Talk:Wagga Wagga Airport

Virgin Blue non-stop flight record

Interesting to find a story while looking for some sources Virgin Blue jet claims non-stop flight record. Could add it to the article but we would need full access to the article. Bidgee (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I wish to question Bidgee why the images you have captured dserve more of a place on the Wagga Airport page than mine do? The reasoning provided in your edits of the page was that it didn't add to the page and images could be found on Commons. Indeed, it could be said that your images do not add to the page and can ALSO be found on Commons. What is your reasoning? Is there any? Tuddy (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While your images have a large resolution the quality is low and some images are just blurred. The interior photos are poor and really doesn't add to the article. The images currently in the article matches the content. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't add to the article? they show the interior of the terminal and Regional Express' facilities at the airport. They aren't blurred. They are as clear as is necessary. They are of high quality, and the addition and removal of images is purely based on your subjectivism, as opposed to the quality they add to the article (blurry or not, any images added to the article add to the quality of it, as they allow the reader to gain further insight into what the terminal looks like etc.) Tuddy (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on the contribution not the editor! Hardly high quality and some are in fact blurred, having high resolution camera images doesn't mean it is high quality. Nothing is stated about the interior of the terminal (in the article not the caption) so the photos do not show what is stated in the article. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add original research as the content you added with the cited source didn't cite all the the content, adding content that has nothing to do with the airport (re Virgin Blue's aircraft), Virgin Blue did stay they were looking at Wagga but nothing happened (doesn't need any thing in the article about it as they never had a passenger service to Wagga), moving content were it doesn't belong and readding the gallery (against what WP:IG states, which is WP:NOTGALLERY [Wiki policy!]). Bidgee (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The provided article, WP:IG states that images in galleries should "add to the reader's understanding of the subject", as the gallery provided does in providing images of an array of aspects of the terminal and the grounds. It is regrettable that neither Wagga Wagga City Council nor Virgin Blue are seen as reliable sources. The Virgin Blue article states that the new aircraft will be "flying to new regional destinations". Given the previously stated intentions of flying to Wagga in the other sourced article, the referencing to Virgin Blue is thus relevant. The report provides detail of the layout of the terminal to a significant extent, and so as not to plagiarise, the details provided within have been paraphrased. Regional Express is a major part of Wagga Airport's commercial offerings (operates most flights etc.), and thus the AAPA has a place at the top of the article. Tuddy (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even look at WP:NOTGALLERY? It is just now a collection of images which have stupidly has long captions based on OR. The terminal section is based mostly on OR. Regional Express Airlines doesn't own AAPA, Regional Express Holdings does. What does VB's new aircraft have to do with the article? Nothing as it has not stated that it will fly to Wagga Wagga. This article is now a mess. Bidgee (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not a mess. It has merely been added to with factual information. The information on the terminal is not OR. Whilst it is from personal experience, it is also information containted in the Wagga Airport Master Plan. The long captions are there to provide as much detail as possible to the viewer so that they know what they are looking at. OK, so would you like a minor edit of the Regional Express Airlines/Regional Express Holdings conflict, despite Regional Express Airlines being the cited business on previous edits of the page? True, Virgin Blue hasn't stated it WILL fly to Wagga, however it has stated that it is looking to do so, thus making it relevant. I am unsure as to why you are trying to fuel this edit war. I am adding relevant and sourced information, as well as images relevant to the page which add to the page's integrity. Tuddy (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a mess! Terminal information is largely OR except the location of it and the possible security measures in the future. Looking to do so is not a passenger service, there never has serviced the airport and you adding the new aircraft is clear OR. Takes two to tango, not one. Bidgee (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Weighing in, any assertion that DJ is going to have Skywest operate ATRs to WGA is WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:SYNTH. Second, the images are poorly composed. As Bidgee has pointed out one is blurred and isn't even straight. Then there is an image of a concrete patio without a bag to be seen; a desk with some car rental company signs; and some seats with the check-in counters in the background. There are already enough images of aircraft (I actually think the image of the Q400 could go); I am also of the opinion