Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

Cargo Garuda Indonesia

Is there such a subsidiary with a fleet? its not listed anywhere on internet no references online either. signed inspector123

Kindly redirect this to main airline article as there is no such seprate division of the airline with its own fleet, cargo is ferried in belly hold of passenger aircraft only.

Syrianair destinations redirected

Some one has redirected Syrian air's fairly large destintions list to main article, kindly revert back to seprate destinations list page. inspector23

Resolved.signed inspector123

Tentative launch dates

These should be acceptable as semi-confirmed in this case http://www.hindustantimes.com/flydubai-to-connect-Ahmedabad-with-Dubai/Article1-700243.aspx yet its is being reverted by editor abhishek. inspector123

As long as there is a firm date, then it can be added as long as you include the source. Once the airline reconfirms a new start date and the airline officially announces it then updated it and the new source as well. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Airlines

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

Check this and read summary under pic [1]. 116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not enough evidence to support moving the Saha Airlines article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Flight Internationalo World Airlines 2011 lists it as Saha Airlines! MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet no change. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminated and future destinations as separate tables?

Apologies if this has been raised before but I'm not a regular here. Most major airlines list of destinations seem to include a single table purporting to be a list of destinations as of ... . eg. Qantas destinations. I suggest that terminated and future destinations be moved into separate tables within the article. I believe that this would make the articles much more useful to the reader. Moondyne (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we are discussing the way of presenting the information, instead of the nature of the information itself (which in most of the cases is far from being complete and/or accurate). I see little or no efforts from most of the editors in reverting this particular issue.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my proposal? Separate tables might encourage more effort in adressing incompleteness and/or innacuracy. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I support separate listing. "Terminated destinations" are not "XX Airlines destinations" per se. They are additional information. One should not find 100 destinations in a table and then realize only 3 are current. HkCaGu (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not support separate tables, as current, future and terminated destinations have all the same status and should be treated as such. If we give priority to the list of current destinations the article turns out to be a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not for.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that concern but per WP:SURPRISE, separating inactive destinations just seems more natural. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Using a single table allows the reader to sort the table in any way they want, for instance chronologically, by country or by terminated destinations. By creating two tables, we are removing many of the readers options and simply presuming what information they want. A good example of how to organize the table is at List of Dragonair destinations, which is a featured list. I can assure you the list would not have been featured if it had been two tables. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How can you assure that it wouldn't be a featured list if there were two tables? Looking at another featured list (tallest buildings in New York), there are multiple tables including current, future and former buildings. Another featured list (former London Underground stations) separates former and unopened stations. I support separate listings. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Dragonair destinations doesnt include any terminated or future destinations which is specifically what this proposal is about. How can you give that assurance? I've reviewed a few FLists and think that this issue is one I would raise if I was a reviewing. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let us all know, User:Thankyoubaby has reverted the recent edits I made to KLM destinations thinking that this is a poll. I spent an hour and a half making such edits. May I ask why an editor that had never edited the article before can revert a total valid improvement to that page? I will stick to WP:IGNORE in this case.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer single list, the multiple ones may work in other articles but not airline destinations, Air France destinations and British airways destinations are better examples. Qantas and Dragonair types look bad due to text wrapping too many coloured bars and unecessary photos. only pastel colours should be used like in Qatar Airways destinations with no symbols to mark or identify anything either.116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW there is some problem in tables, they are not listing cities alphabetically if you line up countries in alphabetical order, please fix. 116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is deadlocked. Can we reach a consensus asap? I'd like to hear the opinions of experienced editors in the matter, not the ones of unexperienced editors that only cause disruptions to any attempt of making a better Wikipedia. I am here for making improvements to articles (the proof is that two articles in which I contributed gained GA status in the last three months), rather than wasting my time in discussions already treated. This discussion is banal, we are dealing with aesthetics and not with contents. There's very much to do here. The only actions taken by User:Thankyoubaby is to revert the edits I made to KLM destinations. Furthermore, I don't see his/her opinion here, only complaints about other's edits. Why don't you set to edit the encyclopedia constructively instead of reverting?.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a big fan of tables but if we are going to use them then they look a lot better as one single table, although I would include start stop dates rather than the ICAO and IATA codes (not sure why we need them). As this is not a travel guide but an encyclopedia then why split out the current destinations, the article should show the scope of destinations covered by the airline since it started not just this week. The only reason to split the article may be to have domestic and international shown as separate tables, but this would depend on the airline on the balance between domestic and international and should be decided at each article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor has taken unilateral decision to revert Alitalia destinations from table style back to text format, a table cannot be reverted to old style text list and the reasons he has listed in talk page are nonsense, that way all tables could be reverted to text style listing.116.71.21.32 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I'll take it.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinair

