Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Notability & Style guide (talk) Showcase & Popular pages Announcements and open tasks (talk → Maintenance (talk) → Article alerts → New articles (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Resources (talk)
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (talk) Peer review (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter New! Contest (talk)
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Project banner (talk) Portals Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aviation infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Aircraft infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines project (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Rotorcraft (talk) Military aviation (talk) Aviation accident (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aerospace biography (talk

Listing of London Southend Airport as a destination: Consensus Needed!!!!!

I am now gaining a consensus on how to list Southend Airport as a destination in airport articles since it is causing many disputes and edit warrings on various airport articles. Please write down either "London-Southend" or "Southend-on-Sea" and don't forget to sign your name after your choices. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• "London-Southend", definitely, to parallel "London-Gatwick", "London-Heathrow", etc. The phrase "Southend-on-Sea" is not even used in the London Southend Airport article except in a category name. Using Southend-on-Sea in the airport destination lists would be no more useful than listing Grapevine or Paradise or Hebron instead of Dallas/Fort Worth, Las Vegas, or Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wanting to repeat the "London Manston" farce? It was always Southend, and that has always worked. I can't see the need to add "-on-Sea" either. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• London-Southend: airport is called London Southend Airport and serves London. Gertjan R (ex-Belgian man) 09:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "London Southend", because that's what sources prefer. This is an encyclopædia; our first duty is to reflect real-world usage rather than changing names to fit our own internal conventions. (For example [1] [2] [3] - I would be happy to change to a different name if it can be shown that good sources prefer a different name.) bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Southend should suffice, and London Southend if the "London" qualification is absolutely necessary (this may vary from list to list). As factually incorrect the "London" bit of London Southend may be, the airport's operators do use "London Southend" as their official name, as do airlines flying into it. Deryck C. 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• London-Southend.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• The airport was Southend Municipal from 1947, and only rebranded London Southend in 1993. The NATS AIP listing still has "Southend". HkCaGu (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• London-Southend: airport is called London Southend Airport and serves London. It has been operating as London Southend Airport since 1993 and has good industry recognition as that. Airlines use 'London Southend', for passengers it describes the expected main market, and it has direct rail service linking with London. The CAA itself (industry regulator) have it listed as a London Airport for economic reporting, and have done since the 1950's - this is because they recognise it's market is inextricably linked with London itself.Thames Gateway (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with London-Southend: it's certainly much more plausible as a "London" airport than Oxford or Manston--it's around the same distance from Central London as Stansted is, and has a direct rail connection. Also, "London Southend" is how Easyjet are referring to it, and as they will shortly become the dominant carrier at Southend, this will likely become the WP:COMMONNAME. --RFBailey (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed, it should be London Southend, just as London Stansted and London Luton. Oxford and Manston are incomparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFGEGMC (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

FYI, a discussion on aircraft carriers is currently occurring at WT:AVIATION. You may be interested.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cikgu Jasmin Airways

Just FYI, an IP editor has added this alleged airline to 18 airports; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Cikgu+Jasmin+Airways. Goggle suggests NO such airline exists. [4] 39 Ghits! Regards, 220 of ^Borg 13:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say remove it as this pretty clearly fails WP:V. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I was going through trying to clean up the mess, I noticed a claim that Cikgu Jasmin Airways was formerly Miwon Airways, and Cikgu Besar Airways was formerly Kencana Airways. However, neither of the previous names have Wikipedia articles either, so that doesn't help their credibility. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Hawaiian717, and others who reverted. I rechecked and reverted a few that got missed. I rolled-back to September 2011 at Rafha Domestic Airport where the editor changed the infobox to read "Dabur Honitus Arabia International Airport", which had exactly one hit on Google, from WP. And if you Google "Dabur Honitus", you get a cough syrup! Don't know what to make of it. - 220 of ^Borg 14:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

At Abha Regional Airport they changed the infobox title to Al-Manas International Airport. A change made after they were warned to give sources and asked to give edit summaries, which they have again not done. I have again reverted.

* I just checked again and they have again added "Cikgu Jasmin Airways" [5], 9 instances today from 4 yesterday, (in about 8 hours) - 220 of ^Borg 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I have reverted all instances now. This edit here on 11 January to Irkut MS-21 (a proposed series of twin-engine Russian jet airliners) is particularly revealing. The source at flightglobal.com used as a 'reference' for Cikgu Jasmin Airways ordering this aircraft.makes no mention of that alleged airline at all. And here changing AlMasria Universal Airlines to Mei Mei Airlines, which I am unable to verify as existing, except where it appears on Wikipedia! (7 instances here). This certainly calls into question all edits by this editor, not just the unverifiable airlines. Has this editor made any useful contributions? Should we revert on sight? - 220 of ^Borg 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left a final note on 78.101.101.192 (talk · contribs)s talk page here to try and get their attention. Unfortunately I didn't get a single comment at WP:AN/I, before it was archived! I will likely un-archive my post there if this situation continues. FYI the same editor appears to have been 78.101.67.111 (talk · contribs) , and 78.100.184.174 (talk · contribs) previously. All IPs 'Geolocate' to the same place and ISP. :-/ 220 of ^Borg 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing edits following the same pattern coming from 89.211.240.233 (talk · contribs). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Cikgu Jasmin Airways and Cikgu Besar Airways from Gurayat Domestic Airport along with all the other somewhat fantastical notions of current and future operations. Also removed the |United Airlines|Al Arabiya Cargo services to Doha, Jakarta, Damascus. Same process at Qassim Regional Airport, also full of fantasy airlines and destinations, also undid the vandal work on the infobox. Same again at Rafha Domestic Airport. -- Felix (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too, that the editor is linking "Al Arabiya Airlines" to United Airlines, the United States-based carrier. I'm taking a revert on sight approach. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple IPs being used and it goes back a fair way into the histories in some articles. -- Felix (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Felix, you removed (correctly) where the editor changed General Authority of Civil Aviation to Tadika Mesra Aviation on Qassim Regional Airport. I Googled 'Tadika Mesra Aviation' [6] and found it on the French Wikipedia. I though we had an inter-wiki vandal, but the fr:Qassim Regional Airport, fr:Tabuk Regional Airport and other pages on fr:WP are new pages. Unfortunately the creator has apparently based theirs on the vandalised version of the en:WP pages. I will attempt to advise them of the problem. - 220 of ^Borg 03:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as some of the much earlier edits have been sitting in the system for a while they have also trickled down into the content of the many aviation sites that mirror WP info. I am not surprised if some of them have been inadvertently mirrored in WP alt language versions as well. It appears this person started doing this a while ago and has been placing erroneous content into articles for an extended time. In the earlier edits it has sometimes been combined, or associated with some quite normal appearing corrective edits. Some of those earlier contributions were queried or corrected by other editors, many apparently got through and several IPs have been used with similar characteristic pattern and content editing in the same time frame. -- Felix (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not so much a 'mirror' site, they just seem to have picked some text off our pages as they are writing theirs from scratch. I have left a note at 'Utilisateur:Noel.guillet' on the French Wikipedia, telling them the the false names being added.
• We can also add 89.211.197.136 (talk · contribs) to the 'list', who appears to be the same editor (edits/ ISP & location match) and has been blocked previously in September 2011 [7] --220 of ^Borg 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a reply on my talk from our French colleague who says "I will correct this mad things". - 220 of ^Borg 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since all of these IPs are doing the same pattern of edits, I suspect sockpuppetry is the case here. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not mere sockpuppetry Snoozlepet, more like an entire elaborate multi casted puppet show. -- Felix (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Borg, I have also seen the bogus material mirrored on many sites now when I have done google searches on some of the more obscure bogus airlines and destinations. Of course as you are no doubt aware, a couple of the so-called airlines do not even exist. I have since gone back to Sanya Phoenix International Airport and dug out more apparently bogus airline/destination listings. I saw other suspicious listings doing earlier clean ups but did not have the time to painstakingly research each airline and destination. A 'tell' is an unlikely Indonesian or Singapore based operator flying into an improbable destination. I have been spotting some of them due to a familiarity with the ops of some of these airlines and my suspicions have been immediate. Other airlines I am less certain of. Any edit in the last few months by anon IPs editing in a range of middle eastern, north african and asian regions should be viewed with a very enquiring and questioning eye. I suspect there are many more as this person has been using several IPs. Some are obvious like Qantas commencing services into a regional Saudi Arabian airport, or United Airlines starting up services to a small Saudi Airlines whistle stop, however others, especially those attributed to vague 'charter' and 'seasonal' ops should also be viewed with considerable skepticism. In some cases <ref> links have been provided but lead to bogus pages, or the attributed info is not there. This idiot seems to have a fondness for routing regional Indonesian and Singapore airlines into un-scheduled Saudi and Chinese airports but they are not shy of sending some mainline international services into small regional airports as well, and using multiple IPs in an edit series to confuse the provenance of the added content. -- Felix (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, but I would suggest that any edit by any IP to an Airport (or related page) geolocating from "QATAR, AD DAWHAH, DOHA" through "QATAR TELECOM (QTEL) Q.S.C" be checked, or even just reverted on sight. These are IPs the 'Cikgu Jasmin Airways' vandal has been using, in order of use:

• 89.211.197.136 (talk · contribs)
• 78.100.184.174 (talk · contribs)
• 78.101.67.111 (talk · contribs)
• 78.101.101.192 (talk · contribs)
• 89.211.240.233 (talk · contribs)

• I suggest that as soon as they start editing again, if possible we lodge a report at WP:AI/V (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). Maybe a preventative block will get their attention. If they change IP then WP:SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations)

• I have also posted a note at the Wikipedia talk:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce, but it seems dormant at this time. - 220 of ^Borg 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have had a reply from Shadowjams (talk · contribs) of the Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce (WP:SVT) - 220 of ^Borg 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi 220, when I did those corrective edits I overlooked checking the 'watch this article' box on most if not all of them. I only came across the silliness when patrolling the Lombok International Airport article. If there is a further outbreak of this nonsense give me a heads up and I will lend a hand if I can. Good work on the cleanups. Tiresome but necessary. I think the French editor summed it up the best. cheers -- Felix (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Start dates (Need new Consensus)

I know it has been a while since this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_10#Years_for_Start_Dates_.28Oh_my_Lord.21_Here_we_go_again.21.29 but some registered users and IPs are now removing the year for new services that is to commence between March 2012 to even as late as October 2012. Since the year is now 2012, we need a new consensus: here's 2 options: 1. Just include the year as we have suggested in the past to avoid confusion and end this foolishness or include the year for services that are to begin the following year (i.e. it is 2012 and XXX Airlines will begin service to Y in 2013) and remove the year once that year begins. I know that since that discussion has ended, the consensus was to always include the year no matter what. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Always include the year. It wasn't that long ago (August 2011) that we made the decision to move to always including the years. I'd assume good faith, and gently point the editors to the discussion as they may not be aware that consensus changed and that the year should be included. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, given that this very discussion at WP:AIRLINES did not succeed, I'm using the same criteria adopted here for airline destinations articles. Regarding the proposal above, I suggest sticking to the first choice, i.e. including the year no matter how close is the date of beginning/closure of services.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. HkCaGu (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

However, a whole bunch of people will say no consensus was reached in that discussion and will' continue to not include the year just as a user did with my edit here at the Malpensa Airport article:[8]. 15:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect anyone who disagrees with whatever decision was reached will always claim that consensus was never reached, since they don't agree. However, there are two definitions of consensus, one clearly based on a majority, while the other suggests total agreement. WP:CON uses the first. If people can't accept that, remember WP:3RR. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe we have to state somewhere within the project that the whole date will be implemented, once and for all, just in case this discussion arises again in the future. The matter is the way we implement this, since voting is not permitted.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

At WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT we have examples that don't match the text instructions. I'll go fix that. HkCaGu (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I am the dreaded user who always disagrees with everyone and in this case removed the year dates. As far as I could see in the discussion I was linked to at MXP airport, there was no consensus reached. Then apart from that I don't see the point of including the date because:

• It is unnecessary - only if the destination starts in a year and a day or more is the year unclear.
• It is usually not included, so for consistency we should keep it that way.

Regards, Speed74 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat our arguments again, but looks like you haven't even read them. HkCaGu (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument I read was that years might be confusing because pages may not have been updated, however this would only apply to destinations starting in a few days less than a year from now, not for destinations starting in March or October 2012, and in those cases editors should see in the history that it was a recent edit (otherwise the year would have been added). Speed74 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong because that is not my four years of experience. We did not want to argue more than once every year whether the cut-off should be 3 months or 6 months or 9 months or 12 months. Last August, everyone who participated in the discussion agreed, eventually. HkCaGu (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why am I "wrong" exactly? The consensus used to be 13 months and remained as such for a long time. Now that years are sometimes included there is inconsistency, even within articles. Speed74 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, the MoS as I recall does not require years if the year is clear from the context. Adding the year when it is not required is unnecessary and it can upset some editors and add no value. I did not comment on the last discussion. But this discussion points out the problems with changing from the recommendation in the MoS. If you don't need the year, don't add it! If someone decides to remove the year, let them and don't revert. End of problem and no confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not including a year is that it is not easy to tell if, say, "19 June" is in the past or the future. Anyone who reads Wikipedia regularly knows not to trust absolutely that a particular page has been properly updated recently---but they shouldn't need to go trudging through the page history to find this out. Also, we should not expect a casual reader to be familiar with the ins and outs of a WikiProject's policies (say, about some arbitrary cut-off date).

In the case of larger airports (e.g. Heathrow, LAX, JFK, Pearson), which are watched by a lot of people and updated frequently, this shouldn't be a problem. The problem is with smaller, out-of-the-way places or in relatively obscure locations (such as countries far, far away from where most WP editors reside)--one can't always know when the page was last updated.

Speed74's argument "It is unnecessary - only if the destination starts in a year and a day or more is the year unclear" only works if pages are always kept up-to-date. We all know that this is not always the case.

Regarding what the MoS says: perhaps Vegaswikian could indicate which section of the MoS contains this recommendation. However, how is it "clear from the context" which year is being referred to if all that is written is an isolated "[starts 19 June]"? --RFBailey (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DATESNO. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

...which states: "Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context." My earlier point stands. --RFBailey (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly since if there is no year specified the context of starting and stopping says it is within 12 months hence the context is clear. As I said above there is a simple solution. Of course one can choose the lets go around in circles approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're missing my point: if the article is clearly up-to-date, then "19 June" most likely means the forthcoming one. But, as I have already stated, when reading an article (particularly if it's about a relatively obscure airport), the reader can't be certain that didn't actually mean "19 June 2009" and that the article (or at least the destinations list) hasn't been updated for three years. By including years as a matter of course, it avoids this potential ambiguity.