that the image of the Rex engineering base could be included, perhaps instead of the Q400 image. BTW you are both violating WP:3RR. YSSYguy (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your third party opinion. Main reason there is a Q400 photo is that QantasLink uses both Q300/400s for the WGA - SYD route but I don't have an issue if it is removed. Bidgee (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so the Virgin Blue information on future services needn't be necessary, however it is relevant that they have looked at services to the airport, as stated in the article found in The Australian provided. This isn't a violation of any policy, as it has happened. Terminal information needn't only be based on the Master Plan, yet also images provided which illustrate the description given. This image is at an angle so as to gain a wider perspective of the terminal. Yes it is slightly blurred, yet gives viewers an image of the interior of the terminal. It is ludicrous to have a page on an airport and its terminal without and image of the interior of said terminal. There are three perfectly usable images of the terminal interior (although one is claimed to be blurry). I agree the Regional Express base should be used, although believe the Q400 image to be more relevant and of higher quality, given most Wagga QantasLink services are now operated by Q400 aircraft. Tuddy (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wagga was like many other regional airports when Virgin Blue was looking to expand its routes, it never happened and may or may not in the future but that is crystal balling. Sorry but the cited source doesn't support most of the terminal content, using the images is pure OR and its not "ludicrous" by not having interior photographs and content of the airport terminal(s), it is hardly like Sydney, Canberra or even Melbourne for example. Blurry photographs adds nothing, if you want to make it like a tourist guide head over to Wikitravel. Re-adding content when it has been rejected by more then one editor is disruptive, please stop it! Bidgee (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote above? I accept the Virgin Blue thing, and as such in my most recent edit, omitted it from the page. Interior photographs add to the integrity of the page. We are not debating whether the page should exist or not when comparing it to Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne airports, we are looking at adding information to the page. If you were to take a look at Bathurst Airport, it has a significant amount of information on an array of facets of the airport, yet because it is a regional airport, should the view be taken that this information is unnecessary? What was rejected by YSSYGuy was the Q400 photo (I prefer this to the Q300 and see it is more relevant I must say..but moving on), the baggage claim area (removed in most recent edit), the Virgin Blue info (removed in most recent edit), as well as the two terminal images. I am of the opinion that at least one of the terminal images should remain. He also stated his belief that the image of REX's engineering base should be maintained, however it appears that this has been disregarded. Tuddy (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was replying about what you had stated about VB looking at Wagga, not the lastest about the "new aircraft". Bathurst Airport (which needs a clean-up [some of its content belongs elsewhere and not on Wiki], but its interior image is far better then the interior of Wagga) is WP:OSE, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne ect has more then one terminal, unlike most other regional airports Broome which has one. YSSYguy stated could not should. Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So therefore it is your argument that less is better than more? Wikipedia is not a place where as much information relevant to a topic should be placed in order to further the learning of the populus? Is it not a good thing to have as much possible information on a topic in one place? The quoted link is not a rule, but an essay composed by some members of the Wikipedia community. Thus, Bathurst Airport shouldn't be touched. It's fine as it is. In relation to Wagga Airport, there are details and images which I have previously added which would add to the integrity of the article. It is indeed a shame that some see Wikipedia as a place where only limited information should be placed and only images by one photographer displayed. I sincerely hope that this isn't the way of Wikipedia's future. Tuddy (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, now that's more like it. Looking good Bidgee, looking good. Tuddy (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just rewritten the article some what. Needs more information but there isn't a lot of reliable sources online which will require me to read archived newspapers at CSU Regional Archives. Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You've changed the tune of your song it seems-goodwill from the royal wedding? I joke, I joke. Agreed, there isn't a whole lot of stuff on the internet, so I really used what I could find. If I lived anywhere near CSU or had the time to access archives when I was in Wagga, I would offer assistance, yet I feel that I must now pass the baton on to your good self. If I snap pictures next time I'm down there, I'll be sure to take a tripod, lighting and get everyone to freeze for a moment like a pose in order to get a good picture. Cheers Tuddy (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