The airline has ended passenger service, should there be a seprate Martinair Cargo title for destinations list, while Martinair destinations can host all historic passenger destinations? 116.71.17.64 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New page Martinair destinations. 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above article is completely unsourced.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unecessary uglification of destination lists

Some editors in good faith are going arround poting tons of un-needed photos to the destinations lists pages of airlines, making the articles look unappealing to viewers and distortiong table layout with wrapping text see Turkish Airlines destinations which used to be a simple and clean looking article, kindly put a stop to this unecessary practice, it seems like whenever editors are bored they try to take a new challenge of dressing up wiki articles and that too without concensus. Though original table layout lists of airlines also started off as such, I think less is more and the photos should be removed from there as well, you clearly see the clean look difference in ones made later without photos.inspector (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no wrapping text in that particular article. Recall that wrapping depends upon the browser you use, and not upon the format of any particular article. Separately, the guess I can take from taking a look at your talk page is that you are prone to make disruptive edits to many of the articles you stepped into. I kindly advice you to contribute in other ways (adding references to Martinair destinations, which you recently edite, would be a good start) rather than modifying the aestectics of articles that were in the very same format for long time before you tried to changed it.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Trust me I have never done anything to uglify articles nor take control of them like you did of KLM while still under construction, YOU DO NOT OWN ARTICLES NOR DO I, the only editor whgo had an issue with me was Jaspel who seemed to be a psycho and a sock puppet ganged up with other like minded supporters or maybe he was all of them, he used to revert and clash with everyone and bitch about all, anyways the articles need to be edited with mutual consent reaching common ground and a wider consensus with other editors involved, now unless they are your pals and will side with you regardless what, like a certain gang of five used to till last year its pontless. Martinair article still carries underconstruction tag and is open to editing by all who can add more places, references or even tablefy it, unlike you and the KLM destinations article ownership.inspector (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not intend to turn this into a battleground. Please take a look at my recent edits to KLM destinations and you'll note that I have added sources (I actually added most of the sources it currently has), plus an infobox that MilborneOne kindly advised me to use. I agree with you in that nobody owns any article, never said something against that policy. Again, I advice you to make edits aimed at positioning you as a reliable editor. That's the only thing I'm trying to say.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI Chrome, Explorer and Firefox are all showing the table text wrapping, which broweser are you using? inspector (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and I don't think I see Turkish Airlines destinations text-wrapping at all. Maybe you should try setting your computer to a higher screen resolution (at least 1280x1024) and see if that fixes your problem. If you have your screen resolution set at 1024X768, you will indeed see that the table is text wrapping and looks really ugly. I know this because as I am typing this, I have my screen resolution set at 1024x768 (normally it's 1280x1024), and the Turkish Airlines page looks really ugly. So just try setting your computer to a higher screen resolution (at least 1280x1024) and that should fix your problem. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

However do keep in mind that not everyone has a display capable of high resolution. What is the best available on your netpad? Maybe 1020x600? I seem to recall somewhere the recommendation that articles be written to display on an 800x600 display to avoid screen issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not tech savvy, can you guide me how to do it. inspector (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Right click on the desktop if you are on a windows machine. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly there no wrap on iPad, so I apologise to Jetstreamer, and thank him for removing unecessary photos from the lists as well. 116.71.18.97 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem buddy!.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Monarch's New Logo.

