Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Northwest Asia Flight Number Reshuffle (May 2008)

NWA's decision to half-reshuffle flight numbers through its NRT hub is causing a lot of confusion. I haven't checked every pair of flight numbers, but one example is that NW 27 will go SFO-NRT-CAN (different planes) but NW 28 will go BKK-NRT-SFO (same plane type). How do we decide whether to include and what a direct "destination" is? I can think of two solutions:

• 1. Count outbound only. Let BKK have SFO but SFO would not have BKK.
• 2. Scrub all direct NW Asia flights' destinations because NRT is a hub, and all directs going through a hub should be excluded. HkCaGu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. PikDig have undid all my edits to PDX, MSP, MNL, and SIN articles because they change flight numbers for those flights too. I agree with you. But one exception is NWA DTW-NRT-PVG since that is a direct flight but it doesn't matter since Northwest will fly tetroit-Shanghai on March 25, 2009. Audude08 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the above bullet points are supposed to be one or the other. I favor (2) at least for NW because too often the aircraft can be swapped around, turned around, or mixed with Hawaii flights. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to check their timetables, and this is what I found out.

Current Flights

Flight#	Route	Aircraft
NW 1	LAX-NRT-HKG	Boeing 747-400
NW 2	HKG-NRT-LAX	Boeing 747-400
NW 3	MSP-NRT	Boeing 747-400
NW 5	PDX-NRT-SIN	Airbus A330-200
NW 6	SIN-NRT-PDX	Airbus A330-200
NW 7	SEA-NRT-ICN	Airbus A330-200
NW 8	ICN-NRT-SEA	Airbus A330-200
NW 9	HNL-NRT	Boeing 747-400
	NRT-CAN	Boeing 757-200
NW 10	CAN-NRT	Boeing 757-200
	NRT-HNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 11	DTW-NRT	Boeing 747-400
	NRT-PEK	Airbus A330-200
NW 12	PEK-NRT	Airbus A330-200
	NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 14	NRT-MSP	Boeing 747-400
NW 15	HNL-KIX	Airbus A330-300
NW 16	KIX-HNL	Airbus A330-300
NW 19	MSP-NRT-MNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 20	MNL-NRT-MSP	Boeing 747-400
NW 21	HNL-NRT	Airbus A330-300
NW 22	NRT-HNL	Airbus A330-300
NW 23	GUM-NGO	Boeing 757-200
NW 24	NGO-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 25	DTW-NRT-PVG	Boeing 747-400
NW 26	PVG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 27	SFO-NRT-BKK	Airbus A330-200
NW 28	BKK-NRT-SFO	Airbus A330-200
NW 29	NRT-PUS	Boeing 757-200
NW 30	PUS-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 69	DTW-KIX-TPE	Boeing 747-400
NW 70	TPE-KIX-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 71	DTW-NGO-MNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 72	MNL-NGO-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 73	GUM-NRT	Airbus A330-300
NW 74	NRT-GUM	Airbus A330-300
NW 75	SPN-NRT	Airbus A330-300
NW 76	NRT-SPN	Airbus A330-300
NW 77	NRT-NGO-SPN	Boeing 757-200
NW 78	SPN-NGO-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 79	GUM-KIX	Boeing 757-200
NW 80	KIX-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 81	GUM-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 82	NRT-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 83	SPN-KIX	Boeing 757-200
NW 84	KIX-SPN	Boeing 757-200

Updated

Flight#	Route	Aircraft	Begins
NW 1	LAX-NRT-MNL	Boeing 747-400	June 1, 2008
NW 2	MNL-NRT-LAX	Boeing 747-400	June 2, 2008
NW 3	MSP-NRT	Boeing 747-400	does not change
NW 5	PDX-NRT	Airbus A330-200	May 31, 2008
	NRT-PUS	Boeing 757-200	June 1, 2008
NW 6	PUS-NRT	Boeing 757-200	June 2, 2008
	NRT-PDX	Airbus A330-200
NW 7	SEA-NRT-ICN	Airbus A330-200	does not change
NW 8	ICN-NRT-SEA	Airbus A330-200
NW 9	HNL-NRT	Boeing 747-400	June 1, 2008
	NRT-PEK	Airbus A330-200
NW 10	PEK-NRT	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
	NRT-HNL	Boeing 747-400	June 1, 2008
NW 11	DTW-NRT-HKG	Boeing 747-400	June 1, 2008
NW 12	HKG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400	June 2, 2008
NW 14	NRT-MSP	Boeing 747-400	does not change
NW 15	HNL-KIX	Airbus A330-300
NW 16	KIX-HNL	Airbus A330-300
NW 19	MSP-NRT	Boeing 747-400	May 31, 2008
	NRT-SIN	Airbus A330-200	June 1, 2008
NW 20	SIN-NRT	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
	NRT-MSP	Boeing 747-400
NW 21	HNL-NRT-BKK	Airbus A330-300	May 31, 2008
NW 22	BKK-NRT-HNL	Airbus A330-300	June 1, 2008 (NRT-HNL) June 2, 2008 (BKK-NRT-HNL)
NW 23	GUM-NGO	Boeing 757-200	does not change
NW 24	NGO-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 25	DTW-NRT-PVG	Boeing 747-400
NW 26	PVG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 27	SFO-NRT	Airbus A330-200	May 31, 2008
	NRT-CAN	Boeing 757-200	June 1, 2008
NW 28	CAN-NRT	Boeing 757-200	June 2, 2008
	NRT-SFO	Airbus A330-200
NW 69	DTW-KIX-TPE	Boeing 747-400	does not change
NW 70	TPE-KIX-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 71	DTW-NGO-MNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 72	MNL-NGO-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 73	GUM-NRT	Airbus A330-300
NW 74	NRT-GUM	Airbus A330-300
NW 75	SPN-NRT	Airbus A330-300
NW 76	NRT-SPN	Airbus A330-300
NW 77	NRT-NGO-SPN	Boeing 757-200
NW 78	SPN-NGO-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 79	GUM-KIX	Boeing 757-200
NW 80	KIX-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 81	GUM-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 82	NRT-GUM	Boeing 757-200
NW 83	SPN-KIX	Boeing 757-200
NW 84	KIX-SPN	Boeing 757-200
NW 85	SEA-NRT	Airbus A330-300	March 31, 2008
NW 86	NRT-SEA	Airbus A330-300	March 31, 2008

So should we update the NWA destinations with the flights above? pikdig (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. I'd still favor not "allowing" through-NRT NW flights to be considered "direct". As it is already the case, NW1/2 LAX-NRT-HKG are not the same aircraft most of the time despite the same plane type (B744). The A330 routes, however, seem to have more "flight number loyalty" (aircraft actually continue with flight numbers). If agreed to, maybe we can start the new "standard" (that I'm suggesting) on May 31. HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree to list down these direct destinations, since usually the same planes are used for the direct flight once in a while. The same aircraft was used for the LAX-NRT-HKG-NRT-LAX (NW1/2) flight yesterday (Oct. 22). pikdig (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that many IPs keep getting into edit wars with the NWA Asia Flights especially with the Portland International Airport seeing that Busan was continuosly added as a direct flight from Singapore eventhough that there is a plane change at NRT which violates the WP:AIRPORTS rule of a direct flight. So, here's my suggestion: Either remove all the direct flights because NRT is a hub OR Add all the direct flights that run under the same flight number. It is the only way that will make everyone happy and stop the edit wars.Audude08 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK let me make a motion: Delete the word "domestic" before the word "hub in "Airport article structure", "Airlines and destinations", Point number "5". In this case, NRT is a NWA hub. All "direct" flights gone. NRT is a UAL focus city, "direct" destinations stay. HkCaGu (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I go with HkCaGu. pikdig (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Most IPs also delete direct destinations for UAL going thru NRT and NRT is not a hub. Audude08 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but just let me try to understand this. Three wikipedians are now trying to tell the world that a destination's status as a "hub" or a "focus city" directly dictates whether flights through them are "direct" or not?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it. The way I read it is that's what we list on the destinations lists, not that we're changing the definition of "direct". --Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think folks here have to be alot more honest to themselves. It is blatantly clear that the definition of a "direct flight" is being used as a listing criterion, except that these folks arent using the term as they do so in the industry. Are we now condoning misinforming our users through the omission of flights which would have been considred direct outside wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidents/Accidents

When listing events under an airport article's "Incidents/Accidents" section (or another comparable section), how notable should an event be to warrant a listing? Is widespread media attention sufficient, or should major effects be required for listing? "Major effects" could include significant damage to a plane or airport facilities (eg. from a collision, hard landing, or a fire), injuries to those on board or on the ground, and loss of life (though the involvement of the latter would obviously be grounds for inclusion).

I am asking this because many users add events that are basically routine procedures (like diversions/emergency landings due to a minor problem on board the plane). Some of these events may receive a large amount of attention from the media due to either slow news days (when there is nothing else to report on) or "sweeps-week" type events (which could cause sensationalism in some media outlets), making the "incident" seem more major than it really is.

