Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon 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 airport project.

US Airport templates[edit]

  • Recently has been removed from the Template:US-airport and it appears we need to come to a consensus before it is re added. The link that was in the templates can be seen on the Template:US-airport examples section. This link has been up for a long time and I am not sure why it has been removed. is one of the best resources we have when looking up airport information before heading up. I know when I am preparing for a flight I am always trying to quickly get the information I need on the airports I will be stopping at and as you all know the resources that are on there right now are outdated and sites like Airnav only update their information on the airports every 6 months or so. That is not acceptable to me as a pilot and Wikipedia is where most of us find the information we need as far as airports go so I ask that we come to a consensus so that it can be re added. Srwikieditor (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The template breaks so many guidelines on what wikipedia is, it certainly is not a travel guide, a weather site or information for pilots. Perhaps we should revist deleting these templates again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the template needs a revamp of the resources available and also the pages these resources are on. For example the Flightaware airport information link goes to an FBO page which is clearly a promotional link for them but the live flight tracker link is a useful resource for pilots. These templates are on basically every airport on Wikipedia and should only be on airports that are used for private pilots. Although most commercial airports have a general aviation ramp not very many piston aircraft if any at all are landing there. These resources are generally for smaller airplanes and private airplane owners so having this template on the commercial airports doesn't seem like a great addition for those pages. I sat in on a pilot's training course recently and the instructor was telling the students how they would go about planning a flight. One of the first things that was said was to figure out which airports you would be stopping and go to Wikipedia and find that airport then scroll to the bottom to find airport information from the links on the template. So I know it is being used as flight instructors are teaching their students to do it this way. I think we need to determine which sites are providing the most valuable information for the pilots and what pages these templates should go on. Srwikieditor (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not, nor should it be a flight planning reference for pilots. It might be nice to look at what we have here, but that should be after you do your planning. So, arguments that pilots need this will likely not get much if any support. See WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think airport information for the specific airport articles is supported by WP:NOTTRAVEL "a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city." and that is why these specific templates were created so that we can easily add references to each city. I would hate to see this template disappear as it is frequently used in the aviation world. I am not saying that all the references are Wikipedia appropriate. Some of the references do need to be changed but I think it is a good reference. Can we come to a consensus of changing it to make it better or a consensus of removing it completely? Srwikieditor (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As the person who originally removed these links, I am obviously opposed to the inclusion of GlobalAir. Note Srwikieditor has reinserted the link at {{US-airport-ga}} despite the direction of this discussion. The link does not add any pertinent information that cannot be found at the links already included. --auburnpilot talk 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have created an example of what the {{US-airport}} should look like in my sandbox. I have removed and modified a couple of links on there because one was pointing to an FBO page and the other to a flight tracker. Can we come to a consensus of changing the template to look like this? Srwikieditor (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Do we need the sky vector link? I know it is in the current template, but should it be? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it is worth keeping in there as it has all of the correct and updated information. The current template has two sky vector links in there and one of them is just a map so that is why I have removed that one. The one that remains looks good to me.Srwikieditor (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If there are no objections I will put up the new template that is on my sandbox. Thank you Srwikieditor (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't have rights can someone please add it for me? Thank you. Srwikieditor (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I still object to the inclusion of Global Air as a redundant link that provides no information that isn't found at the links already included. On a few airports I checked, it actually provided less information that AirNav. Why should it be included with or over other links? --auburnpilot talk 02:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the order of the template matters that much, I thought that was the order that it was in previously before you removed it. If redundant links are a problem then we will need to remove Skyvector, Airnav, and Globalair as they all seem to be providing the same information that the FAA link is providing. I was unable to locate the airports you were referring to that are missing information it seems that both Airnav and Globalair have all the correct information. Srwikieditor (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at the {{US-airport-minor}} template and I think Globalair should be added to this one as well. I don't think the argument for it being a redundant link is a valid one as all the links in both the Template:US-airport and {{US-airport-minor}} are very similar. Each one offers similar information. I ask that AuburnPilot add to both of these templates as he is the one who removed them after previous discussion and consensus has already been made on Template:US-airport page. Thank you Srwikieditor (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you affiliated with by any means? I will certainly not add the link to either template as no such consensus ever existed. The link is superfluous. Your own statement is that it provides no more information than links already provided. There is zero benefit to the reader and you have failed to demonstrate a reason for its addition. Wikipedia:External links: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link". --auburnpilot talk 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to be added to the template again. I am unclear on why this was actually removed in the first place. I feel as both of you are affiliated to one of the companies on the template. Either way I think it is time to revamp this template. The reasons I think is a better fit than are as follows: has a lot of the airport information for the airports this template is used on but in order to view the navaids you must navigate away from the page provided on the template and do a search where has all the information on one page. does have more information than including the correct Metar and Tafs. Along with the Metars provides weather information for the airports on the same page with the Metars. Flightaware should be removed completely as this link does not provide any pertinent information regarding the airports using the template. Skyvector terminal procedures link has the correct airport information but the aeronautical chart doesn't seem to add any value to this template. Iheartgo (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Iheartgo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Urgent: Earth's magnetic field causing runway relabeling[edit]