Hi can anyone please get Monarch's new logo (Indigo crwon with Monarch.co.uk on) and put it on wiki because the current logo (Monarch with indigo & yellow crown) they stopped using in 2009. Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The logo i currently see in the infobox matches the logos available for download on their web site: http://www.monarch.co.uk/about-us/photo-gallery/monarch-photo-gallery -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt look like it has been updated. Plane pictures look old too as the 757 is no longer in those clours and G-OZBJ left in 2008 as well. I would get the one in the top left but the colour makes it go finny :( --MKY661 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I would get the picture in the top left

charter destinations

What is the ruling on charter destinations operated by non-charter airlines especially flag carriers, can they be listed in their destination lists with reference, are they to be only listed in airport articles only or neither of the two? 119.155.53.160 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd say you'd create a seperate list for them within the article, under the heading "Charter destinations", and they would probably not be included in the destinations count. Also be sure to provide a ref for them because they can be quite hard to trace.Speed74 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Tegel vs. Brandenburg

May I draw your attention regarding this section? Isn't it crystal balling? Why assuming all the airlines will continue serving Berlin once operations will be taken over by Brandenburg?--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Common sense states if an airline quits Berlin it is to be removed from which ever airport its serving and from the list for Branderberg between now and June 3, so yes till then its expected all airlines serving TXL will serve BER too, unless they announce quitting Berlin.116.71.21.32 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone please intervene in this issue, several airline destination lists show BER starting from 3 June TXL ending from 2 June, but for some reason Jetstreamer has hijacked Turkish airlines list not letting this information be added there and reverting my edits, despite giving him a logical explanation above, remember you do not own that article, and my edits are inline with what has been done in several other airlines destination lists and remains there, if its an issue then go delete BER from the lists of all those airlines and not just Turkish.116.71.12.101 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot take care of all airlines serving Berlin, but I do watchlist Turkish Airlines destinations. It seems you have a preference for saying that I own articles. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before making such statements; you're specifically missing the part claiming that all unsourced information is prone to be deleted. How can you assure with certainty that the airline will continue serving Berlin once the timetable provided in the article is due?. I just say wait. Or you may also find a reliable source to support the claim.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to show my will to changes, and also to show that I do not own articles, I reverted myself, and requested a source for the beginning of services to Brandenburg.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alitalia Airport

This airticle is about a gropund handling company and not an airport, it should be changed to Alitalia Airport (Company). 119.155.37.228 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest I find the interest/notability of the article to be close to null, although my deleting of it was rejected around a month ago. To answer your question, there is no airport named "Alitalia" to create confusion, so for me the name is quite fine as Alitalia Airport. Speed74 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Table format for destinations lists

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

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

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

Here my reasons go: Dragonair destinations and Braathens destinations reached FA status, and both are in table formats. Please also read a comment posted by Arsenikk above regarding this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I am not terribly interested in wether Dragonair destinations reached featured status, what I am saying is that the table is confusing continents, terminated/seasonal/hub/cargo/charter/air one flights, and is providing unnecessary information as well as making the article more complicated to edit. We are talking about a different article than Dragonair destinations here. Speed74 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about improving Wikipedia, and making an article reaching GA or FA status is actually a step forward. Irrespective of my opinion regarding reviewing processes, the fact that an article has GA or FA status shows that it has been improved by all the community to the extent that its contents has been praised as encyclopedic. It is not only a matter of the information it contains, but also the way it is presented, and a general disadvantage of list formats is that sortings (be it by country, by city, by airport, etc.) are not available at all.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

While tables may look nicer than lists and are easier to sort to your own liking, they are harder to edit than a list. This is especially hard when it comes to color coding (I still haven't figured out how to change colors of cells).