So, what should be grounds for including events in an airport articles "Incidents/Accidents" section? What makes some events more "notable" than others? M^Rasco 07:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that many incidents added are minor, non-notable events which happen regularly at all airports (diversions, minor "emergencies", etc..). They are often wildly reported in the media as you have correctly noted, especially on slow news days. When adding incidents / accidents to airport and airline articles, I have always based the criteria for inclusion on the basis that either injuries or fatalaties were sustained by passengers, crew or those on the ground, or the aircraft suffered substantial damage or was written off, or both. The Leeds Bradford Airport Incidents / Accidents section is I feel a good example, not full of dozens of minor non-notable events (which have no doubt occured during the history of the airport) but instead three serious incidents / accidents, adequatey referenced. Would be interested to hear what other editors think as the WikiProject guidelines are weak on this topic (only brief mention is made at WP:AIRLINE relating to the loose criteria for inclusion). SempreVolando (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of SempreVolando comments, although I would say in my opinion that accidents/incidents with just injuries are probably not notable. Problem if you just say injuries you could include persons who trip down the aircraft stairs and sprain a leg! (Not sure the LTE A320 incident linked above is particularly notable). MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MilborneOne, having posted my comment above I re-read the LTE incident on the LBA Incidents / Accidents page and considered that it probably doesn't warrant inclusion (though no doubt some minor damage to the aircraft was sustained). Perhaps we could construct (or in the case of WP:AIRLINE improve) a form of words which could be used in the project guidelines? SempreVolando (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Starter for comment:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

• The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
• The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

These criteria seem good to me. I agree with both SempreVolando and MilborneOne on this issue and feel that some guidelines for this ought to be posted on the main project page so that there may consistency among the airport articles here. I also concur with SempreVolando in that this issue should be addressed in WP:AIRLINE as well. M^Rasco 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects than we should update the project page but with 160 odd people in the project we should leave it open for a week for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me–those are more or less the same guidelines I've used to dictate the relevance of an incident or accident previously. I think what it comes down to is whether or not the incident/accident will be memorable after the initial media blitz has passed. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me on the proposed wording. SempreVolando (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks no objections - Airport article structure has been amended. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• There was a discussion at WikiProject Airlines over a common standard. A new proposed rewording has consensus there. I'm pointing to that discussion since it would be nice if both projects used the same wording. The new proposal preserves the intent of the current one on this project. It is rephrased to better include both accidents and incidents. If you have any comments, include them there. If no objections surface, then someone will update both project pages in a few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Navbox:Busiest Airports in Europe

User:Stevvvv4444 has added a navbox Busiest Airports in Europe to most of the european airport articles, i had reverted it at the London Heathrow Airport article on the grounds it added no value. It has been added in again by an IP user comment what is the harm in keeping it. I have reverted it again as one day later it still does not add any value. The navbox is a list of the 50 Busiest Airport in Europe two years ago. If you really wanted to go to a different airport you can use the category system. Perhaps we should have the 50 busiest airports in the World two years ago - we can not just keep adding nav boxes. Just looking for other opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found it to be a really pointless navbox, seeing as though a navbox is supposed to be an improvement to the article whereas this just adds a messy and jumbled list of airports to it. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete It's a pointless repetition of the article which can be more effectively dealt with by a See also to the article. How ever did this get clearance to enter the template mainspace ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

With no support for keeping it after two-weeks I have removed the navbox from airport articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and SPA's at Template:US-airport

A single purpose account affiliated with Navmonster.com has added their site to Template:US-airport. This strikes me as a conflict of interest. In addition several other single purpose accounts, at least one who "heard this debate was going on" have shown up and claimed to have formed a consensus to change the template. I have suggested to leave the template as it was, but that apparently wasn't enough. Maybe I have misinterpreted the situation, so I would like other editors to look at the situation. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Had a quick look and never mind adding links I cant see the value of the template it is just a vehicle for external links that are not really needed. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. Perhaps it would be easier to agree to remove the template from airport articles at project level then it wouldnt matter who it is advertising or site pushing. MilborneOne (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its transcluded in 450+ airport articles, and I was under the impression it was created to eliminate the large number of links that tend to get added to airport articles. Are you suggesting TfD for it and the others like Template:US-airport-minor? These SPA's would more than likely switch to adding their links to individual articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and asked them not to change the template to add their own companies. It might help if some others commented there as well. Thanks. As a high use template shouldn't it be protected anyway?--Dual Freq (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments regarding the template in question. Some valid arguments have been made for changes. It is my understanding that Wiki guidelines suggest owner/operators of websites NOT add their own sites as links. The guidelines DO suggest that these users offer their sites up for discussion in the talk pages. This is precisely the activity that has been going on for months in this case.

The only arguments against adding new sites to the template have come from a very few editors - their arguments not addressing the value of the additions, but rather the motivations of those suggesting the changes. When I, for example, suggested that an objective set of criteria be established to select external links, it was shot down by one editor. Why he doesn't want objective measure is beyond me and clearly shows he is biased against any change. Nonetheless, he believes that his opinion should override the opinions of others (I'm not referring to DualFreq).

Several of us have continued with the discussion AS IS SUGGESTED BY WIKI GUIDELINES and have come up with a proposed new template that would be more beneficial to the community at large. The 2-3 naysaying editors have offered no reasoned opinions about why the template should not be changed - they have simply asserted that it should stay as it is. Any editor offering civil, reasoned discussion in the public forum should be heard and considered, regardless of motivation. Attacking motivation is a simple straw-man argument - you can't win the debate, so you try to steer the debate to a different argument. I don't believe this is in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. Listen to all, give objective consideration, and refrain from implying that "certain" editors don't have an equal right to an opinion. Wikipedia doctrine seems to be clear that everyone be afforded the right to equal consideration in discussions. What we're seeing in this situation is that an ongoing discussion is being judged invalid/irrelevant by 2 or 3 editors without any consideration being given to the merits of the arguments. Gladtohelp (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

Hi DualFreq. I was hoping you would respond to my comments. These are cut-and-dried issues. I would prefer that you be a part of the solution, but to do that, you have to participate. Gladtohelp (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

It pretty obvious what's going on here, and the template should remain the same until some experienced WP:Airports editors agree to change it. If you'd like to contribute to wikipedia, there is a lot of work to do. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Ongoing Maintenance or Wikipedia:AVIATION#Announcements and Open tasks, none of that involves adding your favorite external link. After a few months of good edits, I'm sure others would be more open to adding your company to the airport template. It doesn't look kosher when a low edit account tries to add external links to a high use template. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, DualFreq, with comments like the ones you just made it IS pretty obvious what is going on. You refuse to engage in an objective discussion, instead making repeated statements strongly implying that MY comments are irrelevant. Don't discuss, just try to squelch the other side of the debate. Alexf made it pretty clear in his talk page: "As the Talk page of the template is not protected, discussion can continue there to try to hammer out an agreement in an amicable way". If you are not going to work on this in an open, objective fashion, I request that you recuse yourself from further involvement. I would much prefer an amicable discussion of the issues. Will you consider taking a more objective approach?

Incidentally, I made a very large number of edits to all the pilot ratings pages a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I didn't have an account at that time so I cannot prove this, but I trust you will take me at my word. Since creating an account last year, I have made quite a few edits that had absolutely nothing to do with FlightCentral.net. I find your attempts to disqualify my opinions very unflattering. I doubt seriously that you are more knowledgable in this area than I am.Gladtohelp (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

2008/09 "Proposed" routes to China

I am getting a little worried about these routes listed here [1]. I am not sure if any of these "proposed" routes are happening cause many IPs keeping removing CA's TXL-PEK and DUS-PEK routes (from Dusseldorf International Airport and Berlin-Tegel International Airport pages) and i have been readding them since the webite listed above is a reliable source. Also, a editor started a discussion on the Dusseldorf Airport talk page about the Air China edit conflicts. Should we keep these routes listed on the respective pages or should we remove them since these "dream" routes probably won't happen. Audude08 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Many people are removeing direct destinations from this page for Northwest Airlines. WP:AIRPORTS guidelines say to include nonstop and direct flights only. But nooooooooooooo they won't listen and want to list nonsotp flights only!!!! HELP! Audude08 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the guidelines as I recall provide some wiggle room at hubs. However, many people do not know about the difference between the two. Many equate direct with non stop and that is completely inaccurate. I don't know how we educate everyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Portland International Airport

There has been an ongoing edit war for the destinations served by Northwest Airlines. It has been like this

• Northwest Airlines (Amsterdam [begins March 29], Detroit, Honolulu, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Singapore [ends May 30]', Pusan [begins May 31 in place of Singapore], Tokyo-Narita)

Please feel free to discuss this on the PDX Airport talk page so we don't get into another edit war. The page has been semi-protected. Audude08 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand on the issue of whether WP:Airport should be modified to recommend only including non-stop flights? I recommend that we do so, for 2 reasons. First, I believe that most readers believe that only non-stop destinations are listed. Secondly, it's practically impossible to know if a direct flight is scheduled on the same aircraft, and whether the passengers are required to deplane during the stop, unless you fly that route regularly or are an employee of the airline in question.WikiBrown (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct flights represent actual service between a city pair. The fact that readers don't know the difference between a direct flight and a non stop one is not a reason to eliminate the listing of direct flights. If anything, the direct flights can always be confirm with sources that meet WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You say that "Direct flights represent actual service between a city pair." How do they do so in a way that connecting flights, or direct flights under the same flight number using different aircraft don't?

The problem is that what constitutes a "direct flight" is murky. A flight should be considered one segment from takeoff to landing. From the passenger's perspective, it's not really relevant whether the flight continues on the same plane or under the same flight number; it's still two flights.

Also, as was pointed out before, under the current guidelines it will be necessary to add many Southwest Airlines destinations to US airport articles, as they have no hubs and have many "direct flights" with three or four segments.

