Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Aviation portal
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
 This page is supported by the airline project.

Archives

1. July 2005 - November 2006
2. November 2006 - December 2007
3. December 2007 - July 2008
4. July 2008 - March 2010
5. March 2010 - November 2010

Codes (2005)
Destinations (2005-2009)
Wrightflyer thumb.jpg
Aviation
WikiProject
General information

Contents

[edit] Iranian Airlines

This airlines name was reverted to Saha Airlines before their A300 even took off in the new name and livery, suggest change article title. 119.155.44.250 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Check this and read summary under pic [1]. 116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not enough evidence to support moving the Saha Airlines article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The Flight Internationalo World Airlines 2011 lists it as Saha Airlines! MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet no change. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
According to an expert source on Iran aviation, Saha and Iranian Airlines were two different companies, some group decided to take over Saha A300's and start a new airline called Iranian, but they were eventually stopped from the venture, Saha continued operations with its other aircraft. 119.155.50.61 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Table format for destinations lists

Hello everyone. I recently reverted the Alitalia destinations article to the list format from the newly instated table format, and was greeted (after ten days or so) with a flurry of angry editors saying I am being unconstructive and should use the sandbox (!). I had given quite a few reasons for this change however, and I believe the table format is quite a nuiscance to the readability of the article:

  • The table drastically increases the amount of characters unnecessarily and becomes less accessible and more confusing to edit.
  • The terminated destinations (which are very abundant) and Charter destinations (which have been for no reason excluded in the table format) should be clearly separated and as such in separate lists. This is much easier with the list format.
  • The IATA and ICAO codes aren't necessary, if you want you can find it by clicking on the link to the airport page.
  • The Flags aren't necessary, they are just useless fluff which again can be found by clicking on the link to the country article.
  • The Air One (a subsidiary) flights and Hubs/Seasonal/future/Focus airports are more clearly outlined in the list format.
  • The regions and continents, to be able to browse the destinations more easily, are only in the list format.
  • The list needs to be in alphabetical order by country and not city, again so that the destinations are better grouped.
  • For the same reason again, countries should be in bold.
  • If several airports are served within a city, the city itself only needs to be listed once.
  • Tables should in general only be used where there are digits (or similar data) which need to be attributed to a certain column and row, otherwise I don't see the point.

Now, I believe it was decided that having the table or list format is A CHOICE and in this case I see the list format as far more useful, so why have I been reverted on the basis of having violated a rule ("you can't go from the table to the list format")? Thanks for any help - Speed74 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here my reasons go: Dragonair destinations and Braathens destinations reached FA status, and both are in table formats. Please also read a comment posted by Arsenikk above regarding this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I am not terribly interested in wether Dragonair destinations reached featured status, what I am saying is that the table is confusing continents, terminated/seasonal/hub/cargo/charter/air one flights, and is providing unnecessary information as well as making the article more complicated to edit. We are talking about a different article than Dragonair destinations here. Speed74 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about improving Wikipedia, and making an article reaching GA or FA status is actually a step forward. Irrespective of my opinion regarding reviewing processes, the fact that an article has GA or FA status shows that it has been improved by all the community to the extent that its contents has been praised as encyclopedic. It is not only a matter of the information it contains, but also the way it is presented, and a general disadvantage of list formats is that sortings (be it by country, by city, by airport, etc.) are not available at all.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
While tables may look nicer than lists and are easier to sort to your own liking, they are harder to edit than a list. This is especially hard when it comes to color coding (I still haven't figured out how to change colors of cells).
Also, I feel that there are a few things wrong with the info displayed in tables. I think that the sorting should be changed to increase commonality with the list format. It should go like this: country, then state/province (not always necessary), then city, and then airport. This is how the list format is sorted; why not do it with the table format as well? Also, I thought flags were discouraged in destination lists; if so, why are we putting them in the tables? Also, do we really need to list the IATA and ICAO codes in the table? These are also not listed in the list format and probably shouldn't be listed in the table either. --Compdude123 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above - while the table may be (slightly) more visually appealing, it would be better to list destinations by country, and I also find that mixing terminated destinations in is a bad idea - creating several tables or changing the order will be very complicated by nature of the table formatting, and thus the list format is more managable. Also, I'd like to ask what extra practical benefit the table brings - in Dragonair you have the start and end times of terminated destinations, which is all very nice, but apart from that you are simply putting things into columns intitled "country", "city" and "airport", which are quite self-explanatory in the list format to be honest. Speed74 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
See my posted suggestions below in topic New and improved destination table format. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Are flags optional in table list? it was given FL status with flas and everything, an editor just removed them from one article without consent form others, I think its vandalism. 116.71.7.190 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Flags aren't optional; they are NOT allowed, yet people still put them in the tables. Flags are totally pointless, and their removal does not constitute as vandalism. See this policy. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Then why has table format been approved with flags? to me they seem to add much needed colour to the rather bland table, but their repetition is annoying, but flags do not suite the text list at all.116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The above link provided by Compdude123 is not a policy, but project's guidelines. It also says that flags are discouraged in word-based formats, not in table formats.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it isn't a policy as you say, well then why do you link to a "policy" on the same page here and here? —Compdude123 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't me but JetBlast. Please pay attention in the future when blaming me for actions taken by others.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you two have similar user names and sometimes I get you confused. That was indeed JetBlast, and I apologize for the false accusation here. Probably not the first time others have gotten you two confused, but I will make sure this will be the last time such confusion comes from me. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] New and improved Destination table format

Contrary to the argument on merger with main article because list is too long, destinations can be merged into main airline article with this format, also has no flags, no codes, no colour bars, plain and simple, yet all of that stuff including sub-regions can be added if desired. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

another version


Wow!! This is a MUCH better table destination format than what was previously used in airline articles. Thanks for taking the time to do this. We need to pursue changing the destination list format. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not wild about it. You can't sort the columns, because they're grouped by continent. Grouping by continent leads to some potential issues, like Turkey and Russia noted below. I still like the table version we previously developed for Virgin America destinations, though I could do without the flags in the country column, and would be fine with omitting the IATA and ICAO code columns entirely. Keeping the begin and end dates is nice, but is much easier for new airlines were we can actually source dates; for airlines where that would be too difficult those can be omitted as well. Making it collapsable is fine if it's going to be merged back into the main article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yea, no improvement over the example at Virgin America destinations. I agree with Hawaiian717 about the need to drop the flags and I don't like the end of service listed as 'present', but not sure what options would be better. But in the end, those need to be a separate discussion. For the topic here, both of the above proposals remove useful information and function and don't seem to add anything that makes up for the information lost. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the two were done by me, yes the are for main airline article and thats where they were located before being removed, BTW just saw Virgin America table and it looks confusing and distorted, also it does not need its own page as the number of destinations is so few they can easily be accomodated in main airline article without even a table, compare that to the long lists of Air France destinations or Qatar Airways destinations, so soothing on the eyes. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that moving Virgin America's destinations to its own article is unnecessary, but someone else decided it was last month and that's not up for debate right now. Perhaps if you tell us what you think about it makes it confusing and distorted, we can work to improve it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I just proposed moving the Virgin America destinations article back into Virgin America. Feel free to comment if you wish. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Go check now Virgin America destinations and Virgin America destinations section, just to show how nicer both look, revert edits if you like. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a fan of either of the above examples as it isn't sortable, and I personally don't think continents are necessary (as it just leads to edit wars over country politics). Don't think the codeshare notes are notable though. Sb617 (Talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Whats there to sort when its all sorted out for you? the continents can be removed, terminated destinations can be added, using colour keys to mark them and new destinations, hubs, cargo stations etc. if you're missing that stuff, I find the Aeroflot one FL standard. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The table is sorted alphabetically by city name. But making the table sortable makes things more useful for the reader. For example, they can see the order that new destinations were added by sorting on start date. Or if the reader wants to see what destinations in a particular country or state an airline serves, they can sort by those columns. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we could make those above tables sortable and get rid of the continents listing. Having continents here may cause some dispute especially for countries that are in more than one continent (i.e. Russia is both in Asia and Europe). See my comment in the Turkey destinations section immediately above this one. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not so much the second one which is already too cluttered, but the first list type looks excellent, back to the basics, well sorted, easy to find destinations within continents and by country name. Terminated destinations, which are of lesser interest to be honest, even only just includable, would go in a separate more simple list without links. Then for hubs or otherwise notable destinations it can be mentioned after the airport name (eg Schiphol Airport Hub). As long as we don't start mixing terminated and charter destinations in again, that list type looks far better than the current table format and also more useful than the original list format. As for sortability, er, come on, what is the reader going to do, sort by airport name? And what use would that be?? With the information given limited to Country, city and airport name (as it should be), there is no need to sort by anything other than country. I also see this list format as far easier to edit than the current table format. Speed74 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have modified Horizon Air destinations to an AWESOME-looking format based on the feedback on those two tables above. It may not have pretty colors, but who cares? It may not have flags, but who cares? (Flags are not supposed to be in destination lists anyway) And it may not look like the FL articles List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations, but who cares? (Whether a list deserves FL-status is the opinion of one editor, not 10 editors.) And this new format is sortable; by default, country (don't put continents in any destination table; that creates problems), then state/province, then city, and finally airport. No unnecessary IATA/ICAO codes, either. (YAY!) And it's easy to edit, with no complicated color-coding to wade thru. Anyway, please comment on your thoughts on this new destination list. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I like it. One thing I would suggest is that, for new airlines going forward, we include start/end date columns like on Virgin America's list. I recognize that this will be difficult if not impossible to figure out for most established airlines, but why not provide it for new airlines where we can? A second suggestion would be to make the table collapsable when it's included on the main airline article rather than in a separate destinations article, especially if we move towards merging most of the destination articles back into the main one. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes simple is good, but support Hawaiian717s comments on adding dates if we can which makes it all more encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know; I don't have start/end dates. I could add start dates and peruse the page history for when people deleted terminated destinations (that's something that shouldn't be done; hopefully people will read my note) and maybe re-add some of the terminated destinations. I know of a website that will tell me when Horizon began serving certain destinations; I can use that when I add the destinations. But I'm not sure how to make the table collapsible, but that's not a big deal. Thanks for the advice, Compdude123 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
Compdude, the Horizon table is wrapping for me which I find annoying, also reference can be shortened to 'Ref' or 'Refs', I also dont think its necessary to list provinces or states of countries the airline does not belong to, so only US states to be included, if you would abbreviate airport names by dropping International, Municipal, Regional it would help in ending the wrapping issue, I have adjusted my resolution but its still wrapping, maybe removing the unecessary photos would be better, do we need so many photos? even in the FL Dragonair and Braathens lists they are totally unecessary. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why images of airplanes are needed in a destinations article at all. Shortening Ref or Refs is fine with me. I'm not sure how I feel about dropping "International", etc from the airport name. We'd definitely still need it if there are any cases where two airports have the same name but still use it to distinguish. It would also seem redundant in many cases where the airport name is the same as the city name, such as Los Angeles. I also don't think we can drop the state/province since we would still need it to distinguish between places like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
For states I meant they should only be used for the country the airline belongs to in this case USA, not Canada, not Mexico, anyways here is a short samply list made to show what it would be like, with everything included. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am currently working on adding the start/end dates. @116.71.31.207, I don't like your use of the rowspan thing, because then it isn't sortable. With the start/end dates in the table, what if you wanted to sort by the date the service started? You can't do that in your version of the table. Also, I deleted the unnecessary pics of the airplanes down the right-hand side; they take up space and don't add anything to the article. And they make the table look bad at lower resolutions (i.e, 1024x768). —Compdude123 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Compdude123 about the rowspan thing. I'd be all for it if we didn't have sortable tables on Wikipedia. As far as states go, although it isn't currently the case, I could see a Canadian airline serving both Portlands, thus you would need the state column for a Canadian airline. And I think it would just look weird to have a bunch of rows with a blank state column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
One additional thought: Is it necessary to include "(Terminated)" after the airport name if the start and end date columns are present? I think if an end date is included, it's obvious that it's a terminated destination. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tables in main article destinations, new issue