Also, I feel that there are a few things wrong with the info displayed in tables. I think that the sorting should be changed to increase commonality with the list format. It should go like this: country, then state/province (not always necessary), then city, and then airport. This is how the list format is sorted; why not do it with the table format as well? Also, I thought flags were discouraged in destination lists; if so, why are we putting them in the tables? Also, do we really need to list the IATA and ICAO codes in the table? These are also not listed in the list format and probably shouldn't be listed in the table either. --Compdude123 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above - while the table may be (slightly) more visually appealing, it would be better to list destinations by country, and I also find that mixing terminated destinations in is a bad idea - creating several tables or changing the order will be very complicated by nature of the table formatting, and thus the list format is more managable. Also, I'd like to ask what extra practical benefit the table brings - in Dragonair you have the start and end times of terminated destinations, which is all very nice, but apart from that you are simply putting things into columns intitled "country", "city" and "airport", which are quite self-explanatory in the list format to be honest. Speed74 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See my posted suggestions below in topic New and improved destination table format. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Are flags optional in table list? it was given FL status with flas and everything, an editor just removed them from one article without consent form others, I think its vandalism. 116.71.7.190 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags aren't optional; they are NOT allowed, yet people still put them in the tables. Flags are totally pointless, and their removal does not constitute as vandalism. See this policy. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why has table format been approved with flags? to me they seem to add much needed colour to the rather bland table, but their repetition is annoying, but flags do not suite the text list at all.116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The above link provided by Compdude123 is not a policy, but project's guidelines. It also says that flags are discouraged in word-based formats, not in table formats.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

United and Continental

A lot of people are saying that both carriers are to receive a single operating certificate on November 30, 2011. Can anyone provide a source for this? Snoozlepet (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Found a source: http://news.yahoo.com/pilots-united-gets-single-operating-certificate-231520061.html they will get a single operating certificate on November 30. I believe tomorrow we can start listing CO flights as 'United operated by Continental". Snoozlepet (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest rather "United operated as Continental". See my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

When do we change the Continental Airlines page to past tense and what date should "cease operations" be? Should the date of cease of operations be the date when United received the single operating certificate on November 30, 2011 or the date when the reservation systems combine and the "CO" IATA code disappears? Need to solve a "mini" dispute regarding that page. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why we cant change the Continental page to a defunct airline and freeze the data, as far as most people concerned it is the same airline so all the current stuff should be in United. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously we can't do that yet because the page has been fully protected, apparently due to edit wars. I would go thru and change it to past tense, but I'm not a Wikipedia admin. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of silly shenanigans the page is locked and only sysop's can get at it. You guys should know much better than this. I'm disappointed in everyone that took part in the edit "war" of sorts that happened there -- and now we have no access until December 7. Don't let that happen again, if you see a situation like that coming upon you, just let it be and talk to them on the talk page, not in edit summaries. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason why the page cant be edited all it needs is a consensus on the talk page and an edit request. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite a tedious way to go about doing it, isn't it? Just a bit frustrated this all happened -- especially from experienced editors. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD Czech Airlines destination list

Project members may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Airlines destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Republic Airways Holdings

Our favorite IP editor is at it again, now with a newly redesigned {{Republic Airways Holdings}} navigation box. Three of the links go to the same article (and who is "RAH Air Carriers", anyway?). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to {{tfd}}? Or can we simply delete this as part of the ongoing IP WP:POINT battle being waged without consensus?Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the "simple" version again but not sure how long it will last. I dont think nav boxes are designed to make a point just to navigate but the IP doesnt appear to understand. Also need to look at Template:United Continental Holdings which far to complicated, looked at trying to simplify it but it appears to have a lot of non-relevant stuff and internal links to things that dont exist as articles. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it again to the simple version. The IP user (who uses constantly changing dynamic IPs, making any sort of blocking action pointless) has been trying to push an agenda of exposing holding companies for years. He's made up terms before (anyone else remember "regional sub-brands"). Now he's making up company names; when I search Google for "RAH Air Carriers" the only hits are Wikipedia articles that include this template, which suggests to me that there is no such thing, and is a WP:MADEUP violation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he will not be changing that one again unless he registers. If any of the admins disagree, feel free to unprotect. But I'd rather work on something else then deal with this IP. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Blue Holdings > Virgin Australia Holdings

Virgin Australia's parent company Virgin Blue Holdings has officially changed their name to Virgin Australia Holdings, [2]. I have requested a page move at Talk:Virgin_Blue_Holdings#Page_Move_request_to_Virgin_Australia_Holdings if you wish to participate. Sb617 (Talk) 11:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey destinations

