Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

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


New Routes/Services: Exact date issue[edit]

There has been a disagreement among three users regarding the starting of new services at an airport. At Pristina International Airport, Air Serbia announced that it will start services to the airport sometime in 2015 and there is a source for it but there has been no date announced or mentioned. However, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guidelines state that future services must be provided in full including the year. I would want to welcome any new suggestions on how to deal with this issue. Should we just go ahead and include the new route eventhough a date hasn't been announced (we can just update it when a date is announced), not include it at all, or make a note of it somewhere in the table. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The sourced facts can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table. Not the case here. We have guidelines for their inclusion and they say to include only if a firm date is provided.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
How about a section specifically for prospective airlines as at Brisbane_Airport#Prospective_flights? It's not in the table and all these entries are properly sourced. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't see any conflict with something like that. Actually, at Ministro Pistarini International Airport is mentioned that Air New Zealand has a planned future service, but this is done outside the destinations table.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, but let wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion and see their opinions. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say be bold and do it. As long as it's in the text, properly referenced with a reliable source, and relevant, no need for permission from the WikiProject. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm involved in this discussion on my talk page, but I'm busy in my personal life at this very moment in time so I'll reply properly tomorrow. But to be going on with, why is it apparently so that "sourced facts can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table"? That seems a very obscure and ludicrous thing for Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopaedia which gives free knowledge to anyone, anywhere in the world. Tables are not excluded. Regards IJA (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply because the project has guidelines which reflect years of established consensus on the content of the tables, so violating those guidelines is likely to provoke significant disagreement. But content in prose is not so harmonized across the project, so add it and discuss at the article talk level if someone objects — there's no consensus to point to to say it shouldn't be there. (I happen to think that the entire existence of the destination tables violates larger, project-wide policy (WP:V and WP:NOTRAVEL, both of which are policy, not mere guidelines), but that's not a discussion to have on individual articles.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources take precedent. If somebody says that an internal project guideline requires us to remove reliably-sourced, neutral content about a new destination from a table of destinations, either they have misinterpreted the guideline, or the guideline is fundamentally compatible with core wikipedia principles, or a bit of both. I have improved the wording of the guideline, which will hopefully reduce the risk of confusion in future. I trust that future edits will focus on providing accurate, sourced articles for readers, rather than mindlessly enforcing some misinterpreted phrase in an obscure internal wikipedia guideline. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a defender of sourced content. But including anything that is supported by sources anywhere is not the spirit of an encyclopedia. That's the reason for guidelines. Adding any possible future destination to the destinations table of any given airport will turn the encyclopedia into a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. I'd like to recall that the project is built by consensus. Let's wait for other's opinions to go on with this matter and see how far consensus takes us to.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me add that I'm against bobrayner's modification of the guidelines. It was done without gaining consensus first, which is the spirit of this discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact remains that there is no consensus for what Jetstreamer argues. There was never an agreement which says that new flights can only be added to the table if the exact start date is known. IJA (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
What I want to know is, why is it so important to have the exact start date confirmed before we can add it to the table? I agree that if the exact start date is known we should include it, but why should we exclude future flights when the exact start date is known?
And another I want to know, why does it make it a 'travel guide' if we don't know the exact start date? And how does knowing the exact start date of a flight not make it a travel guide? This is some pretty fucking stupid logic here haha. IJA (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Your judgement of the guidelines is not the core of the discussion. They are here and we may change it with consensus. But it seems to me that you're trying to push your preferred version of the situation rather than following the majority's opinion in exactly the same way you did with this [1] edit. It's up to you to search for the discussion in the archives.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Besides the diff above, here [2] you have another example that shows IJA's unwillingness to follow the guidelines consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Without an exact start date, the date can creep in and you have no clue whether it will start or when it's not starting anymore. We have had many of these obscured cases. Also, sources don't mean they are reliable, and many editors won't know how to judge, and even the same one source's reliability can change with time with barely any editors know how to determine. This will leave the benefit of doubt for inexperienced or IP editors with too much authority. And also, verifiability is not the absolute reason to require something be included. For the table, afters years of consensus to maintain the general nature of WP:NOTTTRAVEL, we have also included manageability. The exact date requirement is one element of this, and combining US regional carriers disregarding licensed carriers is another. HkCaGu (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd be happy to add wording along the lines of "announced" or "planned" &c; this is how the rest of the encyclopædia keeps sourced content about future events away from the brink of WP:CRYSTALBALL. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just what I would suggest earlier, like at Brisbane Airport and some New Zealand airport articles, create a "Prospective Airlines" section either below the table or above it. Another suggestion is like some airport pages have mentioned airlines eyeing or planning new routes in the near future, they would mention it in a paragraph sometimes in the history section. As long as it is properly referenced, those options would be better. Also, without an exact date, some articles will become outdated and editors will not keep it updated as much. However, if one insists on mentioning the service, then one can make a statement below the table saying something like "Air Serbia is expected to launch service to Pristina sometime in 2015." just like with the China Southern situation at Christchurch International Airport where as CZ is currently operating charter flights there but expected to start regular flights there soon. One can add that as long as the statement is sourced. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Citydude1017 on this. It should not be added to a table until and exact date is announced. If you want to put it somewhere else on the page with a clear and trustworthy reference, than that is fine, but the table should be for service that has a confirmed date. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
To remain in the spirit of NOTTRAVEL, we really should just have current destinations there, but we all know how hard it is to maintain with hidden notes and all that. So it is for this reason we allow end dates and future destinations' start dates. "Begins 2017" or "begins March 2015" does not conform to the purpose of the table, simply. HkCaGu (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That is odd; I thought the purpose of the table was to list destinations. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's out of the discussion, they do list destinations. Please focus on the addition of future services with or without the provision of full dates in the tables. It seems we're having consensus on the first option, though.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Do you still believe that the airport's most notable destination "can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table"? That's astonishing. If you do believe it, could you provide any evidence at all that this approach would benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus speaks for itself. My position is shared by others here.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's astonishing. If you do believe it, could you provide any evidence at all that this approach would benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to provide such evidence, I already explained my position. Again (and as I said before) this is not a travel guide. If readers plans to use Wikipedia for any kind of travel then they're in the wrong place. Ley me add that the encyclopedias you and I have at home or the ones you can find in a library do not include future events, only the facts known at the time of press. Many users believe airport articles need to be up-to-date regarding operations. This is against what Wikipedia is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there has been some confusion; you're citing a policy which makes no distinction between future events with/without a precise date. Doesn't mention them all, in fact. I recognise that you can't & won't provide evidence that hiding things from readers will benefit them, but if you believe there's a policy which supports your stance, please link to that policy. bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOT is a policy. There you can read ″The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere″. Tend to agree on not including future events but, again, this is not the core of the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There is still, alas, some confusion. I had hoped that you would cite a policy which actually supports your stance in some way. Just citing tangential phrases of any old policy at random doesn't work. The information about destinations that you want keep out of the destinations table is wholly compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please let me know when you find a policy that says sourced content about future events must be deleted if we have the year but not the precise date; I have tried to find such a policy and failed. Until that time, there's not much point in me replying further; you can have the last word, if you want. Or you could find some evidence that actually supports your argument, which may well change my mind. Either is fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, my last word is consensus. What is not a policy is approached by it. This is the case here, and the comments above show that new destinations shall be excluded from destinations tables if no full dates are given, and that they can be added elsewhere in the article provided that they are supported by reliable sources. You won't change my mind either. And seeing that this discussion started a week ago, it seems appropriate to be closed with a consensus for the position I already mentioned many times. However, I won't do it because I'm deeply involved in it.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems we have consensus on providing an exact date for the start of services in destination tables. If no exact date is provided, the commencement of new services can be mentioned elsewhere in the article. In both cases citations to reliable sources are mandatory. Can someone please close this discussion?--Jetstreamer Talk 12:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