Jetstreamer is now going table happy and is starting to do tables in main airline articles having only few destinations see Eritrean Airlines, he is also using a different table style format not approved by wiki, I think there is no need for tables in main article lists, its not cohesive with layout of article. If one of wikipedia own is going to flout rules and go unilateral what should outsiders care about? 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a new issue. Rather, you're new to the project and it seems you're decided to criticise every effort made by others in improving and supporting the project in particular, and Wikipedia in general. Actually, all you do from different IPs (despite there's a login account of yours) is to makeup the information introduced by others who really cares about the project (this and this edits are just recent examples). I invite you to take a survey on different airline articles (Kras Air for instance) in order to figure yourself out that I did not recently introduced the table of destinations. Incidentally, the format for the table of destinations in Kras Air is exactly the same you proposed some days ago. I believe you have to refrain yourself over your contradictory behavior here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there is no concensus on tables in main article destinations, Yes I had suggested that table layout but for seprate article not main article and it wasnt approved in any case. I myself have reverted all tables created in main article pages including those done by me, like I said it seems like whenever some people are bored they start some new screwup of articles to keep them busy. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the contributions you made to the articles you're mentioning I screwed up, and perhaps we can continue arguing. Besides that, read this if you know the meaning of the word "improve".--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK first of all let me inform other editors here of your petty reversion of my edits because I pointed out your follies:

1. At Eritrean airlines I deleted an unecessary paragraph about frequencies and routing and that too in the destinations section, both totally against wiki rules, this guy reverted it only to get back at me, in summary he posted unexplained removal of content, when in my summary I clearly mentioned as the information being irrelevant, however I forgot to add its also against wiki rules to add these unecessary tid bits of type of aircraft, frequency and routing, since its NOT a travel guide.

2. At Turkish airlines I had put up a colour keyed sortable bar on top, the reason being for unknown reason it shrinks the table content text size by some amount giving a better look, see Air France destinations, this guy reverted the edit telling me it lacks the sorting arrows, so today I modified it to include sorting arrows and yet he has undone my edit calling it totally irrelevant.

If the above arent petty get back at you actions and taking ownership of an article, then I dont know what is.

Now about your comment above, I do not see how uglifying an article and losing its cohesiveness to the rest is called improving it, you did screw up my much improved Turkish Airlines destinations list which I brought in line with the better ones i.e Air France destinations minus all those unecessary icons, now that was improvement, removing uneeded icons, photos etc. making it look better than before. 116.71.15.152 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused again. There are not such rules you mention. The only rules here in Wikipedia are these ones. I'm comitted to improving Wikipedia in many ways (the prooof is that three articles I worked on has been promoted to GA status). On the other hand, I don't see your commitment with clearity, but nevertheless can guess it, starting with the fact that all you do is made anonimously despite many editors have discouraged you to do so in your talk page. You cannot come and ask any other editors to follow rules or guidelines when we don't even know who you are.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Confused about what? the destinations section is supposed to discuss frequency and routings like on a travel guide, does anyone looking up an encyclopedia care to know the latest routing and frequency changes on a route? and care to explain the screw up of Turkish Airlines destinations twice, todays one was so uncalled for, there was absolutely no reason to revert it. The rest of what you are saying is not of concern to me, I just know suddenly you have discovered the joys of editing airline articles and gone trigger happy as they say. 116.71.23.212 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Another confusion of yours, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines you're asking others to follow.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@116.71.xx.xxx, Read the following carefully: If you want to be able to succeed in communicating to other WP users (and other people in your life, too) what your views are, read these useful tips: 1) Don't contradict yourself by saying one thing and then saying something totally opposite later, and 2) Before you hit the save button, read your comment to see if it makes sense and that it's free of spelling and grammatical errors. And make sure that the comment that is on your screen matches the one that originated in your head. Finally make sure your comment is worth reading by others. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh gee wow, like I care. 116.71.19.120 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You should care, because now you have used one of the modes of persuasion against you. From now on, any of your arguments on this particular WikiProject will now be lacking in ethos appeal (i.e. credibility, essentially the ability to persuade us that your ideas are worth believing). That's why I posted the above comment. Anyway, time for me to start working on expanding history sections! —Compdude123 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ironic, thats what I think of you and jetstreamer, over enthusiatic kids new to wiki editing, you in particular come across as so childish I have never taken your posts seriously, infact I find the three of us very similar in attitude, I doubt any one takes any of our views into consideration much. Also to add that most of my suggestions here are for redirects of short lists into main articles or change of title, plus queries on rules on what to do in some situations and advice on others, table list wise I'm quite content, if you notice I havent ever posted asking for major changes in the project, these collapsible tables created by other editors were only suggestions, I'm not really into them either, so anyone not taking my posts seriously is inconsquential, I'm sure when I seek advice, request or suggest, someone or the other will reply and help out due to its trivial nature. FYI that Horizon Air list is againt approved format and should be reverted as its vandalism. 116.71.6.227 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your comment shows again that you're not familiar with many guidelines and policies. Before accusing any other editor of vandalism you should read what vandalism really is. This is a serious accusation that could lead to blocks. Despite the three of us might have our differences, neither Compdude123 or I have accused you of vandalism.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, just leave the guy alone, ignore him, and he will most likely stop bothering us. Lets go work on expanding history sections, shouldn't we? —Compdude123 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Trust me I dont take you or Jetstreamer seriously at all, never have, so go do what you want. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] WHATAMESS

The conclusion being that everyone should have stuck with the list format instead of embarking on the interminable quest for a "perfect table" which has only incited edit warring and inconsistency amongst articles, apart from the other disadvantages I listed originally. Speed74 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We did have a stable list format used in all articles until a featured list was created which overturned/railroaded all previous consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You got it User:Speed74! We should have stuck with the list format. If we had done so, we wouldn't have had to waste so much time arguing about the best version of a table and instead made better use of our time expanding history sections of articles and making them look less like a travel guide and copying info that looks like a travel guide to Wikitravel, whose airline articles should sure use a lot of help! I'm sick of wasting my time arguing about this and would rather be working on expanding history sections :).
Maybe the best way to end this ongoing argument is for someone to be bold and go change one of the FL articles like List of Dragonair destinations and see what happens. What the heck, why don't I do that myself? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, which can overrule project consensus. Reverting any of certified FL lists back to a unreferenced, simple text format can fall under vandalism guidelines. Sb617 (Talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I absolutely am not in favor of going back to the list format. I was saying to try doing the format that I have in Horizon Air destinations. It may not have the pretty colors, but it's MUCH simpler to edit, and there's no stupid flags or IATA/ ICAO codes, both of which are absolutely unnecessary. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, in my opinion, Horizon Air destinations is pretty close to featured-list status. But I fear if I ever nominate it, I will run into a brick wall when the reviewer points out List of Dragonair destinations and List of Braathens destinations to me and mentions how nice they look and how ugly my table looks and then I have to mention to him/her that destination lists have to be updated every once in a while and that having all those pretty colors would result in a not-so-pretty editing situation when it comes to updating the destination list and that not many people understand how to do color coding (you have to understand how hexadecimal numbers work, and not many people do, except web designers and not every WP editor is a web designer) and that WP should be easily editable by all, and not just by geeks, and that even some IP editors have good things to add to an article especially when they provide a source, and so on and so forth. Anyway, it's a better use of my time to expand history sections than to argue about this crap. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely concur with Compdude123 in that airline articles in general (not only their destination pages) are in need of immediate attention. In particular, the task of expanding history sections requires a hard work, and I think we all should agree that much of our time is spent here trying to reach consensus in a deadlocked discussion. At least there's another editor concerned with this topic. Besides the two of us, is anyone else interested in really making this a better encyclopedia?--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Air Koryo destinations