WikiProject members and regular editors should never lose sight of the fact that we're writing for the general public, not ourselves: what might be clear to us is not necessarily clear to the reader. --RFBailey (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• We should always include the year. A yearless date will not always be clear to readers, even if the person who added it is thoroughly familiar with their preferred interpretation of wikipedia's date conventions. Content can often go out of date, too. If an editor says "1 June" in an edit today, is a reader supposed to interpret that as June 2011 or June 2012? What about when the text is still standing a year from now? Two years? Are readers supposed to now believe that the date (in reality long since past) is actually in 2013 or 2014? The year is not clear from the context. If you were writing about the 2012 Olympics or the Hundred Days, then dates in the body of the article are clear from the context; if you were writing some prose in chronological order and you say "In March 1980..." then later "In June..." it's reasonable for readers to infer that it's June 1980. However, that's certainly not the case for the ebb and flow of airline services - various services have been starting and stopping each year for many decades and will continue to do so in future, and the setting does not give enough background information for readers to reliably fill in the gaps, so we should tell readers which year. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So, which is the consensus then? Do we keep dates in the long format, i.e. including year?--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a complicated matter. For now we have created a mix of year-including and yearless dates, with no clear rule. It may have been best to leave the 13-month limit originally. However it does seem that most editors don't mind including the year. It will be difficult to make a rule for all articles, so we may simply have to leave it as an "include if you want to", with no one allowed to change from year to no-year or vice-versa once the date has been written, unless the date is effectively a year and a day or more away. It does create unevenness, but I don't see another solution. Speed74 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No there is nothing complicated about it. WP:DATESNO does state that yearless dates are basically inappropriate. Life CAN be simple, you just have to let it be. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything complicated either. The reason we have a mix is that not all old listings have been updated to the new consensus, and some editors aren't aware of the change. Thus, all new edits should include the year. Feel free to add the year to existing entries. If you see an editor adding new entries without the year, add the year and post a note on their talk page pointing to the updated guideline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly---if years are included, then there is no ambiguity. All I can conclude from Speed74's comment is that some editors want to make things complicated! --RFBailey (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that some editors who want to make things complicated will state in the edit summary "No consensus reached" or "Year unnecessary unless start date is one year or less from the current date per WP:AIRPORTS guidelines". Some airport pages have sections or sentences mentioning important new routes, airlines, and services at the airport in prose, those must include the year because those service may happen years ago. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) It does not help that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Airports_2 and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airports) give conflicting advice on what to do. The former says not to include the year (and has the bizarre 13-month rule), while the latter specifically states that the year should be included.

Given that the majority view here (as well as in the August 2011 discussion), and the one which is backed up by credible arguments, is that years should be included in dates given in destination lists, it seems that the former guideline should be modified. It's unfortunate that after the last debate that these conflicting guidelines arose. --RFBailey (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I updated the former guideline, to reflect consensus here. Guidelines aren't set in stone; they're a product of discussions between editors... bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does WikiProject Aviation have two different style guide pages with so much overlap? bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea--having net been involved in this project up until recently--but I suspect it's probably best described as "historical reasons". That said, it shouldn't be a problem provided the two sets of guidelines don't give conflicting instructions--although that's exactly what happened here. --RFBailey (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Massive vandalism from the Bangladesh Airport Vandal

I've just cleaned up many airports vandalized by a roaming IP vandal from Bangladesh, mostly in the 58.97 range. Please everybody watch out for these suddenly massively added destinations, like the many many that the quiet capital of Bhutan—Paro Airport—suddenly serves. HkCaGu (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Noticed a lot of this going on lately, IP 69.245.39.156 was blocked for this. They had hit Nashville International Airport a lot, adding flights all over the place. It's a busy airport, but they were sticking in flights to Paris, etc., that were completely nonexistent. nf utvol (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That IP was also adding mainline operations which some of those carriers do not (only AA, DL, and US have both express and mainline flights out of BNA). Snoozlepet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• This IP user is at it again, and is adding a bunch of "new" destinations to Shahjalal International Airport, which I happen to have on my watchlist. The IP address is 58.97.184.226, which is the infamous "Bangladesh Airport Vandal." He made a series of edits adding a bunch of passenger destinations here and here, and added a bunch of cargo destinations here, and he even went so far as to change the lead from saying the airport's major airline, Biman Bangladesh Airlines, serves "13 cities in Europe and Asia" to saying the airline serves "60 cities in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and Oceania," which can't possibly be true. Of course I posted a message on his talk page (like that will help) saying not to add unreferenced stuff to WP, but am going to revert his edits and keep a close eye on this page. There needs to be an IP range-block for 58.97.xxx.xxx so this will stop. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted his thirteen edits to the page (all in one session) and posted a "last warning" on his talk page. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

After the Philippines, Qatar, Bangladesh and Iberia destination vandals, now a Canada vandal!

See User talk:Markg208. Are we under attack? HkCaGu (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already reported that user to WP:AIV and he was blocked indefinitely for a vandalism-only account. He may come back as a different IP or as a different name....keep an eye out for him. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Airlines and Destinations tables

Voting has begun, please visit the "Airline/Airport Table Voting" column on this page. Voting Rules and Format are explained there as well.

I'm the editor cited in this discussion. Moved comments to this page.

From User talk:Snoozlepet#Airport Links:

Hi, Happy New Year! I saw a user edited something on ATL airport (I undid it) because it was not standard airport page format but I think it is very interesting and I think we might want to change it. I think we should have a vote like we did on the United/Continental integration but here is an example.... Tell me what you think, I know it looks weird at first but it might be found helpful for people searching on wikipedia. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse
Air Canada Express operated by Jazz Air	Toronto-Pearson	D
Air France	Paris-Charles de Gaulle	E
AirTran Airways	Akron/Canton, Aruba, Atlantic City [ends January 6, 2012], Baltimore, Bloomington/Normal [ends June 3, 2012], Boston, Branson, Buffalo, Cancún, Charlotte, Chicago-Midway, Columbus (OH), Dayton, Denver, Detroit, Flint, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Houston-Hobby, Indianapolis, Jacksonville (FL), Kansas City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Montego Bay, Nassau, New Orleans, New York-LaGuardia, Newport News [ends March 9, 2012], Orlando, Pensacola, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Punta Cana, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond, Rochester (NY), St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, San Juan, Sarasota/Bradenton, Seattle/Tacoma, Tampa, Washington-Dulles [ends June 3, 2012], Washington-National, West Palm Beach, White Plains, Wichita Seasonal: Allentown/Bethlehem, Bermuda, Harrisburg, Portland (ME)	C, D
Alaska Airlines	Seattle/Tacoma	B
American Airlines	Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami	T
American Eagle	Chicago-O'Hare, Miami, New York-LaGuardia	T
British Airways	London-Heathrow	E

From User talk:Cali4529/Archive 1#AIrport Links:

Per WP:AIRPORTS page content and past discussion, we don't wikilink airports/destinations. However, it needs to be discussed first at the project talk page before such changes are made. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit visually preserves the perfectly fine destination format you've been using, with the added effect of wikilinking to the relevant articles, in the manner Wikipedia articles are generally constructed. Comments? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the original reason for the policy was to reduce overlinking. However, I've frequently found it irritating that, upon seeing a destination in an airport article, I have to take a roundabout route to read an article about it (i.e. go to the airline article, then the airline destination article, to find a link there). I don't see a problem with Chaswmsday's suggestion--although I 'm glad that it's being discussed here first! --RFBailey (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I like this format too as it provides easy access to related articles rather than taking a detour, and it also highlights dates which tend to get lost in the unlinked style. 119.155.40.154 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cali4529 and the anon ip 119.155.40.154. It has always struck me as odd that we don't do it and found the lack of a quick click-through to be irksome at times. I do see a small problem with it though. If some editors link and others don't then there will be a lot of catch up work tidying up behind alterations and new additions to avoid having a multi-coloured table. Also if there is a destination without an article it could get a bit untidy looking. The clear issue is sweeping aside the overlinking policy when applied to the tables otherwise it will get a bit odd looking with lots of blue and black mixed up throughout the destinations. If one destination is linked then they all need to be, and any repeats of that destination attributed to other carriers. -- Felix (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All arguments above sound good, but I'm afraid WP:OVERLINK applies to all Wikipedia as a Manual of Style, and the project cannot overrule that.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just want to chime in as well. I'm worrying also about the overlinking issue and agree that if they're linked, they ALL need to be linked. We can't possibly chase down what has already appeared/linked above and what hasn't. (Just imagine if links cannot be repeated, how much work it would be merging a certain "C" airline into a "U" airline like earlier last month.)