It seems that the only way to resolve this issue sensibly is to modify the guideline to include non-stop flights only.WikiBrown (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not make sense to say the "Island Hopper" (GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL) is 6 flights. It is one flight with five stops. But yes, I think we should rewrite the rules of inclusion/exclusion. Having read the above points, I can provide a first draft here--feel free to point out more and comment:

• If it goes through a hub, it's not direct.
• If it involves a change of aircraft type, it's not direct.
• If the plane doesn't follow the flight number 6 out of 7 times, it's not direct. (If it's unverifiable through gate numbers, leave it alone, give it the benefit of a doubt.)
• If it is as meaningless as Southwest's schedule (e.g. many SEA-OAK-LAX options a day, one is "direct", others aren't), it's not direct.
• But if most flights of the day have the same stop (e.g. QX SEA-PUW-LWS), then SEA-LWS is direct. This option includes all flights flying B-C far from base/hub A, e.g. QF SYD-LAX-JFK. Listing LAX-JFK as valid destination of each other but not listing SYD-JFK as destination of each other looks really stupid.

More? HkCaGu (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially because LAX-JFK isn't actually a valid destination for that flight; that would be illegal cabotage. FCYTravis (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to illustrate how little sense it makes to simply get rid of all nonstops. If there's a ban like that you'd have QF presence listed in JFK with no destinations! HkCaGu (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

HkCaGu, I am quite curious as to how you could come up with the "If it involves a change of aircraft type, it's not direct" criterion. Is this linked to any established definition? So a current Qantas flight to the UK with a plane change in Singapore is considered a direct flight since it all involves a B747 currently, but should Qantas decide to change plane type in either sector, it suddenly ceases to become one and must be dropped from the list? Could you explain the logic behind this?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Plane change" is already in the current definition in this Project. It says both "the flight number and the aircraft" are needed to be listed here (and let the industry defines "direct"). The Project rule already explained itself that some so-called direct flights are not genuinely direct and results in destination listings being unmaintainable and less than truthful. For "direct" flights with no aircraft type changes, I have repeatedly removed NW's HKG-NRT-LAX because I know they change planes more often than not (by comparing NRT gate numbers). For other segment pairs, I simply don't have time to research whether there is a B744 to B744 plane change and therefore have taken a neutral stand and let people do it either way (while arguing here that we should simply get rid of them). However, aircraft-type change means 100% chance of plane change, and that's how the future SIN-NRT-MSP is on the schedule. HkCaGu (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a startling huge difference between text in a WikiProject and what actually goes into a wikipedia article like Direct flight, which clearly includes flights with a change in aircraft, so kindly do not confuse between the two. The definition in the wikipedia article is supported by the source cited at [2], and which also includes flights involving a change of aircraft type as falling under the "direct flight" definition. As long as you fail to provide an equally credible source which says otherwise, you have infringed on WP:OR by asserting your own definitions of an industrial term (which is certainly not defined by this WikiProject as per your sugguestions here[3]). The "so-called direct flights" refer to a perculiar "problem" involving domestic connections in the U.S. This situation is far less prevalant, and in fact almost non-existant in other markets. Any flight involving 100% aircraft change can certainly be a direct flight if the flight number remains the same. Period. Provide the sources to argue otherwise.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bullying [4] [5] your way around things. I did not redefine the industry definition or the "Direct Flight" article. I simply restated the text of the WikiProject guideline. It says include nonstops and directs except for such and such exceptions. An aircraft change is an exception. An aircraft type change guarantees aircraft change. Stop the incivility! HkCaGu (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot back up what you say, do not attempt to retract them now, or accuse the other party of bullying tactics. Kindly adhere strictly to basic Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V and WP:OR, which you persist to refuse to, even daring to claim that "wp:airport had always defied market terminology" as per this citation[6]. Nonsense! As per your latest insistance on deleting a valid entry in [7], you claim the existance of a schedule which publishes flights for 2 June 2008 and beyond. Nonsense! NWA's current downloadable timetables at [8] publish only flights up to Apr 7, 2008. You claim that direct flights from Singapore to Minneapolis/St. Paul after 2 June 2008 do not exist. Nonsense! Kindly do a simple schedule search, which shows a flight number change of NW5/6 on the Singapore-Tokyo sector followed by NW19/20 on the Tokyo-Minneapolis sector currently. A search for post-June 2008 flights shows NW19/20 on both sectors on the Singapore-Tokyo-Minneapolis route, hence it is a direct flight by definition after 2 June 2008. Conversely, Singapore-Tokyo-Portland flights where switched from a direct NW5/6 flight currently to one involving NW5/6 and NW19/20, hence it is no longer a direct flight by definition after 2 June 2008. Unless you can cite more convincing evidence, I would demand that you revert your own edit now before I take action against your persistant attempts to edit without due deligience to adhere to basic wikipedia policies. I will be monitoring that said article with added attention henceforth.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you will simply scroll up this very talk page, you'll see what planes they're planning to use after the June changes, courtesy of User:PikDig's research. It is purely laughable that there is no schedule beyond April 7, as you searched the flights yourself already beyond June. Airline schedules are generally published almost a year in advance since they take reservations that far in advance. (And if you're looking at the PDF one--paper schedules for US airlines are never beyond a month or so.) Then obviously they have planned what planes they are going to use in order to know how many seats they can sell. And SIN-NRT-MSP will be different plane TYPES. Inclusion criteria here at WP:AIRPORT has never completely surrendered to industry definitions with respect to the meaning of direct, and I stand by my statement. HkCaGu (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you need a reminder of your own actions, HkCaGu, you stated "Undid revision 199761272 by Huaiwei, go download it at www.nwa.com or see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports"[9] when I asked you to cite your sources[10] (which absolutely does not suggest that I do not have any, be it via PDF download or otherwise for whichever period. What a lame attempt in embarrassing someone else in retaliation). Need I say more? Throughout the conversation above, I repeatedly blasted the inaccurate and unsourced definition of a direct flight, which you have not been able to defend in any way, thus an outright infringement of WP:OR. Sources clearly stated that a change in plane type may also be defined as a direct flight as far as the industry is concerned. And may I seek your confirmation that you wish to stand by your statement that "wp:airport had always defied market terminology"?--Huaiwei (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to depart from the subject. We at WP:AIRPORT created the exceptions to "direct" and have not let the industry define what gets listed here. The industry has defined what "direct" is and this is reflected in the "direct" article. Numerous editors on airlines and airports can look up flight schedules faster than me and numerous edits to numerous airports and airlines are made everyday without "citing sources"--the type you, the apparent owner of the Singapore Changi Airport article, demand. We do not define "direct" here. We decided, but are also discussing what kind of "direct" to include. HkCaGu (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder to whom the charge is directed at. In other words:

• You at WP:AIRPORT created an exception to violate WP:V and WP:OR, and avoided admitting that, instead preferring to use your interpretation of existing text at WP:Airport as an excuse, am I not correct?
• You have continously failed to provide veifiable sources to support any of your edits, and refused to acknowledge this fact, am I not correct?
• You have avoided commenting on the point that the said text in the existing WP is actually targeted in particular at flights flying between two American airports and onwards to a third destination, which is different from the case of an American city to a Japanese city to a Singaporean city, and which does not change that often to the point of the community having problems keeping track of it, am I not correct?
• You attempted to mislead me by suggesting that I should download the purported schedules by "download it at www.nwa.com"[11] when no such schedule exists for download since only an electronic search exists in that site currently, and then attempted to cover that up by digressing about my purported inability to do basic schedule research (and in the meantime also failed to show the purported "correct" version of your sources of schedules in here too despite your commment), am I not correct?
• You insisted not once[12], but twice[13], that terms as used by the aviation industry is defined by wp:airport over and above verifiable third-party sources as required by WP:V despite my comments that this is a blatant violation of WP:OR[14], but skirted the issue when I asked you for an outright declaration on your willingness to stand by your statement, am I not correct?
• And last but not least, that you have no intention to directly address all the concerns above, preferring instead to hope for some kind of "backup" from other members of this WP (perhaps knowing full well that I have always been labelled as a rebel of sorts around this WP and usually discriminated against anyway), and in the meantime allerging me as some kind of an "article owner" in a bid to score points for your own agendas and to earn some sympathy points for yourself to enforce your views when you find yourself unable to respond in a logical, coherent, accountable and mature manner, am I not correct?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am now offically confused. Why is Portland listed as a destination on the Singapore Airport page as a direct flight for NWA but Singapore is not listed on the Portland Airport page? Can someone give me an explanation? Audude08 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because someone deleted Singapore from the Portland page? Now a check on the official Changi flight planner[15] will show the Singapore-Tokyo-Portland flight appearing. Singapore-Tokyo-Minneapolis does not show now, however, as it is currently not a direct flight, the former of which is. The current format has resulted in just one known inconsistency between the destination list in the Changi Airport article and that in the official airport timetable. Hardly a mind-bogging problem as suggested by HkCaGu such that such flights must be excluded.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Singapore is now readded to the Portland page with [ends May 30] at the end since it will be direct until that date. Audude08 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-standard formatting of airline destinations

I noticed that on some airport articles, the list of airlines and destinations is not the same as with the one stated on the project page. Shouldn't we change the format of those airport articles that do not follow the project format. And how 'bout the dates, should we really link them 'coz I noticed most airport articles not linking start and end dates. pikdig (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was agreed to link the dates to abide by the MoS since that's basically the policy above all guidelines/policies. Can you elaborate a bit on what formats are different? All Airport airlines/destination sections should be in the same format. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The format of the airline destinations for Singapore Changi Airport, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, and Incheon International Airport to name a few. pikdig (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the format on Incheon is okay (though I personally would prefer the destinations being justified left instead of center). However the format of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur is just awkward. But I don't think any of these are necessarily violating our guidelines, they're just organizing the lists in tables. When you ignore the tables they're pretty much the same. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually posted a question about the format for Singapore on the article talk page but I not going bother reverting it. Audude08 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would just start an edit war most likely. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not recall ever seeing Audude08 engaging in a discussion on the said format, at least not in Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Airlines_and_Destinations.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to question the format....that all!! GOLLY!!! Audude08 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure you could. But I believe I do reserve the right to question the existance of a "posted question" which I probably missed if it existed, or do I not?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also become an issue for all of the articles in Category: Airports in Argentina, where one editor is copying the format used in the Spanish Wikipedia articles:

