, and if I am right, I wonder if we should expand this discussion to include some cases such as the Tokyo/Narita, Seoul/Incheon and Taipei/Taoyuan examples, to name a few. And then there is that long-standing debate over the Manila/Clark issue mentioned by Jpatokal above.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is neither systemic bias nor "championing local airports." It is reflecting the actual use and naming structure in place. Washington-Reagan, Washington-Dulles, New York-LaGuardia and New York-JFK (seen sometimes as New York-Kennedy) are universally disambiguated, reflecting the actual issue of multiple airports directly serving the same city. While Newark International Airport unambiguously serves the entire New York metropolitan area, the city it directly serves is Newark - just as San Jose International Airport serves the San Francisco Bay Area, but is nowhere referred to as "San Francisco-San Jose."
Seoul-Incheon and Tokyo-Narita I have universally seen disambiguated as such, on United and SFO departure boards in particular. Taipei has not gotten the "Taoyuan" tag on those same boards, however. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that you cite "United and SFO departure boards in particular" to determine how Asian airports should be referred to here. Since when are American airports and airlines the primary indicator? Singapore Changi Airport's official schedules lists "Seoul-Incheon" as "Incheon" only, directly nullifying your sweeping statements of "universal observation". Please be reminded that "universal" includes outside America, and that this is an international encyclopedia, not just an American one.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You misread me. The phrase "I have universally seen" expresses a condition throughout my experience, not to a suggested claim that I know every airline departure board in the world. I am speaking from my frame of reference, having observed departure boards at about 60 airports throughout North America and Europe. FCYTravis (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we will either have to respect your "personal observations" or rely on verifiable material as per WP:V, a wikipedia policy. Since you say you visited Europe, I just casually checked London Heathrow's online timetables. Interestingly, I noticed "New York-Kennedy Airport" and "New York-Newark"[15]. Whoops.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would it be "whoops?" LHR is one of the European airports I haven't been to, oddly enough. FRA, MUC, AMS, MAN, but no LHR. FCYTravis (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked Paris CDG. Again its "New York Newark"[16]. Double whoops.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And since you have been to FRA, I checked it. Its New York-Newark[17]. Three of the biggest airports in Europe all use "New York-Newark" in some form or other. I wonder if I should search further around Europe...--Huaiwei (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Same for MUC ("New York (Newark) (EWR)" and AMS ("New York (Newark))". Quintuple whoops? I guess this is why personal experience doesn't really count on WP... Jpatokal (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Major Asian airports, on the other hand, all show "Newark", including Beijing Capital[18], Hong Kong[19] and Singapore[20]. Funny, isn't it?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<unindent for clarity> Looks like you've unintentionally proven my point. While a few airports, apparently exclusively European ones, use the "New York-Newark" construct, the vast majority of everyone else uses plain Newark, including all American airports (except on screens installed/controlled by Continental) and the few major Asian airports sampled. FCYTravis (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proven your point? Not exactly:
  • I (and Jpatokal) have decidedly proven that your "personal observations" are worth almost nothing without solid evidence to back you up.
  • The above has shown that many major airports in Europe routinely use "New York-Newark". That the vast majority of major European ports have a far higher number of international traffic compared to major American ports would be a factor in their advantage when compairing global use.
  • That three major Asian ports use "Newark" is by no means equal to a sweeping statement as a "vast majority of everyone else". I note that even in the Singapore schedule search, while the "Destination" says "Newark", the destination for the SQ flight says "New York (EWR)"[21]. It is still your onus to prove your point and show such "universal usage", which you clearly havent even when I did a casual search.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's ludicrous. Of course European airports have greater international traffic - Europe is made up of a large number of very small nations, whereas the U.S. is one very large nation. Thus international traffic is an absolutely meaningless metric and does not in the least help you "compare global use." The U.S. has, by a wide margin, more air passenger traffic than any other country, and eleven of the twenty busiest airports in the world are in the U.S., including the top two, and our busiest has nearly 20 million more passengers than any airport outside the U.S. - should that automatically mean the U.S. gets to decide everything in civil aviation? Of course it shouldn't. Traffic pissing contests like this are useless tosh.
The onus is not on me in the least - the established, long-standardized use on WP is for Newark to stand alone in destination lists. The onus is on you to establish a consensus to change that, and so far that hasn't happened. FCYTravis (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like someone demanding that he should get the right to cast more votes in an election because he is physically bigger, has a bigger bank account, or just has a bigger ego. Thank goodness the basic idea of one-man-one-vote says otherwise. The views of thirty European countries still beats the view of one American country as far as an assessment of global use is concerned. Obviously, unless democracy has taken a new twist in recent seconds?
The onus to prove a point is on the person to support what actually exists in the articles, and not on the person questioning the status quo. Are we reading the same wikipolicy?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, my point flew over your head at FL350. FCYTravis (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I started a debate on the destination city in Wikipedia destination lists for flights to Newark airport (in USA) almost 2 years ago. This debate was on the correct place, the Talk page for the airport article. I still believe that New York is the destination city, mainly because I have visited inner city Newark, and it did not give the impression to justify the many flights to the airport. After all people fly to an airport either to change to another plane or to visit an place not too far away, or they live not too far away. And I don't think Newark the city usually is the place. The majority decision was that the destination was Newark, probably because it is usually called that in the USA. Well, outside the USA the destination is usually called New York. For example, Amadeus, a booking system, uses "NEWARK LIBERTY INTL (EWR), New York USA" as explanation for EWR. I have not introduced any New York into Newark because the majority thought it should not.--BIL (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see why that argument makes sense. 70% of the destination cities I see for foreign countries mean nothing to me either, but that doesn't mean they should all be generalized to the nearest large, recognizable city. NcSchu(Talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


For foreign carriers that have flights to Newark, we can put "New York-Newark" as their website booking pages have EWR as "New York" since many editors say that the flights to EWR are marketed to New York. For US carriers, leave it as Newark. That is just my idea. Any comments?? Audude08 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but for the sake of consistency it should be one or the other. MRasco 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
So what now? We want consistency, yet we cannot agree?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Caticlan

I'm a bit confuse on how to state Godofredo P. Ramos Airport in the destination list of airports and airlines. The airport is located in the municipality of Malay, Aklan but most airlines refer to it as Boracay or Caticlan which is a barangay of Malay. So what should we state it? pikdig (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there still any "J.C." markers at the end of older runways?

In olden days many of the early airports had an interesting feature: the letters "J.C." spelled in (usually) white stones at the approach end of one or more runways. I know the history of how these markers came into existence but can anyone here confirm if any of these markers are still there, and if so identify which airports? Low Sea (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sigh, I guess this means there probably are no more of these markers left by the Junior Citizens who helped build these airports. How sad that part of history is lost. :( Low Sea 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)