Dear Wikipedians, Wiki-meteorologists and Wiki-geologists,

Last year, a pair of OAK's runways were quietly relabeled due to changes in Earth's magnetic north: KQED science article

I can't imagine this phenomenon only impacted OAK. I am asking y'all if runway information for all other North American airports have been updated, since this was an FAA-mandated change. (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not urgent it happens all the time all round the world, and doesnt mean every airport in a country or region changes as it depends on the runway heading. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, clearly not urgent. The magnetic pole is in constant flux so things will change. Now when the north and south magnetic poles switch, that will be something that we will need to deal with on everything. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe this will impact all runways at certain latitudes that used to be rounded down, that now need to be rounded up. For instance, a runway at 273 degrees was rounded down to be known as Runway 27L. If it crossed the boundary of 275, it would have to be rounded up to Runway 28L. It could even cause Runway 36R to suddenly be redesignated Runway 1R, a drastic change. I believe such changes are encyclopedic and have safety impacts. Thanks. (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There should not be any safety impacts! Any pilot who uses our data rather then the official aviation releases is stupid and probably should not be flying. The information here is informational for the general public. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you feel I am stupid for suggesting it might be a safety problem? You can be honest and dish it out. I can handle it. ;-) (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No you aren't stupid because it seems to be common sense that they would all change at the same time. As others have said not all airports are going to change at the same time. I know over the years that I have changed the headings for some runways in Canada but there is never a large number changing at once. Also runways in Northern Domestic Airspace (Canada) are in degrees true rather than magnetic. At one time they used to be written as 13T but that T was dropped some time ago. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're stupid for bringing up this's an interesting topic and something many people don't know occurs. I recall that the nearest major airport to me...Tampa International Airport...had to do the same thing a couple years ago. The magnetic poles move about 64km/40mi per year and over time the magnetic "north" (on a compass) will shift. The amount of shift varies, with latitudes closer to the equator experiencing a smaller amount of shift while areas near the shifting magnetic pole will experience substantial amounts of shift. I'm not a pilot, but I doubt a 1° shift will have much effect on aviation safety. From this article, it seems like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA...US aviation authority) only calculates the drift every five years and then requires runways where the shift is significant enough to change their numbering. It's not a common event, but not very rare either. I was going to suggest adding this information to relevant pages, but it's present at Runway#Orientation and dimensions & Magnetic declination#Air navigation. But again, please don't feel "stupid" for bringing an interesting event/subject to our attention. AHeneen (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it stupid either, but unduly alarmist to suggest that it's a safety issue. Runways are re-numbered all the time, and pilots are given clearances only to runways that exist. Altaphon (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on whether Subang is KL[edit]

Articles of airports with flights to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport (Kuala Lumpur's previous main airport) have become like the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks with an intense edit war between User:Tafeax and a roaming IP user from Singapore, with each calling the other vandal (in edit summaries) and going far beyond 3RR with no talk page discussions whatsoever.

What can we do? What do we say on this issue?