Another article that needs to be redirected to be merged into the main one due to too few destinations. 119.155.45.193 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems short enough to me with the table format to be merged. As we're talking about a similar length list as Virgin America (18 entries for VX, 21 for Air Koryo), I suggest waiting to see how that discussion is resolved and apply the same resolution to this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually they dont even serve half the destinations listed in there, all the more reason to move to main article, their current fixed services are Beijing, Shenyang, Vladivostok while Kuwait, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok are not even mentioned in summer 2011 schedule which was valid till October, the rest are charters or seasonal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.29.208 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me remind you all that Wikipedias is not a travel guide, so there's no need to have most of the destinations in a list currently served. What if an airline has dramatically shrunk its services and now serves a small number of destinations? I support stand alone articles for airline destinations as long as the airline flies or flew to more than a minimum number cities/airports, disregarding if these are current or terminated destinations.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The minimum number is arbitrarily assigned, and having the separate destinations lists tends to expose them to AfD nominations as has occurred at least three times now. Each article nominally has to be an encyclopedic topic in and of itself; not all editors buy the argument that the destinations articles are really sub-articles of the main airline article which generally doesn't have difficulty being established as notable. The table format is more compact, and the ability to collapse the table completely suggests that we should consider moving the destinations back to the main article, as the primary argument for moving them out was that a long destinations list easily overwhelmed the rest of the article. As far as the case of Air Koryo having shrunk dramatically, having a separate table for previously served destinations (as some like) or having a combined, sortable table that shows end dates (as I prefer) would show that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Despite I do not share your position, I get it. Aside from this, the project cannot be continuously discussing this matter any time (most of the times, actually) IP editors raise their concerns over it. Many of the pages within the scope of the project are far from being concluded, with most of the articles in desperate need of expansion and sources. In plain words, I suggest joining our efforts to improve these articles, rather than revisiting past stuff.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the destinations list would fit quite nicely into the parent article, considering that the parent article is not that long, either. This article is just barely longer than the VX destinations article, and it too would fit nicely in the parent article. BTW it's quite interesting that we're bringing up this debate on the North Korean airline considering that their supreme leader just died. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The Air Koryo list was much longer including charter and terminated destinations but someone deleted those. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted back to a version with terminated destinations. It's somewhat longer than before, and I think if we kept it like that, we could keep it a separate article. However, it would be nice to list the start/end dates, though. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So there's no need to continue the discussion, but the current version needs a lot of cleanup to become in standard form.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But here is the official summer 2011 schedule listing only three cities http://www.korea-dpr.com/airkoryo.htm what does that say? 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That really goes to show how much their amount of destinations has decreased over the years. Keeping it in its own article will continue to give us the ability to show that. Boy am I surprised they even have a website! And the fact that North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is, unfortunately, a real "knee-banger." —Compdude123 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Is all that you said of any valid concern here? 116.71.2.77 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the number of destinations the airline currently serve. Period. I still support maintaining its destinations article as a stand-alone one. Presenting its list of terminated destinations is as valid as showing the list of destinations of Lufthansa or Emirates. The project is here but to maintain all related stuff as accurate as possible.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really, that's why I just crossed it out. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the list is merged into the main article or not, the current table is terrible. Describing eg. Seoul as an operational charter destination from Pyongyang is actively incorrect; just because there has been a showpiece flight or two for some delegation does not mean it's actually even remotely possible for people to fly Air Koryo to anywhere in South Korea. Also, the color scheme is vomitous and the flags blatantly unnecessary (see MOS:FLAGS). Jpatokal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags are not encouraged by the project in list-based formats, not in table-based formats, as is the case here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The rule of thumb straight from MOS:FLAGS is that Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. An airport does not "actually represent" any of those, it just happens to be located in a country, and there is no reason to decorate the country column of an airline destination table with flags. Jpatokal (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant compdude's rant on North Korea as a country, as for the list yes it can now remain as an article in its own right, and for Seoul, Air Koryo have operated several charter flights there taking South Koreans to meet their families in the North and not one off VIP flights. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Jpatokal-- Yes you are completely right; we do not need flags!! They are totally unnecessary and and since we are using them in a manner that's not in accordance with MOS:FLAGS, well then that's all the more reason to remove them! Thanks for the "third opinion" here. Please stop putting flags in destination lists people, and get rid of those not-so-pretty colors. The color coding is too confusing and whenever I look at destination list with those colors, I'm always thinking "Wait, What does blue stand for again?" (scroll back up to legend) "Oh it stands for cargo destinations" (scroll back down the page) "Wait, what does green stand for again?" ... Anyway, you get my point, enough said. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The list is approved as is and stays as is, stop cribbing. 116.71.20.3 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"Approved"? By whom, pray tell? Jpatokal (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If it was approved as you claim, why would we all be complaining about the current table style/ format for destination lists? It obviously does not have widespread approval from editors in this wikiproject and needs to be changed. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria, which can overrule WikiProject consensus provided the lists meets official Wikipedia guidelines. If you wish to change it, I suggest you head over to WP:FL and obtain consensus to remove table formats in general there, as removing tables will affect most Wikiprojects in general. As for Flags, that is a different discussion altogether which should be discussed by this Wikiproject. Sb617 (Talk) 05:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont think we have a problem with a table it was just the mantra that it must be identical to the one list that got featured status. The FL criteria doesnt actually require that the format has to be the same as the first one to reach FL status. So all we need is to agree to the format that everbody in the project is happy with so we can be consistent. Compudude123s latest Horizon Air destinations is a pretty reasonable format and I would support that as a starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean if it was approved and who approved it? its got FL status, that didnt happen by magic, there was opposition to it back then too, but its here and those who approved it are not budging nor seeking anybodys opinion or giving it second thoughts nor participating in these stupid talks on the subject anymore that pop up every few months, incase you didnt notice. 116.71.19.120 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured list criteria makes no mention that it must be the same as the last destination list and also as a project we have no requirement to meet the FL criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait a sec, dude. Weren't you the one who originally introduced a new destination list format above? How come all of a sudden you're calling all this talk about changing the destination table format "stupid"? You should read the following. I posted it once before, and I'll post it again (I saved it in a word document just for you):
@116.71.xx.xxx, Read the following carefully: If you want to be able to succeed in communicating to other WP users (and other people in your life, too) what your views are, read these useful tips: 1) Don't contradict yourself by saying one thing and then saying something totally opposite later, and 2) Before you hit the save button, read your comment to see if it makes sense and that it's free of spelling and grammatical errors. And make sure that the comment that is on your screen matches the one that originated in your head. Finally make sure your comment is worth reading by others.
—Compdude123 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I only stated that its got FL status and was approved by those in power, to answer people questioning who approved it and if it was approved, wether it does not conform to original format or the project does not require articles to aim for FL status is not the issue. 119.155.52.223 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No newbie dude, I did not say change format as I'm very happy with tables, in anycase I had posted those collapsible lists in the topic asking for deletion of CSA destinations where it was being argued that the destinations cannot be merged into main article because there are too many, so contrary to that I gave these examples from elsewhere because it appears no one had considered this option, I dont know who created a seprate topic for them and moved it from the CSA discussion, I never even said that seprate destinations pages/articles should be done away with, its Hawaiian717 who assumed thats a possible way to go. As for the stupid repeat lecture post of yours in italics, I give no fuck about it or what people think of me, do you think I would be responding in this manner if I heeded advice from you or others or cared what you people thought, as it is I think wiki has gone to the dogs in the past two three years, it was much better before. Also my last post in this topic was to reply to the last post by Millbourne, why did you put your post in between mine and his, you are to respond in the end no edit and pop in between, cant mind your own business? 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] How many destinations does it take for destination lists to have their own articles?

I recently proposed moving Virgin America destinations back into the parent article Virgin America since I felt that the airline didn't even have enough destinations to warrant having a separate destinations list and I also felt that merging it back into the parent article wouldn't overwhelm it. I thought there would be unanimous agreement, but there wasn't. A couple other users pointed out to me that there had been consensus on the talk page a long time ago that ten destinations was considered "enough" for a separate destinations sub-article. Is this really so? If that is true, then why isn't it clearly stated on the project guidelines page? My idea was that if destinations weren't viewable without scrolling up and down the page, or if the list of destinations took up the majority of an airline page, then it deserves its own article. I don't like the fact that we have this rigid rule (it isn't really being followed or enforced, anyway), and I also feel that the guidelines at WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE should take precedence over this project's own guidelines. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue for these articles. Many editors are not interested in the changes of destinations at the various airports. So by having the destination list in the article, the increase in the number of updates, is annoying to many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I remember I had read about that “magic number” within the project guidelines not so long ago. I recently went again to the guidelines just to learn that they were entirely moved. Nevertheless, “the number” is mentioned here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The "10 destinations" bit was removed from the Project page a few months (a year?) ago because some articles with 11 to 15 destinations, and say no terminated destinations, were decided to be merged back into the main articles. For Virgin America I think the 17 or so destinations are enough to justify a separate article. Then if you want to change the suggested number to 20 destinations because the table (which still doesn't have an approved format) is more compact, I think it's a bit of a detail to waste time on. Speed74 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, you bring up a good point by mentioning the AfD discussion for Porter Airlines destinations. I like the fact that people brought up the point that Wikipedia guidelines trump a project's own guidelines. That definitely needs to be brought into more consideration here, especially MOS:FLAGS. I'm not really interested in changing the 10 destinations rule to, say, 20 destinations; I just wanted to clarify our policy. I think that if I had suggested the collapsible table, my proposal on the Virgin america destinations article would have stood a better chance of being merged. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
collapsible text (except in navboxes) within an article is contrary to the MOS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and in fact now that I look at it Wikipedia's MOS discourages the use of tables at all for lists as they complicate things (reading and editing) unnecessarily. The only plus tables are bringing to Destination articles is when the start and end dates of routes can be traced, but for many airlines this is either unnecessary or impossible, and therefore I would strongly encourage the use of lists rather than tables in those articles at least. Also I don't see the point of including flags or IATA/ICAO codes which are of little interest at best and can be found immediately by clicking the link to the airport article anyway. Finally I think it is very useful to separate destinations CLEARLY by TYPE (Charter, Cargo etc.) and by REGION (continent, country), which has been forgotten in the obsession of making sortable tables which most readers won't even know are sortable. Speed74 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#When_tables_are_appropriate contradicts your view on discouraging tables all-together, Speed74. If a list is going for the Wikipedia's Featured List standard, a lot more information such as start date and end dates, etc, is obviously going to be required than just the standard basic list of services started. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#When_tables_may_not_be_appropriate, if it only requires 2-3 columns or less (as per the example in the MOS), it's more encouraged to use it as a list. However, most "basic" destination tables require 3 or more columns (Country, City, Airport, and in some cases Continent and State/Region/Province). IMO adding continents will just lead to pointless edit wars that's not really worth pursuing considering regions do affect the entire Wikipedia project as a whole, not just this Aviation Wikiproject. Sb617 (Talk) 14:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
@Compdude, wow! YOU proposed moving Virgin America destinations to main article? AFAIK it was me who did so, go see the post #19 on the subject, you might have taken it to the articles talk page after my proposal/suggestion and thats about it, also YOU did not remove photos from Horizon air destinations list article, as you claimed in one of your posts here, I did, go see the edit history, only out of courtesy I didnt point it out earlier when you made the claim, I hope others take note not that its an issue but it will give them an idea of what they are dealing with, I'm also suspecting sockpuppet. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Colors in destination lists

Another Wikipedia policy that needs to be considered by this project is WP:COLOR. We use color coding in destination lists, so that's why I wanted to bring this up. (BTW I don't want to get rid of it altogether; I just want everyone here to be aware of the following). I noticed some things there that we aren't doing as a project, here they are:

  • Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. (very important) Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. This really needs to be followed more here; in addition to colors being used to convey info such as hubs, focus cities, terminated destinations, etc., there should be some sort of symbol or footnote in the cells. Or just say Hub, Focus City, Cargo, Terminated (or, better yet, just list an end date) in the respective cells.
  • Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. Be sure that links are still visible even with a colored background. This applies to fleet tables too. Don't ever use a blue background when there is a wikilink in a table cell. Better yet, just don't even use a blue background at all. Pick another color.
  • Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color blind. You may not be color blind but other readers may be, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

I am not trying to propose getting rid of the colors altogether; I just want to make sure that everyone knows that colors should not be used as the only means of conveying important information. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But here you say I have modified Horizon Air destinations to an AWESOME-looking format based on the feedback on those two tables above. It may not have pretty colors, but who cares? It may not have flags, but who cares? (Flags are not supposed to be in destination lists anyway) And it may not look like the FL articles List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations, but who cares? (Whether a list deserves FL-status is the opinion of one editor, not 10 editors.) quite contradictory to your statement above, and lets not forget the vandalised Horizon Air list and its unilaterally approved format change. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Here, I just want to point out a wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia guidelines ALWAYS over-rule project consensus and project guidelines. I really don't care whether or not tables have colors in them, it's not the end of the world. And stop accusing me of the fact that my Horizon Air format is "vandalism;" it's not! (Please read this to find out what vandalism really is.) The Horizon Air format was just an example used to aid discussion on a new and improved destination table format. I may have changed it without consensus from other users but that's because I was using it as an example, and several other users liked it. Also, the way it was formatted before I edited it wasn't anything like other destination tables to begin with. Like I said twice already, I am not proposing to get rid of the colors; I just want to point out WP guidelines to members of this project and am not trying to propose a monumental change. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Dude vandalism at wiki is making any unapproved major edit or even smaller edits that do not conform, especially deviating from approved formats. 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually vandalism is only when an edit is made with the sole intention of degrading the quality of the article. If the editor thinks they are improving the article, then it is not vandalism. Speed74 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Examples to aid discussion. Here's a table one trying to use colour to convey info not present in the text and a colourless list. I note also that sometimes the colour used in the table header can make seeing sort arrows difficult to see. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The second of the examples provided by the user above is not an example that fits into the discussion at all because that article is list-formatted, and no colours are supposed to be used in that kind of format. As to the first example, it does use colours, but each colour has a companion legend. This and this are examples where only colours are used.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The pages you mentioned, Jetstreamer, are exactly what I am talking about what we should not do. British Airways destinations suggested by GraemeLeggett is perfectly fine and meets the guidelines listed on WP:COLOR —Compdude123 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the legendless versions of Air France and Qatar airways, they look smart, clean and very pleasing to view, worthy of FL approval, a definite improvement even over the original FL table format. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No, they are exactly the type of table which violates WP:COLOR, and they are also extremely unclear and messy. The whole idea of tables for destination lists is a complete fail. Speed74 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Then all tables violate that if you go to see, infact they seem to violating everything according to you people, whats your problem? have you bothered to notice no one really concerned with approving the tables and giving them FL status is even listening to you all, its like the saying let barking dogs bark (and ignore them). 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
FL status is not that important the main concern is getting a consistent look and presentation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Air Jamaica destinations