UA SIN-ATL

User:Huaiwei continues to add "Atlanta" as a destination for United on Singapore Changi Airport. By looking at UA's schedules the flight to ATL from SIN goes thru a UAL hub (Which is ORD), we have had this long discussion that flights that go thru a hub airport should not be included as there is an aircraft change. Audude08 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could claim there's no concensus on Northwest's NRT hub regarding direct-flight inclusion, but for U.S. hubs by U.S. airlines, the consensus is more than clear as evidenced by the countless airport pages AND the WP:AIRPORT guidelines. HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, for since when did Atlanta become a hub for United Airlines? There is no hub to hub flight here with regards to this particular flight is concerned, and as I mentioned before, just how often do supposed "frequent changes of schedules to the point of it being impossible to be tracked by wikipedians" inflict international flights? The official Changi Airport press release states quite clearly that "United Airlines will handle its first arrival flight from Atlanta (via Chicago and Hong Kong) at 2325 hours on Tuesday, 25 March 2008", and lists 12 new destinations served by T3 airlines which just moved, namely "Shanghai, Kunming, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Doha, Jakarta, Atlanta, Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Washington DC."[22] The Straits Times picked up the story and has seen no reason to remove Atlanta from the list:[23]. As I already repeated numerous times before, if anyone here wishes to insist on continously overuling WP:V, then kindly provide better reasons to do so other than "it is a pain to catch up". This is horrendously unprofessional, and underscores a reason why wikipedia's aviation-related articles simply arent taken seriously by real aviation enthusiasts.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, no one has asserted that Atlanta is a United hub. The hub involved in this flight is Chicago-O'Hare (which happens to be United's largest hub). Second of all, over time various media outlets (including newspapers, major international networks like CNN and the BBC, and television networks) have shown that many journalists have little understanding about how the commercial aviation industry works, and sometimes report information that is flat out false. To say that United serves Atlanta from Singapore is misleading. Yes, UA896 does include Atlanta in its itinerary, but the fact that there is a change of aircraft (going from a 747 to a 737) and terminal in Chicago (due to the nature of O'Hare Airport) makes this flight less "direct" than others. I can point out a few other flights on other airlines of a similar nature (with change of aircraft type at a hub) where the "final" destination is not listed for that airline at the origin airport's article and vice-versa. As Audude and HkCaGu have pointed out, there have been previous discussions and consensuses on this matter. MRasco 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If a traveller attempts to fly from Singapore to Atlanta with one airline, finds it missing in our article, yet finds it appearing in both the airport and airline lists, and finally discovers that he was indeed able to make such a flight without much of a fuss other than getting off and on a plane at each of the stopover points, then it is wikipedia which is misleading, not the industry. Till today, not a single person has been able to find me a verifable and credible source saying a flight with the same flight number but involving a plane change is not a direct flight according to the industry. I fail to see much reason to be convinced to accept a blatant attempt to circmumvent WP:OR.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Proving a negative is kind of hard. However the first reference in direct flight does say you use the same plane. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, that single source (which is clearly far lessdetailed than the one I originally cited) does not preclude direct flights involving a change of aircraft.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You are making the argument that we should list every single point every airline serves from every other single point. Virtually any two points can be linked by a single connection through an airline hub - Pensacola, Florida to Fargo, North Dakota. Just throw out the destination lists and get rid of them if we're going to do that, because they'll be entirely meaningless. To the person who is actually flying the route, there is no difference (except in frequent-flyer miles) between a fake-direct flight which is a connection disguised by a single flight number, and simply having two different flight numbers. They both involve getting off a plane, hiking through a terminal to a connecting gate, and climbing on a completely different plane. FCYTravis (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You fail to read my comments properly, even thou they are in simple English. I said quite plainly that our destination lists should follow the industry definition of a direct flight, in that any flight with a single flight number should be included, irrespective of any plane change which may occur en-route. This is completely different from suggesting to list every single destination served via a plane transfer, irregardless of flight number. Kindly do not misquote me, nor exaggerate what I am suggesting. Next, since when is wikipedia a morale authority to "right a wrong" of the aviation industry by attempting to tell would-be travellers that they cannot fly from Singapore to Atlanta because they are going to suffer from an inconvenience in Chicago? Are we a (ethically righteous) travel guide now? Kindly do not access the situation from the POV of the traveller only. To the airline, a direct flight involving a change of plane means they face greater operational restrictions then if it was simply two seperate flights with different flight numbers, as the former must operate as a pair, whereas the later can operate independently. Passengers on direct flights enjoy greater convenience (the gates are usually closer) and greater assurance that they will not miss their connection (the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives). Are you aware of this distinction?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"Usually closer?" Who's randomly speculating now? Any source for that? At ORD in particular, that's completely false - you just about can't get farther away than the T5 international arrival gates and the United T1 gates.
It's also not true that the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives. Two flights can be operated with the same flight number - it is done routinely, using alphabetic suffixes on the number given to air traffic control. If you've ever flown United, listen to Channel 9 sometime. It's quite educational. "United 974" can operate at the same time as "United 974 Alpha," which can operate at the same time as "United 974 Bravo." There is a relevant A.net discussion of this phenomenon here. If there are five through passengers to ATL on a delayed B744 SIN-ORD Flight 25, United is sure as heck not going to hold Flight 25's "continuation" on an A319 ORD-ATL just for those five people. They'll send out Flight 25 Alpha and misconnect the SIN pax.FCYTravis (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Random speculation, really? Did you actually read Direct flight and the accompanying source [24] for that? Next, so now a forum has become a verifiable source, but that's ok. I note the following comment "Often the ROC-ATL leg is delayed (like today!). If an extra ship and crew can be found, the second leg will be stubbed, meaning they'll grab the new ship and cew and use them. This is usually only done when the first leg is extremly late". In a normal connecting flight, would aircraft wait for each other until the other is "extremely late" in a usual circumstance?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have refuted your comment that "the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives." If you choose not to believe that these suffixed flights matter, that's your right. I personally have flown on a "United 954 Charlie" 757 from San Diego to San Francisco. Anyone wanting to fly "direct" on 954 from wherever it originated that day... was hosed. FCYTravis (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you arent refuting my comment. You are refuting the source where I cited my comment from. If you can read my statement above correctly, I was clearly asking you if it is common practise for segments of a direct flight to be flown completely independently from each other (as they are on a connecting flight), and not if you have taken such a flight before.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As to your comments about ethics - we are not here to serve the airlines. We are telling people the destinations they can directly fly from any given city. We are not required to adhere to the airline-driven fiction that there is anything "direct" about a "flight" from Point A to Point C via Point B, which, in reality, consists of two separate flights on two entirely different aircraft which has no practical difference from a hub connection. Otherwise, just scrap the destination lists and get rid of them, because we might as well list Fargo, Zürich and Athens as United destinations from San Francisco. FCYTravis (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you are writing a traveller-centric set of articles in wikipedia, irregardless of what the airline people, the airport people, the pilots and staff, and what the industry is basically saying? So we are writing a travel guide afterall? Why did you not tell me this earlier?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There are more travelers than there are "airline people." We are aiming to serve the public as an encyclopedia. If you want to believe the airline-created fiction that a flight number means there is anything "direct" about taking a 747 from HKG-ORD, stepping off the plane, going through customs, changing terminals halfway across the airport and boarding an A319 from ORD-ATL, that's your right. We aren't required to perpetuate that fiction. FCYTravis (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And thank you very much for finally confirming that you are prepared to openly violate an official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability states quite plainly that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You are absolutely in no position to right a "perceived wrong" evident in sources. Wikipedia does not discriminate amongst its potential users, and you have no right to do so. Wikipedia:About makes absolutely no mention that this site is aiming to serving the public (which leaves me wondering if airline staff are any less public). If "perpetuate that fiction" is not your cup of tea, than this site isn't right for you.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah... non sequitur. There's no policy which requires us to do *anything* w/r/t destinations. The policy requires us to have sources. Our current guideline is to list verifiable non-stop destinations, along with no-plane-change direct international destinations. It is verifiable from timetables which flights have plane changes and which don't. We don't claim to list every flight that an airline calls "direct." Nor are we required to include something simply because an airline might wish it included.
Yes, it is verifiable that there is a same-flight-number "direct" flight on United from SIN to ATL. It is also verifiable that said flight is really two flights, involving a plane change at Chicago-O'Hare. Both A and B are true. Our guideline says that if B is true, we exclude the flight. That's not violating WP:V in the least. FCYTravis (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You know very well that you are trying extremely hard to worm your way around this one, FCYTravis, when it is peppered with nonsensical contradictions. A policy, for your kind information, takes precedence over a guideline, which is merely "advisory" in nature (but mistakenly enforced like a school rule book by a few self-proclaimed righteous, honest and ethical members here). If you fail to follow verifiable sources by attempting to omit information published by them, claiming the need to avoid "perpetuate that fiction", you effective violate all three key content policies, namely WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no buts about this one, and you jolly well know it.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You really couldn't be more wrong. There is no policy which requires that we include all verifiable information. There is plenty of verifiable information that we exclude, in fact. We use a guideline to help decide which bits of verifiable information we include, and that is perfectly acceptable. Because you apparently have no understanding of that, and are now just tossing out random policy links at me as if they mean something, this conversation is over. Good day, sir. FCYTravis (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I can fly from Fairbanks to Miami on Alaska Airlines. But nobody's listing Miami as an AS destination from FAI. FCYTravis (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, my dear, because Alaska Airlines dosen't fly a direct flight between Fairbanks and Miami!--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And United isn't really flying a direct flight between Singapore and Atlanta. They have a single flight number between Singapore and Atlanta. FCYTravis (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
So does Alaska Airlines have a single flight number from Fairbanks to Miami?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Airport article structure #5 "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." The plane changes in Chicago, and per consensus, we should not list Atlanta as a destination for Singapore. --Matt (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Very simple. If the flight goes thru a hub, then it is not the same plane. Therefore UA's SIN-HKG-ORD-ATL flight involves a plane change at its hub (which is ORD) then it is not direct. Audude08 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
and you will also have to go through customs and immigrations at ORD to get to Atlanta since ORD is the first port-of-entry to the US for that flight. Audude08 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we consider having to disembark to clear customs as making a flight not direct? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think that really should come into play. It's more a question of, "does the same plane actually continue all the way through," for international destinations. If you disembark, clear customs, and get back on the same plane, that's a different story than "get off this 747-400, clear customs, ride a shuttle to a different terminal, then board a 737-500." The latter is a "direct" flight in name only. FCYTravis (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The SIN-ORD flight arrives that the International Terminal 5 in ORD so passengers can clear US customs, then they will have to ride the train/shuttle to Terminal 1 where UA has operations at ORD. Still (whether direct or not), you will still have to change terminals at ORD. No UA departures are at Terminal 5 at ORD. Audude08 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now when a bunch of wikipedians attempt to rewrite definitions for the industry to suit their strong believe that the "deceiving industry" should be put right for the sake of the clueless masses, I wonder...

  • Since whether "the same plane actually continue all the way through" has now been identified as the criterion for a direct flight here (obviously unsupported by any verifiable source), I am left wondering if SQ now operates direct flights from Sydney to London (via the same A380) and from Jakarta to Los Angeles (via the same A345)?
  • Since it has been decided that a "change of plane" is the absolute criteria to define a non-direct flight here (again unsupported by any verifiable source), I wonder if we should now remove Heathrow, Frankfurt, etc from QF's lists since the stop over at Singapore can involve a change in aircraft[25]? And since we are at it, can anyone point out to me an absolutely realiable way of determining whether a plane change occurs or not amongst flights operated by all airlines for this to be enforced across wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Determining whether a plane change takes place is extremely easy, when it comes to U.S. airlines. With almost no exceptions (those essentially limited to a few Delta flights from ATL to Florida points), the only widebody domestic services left in the United States are operated between an airline's hubs - UA ORD-SFO, DEN-IAD, US PHL-CLT, for example. When a flight is said to be "direct" from some overseas point via an airline's hub to a third domestic point, chances are essentially 100% that the flight is not truly direct. The days when DC-10s plied the skies from ORD to CLE are long gone. FCYTravis (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the global aviation industry involved more than American carriers. Are you able to cite us reliable sources for all the world's airlines, or at least the major ones even? Or are folks here going to continually make guesses as what they are actually doing now?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite Huaiwei's insistence to the contrary, the issue here is not the definition of "direct flight", the issue is what destinations are served by an airline at an airport. I think the current WP:AIRPORTS definition of "the flight number and the aircraft starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports" is perfect, but it should be clarified that this specifically excludes some notionally "direct" flights. Jpatokal (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite Jpatokal insistence to the contrary, the definition of a "direct flight" continues to be debated as is clearly still taking place a few inches up this screen in this same section. I hope his eyes are peering upwards before commenting. The current market definition is one dictated by the flight number, not by the aircraft used. Period.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CRK

After a moment of silence, I'm bringing back this topic up again because, I am firmly against User:Jpatokal stating Diosdado Macapagal International Airport as Manila-Clark. Why? Manila is only assigned ONE airport by the Air Transportation Office of the Philippines per [26]. It should not be stated as Manila-Clark, but rather Clark or Angeles City. pikdig (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan or Taipei-Taoyuan

Seeing that many articles have TPE both written as Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan and Taipei Taoyuan, should we list TPE in all airports as Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan or Taipei-Taoyuan? We need a consistency. Audude08 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I support "Taipei-Taoyuan". When you board a taxi in Taipei and ask to be taken to the airport, you'll be asked which one, and the answer will be "Taoyuan" or "Sungshan". "Taiwan Taoyuan" is just the full name of the airport because it serves the whole island in a sense (as you can't fly to too many places internationally from Kaohsiung). "Taoyuan" is the functional word (and is the actual location). HkCaGu (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Having asked this BEFORE many times (read the archives), and getting little to no responses to it. I dont mind either way, but I would suggest that naming be concise and simple, which in that case is Taipei-Taoyuan and New York-JFK for example. If the TPE naming is going by its full name of Taipei-Taiwan Toayuan, I would strongly recommend CONSISTENCY of full-names to Airport be applied to the other airports. Therefore if going by Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan, I suggest this be applied to New York - John F Kennedy, or Paris - Charles De Gaulle to all other articles for example, as John F Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle is the official names of their respective airports. --Arnzy (talk ·

contribs) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dajabón Airport or Dajabon Airport

Duplicate articles for the same airport. Which one should stay and which one should go? -Canglesea (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dajabón Airport is now the main article with a redirect from Dajabon Airport. -Canglesea (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive date updating

Am I the only one that gets a bit annoyed when users go a bit crazy in updating destination lists as new destinations 'begin'? Due to the open skies going into effect tomorrow/today a lot of flights are starting and I see people removing begin dates even though in some cases it's not even the 29th yet! I just think it's a bit absurd, that's all. We do try for accuracy here I believe. NcSchu(Talk) 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of this is due to time-zone differences... I suppose we should probably base our dates on GMT, just because that's what Wikipedia uses. FCYTravis (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
An IP user has solved the problem on London Heathrow Airport with User:NcSchu reverting the change (rightly so as it is not the 30 March) by removing all the dates including others in the future !! MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Same IP user is now hacking at London Gatwick Airport because he is making lots of very small changes in mutliple edits it is difficult to revert! MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
IP User:72.129.127.189 tired of trashing Heathrow and Gatwick has now blanked the GB Airways page - thought he was just being previous (although it looks like a USA IP) but page blanking is vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for several hours as a vandal. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I just had to revert the edits of three different IPs who had caused chaos with the LHR destination list. I feel like we should get a lock on the page for a few days. NcSchu(Talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If I were to protect that article, I would need to see problems from IPs over an extended period of time and on a regular basis. I judge this from the comments included with the edits. I don't see a big problem with that article so I don't think you will find an administrator willing to block anonymous edits without evidence of a much larger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I just feel like until Monday or so we'll see a lot of anon users try to mess with it again. It's really not that much of a problem unless other editors not aware of the vandalism make intermediate edits. NcSchu(Talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Qantas to Vancouver??

Did Qantas resume service to Vancouver that I didn't know about? I could've sworn that they ended service to YVR in January. 58.174.3.141 continues to add it to the respective pages after his edits been reverted. Did they suspend the service or was I dreaming? Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


TPE article rename

User:Beautiful Formosa suddenly renamed the TPE airport page from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport to Taoyuan CKS International Airport. I have moved the article back to its original name. Did they rename the airport again?? I thought they just renamed it to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. Thanks!!! Audude08 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

President-elect Ma is promising to undo some of the renaming done by the DPP in the past few years. But since Ma won't be president until May 20, it's premature to move an article. Some mention with credible sources might be appropriate. HkCaGu (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oasis Hong Kong Airlines to DUS and MAN

Is Oasis beginning services to these places from HKG on July 3? Users have been adding it to the respective pages. I couldn't find anything on their website to back this up. Audude08 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not on the airline website and lacks a RS then delete it noting the need for a reliable source. I suspect it was on a blog someplace. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, without a reliable source I have removed the route again from the Manchester Airport, Dusseldorf Airport and Hong Kong International Airport pages. SempreVolando (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference used was Hong Kong International Airport's website (departures information) and not the airline website. Since Oasis's website does not have Manchester and Dusseldorf in their schedules. They will probably add it again. Audude08 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's odd that it's mentioned on the airport website, though. NcSchu(Talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it mentions the flights on the HKG airport website but Oasis's website nor Manchester Airport's website does not mention the said flights. Weird...huh? Audude08 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it's not really odd - this probably is the date of the first planned service on this route, already loaded into the HKG timetable. But it doesn't count as a Reliable Source. The airline may well be still awaiting formal approval to operate the service. Once the airline announce the route by means of a press release or similar, then we have a reliable source to confirm commencement of the route. Manchester Airport will no doubt also issue a press release once the route is confirmed. SempreVolando (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gate numbers

I know this has been talked about repeatedly, but the consensus is that gate numbers should not be listed for terminals and airlines because it's uncencyclopedic, subject to change, usually unreferenced, and travel guide-ish, right?