• Aerolíneas Argentinas / Austral Líneas Aéreas
  • Bahía Blanca (Comandante Espora Airport) BHI
  • Mar del Plata (Brigadier General Bartolomé de la Colina International Airport) MDQ
  • San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca (Coronel Felipe Varela International Airport) CTC

I've already corrected four of the those articles and posted a response to the user's talk page. Perhaps other editors here who have the time and are so inclined could fix the remaining 31 articles in that category? -- Zyxw (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Flights to Newark

Should we list the flights to Newark, New Jersey in the airlines and destinations lists of airports as simply "Newark" or "New York-Newark". On Kuala Lumpur International Airport, it was listed as "New York-Newark" and I changed it to Newark but it was changed back to "New York-Newark". Thanks!! Audude08 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It should stay "Newark", since the airport is located in New Jersey (not New York City), and its official name is "Newark Liberty International Airport" (not "New York-Newark..."). M^Rasco 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you should revert the other edits I made. Some users say that flights are marketed as "New York-NewarK". Audude08 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that there is that there is an NYC iata code that includes EWR, LGA and JFK. However per consensus, we should always use the name as it appears in the destination master list. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay Newark, but I'll 2nd Audude in that a number of flights are listed as New York-Newark on the departure screens. I've seen it mostly at LAX, but there are others as well. It's how they differentiate between New York - JFK, etc. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Continental is pretty much the only airline that I've ever seen use the "New York-Newark" construct on departure screens. United's departure screens, American's departure screens, generic airport departure screens, have all just said Newark. Unlike JFK/LaGuardia, Newark isn't just a name for one of New York's airports, it's... actually in Newark, New Jersey. *gasp* FCYTravis (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur International Airport still has Newark listed as "New York-Newark" for Malaysia Airlines but it keep getting reverted. Audude08 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You Americans may understand the difference between New York and Newark, but for us furriners, Newark is the airport we use to get to New York. Check out the official sites for Singapore Airlines [16] ("New York-EWR"), Malaysia Airlines ("New York" -- they fly to EWR, but don't even mention it!), Scandinavian ("New York" again with no qualifiers), etc etc.

We've had this discussion before (see eg. [17] for the debate regarding Angeles City Manila-Clark Clark Diosdado Macapagal International Airport), and I think it's high time we finally sorted this out as policy. My proposal is simple: [main city served](-[disambiguator]), where "main city" is the largest source of passengers nearby. For example, in Newark's case, most passengers come from NY. Jpatokal (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but for EWR, most passengers do not come from NYC. While I don't have numbers to base this on, I have been using EWR for over 45 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Newark has a population of 273,546, while New York's population is 8,274,527 (30x larger). Are you seriously telling me that the average Newarker uses EWR 30x more often than the average New Yorker? Jpatokal (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually think that EWR is only used by people living in Newark? It is the airport of choice for many people who don't live in Newark. If EWR is so popular with those in NYC, then why is LGA and it's short runways and other issues still open? Where are the mass transit options from? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Once more: EWR gets some 33m passengers a year, the population of Newark is 0.27m, and the population of NYC is 8.2m. Now, are you seriously telling me that the average Newarker uses EWR 30x more often than the average New Yorker? Because that's what it would need to ensure that EWR has more Newarkers than New Yorkers. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you need to understand that the airport does not only get passengers from Newark. It is THE airport for Northern NJ and other areas. NYC is not the major source of passengers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point, the airport is not just located in Newark, it is also in Elizabeth. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I also just found out that some people actually drive from Syracuse, New York to fly out of EWR. So much for have a local draw. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because some airlines market EWR as "New York", that doesn't mean EWR is in New York City. In the US, Skybus Airlines used to fly to Bellingham International Airport (north of Seattle, WA) and they marketed it as Seattle/Vancouver, but that doesn't mean BLI is in Canada (nor should it be described as "Seattle-Bellingham" or "Vancouver-Bellingham"). Likewise, while CO, SQ, MH, and some other airlines market Newark as "New York", EWR is not in New York City, and shouldn't be labeled "New York-Newark". M^Rasco 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your statement tends to ignore the fact that the airport is in, and serves, the major city of Newark, New Jersey. For a similar example, Oakland International Airport serves a broad section of the San Francisco Bay Area, but we don't call it "San Francisco-Oakland." We don't call Bob Hope Airport "Los Angeles-Burbank," nor do we use "Miami-Fort Lauderdale" for Fort Lauderdale International Airport. FCYTravis (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

None of your hypothetical examples are common names, and neither is the disparity in the size of the local city and the nearby bigger city anywhere near as large. Jpatokal (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is false. The disparity in size between the city of Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million) and Burbank (pop. 105,400) is greater than the disparity between New York (pop. 8.2 million) and Newark (pop. 281,402.). Burbank is equal to 2.7 percent of Los Angeles' population, while Newark is equal to 3.4 percent of New York City's population.

Furthermore, Bob Hope Airport is much closer to Los Angeles than Newark's airport is to New York - in fact, part of Burbank's airport is actually in the city limits of Los Angeles!

I stand corrected on the size, but your strawman remains one, as nobody ever calls the airport "Los Angeles-Burbank". And this isn't even an exception to the rule: LA has precisely one major airport, LAX, so no disambiguator is necessary. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And almost nobody calls the airport "New York-Newark." FCYTravis (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate that "New York-Newark" is as common as the simple use of "Newark." While we all agree that "New York-Newark" is used, it is a definite minority usage, promulgated by the airline that hubs there and by international airlines which use it as a surrogate for New York's airports. The vast majority of airlines, including all domestic U.S. airlines except Continental, use Newark alone. FCYTravis (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The "vast majority"? Should we start counting? Please find me even one non-American airline that consistently uses the name "Newark" alone -- even Porter [18] ("New York (EWR)") and Air Canada [19] ("New York, Newark, New Jersey" (!)), right across the border, put NY first. Jpatokal (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is original research to claim that what some airlines might call the airport on their route maps is necessarily equivalent to what they call that airport on departure/arrival boards. For example, for years Southwest had "San Francisco Area" appended to its marking for Oakland on its route map, because the airline did not serve San Francisco directly. But no departure board ever listed that airport as "San Francisco-Oakland." Similarly, Southwest's route map currently tags Albuquerque as "Santa Fe Area" and Fort Lauderdale as "Miami Area." That certainly doesn't mean that departure boards are going to say "Santa Fe-Albuquerque" and "Miami-Fort Lauderdale." FCYTravis (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Newark is a large enough city that we can't just ignore it and call the airport what we like. I don't know half of the cities I see on destination lists but that doesn't mean the list should be generalized beyond belief to suit me. If people are unsure and type "Newark" into the search engine there is only one airport that comes up in the disambiguation page. The only reason airlines use the phrase "New York-Newark" or some variation of those two cities is for advertising. They are trying to sell their products (tickets) and because New York City is such an attraction they want to attract those passengers to the EWR flights in addition to the JFK flights. We shouldn't be basing our decision on their terminology. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly tickled by some comments that "New York-Newark" should not be used because EWR isnt in New York City proper (but is in New York metropolitan area).

• "Tokyo-Narita" is not in Tokyo City, or the Tokyo Metropolis but in Narita in another perfecture (Chiba), which is part of the Greater Tokyo Area.
• "Paris-CDG" isnt in Paris, but in Seine-et-Marne/Seine-Saint-Denis/Val-d'Oise, all of which are part of the much larger Île-de-France region.
• "Dallas/Fort Worth" isnt in either Dallas or Fort Worth.
• "Amsterdam" isnt in Amsterdam but in Haarlemmermeer.
• "Las Vegas" is not in Las Vegas but Paradise.
• "Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi" is not in Bangkok but in Racha Thewa in a different province from Bangkok itself (Samut Prakan Province).
• "San Francisco" certainly isnt in San Francisco, but in the seperate county of San Mateo.
• "Kuala Lumpur" is not in Kuala Lumpur, but in the neighbouring state of Selangor.
• "Seoul-Incheon" is located in the city of Incheon, which "a major city in its own right and is a separate jurisdiction from Seoul", if I may quote directly from the article.
• "Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan" is not in the city of Taipei, not in Taipei County, not even in the Taipei-Keelung metropolitan area, but in Taoyuan County.
• And London has got to be particularly interesting: "London-City" comfortably squeezes into London City, the only one to do so. "London-Heathrow" barely earns the "London" tag by being in the western corner of Greater London. But the other three who shamelessly gets tagged as "London" airports obviously raises eyebrows if one just looks at the map. "London-Stansted" is not in London City, not even in Greater London, but in Essex. "London-Gatwick" is similarly not in Greater London, but is in the country of West Sussex which is not even adjacent to Greater London. "London-Luton"? It is in Bedfordshire, again not even a neighbouring country to Greather London.