Also, if the overlinking concern can be overcome, we will need to build a wikicode template page containing a listing of all airports to relief workload. One good thing to come out of this--the new page could serve as a hub for the standardization of city names and airport disambiguations. HkCaGu (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this the purpose of {{Airline destinations}}? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Quoting WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That suggests to me that linking destinations for each airline (including repeats) would not violate the policy. The idea of the overlinking policy is to avoid having extraneous links in written prose---not to make navigation difficult. Also, it simply does not make sense to not link a destination next to each airline that serves it, particularly in the case of routes served by multiple carriers. For instance, in the Heathrow article, if you're reading the list of destinations for United and want to go to the article about LAX, you'd have to hunt through the list to first the alphabetically-first airline operating that route, which may be somewhat surprising (it's Air New Zealand). (I've seen tables which do this and they're rather annoying!) --RFBailey (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In the beginning, destinations were not in tables, so since now we use tables, we can get around overlinking. HkCaGu (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add another 3 cents, in addition to the points already mentioned, because this table is re-sortable, there isn't really a fixed "first instance" for any given wikilink within it. Plus of course WP:MOS/Linking is a guideline which states, "use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions", not a policy. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to add links to airports in these tables, in most cases (surely we can use common sense). If we deliberately unlink them all then we're going out of our way to make life harder for readers. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because no comments had been made here for a few days, I believed that a consensus had developed around this issue. Given that, I began modifying Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport to wikilink the destinations. When I was almost finished, Cali4529 reverted all of my edits, commenting only "no" on the reverts.

Cali4529 additionally blanked the whole discussion here, with the comment "My ideas were talk and are not to be placed here", which I take to mean an objection to my moving of his/her initial comments to this talk page. Cali4529 then sent a spurious block threat to my User Talk page: "If you add the airport links to all of the cities on any airport page again you will be blocked. There is no agreement made and again I WILL NOT tolerate any vandalism as you made, you will be blocked. Cali4529 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)".

I would appreciate any assistance in resolving this matter. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was talking to User:Snoozlepet and put this in, this is my idea and my thoughts and it is not right to have them here. Anyway I am highly against it it looks stupid and is not necessary. For years we have had no problem, leave it that way. I was talking on his user page. Not this page. Please remove this. Cali4529 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a bit confused, sorry to say. There are no “copyrights” for such ideas here in Wikipedia, and once you share them with the community they're public. To this respect, you may read If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here below the "Save page" button. Those words speak for themselves. Just one more thing. Blanking contents, such as the one you did in this very talk page, is not permitted, and you may get blocked for that, let alone if the contents were not introduced by you but by other users. Please bear in mind that accusing any other user of vandalising pages is very serious stuff, unless you have proofs to support your claims.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this page the "project talk page"? I moved the first comments here, the appropriate place to discuss changes to this project, as a springboard for further discussion. I'm not sure what you're finding offensive about any of the comments here. I'm also confused about your stance. Back on January 1, you seemed interested in the idea of wikilinking destinations. Now you seem diametrically opposed. But instead of reverting unilaterally, you should let the consensus work itself out.

Also, by reverting my edits, you're also losing some "citation needed" tags I added in the course of editing. I assume everyone in this project wants the destination tables to be accurate, and I couldn't verify some of the entries at Atlanta. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would wait and let some other editors that have not yet engage in this discussion (like myself) make some comments before making changes. I think that linking destinations is in this new table format is fine for me. However, for airlines that operate from 2 different areas of the airport, do we really need to link the airline twice. Same goes for the destinations, if we are going to link them, if more than one carrier fly to the same city, should we really link all of them. It will take us to the same article. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The third opinion request does not apply here, as there are more than two editors involved. Also, if you want to get a third opinion for the future, you should place an appropriate request here. The template placed at the top of this section does not work for itself.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never done a "3o" before. (I've come from the world of "fair use" disputes, where things go straight to AN/I, sockpuppets, etc.) I'm not sure how kinder/gentler dispute resolution is supposed to work. Since I've already created the "third opinion" entry, do I need to go remove it, or just the template here?? Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see Jetstreamer has removed it from WP:3O. Now what do we do?...--Chaswmsday (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by "operate from 2 different areas of the airport", Snoozlepet. Yeah, I think for some of the reasons listed upthread, it would be beneficial to wikilink each of the destination entries. Once an airport article is "done", it should be easy to maintain the format... :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Chaswmsday, What i meant was an airline operating from 2 or more concourses or terminals at an airport. Many airport articles, most airlines are listed seperate because check-in and departing gates for that airline to those destinations may be located in a different terminals and only the first airline name is wikilinked. Also the larger airports have a dedicated terminal or concourse strictly for international flights. I was asking if the airline is listed twice, does it really need to be linked twice? I agree with all of the reasons above. If a reader is looking at the destinations, it may be helpful to them which airport they fly to. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to depute, It is my talk with User:Snoozlepet and is no one else's business. If you don't remove it then I will and I will get an administrator in here. I don't like it and it is no one else's business. If someone asked me first before they added my talk I might have re considered but Chaswmsday was rude and nosey and added my personal conversation with User:Snoozlepet to this page which I am not ok with. Cali4529 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we all please discuss the core of the post in a civilised manner, please?--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Snoozlepet, Oh you meant the airline itself! I think that once in the whole table should be enough...the only possible reason I could see for linking the airline multiple times would be to guard against a WP reader re-sorting the table and "losing track" of where the airline link went. I can't see that being such a huge problem that you'd need to design the page for it. But the destinations, I think definitely should be linked multiple times. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cali4529, It seems to be standard practice on WP to move/copy discussions about an article or project to the relevant talk page. I meant no offense and frankly found nothing that I would consider offensive or embarrassing in your initial discussion with @Snoozlepet. I didn't intend any insult. Sorry if you were offended. And see, now you're making comments on MY talk page about not proceeding with edits until consensus. I get your point, but since Bobrayner is also involved in restoring edits, it would make more sense to make those comments either here, or on Atlanta airport's talk page, so he can be included in the discussion. Since I'm so close to finishing, I'd like to do the last bit of destination links, then let this project community take a look at Atlanta and see what they think... OK? --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Chaswmsday, I like that suggestion. I would first use the WP:Sandbox to do a test run on the Atlanta Airport article then let other editors have a look at Atlanta Airport just as a test article and let them decide if its good. Then, they can post their comments here but remember WP:3RR. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I thought there was broad agreement here that destinations could/should be linked, but as far as I can tell from Cali4529's comments (which are a little difficult to follow; any clarification should be welcomed), they feel that agreement is invalidated because Cali4529 is unhappy that their initial comment was copied here, and - going a step further - any changes to articles in line with that agreement should be reverted. I disagree with that line of reasoning, but I don't intend to revert again; let's try to calm down a little... bobrayner (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[BTW, The last comment was by Bobrayner (talk) at 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)] --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any consensus to override WP:OVERLINK. Adding those links to tables would be a clear violation of that guideline and should not be done. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Which sentence of WP:OVERLINK forbids these links to other airports? bobrayner (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my earlier post in this discussion (before all the silliness started), my understanding of WP:OVERLINK was that (i) it was intended to avoid superfluous links in article text (like that), not to impede navigation; and (ii) that it specifically mentions tables as somewhere that it's OK for them to be placed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone of the workload issue. If we had been too busy to add year to all the begin/end dates, how are we going to change all the tables projectwide. As I already suggested, we need a convenient copy-and-paste wikicode page containing all the airports and links. I myself would be just sitting on the fence without such a tool. HkCaGu (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

HkCaGu, Thats the problem I am having trouble getting over as well. Cali4529 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is workload a problem? I don't think anybody has suggested that these links should be mandatory. The removal of links is problematic, imho, and asking people not to remove them is saving work, not creating it. (Since you mention dates, I remember somebody going round removing the year from dates, deliberately creating extra work for themselves; a task which made articles less useful to readers). The last thing I want is to encourage a massive campaign of ritual edits whose goal is to satisfy some internal standard rather than to help readers. bobrayner (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the workload concerns. I am going to feel as though I should perform a conversion on an entire table if I make a quick hit-and-run visit and render a minor change to a table using the proposed (all-linked) formatting. Otherwise I would be leaving behind a multi-coloured and inconsistent table. Some airport tables are quite large, might change a quick visit update edit into a major editing session, however I think it is for the best overall to go to the multi-linked table display formatting. I will certainly at least try to do any articles I casually patrol.-- Felix (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting has begun, please visit the "Airline/Airport Table Voting" column on this page. Voting Rules and Format are explained there as well.

How to list Dubai in airport articles?