Any objection if I state that "Gate numbers should not normally be listed." in the structure guideline? Should there be any qualifiers, or leave it slightly vague because this is not binding policy anyway? I recently removed gates from LAX and was reverted on the logic that many other large airports have them, so some guidance would be helpful before re-reverting. ASHill (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gate numbers are one of the things that have no way of being verified except by original research and personal experiences (and we know how WP likes those) and most of them definitely don't stay very consistent. NcSchu(Talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the LAX article, gate number ranges may be OK, but we surely don't want to keep tracks of the As and Bs and how many bridges at each gate and whether the As and Bs at each airport mean different bridges or actually different parking spaces. May I suggest that if the gate count is mentioned, it must be the number of parking spots, not bridges or whatever the "lettering/numbering schemes" the airport employs? HkCaGu (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with having: Concourse A has 9 Gates: A1 - A9. Besides, most [small] airport pages list terminal maps right there on their websites so it is verifiable. Sox23 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We should not list gates by airline. However we can list the number of gates in each terminal. I don't think I object to listing the actual gate number. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, there might need to be guidelines in WP:AIRPORTS saying how much is too much. For me, "9 gates: A1-A9" is fine, but if the existence of 5A and 5B make 1-9 a ten-gate terminal, that will tempt editors to turn to listing individual gates. HkCaGu (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you feel about this terminal? As to 5A and 5B, I guess the answer would lie in why they are numbered that way. If this was done to add an additional gate in a terminal without having to renumber other gates, then why not show this? If it is simply 2 bridges for one aircraft, then it does not get counted. Counting 'parking spaces' has some appeal, but is full of problems. What happens when gate 73 is a bus that takes you out to several aircraft? Is that one gate or is it counted as 4 parking spaces? What about the case where one or two gates in the terminal are used to access multiple regional aircraft? In the end, the simplest might be to just count gates in the terminal that service one or more aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wild about it. I would prefer something along the lines of "Concourse A has 19 gates numbered with the prefix A" or, for LAX-like airports, "Terminal 2 has 11 gates with gate numbers between 20 and 29" or "Terminal 2 has 11 gates with all gate numbers beginning with '2'." (See my comment below for my first preference, though.)
Unless there's a source, speculation that 5A and 5B are numbered that way because a gate was added is original research anyway. If there is a source, why not just say "A gate was added in 1843."? ASHill (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's fine for me to see "Concourse A has 10 gates: A1 - A9". It just wouldn't last because people will add excessive details. If gate mentions are OK, then the guidelines should say "gate count OK, gate range OK, individual gates not OK". (How many airports, terminals and concourse have a "perfect" numbering scheme anyway?) HkCaGu (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Gate number ranges would be OK with me, but I don't really see how it's encyclopedic and not travel guideish to say what the airport calls them, particularly given the pragmatic concern that it will quickly get ridiculous. I would prefer if the guideline were simply to say "State the number of gates or aircraft parking spaces in the concourse or terminal; do not state the numbers of individual gates." ASHill (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So are we saying that it is OK to list the number of gates and the lowest and highest gate numbers but it is not OK to list individual gate numbers. If so, that to me is a reasonable solution. So we would say a terminal has 5 gates (A1-A9) and not 5 gates (A1-A3, A7 and A9). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that make sense. Readers who just look at wikipedia will not know that 5 gates (A1-A9) actually means (A1-A3, A7 and A9). They'll think it is just a mistake and think wikipedia is that much more unreliable. I don't see what is wrong in saying: Concourse A has 5 gates: A1-A3, A7, A9. Number 1: That is actually correct, and Number 2: This is a stupid argument. Come on...we're talking about whether or not gate numbers should be added in airport articles. We're making too big a deal out of nothing. As I said before, many airport websites list terminal maps that include gates listed on them so its not like the gates are unverified/unsourced. I'm sure one can look on an airport's website and see that Concourse A has 5 gates and they're numbered A1-A3, A7, A9 and not A1-A9. Sox23 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be there without a source, so there should be a footnote right next to any gate numbers, so readers can easily check that. I agree that this isn't worth much time arguing over, but I do think that a long list of gate numbers looks ugly and like a parody of Wikipedia. I personally would never add gate numbers (either individually or as a range), but I don't care enough to revert or delete a range; I do care enough to revert a long, ugly list, provided that others agree that they're not worth including; that's the reason I brought it up here. I'm fully comfortable with any of the suggestions by Vegaswikian, HkCaGu, or NcSchu above. ASHill (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed how JFK does some of this. Take a look at Kennedy Airport#Terminal 2 and Kennedy Airport#Terminal 3 where they list gates and pads both. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the US Helicopter flights at JFK and EWR have the specific gate number listed beside it. Also, on O'Hare International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport articles users have been adding the gates the specific airline use at those airports (especially in the International Concourse/terminal sections), I have removed them as they are unsourced and unencyclopedic. I think the airlines use different gates in those terminals and they seem to constantly change. Audude08 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminal names

When one airline is the only airline using gates in a terminal, should that name appear in the terminal heading? I think the names should be the names as used by the airport. Adding the airline starts making the entry more of a travel guide. In addition, this can be very misleading when an airline has exclusive use of one terminal and operates from several other terminals. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example, do you mean something like British Airways Terminal 5 instead of Terminal 5 for example. In this example it would be wrong even though BA have almost exclusive use it doesnt change the name of the Terminal. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
In many US Airport articles, there is something like: ===Concourse C - Southwest Airlines===. See McCarran International Airport/"Concourse A" and "Concourse C" for an example. I agree with what Vegaswikian is pointing out. People may think that Southwest Airlines has exclusive rights to Concourse C at McCarran, and that just isn't true. I think we should take it off the heading and leave it as: ===Concourse C=== Sox23 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK understood, agree with Vegaswikian and Sox should not be in heading if not part of the official name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see the point it in it especially if it's not an official designation of the terminal. It's pretty obvious that a certain terminal is only one airline just by looking at the airlines that serve it! NcSchu(Talk) 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
On the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport article, Concourses A and B both have Delta Air Lines on the side of it. Since ya'll agree not to put the specific airline for the concourse. I going to go ahead and remove it. Audude08 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just removed a few more from Washington Dulles International Airport and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport articles. I remove more if I find any. Audude08 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding new airports

I created pages for a few of the airports in the list of requests, only to find that it was a complete waste of time, because there was already an article under a different name for the airport. Could we put a note to people adding airports to check that there isn't already a page for the airport under a different name - to save editors like me the time and effort of creating unnecessary pages. Callumm (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have suggested searching on the IATA/ICAO/FAA codes prior to creating an article. BTW, thanks for the quick work on the list. -Canglesea (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Best regards, Callumm (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Wikilinking Start/End Dates

I see that people are now starting to wikilinking dates on every airport article here per the project guidelines and WP:MoS (In the past, we don't wikilink them). I think that there are a TON of articles that have not had start/end dates wikilinked. I wondering if we should wikilink every date for every airport article. Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with the guideline to link the dates I am not sure it is worth going back and adding them to every article when by their nature they will self-expire possibly within a few months. I would say link them if you are adding new data or changing the relevant section for other reasons, but the time and effort to go back may be better used. MilborneOne (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Denpasar or Denpasar-Bali or Denpasar/Bali or just Bali

Dear WPedians, Which one is supposed to be when listing under Destination list:

Denpasar/Denpasar-Bali/(Denpasar/Bali)/Bali? I just want to avoid any more confusion --Zack2007 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I would use Denpasar/Bali I think that the airport serves both the cities of Denpasar and Bali. I don't know...that's how I would list it. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Bali is not a city, it's an island. Unfortunately the official airport name ("Ngurah Rai") has neither Denpasar nor Bali in the name... Jpatokal (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Airportpicreq

Any chance you guys can merge the features of Template:Airportpicreq into Template:WPAVIATION so that Template:Airportpicreq may be delted? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda

I just noticed that in all the destination lists, Bermuda International Airport is referred to as simply 'Bermuda'. Now it seems strange for this destination to be referred to by just the country, and since I believe we decided, in a similar case, to call Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport 'Port Louis' instead of 'Mauritius', I'm wondering why we don't do the same with Bermuda. Now I don't particularly care either way; I just happened to notice it. NcSchu(Talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton sounds like a fair entry in this case. Do we have a standard for similar cases like these, btw?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The airport is generally shown as just "Bermuda" on airport destination screens and when looking up destinations on airline Web sites. Unless we're going to say "Bermuda-Hamilton" (which would seem unnecessary, it's not like there's more than one airport there) I believe we should stick with the common name. It's not generally known as "Hamilton" and readers looking for "Bermuda" will be confused. FCYTravis (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, when looking the airport up on various airline Web sites, AA.com refers to it as "Bermuda/Hamilton." BritishAirways.com and USAirways.com both refer to it as "Bermuda, Bermuda," and for both of those sites, typing in "Hamilton" will not in any way bring up Bermuda's airport. FCYTravis (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Error - British Airways does not currently fly to Hamilton. We are able to offer an alternative destination, please see the pull down menu below." The alternative destination offered is... Toronto. FCYTravis (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The best way to decide is to pretend you're asking people: Do they know where Hamilton is? Do they know where Bermuda is? Port Louis? Mauritius? It should be pretty simple. An additional point is that Port Louis and Hamilton are simply small capital cities of an island or an island group. Unlike the less-than-defined "market" boundary of EWR (and of course the multiple-airport metropolis), it's pretty clear they serve the whole island, on which most people don't live in Hamilton or Port Louis. And finally, flights are universally marked/advertised as going to/from "Bermuda" or "Mauritius", or be it "Tahiti" or "Guam". Capital city names of stand-alone, one-airport islands are simply meaningless to travelers while they are outside. HkCaGu (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IATA Airport Codes

The discussion at Talk:Double Eagle II Airport raises a question: Is there an authoritative online source for IATA airport codes? Depending where I look, I get different answers for code AEG: Airport Guide vs www.abakan.de -Canglesea (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The authoritive source is the IATA Airline Coding Directory (ACD) but unfortunately for most people it is not on the web mainly because they want users to pay for it and the related update service. Most of the amateur webpages are based on this document which is available inside the airline and airport business. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate Jakarta??