So until a more sensible reasoning may be put forth, I am not quite ready to buy that argument wholesale just because a majority speaks up for it.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that almost all of the examples you list are officially called those names-we are not changing anything. There is no official use of "New York" in Newark Liberty International Airport's name. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all? The last I checked, Six of the examples cited above do not have the respective cities as part of their official airport names, yet includes the city in the respective lists. Almost all, you say? And since we are at it, are you now suggesting "official names" are the primary criterion for listing airport names now? Could you care to explain each of the exceptions to this "rule", including those beyond the list above?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be a bit more civil? Upon going to each and every one of the above airport's respective websites, they each use the respective cities as part of their names/logos. I'm merely suggesting we shouldn't invent names for airports, because that is clearly what we're doing here. EWR is in Newark, New Jersey; it's IATA and ICAO codes of EWR and KEWR, respectively, are listed as "Newark/Newark Int'l" with no mention of New York; it's official website only mentions that it's in the New York metropolitan area (after it states its exact location in New Jersey), not that "New York" is at all part of the airport's designation. How many more primary sources do you need? NcSchu_(Talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Define civility, unless cold hard facts are difficult to face. I understand you are somehow related to New Jersey. I wonder what happens when a fella from Chiba comes around and demands that "Tokyo-Narita" should simply read "Narita" because "Narita" is a rightful city on its own merits (in whatever way he chooses to define this). Is he demanding for an "invention" of names? Not exactly, for "Narita" is actually the correct, official name, not "Tokyo-Narita", which is an "invention" as per your definition. As a matter of fact, I have actually been prefering "Newark" over "NY-Newark" thus far. What I am merely doing, however, is to point out an untenable argument, and the obvious inconsistencies already existing in the current format which makes a complete mockery out of it.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When disambiguating cities that is served by multiple airports (City name-airport name), we should use a dash. Like Tokyo-Narita for example Narita is the name of the airport serving Tokyo. So its Tokyo-Narita. For Newark, the airport is called "Newark Liberty International Airport" in Newark, New Jersey but it serves the NY metro area not NYC. Audude08 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, Narita International Airport gets labelled as "Tokyo-Narita" because it serves Tokyo, while Newark Liberty International Airport is labelled "Newark" because it does not serve New York City (but it serves the NY Metro Area, which incidentally includes NYC!)? You have sources to support the second statement?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We label it Tokyo-Narita because it is listed as Tokyo-Narita on basically every destination board, ever. I've never seen one list "Narita" without Tokyo. That is not true of Newark. Every U.S. domestic airline except Continental lists it as "Newark" on destination boards. I have never seen the "New York-Newark" construct used except by Continental. If "New York-Newark" gains common currency and becomes the de facto standard way to refer to the Newark airport at some future point, then this should be reconsidered. FCYTravis (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei, Your tone is coming off to me as very hostile, which is why I asked if you could become more civil. I have no issue with labeling "Tokyo-Narita" just "Narita" through the same reasoning as I demonstrated above. Yes, I have may have some biases (don't we all?) because I'm from New Jersey, but that doesn't erase the fact that I've proven my point above with facts. I don't necessarily support FCYTravis's logic because there's no real way to determine when a certain terminology becomes common. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was actually much more amused than hostile at that juncture, but then again, text has never been a perfect indicator of emotions, so no hard feelings on my end. I understand we all have biases. What is a concern to me, is if the inconsistencies are due to systemic bias or a strong tendency to champion local airports over rival (and larger) ones. I hope it is the former, and if I am right, I wonder if we should expand this discussion to include some cases such as the Tokyo/Narita, Seoul/Incheon and Taipei/Taoyuan examples, to name a few. And then there is that long-standing debate over the Manila/Clark issue mentioned by Jpatokal above.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is neither systemic bias nor "championing local airports." It is reflecting the actual use and naming structure in place. Washington-Reagan, Washington-Dulles, New York-LaGuardia and New York-JFK (seen sometimes as New York-Kennedy) are universally disambiguated, reflecting the actual issue of multiple airports directly serving the same city. While Newark International Airport unambiguously serves the entire New York metropolitan area, the city it directly serves is Newark - just as San Jose International Airport serves the San Francisco Bay Area, but is nowhere referred to as "San Francisco-San Jose."

Seoul-Incheon and Tokyo-Narita I have universally seen disambiguated as such, on United and SFO departure boards in particular. Taipei has not gotten the "Taoyuan" tag on those same boards, however. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you cite "United and SFO departure boards in particular" to determine how Asian airports should be referred to here. Since when are American airports and airlines the primary indicator? Singapore Changi Airport's official schedules lists "Seoul-Incheon" as "Incheon" only, directly nullifying your sweeping statements of "universal observation". Please be reminded that "universal" includes outside America, and that this is an international encyclopedia, not just an American one.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You misread me. The phrase "I have universally seen" expresses a condition throughout my experience, not to a suggested claim that I know every airline departure board in the world. I am speaking from my frame of reference, having observed departure boards at about 60 airports throughout North America and Europe. FCYTravis (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we will either have to respect your "personal observations" or rely on verifiable material as per WP:V, a wikipedia policy. Since you say you visited Europe, I just casually checked London Heathrow's online timetables. Interestingly, I noticed "New York-Kennedy Airport" and "New York-Newark"[20]. Whoops.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be "whoops?" LHR is one of the European airports I haven't been to, oddly enough. FRA, MUC, AMS, MAN, but no LHR. FCYTravis (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Paris CDG. Again its "New York Newark"[21]. Double whoops.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And since you have been to FRA, I checked it. Its New York-Newark[22]. Three of the biggest airports in Europe all use "New York-Newark" in some form or other. I wonder if I should search further around Europe...--Huaiwei (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Same for MUC ("New York (Newark) (EWR)" and AMS ("New York (Newark))". Quintuple whoops? I guess this is why personal experience doesn't really count on WP... Jpatokal (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Asian airports, on the other hand, all show "Newark", including Beijing Capital[23], Hong Kong[24] and Singapore[25]. Funny, isn't it?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<unindent for clarity> Looks like you've unintentionally proven my point. While a few airports, apparently exclusively European ones, use the "New York-Newark" construct, the vast majority of everyone else uses plain Newark, including all American airports (except on screens installed/controlled by Continental) and the few major Asian airports sampled. FCYTravis (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proven your point? Not exactly:

• I (and Jpatokal) have decidedly proven that your "personal observations" are worth almost nothing without solid evidence to back you up.
• The above has shown that many major airports in Europe routinely use "New York-Newark". That the vast majority of major European ports have a far higher number of international traffic compared to major American ports would be a factor in their advantage when compairing global use.
• That three major Asian ports use "Newark" is by no means equal to a sweeping statement as a "vast majority of everyone else". I note that even in the Singapore schedule search, while the "Destination" says "Newark", the destination for the SQ flight says "New York (EWR)"[26]. It is still your onus to prove your point and show such "universal usage", which you clearly havent even when I did a casual search.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. Of course European airports have greater international traffic - Europe is made up of a large number of very small nations, whereas the U.S. is one very large nation. Thus international traffic is an absolutely meaningless metric and does not in the least help you "compare global use." The U.S. has, by a wide margin, more air passenger traffic than any other country, and eleven of the twenty busiest airports in the world are in the U.S., including the top two, and our busiest has nearly 20 million more passengers than any airport outside the U.S. - should that automatically mean the U.S. gets to decide everything in civil aviation? Of course it shouldn't. Traffic pissing contests like this are useless tosh.

The onus is not on me in the least - the established, long-standardized use on WP is for Newark to stand alone in destination lists. The onus is on you to establish a consensus to change that, and so far that hasn't happened. FCYTravis (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like someone demanding that he should get the right to cast more votes in an election because he is physically bigger, has a bigger bank account, or just has a bigger ego. Thank goodness the basic idea of one-man-one-vote says otherwise. The views of thirty European countries still beats the view of one American country as far as an assessment of global use is concerned. Obviously, unless democracy has taken a new twist in recent seconds?

The onus to prove a point is on the person to support what actually exists in the articles, and not on the person questioning the status quo. Are we reading the same wikipolicy?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my point flew over your head at FL350. FCYTravis (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a debate on the destination city in Wikipedia destination lists for flights to Newark airport (in USA) almost 2 years ago. This debate was on the correct place, the Talk page for the airport article. I still believe that New York is the destination city, mainly because I have visited inner city Newark, and it did not give the impression to justify the many flights to the airport. After all people fly to an airport either to change to another plane or to visit an place not too far away, or they live not too far away. And I don't think Newark the city usually is the place. The majority decision was that the destination was Newark, probably because it is usually called that in the USA. Well, outside the USA the destination is usually called New York. For example, Amadeus, a booking system, uses "NEWARK LIBERTY INTL (EWR), New York USA" as explanation for EWR. I have not introduced any New York into Newark because the majority thought it should not.--BIL (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why that argument makes sense. 70% of the destination cities I see for foreign countries mean nothing to me either, but that doesn't mean they should all be generalized to the nearest large, recognizable city. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For foreign carriers that have flights to Newark, we can put "New York-Newark" as their website booking pages have EWR as "New York" since many editors say that the flights to EWR are marketed to New York. For US carriers, leave it as Newark. That is just my idea. Any comments?? Audude08 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but for the sake of consistency it should be one or the other. M^Rasco 19:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So what now? We want consistency, yet we cannot agree?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Caticlan

I'm a bit confuse on how to state Godofredo P. Ramos Airport in the destination list of airports and airlines. The airport is located in the municipality of Malay, Aklan but most airlines refer to it as Boracay or Caticlan which is a barangay of Malay. So what should we state it? pikdig (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there still any "J.C." markers at the end of older runways?