Now that it has two airports, with Al Maktoum catering cargo only at present, should the cargo section of airport articles listing flights from Dubai show Dubai-International and Dubai-Al Maktoum as and where required? 119.155.40.154 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current Dubai Airport should be listed as Dubai-International while the airport serving only cargo should be listed as Dubai-Al Maktoum (the new airport will have passenger operations soon) so Dubai needs disambiguation. However, we have a lot of cities that have multiple airports but are not disambiguated (i.e. Nairobi, Johannesburg, Tel Aviv, etc.) Snoozlepet (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Montreal-Trudeau seems an appropriate comparison: these days, it's just about the only airport with passenger services, with Mirabel restricted to cargo. But we list "Montreal-Trudeau" in destination lists. --RFBailey (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Same goes for Dubai, the current airport is the only airport with passenger services while Al Maktoum is cargo only. The question is that should Dubai needs to be disambiguated if we did the same for Montreal? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should disambiguate because there is a cargo-only airport. Different categories (passenger, cargo, pet, seaplane, etc.) should be counted separately. HkCaGu (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cargo flights also operate from Dubai International not just Al Maktoum. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines destinations

Can anyone provide a source specifically stating that LOT is beginning or resuming flights to Beijing on May 30, 2012? I have tagged a "citation needed" until someone can provide a reference stating it will begin flights to PEK on 30 May 2012. Also, on the Warsaw Airport page, a user is adding "planned" destinations that are to begin in 2013. Can someone please take a look at that page? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Accidents/Incidents

As a WP user I noted the strange list of accidents at Santos Dumont Airport and raised a query on its talk page. Since then, I found some relevant discussion here and here But perhaps these remain ambiguous by setting out notability criteria for accidents themselves, but without clear guidance on when they should be included in airport articles.

I also found that many Brazilian airport articles (all?) have adopted the same approach, including many accidents that have nothing to do with the airport at all, took place far away, sometimes at other airports or even in other countries. Just sampling a few others showed: London Heathrow and Paris Orly: only accidents at/near airport included. Dallas-Fort Worth: main list as at Heathrow, then a separate list for "DFW connected" flights. Miami International: follows the Brazilian pattern.

WP Airports editors might want to discuss? Davidships (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Paralleling WP:AIRLINES guidelines, only flights that originated in the airport or had it as a destination/stopover, plus any hijacking that ended up in the airport off the flight plan, warrants inclusion, provided that there were fatalities and/or hull-losses, or changes in procedures. I recently expanded the Accidents/incidents section at Ellinikon International Airport, and actually adopted that criteria. Non-fatal events that didn't carry with the hull-loss of the aircraft involved weren't included at all. You may also want to take a look at the same section at Ministro Pistarini International Airport, also created by me some time ago.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You would normally expect that an accident section for an airport was for accidents at that airport or for aircraft arriving or departing anything else would not really be relevant. An aircraft that originated at the airport then crashed hundreds of miles away or one that was on its way but never made it is not really relevant to the airport. It was not put in WP:AIRCRASH perhaps because we assumed that the use of the airport accident section for accidents at the airport was obvious! MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Surprised that only two editors have made any comments. I think MilborneOne is on the right track but since the "obvious" has been ignored by so many editors, perhaps an addition to the Airport articles section of WP:AIRCRASH should read:

Accidents and incidents. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if they took place at or near the airport and

• The accident caused human fatalities or
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport or
• The accident or incident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry

Davidships (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the "at or near the airport" inclusion. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Peshawar International Airport

The airport has been renamed as Bacha Khan International Airport, article updated, signage at airport carries the new name, change article title if need be. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone with a personal view is not accepting this change and is constantly reverting the edits made. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the user discussion page. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Page already renamed. There are sources provided on the article's talk page reflecting the name change. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Airline/Airport Table Voting

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse
Air France	Paris-Charles de Gaulle	E
AirTran Airways	Akron/Canton, Aruba, Atlantic City [ends January 6, 2012], Baltimore, Bloomington/Normal [ends June 3, 2012], Boston, Branson, Buffalo, Cancún, Charlotte, Chicago-Midway, Columbus (OH), Dayton, Denver, Detroit, Flint, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Houston-Hobby, Indianapolis, Jacksonville (FL), Kansas City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Montego Bay, Nassau, New Orleans, New York-LaGuardia, Newport News [ends March 9, 2012], Orlando, Pensacola, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Punta Cana, Raleigh/Durham, Richmond, Rochester (NY), St. Louis, San Antonio, San Francisco, San Juan, Sarasota/Bradenton, Seattle/Tacoma, Tampa, Washington-Dulles [ends June 3, 2012], Washington-National, West Palm Beach, White Plains, Wichita Seasonal: Allentown/Bethlehem, Bermuda, Harrisburg, Portland (ME)	C, D
Alaska Airlines	Seattle/Tacoma	B

It has been very infusing with the un organized discussion above. I think it is time we put a vote to it. All in favor for adding the links in the cities on airport city charts vote YES all against the linking vote NO. Please keep you votes to just the vote. The time for fighting and discussion has come to a close, if you wish to re open the topic at any point at the end of voting feel free. Voting starts January 30, 2012 at 9:00pmEST and ends February 1, 2012 at 2:00pmEST. This gives users ample time to vote. Thanks and sorry for fighting. At the end of the voting period, the answer with the most votes gets the Consensus. You can change your vote until the voting period is over. Again. all in favor for adding the links in the cities on airport city charts vote YES all against the linking vote NO.

Before posting a vote, let me remind you that WP:VOTE is discouraged. Rather, editors are supposed to gain consensus. One more thing: I intend this comment to stay here, so please do not delete it again.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting will be used in this case because a consensus can not be made. The voting has begun and I want to make sure everyone recognizes that voting periods are shown in Eastern Standard Time. Cali4529 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No consensus is a valid outcome. What gives one editor the right to establish how the encyclopedia operates? Also involved editors are generally not the best people to determine the outcome of a discussion and further action. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a whole host of reasons why this "voting" procedure is a bad idea. But to clarify:

• A consensus is not a vote. Saying "At the end of the voting period, the answer with the most votes gets the Consensus" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what a consensus is. It's not a case of "majority rule".
• Setting up a vote like this unilaterally is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia, and probably numerous policies and guidelines. This seems to be a result of an argument spread out over three hours, which is hardly enough time for many users to become aware this discussion was taking place. If you wanted to reopen the discussion, this wasn't the way to go about it.
• Not everyone lives in the Eastern time zone (not even in the US). Wikipedia uses UTC as a standard.
• Two days is an unreasonably short time to achieve a sensible outcome. Besides, arbitrary deadlines should be avoided.
• Spamming the project members seems unnecessary, especially when it takes at three attempts to get the message right. [9][10][11]
• In short, Cali4529 has displayed a considerable lack of understanding of numerous policies, and should take a step back and cool down for a while. --RFBailey (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cali4529, please stop removing and rearranging other people's comments. I have undone the latest one, restoring other editors' comments to their original layout.
• What's wrong with simply discussing the issue in the existing Airlines and Destinations tables section? Earlier it looked as though we had a consensus which was in line with Cali4529's initial suggestion; do we really have to start from scratch? bobrayner (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you all want to do it at this point, I don't care. I'm all for it if all this fighting stops. Cali4529 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cali4529: your editing in regard to this matter has been highly disruptive. The mass reverts to the ATL article, the complaining about the talk page comments being posted here, the refactoring of the discussions on this page, the removal of other users' posts, the setting up of this ridiculous "vote", the spamming of editors, the arguing about UTC versus EST, are all examples of this. All in all, I strongly suggest you calm down, take a deep breath, and come back to this discussion tomorrow with a clear head. --RFBailey (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you read correctly, I said go for it. I don't care anymore. If you want to work that hard as to have to add all of the links to all of the airports then go for it. I wish you luck. Cali4529 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cali4529 has also replied on my talk page here. It's basically an admission of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Cali4529: there are no private conversations on Wikipedia. Users' talk pages are open for anyone to read. As Chaswmsday's edits were the subject of your conversation with Snoozlepet, they were perfectly entitled to quote that conversation on this project page in an attempt to open a wider discussion at a suitable venue. To go off on a petulant rampage of disruptive editing because you were insulted by that is, quite frankly, not acceptable behaviour. If it continues, a report to WP:AN/I may need to be made. --RFBailey (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Time Formatting