I have posted a discussion on the Singapore Changi Airport talk page after seeing that Jakarta has been disambiguated from just Jakarta to Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta. I see just neutral repsonses. So, I am asking again, does Jakarta really need to be disambiguated since Soekarno-Hatta Int'l and Halim Airports are the only two airport in operation? Audude08 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport does not offer commercial flights then there is no need for disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one (1) scheduled cargo flight from Changi to Halim. All passenger (and other cargo) services, however, operate to Soekarno-Hatta. Jpatokal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So is that why Singapore Changi Airport have Jakarta disambiguated? Audude08 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be User:Huaiwei's logic, yes. I think it's unnecessary, as "Jakarta" can be assumed to mean CGK unless otherwise noted. Jpatokal (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, cause I seem to disam Jakarta on other airport articles but it just gotten reverted. Isn't using his logic inappropriate here. Audude08 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly see Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Disam_Jakarta.3F.3F for full details of the dispute, instead of relying on the quality of comments made here especially by Jpatokal. I disambiguated the two Jakarta airports as "Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta" and "Jakarta-Halim Perdanakusuma" as there is a commercial scheduled route being operated to each airport from Singapore Changi Airport. Jpatokal argues quite inexplicably that disambiguation is not neccesary since it isnt two passenger routes being involved here, but one passenger and one freight. Right. So since he has refused to explain this logic despite repeated requests to do so, I recon he either expects viewers to somehow guess that freight routes will naturally go to Halim Perdanakusuma instead of Soekarno-Hatta. Or perhaps he believes travelling cargo won't be reading wikipedia anyway (I can't dispute that thou! ;)), hence there is no possibility of confusion. He lately insists that disambiguation should be in the form of "Jakarta" and "Jakarta-Halim Perdanakusuma" without really explaining why either, and despite this being at odds with formats used in most articles (many of which would list "Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan" or "Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi" despite no routes operated to smaller airports). Audude08 therefore interprets my action as requiring all instances of "Jakarta" being replaced with "Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta", something I have never proposed (but will not entirely object if blind consistency is the in-thing here). In situations like this, I would think basic common sense would make it clear that such disambiguation is only neccesary when flights are operated to two different airports in the same city, where the smaller city has extremely limited traffic.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Once more (this is an exact copy of what I already posted):
There are two separate points here, my friend. One: If one airport is far larger than the competition, disambiguating the name of the larger airport is unnecessary. (Cf. SIN vs XSP, KUL vs SZB, MEL vs the rest and, yes, CGK vs HLM.) Two: Passenger and cargo flights should be separated into their own tables, which further reduces the need to disambiguate cargo-only airports like HLM and YMX. Jpatokal (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One, your criteria for disambiguation is pretty original as far as my observations shows. Just how "large" is an airport vis-a-via a smaller one before you disambiguate them? Is there a quantifiable criteria, and if so, where is this published? There is a fairly larger operation from Avalon compared to say Seletar, so why are both not disambiguated, when there are other "smaller" secondary airports which were disambiguated (Taipei, Bangkok, etc)? Two, whether it is one table, two tables, or the names of the two airports appearing at the top or bottom of the article is of absolutely no consequence in the need to disambiguate them. Accuracy in identifying two different airports does not increase due to screen distance. Duh.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing original about it, it's the way Wikipedia already operates. For example, in the Changi airport article you'll already find eg. "Kuala Lumpur", "Melbourne", "Beijing", "Los Angeles", and the reader is expected to know that these refer to KUL, MEL, PEK and LAX respectively, even though all of these cities have smaller secondary airports with scheduled passenger services. What criteria are you using for not disambiguating them? Jpatokal (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The current situation has never been consistent, as well illustrated above. Non of these entities has remained undisambiguated based on my criteria, and I have never seen myself to be in a position to establish them. On the other hand, we have you telling us some obscure "criteria" exists. Why do you hesitate now to answer this question, instead of trying to deflect it, if that criteria exists in plain simple English anywhere in wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"Common sense" boils down to "disambiguate if there is ambiguity" (see WP:DAB), but no, there are no quantifiable criteria specifically for airports at the moment, and I'd be happy to try to establish some. Two starting points: Jpatokal (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate airports for int'l flights if destination has more than one int'l airport.
  • Disambiguate airports for domestic passenger flights if destination has more than one airport with scheduled passenger services.
Commmon sense is no longer "common" nor "sensible", if it is not a community-established observation, or when it makes little logical sense. Both of these are absent in your proposal above. Could you explain why only international flights in the former, and only passenger flights/service in the later? Whatever happened to your earlier insistence that there exists a system of disambiguation based on the sizes of airports?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The two points are quantifications of my previous statement of "far larger than the competition". If a city has multiple airports, and only one is designated to handle international flights, then that one is practically always "far larger than the competition". Likewise, if a city has multiple airports and only one has scheduled passenger service, than that one is certainly "far larger than the competition".
I would have no objection to "No need to disambiguate airports for cargo flights if destination only has one airport with scheduled cargo service" as an additional rule, if that's what you meant, but it's often difficult to determine if a cargo flight is "scheduled" or not. Given that cargo flights often also serve unusual or dedicated fields, it might be just easier to always disambiguate cargo flight destinations. Jpatokal (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you are suggesting that entries such as Taipei, Bangkok, London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, etc etc etc, shall all no longer carry disambiguation tags in all cases fitting your criteria, which is completely at odds with the existing situation in the vast majority of airport articles? Just how many airports are there with routes to multiple airports in another city? Not many. Good luck to those reading articles on airports with international flights only to Gatwick, but not Heathrow!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. To clarify, the source airport and its flights are irrelevant, it's only the destination that matters. London, Paris, New York and Tokyo all have multiple airports with international scheduled services, so flights from other airports to them would continue to be disambiguated, just as they are now. Taipei and Bangkok have only one airport at the moment that serves international flights, but the situation of both Don Muang and Songshan is so fluid that it's probably better to disamb them as well. Jpatokal (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going to forget about it since it would be no case arguing about it. Audude08 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just disambiguated the 2 Jakarta Airports on article that have Jakarta listed as a destinations just to make everyone happy. Audude08 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree disambiguating Jakarta. pikdig (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So do I. Audude08, nobody except you is suggesting disambiguating them everywhere, so please undo your changes. Jpatokal (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only Singapore Changi Airport will leave Jakarta disambiguated. Everyone just keep putting these in my head and getting me all confused. Audude08 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I work for Singapore Airlines and I don't wish to be seen as biased here but what Huaiwei is trying to say is true. In my capacity as an employee of SIA, I can't uploaded official documents to support his statement (that would put my rice bowl on the line) but I can tell you this, he is right. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully understand the issue here, because it seems like a relatively small technicality. I just went and looked at the destination list, and since the freight airline is integrated into the section and, more importantly, into the nice table they have there, I think it's proper to disambiguate it so as not to make it seem like the cargo airline is flying to the same airport as the passenger airlines are. Not everyone knows that only one airport in Jakarta serves passengers (I sure didn't until now). NcSchu(Talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe everybody in this discussion is in favor of listing the solitary flight from SIN to HLM as "Jakarta-Halim". The issue is whether this should cause all other Jakarta flights to be "Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta", and if so, should that apply to SIN alone or the entire encyclopedia. Jpatokal (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding PilotOutlook Airport API to Template:Us-airport template

I have 27K US airports (combined IATA+ICAO) and another 15K international airports in my database, which can be accessed using Airport API - http://www.pilotoutlook.com/api/introduction. e.g. http://www.pilotoutlook.com/xml/AirportLookup?IATA_CODE=KBFI&AccessKeyId=28b878cacfb84cff92f7c56b22eceddab919534d

Would it be possible to add API link to Template:Us-airport template?

Note - I haven't lit up international airports yet on the site but they will be there soon. I am sourcing data through many international organizations. Disclaimer - I own PilotOutlook but I am keeping it as a free service.

Let me know if you have questions. Rajatgarg79 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted on your talk page the website does not add any extra value to wikipedia (none of the information is unique or notable) and could be considered spam if you add it to any of the aviation articles. It could also be considered a Conflict of Interest if you added the links yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Direct vs. Nonstop

Okay, I see why I'm wrong, and why my edits were reverted by HkCaGu, but I suggest that the difference between direct and nonstop should be noted in the Destinations category of airport articles, and that direct flights, not just nonstop, are listed.--Char645 (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure quite a few are not aware that "direct" should be listed and assume it's "nonstop only" (as expressed by quite a few editors especially in North America (see talk on PDX/SEA articles). I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to italicize direct destinations so it might help the awareness. HkCaGu (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. We'll just need to verify all these flights and whether they are direct or nonstop. However, in the meantime, how would it be to have something listed at the top of the Destinations sections like this:
All flights listed are either non-stop or direct.
How does that look? --Char645 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If we do this, it should become a template so that it can be added easily and if changed, we only need to make a single change. If we do this, is there anything else we need to say like dates within the next 12 months don't include the year? What begin, end and seasonal mean? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It might become a bit crowded if we include all of that, but I think mentioning the lack of a year for certain dates might be a good idea. NcSchu(Talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like:
Destinations only show non-stop and direct flights. Dates within the next 12 months may not include the year.
Feel free to modify and see if there is consensus to do this. This implies that direct flights are in italics but it may be too obtuse to work. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the primary point we need to get across is the distinction between direct and nonstop. Once that is up, you'll stop getting clueless idiots like me removing the direct flights. :P I would think most people would know what a seasonal flight is and that omitted years from dates imply this year, but you can do it however you want it to.--Char645 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Destinations only show non-stop and direct (no plane change but with stops) flights. Dates within the next 12 months may not include the year.
Better? If not, try a version that covers what you want. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What about changing the section title to "Terminals and destinations (nonstop and direct)"? HkCaGu (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And this (nonstop and direct) wiould only be necessary in airports with italicized destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it's best to give a little more detail. That doesn't necessarily mean that we illustrate the differences, but just say that there is a difference between the two. For example:
= Destinations =

(Destinations listed here include non-stop and direct flights. Please understand the difference.)
= Concourse A =

etc.
What do you think? Char645 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Queenstown International Airport

There is a request to rename the subject airport to Queenstown Airport (New Zealand) based on the official name on the official web site. If there are any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace (or piece, whatever). -Canglesea (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The current article should be moved to Queenstown Airport with the current disambig page at that namespace to be moved to Queenstown Airport (disambiguation). As per WP:DISAMBIG, Queenstown Airport should be the New Zealand airport article, as that is what the majority of people would be expecting to reach when they search for Queenstown Airport and hit go in the search box. --Россавиа Диалог 06:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree: For the record, this article, disambig page, and links will be moved/renamed today as specified by Россавиа. Thanks -Canglesea (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this at Incomplete and Contested Moves. -Canglesea (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Done! Queenstown International Airport has been moved to Queenstown Airport -Canglesea (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Portland International Airport

There has been an ongoing edit war for the destinations served by Northwest Airlines. It has been like this

  • Northwest Airlines (Amsterdam [begins March 29], Detroit, Honolulu, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Singapore [ends May 30]', Pusan [begins May 31 in place of Singapore], Tokyo-Narita)

Please feel free to discuss this on the PDX Airport talk page so we don't get into another edit war. The page has been semi-protected. Audude08 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand on the issue of whether WP:Airport should be modified to recommend only including non-stop flights? I recommend that we do so, for 2 reasons. First, I believe that most readers believe that only non-stop destinations are listed. Secondly, it's practically impossible to know if a direct flight is scheduled on the same aircraft, and whether the passengers are required to deplane during the stop, unless you fly that route regularly or are an employee of the airline in question.WikiBrown (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Direct flights represent actual service between a city pair. The fact that readers don't know the difference between a direct flight and a non stop one is not a reason to eliminate the listing of direct flights. If anything, the direct flights can always be confirm with sources that meet WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that "Direct flights represent actual service between a city pair." How do they do so in a way that connecting flights, or direct flights under the same flight number using different aircraft don't?
The problem is that what constitutes a "direct flight" is murky. A flight should be considered one segment from takeoff to landing. From the passenger's perspective, it's not really relevant whether the flight continues on the same plane or under the same flight number; it's still two flights.
Also, as was pointed out before, under the current guidelines it will be necessary to add many Southwest Airlines destinations to US airport articles, as they have no hubs and have many "direct flights" with three or four segments.
It seems that the only way to resolve this issue sensibly is to modify the guideline to include non-stop flights only.WikiBrown (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense to say the "Island Hopper" (GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL) is 6 flights. It is one flight with five stops. But yes, I think we should rewrite the rules of inclusion/exclusion. Having read the above points, I can provide a first draft here--feel free to point out more and comment:

  • If it goes through a hub, it's not direct.
  • If it involves a change of aircraft type, it's not direct.
  • If the plane doesn't follow the flight number 6 out of 7 times, it's not direct. (If it's unverifiable through gate numbers, leave it alone, give it the benefit of a doubt.)
  • If it is as meaningless as Southwest's schedule (e.g. many SEA-OAK-LAX options a day, one is "direct", others aren't), it's not direct.
  • But if most flights of the day have the same stop (e.g. QX SEA-PUW-LWS), then SEA-LWS is direct. This option includes all flights flying B-C far from base/hub A, e.g. QF SYD-LAX-JFK. Listing LAX-JFK as valid destination of each other but not listing SYD-JFK as destination of each other looks really stupid.