In olden days many of the early airports had an interesting feature: the letters "J.C." spelled in (usually) white stones at the approach end of one or more runways. I know the history of how these markers came into existence but can anyone here confirm if any of these markers are still there, and if so identify which airports? Low Sea (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh, I guess this means there probably are no more of these markers left by the Junior Citizens who helped build these airports. How sad that part of history is lost. :( Low Sea 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs)

UA SIN-ATL

User:Huaiwei continues to add "Atlanta" as a destination for United on Singapore Changi Airport. By looking at UA's schedules the flight to ATL from SIN goes thru a UAL hub (Which is ORD), we have had this long discussion that flights that go thru a hub airport should not be included as there is an aircraft change. Audude08 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could claim there's no concensus on Northwest's NRT hub regarding direct-flight inclusion, but for U.S. hubs by U.S. airlines, the consensus is more than clear as evidenced by the countless airport pages AND the WP:AIRPORT guidelines. HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, for since when did Atlanta become a hub for United Airlines? There is no hub to hub flight here with regards to this particular flight is concerned, and as I mentioned before, just how often do supposed "frequent changes of schedules to the point of it being impossible to be tracked by wikipedians" inflict international flights? The official Changi Airport press release states quite clearly that "United Airlines will handle its first arrival flight from Atlanta (via Chicago and Hong Kong) at 2325 hours on Tuesday, 25 March 2008", and lists 12 new destinations served by T3 airlines which just moved, namely "Shanghai, Kunming, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Doha, Jakarta, Atlanta, Chicago, Hong Kong, Tokyo and Washington DC."[27] The Straits Times picked up the story and has seen no reason to remove Atlanta from the list:[28]. As I already repeated numerous times before, if anyone here wishes to insist on continously overuling WP:V, then kindly provide better reasons to do so other than "it is a pain to catch up". This is horrendously unprofessional, and underscores a reason why wikipedia's aviation-related articles simply arent taken seriously by real aviation enthusiasts.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no one has asserted that Atlanta is a United hub. The hub involved in this flight is Chicago-O'Hare (which happens to be United's largest hub). Second of all, over time various media outlets (including newspapers, major international networks like CNN and the BBC, and television networks) have shown that many journalists have little understanding about how the commercial aviation industry works, and sometimes report information that is flat out false. To say that United serves Atlanta from Singapore is misleading. Yes, UA896 does include Atlanta in its itinerary, but the fact that there is a change of aircraft (going from a 747 to a 737) and terminal in Chicago (due to the nature of O'Hare Airport) makes this flight less "direct" than others. I can point out a few other flights on other airlines of a similar nature (with change of aircraft type at a hub) where the "final" destination is not listed for that airline at the origin airport's article and vice-versa. As Audude and HkCaGu have pointed out, there have been previous discussions and consensuses on this matter. M^Rasco 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If a traveller attempts to fly from Singapore to Atlanta with one airline, finds it missing in our article, yet finds it appearing in both the airport and airline lists, and finally discovers that he was indeed able to make such a flight without much of a fuss other than getting off and on a plane at each of the stopover points, then it is wikipedia which is misleading, not the industry. Till today, not a single person has been able to find me a verifable and credible source saying a flight with the same flight number but involving a plane change is not a direct flight according to the industry. I fail to see much reason to be convinced to accept a blatant attempt to circmumvent WP:OR.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proving a negative is kind of hard. However the first reference in direct flight does say you use the same plane. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, that single source (which is clearly far lessdetailed than the one I originally cited) does not preclude direct flights involving a change of aircraft.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making the argument that we should list every single point every airline serves from every other single point. Virtually any two points can be linked by a single connection through an airline hub - Pensacola, Florida to Fargo, North Dakota. Just throw out the destination lists and get rid of them if we're going to do that, because they'll be entirely meaningless. To the person who is actually flying the route, there is no difference (except in frequent-flyer miles) between a fake-direct flight which is a connection disguised by a single flight number, and simply having two different flight numbers. They both involve getting off a plane, hiking through a terminal to a connecting gate, and climbing on a completely different plane. FCYTravis (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You fail to read my comments properly, even thou they are in simple English. I said quite plainly that our destination lists should follow the industry definition of a direct flight, in that any flight with a single flight number should be included, irrespective of any plane change which may occur en-route. This is completely different from suggesting to list every single destination served via a plane transfer, irregardless of flight number. Kindly do not misquote me, nor exaggerate what I am suggesting. Next, since when is wikipedia a morale authority to "right a wrong" of the aviation industry by attempting to tell would-be travellers that they cannot fly from Singapore to Atlanta because they are going to suffer from an inconvenience in Chicago? Are we a (ethically righteous) travel guide now? Kindly do not access the situation from the POV of the traveller only. To the airline, a direct flight involving a change of plane means they face greater operational restrictions then if it was simply two seperate flights with different flight numbers, as the former must operate as a pair, whereas the later can operate independently. Passengers on direct flights enjoy greater convenience (the gates are usually closer) and greater assurance that they will not miss their connection (the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives). Are you aware of this distinction?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Usually closer?" Who's randomly speculating now? Any source for that? At ORD in particular, that's completely false - you just about can't get farther away than the T5 international arrival gates and the United T1 gates.

It's also not true that the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives. Two flights can be operated with the same flight number - it is done routinely, using alphabetic suffixes on the number given to air traffic control. If you've ever flown United, listen to Channel 9 sometime. It's quite educational. "United 974" can operate at the same time as "United 974 Alpha," which can operate at the same time as "United 974 Bravo." There is a relevant A.net discussion of this phenomenon here. If there are five through passengers to ATL on a delayed B744 SIN-ORD Flight 25, United is sure as heck not going to hold Flight 25's "continuation" on an A319 ORD-ATL just for those five people. They'll send out Flight 25 Alpha and misconnect the SIN pax.FCYTravis (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Random speculation, really? Did you actually read Direct flight and the accompanying source [29] for that? Next, so now a forum has become a verifiable source, but that's ok. I note the following comment "Often the ROC-ATL leg is delayed (like today!). If an extra ship and crew can be found, the second leg will be stubbed, meaning they'll grab the new ship and cew and use them. This is usually only done when the first leg is extremly late". In a normal connecting flight, would aircraft wait for each other until the other is "extremely late" in a usual circumstance?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refuted your comment that "the second aircraft cannot take off until the first aircraft arrives." If you choose not to believe that these suffixed flights matter, that's your right. I personally have flown on a "United 954 Charlie" 757 from San Diego to San Francisco. Anyone wanting to fly "direct" on 954 from wherever it originated that day... was hosed. FCYTravis (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you arent refuting my comment. You are refuting the source where I cited my comment from. If you can read my statement above correctly, I was clearly asking you if it is common practise for segments of a direct flight to be flown completely independently from each other (as they are on a connecting flight), and not if you have taken such a flight before.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As to your comments about ethics - we are not here to serve the airlines. We are telling people the destinations they can directly fly from any given city. We are not required to adhere to the airline-driven fiction that there is anything "direct" about a "flight" from Point A to Point C via Point B, which, in reality, consists of two separate flights on two entirely different aircraft which has no practical difference from a hub connection. Otherwise, just scrap the destination lists and get rid of them, because we might as well list Fargo, Zürich and Athens as United destinations from San Francisco. FCYTravis (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you are writing a traveller-centric set of articles in wikipedia, irregardless of what the airline people, the airport people, the pilots and staff, and what the industry is basically saying? So we are writing a travel guide afterall? Why did you not tell me this earlier?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are more travelers than there are "airline people." We are aiming to serve the public as an encyclopedia. If you want to believe the airline-created fiction that a flight number means there is anything "direct" about taking a 747 from HKG-ORD, stepping off the plane, going through customs, changing terminals halfway across the airport and boarding an A319 from ORD-ATL, that's your right. We aren't required to perpetuate that fiction. FCYTravis (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And thank you very much for finally confirming that you are prepared to openly violate an official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability states quite plainly that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You are absolutely in no position to right a "perceived wrong" evident in sources. Wikipedia does not discriminate amongst its potential users, and you have no right to do so. Wikipedia:About makes absolutely no mention that this site is aiming to serving the public (which leaves me wondering if airline staff are any less public). If "perpetuate that fiction" is not your cup of tea, than this site isn't right for you.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... non sequitur. There's no policy which requires us to do *anything* w/r/t destinations. The policy requires us to have sources. Our current guideline is to list verifiable non-stop destinations, along with no-plane-change direct international destinations. It is verifiable from timetables which flights have plane changes and which don't. We don't claim to list every flight that an airline calls "direct." Nor are we required to include something simply because an airline might wish it included.