AA/US SOC[edit]

It was announced at http://news.yahoo.com/american-airlines-group-expects-merger-milestone-april-8-212318337--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBEiR_JBRVRSQAgozQtDMD that both AA and US is expected to receive a single operating certificate on April 8, 2015 but it is just speculation with the word "expects". However, whenever this happens, how should we list the former US Airways flights when the SOC is given? I know some have already been done but this is due to both airlines's cross-fleeting operation.

Merge all the US/AA destinations together into one listing: this is for both airlines' hub airports:

Airlines Destinations
American Airlines Chicago-O'Hare, Charlotte, Dallas/Fort Worth, Philadelphia, New York-JFK, Miami, Phoenix, Washington-National

or

Still make 2 separate listings but have "US operated by AA" (the US Airways' name and brand will still stick around but flights operated under the AA certificate) and merge destinations into AA when US Airways name is retired:

Airlines Destinations
American Airlines Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, New York-JFK
US Airways operated by American Airlines Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington-National

or

Just put "AA operated by US" as any editors would do regarding past airline mergers (and merge into AA listing when US Airways name is retired):

Airlines Destinations
American Airlines Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, New York-JFK
American Airlines operated by US Airways Charlotte, Philadelphia

Here are some examples on how we should list them since when that time comes, there is going to be a lot of edit wars regarding this and I want to come to an agreement when they receive an SOC. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The first option is inevitable eventually, but while flights are still marketed as US Airways, the second option does make sense. The third option is simply wrong as US Airways can no longer operate any flights once they are under the SOC as they have no Air Operator's Certificate with which to do so. All flights will be operated by AA. SempreVolando (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree on Option 2. Let's not over-emphasize the importance of SOC, given the lessons we learned from past mergers. ATC call signs and passenger branding can take a long time to settle after SOC. We should not merge completely until the last of these aspects are merged. HkCaGu (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the operating certificate will have both "US Airways" and "American Airlines" on it at first. So it's not even clear to me that "operated by American Airlines" would be technically correct until "US Airways" is dropped from the certificate, which presumably won't happen at least until US switches over to the AA reservations system. blog source and FAA letter. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, according to the sources provided by Ashill, just leave US Airways and American Airlines listed as it is as if they were still 2 separate carriers since the certificate will have both airlines listed temporarily and go to Option 2 when the US Airways name is dropped from the certificate. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SOC achieved[edit]