More? HkCaGu (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially because LAX-JFK isn't actually a valid destination for that flight; that would be illegal cabotage. FCYTravis (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to illustrate how little sense it makes to simply get rid of all nonstops. If there's a ban like that you'd have QF presence listed in JFK with no destinations! HkCaGu (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

HkCaGu, I am quite curious as to how you could come up with the "If it involves a change of aircraft type, it's not direct" criterion. Is this linked to any established definition? So a current Qantas flight to the UK with a plane change in Singapore is considered a direct flight since it all involves a B747 currently, but should Qantas decide to change plane type in either sector, it suddenly ceases to become one and must be dropped from the list? Could you explain the logic behind this?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Plane change" is already in the current definition in this Project. It says both "the flight number and the aircraft" are needed to be listed here (and let the industry defines "direct"). The Project rule already explained itself that some so-called direct flights are not genuinely direct and results in destination listings being unmaintainable and less than truthful. For "direct" flights with no aircraft type changes, I have repeatedly removed NW's HKG-NRT-LAX because I know they change planes more often than not (by comparing NRT gate numbers). For other segment pairs, I simply don't have time to research whether there is a B744 to B744 plane change and therefore have taken a neutral stand and let people do it either way (while arguing here that we should simply get rid of them). However, aircraft-type change means 100% chance of plane change, and that's how the future SIN-NRT-MSP is on the schedule. HkCaGu (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a startling huge difference between text in a WikiProject and what actually goes into a wikipedia article like Direct flight, which clearly includes flights with a change in aircraft, so kindly do not confuse between the two. The definition in the wikipedia article is supported by the source cited at [27], and which also includes flights involving a change of aircraft type as falling under the "direct flight" definition. As long as you fail to provide an equally credible source which says otherwise, you have infringed on WP:OR by asserting your own definitions of an industrial term (which is certainly not defined by this WikiProject as per your sugguestions here[28]). The "so-called direct flights" refer to a perculiar "problem" involving domestic connections in the U.S. This situation is far less prevalant, and in fact almost non-existant in other markets. Any flight involving 100% aircraft change can certainly be a direct flight if the flight number remains the same. Period. Provide the sources to argue otherwise.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop bullying [29] [30] your way around things. I did not redefine the industry definition or the "Direct Flight" article. I simply restated the text of the WikiProject guideline. It says include nonstops and directs except for such and such exceptions. An aircraft change is an exception. An aircraft type change guarantees aircraft change. Stop the incivility! HkCaGu (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you cannot back up what you say, do not attempt to retract them now, or accuse the other party of bullying tactics. Kindly adhere strictly to basic Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V and WP:OR, which you persist to refuse to, even daring to claim that "wp:airport had always defied market terminology" as per this citation[31]. Nonsense! As per your latest insistance on deleting a valid entry in [32], you claim the existance of a schedule which publishes flights for 2 June 2008 and beyond. Nonsense! NWA's current downloadable timetables at [33] publish only flights up to Apr 7, 2008. You claim that direct flights from Singapore to Minneapolis/St. Paul after 2 June 2008 do not exist. Nonsense! Kindly do a simple schedule search, which shows a flight number change of NW5/6 on the Singapore-Tokyo sector followed by NW19/20 on the Tokyo-Minneapolis sector currently. A search for post-June 2008 flights shows NW19/20 on both sectors on the Singapore-Tokyo-Minneapolis route, hence it is a direct flight by definition after 2 June 2008. Conversely, Singapore-Tokyo-Portland flights where switched from a direct NW5/6 flight currently to one involving NW5/6 and NW19/20, hence it is no longer a direct flight by definition after 2 June 2008. Unless you can cite more convincing evidence, I would demand that you revert your own edit now before I take action against your persistant attempts to edit without due deligience to adhere to basic wikipedia policies. I will be monitoring that said article with added attention henceforth.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you will simply scroll up this very talk page, you'll see what planes they're planning to use after the June changes, courtesy of User:PikDig's research. It is purely laughable that there is no schedule beyond April 7, as you searched the flights yourself already beyond June. Airline schedules are generally published almost a year in advance since they take reservations that far in advance. (And if you're looking at the PDF one--paper schedules for US airlines are never beyond a month or so.) Then obviously they have planned what planes they are going to use in order to know how many seats they can sell. And SIN-NRT-MSP will be different plane TYPES. Inclusion criteria here at WP:AIRPORT has never completely surrendered to industry definitions with respect to the meaning of direct, and I stand by my statement. HkCaGu (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you need a reminder of your own actions, HkCaGu, you stated "Undid revision 199761272 by Huaiwei, go download it at www.nwa.com or see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports"[34] when I asked you to cite your sources[35] (which absolutely does not suggest that I do not have any, be it via PDF download or otherwise for whichever period. What a lame attempt in embarrassing someone else in retaliation). Need I say more? Throughout the conversation above, I repeatedly blasted the inaccurate and unsourced definition of a direct flight, which you have not been able to defend in any way, thus an outright infringement of WP:OR. Sources clearly stated that a change in plane type may also be defined as a direct flight as far as the industry is concerned. And may I seek your confirmation that you wish to stand by your statement that "wp:airport had always defied market terminology"?--Huaiwei (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You continue to depart from the subject. We at WP:AIRPORT created the exceptions to "direct" and have not let the industry define what gets listed here. The industry has defined what "direct" is and this is reflected in the "direct" article. Numerous editors on airlines and airports can look up flight schedules faster than me and numerous edits to numerous airports and airlines are made everyday without "citing sources"--the type you, the apparent owner of the Singapore Changi Airport article, demand. We do not define "direct" here. We decided, but are also discussing what kind of "direct" to include. HkCaGu (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder to whom the charge is directed at. In other words:
  • You at WP:AIRPORT created an exception to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and avoided admitting that, instead preferring to use your interpretation of existing text at WP:Airport as an excuse, am I not correct?
  • You have continously failed to provide veifiable sources to support any of your edits, and refused to acknowledge this fact, am I not correct?
  • You have avoided commenting on the point that the said text in the existing WP is actually targeted in particular at flights flying between two American airports and onwards to a third destination, which is different from the case of an American city to a Japanese city to a Singaporean city, and which does not change that often to the point of the community having problems keeping track of it, am I not correct?
  • You attempted to mislead me by suggesting that I should download the purported schedules by "download it at www.nwa.com"[36] when no such schedule exists for download since only an electronic search exists in that site currently, and then attempted to cover that up by digressing about my purported inability to do basic schedule research (and in the meantime also failed to show the purported "correct" version of your sources of schedules in here too despite your commment), am I not correct?
  • You insisted not once[37], but twice[38], that terms as used by the aviation industry is defined by wp:airport over and above verifiable third-party sources as required by WP:V despite my comments that this is a blatant violation of WP:OR[39], but skirted the issue when I asked you for an outright declaration on your willingness to stand by your statement, am I not correct?
  • And last but not least, that you have no intention to directly address all the concerns above, preferring instead to hope for some kind of "backup" from other members of this WP (perhaps knowing full well that I have always been labelled as a rebel of sorts around this WP and usually discriminated against anyway), and in the meantime allerging me as some kind of an "article owner" in a bid to score points for your own agendas and to earn some sympathy points for yourself to enforce your views when you find yourself unable to respond in a logical, coherent, accountable and mature manner, am I not correct?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am now offically confused. Why is Portland listed as a destination on the Singapore Airport page as a direct flight for NWA but Singapore is not listed on the Portland Airport page? Can someone give me an explanation? Audude08 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because someone deleted Singapore from the Portland page? Now a check on the official Changi flight planner[40] will show the Singapore-Tokyo-Portland flight appearing. Singapore-Tokyo-Minneapolis does not show now, however, as it is currently not a direct flight, the former of which is. The current format has resulted in just one known inconsistency between the destination list in the Changi Airport article and that in the official airport timetable. Hardly a mind-bogging problem as suggested by HkCaGu such that such flights must be excluded.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Singapore is now readded to the Portland page with [ends May 30] at the end since it will be direct until that date. Audude08 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit war continues between 2 IPs whether or not Singapore should be listed as a destination for Portland. Portland has now been removed as a destination for Singapore. Portland International Airport has been protected again. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delta, NWA merger

Now that the merger is official, and the airline will be called Delta, does anyone know when exactly we should combine destinations? The official news conference is at 10:30AM EST Tuesday so perhaps a date will be announced then, but the press release doesn't seem to say anything about when the flight numbers will combine (which is when I'm guessing we should combine them). NcSchu(Talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hold the presses. It's not official until it is official. This PROPOSED merger requires government approval and from the news reports today, that is not guaranteed. It makes sense to locate the merger proposal in one article and point to that in other articles. Also there are two mergers, the holding companies and the airlines. It is likely that if the merge gains approval, the holding companies will be merged well before the airlines. Look at the history of HP and US. I think the best advice is to tread carefully and slowly. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ha, woops. I definitely did not realize that it hadn't gotten/needed to get government approval. NcSchu(Talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's going to be awhile. HP/US didn't even start the mass codeshare until a couple months after the merger was announced, and the unified branding (US Airways operated by America West Airlines) was awhile after that. FCYTravis (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Everything you wanted to know at Delta Air Lines-Northwest Airlines merger including complete copies of the press releases and repeating obvious statements. I removed the link from the Delta article as it added no value but I suspect it will be back. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Former Airlines and Destinations

I know this was discussed over a year ago an I understand that adding former airlines and destinations were not really notable and were discouraged. An IP user has been adding them to a number of airport articles. On Sheremetyevo International Airport both User:WhisperToMe and I have removed the list only to be reverted. Before it is removed again and his/her former airlines and designation added to other articles are removed I just wanted to check that their is still consensus as nothing was added to the project page guide when it was last discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the consensus reached previously was that the project guidelines should not be changed as lists of former airlines / destinations were not notable, usually incomplete and nearly impossible to verify. SempreVolando (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In Singapore Changi Airport, former airlines and destinations are not only listed, but are mixed into the same table as current airlines. I've started a straw poll on this, you may wish to chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Destination_box includes detailed discussions on why the current single-table format was adopted. It is unfortunate that users like Jpatokal has failed to particulate in that discussion, prefering to start a "straw poll" on an element he disagrees with only after an amicable solution has been reached with compromise from both participating sides.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have expressed concern over these assumptions before, but there has been no conclusive response. Former airlines are not automatically less notable. Is Air New Zealands' 40-year presence in Singapore any less notable than all airlines still operating there just because it terminated its Singaporean presence in 2006? Indeed, suspentions and terminations themselves can be notable. To say that information cannot be added by claiming they are "nearly impossible to verify" is also defeatist and counter-productive. Publications by airports and airlines is an obvious source of such information, even if some airlines may try to avoid direct mention on such cutbacks. Secondary sources like media articles add to possible verifiable sources. We do we declare defeat before even trying?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I oppose the most common instances of when people simply create a section, and just list airlines that used to serve the airport. It really doesn't provide anything of value no matter which way you look at it. Now I think we can all agree that if real thought were put into these sections it could be interesting. NcSchu(Talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, although I would say that if such lists are supported by verifiable sources, then there is value to add them, not just on whether "real thought" has been put in. Just to give an example of how such information can be of value: I was trying to compare the state of operations when Changi opened in 1981 compared to the present day, and while I know the number of airlines operating at Changi when it opened, I had great difficulty actually identifying them. It was only when I did the data mining in various sourced to look for all airline histories in Changi that I was able to uncover almost all of them. It is my hope that others need not go through the same trouble, hence the detailed table of all airlines which has ever flown there, most with dates to allow comparisons at any point in time. This is my customer-service-first mantra which has fueled much of my contributions to this site.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There are many issues with including terminated routes. If they are listed, they really need to be sourced. Start and stop dates should be included. Exactly how do we deal with resumed service? Is it noted in the discontinued list? These need to be in their own list. Is the length of time that service is not available a determining factor? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you observed how the Changi example deals with issues of resumed flights? Issues you attempt to forsee, while valuable, has already been solved. There is nothing which cannot have a solution to, as long as people would consider efforts to solve them. To avoid something because just because there is reluctance to find solutions to expected problems is precisely the "self-defeatist" attitude I mentioned earlier.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we list at every airport, every single route run by the hundreds of airlines which have gone bankrupt and shut down, or have merged? List every single point ever served by Eastern? TWA? Pan-Am? Pan-Am II? Pan-Am III? Allegheny? CCAir? Vanguard? ValuJet? Northeast? Henson Aviation? Wien Air Alaska? Braniff? Western? Midway I? Midway II? Frontier I? Western Pacific? Wings West? Reno Air? AirCal? PSA? Hughes AirWest? Ozark? Great Plains? Great Scott, I'm probably only 1/10th of the way through the list. This would easily double or triple the length of most airport articles. What about former hubs, like Reno Air at Reno? Do we track down every single former QQ destination and fill it full of start/stop dates?
If you want to do it on Changi, fine (I'm not going to fight that battle) but it's senseless and useless for us to do it at other airport articles. It will be a permanently-incomplete exercise in futility that has the added disadvantage of not helping our readers, particularly the way it's done at Changi which confusingly intermixes routes currently operated with routes that haven't operated in years by airlines that shut down 15 years ago.
If someone wants to do this in separate articles for each airline, I would be fine with that. Former destinations of Reno Air, for example. FCYTravis (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please migrate all ceased traffic information off the Changi airport page to a new subarticle linked from there and maybe other places. This will preserve transparency and agreed on content guidelines fro actual airport pages. In general, this information is impossible to document to Wikipedia standards for arbitrary airports, and should be omitted. --Mareklug talk 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Which would also say those separate articles would not pass muster at AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I did say "in general". Perhaps particular cases constitute exceptions, and I am agnostic as to Chiangi's case, not having examined it at all. Nonetheless, yes, I am fending off this systematic expansion of airport content as problematic. --Mareklug talk 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