Another redirect contender with too few destinations and in a table format, let it stay or move to main article? 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not even a single terminated destination is present in the article. I think adding them will considerably expand the article and there'll be no need to discuss this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not enough destinations to justify separate article. I say merge. Speed74 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Like Air Koryo destinations which you proposed merging recently, this destinations table needs a bit of work. It doesn't have any references, which is a big issue in and of itself, and also it lacks terminated destinations despite the fact that the airline has been flying since 1969. Before deciding whether Air Jamaica destinations should be merged into the parent article, we should expand it with terminated destinations and add refs. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That could take some time. While waiting for the article to get big enough I think it would do fine in the main article, and might attract more editors. Speed74 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Since this list probably isn't going to be expanded anytime soon, I'm going to merge it into Air Jamaica. It might attract more attention there than if it had its own separate article. —Compdude123 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet size in infobox

According to the Airline infobox template the fleet size field should only include the total active fleet of an airline. Recently an editor has changed a few articles to a collapsible list in the fleet size field showing 'active', 'orders' and 'commitments'. To me this goes against both the project guide and WP:IBX which states the purpose of an article infobox is ...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance (my emphasis). Information can't be obtained 'at a glance' if it's hidden in a collapsible list. I don't see how this modified way complies at all with either objective. Do any other editors have an opinion on this? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning seems fine with me. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand that people are collapsing stuff to make the infobox shorter, but important info like that should NOT be hidden from view. Even if the airline has a whole lot of hubs, you shouldn't hide this info from view. I agree with what you say about not having orders and options listed in the infobox; the # of active aircraft in the fleet is enough. I don't think important information should be concealed like this. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally I'm not a fan of 'collapsible lists' either, particularly in the infobox. I think they do have their place in articles where listing an airline's hubs or bases results in a very long list, like Easyjet and Ryanair, but to use the feature in an article like Frontier Airlines (which has only two hubs, and I just changed back to standard format) is crazy in my opinion. SempreVolando (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I didn't know orders shouldn't be included in the infobox (I've always recalled seeing them included), and I don't see the harm of including them in brackets, as it is a piece of information which could be useful to be found "at a glance". Speed74 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox airline clearly says that only active aircraft should be included when counting the fleet size. I've already started modifying the articles I watch.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is the template was not followed up until now, as most articles included orders and even options in the infobox. As this went on for years it may be concluded that orders are useful information in infobox after all, as long as they are clearly stated as such. So we might want to consider changing the template, rather than attempting to change all airline articles. Speed74 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good observation. I actually don't know when this portion of the template was last updated, but the move from {{Unbulleted list}} to a bulleted {{Plainlist}} for the organisation of hubs or subsidiaries was in fact a recent change that was not discussed. The change doesn't make any difference at all to the reader, but the question is: who modifies this template before discussing the changes? --Jetstreamer (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to the fleet list I think the collapsable list with Active, Orders and Options are nicer and we can always change the format but I don't care that much. When it comes to Southwest Airlines, American, Delta etc... or really any airline with hubs or focus cities, if there are 5 or more I think the collapsable list is necessary. Also... SempreVolando, on Alaska Airlines and Spirit airlines you changed the hubs to just the city name and this was a controversy a few years ago and it was agreed that we should use the whole airport name not the city name. I undid it on Alaska and Spirit but if you did it on any other airline pages please undo them. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If we do end up listing orders in the infobox, I'd rather we didn't do a collapsible list for that. I'd suggest just having the orders in parenthesis, like this: 117 (+23 orders), where the "117" is the number of aircraft in service. But I'd say just do firm orders and not other stuff like options, commitments, purchase rights, etc. And collapsible lists for hubs and focus cities should only be done when there are more than five of them. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I think its settled... nothing but Active fleet in the info box and hubs are in collapsable list if there is 5 or more hubs, focus cities or secondary hubs. Key people I think if there is 3 or more put it in a collapsable list because that can be very confusing if there are too many not in a collapsable list. Are we good? Cali4529 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Should the documentation for the airline infobox template be changed to state that you can use a collapsible list for hubs, focus cities, and bases where the airline has at least 5 of these; and for key people when there are at least 3 listed? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of collapsible lists where there are a significant number of hubs / bases / focus cities etc... in an airline infobox. I think setting a 'hard' limit (like 5) in the infobox template is unnecessary though - in this case you could have an airline with 5 hubs and no focus cities requiring a collapsible list (perhaps unnecessarily), but an airline with 4 hubs and 4 focus cities having to have them all listed (perhaps taking up too much room!). In all of this we mustn't lose sight of WP:IBX - Purpose of an infobox stating what an infobox is for allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I believe we should only be hiding things if it's necessary to do so - otherwise it detracts from the primary purpose of the infobox. I'd therefore support allowing collapsible lists where necessary to reduce the size of the infobox (it would be for editors to come to agreement at individual articles if necessary, but I think for most articles it will be obvious if the infobox is taking up too much room). As for key people - if that's taking up too much room then there are probably too many people listed in the first place in my opinion! I'm neutral on including orders in the infobox - provided the format is Fleet Size: xxx (+xxx orders) all on one line. The template would have to be updated though. SempreVolando (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If there is something like 4 and 4 we can agree on either doing one or both whatever can be agreed on.Cali4529 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Two comments (questions) 1- what purpose does listing orders serve? These are planes that will join the airline at some point in the future. They represent a potential addition to the fleet, but when introduced they might be replacing other aircraft - and if a single large aircraft replaced two smaller ones, the fleet would decrease in numeric size. 2) what is the point in listing a large number of hubs etc in the infobox, why not use the infobox to direct the readers attention directly to the list. By way of comparison (stop me if you've heard this one before) British Army regiments have a long history and consequently a large number of battle honours. Too many in some cases to list in the infobox - in this case there is a link ( #Battle honours ) to the section further down in the article. Why not instead of a list of hubs, give the number of hubs? The number would represent the scope and size of the airline just as the fleet size does. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Given that life is made of experiences, let me tell you all that Arsenikk told Sp33dyphil and I not to link to other portions of the article when Vietnam Airlines was being reviewed for GA status. Hence, I'm not sure if a link to other portions of the article emanating from the infobox will work...--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes according to WP:IBX - Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. SempreVolando (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes fair point, I didn't say I agreed with the guideline (nor did I write it!), just bringing it to your attention as what you're proposing would go against the guide en-masse for Airline articles. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding collapsible lists, American Airlines is a case in point I think. This airline has 5 hubs and 1 focus city, but the infobox looks absolutely fine to me, it's not excessively long at all. Why hide the information from users unnecessarily? The sort of wording I would propose in the template guide would be: where a large number of hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet any thoughts folks? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds pretty reasonable, it's not like a rigid number but it has more flexibility and is more open to interpretation. Not all WP articles are the same. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SempreVolando that you should just determine when it gets to long but AA should get the collapsable list because it is long enough that it is not very sightly. Cali4529 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think American Airlines warrants a collapsible list. Listing the hubs and focus cities in full there doesn't take up much room, and does not affect the article formatting negatively. Hiding the information without necessity simply goes against WP:IBX as I previously mentioned. What about Jetstar Airways as another example? 10 hubs and focus cities in total, yet this infobox also looks fine to me in the current form. I wouldn't want to see useful information hidden from users because a rule was being applied. Granted, US airline articles are not helped by the long airport names which take up more room than typically is the case in Europe / elsewhere, when more often each airport takes up only one line in the infobox. SempreVolando (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, American Airlines does not need collapsible lists in its infobox. It's not long enough for it to be jutting down into the history section. It would need to be much longer for that to happen. —Compdude123 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So how about a template wording along the lines of: where a large number of hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet? SempreVolando (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure that seems good. I think that ought to do, and your addition that if it disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article it should probably have collapsible lists sounds pretty reasonable. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd mention EasyJet alongside Ryanair, but it sounds good time as well.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have raised this in new section below as the title of this discussion doesn't really fit with the proposed change we are making. Give it a few days for editors to add any further comments before we go ahead with the change. SempreVolando (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC) <------Read Below------> This discussion has been moved to "Collapsible lists in infobox - amendment to template / project guide". Please when posting in that discussion keep your posts short and to the point so we can get a consensus and the fighting can END!!!!!

[edit] Mesaba Airlines

Can anyone provide a source saying that Mesaba and Pinnacle's certificates were combined? The headquarters were relocated to Memphis, TN a couple of weeks ago but did the airline cease operations? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[2] According to this, all of Mesaba's CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 aircraft were transfered to the Pinnacle certificate, though the Mesaba certificate is still maintained for now with some grounded Saab 340 aircraft. Based on this, I think all "Delta Connection operated by Mesaba Airlines" should be changed to "Delta Connection operated by Pinnacle Airlines", if this hasn't already been done. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] New York-Newark

I am interested in possibly changing Newark on airport pages. Newark Liberty serves the entire New York area and we all know it and it wouldn't hurt to add so for example on an airport page instead of it just saying Newark it would say New York-Newak. Comments are appreciated! Cali4529 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying to just do this on airport pages, or are you talking about doing this on airline destinations pages as well? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's been discussed before at WP:AIRPORTS, see here and most recently here. While I didn't personally contribute to either discussion, I believe the consensus was to keep it as 'Newark' in destination lists on airport pages. SempreVolando (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's just keep it simple and just use the name of the airport and not add anything extra. I can see there being edit wars going on over whether to say "Newark-New York" or just "Newark." Let's not let ourselves waste time on stupid edit wars like that. If there was consenus on WP:AIRPORTS to keep it as "Newark" and not anything more confusing than that, so it should be here. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the FAA's master record for EWR shows it as owned by the Port Authority of NY & NJ, on leased property owned by the City of Newark, and simply named "Newark Liberty Intl."

Given that NYC has YORK&Use=&Certification= ten listed airports, and that Newark isn't one of them, I'd want to see a much stronger argument than has been presented before supporting New York as part of the EWR article title. Is there some reason a passenger flying to NYC would prefer EWR over other airports? I can see why an airline would choose to do so, of course. If the carrier has limited flights to other regional airports they'd still prefer to get some of the NYC destined passengers' business. To make matters even fuzzier, there are other YORK&Use=&Certification= Newarks with airports in Newark, Ohio, Newark, New York, and Newark, Illinois. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We just finished the discussion of London Southend. In EWR's case, it's only a few international carriers that market it as New York-Newark. (Similar to Ryanair's practice in Europe.) The bulk of international routes and all domestic flights call it Newark. Furthermore, the PA is owned by the two states, not at the county or city levels. The PA doesn't call it NY-Newark. HkCaGu (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And the official name of the airport is "Newark Liberty International Airport" as on the Port Authority's website with no New York. As HkCaGu stated, the port authority that operates JFK, LGA, and EWR is not only owned by New York but also owned by New Jersey. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What about Viracops Airport which serves Campinas the third largest city in Brazil or Sao Paulo state, same issue despite its name Viracopos-Campinas International Airport, its listed as serving Sao Paulo rarely Campinas is mentioned as the city it belongs to, unlike Newark-Liberty which gets listed as serving Newark and not New York City in articles here.116.71.11.222 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Outside of the United States, Newark is not a particularly well-known city, especially when compared to New York (one of the most famous cities in the world). So in an international context, it is quite understandable for Newark to be described as "New York-Newark". In many international markets (especially those formerly served by Continental), Newark is the only of the airports listed by IATA under the "NYC" code to be served. It is not uncommon for airports to be located outside of the principal municipality which they serve (e.g. Pearson, Gatwick, Narita, etc.), or even in a different state-level jurisdiction (e.g. Cincinnati).