Since it is now midnight on April 8, 2015, SOC has been achieved for both airlines. Since there is no further discussion on this matter, I am guessing we are going with Option 2 (with one user already jumping the gun and changed them already). However, I am very puzzled at the moment. Since SOC is achieved, should we make the US Airways page defunct or past tense since it is no longer a operating carrier according to the FAA but it will continue to operate as a brand name rather than a airline until passenger reservation systems are merged. Also, should all the former US Airways hub airports (CLT, PHL, DCA, PHX) in the "hub for" parameter be changed from "US Airways" to "American Airlines". I am not sure how we handled this for other airline mergers (US/CO, DL/NW) post-SOC. Citydude1017 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, everyone, be on guard for editors who do not understand how "US Airways" is not disappearing any time soon. I just reverted a bunch of changes from "US Airways Express" to "US Airways Express operated by American Eagle". Someone even reverted me using "SOC" as a justification! What does SOC have to do with regional branding? HkCaGu (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Still "operated by US Airways"[edit]

As noted above, the single operating certificate is for "AMERICAN AIRLINES INC AND/OR US AIRWAYS INC". Also, booking any flight, the "operated by US Airways" tag remains for AA flights operated by US; similarly, for US-marketed and operated flights, reservations systems do not say "operated by American Airlines". Therefore, it seems quite clear to me that US Airways remains a distinct operator, so airport listings should still say "US Airways", not "US Airways operated by American Airlines. I have added a citation needed tag for "US Airways operated by American Airlines" at Philadelphia International Airport (though at least two editors have tried to remove it); I haven't gone through and changed all the airport articles. Is there any reliable source that says that US Airways doesn't still exist as an operating entity? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

According to American's website[3], US Airways still operates its own flights. There is no need for an "operated by..." note for either airline. Once the merger is complete, all flights will be branded under the American name and US Airways will no longer exist. I've notified the editor who made all the changes to go and revert their edits; we shall see if that happens. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

According to http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-usairways-reservations-20150512-story.html?track=rss, both airlines reservation system will be combined beginning July 2015 and lasting until October 2015 (that's when the US Airways name and brand will officially disappear). Citydude1017 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

US Airways or American Airlines in the "hub for" parameter of infobox for US Airways hub airports?[edit]

US Airways and American Airlines are now recognized as a single carrier by the FAA. The former US Airways flights are still branded as "US Airways" (which will remain a brand until passenger operations are merged) but are operated by American Airlines. Should we put US Airways or American Airlines in the "hub for" infobox for the US Airways hub airports? US Airways until passenger services are completely merged or leave it as American Airlines? The US Airways airport hubs are now listed as "American Airlines" for the hub and the airports are listed at the American Airlines article. Citydude1017 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I would leave it alone for now. No harm is done by waiting. Does anyone know when the res system will be combined? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not true anyway that US Airways flights are operated by American Airlines (as noted above but ignored). The operating certificate says operated by "American Airlines or US Airways". If you go book a flight on usairways.com, Expedia, or wherever, you will find that US-operated flights do not have any "operated by" tag (as would be required by law for any flight for which the operating and marketing carriers differ), whereas AA-operated flights say "operated by American Airlines". Similarly, AA-marketed, US-operated flights say "operated by US Airways". So changing anything about the description of operating carriers for US/AA was jumping the gun.
The announced timetable for a single reservation system is end of 2015, with reports from non-reliable sources (aviation forums) suggesting perhaps October 2015. A ways away. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ashill, July 2015 until October 2015 as per http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-usairways-reservations-20150512-story.html?track=rss. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

U-Tapao International Airport[edit]

This is a confused airport. U-Tapao International Airport located between Pattaya and Rayong of Thailand. Historically, it was named after 'ruea-tapao', type of Chinese junk (ship). From its website [4], the airport was identified as 'U-Tapao-Rayong-Pattaya International Airport'. I not really sure whether U-Tapao itself a city or just a mere name for the airport. According to IATA [5], the city name is U-Tapao, while the airport name is Rayong-Pattaya International. My main concern, how should we list UTP on destination table? It was written as 'Pattaya-U-Tapao'. For me, this name too long and give unnecessary impression as if there was another airport serving Pattaya. For instance, AirAsia [6] and Bangkok Airways [7] listed UTP as 'Pattaya'. On the other hand, Kan Air [8] refer it as 'Pattaya-U-Tapao'. I need a consensus whether to keep 'Pattaya-U-Tapao' or a simpler and straight-foward 'Pattaya'.Tafeax (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Smolensk North UUBS vs XUBS[edit]

this source [9] claims the ICAO designation is UUBS. the source is linked from Smolensk North Airport. the article claims the ICAO designation is XUBS. which is it? --79.240.203.78 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)