Why has the destinations for the airlines serving ATL been removed from the article. Did we even discuss removing them. If someone could, please restore them in the article. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - was some unreverted vandalism. I've fixed it. FCYTravis (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Russavia's issue with SilkAir (and Dragonair)

In the latest episode of Диалог's (more commonly known as Russavia) "anti-advertisement" crusade against Singapore Airlines, he nows sees it as an issue with SilkAir flights appearing in airport destination lists under the Singapore Airlines heading, and has proceeded to mass remove all of them (eg: [41]), saying "Silkair flights are Silkair flights not Singapore Airlines flights". To prevent the likes of myself from accusing him of being anti-SIA, he then proceeds to do the same thing against Dragonair (eg: [42]). Now I understand the current setup in all airport airline destination lists is to list the parent airline above their subsidiaries, even if no flight is operated by the former. Is there any particular issue against SilkAir and Dragonair not to follow this convention?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you have seen guidelines stating the "parent airline" should be shown above any subsidiaries, WP:AIRPORTS guidelines state that (my emphasis):
For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number, avoid using the term dba, an abbreviation of the American business term doing business as. The preferred notation is:
It therefore seems to me that it is correct to list SilkAir flights on their own (without a Singapore Airlines above) in the destination lists, as they only use SilkAir (MI) flight numbers. Similarly I find many editors list bmibaby below and inset from bmi in airport destination lists, but as these flights operate with WW flight numbers (and not BD) I think the guidelines imply that should not happen. Hope that makes sense, would be useful to hear other editors views on this though in case I have completely misinterpreted! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see that we open this discussion by throwing out WP:AGF. If we look at the SilkAir schedule, it shows MI934 to Chengdu and MI933 from Chengdu. That seems to say that they are operated by and for Silkair and not for another airline. If that is the case, then they are SilkAir flights as I understand the convention. They are not SIA flights in any manner. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
But we should list the subsidiaries of a parent airline under the parent airline, shouldn't we? pikdig (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No we shouldn't, for the parent airline is irrelevant. Using Silkair for this example (which by the way, I only got to changing because I was updating Christmas Island Airport with the EL to their website and noticing that both Silkair and Malaysia Airlines destinations lists have Christmas Island listed, even though they are chartered flights); Silkair flights are operated under the Silkair AOC, using Silkair flight numbers, using Silkair call signs. The only instances where the format:
  • Airline1
    • Airline2 (Destination1, destination2, destination3, etc)
should be followed is when Airline2 is contracted by Airline1 to operate flights on behalf of Airline1. --Россавиа Диалог 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, we are not showing anything about the parents and children. We are simply showing what airline is marketing the service and who is actually flying the route. What company owns another is not a factor in the listing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We should list the Silkair and Dragonair flights under their parent company. Silkair's parent comapny is Singapore Airlines LImited and Dragonair's is Cathay Pacific. They also clearly state that they are subsidarries of the parent airlines. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? We have not been doing this before. In an airport article, the parent company is not encyclopedic information. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is plain obvious that Russavia/Россавиа, Vegaswikian and SempreVolando needs a serious reality check here. Just look through practically all airport articles (especially beyond the American ones) and observe just how many people have completely misunderstood a "criteria" which seems to be understood only by Americans. Airport articles stretching from London Heathrow Airport to Kingsford Smith International Airport all show subsidiary airlines below their parent airline regardless of flight numbers or marketing. Why has it come to this, and not one person notice this until now? And why is it that Russavia takes particular issue with the setup involving SilkAir and Dragonair, yet completely misses the fact that the same thing is done for practically all other airlines in those airport pages he edited? Queer, isnt it?--Huaiwei (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

May I further advice that Russavia/Россавиа hold his aggresive mass-edit of articles until a quick conclusion is reached here, many of which occured even after this discussion was initiated. This is certainly not the first time he strongly believes his interpretation are devine, and that the words of this page are as sacrosanct as the words in a Bible, so much so that it empowers him to smash through the website in such a manner.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He listed the flights again under their own brand....I thought those were subsidiaries of Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific. Then if not shouldn't Uni Air, Mandarin Airlines, Nok Air, and Continental Micronesia be listed under their own brand also? If we list the subsidaries (listed above) under their parent company then we have a serious issue going on here about listing/not listing subsidiaries under their parent company. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is strange to me that the only arguments put forward by Huaiwei and 74.183.173.237 are that because the WP:AIRPORTS policy quoted above is being applied (apparently) incorrectly in several airport articles, that the guidelines themselves are now null and void! A truly bizzare argument. Nonetheless it appears perfectly clear to me and other editors that the guidelines are indeed being applied incorrectly in these cases. The idea that subsidiary airlines should appear below their parent airlines in destination lists has no basis in the guidelines, which clearly state only that this layout should be used where ... the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number.... Also worth noting that I stand impartially on the issue of Singapore Airlines / SilkAir / Dragonair / Cathay etc... it appears Huaiwei and potentially Russavia do not. It doesn't matter to me which way this ends up being applied, but the guidelines seem pretty clear to me. SempreVolando (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
First and foremost, it appears to me that you are making assumptions on my stand on this issue. May I state for the record that I am perfectly nuetral on this, and in fact, I did find it odd many many moons ago when I found people shifting entities below their parent companies, but decided not to pursue the matter because it has become clear that this format has been applied in just about every airport article there is. May I just point out to you, SempreVolando, that the extent of the "error" goes beyond just "several airport articles". Kindly check through and do some background research first before commenting. Pointing out this widespread "error" is by no means an attempt to declare the guidelines invalid. Pointing out that an aggresive user is "correcting" entries for just two airlines when the same "error" affects practically all other airlines with subsidiaries is by no means taking a stand on either one of the said options above. The lack of consistency (geez..isnt this a sacred quality around here?!), and the misinterpretation of current guidelines which can occur when applied to the world's airlines (even if it seems "pretty clear" to you), are the primary issues I am targeting here. Kindly address these issues squarely, and quit assuming that I am taking the same viewpoint as an anon user.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting indeed that you chose to open this discussion with a complete lack of good faith claiming Russavia's "anti-advertisement" crusade against Singapore Airlines", then expect other editors to consider that you hold a neutral point of view on the issue! Anyway I will assume good faith with you and apologise for suggesting you do not hold NPOV here. The two issues you seek to resolve are: Consistency - I agree consistency is vital; it is of course a Wikipedia ideal. There is a lack of consistency on this issue which appears to arise either from a misunderstaing, ignorance or lack of awareness of the current project guidelines. I agree this does need to be resolved. The second issue is Misinterpretation of current guidelines where you seem to suggest that many people don't understand the guidelines set out at WP:AIRPORTS. If that is the case then of course the guidelines need to be strengthened to ensure no misunderstanding, but I maintain in my opinion they appear perfectly clear at the moment and I suspect that the unofficial policy of parent / subsidiary airlines has probably arisen out of ignorance or lack of awareness than misunderstanding. So as far as I can see we need to either:
A - Agree the guidelines are already clear and sufficient and amend the offending articles.
B - Agree that a misunderstanding is commonly arising, and therefore provide revised project guidelines wording and then amend the offending articles.
C - Agree that the project guidelines are wrong and that the parent airline should always appear above any subsidiary carrier in the destination list. This will require a new discussion to be started, as the guidelines would need to be completely changed.
In any of these events the opinions of more editors is of course preferable, and I concur with your earlier point that articles should not be amended until these discussions have been concluded. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should assume good faith as well and assume that you are probably relatively new to (or smartly disengaged from) this project and do not know the editing history involving some characters in this WP. Since it is just a personal tiff, I shall not elaborate further on what has transpired, but I will stress it again any day should that personal tiff be translated into disruptive editing with mass-edits of this magnitude. My key message is an enquiry on consistency in editing patterns, which is clearly lacking here if individuals target specific entities exclusively, and fail to address this issue adequately even after it has been pointed out.
And the issue here is also not about current guidelines being "wrong", or any article "offending" guidelines here. A guideline is merely a guideline, and compliance is recommended, not compulsory. Well of coz I have met with numerous opposition in this particular WP (but strangely not in others. hmmm) over this "compulsory" issue, but there is simply no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to coming up with guidelines to include or exclude verifiable information, or in the way information is presented. This is an issue of asthetics and presentation, and it is completely subjective to personal preferences.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the WP:AIRPORTS page and we're discussing WP:AIRPORTS guidelines here. Whether you choose to respect them or not is not material to the discussion.
My two cents: I agree with SempreVolando and Vegaswikian that listings should reflect who operates the flight, not opaque corporate ownership structures. I'm not positive that the flight number is the best way of determining this though: to me, it would be a little odd to list eg. Air Asia/Thai Air Asia or Jetstar/Jetstar Asia flights as entirely separate just because they happen to be coded AK/FD and JQ/3K, even though everything else (livery, website, planes, etc) is effectively identical. Jpatokal (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No one is talking about my views on respecting those guidelines either, so just what are you talking about?
So if flight numbers is not a good determinant, could you identify a more concrete definition then? Are we now in the business of presenting facts in favour of airlines who use coordinated marketing, while ignoring those who do not, despite the fact that both may actually involve the same company? Heck, while DragonAir is wholely-owned by Cathay Pacific, and in essense is actually operated by the same airline management, Jetstar Asia is not even majority owned by Jetstar's parent Qantas. And the exact some thing happens when you compare SQ/MI with AK/FD. Logical?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more: the corporate structures are not logical, and they shouldn't be used to determine the layout of the article.
Let me present you with a simple case. Your friend asks you, "Hey Huaiwei, does Air Asia fly from Bangkok to Jakarta?" Will you respond "No, it does not", because there are no AK-coded flights on that segment? Or will you respond "Why yes, it does", because Air Asia flies the route under both the FD (Thai) and QZ (Indo) codes?
Now, the same friend asks you, "Hey Huaiwei, does Singapore Airlines fly to Manado?" Do you tell him "No", because SQ does not operate on the route... or do you tell him that "Yes", because despite the fact that the planes flying on the route have MI codes, MI planes, MI livery, MI booking engine and don't show up on SQ's site, it's close enough because, deep in the background, SQ controls MI? Jpatokal (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So while the general view here is that corportate structures should be left out, you alone insists they should now be presented based on marketing? And I thought there are plenty of folks here who are anti-marketing? Well if you demand my answer for both questions, I would say "Yes, Indonesian AirAsia and Thai AirAsia flies that route" and "Yes, Singapore Airlines flies that route via its subsidiary SilkAir". As an aviation geek I better know how to answer such questions as accurately as possible, as opposed to the "yes" and "no" answers respectively which you are clearly attempting to extract from me. Well, sorry to dissapoint, but I think I clearly know my stuff far better than a pretentious wannabe who is only here because I am here. Since we are still on this topic, I would love to hear how you handle each of these situations:
  • Qantas/Jetstar/Jetstar Asia/Valuair
  • Air France/KLM
  • Air India/Indian/Air-India Express
  • Japan Airlines/JALways, etc
  • Lufthansa/Lufthansa CityLine/Lufthansa Cargo, etc
  • Oh and for that matter, perhaps Star Alliance?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can identify three different categories here:

1. Airline with independent brand and marketing

  • Indian
  • KLM
  • Qantas
  • Cathay Pacific
  • Dragonair
  • Singapore Airlines
  • SilkAir

2. Subsidiary that shares parent's brand, but uses own flight number

  • Air India
    • Air India Express
  • Japan Airlines
    • JALways
  • Jetstar
    • Jetstar Asia

3. "Flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number" (current WP:AIRPORTS wording).