Of course, if a reader is looking at a destination list (say, for Birmingham Airport), happens across the name "Newark" and doesn't know where it is, if we were to link to destination airports in these lists, they could always click on it to find out. --RFBailey (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines destinations

It has seprate lists for domestic and international routes, why? when sort function is mean to sort that out in a single list. 116.71.10.128 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of domestic destinations and I mean a lot. Apparently the list combines destinations served by AA's regional carriers American Eagle Airlines and Executive Airlines, which doesn't really make sense. First of all, said regional airlines have their own destination articles and it would make more sense to just have destinations served by American Airlines in the American Airlines destinations page and put the regional-only destinations in their respective articles instead of just mashing them all in one page. Also, with the current list it's impossible to tell which destinations are served by just AA, which are served by just regional airlines, and which are served by both. I think we should get rid of the regional destinations since there's currently no way to tell them apart from mainline destinations, and tell people to go to American Eagle Airlines destinations and Executive Airlines#Destinations if they want to see those destinations. That will solve the problem of having two separate lists because then there will be much less domestic destinations to deal with and it'll be easier to combine the two tables. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything Compdude123 says here. We normally sort destinations by operating carrier, so if a destination is served only by a regional affiliate, then we list only on the regional airline's destination list. In addition to having the reference to the separate American Eagle destinations and Executive Airlines destinations list on the American Airlines destinations list, we should also refer from Eagle to Executive since Executive flights are branded as American Eagle. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, partially though. It is a fact that you can book a flight of an AA affiliate airline from AA.com, so it's not a bad idea to list such destinations within the AA destinations article as well. Furthermore, aside from AA, if a company is a subsidiary of another one, I'm not against listing the destinations of the sister company in the one for the cities served by the parent company. Just putting the {{See also}} template at the top of the latter article (e.g. {{See also|Grand China Air}} at the top of Hainan Airlines destinations) will solve the problem. Particularly for this example I provide, the destinations of both carriers had been merged into the Hainan Airlines destinations page, and I'm pretty sure the Luanda route is not flown with Grand China Air aircraft.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think putting American Eagle destinations on the American Airlines destinations article opens a whole codeshare can of worms we rather wouldn't. Our convention has been to stick strictly to the certificated carrier that actually operates the flights, and I don't see a reason to change it. If a plane operated by American Airlines doesn't land at the airport, don't include it on the American Airlines destinations list. I'm not familiar with the Hainan Airlines/Grand China Air example you cite, but it sounds like combining the two to one list was an incorrect move. The {{See also}} template you suggest is an option, though depending on the situation it may be better to elaborate early on in the destinations article or section the codeshare or similar relationship between the two carriers and provide a link there. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The only problem with removing regional destinations is that there's no way to tell the two apart. In theory you'd think you could just remove all the destinations here that are listed in regional carriers articles, but then again, some of those destinations may also be served by AA too. So really, we just need to differentiate these two somehow—and add more refs to the article while we're at it—so that you just have the mainline destinations on AA's page and remove regional destinations. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The maps in the inflight magazine might help, and American's has a digital version: [3] for example is the January 1, 2012 issue. Destinations marked with a triangle, for example, are American Eagle or AmericanConnection only, so they don't belong on American Airlines destinations. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Most airlines destinations only include mainline service but the regionals/affiliate destinations are explained in prose such as "This list does not include destinations only served by Delta Connection, United Express, etc." and there is also a seperate destinations page for American Eagle. Also, I would combine domestic and international together. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@Hawaiian717: thanks for that link, I have removed destinations served by American Eagle, Exec. Airlines, and AmericanConnection in the domestic section and have yet to do the international section. I will finish that up tomorrow. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll also combine the domestic and international lists, but that will take some time and it will probably be best to throw it in my sandbox and work on it there (ie sort by country, then state, then city; get rid of the stupid flags and unneccesary IATA/ICAO codes) and then copy/paste back into the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have finished working on this article, now it's a lot better. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks so much better and organized too! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Very nice, even though I miss the flags which add much needed something else to the table, also is there really a need to repeat country/state/province name, if written once it can be wikilinked, while country names can be made bold so they stand out, like in text style lists. The states/provinces of other countries should not be included there, since its a US carrier only US states should be listed. 119.155.51.31 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm glad you liked my new table. As for the flags, I think that our use of them violates the guidelines on MOS:FLAGS. There it says that flags should only be used if something actually represents a particular country, and I don't think airports really represent a particular country; do you? And yes, I know, the country and state/province names do seem a bit redundant, but it's MUCH better organized than by city. I would go change other tables to my new format but it's very tedious and a pain in the butt and I have better uses of my time :) —Compdude123 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant the country/state/province name should only be listed once, not that they're redundant, and for state/province section it should only list US states only, the country to which the airline belongs. 119.155.51.31 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the table looks fine as it is. Putting in states/provinces for countries other than the US makes the most sense because the USA isn't the only country to have states or provinces. There's many other countries that have states or provinces. It's really worthwhile to put in other countries' states/provinces; otherwise you have a blank state/province column for all countries except the US. As for listing the states and county's name only once, (I'm assuming that you mean do rowspan) that would make it far too complicated than it needs to be. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So has this new format been approved that its to be used for all airlines? 119.155.51.31 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well?? approved or not? or is it UNILATERAL without concensus. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I plan to propose this soon, yes it does need consensus, and I do want to end the constant arguing about destination lists so I can spend more time on WP doing other things. Remember there is no deadline for me to propose this, just be patient. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There you go again me, myself and I, "I do want to end the constant arguing", so "I can spend more time doing other things", whos stopping you from that? and whos asking you to keep partaking in the destination list discussions thats keeping you from other work, do you own wikipedia are you supervisor of editors here? 119.155.33.19 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hilarious, I removed ICAO codes from Air Canada destinations because it dosent make any sense as the IATA one are not listed there, bringing it closer to your format for AA and Jetstreamer undid my edit calling it disruptive, what hypocricy regins here, good luck trying to get approval for the new format. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW I removed the IATA/ICAO codes from the AA table also, but some other IP user re-added them. You are welcome to remove them, I don't care. In your defense, to be honest I'm not sure why Jetstreamer thought that your removal of IATA/ICAO codes was "disruptive." If I were him, I would care at all, I'd actually be happy with that. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats bad, already your simplfied format is getting screwed by others, and I'm sure jetstreamer must have been itching to revert your AA list or add those unecessary features back to it all this time, why he didnt do it is strange considering it was a kind of vandalism, had I done this he wouldnt have missed a second in reverting it, makes you wonder, double standards. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Kam Air

Kam Air have sent in an OTRS request to have the article on them deleted. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is OTRS and why this nonsensical request? 119.155.32.202 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why the airline wants their article deleted, I don't understand any more than you do. They should have given us a better explanation other than "the info is incorrect." Anyway, to answer your question about what OTRS is, click here. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible lists in infobox - amendment to template / project guide

The Fleet size in infobox discussion above diverged a little from topic and grew into a debate over the general use of collapsible lists in the infobox of airline articles. I'm adding this section in case any other editors wish to comment on what was discussed or the proposed wording amendment to the infobox template, as it may not be obvious at first glance because of the discussion title used. The proposed wording for bases, hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities would change in the infobox template, to add: where a large number of bases / hubs / secondary hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet and Ryanair. Any further comments / discussion welcome. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, we need to decide how many airports (hubs, secondary hubs, bases, focus cities) does the infobox must have in order to warrant a collapsibile list. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion above. We started off with a proposed 'limit' but then the issue was raised that it varied significantly between articles and it would be preferable not to define a 'hard' limit, but instead suggest the use of collapsible lists only where a long infobox resulted which impacted the formatting of the rest of the article (on the basis we should avoid hiding anything in the infobox if we can, per WP:IBX). Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't move on without an actually number because without a certain amount it will get fought over on some pages. What number is an acceptable number for Hubs, Bases etc...? I am thinking 7, what are we all thinking? Cali4529 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
If we think it's totally necessary to do a number, maybe we could have it be so that if the hubs, focus cities, and bases adds up to a sum of 10 total, then we should collapse them. That would solve the problem of an airline having five hubs, 4 focus cities, 3 bases and that not being enough to make collapsing totally necessary. As for key people, don't put a whole ton of random people in there; for example, only do founder(s) and the current CEO, president, and chairman of the board and any other awesomely notable CEO(s) that the company has had in the past. The key people, if there's just three of them, generally don't need to be collapsed. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. If anyone has any objections speak up. Cali4529 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly having a sum total would be the most straightforward policy to have in the template, but it doesn't solve the problem of then applying the rule for airlines which don't need i!. This section of the infobox for US carriers is usually twice as long as those for other airlines because of the long airport names in the USA, which nearly always take up 2 lines each. Take United Airlines, for example, these 10 hubs would take up a lot of room if they weren't hidden. Now consider Virgin Australia, 11 airports in total and I don't think any of them need to be hidden. Under the 10+ policy they would be. We need to come up with a solution which can be applied appropriately across all airline articles on Wikipedia, not just devise something in a hurry to prevent edit warring or satisfy users opinions on a small number of articles. SempreVolando (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah see, that's why your proposal works better. I was only suggesting a different idea to try and please Cali4529. Maybe let's combine our two proposals. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So, something like: where the total number of bases, hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities is 10 or greater and listing all of them results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet and Ryanair SempreVolando (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It just keeps getting better. As for the fact that US airport names are super-long and that they often go on two lines, you can force them to display on one line by putting the {{Nowrap}} tag around the airport name, see Garuda Indonesia for an example of this being done. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't familiar with the use of nowrap, that's quite useful for saving a bit of space. SempreVolando (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't familiar with {{nowrap}} either, just saw it when I was editing Garuda Indonesia and thought that it would be pretty darn useful. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any further comments I will ask an administrator to update the template to the latest wording. Thanks for all contributions. SempreVolando (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually anyone can edit the documentation for the template, but only admins can edit the template itself. If you click here to edit the documentation, you should be able to do so even though you're not an admin. That's because the documentation is a separate page, and it's transcluded onto the main template page. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, consider it YesY Done. SempreVolando (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the peer review; see below. Thanks!