Obviously Subang serves KL. Shouldn't then the destination list "Kuala Lumpur-Subang"? But then the majority of KLIA's destination airports simply say "Kuala Lumpur", which would be unbalanced with one airport being disambiguated and the other not. Currently the only legitimate examples of partial disambiguations are seaplane airports (e.g. in Canada, "Victoria" while "Victoria-Harbour"). Should we go disambiguate all "Kuala Lumpur" to "Kuala Lumpur-International"? HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Geographically, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport located at state of Selangor. However, it also part of Greater Kuala Lumpur, that determines the boundaries of the city. Historically, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport IATA code was KUL before the opening of KLIA. The main reason I keep on reverting was to ensure readers not to confuse "Subang" with a city in Malaysia and West Java, Indonesia since there are flights connecting "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" with some Indonesians cities. I agree on the fact that "Kuala Lumpur" a bit unbalanced. "Kuala Lumpur-International" or "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" can be consider.Tafeax (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that a discussion was started at Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Kuala_Lumpur-Subang_or_Subang.3F long ago regarding on listing Subang but I believe KLIA should be differentiated since both airports serve Kuala Lumpur and they both have commercial passenger service. However, "Kuala Lumpur-International" should be used. Does anyone call the airport Sepang? What do the airport departure boards lists KLIA" as? Rzxz1980 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the 2009 discussion, so I think we can conclude it had been one disruptive Malaysian IP and is probably the same person working from the Singaporean IP. We should be using "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" for sure, but for KLIA, shall I propose we use "Kuala Lumpur-International"? "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" is not a common name and is too confusing with Subang. "Kuala Lumpur-International" is the clearest expression of "KLIA". HkCaGu (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the conclusion on that discussion is that all Firefly flights serving Subang Airport were to be listed as "Kuala Lumpur-Subang". I would go for "Kuala Lumpur-International" for KUL since Sepang is not common to most people. Rzxz1980 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
If there is more than one airport in a city or a city's greater metropolitan area, one large and one small, do the links to the larger airport always need to be differentiated? A similar case exists with Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport, the latter is located in Sanford (a city of 53,000 about 32km north of Orlando) and has just one passenger terminal that serves a budget airline (Allegiant Air) and handles seasonal/charter flights for five airlines because they have lower fees than OIA. I'm sure it was renamed from Sanford International Airport to Orlando Sanford Airport for marketing purposes. OIA, meanwhile, is the 13th busiest airport in the US (29th in the world). Links to OSIA use either "Orlando-Sanford" or "Orlando/Sanford", but I've never come across a link to "Orlando-International"...links to OIA are always just "Orlando". Do both airports need to be differentiated, or is it ok just differentiating OSIA as "Orlando-Sanford"? If links to OIA need to be changed, is there a bot available to do the task (there's far too many links to do manually)? I imagine there are a lot of similar cases around the world where a small airport exists in the same metro area as a significantly larger airport (like KL & Orlando...I'm not talking about eg. Paris-CDG/Orly, Washington-Dulles/National, or similar cases where the smaller airport has lots of flights). AHeneen (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "Orlando" for MCO will be a problem because of the official name for SFB. We don't necessarily consider metropolitan areas, e.g. ONT/BUR/LGB, OAK/SJC and EWR are all in their own rights. SFB is entirely in Sanford and much farther away than MCO (officially within Orlando) from Orlando. The problem for KUL is that it is primary for KL and there are no airports within KL, and Subang is much closer and also the former airport, which makes it hard to say it's not KL. HkCaGu (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Initially, this airport name was Sepang International Airport as reflected on its masterplan. In 1992, after some debates, they changed to KL International Airport (perhaps Wikipedia KUL page are wrong in naming this airport). If you guys landed at KUL on board MH or AK, the announcement will be 'We just landed at KL International Airport". To avoid more ambiguous naming, I would suggest "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" as I believe all airport should reflect its locality. Sepang, like Incheon and Domodedovo were unknown to some foreigners (at least Sepang have Sepang International Circuit) but it will give the idea that this airport are not geographically at Kuala Lumpur. "Kuala Lumpur-International" should be avoid at all cost since "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" do cater international flights albeit at small scale. Personally, the word 'International' sounds quite ambitious and redundant.Tafeax (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
However, Sepang is not the common name for the airport, and to foreigners, Sepang and Subang are confusing enough. Incheon is in the airport's name. Sepang is not. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT requires City name-Airport name. "Kuala Lumpur-International" makes most sense. HkCaGu (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
How about "Kuala Lumpur-KLIA"? This abbreviations is very well known among Malaysians and foreigners. If someone take a taxi to airport in KL, the driver would ask "KLIA or Subang?". Just like "New York-JFK", its commonly known with their IATA code and abbreviation JFK. No doubt "Kuala Lumpur-KLIA" more sensible. However, this changes are not crucial. This unbalances only appear in 13 airports; 7 in Malaysia, 3 Thailand, 2 Indonesia and Singapore Changi. Unlike DMK, "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" is relatively small due to aircraft and noise restriction. Tafeax (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
JFK as used there is more likely the common name for the person it was named after more then the code. The fact that they are the same may simply be coincidence or the adaption of the public's common name for the airport and person by IATA for their code. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What do people commonly call KLIA? I would go for Kuala Lumpur-International. (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cavern airfield[edit]

Hello. I have proposed a merge from Cavern airfield to Aircraft cavern, but I am getting resistance from the author who is not prepared to discuss the issue. Can someone else have a look and chuck their Ha'porth in.--Petebutt (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dusseldorf Airport[edit]

If any editor has time to take a look at this page regarding AA service at this airport. The airline originally launch this destination as a year-round destination but it has been converted to summer seasonal now. The dispute is that where do we place the source for such a change (after the seasonal note or after the destination itself?) Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Airport templates for air traffic and navigation topics[edit]

Should there be a different template for air traffic topics? There will be lots going on in the next decades in this area. ILS and other features of the airport environment are within the scope of the airports project, but the airports template really only facilitates adding an entry for an airport. For instance the paragraph on FAROS in the PAPI entry is good but it needs to have its own. Altaphon (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ARTICLE REQUEST: Boeing Long Beach Factory[edit]

Please create the following article: Boeing Long Beach Factory. It should follow the format of Boeing Renton Factory. Thanks you. (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)