  • Air France
    • Air France operated by Régional [AF code]
  • Lufthansa
    • Lufthansa Regional operated by Lufthansa CityLine [LH code]

Note that the Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, Air India and JAL entries above match current practice. There are, inevitably, going to be a few fuzzy cases: you could argue that Valuair belongs in category 1 or 2, but I'd probably pip it over into 1 for the moment. Jpatokal (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. So I recon you have every intention to access each and every case using your arbitrary criteria of "independent marketing" and overhaul all articles for us?--Huaiwei (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jpatokal's categories seem perfectly logical to me, flights which are independently branded and marketed is hardly "arbitrary". This would require consensus from more project members as it would involve amending the project guidelines wording, but in terms of overhauling the articles (if necessary) once an agreement is reached I don't think that's a problem as we can all chip in and help out with that. SempreVolando (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If "independent branding and marketing" is not arbitrary, can you volunteer to come up with a set of clear guidelines on just what is "independent marketing" and what is not so that it can be implimented site wide without bias and without requiring a debate in these pages over every single case? Perhaps, for starters, you could use the Singapore Airlines/SilkAir and Cathay Pacific/DragonAir situations as an example, since they sparked off this debate?--Huaiwei (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a first shot at an objective three-point independence test. Two out of three is enough:
1. Do the airlines have dissimilar liveries? (Different logo, different color scheme.)
2. Do the airlines have separate booking engines? (Can't book flights for one on the other's site.)
3. Do the airlines fly on the same routes? (On at least some routes.)
CX/KA score three out of three, as do QF/JQ -- both pairs compete on some routes. SQ/MI score two out of three, as there are no route overlaps. And for yucks, I scored the rest: KL/AF get 3 pts, AI/IA and AI/IX get 2 pts, JL/JO and JQ/3K get 0 pts. Jpatokal (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the brave attempt, Jpatokal, but as with every other original/self-created criteria on wikipedia, and one unheard of in the industry or by other respectable source, I had to question its practical use. Just looking at the CX and SQ cases alone:
  • I was apparantly able to book flights from Hong Kong to Wuhan via the CX website, although I can bet CX dosent fly there. DragonAir does. What the hell?
I believe you will find the answer to your confusion under Code sharing. The CX website shows the flight as CX6706, not KA. Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was able to book an flight with an SQ flight number but operated by SilkAir from Singapore to Brunei. What the hell?
I believe you will find the answer to your confusion under Wet lease. This is a "Singapore Airlines operated by Silkair" flight, the SQ site never mentions Silkair and it doesn't even show up on MI's own site. Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • SilkAir, up until the late 1990s, operated on several routes already served by SIA, including the infamous Jakarta route which was axed soon after the MI185 accident. So even if no dublicate flights are in operation now, the subsidiary is obviously capable of running a dublicate route. What the hell?
What the hell indeed. The flights are not in operation now, so it fails criterion 3. If the airline chooses to start flying competing flights, then they're changing their model. Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So do both airlines suddenly qualify under your ingenious criteria, Jpatokal?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My dear, they already qualify as independent under my ingenious criteria. Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being involved up to now I just thought I would read the comments and the guidelines and I have to say the guideline is not the clearest definition of what is needed and I can see why it would cause confusion. In my simple mind the destinations list should have only two types entries:

  • Foo Airlines (Destination is served by subject airline using its own flight number and aircraft)
  • Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways (Destination is served by another airline for the subject airline using the subject airlines flight number)

No subsidaries no parents just who is actually flying the service for whom. Perhaps we can just agree a simple guideline, update the guide and get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your recommendation, which I find far more valid and simple to impliment, it would be exactly as intended in the existing guidelines. The guidelines will only need minor editing to avoid confusion. But I recon it will probably not solve all problems either, because many viewers are going to look at a destination list and start shifting all subsidiary companies below their parent companies regardless of airline codes without bothering to look at the guidelines. At least that was how I sense the problem has proliferated in the first place.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm so glad to hear that you agree with me. Jpatokal (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I usually agree with intelligent comments, such as the one by MilborneOne above which I was responding to. I am not so sure if that quality is applicable to your comments, thou. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that people read and familiarise themselves with the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention. This has nothing to do with a parent/subsidiary relationship (nice to see also that Huaiwei now recognises the subsidiary/parent relationship), and nothing to do with marketing, but everything to do with the Warsaw Convention and the Montreal Convention and laws in each and every country which is a signatory state to the ICAO and these conventions. After reading those conventions and local laws, read the Contract of Carriage of the airlines. A bit of exposure to these important aspects of civil aviation operations will help one understand why you would have some airlines listed like this, and others not. Marketing plays all but a small part, because the marketing is determined by those conventions and laws. As my removal of Singapore Airlines was the reason for this in the first place, when Silkair 185 crashed, who did Boeing and the families sue? Silkair? or Singapore Airlines? The answer is Silkair, as it was Silkair who operated the flight, it was a Silkair aircraft, and flew on a Silkair schedule. Now, where this project needs to pay close attention to is the latest craze these days, particularly in Europe; that being the virtual airline - I am not talking about a computerised game, but a real virtual airline - a so-called airline which does not have the one thing that is required to call yourself an airline - an Air Operator's Certificate - all flights are undertaken by another entity which holds this precious AOC with aircraft which are operated by this other entity (the aircraft may or may not be painted in this so-called airlines colours). I am going thru a lot of the airline articles still looking at where improvements can be made on the whole for the airline project, and will thinking of ways to 'attack' these entities whilst at same time bringing it up for discussion on the airline project talk page. Just a couple of quick examples:

  • Fly Lappeenranta - a regional airline based in Finland with a single aircraft operated by Central Connect Airlines - ok, not unusual, often airlines will lease their fleet in. Look at their website, on the front page, yeah, it says Fly Lappeenranta provides service in co-operation with Central Connect Airlines - could still mean that they use CCA aircraft. Their company page says The company has chosen Central Connect Airlines as operator for the flights - again, could just mean that CCA is operating the aircraft (possibly under a wet lease arrangement). It isn't until you get to the Conditions of Carriage that it says:

Passenger travel agreement is done with Fly Lappeenranta Ltd, however our flights are operated under the license of JOB AIR - Central Connect Airlines (Carrier). Passengers have rights and responsibilities in accordance with Fly Lappeenranta’s terms and conditions and are to be read in conjunction with the air Carrier's Conditions of Carriage (Conditions of Carriage), which also applies to the passenger.

Unfortunately, the link to the CCA CoC isn't valid, and it isn't on the CCA website, but it is the CCA CoC which is the most important, as it is CCA operating the flight with CCA AOC, flight numbers, crew, etc, etc.

  • Air Åland - a regional airline based in Finland, with a single aircraft operated by Avion Express. Their About Company page mentions nothing. Their Partners page does mention UAB Avion Express, Airline company which operates Air Åland flights - could just be a dry lease arrangement. When you go to their Travel conditions page, they state:

Air carrier operating the services Your contract is with us, Air Åland, but our flights are operated under the license of UAB Avion Express, an air carrier registered in Lithuania ("the air carrier"), which country is subject to EU regulations of aviation. Passengers have rights and responsibilities in accordance with Air Åland’ terms and conditions as expressed here. These should be read in conjunction with the air carrier's Conditions of Carriage, which also apply to you. See Avion Express’ web page www.avionexpress.lt. Air carrier’s “Conditions of Carriage” are incorporated in your contract with Air Åland. The Avion Express’ Conditions of Carriage contain important provisions affecting you and, as with these Air Åland Terms and Conditions, you should refer to them before booking your flight. In the event of cancelled flights or delays as regulated in Articles 7.4 and 7.5 of Avion Express´ Conditions of Carriage and which refers to Air Ålands Terms and Conditions, it is Air Åland which resumes the full responsibility in accordance with the obligations towards passengers as stated in mentioned Articles.

The Category:Airlines of Sweden is half full of such 'airlines' too. This new craze is mainly limited to Europe, although it does occur in other countries too, SkyValue in the US, Kulula.com in South Africa (the article will be changed in due course, as it isn't a subsidiary of Comair, but rather it is just another operating name of Comair...businesses can have dozens of operating names of course), BritishJET in Malta, etc, etc. These need some looking into for sure. --Россавиа Диалог 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we digress onto related problems does anybody want to agree to simplify the guidelines as I suggested to give us a clearer starting point? MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I'm fine with using your suggestion as a starting point. Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Russavia, interesting point. So instead of the existing "Destination is served by another airline for the subject airline using the subject airlines flight number", we now have "Destination is served by another airline for the subject airline using the other airlines flight number"... would X operating for Y be a clear way of phrasing this? So we'd have "Central Connect Airlines operating for Fly Lappeenranta" (3B flight marketed as Fly Lappeenranta) and "Avion Express operating for Air Åland" (N9 flight marketed as Air Aland). Jpatokal (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to agree with MilborneOne's suggested simplification as a starting point. SempreVolando (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now to the subject at hand, and seriously, one can yawn over international conventions, but if one is truly knowledgeable about civil aviation operations, they would know that international airline operations are governed by either the Warsaw Convention, or its replacement the Montreal Convention. Back in 1929 when the Warsaw Convention treaty was signed, airlines operated their own services. In 1961, in the era of the beginning of true intercontinental civil aviation, the Guadalajara Convention treaty (a supplement to the Warsaw Convention) was signed, and officially known as Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier...the reason for this aptly named Convention being signed wasn't carriage of passenger, but rather of cargo...but it now also covers codeshares and contract operations. The Warsaw Convention was replaced by the Montreal Convention which was signed in 1999, however, until each signatory state ratifies the 1999 convention, there are 2 conventions in force, depending on which states we are talking about. The Montreal Convention (Doc 9740) can be purchased from the ICAO, or you can view it for free here.
As Chapter V deals with this section, let this be the benchmark to work from, particularly as nearly all aspects of civil aviation (well at least those aspects which don't deal with the latest inflight entertainment on board the aircraft, formatting of flight numbers lists, or lists of accidents on airport pages which happened halfway across the world) are structured in such a way with this particular treaty in mind. Now, what I find more than mildly amusing, Huaiwei, is that you agree with what MilborneOne proposed above, yet you had something to say about my suggestion that people read up on these boring (yawn) conventions, when if you look at it:

  • Milborne - "Foo Airlines (Destination is served by subject airline using its own flight number and aircraft)" - this is obviously Qantas operated by Qantas
  • Milborne - "Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways (Destination is served by another airline for the subject airline using the subject airlines flight number)" - do you have any idea what this is in essence?