[edit] Peer Review for Alaska Airlines

Hello, I have started a peer review for Alaska Airlines right here. I have done a lot of work on this article over the past year or so, and would love it if someone other than myself gave it some critique before I (eventually) promote it to GA status and even go so far as to promote it to FA status, though this peer review will probably be the beginning of continual improvements to this article; I bet it still has a long ways to go before a GA review takes place. Anyone is welcome to take a look and review this article; long or short, all of your comments are appreciated. Don't post any comments here; please post them on the review so I can see all your comments on this article. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, is anyone going to comment on the peer review? It's been at least two weeks and still nobody has commented on it. So please look at the article and post your comments. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum criteria for including incidents/accidents

I remember reading somewhere that for an accident involving an airliner to be included in articles there must be deaths and/or airframe total losses. I'm currently engaging with another editor on Airlink about the inclusion/exclusion of an incident that caused no injuries or severe airframe damage. The sticking point is a paragraph about an emergency landing with the nose gear stuck retracted. I'm against including it, the other editor wants it in. I earlier removed a paragraph about another "no injuries, no major damage" incident from the same article - that removal has not been challenged (so far). Some guidance would be appreciated. Roger (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. A deadly accident, a hull-loss event, or a change in procedures are the criteria for inclusion. If none of them are met, the accident/incident is not notable.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the fleet-grounding entry. It's ridiculous to include such a description within the “Accidents and incidents” section.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I put it back - in the "History" section. I'm going to research the reason for the groundidng and subsequent actions to add to the section. The grounded planes are still in service today so the issue was resolved one way or another. Roger (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I have requested temporary full protection for the article in order to avoid you and the other editor to get blocked. Please use the talk page to discuss your differences.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What about incidents such as involving scheduled airliners landing at the wrong airfield? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It if landed OK it is unlikely to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well some like Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) are notable because it was an aircraft loss. I mean what about pilot error, those where an airliner lands at a military airfield instead of a nearby civilian one? Or, another type of pilot error, forgetting to land somewhere and landing up elsewhere. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If there were fatalities, whether or not the aircraft was written-off, or there were any change in procedures, inclusion is fine. A Sudan Airways Boeing 707 landed in the River Nile due to a pilot error; there were no fatalities but the aircraft was written-off. This is an example of pilot error.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Domodedvo Airlines destinations [sic]

Just to let you know, this redirect has been nominated for deletion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bahrain Air destinations

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Bahrain Air#Proposed Merger : The scope of this dispute are just two articles, the discussion should take place at the at the articles talk page. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor is undoing edits merging the destinations with main article, reason being for merger that destinations are too few and main airline article also has minimal content, makes sense to merge. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot merge content unilaterally. It needs consensus. — Abhishek  Talk 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems long enough to stay on its own, it's longer than the Air Jamaica destinations article (which I merged into parent article). However, per WP:MERGE, merging it into the parent article will not overwhelm it, seeing that the Bahrain Air article is barely longer than a stub. @116.71, please don't call people "hypocrites" :). On a separate note, yes splits and merges always need consensus from other editors. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Compdude. Let's reach a consensus on this whether to merge the destinations into the parent article as the parent article is not long enough (although the destinations article is long enough to be a stand alone). — Abhishek  Talk 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I will call anyone whatever I like thank you, this guy left with a somewhat critical tiny message for wikipedia and now hes back, thats hypocricy, and by the way abhishelk no need to drag in other editors to issue warnings, dont have you have guts to do that yourself? I'm talking about the one who messaged me before comp123 jumps to conclusions. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
@116.71, all the stuff you like to complain about is really never a big deal. Really, it's not like the end of the world that Abhishek said he was going to retire and then came back; who cares? Anwyay, just take a chill pill. :) —Compdude123 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW Abhishek did not "drag" me into this conversation; I watchlist this page, so I see whatever changes get made and I am free to comment on anything that's posted here. Look at my talk page--Abhishek never posted anything on my talk page asking me to comment on this and yell at you as you have wrongly assumed. If you didn't want anyone else to comment, if you wanted it to be just between you and Abhishek, you know you could have posted on his own talk page as I would have never seen it. And please stop finding every petty little thing I do that you just happen to dislike to accuse me of. Remember, if there's some minor thing that another user does that you don't like, just don't worry about it, okay? Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Get over yourself, go read my post again, i clearly said the guy who messaged me i.e another editor NOT you, and I even said "before comp123 jumps to conclusions" i.e takes it for granted that I meant him, you're so into yourself me, myself and I, thats all that matters. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] UK not a country

An interesting point arose from this edit: the United Kingdom is not a country but a realm comprised by for countries. Despite this, it has been given country status in most of the destination articles, as it was included under the column entitled "Country". Has this issue been previously discussed? The way I see the whole thing, all destination articles in which the UK is labelled as a country should be appropriately modified. Following are just three examples showing the misuse of the term for the UK: Air Canada destinations, American Airlines destinations and Lufthansa destinations. Comments please.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say but the UK is a country so the lists are correct, I see the change to KLM destination has been correctly reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What a load of complete nonsense (and I say that as a person who owns a passport issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). If one wants to split up destinations between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a matter of convenience (in the way that we do for US states, Canadian provinces, etc.), then that's fine, but it is factually incorrect to say that the "UK is not a country". I have reverted the change to the KLM destinations article. The AA, AC and LH lists are fine as they are. --RFBailey (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly understood. Apologies for the confussion. Fortunately, talk pages exist.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, United_Kingdom#Etymology_and_terminology makes the meaning about as clear as can be, given the muddied reality. A sovereign country, comprised of smaller countries at least one of which considers itself sovereign (albeit with a shared monarch), and subject to Euro-laws which can be passed against its will. Lets not cloud matters more by bringing airlines into the mix. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems this hasn't came to an end. The IP keeps claiming the UK is not a country in their last edit and also in my talk page.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems strange the an IP user that resolves to the United Kingdom doesnt know what country they live in! MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be down to a bizarre use of logic: if England is a country, then the United Kingdom can't be. But the use of the term "country" to refer to England does not conform to the usual usage of the term to mean a sovereign state---it's simply a hangover from before the Act of Union in 1707. In an international context, the use of the term "country" to describe the UK is deemed to be quite appropriate. --RFBailey (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I know where I live. The UK is a unitary state, not a country. England and Scotland are countries, but are not sovereign states. Regardless of this argument, what is the actual problem with my original edits? The first person to revert seemed to do so solely because of my comments on view history. I have been accused of inaccuracy, vandalism and not citing references, but the edits are perfectly correct. If the UK and its constituent countries are all considered to be countries, then any of them should do. I will revert back tomorrow as I spent time making a decent contribution, unless someone can explain exactly what the problem is! 78.86.37.131 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A few questions: Who is the current Welsh ambassador to Poland? Where does one apply for a Scottish Passport? Where does one apply for a visa to visit Northern Ireland? Who represents England at ICAO? It's all a matter of context; the fact that the sovereign state of the United Kingdom insists on an idiosyncratic usage of the word "country" in a way that other English speaking countries use words such as "state" or "province" is of no consequence in the context of global aviation. Roger (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to add that you are clearly going against consensus and changing the article back will probably get you blocked for vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Roger, sovereign states have ambassadors and issue passports not countries, although most countries are sovereign states. England is a country of that there is no doubt, but it is not sovereign. Regardless of this argument, what is the actual problem with stating in a Wikipedia article that London is in England and Aberdeen is in Scotland etc? I cannot see the problem. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from singling me out by name here; please address your posts to the readership at large. Also do not attempt to split this discussion by posting to my Talk page. Roger (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I do not know the rules, but no one has yet come up with a valid reason why England or any of the UK's other countries cannot be listed as a country on a Wikipedia article. It is not vandalism or incorrect. In fact it is more accurate, even if UK is also correct. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In everyday language countries are states and states are countries. Arguing about sovereignty is semantic political BS. The UK is a country. England, Wales, et al, are constituent; whether or not they call themselves countries is irrelevant. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Indeed. In everyday language, in an international context (which is what we have here--this is an international project), "country" and "sovereign state" are synonymous. The fact that some non-sovereign entities self-describe as "countries" is irrelevant here.
Besides, this issue is not something that pertains to the destinations of a Dutch airline, or indeed any airline. Consistent use of terminology across the encyclopaedia is important, as is a consensus among editors. It is clear what the consensus is here, and the anonymous IP editor's behaviour is verging on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --RFBailey (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It's so silly why we have to get into these kinds of disputes. UK is a country; DUH! There is no doubt about it, just go look at any world map or on any globe. This kind of debate is even more stupid than the ones we have on destination lists. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According the the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom it states "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries" but the article also says the UK is a unitary state. One of the references puts the government's position. I didn't want to start a massive argument, so lets all accept that the UK and England, Scotland etc are all countries. In that case, can someone please say why it is wrong to put in a Wikipedia article that London is in England and Cardiff is in Wales etc? What is the actual problem with stating the truth? It would be more accurate, and certainly not incorrect or vandalism. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect if you have no consensus to use administrative areas of sovereign countries in these destination list, I dont see any consensus here and as a project and we normally follow what is normal practice rather than create our own guidelines on such matters. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see my entry below regarding the Kingdom of Denmark, and how in other airline's destinations lists the constituent countries are listed separately along with their flags. It does not seem to be a problem. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be awkward to see United Kingdom - Scotland under the new table proposal below. And I do expect to see, for example, names of German states to be mentioned for Germany-based carriers. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If the topic was the UEFA European Football Championship or Rugby (football) it would be correct to treat England, Scotland, etc separately. However the context here is international air travel and the simple fact is that flights between Glasgow and Cardiff or Liverpool and Belfact are not international flights (by any reasonable definition of the term). It's all about context, and BTW, 78.86.37.131 have you ever read WP:Consensus? Roger (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Dependencies

A little bit sidetrack from the discussion around UK. If England, Scotland et al aren't countries, what about dependencies such as Greenland, Puerto Rico, Aruba, Jersey, Guam, the Isle of Man, the Falklands, the Faroes and Gibraltar? Should they appear as countries or as provinces? The problem had appeared with KLM destinations and a large number of other destination lists. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The status of Falklands shouldn't be raised here, as there is an international ongoing dispute over its sovereignity.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Although these are dependencies, rather than sovereign states, convention dictates that we list these separately. Also, the constitutional status of dependencies varies widely. However, it would be absurd if we listed, say, Nouméa as being in France rather than New Caledonia. --RFBailey (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Some territories such as Hawaii, Reunion and French Guiana aren't dependencies. And those that are dependencies are often listed separately with other countries. Apart from Puerto Rico, Greenland et al, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Aland, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Macau, Saint Helena and Sint Maarten share the same case. Should a policy be specified in the project page (or some other manuals of style on Wikipedia) for the UK and for inhabited dependencies? Uninhabited dependencies such as the BIOT and South Georgia aren't likely to have regularly scheduled flight though. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW Hawaii isn't a "territory." It is the 50th state of the US of A. I think territories ought to be listed as separate from the country which it belongs to in the country column. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"Hawaii isn't a territory"---no, which was my point: the constitutional/political/administrative status of these entities which are geographically separate from the "main" part of the country to which they belong ("belonging" to be interpreted as "ownership" or "membership" as appropriate) varies. Hawaii is an extreme example at one end of the spectrum--having the same constitutional status as the contiguous US. Saint Helena and the Falkland Islands are at the other end. Places like Aruba, New Caledonia, or the Åland islands are somewhere inbetween. --RFBailey (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of these places aren't really that geographically separate. For example, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and Macau. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I should have said "some places". Should there be a guideline or policy as the basis to resolve disputes around listing of dependencies? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Channel Islands and Isle of Man they are not part of the United Kingdom and in aviation terms have independent civil aviation authorities that do airline licenses and such like so it would be normal to list them in destination lists. I havent looked at the others but we dont normally make up guidelines or polices at project level on stuff that is not really anything to do with airlines but for which wikipedia precedent is around to guide us. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
116.49.130.45: why do I get the distinct impression you are now just being pedantic for the sake of it? --RFBailey (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There have been a lot of disputes around listing of dependencies. Frequently there are edit wars that place Puerto Rico and the USVI under the US, and Hong Kong and Macau under the PRC. It will be helpful for this project, or the aviation project too, to look into the problem around dependencies on these lists. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Denmark says that "The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state consisting of the country of Denmark and two autonomous constituent countries, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The article Scandinavian Airlines destinations lists Denmark and Greenland separately along with their flags. Why is this the case here, but cannot be done for the United Kingdom. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to use a bit of common sense her 78, Greenland is a long way from Denmark and in airline terms are on different continents, it would just look daft to show an airline serving Nuuk Airport, Greenland, Denmark, Europe it would be misleading. Bit like London, London Heathrow Airport, London Borough of Hillingdon, Greater London, England, United Kingdom not really needed. I suspect you will not get any consensus here to do anything different, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Denmark is constitutionally different to the United Kingdom, in that the three constituent parts are Denmark itself and its (remaining) two overseas possessions. The Kingdom of the Netherlands treats its overseas possessions similarly. However, the appropriate analogues of Greenland and the Faroe Islands in the context of the United Kingdom are not England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the British Overseas Territories (Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, etc.) and Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man). Those we list separately in destination lists, just as we do for Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Aruba, etc. So to cite the Kingdom of Denmark as a precedent for these dubious "UK is not a country" claims is a false analogy. --RFBailey (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Air France

An edit war seems to have broken out at Air France. Being a good admin, I've fully protected the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION for three days. Input from members of this WP is sought at talk:Air France. I've not blocked the parties in this dispute because I want them to discuss the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Destination table format: Propose major changes and updating of project guidelines

Alright, it's about time we all stop arguing about the destination formats and come to an agreement and consensus. Many of the members of this WikiProject including me are unhappy with the current format and would like to change it. So I am taking this giant step towards putting us on a path to coming to terms on a format we can all agree on. I propose no changes to the list format; let it be how it is. And please let's not get into a debate about changing the two FL-status lists List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations. Those have been approved as the best lists on WP in their particular subject and that's that; don't bother changing them. As for all the other lists, well those we are free to do whatever the heck we want.