As explained, the timing was written in Eastern Standard Time so we took the liberty of giving you the time conversion.
CUT/UTZ/ZULU: 02:00Z 31 January to 07:00Z 2 February
EST: January 30, 2012 at 9:00pmEST to February 1, 2012 at 2:00pm.EST

Who is this "we"? --RFBailey (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Vote Format

Please follow this voting format,

• ['''Your Vote'''] + Signature (using ~~~~

Final Vote

• Yes -Cali4529 ^{(Let's Chat)} 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. I think that appeals to WP:OVERLINK miss the mark, as the links we're discussing are not among the examples of inappropriate linking at WP:OVERLINK. First and foremost, articles should serve readers; many readers who browse a table which lists lots of airports are likely to want to be able to click through to articles on those airports. Deliberately removing useful links (rather than useless links to dates, dictionary words, &c) does a disservice to readers; it would be like delinking the players in New York Jets#Notable players or delinking the books in Naipaul#Bibliography. bobrayner (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - The linking proposal appears to be of benefit to the reader and the overall project. As the tables can be re-sorted all airline and destination entries would need to be linked to maintain table display consistency. I support the concept of linking all airline and destination entries. I also wish to add the comment that I think consensus was apparent without this vote and that the very short time frame for voting has the potential to somewhat alienate some participants in the project, or those who have interest in manual-of-style or table formatting and article display issues. If we are seeking a confirmation or clarification through a vote then it should be considered that not all editors are able or necessarily care to visit WP everyday. I suggest that the time for voting is extended, at least by a few days. Surely there is no urgency here, though I agree that with all the disputation on content, style and procedure it would be nice to be done with it. There were many good constructive suggestions and comments made above. - Felix (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)...append.. (as per CambridgeBayWeather below)..."the airport must be linked and not the city" ..I agree. - Felix (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - definitely makes things easier to navigate. go ahead. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - to all of the reasons above. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes but only if it is made clear that the airport must be linked and not the city and that if the airport does not exist a red link should be made. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes I second what CambridgeBayWeather is saying. Thenoflyzone (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Close the discussion with no decision given the changes to the directions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: not a legitimate RfC

Guys, this can't possibly be meaningful. Could you please consult WP:RFC for how to set up and run an RfC? Just a few things: it's not a vote. Two days is not a legitimate timeframe. An RfC, particularly one that appears to propose something in conflict with site-wide guidelines, needs to be advertised more widely. I'll place an entry in an RfC that is properly held. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How does it conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking? I doubt that most airports are common terms. Of course you could argue that some airports are fairly common but then you would end up with some linked and some not. There is also the readability issue with multiple consecutive links. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I can't fathom what it's about (and I should be able to tell). Does it not concern the linking of cities? It's rather poorly explained. The wording should be crystal clear. Tony (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony, check the edit history of this page. Yes, we know this set-up is a shambolic mess: it was done by an editor who was going off on a petulant rampage for spurious reasons. I don't think anyone is actually treating this as a "proper" RfC as such; rather, most of us are trying to have a sensible discussion of this issue. Save the lectures for the user who is responsible for this mess---it wasn't a project decision! Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A request for comment about...what? An RFC is generally a discussion involving two (or more) proposed versions of article content proposed by two (or more) editors; the issue for discussion is clearly stated under the RFC tag. To expect outside editors to research an article's edit history is unrealistic; for example, I'm busy enough as it is at the moment with the WikiProject Wikify backlog-reduction drive. I'll return when there's something to discuss. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the RfC template was placed in error. Sorry for the confusion--although this has been a rather confusing business. --RFBailey (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of {{Airport destination list}} in articles

Copied from my recent comments at Talk:Bristol Airport:

I've tried to trawl through the places where this was previously discussed, but have not been able to find where consensus was reached for its inclusion. Discussions have been moved from one Project talk page to another and also had headings changed which hinders searching. It was apparently discussed at WP:Village pump (policy), but again I've not found that. I think that the inclusion of such detailed information presents a few problems:

1. Depending on the respective lengths of the individual articles and destination data, inclusion of such data could give undue weight.
2. Wikipedia is not a directory
3. Spammers (especially with single-purpose accounts) can currently easily add their favourite airline(s), without considering the inclusion of others
4. Maintenance of up-to-date information is an issue, but this can be adequately addressed if enough editors are involved.

Alternative outlets are are also available and should be considered, e.g. spotterswiki.com, flyerguide.com.

I've also notified members of the parent project, because I didn't know if it had been done previously. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I'm not clear about: are you questioning the use of the table versus other ways of formatting the data, or the entire concept of including a list of the airlines serving the airport and the destinations? And you do realize that you revived a 2.5 year old discussion on the Bristol talk page? The table format tends to be more condensed, taking up less vertical space in the articles. Your complaint about discussions being moved is likely due to the archiving of this talk page, if you look through the archives (links in the yellow box at the top of this page) you should find the discussion.

One comment about the use of SpottersWiki, as I am a co-founder of the site: The majority of the articles only list the airlines and the aircraft types they use at the airport, as from a spotting/photography perspective, where the aircraft fly to isn't all that relevant as they mostly will care about what they'll see. The site also doesn't have nearly as many editors so much of the information is not nearly as up to date as Wikipedia. Of course, that can change if people are interested in adding more info. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I thought I'd properly searched through the archived talk of the relevant Projects but perhaps I missed something. As for reviving the discussion at Talk:Bristol Airport, it didn't seem to me as if consensus had actually been reached there. But even if it had, consensus can change. Anyway, what I'm qustioning are points 1-3 I gave above. Is inclusion of destination lists appropriate in all cases by default, or are there some airport articles with little historical info overshadowed by such lists? (Sorry, I'm not familiar with the articles but admit I could have a look myself some time.) Is such content of great encyclopedic value (e.g. would it be more appropriate to summarise which countries/continents are served) or is it sometimes included by editors with undeclared COI in order to promote their own interests? Are such lists accurate, relatively complete and neutral? Your comments regarding the useful Spotterswiki site make a lot of sense to me. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking destinations: try to make sense of all this

Following the shambles above, given the fiasco a couple of days ago, I'm going to try to make sense of the issues regarding the linking of destination airports in the "Airlines and destinations" lists on airport articles:

• Current project style guidelines are not to link the destination airports.
• A number of editors, including myself, have suggested that this is an impediment to navigation, and that adding links to destination airports would be useful to readers.
• The main counter-argument seems to be that this would somehow violate WP:OVERLINK.
• Other discussion has been about minor details, such as how many times an airport served by more than one airline should be linked, or clarifying that it should be the airport article which is linked to, rather than the city article.
• The "vote" that was set up violates just about every policy/guideline/custom/practice of Wikipedia, but has nevertheless generated some useful discussion which in itself should not be disregarded.
• The general consensus (with one or two exceptions) seems to be that adding the links would be a worthwhile thing to do.

My personal view is that the arguments using WP:OVERLINK are misunderstanding its purpose--as I said a couple of days ago: "(i) it was intended to avoid superfluous links in article text (like that), not to impede navigation; and (ii) that it specifically mentions tables as somewhere that it's OK for [links] to be placed." That said, I think it would help if we closed the "vote" discussion above, and rather had a centralised, civilised, normal discussion about it here instead. --RFBailey (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in without properly researching the issues; I may have it all wrong. There would seem to be no problem in linking a destination airport (but not again and again, unless in a table ... also, it could be in the infobox and once again in the main text). But the city in which that airport is located is probably better not linked if very close to the airport, and especially not if it's NYC or London or some other well-known city; or find a section-link within the city article, which would be of more use to readers. Remember, the city should be linked within the airport target link, probably towards the start; so there's little point in diluting the links in a secondary anchor article. I hope this makes sense and isn't way off-topic. Thx. Tony (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For at least six years there has been no consensus to have links, other than the airline, in the destination section. Now it seems that consensus has changed and links should be allowed. I agree that the links should be only to the airport and in the case where an airport article hasn't been created then a red link. @RFBailey, could we not return to the section above rather than starting a third section? Or would a fresh start be better? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this fresh start was a bad move. The previous section started very badly, and we ended up in rather a tangle...