Yes, it is verifiable that there is a same-flight-number "direct" flight on United from SIN to ATL. It is also verifiable that said flight is really two flights, involving a plane change at Chicago-O'Hare. Both A and B are true. Our guideline says that if B is true, we exclude the flight. That's not violating WP:V in the least. FCYTravis (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that you are trying extremely hard to worm your way around this one, FCYTravis, when it is peppered with nonsensical contradictions. A policy, for your kind information, takes precedence over a guideline, which is merely "advisory" in nature (but mistakenly enforced like a school rule book by a few self-proclaimed righteous, honest and ethical members here). If you fail to follow verifiable sources by attempting to omit information published by them, claiming the need to avoid "perpetuate that fiction", you effective violate all three key content policies, namely WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no buts about this one, and you jolly well know it.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You really couldn't be more wrong. There is no policy which requires that we include all verifiable information. There is plenty of verifiable information that we exclude, in fact. We use a guideline to help decide which bits of verifiable information we include, and that is perfectly acceptable. Because you apparently have no understanding of that, and are now just tossing out random policy links at me as if they mean something, this conversation is over. Good day, sir. FCYTravis (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can fly from Fairbanks to Miami on Alaska Airlines. But nobody's listing Miami as an AS destination from FAI. FCYTravis (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, my dear, because Alaska Airlines dosen't fly a direct flight between Fairbanks and Miami!--Huaiwei (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And United isn't really flying a direct flight between Singapore and Atlanta. They have a single flight number between Singapore and Atlanta. FCYTravis (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So does Alaska Airlines have a single flight number from Fairbanks to Miami?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Airport article structure #5 "List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports." The plane changes in Chicago, and per consensus, we should not list Atlanta as a destination for Singapore. --Matt (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. If the flight goes thru a hub, then it is not the same plane. Therefore UA's SIN-HKG-ORD-ATL flight involves a plane change at its hub (which is ORD) then it is not direct. Audude08 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

and you will also have to go through customs and immigrations at ORD to get to Atlanta since ORD is the first port-of-entry to the US for that flight. Audude08 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we consider having to disembark to clear customs as making a flight not direct? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that really should come into play. It's more a question of, "does the same plane actually continue all the way through," for international destinations. If you disembark, clear customs, and get back on the same plane, that's a different story than "get off this 747-400, clear customs, ride a shuttle to a different terminal, then board a 737-500." The latter is a "direct" flight in name only. FCYTravis (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The SIN-ORD flight arrives that the International Terminal 5 in ORD so passengers can clear US customs, then they will have to ride the train/shuttle to Terminal 1 where UA has operations at ORD. Still (whether direct or not), you will still have to change terminals at ORD. No UA departures are at Terminal 5 at ORD. Audude08 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Now when a bunch of wikipedians attempt to rewrite definitions for the industry to suit their strong believe that the "deceiving industry" should be put right for the sake of the clueless masses, I wonder...

• Since whether "the same plane actually continue all the way through" has now been identified as the criterion for a direct flight here (obviously unsupported by any verifiable source), I am left wondering if SQ now operates direct flights from Sydney to London (via the same A380) and from Jakarta to Los Angeles (via the same A345)?
• Since it has been decided that a "change of plane" is the absolute criteria to define a non-direct flight here (again unsupported by any verifiable source), I wonder if we should now remove Heathrow, Frankfurt, etc from QF's lists since the stop over at Singapore can involve a change in aircraft[30]? And since we are at it, can anyone point out to me an absolutely realiable way of determining whether a plane change occurs or not amongst flights operated by all airlines for this to be enforced across wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Determining whether a plane change takes place is extremely easy, when it comes to U.S. airlines. With almost no exceptions (those essentially limited to a few Delta flights from ATL to Florida points), the only widebody domestic services left in the United States are operated between an airline's hubs - UA ORD-SFO, DEN-IAD, US PHL-CLT, for example. When a flight is said to be "direct" from some overseas point via an airline's hub to a third domestic point, chances are essentially 100% that the flight is not truly direct. The days when DC-10s plied the skies from ORD to CLE are long gone. FCYTravis (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the global aviation industry involved more than American carriers. Are you able to cite us reliable sources for all the world's airlines, or at least the major ones even? Or are folks here going to continually make guesses as what they are actually doing now?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite Huaiwei's insistence to the contrary, the issue here is not the definition of "direct flight", the issue is what destinations are served by an airline at an airport. I think the current WP:AIRPORTS definition of "the flight number and the aircraft starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports" is perfect, but it should be clarified that this specifically excludes some notionally "direct" flights. Jpatokal (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite Jpatokal insistence to the contrary, the definition of a "direct flight" continues to be debated as is clearly still taking place a few inches up this screen in this same section. I hope his eyes are peering upwards before commenting. The current market definition is one dictated by the flight number, not by the aircraft used. Period.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CRK

After a moment of silence, I'm bringing back this topic up again because, I am firmly against User:Jpatokal stating Diosdado Macapagal International Airport as Manila-Clark. Why? Manila is only assigned ONE airport by the Air Transportation Office of the Philippines per [31]. It should not be stated as Manila-Clark, but rather Clark or Angeles City. pikdig (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Queenstown International Airport

There is a request to rename the subject airport to Queenstown Airport (New Zealand) based on the official name on the official web site. If there are any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace (or piece, whatever). -Canglesea (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The current article should be moved to Queenstown Airport with the current disambig page at that namespace to be moved to Queenstown Airport (disambiguation). As per WP:DISAMBIG, Queenstown Airport should be the New Zealand airport article, as that is what the majority of people would be expecting to reach when they search for Queenstown Airport and hit go in the search box. --Россавиа ^Диалог 06:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree: For the record, this article, disambig page, and links will be moved/renamed today as specified by Россавиа. Thanks -Canglesea (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at Incomplete and Contested Moves. -Canglesea (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan or Taipei-Taoyuan

Seeing that many articles have TPE both written as Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan and Taipei Taoyuan, should we list TPE in all airports as Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan or Taipei-Taoyuan? We need a consistency. Audude08 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I support "Taipei-Taoyuan". When you board a taxi in Taipei and ask to be taken to the airport, you'll be asked which one, and the answer will be "Taoyuan" or "Sungshan". "Taiwan Taoyuan" is just the full name of the airport because it serves the whole island in a sense (as you can't fly to too many places internationally from Kaohsiung). "Taoyuan" is the functional word (and is the actual location). HkCaGu (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having asked this BEFORE many times (read the archives), and getting little to no responses to it. I dont mind either way, but I would suggest that naming be concise and simple, which in that case is Taipei-Taoyuan and New York-JFK for example. If the TPE naming is going by its full name of Taipei-Taiwan Toayuan, I would strongly recommend CONSISTENCY of full-names to Airport be applied to the other airports. Therefore if going by Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan, I suggest this be applied to New York - John F Kennedy, or Paris - Charles De Gaulle to all other articles for example, as John F Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle is the official names of their respective airports. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] ·

[[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dajabón Airport or Dajabon Airport

Duplicate articles for the same airport. Which one should stay and which one should go? -Canglesea (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dajabón Airport is now the main article with a redirect from Dajabon Airport. -Canglesea (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive date updating

Am I the only one that gets a bit annoyed when users go a bit crazy in updating destination lists as new destinations 'begin'? Due to the open skies going into effect tomorrow/today a lot of flights are starting and I see people removing begin dates even though in some cases it's not even the 29th yet! I just think it's a bit absurd, that's all. We do try for accuracy here I believe. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of this is due to time-zone differences... I suppose we should probably base our dates on GMT, just because that's what Wikipedia uses. FCYTravis (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

An IP user has solved the problem on London Heathrow Airport with User:NcSchu reverting the change (rightly so as it is not the 30 March) by removing all the dates including others in the future !! MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Same IP user is now hacking at London Gatwick Airport because he is making lots of very small changes in mutliple edits it is difficult to revert! MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IP User:72.129.127.189 tired of trashing Heathrow and Gatwick has now blanked the GB Airways page - thought he was just being previous (although it looks like a USA IP) but page blanking is vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for several hours as a vandal. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had to revert the edits of three different IPs who had caused chaos with the LHR destination list. I feel like we should get a lock on the page for a few days. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to protect that article, I would need to see problems from IPs over an extended period of time and on a regular basis. I judge this from the comments included with the edits. I don't see a big problem with that article so I don't think you will find an administrator willing to block anonymous edits without evidence of a much larger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I just feel like until Monday or so we'll see a lot of anon users try to mess with it again. It's really not that much of a problem unless other editors not aware of the vandalism make intermediate edits. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Qantas to Vancouver??

Did Qantas resume service to Vancouver that I didn't know about? I could've sworn that they ended service to YVR in January. 58.174.3.141 continues to add it to the respective pages after his edits been reverted. Did they suspend the service or was I dreaming? Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TPE article rename

User:Beautiful Formosa suddenly renamed the TPE airport page from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport to Taoyuan CKS International Airport. I have moved the article back to its original name. Did they rename the airport again?? I thought they just renamed it to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. Thanks!!! Audude08 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

President-elect Ma is promising to undo some of the renaming done by the DPP in the past few years. But since Ma won't be president until May 20, it's premature to move an article. Some mention with credible sources might be appropriate. HkCaGu (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oasis Hong Kong Airlines to DUS and MAN

Is Oasis beginning services to these places from HKG on July 3? Users have been adding it to the respective pages. I couldn't find anything on their website to back this up. Audude08 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not on the airline website and lacks a RS then delete it noting the need for a reliable source. I suspect it was on a blog someplace. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, without a reliable source I have removed the route again from the Manchester Airport, Dusseldorf Airport and Hong Kong International Airport pages. SempreVolando (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference used was Hong Kong International Airport's website (departures information) and not the airline website. Since Oasis's website does not have Manchester and Dusseldorf in their schedules. They will probably add it again. Audude08 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that it's mentioned on the airport website, though. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it mentions the flights on the HKG airport website but Oasis's website nor Manchester Airport's website does not mention the said flights. Weird...huh? Audude08 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not really odd - this probably is the date of the first planned service on this route, already loaded into the HKG timetable. But it doesn't count as a Reliable Source. The airline may well be still awaiting formal approval to operate the service. Once the airline announce the route by means of a press release or similar, then we have a reliable source to confirm commencement of the route. Manchester Airport will no doubt also issue a press release once the route is confirmed. SempreVolando (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gate numbers

I know this has been talked about repeatedly, but the consensus is that gate numbers should not be listed for terminals and airlines because it's uncencyclopedic, subject to change, usually unreferenced, and travel guide-ish, right?