Perhaps Milborne can fill you in, but just a little hint for you, there are two versions, the first starts with Warsaw, the second starts with Montreal, and both end in Convention. Foo Airlines, well that is legally known as the contracting carrier, and Abc Airways is legally known as the actual carrier. And I mentioned this way way way way way up above (look just above where I and 2 other users were told we need a reality check), but of course, being the expert you have proclaimed yourself to be on many occasions, you already knew all this, right?
Now to address people who actually have a clue, MilborneOne, Jpatokal, SempreVolando, et al, in regards to what I presented above in regards to these 'virtual' airlines (and what hasn't been mentioned here, codeshares), as their operations are also covered by Chapter V of the Montreal Convention, and as both of us have already mentioned (and others as well, sorry people above), if the contracting carrier is not the actual carrier, then the format would be:

  • Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways

with the following exceptions/notations

  • Parent/subsidiary relationships are not to be included, unless Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways is fulfilled. For example, on the XYZ Airport article, we have Foo Airlines flying to XYZ as the contracting and actual carrier, and also operating to XYZ as the contracting carrier but the actual carrier is Abc Airways. If this is the case we will have:
  • Foo Airlines (Destinations)
    • Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways (Destinations)

However, there can occur the case where Foo Airlines does not fly to XYZ as both contracting and actual carrier, but only as the contracting carrier with Abc Airways as the actual carrier. If this is the case, we will have:

  • Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways (Destinations) [Note, that it is not necessary to have Foo Airlines above Foo Airines operated by Abc Airways]

Then we have airlines which don't have an AOC at all (those virtual airlines), with a format suggested by Jpatokal

  • Foo Airlines operated for Abc Airways (Destinations)

First and foremost we are not here to present marketing for any entity, so anything we present needs to be done so with references. Take for example AirAsia. The above would have the affect of separating AirAsia from Thai AirAsia, Indonesia AirAsia and AirAsia X in these lists (refer to 4 different contracts of carriage on airasia.com), separate Valuair from Jetstar Asia, separate Jetstar from Qantas, separate Aeroflot-Don from Aeroflot, etc, etc --Россавиа Диалог 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Egads. I'm not sure delving into the minutiae of contracts of carriage is the best way to start sorting our airlines. I'm starting to lean in MilborneOne's direction, which would mean just three possible cases:
  1. Airline A operating with its own flight number
  2. Airline B operating for airline A with A's flight number
  3. Airline B operating for airline A with B's flight number (and A does not have an IATA code)
These can be differentiated unambiguously based on flight numbers alone. Jpatokal (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Contracts of carriage is the best way, e.g. do you know of any cargo airlines which operate as Foo Airlines, but in fact should be Foo Airlines operated by Abc Airways? Emirates' cargo division is one where this is the case (at least I believe it is still the case). If you look at it, having "Foo Airlines operated for Abc Airways" as a way of dealing with these virtual-airlines, is done so by using the contracts of carriage in a logical way. It doesn't change anything that MilborneOne has proposed, except it is given people a way of determining why that proposition makes complete and utter sense, and added a way to deal with these airlines at the same time.--Россавиа Диалог 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly, User:Mawai put Dragonair and Silkair flights under their parent companies. I have reverted edits on Hong Kong International Airport. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Huaiwei and Russavia Show

Thread split by User:Jpatokal for clarity, as the discussion below has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of airline destination lists. Jpatokal (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Before someone starts another round of extensive effort to make an impression with all that reference to international laws and conventions (yawn), I am kinda curious that he allerges that Boeing sued SilkAir. Now I didn't know that! Could you source for this and add this into the article please? And in this lengthy essay, I am wondering just what solution he is trying to offer here. Are we now to make distinctions by Air Operator's Certificates? If those "phantom airlines" are indeed a major concern to him, I suppose SilkAir and DragonAir are similarly gulty, since only these two airlines are targeted? It is one thing about having a genuine concern over a certain aspect of these articles, bringing it up to this talkpage for general discussion in a professional manner, and then taking action only after concensus has been formed. It is another when someone has an issue with certain entities, take certain actions against the supposed "WikiAds" without realising the offending "WikiAds" were not exclusive to these entities, opens a pandoras box when this inconsistency was brought up for discussion by others, keeps silent while everyone else frets over this problem, then tries to drown everyone out with an irrelevant blob of lawspeak without directing making a suggestion to solve the problem he ignited. I think everyone is still waiting for a solution. Kindly get back on track and address the main issue. Thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My humblest apologies Huaiwei, for I am only another pretentious wannabe, not an aviation geek expert (what's the parent company of Singapore Airlines again? - by the way, did you like the comment from another editor that it is one of the best referenced facts on WP, yet only one person has a problem with it). Now I am trying to find a source for you in regards to the Boeing lawsuit against Silkair (which was dropped after some time), but unfortunately, to fulfill your by now long known requirements that when it concerns a member of the fabtabulous Singapore Airlines Group only information from the airline can be taken into account, I can't find anything on www.silkair.com.sg about the Boeing lawsuit, so I guess the lawsuit was never filed. STOP THE PRESSES! I also can't find anything on silkair.com.sg in regards to SilkAir Flight 185, so if Silkair doesn't acknowledge this accident, then it mustn't have happened, so we best put that up for AfD eh? Seriously, a search of google for boeing+silkair+lawsuit will bring up the information you require to add to the article Boeing drops lawsuit against SilkAir and pilot due to new evidence and will also bring up something else that isn't in the article, Singapore Airline sues Boeing. --Россавиа Диалог 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't move my comments. Huaiwei started this section straight off the bat assuming bad faith, even though he didn't read the existing guidelines (which the discussion so far has not changed one bit if you look at it), and is apparent that he has no idea of what he is talking about, and I have the right of reply - I have said my bit, and have moved on. --Россавиа Диалог 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • But, Russavia, I did find that info in an archive of SilkAir's website ;) ;) ;) [43] WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NWA SIN-MSP

I am getting sick and tired of seeing this but people continue to as "Minneapolis/St. Paul" and "Portland (OR)" as NWA destinations for Singapore even though Singapore is not added as a destination for either MSP or PDX. I thought we have removed those destinations not so long ago (since they stop at an NWA hub) or am I going crazy. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Singapore is not added as a destination for either MSP or PDX": Can you state a source for this please?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
According to NWA timetable, NW 19/20 MSP-NRT-SIN requires a plane change with the MSP-NRT leg a Boeing 747 and the NRT-SIN leg with a Airbus 332. As for the SIN-PDX flights, the flight goes thru an NWA hub (in this case is NRT), yes it does uses the Airbus 332 on both segments but you have to look at the arrival and departure gate. An IP (not mine) added it to the Singapore Airport page along with MSP. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That is because that person added the flight as it is a direct flight, regardless of a plane change.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:AIRPORTS states that it has to be the same aircraft. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:AIRPORTS does not define industry terminology.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, reliable, third party, verifiable sources define the terminology. WP:AIRPORTS defines how that terminology will be adapted across the project so as to have a consistent feel amongst all airport articles. --Россавиа Диалог 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Airport disambiguation

The template {{disambig}} typically is used to categorize the disambiguous page itself. Also, WikiProjects normally categorized Disambiguous pages via the disambiguous talk page. Category:Disambig-Class aviation pages and Category:Disambig-Class airport pages contains such talk page categorization. However, WikiProject Airports and/or WikiProject Aviation also categorizes the disambiguous page itself. See Category:Airport disambiguation. Is there really a need to segment Airport disambiguous pages from Category:Disambiguation? If not, please consider changing {{Airport disambig}} to {{disambig}} on the so tagged disambiguous pages. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a need for a separate airport disambiguation template. The wording of {{disambig}} reads fine on airport disambiguation pages, see Ryan Field for an example. -Canglesea (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines focus cities

I think we need to have an objective definition for this, because Southwest technically does not make any distinction between its stations, but we have revert wars going on over what airports are and are not "focus cities" for Southwest. Any suggestions? FCYTravis (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken from the Southwest Airlines talk page: "The top-10 list was implemented because Southwest has so many large operations that its rediculous to list all of them for focus cities, so to keep things simple, we have just listed destinations from Southwest's website's top ten chart." For those who don't know, Denver and Nashville are the two cities that have been of discussion the past few hours. The real question is, bottom line, where we draw the line for Southwest's focus cities. If we keep adding more and more, pretty soon we're going to have about 60 of Southwest's 64 destinations in that little infobox. Sox23 04:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
100 daily flights = focus city, maybe? I realize that's pretty arbitrary, but at some level all of this is pretty arbitrary, and if we don't have some line... all or none of WN's cities can be "focus cities." FCYTravis (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much WN's Top Ten destination chart; SAN is number 10 at 103 daily departures. The only upcoming cities I can see creeping up to the 100 daily flights are BNA and DEN, and that just leaves us in the same situation we are in right now...Sox23 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Destination lists as a table?

Apologies if this has come up before, as I usually don't spend much time over here on the Airports project and have mostly stuck to the Airlines project (though of course I do update airport articles too). But I noticed that someone had changed the destination list on San Diego International Airport to be in a table [44] and after it was reverted, that editor commented that it was copied from the style used by the Perth Airport. I have to admit, I like the table style so I wanted so see if there were thoughts about moving to it. Currently, the only thing that was lost from the SAN article was the notation of the gate numbers in each terminal, and those could be re-added via prose. Another possibility, for airports where airlines have exclusive (or near exclusive) gate assignments, would be a fourth column indicating which gates airlines use. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. One big plus is that it is sorted by airline. I'm not sure that losing the gate numbers is all that bad. Maybe a summary table to include this information if we feel that it is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually prefer the table list since it reduces the space of the article and another plus is that the airlines are sort alphabetically. I actually made an example for MNL, click this. pikdig (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
For layout, I think having the terminals as the second column would be the better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, but the text is way too small as-is on that table (probably a simple fix) and I don't like that the Express carriers aren't clearly visually differentiated from their parent airlines, as they are currently by the indent. FCYTravis (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Perth Airport now. I think a few minor changes to increase the size of the text and reduce the table size fix your concern and improve the layout. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it might make sense to have this open as collapsed so that readers who are not interested in this level of detail can more quickly scroll past the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I made with the data of MNL:

pikdig (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a version reformatted to move the terminal column. Leaving it out on the right make the readability more difficult. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks good, but why make the width 95? pikdig (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it, but a couple of thoughts. The airline column gets pushed pretty narrow, because there are so many destinations. I suggest adding {{nowrap}} around the airline names so that they don't wrap and make the width more reasonable. I also like it with the terminal on the left. The "Show" link is in the Terminal column; any way to push that all the way to the right? Also, the column widths are different when the table is shown and hidden and it's a bit disconcerting. Finally, we need a better way to deal with the affiliate carriers. Philippine Airlines versus PAL Express don't line up well, and Continental Airlines versus Continental Micronesia and Japan Airlines versus JALways should be clearer. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, I have to click show twice to get it to work with firefox and it does move around. This is a presentation issue. Yes, the way the affiliated carriers line up leaves something to be desired. This probably needs to be subtables. However doing this could make coding the entries difficult for a large percentage of editors. I adjusted the width of the airline column some. How does that look. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Made some changes, but it would make the table unsortable. pikdig (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better if its sortable, since it can be useful to have the entries sorted by either terminal (if a reader wants to see who is in a particular terminal) or by airline (if a reader wants to see where a particular airline is). I think for the affiliated carriers, it ought to work to give each its own line, since in some cases they're in separate terminals anyway. At PHL, for example, mainline US Airways is in Terminals A, B, and C, US Airways Express flights operated by Republic are in Terminals B and C, and all other US Airways Express flights are in Terminal F. I only have the click "show" twice problem with PikDig's table, and only in Firefox, not in Safari (using a Mac). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about now, is it any way better? Also made one for PHL. pikdig (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
All of the airlines need to be in the airline column and not under destinations. That probably means a subtable of some kind. Not sure how I feel about listing the multiple terminals together since it does not sort well. Maybe we need to go back to the see other terminal entry in the destinations column. Also the terminals should be right justified as in my last example for readability. Also we need to loose the italics for destinations. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that I don't like the tables, but I think that the current format is a whole lot easier to see and read than the proposed table format...Sox23 22:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One advantage of the table format is sortability. If I want to find out what terminal Northwest Airlines is in at PHL, I have to look through each terminal section to find them. With a table, I can sort by airline and find Northwest in alphabetical order. I think i actually liked it better with the smaller font, but that could be a display issue and as a Safari/Mac user things look a bit different than the majority of readers who are probably using Windows. I'm not convinced that we need the tables to be hidden actually. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah definitely if we switch to this, the tables should not be hidden...Sox23 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example, using PHL, of what I had in mind. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Tennessee Airports

Hey guys, I've started adding entries for the airports in Tennessee, as listed at List of airports in Tennessee. For an effective template, check out Perry County Airport or McMinn County Airport. Images are coming from the Tennessee DOT Aeronautics Division website at http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/aeronautics/airports/iii.htm. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)