So, the scope of my changes would be the following:

  • Default sorting of destination tables should be by country, not city; also country should be should be listed in the farthest-left column, followed by state/province (not required), then city. Everything else following would remain the same.
  • Remove flags from country column; these are absolutely useless and can easily be found by clicking on the link to the country. Also I think that our use of said flags violate the policies listed on MOS:FLAGS. That page, which overrules our own project guidelines, says that flags should only used when the subject actually represents a particular country, and I don't think airports really do that.
  • Remove IATA and ICAO codes as those can also be easily found by clicking the links to airport articles and they're not widely recognized outside the aviation community. For example, LAX, the IATA code for Los Angeles Int'l Airport, is more commonly used as an abbreviation for the sport of lacrosse. (at least where I live, it is; I don't know about you guys)
  • Encourage addition of start and end dates to the tables as they make the tables much more encyclopedic. Both of the featured lists have them.
  • Encourage addition of references to both the table format and the bulleted list format. Bulleted list formats I've come across rarely have more than 5-10 refs, they really have got to have more. Come on people, add more refs please.

So my changes would result in a table looking like this.

As of January 2011, Foo Airlines [this should be linked to the airline article and in bold] flies to the following destinations:

Hub Hub
F Focus city
[S] Seasonal
[F] Future
[T] Terminated destination[A]

[A]Terminated destinations should only be marked when there are no start and end dates, which is not the case for this table.

Country State/Province City Airport Begin End Refs
United States Massachusetts Boston Logan Airport Feb 12, 2009 present
Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún Cancún Airport[S] Jan 19, 2011 present
United States Illinois Chicago O'Hare Airport May 25, 2011 present
United States Texas Dallas Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Dec 1, 2010 present
United States Florida Fort Lauderdale Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood Airport Nov 18, 2009 present
United States Nevada Las Vegas McCarran Airport Oct 10, 2007 present
United States California Los Angeles Los Angeles AirportF Aug 8, 2007 present
Mexico Baja California Sur Los Cabos Los Cabos Airport Dec 16, 2010 present
United States New York New York John F. Kennedy Airport Aug 8, 2007 present
United States California Orange County John Wayne Airport Apr 29, 2009 May 26, 2010
United States Florida Orlando Orlando Airport Oct 6, 2010 present
United States California Palm Springs Palm Springs Airport Dec 15, 2011 present
United States Pennsylvania Philadelphia Philadelphia International Airport[F] Apr 4, 2012 -
Mexico Jalisco Puerto Vallarta Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport Dec 2, 2011 present
United States California San Diego San Diego Airport Feb 12, 2008 present
United States California San Francisco San Francisco AirportHub Aug 8, 2007 present
United States Washington Seattle Seattle–Tacoma Airport Mar 18, 2008 present
Canada Ontario Toronto Pearson Airport Jun 23, 2010 Apr 6, 2011
United States District of Columbia Washington Dulles Airport Sep 26, 2007 present

Please post your comments on this awesome new format in the comments section below. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm not against a change, but the first thing that comes to my mind with most of the airlines is that it will be hard to determine the start date of current services, let alone the start and end dates for terminated destinations (a reference should be provided to support that it is effectively marked as terminated). As an editor that tends to reference every written sentence, it will be even harder to find sources for these claims. Furthermore, I'm not sure about removing ICAO/IATA codes, as many airports worldwide are recognised by its IATA code than by its name (i.e, JFK, LAX, CDG, LHR). Besides that, more possibilities are given to sorting if these two additional parameters are provided to that purpose, given that any reader would like to find out if an airport is served but s(he) remembers only IATA or ICAO codes (it happens to me most of the time). I'd also use just a single entry for each country, spanning with it all the rows for the destinations served in that country, rather than repeating it at each row. Finally, a cleaner version results in this version with flags not used. That's all for now.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's lots of support for keeping the IATA/ICAO codes, that's fine with me. Keep in mind that for airport articles, those airline destination lists do not have IATA/ICAO codes for airlines. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The old listing didn't have code listings, but I see the point that airports may have changed names a couple times over the history. Maybe IATA codes are needed if there are more than one airports in a city. Finally, if state/province is optional, and it's absolutely meaningless to sort them, why don't we combined into the country field? We can have United States (California) as the country, then we can sort that way. It's not like we can sort the country then city anyway. Moreover, combining province/state into country will make empty province/state fields less ugly. HkCaGu (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Jetstreamer on keeping the airport codes. I'm not sure row-spanning can be done in sortable tables. Roger (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a few comments. Not sure about codes they dont really add anything to the table so I would leave them out and if there is a conflict in names they can be added at the end of the airport name Foo Airport (FOO) rather than make a wider table (need to make sure it fits on mobile device screens). I think start dates should be included, at the year as it makes it more encyclopedic and less travel guide. Not sure about State/Province as most countries dont have such division or they are not important except to Americans!. Perhaps if we had a domestic and international tables then a variant with State/province can be used in the domestic variant. That said a good effort by Compdude the table looks good and clean (without the flags and codes!) and could probably be used without any changes. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't need codes, they add column width without much addition of information (the codes are given under the linked airport), and airports in the same city have different names - Croydon Airport, Northolt Aerodrome, London Heathrow Airport, (London) Gatwick Airport, London Stansted Airport London City Airport. Spell out dates in full. Province/State are not much use in smaller countries, but I can see how they are commonly in use for US and Canada. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't need any state/province for BA's destinations, as they serve only major cities in US/Canada/China and countries in Europe are small enough. However, for UA/AA/DL you want to be flexible--sortable by state for the US but not obligating state/province outside the US. The best way is to merge state/province into country--e.g. United States (California) or United States − California.
Someone needs to look at LAN Airlines destinations and i believe that there is minor clean up that needs to be done: aircraft type needs to go away and does not appear to be encyclopedic. It is in the table format but it is difficult to read. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Minus the aircraft and regions/continents, this is the best table format in my opinion, I have always preferred it to the other types but as a single undivided list, terminated destinations can also be included in this. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer United States - California. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
For carriers like AA or Delta, the state/province field should perhaps be separated from country. But I'm worried that state/province isn't generic enough. You wouldn't call England and Scotland, or French regions, as states or provinces. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For state and province, I say only include them if the airline serves destinations primarily in the US, Canada or Mexico, and even Australia as those are the only countries that really have states/ provinces. And I should mention Brazil too. If an airline primarily serves other countries that don't have states/ provinces, we can omit that column. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Let me tell you that many other countries have states/provinces, such as Nigeria or Argentina.--Jetstreamer (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I knew I'd be forgetting some countries; in fact a lot more countries have states/ provinces than most people realize. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that perhaps we should include states/provinces for all countries considering this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, please. We should judge the relevance based on each airline--just like the table format in the old days! Do you really want to see "China - Shanghai | Shanghai" on non-Chinese carriers? On the other extreme, we don't want to see only "United States" with no state and 200 US cities on an American carrier. 06:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to omit the IATA and ICAO airport codes as they provide mostly redundant information that can be easily found elsewhere on Wikipedia and many other web sites. I think North American and Australia-based airlines need the state/province column, but other airlines where it doesn't make sense can exclude it on a case-by-case basis. The color coded backgrounds looks a bit strange being only in the airport column. Is there any reason not expand the colored backgrounds to color the full table rows to which they apply? Start and end dates are a great ideal to have and for new airlines where we can source full data we should include them, but for long-established carriers where we can't get dates, the columns could be omitted, possibly with a separate table for terminated destinations. Partial information (such as just a year) might be easier to obtain and I think it would be sufficient. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Full coloured rows look really cheap except for in terminated destinations case. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that it might be hard to find start and end dates for some airlines, and we could just list years too if that's all that's available. In lieu of start and end dates, terminated destinations should be marked as gray with a little [T] in the airport column. And I don't see anything wrong with putting them in the same table as current destinations. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, current as well as terminated destinations should be placed in the same table. From an encyclopedic standpoint, there's no reason to give terminated destinations a lower status by putting them into a separate table.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Flag removal: A very important change that nobody has said anything about...

What do you all think about removing flags? Since nobody has really commented on this, I don't know if there's really unanimous agreement or what, so please tell me what you think. And consider MOS:FLAGS. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS is clear about the issue. We would need an extraordinarily strong argument to override the MOS on this issue (we don't even have a weak argument to do so) so the flags must go. Unless someone can actually come up with a convincing case for overthrowing the MOS, there really isn't anything to discuss. Roger (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Flags may go, but please bear in mind that they are another tool to identify a country in lists as they are unique for each one, just the way IATA and ICAO codes identify airports. We may even use {{flagicon|BOL}}, producing Bolivia, instead of {{BOL}}, which gives  Bolivia, and there's no doubt the country we're referring to in either way. A slight disadvantage: I'm not sure if flags alone (i.e. the first case here) can be sorted.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The way I understand the reasoning behind the guideline in MOSFLAG: Using {{flagicon|BOL}} is just about useless as I'm pretty sure the vast majority of our readers are incapable of recognising the majority of the world's national flags. That makes {{BOL}} the only viable flag template but as it contains the (wikilinked) name of the country anyway it effectively renders the flag image redundant as mere "decoration" for the written name. (Short version: Most people don't know most of the world's flags so just write the country's name.) Roger (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
{{flagicon|BOL}} could be used so as to get, e.g. Bolivia Santa Cruz de la Sierra, avoiding the use of the country column. Are we really interested in providing the countries served? Cities served are the key point here, not countries. It'd look like this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I like your new destinations list but I would still like to be able to choose whether I can sort between city and country which I can't do in your version of the table. Perhaps we could have another column just for flags (as seen here) but I think that defeats the purpose of getting rid of the country column. Personally, I like to see the destination list sorted by country rather than city. It just makes more sense. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should keep the country column, and get rid of the flags. If we get rid of the country column, and we say an airline flies to "San Jose", does that mean San Jose, California or San José, Costa Rica or maybe even San José del Cabo in Mexico? American Airlines flies to all three. Plus, the ability to sort by country allows readers to do things like find out what destinations in a country an airline serves. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Hawaiian717 here too. Destination lists, when sorted by country rather than city, look much more orderly and organized. Personally, whenever I view a destination list sorted by city, the first thing I do is change the sorting to country. Who cares about how many "San Jose"-named cities an airline flies to? Most ppl would want to know how many cities within a particular country served by one airline. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a template like {{Dts}} that would sort by country, city and only display the city? Seems like a handy tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(undent) +1 to removing flags. They're useless decorative cruft. Jpatokal (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How to list states and provinces?