Some editors are listing Turkey in Asia on destination lists of text format, do the Asian side cities list in Asia or Europe? what about Russia's Asian cities, if an airline only flies to those, where do they get listed. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing about Turkey is that a small portion of it (Istanbul) is in Europe, while the rest is in Asia. Same goes for Russia. If you're west of the Ural Mountains, you're in Europe but if you're east of the Ural Mts, you're in Asia. I think that to solve your problem just remove the continent column altogether. As you've stated above it creates more problems than it solves. If any user disagrees with you and starts an edit war (hopefully it doesn't get to that extreme!), just explain to him/her what I have explained to you. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a fairly large chunk of Turkey in Europe which could form a small country, and not just part of Istanbul as you stated. 116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some Jewish or Israeli editor has taken offence to Turkey being listed in Europe and has spent his entire week removing Turkey to Asia in all airline destination lists on wikipedia, kindly help undo this, he has also vandalised some other non aviation articles, mainly those dealing with Arab countries. 116.71.1.159 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly why we should not list continents in destination lists. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New and improved Destination table format

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

another version

As of April 2008, El Al operates scheduled passenger flights to the following destinations:
Country	City	Airport	Notes
Europe
Austria	Vienna	Vienna International Airport (VIE)	Code share agreement with Austrian Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Belarus	Minsk	Minsk International Airport (MSQ)
Belgium	Brussels	Brussels Airport (BRU)	Code share agreement with Brussels Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Bulgaria	Sofia	Sofia Airport (SOF)	Code share agreement with Bulgaria Air on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Czech Republic	Prague	Ruzyně International Airport (PRG)
France	Marseille	Marseille Provence Airport (MRS)
	Paris	Charles de Gaulle International Airport (CDG)
Germany	Berlin	Berlin-Schönefeld International Airport (SXF)
	Frankfurt am Main	Frankfurt Airport (FRA)
	Munich	Franz Josef Strauss International Airport (MUC)
Greece	Athens	Athens International Airport (ATH)
Hungary	Budapest	Budapest Ferihegy International Airport (BUD)
Italy	Milan	Malpensa International Airport (MXP)
	Rome	Leonardo da Vinci Airport (FCO)
Netherlands	Amsterdam	Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AMS)
Poland	Warsaw	Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport (WAW)
Romania	Bucharest	Henri Coandă International Airport (OTP)
Russia	Moscow	Domodedovo International Airport (DME)
	Saint Petersburg	Pulkovo Airport (LED)
Spain	Barcelona	Barcelona International Airport (BCN)
	Madrid	Madrid Barajas International Airport (MAD)	Code share agreement with Iberia Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Switzerland	Geneva	Geneva Cointrin International Airport (GVA)
Switzerland	Zürich	Zürich Airport (ZRH)	Code share agreement with Swiss International Air Lines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Ukraine	Dnipropetrovsk	Dnipropetrovsk International Airport (DNK)	Code share agreement with Aerosvit Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
Ukraine	Kiev	Boryspil International Airport (KBP)	Code share agreement with Aerosvit Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
	Odessa	Odessa International Airport (ODS)	Code share agreement with Aerosvit Airlines on this route. Operated by both airlines.
	Simferopol	Simferopol International Airport (SIP)	Code share agreement with Aerosvit Airlines on this route. Aerosvit Airlines is the sole operating carrier.
United Kingdom	London	London Heathrow Airport (LHR)
	London	London Stansted Airport (STN)
Asia
People's Republic of China	Beijing	Beijing Capital International Airport (PEK)
	Hong Kong	Hong Kong International Airport (HKG)
India	Mumbai	Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (BOM)
Israel	Eilat	Eilat Airport (ETH)	Used exclusively for international flights.
	Eilat	Ovda International Airport (VDA)	Used exclusively for international flights.
	Tel Aviv	Ben Gurion International Airport (TLV)	HUB
Thailand	Bangkok	Suvarnabhumi Airport (BKK)	Code share agreement with Thai Airways International on this route. El Al is the sole operating carrier.
North America
Canada	Toronto	Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ)
United States	Los Angeles	Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
	Miami	Miami International Airport (MIA)
	New York City	John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)
	Newark	Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR)
Africa
Egypt	Cairo	Cairo International Airport (CAI)
South Africa	Johannesburg	OR Tambo International Airport (JNB)	Code share agreement with South African Airways on this route. El Al is the sole operating carrier.