notability

Why is this topic notable enough to warrant a separate article? Wouldn't it suffice to merge it into a section of the article on Wagga? (It may help to refer to WP:N.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

a bit of a silly comment! The article is clearly notable in its current state, it would be impossible to merge the article. In the coming months the history will be corrected and improved (as Wagga Wagga Municipal Council's aerodrome was located in two locations, west of Wagga Wagga and to the east of Wagga Wagga [near Gumly Gumly], the site of the current airport was in fact established in 1939/1940 as an airfield for the RAAF [RAAF Station Forest Hill] for flight training) but a lot of research of newspapers, documents and books is needed. Problem is that I have limited time to do the research. Bidgee (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

indeed a silly comment. i believe the airport warrants a page in its entirity. there are many more pages out there on wikipedia which could be dropped before Wagga Airport's. In short, no it would not suffice to merge it into the wagga article. you may wish to refer to the discussion i had wit bidgee above about spreading as much information as possible to the populus. also, it fulfils an array of projects. so yehh..this page is here to stay. Tuddy (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but why do you think this topic is notable? Is it because you think every semi-rural airfield on the planet is automatically inherently-notable? I've read the lead of the article, and it certainly doesn't seem to explain what else is notable about the topic - unless Forest Hill RAAF base is so exceptionally notable that by extension everything that is "located adjacent" to it is potentially of interest around the world. I appreciate you both for replying, but neither the statement that Bidgee intends to add more content to this article, nor the statement that Tuddy thinks there currently exist less worthy articles, address the issue of this topic possibly being just run-of-the-mill. Do you know of anything out-of-the-ordinary about this airport? (And is it noteworthy in its own right, or only in relation to Wagga?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes me wonder this article is targeted when there are far less notable and poorly sourced articles on en Wiki. Wagga Wagga Airport may not be as significant as Sydney Airport but it is still notable. Wagga Wagga Airport (as a military and civilian airfield) has played a role in the RAAF and also cloud seeding back in the 1950/60s. Pity you're wikilawyering with essays. Bidgee (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would let that pass without comment because you did it yourself first further above, anyway I figured essays are helpful since I'm trying to communicate an issue with you (I myself am not presently trying to delete this article). But seriously, you keep criticising me for asking the question (saying "silly" and repeating that worse stuff exists - by the way, I know that may be true, but it just so happens that I have encountered this page and not some other, so this is where I'm going to start, and somebody else may happen to start somewhere else); I thought my question was something you should have welcomed answering. Surely everyone benefits (including you) if the main stewards of an article articulate in words exactly what it is about the topic that makes it notable? For example, if there really is something not run-of-the-mill about this particular airport, we should put it in the lead so that every reader (not just locals) can immediately understand why this topic is interesting. With all respect, I don't think anything that you've articulated so far is a reason for this airport to be individually noteable. This is partly why I asked whether or not you think all items in the category of airfields are "inherently notable" (and in case you just missed what I meant by that the first time, there's an essay..)? Another question would be: who do you think this article is of interest to (is it only to people who already are going to use this airport)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So the long and short of it Cesiumfrog is that you are trying to find something to do and you want to see this as a venting spot. Ok, you can vent. That's fine. Wagga Wagga Airport is one of the largest airports in the state. You question why it is notable and/or out of the ordinary. Well I ask you, what makes New York City notable or out of the ordinary? It's just that-it's New York City and for that reason it is notable. Of whom is such a page of interest to? What use is the page on any town for that matter? It provides a base of information that people who are in any way interested in the airport, town or otherwise can gain information. I know that personally if I'm looking at going somewhere, I will look at the airlines serving the destination I'm intending on visiting and work back from there. I ask you-what's not run-of-the-mill about Adelaide Airport? Just like Wagga, it has a terminal, two runways and is primarily served by two airlines. Sure it's bigger, yet in no way is it more notable. Don't flood this page with such silliness, inconsiderate statements and provide very little evidence to suggest a deletion of a page is necessary. If you want to create thunder, then how about you start by looking at Lebanon_State_Airport. It certainly doesn't have 9 large commercial services per day. Yet then again, by being the airport of Lebanon (in Oregon), does that not make it notable, if perhaps only for the people of Lebanon, still notable? Tuddy (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I endeavour to assume good faith.