Same feeling for the non-necessity for the code, but let me state it stronger: NO PROVINCE/STATE COLUMN. INCLUDE IN COUNTRY FIELD AS NECESSARY. How many times do you want to see "Hong Kong" or "Singapore" on the same line in UA's destination table? Or is "New Territories" or "Island District" relevant? May I suggest a field named "Country - Region" (or only "Country" as appropriate), and a policy which states "include state/province/region if the airline serves a significant number of destinations in that country, and that country is large enough for such subdivision to be relevant." HkCaGu (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
@HkCaGu, I like your idea of listing state/province in the came column as country and in parentheses. This will eliminate the empty state/province column for countries that don't have states and provinces. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should "City" be replaced by "Metro"? Many airports are not located within the administrative limits of the "cities", for example, Tokyo's Narita and London's Stansted. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, "City" is the standard term used in the industry. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
IMO many Wikipedia readers aren't people in the industry. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Most cities are not part of a Metropolis but all Metropolises consist of cities. Roger (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Who else agrees with HkCaGu's ideas about state's and provinces? To sum it up, he is proposing to put the state in parentheses right next to country, ex. United States (California), and to only put them in where the airline serves a significant amount of destinations in a particular country which happens to have states and provinces. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with HkGaCu's suggestion. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
What about a hyphen instead of a pair of round brackets? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right, maybe using a hyphen such as United States – California would be better. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cargo and scheduled-chartered destinations

What about "Cargo-only" and "Scheduled-chartered"? 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cargo-only ought to either be color coded or maintained in a separate table. I'm not sure that a scheduled charter passenger service needs distinction from a regularly scheduled service. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, cargo destinations should be in a separate table. This will allow adding terminated cargo-only destinations. And also, if an airline has a regional affiliate(s) or other subsidiary airlines, DO NOT put them in the same table as the own airline's destinations. Put them in their own destinations article, please. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The two featured lists mentioned above don't have any separate table. Cargo-only and scheduled-chartered destinations are colour-coded though. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because the featured lists do it a certain way doesn't mean all destination lists should follow suit. The featured-list stamp of approval was given by just one editor and one editor's stamp of approval on one article ought not to influence our consensus. The featured lists are totally out of the equation here; forget they even exist. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Cargo only destinations should be part of main single list of passenger destinations not seprate, the idea is not to have more tables, or create a seprate article for the cargo division, MASkargo, Air China Cargo, Singapore Airliners Cargo, Air india Cargo, LAN Cargo, Emirates SkyCargo, Lufthansa Cargo are all seprate articles. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Origins/destinations

What about an extra column for origins/destinations?

Country Subdivision Metro Airport Begin End Origins/Destinations Refs
Canada Ontario Toronto Pearson Airport Jun 23, 2010 Apr 6, 2011 Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York-JFK
Mexico Baja California Sur Los Cabos Los Cabos Airport Dec 16, 2010 present Chicago-O'Hare, Las Vegas
Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún Cancún Airport[S] Jan 19, 2011 present Chicago-O'Hare, New York-JFK, Philadelphia, San Francisco
Mexico Jalisco Puerto Vallarta Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport Dec 2, 2011 present New York-JFK
etc.

116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It will be difficult for defunct airlines to establish the origin of destinations unless you have access to their timetables.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We already do this on the airport article destination lists; adding it here just creates another duplicate place to maintain the same information. I'm going to invoke WP:NOTTRAVEL and recommend against this. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hawaiian717 here entirely. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This will be useful for readers to identify carriers with extensive fifth freedom rights. For instance, Air New Zealand serves Hong Kong with both Auckland and London, and Emirates serves Brisbane with both Auckland and Dubai. Delta, formerly NWA, has extensive coverage of Asian destinations from Tokyo-Narita. It will also be useful to identify carriers with seventh or eighth freedom rights. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Not needed as per Hawaiian 717 MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Then how can readers identify carriers with extensive fifth freedom rights that serve many pairs of origins/destinations outside of their country of origin? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
By starting an article that covers that topic. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Or just mention it as prose in the destinations list article. That's the best way to explain that a particular airline with extensive 5th freedom flights. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

oh! another destinations list discussion, incase anyone is wonderingt IP 116.49 is not me, this is some one new here, I guess I will have to start using my username now.116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, don't use "Metro" as a heading, rather use "City" because most cities are not part of a metropolis, but all metros contain cities. Roger (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Airlines that have ceased operations

I know that a couple of airlines: Continental (merged with UA), Spanair, Mexicana, Malev, etc. all have ceased operations therefore making those airlines defunct. However, does that necessarily mean the airline left their alliances. I know that a lot of people removed the airlines from the respective alliances. However, the official alliance webpage (Star Alliance, Oneworld, SkyTeam) still has those airlines listed as a member. Should we wait until the airline diappears from the list (I know that CO will diappear once its reservation system will be combine with UA shortly) or should we remove them from the alliance pages once the airline officially has ceased. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say follow the alliance's website. In my experience they know exactly which day to take the logo off their own page. HkCaGu (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the timeousness of corporate webmasters. Roger (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. The day after Spanair collapsed, the Star Alliance homepage had a sort of emergency pop-up message about it, but with the Spanair logo still scrolling across the screen with all the others. If an airline has ceased operations, then I'm not sure how they can belong to an alliance.
As for when a webpage is updated, I'm sure if it's planned (as with Continental) they'll have the update planned in advance, but with the sudden collapses then they'll take time to respond. --RFBailey (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Same with Malev and Mexicana when Oneworld announced those carriers' suspensions but the logos still appear on the top of the Oneworld webpage. The problem is that when a carrier ceases operations the alliance webpage should have been updated to remove the airline from the list. As of Continental, they will disappear from the list when passenger and ground operations are combined by March 2012. I am not sure I remember if NW was removed when certificates were merged or reservation systems were merged. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@RFBailey, I just checked the Star Alliance webpage and Continental is no longer listed as a member. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the Oneworld page, they refer to Mexicana as a inactive member. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Flag carrier

I'd like to redirect your attention from the previous discussions for just a moment. An editor (that is also an administrator) is adding unsourced information to the list of flag carriers table in the article. Can anyone help with this? The straight solution is to remove all unsourced material, but then I will probably be accused of vandalising the article. I already explained him/her that their actions go against the WP:SOURCE policy.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't consider it vandalism if you remove all such material. It seems this would mean that all mention of being a "flag carrier" or "national airline" in the relevant Wikipedia articles on those airlines would have to be cited or removed. I added those airlines to this list because the Wikipedia articles themselves said they were "national airlines" or "flag carriers". --  Denelson83  21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, we're talking about this article here, not about the ones you say you're getting the information from. But yes, if unsourced, that information should also be removed. I already told you: sourcing is a policy. Otherwise I may claim that Air North is Canada's flag carrier without providing a valid and reliable source for that.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources! MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No dispute there. If you wish to revert my edits to Flag carrier, then go right ahead. I'm fine with moving on. --  Denelson83  00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find sources for the entries you added, but please bear in mind that every piece of information should be supported by at least a reliable source. Please also notice that there's another issue with this article. I'm posting it right below.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Needing cleanup

A recent discussion over the contents of the article arose between Chrisieboy and me, this time regarding excessive information. In particular, the last column of the table seems to be completely irrelevant to the scope of the article for both of us, while my vision for the remaining ones is that they seem to be poorly referenced. In summary, I believe the article requires cleanup. Seeing that the page is also within the scope of the project, I'm asking for other opinions, just the way I requested third opinions for the inclusion or not of lists of aircraft in alliance liveries below. I kindly request your views to be posted here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removing notes column. Most of the stuff in there is irrelevant and/ or redundant. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tyva Airlines

New article about Tyva Airlines a Russian airline with content also added to Kyzyl Airport, the ICAO code and callsign quoted dont appear to be valid anybody have a reliable ref that it actually exists? thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article relies upon two references: one that is not properly presented, an the other that refers to Kuban Airlines!--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems to be largely a copy-paste of the Kuban Airlines article (even down to which languages it had interwiki links to). I suspect it's a hoax. --RFBailey (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam special liveries section

MilborneOne has removed the lists of aircraft in special livery from all three articles. There were no consensuses in two of the corresponding talk pages (in one of them, SkyTeam, I actually opposed I noticed tail numbers shouldn't be included in airline articles and pointed out that similar tables existed in all three articles; other editor besides MilborneOne supported the removal at Star Alliance's one). I have reverted these changes in all three articles as I believe the removal of significant information, as such contents is, deserves further discussion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did have consensus on all three pages as WP:SILENCE - I raised the point on all three pages:
  • OneWorld raised 19 Dec 2012 - no comments removed per silence 5 February 2012
  • Star Alliance raised 29 Jan 2012 - one support comment - removed 5 February 2012
  • SkyTeam raised 29 Jan 2012 - I read your comment as a support as you mentioned we dont do lists of registrations which supports the removal in this article - removed 5 February 2012

When one or two aircraft had special livery it was notable but adding a fleet list of every aircraft in alliance liveries when loads of aircraft are now marked is just not needed. We dont do fleet lists for airlines I dont see why alliances painted aircraft are an exception hence I proposed the tables were removed. After a period for comments I then removed them as per standard practice. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE is the reason I'm raising the discussion here. I only noticed the removal of contents in SkyTeam because I watchlist the page. No one else but you and me commented there. You and me are, so far, the ones discussing this...--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
SILENCE has nothing to do with this project it is something that is done, you raise something nobody objects you do it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. The three articles are within the scope of the project. Perhaps their talk pages are somewhat hidden and I'd like to hear other opinions from members of the project.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, so you agree I had consensus to remove the lists. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No way. WP:SILENCE also states that “Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)”.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to butt in here and denounce the list of aircraft in special livery as train-spotting level of unnecessary info that adds nothing to the article. Information on why tthe Alliance members convert some aircraft to the livery, the benefits they think it accrue might be useful but not listing the aircraft. And I've have nuked [[[Star_Alliance#Photo_gallery|the photo-gallery]] too - 20 photos of aircraft showing they have the words "Star Alliance" written down the fuselage giant letters is excessive. TThat's my personal opinion on the content, as to the question of process - no problem with MB1 removing the content if no bugger was bothered (BRD and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) There is no procedural or editorial issue with this. The lists, including tail numbers etc., were excessive detail and it was quite appropriate for them to be removed; in fact, it would have been quite appropriate just to remove them without discussing it first, as per WP:BOLD, with an explanation left on the talk page. --RFBailey (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with GraemeLeggett and RFBailey completely. There is no need for a list of tail numbers of aircraft that all happen to be painted with the letters "STAR ALLIANCE" on the side that just happen to belong to different airlines. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from style guide talk page moved here

Moved to destinations archive discussion —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me which is the point of reviving discussions that old?--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
None that I can see - although we could redirect the source page here so any new discussion are in one place. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg: where to list?

Most airlines, in particular non-European ones using this airport located in Mulhouse, France are actually serving Basel, Switzerland, in their schedules they only use the code BSL not MLH, but some editors are listing Mulhouse as their destination which is not the case, they only fly into the airport because Basel uses it and does not have one in Switzerland. So how to list in destinations list under France or Switzerland? 116.71.10.112 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just do as Lufthansa destinations does and list all three countries? While it's reasonable to believe that Air France flies there in order to serve Mulhouse, Lufthansa to serve Freiburg and Swiss to serve Basel, in reality all are competing for traffic from all three markets, especially now that Switzerland is in the Schengen zone. --RFBailey (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it makes the most sense to list it as being in France; after all, that is where the airport is located. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this question is regarding text lists, in table format the issue has been resolved as you stated citing Lufthansa and some others do it too, but regading listing it in France, the airlines especailly cargo ones schedules do not show them serving Mulhouse only Basel, Maybe we should not be pedantic about it and just list it under Switzerland with Basel and the airport name, it dosent matter which country the airport is located in. 116.71.11.222 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines&oldid=476343141"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export