However, on reflection, I think a consensus became clear in each of the two prior debates. We don't need a third round. bobrayner (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now when can we start? And what else do we need to "clear" before we start? And who declares a start? I hate to see another "Atlanta" again. If we start linking, will we bump into a big wall that we hadn't seen before? We can afford a necessary wait on this compared to the Continental/United certificate merger which was a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" situation. HkCaGu (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I felt that a fresh start would clarify things a bit. Tony's original post showed that it looked as if it was a project decision to use that ludicrous "voting" system. That said, there does seem to be a clear consensus that linking is OK (provided it's to the airport article, not the city), so perhaps we should update the project style guides and just get on with it? --RFBailey (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Per @Snoozlepet's suggestion, I've mocked up a version of Atlanta airport at User:Chaswmsday/Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport if anyone would care to take a look. (I was afraid that a version at WP's Sandbox would only last a few minutes). I got rid of images of course, since they're a big no-no in user space.

In the Destination Table section that I hadn't yet completed, Delta Express operated by Express Jet, I experimented with a different technique. There, I made use of a template where, given a destination, the template does a lookup and returns the same destination, now wikilinked. It seems like it would be a bit more elegant solution, but I found through trial-and-error that any seemingly small coding mistakes I made in the template or in the article's markup caused disastrous end results...

Per other comments, I definitely didn't mean to suggest that wikilinking be mandatory, just that I felt it would be desireable and in keeping with general Wikipedia usability. I didn't really anticipate the amount of work it would take to wikilink all of the existing destinations.

Also, I didn't mean to create any controversies related to quoting editors. I know that I was officially in the right, but still. I thought about removing the editors' names from the initial discussions, but I wasn't sure of the propriety of doing so, and at this point, that genie has already long left the bottle.

If there's any other way I can further complicate people's lives, please let me know. :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also don't infer consensus from the vote above. The way it was handled was so improper that it basically means nothing. Some editors refused to voice an opinion about the merits of this proposed change do to the a desire to not participate in the circus. So, as someone suggested above, it is probably time for an RfC before any changes are made. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need an RfC? There was a sensible discussion going on before Cali4529 came along with the Atlanta revert war fiasco; my intention with this "fresh start" was to eliminate the circus and restore some level of sanity. In the original discussion, which went quiet after January 24 (this version) the general consensus appeared to be that links were OK, although there wasn't complete agreement. However, you were the only dissenting voice that I recall. Perhaps you could explain to us why you think that WP:OVERLINK would be violated? --RFBailey (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC would get past the mess on the talk page in, hopefully, a clean way and it would also bring in more eyes on the issue of over linking. This is a question that is broader then this project and having the addition exposure would not hurt. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page is a mess, and that additional exposure doesn't hurt, but you still haven't answered my question. --RFBailey (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian, I deliberately did not "vote", as I knew that to be improper. I do hold to my earlier comments, including about the amount of work wikilinking existing destinations might entail. I also agree with @RFBailey about the lack of need for an RfC, as I don't believe I/we are proposing anything outside the bounds of WP:OVERLINK. I also concur with @RFBailey's interpretation of the Overlink guidelines. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No consensus has been made; don't go making any changes yet. N124BC (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? I am slightly surprised that the extensive support in multiple discussions on this page does not count as consensus. Is yet another discussion, such as an RfC, needed before people can go ahead and make the edits that have been supported here? bobrayner (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While the support is a little more then half of the people it is not enough to make a consensus. Until one is made nothing should be changed. Kairportflier (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the section, Southwest/AirTran SOC Approaching below so we can clarify what we are doing post SOC before hand so there is no wait after the SOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kairportflier (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have "un-bolded" the request made above---I wish people would stop doing that (although at least it wasn't in bright red this time). It suggests that the rest of us are somehow incapable of reading.

As for whether there is a consensus or not--the discussion had gone quiet. The level of controversy that certain users have inflicted on this discussion suggests that it was appropriate that WP:SILENCE should definitely not have been invoked. One thing, however, is clear to me: those of us in favour of allowing links in destination lists have repeatedly given reasons as to why we think it's a good idea, and how WP:OVERLINK applies in this situation, while those against have just come up with comments such as "no consensus has been made", or "that's not a consensus" or "this is invalid--you can't draw a consensus from it", and refused to answer questions justifying their position.

Anyway, in this discussion at WP:AIRLINES in the past day or so, yet another reason why linking is a good idea became apparent to me: if a reader (yes, we're supposed to be writing for the benefit of readers, not ourselves) sees the name of a destination airport they haven't heard of, and wants to know where it is or more about it, then linking to it will be of benefit to them.

I just wish we could get on with improving the encyclopaedia, rather than for people to keep putting roadblocks in the way. --RFBailey (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Making operated by small

What do you think? Making the operated by [ [---] ] small, saves space and cleans it up a little. Delta Air Lines and the comair ones are in the normal format the others in small format. Cali4529 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse
Delta Air Lines	Atlanta Seasonal: Detroit	B
Delta Connection operated by Comair	Detroit, New York-JFK, New York-LaGuardia	B
Delta Connection operated by Compass Airlines	Minneapolis St. Paul Seasonal: Atlanta, Detroit	B
Delta Connection operated by ExpressJet	Seasonal: Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York-JFK	B
Delta Connection operated by GoJet	Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York-JFK	B

Perhaps including the small in parenthesis will make it cleaner.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

While the person on Cali4529 hacked my former account (Cali4529) about a week ago, I like this, hope it goes through. I just got my Cali account back, in an effort to keep users from being mad at me for a reason out my my control, I am keeping my ne account. All that mess above and the yelling from Cali4529 are not my comments. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it curious, @Aviationspecialist101, that the "hacker" returned control to you, given that (s)he admitted this at 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC) on your old user talk page, still using the Cali4529 ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cali4529&diff=prev&oldid=474667761), and that you replied to this on the same page at 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACali4529&action=historysubmit&diff=474668003&oldid=474667761).