For future reference, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/Notability: An airport which currently has scheduled airline passenger service is notable.

Personally, I disagree with that policy, and think it would be better if articles on topics like this were merged (not deleted!) into parent articles about the towns they serve. Ditto for such articles as Wagga City Council, I think the content would be more useful as a section of the Wagga article than standing alone. This is because many people would read the Wagga article, but a separate article like Wagga airport is really only going to be used by people involved with it in real life (and that should not be the role of an encyclopedia entry, and would more appropriately belong at wikitravel or an official/community website). Ditto your LSA stub. As for NYC (and to a lesser extent, Adelaide), it is obviously more notable than Wagga and therefore warrants more content, so I would not see it inappropriate to break out sections of NYC content (such as its airport) into sub-articles linked from the main article. But the more important thing is taking a consistent approach (deferring to the wikiproject's current advice). FYI (since you asked), it is accepted that populated places (NYC, Wagga, etc) are inherently notable (even if they were also run of the mill). Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, yet it needn't mean that anyone agrees with it. Given you like pulling out all the formalities, this is Wikipedia policy you would be going against and thus would not be permitted. What you're trying to do is reduce the number of pages, and in doing so reduce the amount of information supplied to the populus (it would be ludicrous to have half the Wagga page on its airport!) Does the public not have the right to as much information on a topic is possible? It would be a big and sad mistake to delete such a page as this that Bidgee has worked so hard on to build up. Tuddy (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional Thoughts

1)The Wagga Wagga airport featured as a full page case study in a 2009 or 10 (I honestly don't recall) federal government white paper. This is a significant accolade for a regional airport. 2) The ILS is a CAT 1 built as an Alliance between WWCC, REX and ASA. It is one of only four privately built ILSs in Australia. Further, it was built in record time for an ILS. 3) Taxiway C was widened in 2010 to accommodate the Q400 this was because the Q400 wheel base is a C or D ( I can't recall off the top of my head) as opposed to the B types that were using it before. 4) the re-sheeting in 2010 also strengthened the pavements PCN significantly (an ERSA would have the new number)

Just some interesting stuff you may or may not want to include in future revisions.

Additional Thoughts

1)The Wagga Wagga airport featured as a full page case study in a 2009 or 10 (I honestly don't recall) federal government white paper. This is a significant accolade for a regional airport. 2) The ILS is a CAT 1 built as an Alliance between WWCC, REX and ASA. It is one of only four privately built ILSs in Australia. Further, it was built in record time for an ILS. 3) Taxiway C was widened in 2010 to accommodate the Q400 this was because the Q400 wheel base is a C or D ( I can't recall off the top of my head) as opposed to the B types that were using it before. 4) the re-sheeting in 2010 also strengthened the pavements PCN significantly (an ERSA would have the new number)

Just some interesting stuff you may or may not want to include in future revisions.

Additional Thoughts

1)The Wagga Wagga airport featured as a full page case study in a 2009 or 10 (I honestly don't recall) federal government white paper. This is a significant accolade for a regional airport. 2) The ILS is a CAT 1 built as an Alliance between WWCC, REX and ASA. It is one of only four privately built ILSs in Australia. Further, it was built in record time for an ILS. 3) Taxiway C was widened in 2010 to accommodate the Q400 this was because the Q400 wheel base is a C or D ( I can't recall off the top of my head) as opposed to the B types that were using it before. 4) the re-sheeting in 2010 also strengthened the pavements PCN significantly (an ERSA would have the new number)

Just some interesting stuff you may or may not want to include in future revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.81.14 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)