Any objection if I state that "Gate numbers should not normally be listed." in the structure guideline? Should there be any qualifiers, or leave it slightly vague because this is not binding policy anyway? I recently removed gates from LAX and was reverted on the logic that many other large airports have them, so some guidance would be helpful before re-reverting. ASHill (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gate numbers are one of the things that have no way of being verified except by original research and personal experiences (and we know how WP likes those) and most of them definitely don't stay very consistent. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the LAX article, gate number ranges may be OK, but we surely don't want to keep tracks of the As and Bs and how many bridges at each gate and whether the As and Bs at each airport mean different bridges or actually different parking spaces. May I suggest that if the gate count is mentioned, it must be the number of parking spots, not bridges or whatever the "lettering/numbering schemes" the airport employs? HkCaGu (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with having: Concourse A has 9 Gates: A1 - A9. Besides, most [small] airport pages list terminal maps right there on their websites so it is verifiable. Sox23 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We should not list gates by airline. However we can list the number of gates in each terminal. I don't think I object to listing the actual gate number. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, there might need to be guidelines in WP:AIRPORTS saying how much is too much. For me, "9 gates: A1-A9" is fine, but if the existence of 5A and 5B make 1-9 a ten-gate terminal, that will tempt editors to turn to listing individual gates. HkCaGu (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about this terminal? As to 5A and 5B, I guess the answer would lie in why they are numbered that way. If this was done to add an additional gate in a terminal without having to renumber other gates, then why not show this? If it is simply 2 bridges for one aircraft, then it does not get counted. Counting 'parking spaces' has some appeal, but is full of problems. What happens when gate 73 is a bus that takes you out to several aircraft? Is that one gate or is it counted as 4 parking spaces? What about the case where one or two gates in the terminal are used to access multiple regional aircraft? In the end, the simplest might be to just count gates in the terminal that service one or more aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about it. I would prefer something along the lines of "Concourse A has 19 gates numbered with the prefix A" or, for LAX-like airports, "Terminal 2 has 11 gates with gate numbers between 20 and 29" or "Terminal 2 has 11 gates with all gate numbers beginning with '2'." (See my comment below for my first preference, though.)

Unless there's a source, speculation that 5A and 5B are numbered that way because a gate was added is original research anyway. If there is a source, why not just say "A gate was added in 1843."? ASHill (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for me to see "Concourse A has 10 gates: A1 - A9". It just wouldn't last because people will add excessive details. If gate mentions are OK, then the guidelines should say "gate count OK, gate range OK, individual gates not OK". (How many airports, terminals and concourse have a "perfect" numbering scheme anyway?) HkCaGu (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Gate number ranges would be OK with me, but I don't really see how it's encyclopedic and not travel guideish to say what the airport calls them, particularly given the pragmatic concern that it will quickly get ridiculous. I would prefer if the guideline were simply to say "State the number of gates or aircraft parking spaces in the concourse or terminal; do not state the numbers of individual gates." ASHill (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So are we saying that it is OK to list the number of gates and the lowest and highest gate numbers but it is not OK to list individual gate numbers. If so, that to me is a reasonable solution. So we would say a terminal has 5 gates (A1-A9) and not 5 gates (A1-A3, A7 and A9). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that make sense. Readers who just look at wikipedia will not know that 5 gates (A1-A9) actually means (A1-A3, A7 and A9). They'll think it is just a mistake and think wikipedia is that much more unreliable. I don't see what is wrong in saying: Concourse A has 5 gates: A1-A3, A7, A9. Number 1: That is actually correct, and Number 2: This is a stupid argument. Come on...we're talking about whether or not gate numbers should be added in airport articles. We're making too big a deal out of nothing. As I said before, many airport websites list terminal maps that include gates listed on them so its not like the gates are unverified/unsourced. I'm sure one can look on an airport's website and see that Concourse A has 5 gates and they're numbered A1-A3, A7, A9 and not A1-A9. Sox23 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be there without a source, so there should be a footnote right next to any gate numbers, so readers can easily check that. I agree that this isn't worth much time arguing over, but I do think that a long list of gate numbers looks ugly and like a parody of Wikipedia. I personally would never add gate numbers (either individually or as a range), but I don't care enough to revert or delete a range; I do care enough to revert a long, ugly list, provided that others agree that they're not worth including; that's the reason I brought it up here. I'm fully comfortable with any of the suggestions by Vegaswikian, HkCaGu, or NcSchu above. ASHill (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed how JFK does some of this. Take a look at Kennedy Airport#Terminal 2 and Kennedy Airport#Terminal 3 where they list gates and pads both. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the US Helicopter flights at JFK and EWR have the specific gate number listed beside it. Also, on O'Hare International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport articles users have been adding the gates the specific airline use at those airports (especially in the International Concourse/terminal sections), I have removed them as they are unsourced and unencyclopedic. I think the airlines use different gates in those terminals and they seem to constantly change. Audude08 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate Jakarta??

I have posted a discussion on the Singapore Changi Airport talk page after seeing that Jakarta has been disambiguated from just Jakarta to Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta. I see just neutral repsonses. So, I am asking again, does Jakarta really need to be disambiguated since Soekarno-Hatta Int'l and Halim Airports are the only two airport in operation? Audude08 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport does not offer commercial flights then there is no need for disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one (1) scheduled cargo flight from Changi to Halim. All passenger (and other cargo) services, however, operate to Soekarno-Hatta. Jpatokal (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So is that why Singapore Changi Airport have Jakarta disambiguated? Audude08 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be User:Huaiwei's logic, yes. I think it's unnecessary, as "Jakarta" can be assumed to mean CGK unless otherwise noted. Jpatokal (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cause I seem to disam Jakarta on other airport articles but it just gotten reverted. Isn't using his logic inappropriate here. Audude08 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly see Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Disam_Jakarta.3F.3F for full details of the dispute, instead of relying on the quality of comments made here especially by Jpatokal. I disambiguated the two Jakarta airports as "Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta" and "Jakarta-Halim Perdanakusuma" as there is a commercial scheduled route being operated to each airport from Singapore Changi Airport. Jpatokal argues quite inexplicably that disambiguation is not neccesary since it isnt two passenger routes being involved here, but one passenger and one freight. Right. So since he has refused to explain this logic despite repeated requests to do so, I recon he either expects viewers to somehow guess that freight routes will naturally go to Halim Perdanakusuma instead of Soekarno-Hatta. Or perhaps he believes travelling cargo won't be reading wikipedia anyway (I can't dispute that thou! ;)), hence there is no possibility of confusion. He lately insists that disambiguation should be in the form of "Jakarta" and "Jakarta-Halim Perdanakusuma" without really explaining why either, and despite this being at odds with formats used in most articles (many of which would list "Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan" or "Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi" despite no routes operated to smaller airports). Audude08 therefore interprets my action as requiring all instances of "Jakarta" being replaced with "Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta", something I have never proposed (but will not entirely object if blind consistency is the in-thing here). In situations like this, I would think basic common sense would make it clear that such disambiguation is only neccesary when flights are operated to two different airports in the same city, where the smaller city has extremely limited traffic.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Once more (this is an exact copy of what I already posted):

There are two separate points here, my friend. One: If one airport is far larger than the competition, disambiguating the name of the larger airport is unnecessary. (Cf. SIN vs XSP, KUL vs SZB, MEL vs the rest and, yes, CGK vs HLM.) Two: Passenger and cargo flights should be separated into their own tables, which further reduces the need to disambiguate cargo-only airports like HLM and YMX. Jpatokal (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to forget about it since it would be no case arguing about it. Audude08 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just disambiguated the 2 Jakarta Airports on article that have Jakarta listed as a destinations just to make everyone happy. Audude08 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree disambiguating Jakarta. pikdig (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I. Audude08, nobody except you is suggesting disambiguating them everywhere, so please undo your changes. Jpatokal (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only Singapore Changi Airport will leave Jakarta disambiguated. Audude08 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminal names

When one airline is the only airline using gates in a terminal, should that name appear in the terminal heading? I think the names should be the names as used by the airport. Adding the airline starts making the entry more of a travel guide. In addition, this can be very misleading when an airline has exclusive use of one terminal and operates from several other terminals. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example, do you mean something like British Airways Terminal 5 instead of Terminal 5 for example. In this example it would be wrong even though BA have almost exclusive use it doesnt change the name of the Terminal. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In many US Airport articles, there is something like: ===Concourse C - Southwest Airlines===. See McCarran International Airport/"Concourse A" and "Concourse C" for an example. I agree with what Vegaswikian is pointing out. People may think that Southwest Airlines has exclusive rights to Concourse C at McCarran, and that just isn't true. I think we should take it off the heading and leave it as: ===Concourse C=== Sox23 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK understood, agree with Vegaswikian and Sox should not be in heading if not part of the official name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the point it in it especially if it's not an official designation of the terminal. It's pretty obvious that a certain terminal is only one airline just by looking at the airlines that serve it! NcSchu_(Talk) 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport article, Concourses A and B both have Delta Air Lines on the side of it. Since ya'll agree not to put the specific airline for the concourse. I going to go ahead and remove it. Audude08 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just removed a few more from Washington Dulles International Airport and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport articles. I remove more if I find any. Audude08 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding new airports

I created pages for a few of the airports in the list of requests, only to find that it was a complete waste of time, because there was already an article under a different name for the airport. Could we put a note to people adding airports to check that there isn't already a page for the airport under a different name - to save editors like me the time and effort of creating unnecessary pages. Callumm (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have suggested searching on the IATA/ICAO/FAA codes prior to creating an article. BTW, thanks for the quick work on the list. -Canglesea (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Best regards, Callumm (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking Start/End Dates

I see that people are now starting to wikilinking dates on every airport article here per the project guidelines and WP:MoS (In the past, we don't wikilink them). I think that there are a TON of articles that have not had start/end dates wikilinked. I wondering if we should wikilink every date for every airport article. Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)