Also that, even though a hack isn't really your responsibility to clean up: prior to determining and making an effort to correct any of the hacker's mis-edits made in your name, you endorse one of the hacker's suggestions... Just curious. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised that the hacker liked to edit the same kind of pages; that's a remarkable coincidence. More impressive, though, is regaining control of the account - how did you contact the hacker and persuade them to let you have it back? bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I found out late last night that it was my friend the whole time. I left my account logged in and he changed the pswrd. He came over to my house blah blah blah I saw he was on my account and thats it. The times I can't really explain, we were both on separate computers at my house after work and we were both on wikipedia then. With my backing of his idea on the wiki airports thats simply because he pitched that suggestion to me while we were talking and I liked it. Thanks for your concern! Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes me curiouser still, @Aviationspecialist101. Why would you give your WP password to this "friend" of yours in the first place?? And after all of the havoc and bad feelings this "friend" caused you, why was (s)he still using your account at another computer in your house, in your presence?? And why, after your "friend" posted on Cali4529's talk page about having returnED (past tense) control to you, would you post an "it's all good now" type message immediately following that message, rather than immediately logging your "friend" out of WP, changing your password again, making sure the "friend" didn't learn the new password, then showing "friend" the door for causing you so much trouble?? Curious. And why wouldn't anyone believe that instead of your "friend story", you were always only one individual who overreacted to a perceived slight and acted disruptively?? And why would anyone following this conversation not feel compelled to request a Sockpuppet investigation?? Still, just curious. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your curiosity! I didn't give my friend the password I left my account logged on while I was using his computer. I am not sure what you mean by "you were always only one individual who overreacted to a perceived slight and acted disruptively." Please further explain that. And while appreciate your concern I think you are over reacting to a simple occurrence. I haven't even done anything bad to make you warrant a "loud" conversation. You can delete my Cali page, I am only using this one because my friend made enemies with my account I do not want to be affiliated with that. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I was being "loud"; I just was curious about certain claims you have made and was seeking your clarification. In my statement you asked about, I suggest that perhaps there was no "friend" who hijacked your user id; rather, that Cali4529 and Aviationspecialist101 is, and always has been, only one individual -- you. You initially claim that your "friend" changed your Wikipedia password, but you later claim that you never gave "him" your password in the first place. Please explain this contradiction. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Chaswmsday: He did change my password but I didn't give it to him. The only thing I can think of is if he saw me put it in once before. Thanks! Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC) --End copy. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he never said he "gave" his password to his friend. He said that "[he] left my account logged in and [his friend] changed the pswrd." Not sure where how you're coming to the conclusion that Cali4529 gave his friend the password. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite true, but my presumption is that after my last comment, Aviationspecialist101 realized that the old password is required for a password change, and then subtly reworded accordingly. I really do feel like requesting a Sockpuppet investigation, but I figure (s)he'll just claim that the IP addresses match because (s)he and the "friend" were operating off one internet connection. I'd much rather that (s)he 'fess up and admit there never was any "friend". The very specific topics edited by "both", the general writing style and grammar, and the apparent lack of interest in cleaning up any problems caused by the "friend" render that explanation extremely implausible. But I'm done with him/her for now.... --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How is a sockpuppet investigation going to help? He's already admitted that both accounts are his, and activity on the Cali4259 account ceased within 20 minutes of the AviationSpecialist101 account being created. Sockpuppetry is the act of a single person operating multiple accounts, not multiple people using the same account. --RFBailey (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that settles it. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

In response to the actual query that was raised (whether to reduce the type size of the operating carriers of subcontracted flights): I don't think this is necessary. If it was a travel guide, how a flight is branded is important (the average passenger doesn't care if it's Comair, Mesaba, Skywest, or whoever, but does care that's its Delta); however, as an encylcopaedia we've already made a point of separating out the different operating carriers, so reducing the type size of the carrier name makes it less obvious as to why there are so many different (and overlapping) listings for Delta Connection. --RFBailey (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why make "operated by..." smaller? I see absolutely no need to do that. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary, IMO. But how about destination wikilinks? (I really only came into the Atlanta article in the first place to correct to a US spelling. How I now regret that initial inclination... :>) ) --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)

A discussion about airline destination boxes not related to this project was copied here by User:Trevj - removed as not relevant to this project. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bit confused why a discussion on tables for airline pages has been put on the airport article - the airport tables are not the same and were not the subject of the above discussion. Suggest it is removed as it just confuses what are two different subjects. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure either, perhaps it was meant to be put on WT:AIRLINES. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it as not relevant to this project. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion to WT:AIRLINES —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What flag to use for Hong Kong?

Putting aside my dislike of the use of flags in airport articles for the moment, I've noticed recently 208.76.113.2 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) changing the flag for Hong Kong in the statistics sections of Los Angeles International Airport and San Francisco International Airport from Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg to Image:Flag of China.svg. Before I get into a revert war with the editor, I thought I'd see what the general feeling was about which flag should be used? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about the HK aviation authorities still being different from the PRC so in licensing and aviation matters they are not the same which is why I believe we use the HK flag. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong's one, definitely.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Hong Kong has its own flag and to what Milborne said, Hong Kong and PRC have seperate aviation agreements from each other. Hong Kong SAR flag should be used. Snoozlepet (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Qantas DFW-BNE-SYD

Why is Sydney not listed as a Qantas destination from DFW? Qantas doesn't change plane nor flight number from BNE to SYD (QF8), like Singapore Air from IAH-DME-SIN.... in IAH page, Singapore is listed as destination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiahjr (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's served in the opposite direction (QF7 flies non-stop SYD-DFW), and that it shows up in the Oneworld timetable as "direct", should be fine. I've added it back. --RFBailey (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a stupid edit-war about it in December, which resulted in some <!-- --> comments left in the article text, and no proper discussion apart from in edit summaries--most of which centered around to what extent BNE is a "hub". None of this is relevant: guidelines may be ignored if doing so improves the article in question. Nitpicking and pedantry generally do not. --RFBailey (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of this exact same matter is: EWR-BRU-BOM (Jet Airways), EWR-BOM-AMD (Air India), JFK-DEL-BOM (Air India), and ORD-DEL-HYD (Air India). The flight number and aircraft don't change on those routes but those flights passes thru the respective airline's hub airport. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, those are not the "exact same matter": in those cases, there isn't a non-stop in the opposite direction. And even in those cases there is inconsistency: on the JFK article, Jet Airways are listed with Brussels and Chennai, yet Air India only with Mumbai.....

I suspect the point of the "hub" guideline was based on fairly common situations with US domestic routes of the form [Random Place 1]-[Major Hub]-[Random Place 2] which happen to have a through flight number. In such an example, it makes no sense to list [Random Place 2] as a destination from [Random Place 1]. But that's not the case here. --RFBailey (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Southwest/AirTran SOC Approaching

You may or may not know that Southwest expects to receive an SOC on March 1, 2012. Whenever they actually do receive the SOC, are we going to do the same on airport pages that we did with United/Continental when they received their SOC where we combine both airlines into the lasting airline name? Example below... Kairportflier (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-SOC:

Airlines	Destinations	Terminal
AirTran Airways	Akron/Canton, Atlanta, Dayton, Denver, Milwaukee	B (Concourse N)
Southwest Airlines	Baltimore, Chicago-Midway, Nashville, St. Louis	B (Concourse B)

Post-SOC:

Airlines	Destinations	Terminal
Southwest Airlines	Akron/Canton, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago-Midway, Dayton, Denver, Milwaukee, Nashville, St. Louis	B (Concourse B, N)

Yes, when they do receive the single certificate on March 1, 2012, the name "AirTran" will be dropped from air traffic controllers and pilots and all flights will be referred to as "Southwest" flights. After that day, the AirTran certificate will cease to exist and will use Southwest's. However, ground operations such as websites, FFPs, reservation systems, etc may not be combined until later. This may or may not happen as because CO/UA's ground operations are still seperated and will not be merged later but I don't know about AirTran/Southwest. So, all former AirTran listing should be changed to Southwest (same as UA/CO, NW/DL). Snoozlepet (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to beat the anti-certificate-only drum again. Unlike UACO, DLNW and even USHP, Southwest and AirTran are two very different airlines. And they will take a lot longer to integrate. All I'm trying to say is we can't ignore the branding. UACO and DLNW were sharing codes long before SOC. This doesn't seem to be the case for WNFL. If we go purely by cert, should we then combine DLConn operated by SkyWest with UAExp operated by SkyWest? HkCaGu (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And now you see why I brought it up now and not on the day of the SOC :) Conversions will be happening by then and really they have said once the SOC happens the changes will begin and I think that instead of separating them and possibly confusing the heck out of the reader we should combine them. Kairportflier (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"For the reader"--what a concept we should never leave behind! I have to insist on saying we were too early on merging UA and CO when at so many airports you had to know who you're flying (to the same city) to walk into the right terminal. One of the reasonings was that we didn't want to change things twice, but this UACO overlap has been three times longer than DLNW. May I suggest "operated as" again. HkCaGu (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Southwest is drawing a distinction between WN and FL operations. It seems like certain routes are being slowly "converted" to Southwest, and AirTran remains a distinctly branded operation with different amenities and policies (first class, checked baggage fees) then I think it's appropriate to keep them separate, listed as "AirTran Airways operated by Southwest Airlines" or "Southwest Airlines operated as AirTran Airways". At the point Southwest begins a wholesale shift to the Southwest brand and product, then it would be appropriate to combine them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be factual. To a traveler if wikipedia was a travel guide then we should put AirTran but factually the flights are Southwest flights and should be combined to Southwest. Just a reminder everyone, Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide. Kairportflier (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)