Wow!! This is a MUCH better table destination format than what was previously used in airline articles. Thanks for taking the time to do this. We need to pursue changing the destination list format. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not wild about it. You can't sort the columns, because they're grouped by continent. Grouping by continent leads to some potential issues, like Turkey and Russia noted below. I still like the table version we previously developed for Virgin America destinations, though I could do without the flags in the country column, and would be fine with omitting the IATA and ICAO code columns entirely. Keeping the begin and end dates is nice, but is much easier for new airlines were we can actually source dates; for airlines where that would be too difficult those can be omitted as well. Making it collapsable is fine if it's going to be merged back into the main article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, no improvement over the example at Virgin America destinations. I agree with Hawaiian717 about the need to drop the flags and I don't like the end of service listed as 'present', but not sure what options would be better. But in the end, those need to be a separate discussion. For the topic here, both of the above proposals remove useful information and function and don't seem to add anything that makes up for the information lost. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two were done by me, yes the are for main airline article and thats where they were located before being removed, BTW just saw Virgin America table and it looks confusing and distorted, also it does not need its own page as the number of destinations is so few they can easily be accomodated in main airline article without even a table, compare that to the long lists of Air France destinations or Qatar Airways destinations, so soothing on the eyes. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that moving Virgin America's destinations to its own article is unnecessary, but someone else decided it was last month and that's not up for debate right now. Perhaps if you tell us what you think about it makes it confusing and distorted, we can work to improve it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just proposed moving the Virgin America destinations article back into Virgin America. Feel free to comment if you wish. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Go check now Virgin America destinations and Virgin America destinations section, just to show how nicer both look, revert edits if you like. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan of either of the above examples as it isn't sortable, and I personally don't think continents are necessary (as it just leads to edit wars over country politics). Don't think the codeshare notes are notable though. Sb617 (Talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whats there to sort when its all sorted out for you? the continents can be removed, terminated destinations can be added, using colour keys to mark them and new destinations, hubs, cargo stations etc. if you're missing that stuff, I find the Aeroflot one FL standard. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The table is sorted alphabetically by city name. But making the table sortable makes things more useful for the reader. For example, they can see the order that new destinations were added by sorting on start date. Or if the reader wants to see what destinations in a particular country or state an airline serves, they can sort by those columns. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we could make those above tables sortable and get rid of the continents listing. Having continents here may cause some dispute especially for countries that are in more than one continent (i.e. Russia is both in Asia and Europe). See my comment in the Turkey destinations section immediately above this one. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so much the second one which is already too cluttered, but the first list type looks excellent, back to the basics, well sorted, easy to find destinations within continents and by country name. Terminated destinations, which are of lesser interest to be honest, even only just includable, would go in a separate more simple list without links. Then for hubs or otherwise notable destinations it can be mentioned after the airport name (eg Schiphol Airport Hub). As long as we don't start mixing terminated and charter destinations in again, that list type looks far better than the current table format and also more useful than the original list format. As for sortability, er, come on, what is the reader going to do, sort by airport name? And what use would that be?? With the information given limited to Country, city and airport name (as it should be), there is no need to sort by anything other than country. I also see this list format as far easier to edit than the current table format. Speed74 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have modified Horizon Air destinations to an AWESOME-looking format based on the feedback on those two tables above. It may not have pretty colors, but who cares? It may not have flags, but who cares? (Flags are not supposed to be in destination lists anyway) And it may not look like the FL articles List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations, but who cares? (Whether a list deserves FL-status is the opinion of one editor, not 10 editors.) And this new format is sortable; by default, country (don't put continents in any destination table; that creates problems), then state/province, then city, and finally airport. No unnecessary IATA/ICAO codes, either. (YAY!) And it's easy to edit, with no complicated color-coding to wade thru. Anyway, please comment on your thoughts on this new destination list. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it. One thing I would suggest is that, for new airlines going forward, we include start/end date columns like on Virgin America's list. I recognize that this will be difficult if not impossible to figure out for most established airlines, but why not provide it for new airlines where we can? A second suggestion would be to make the table collapsable when it's included on the main airline article rather than in a separate destinations article, especially if we move towards merging most of the destination articles back into the main one. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes simple is good, but support Hawaiian717s comments on adding dates if we can which makes it all more encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know; I don't have start/end dates. I could add start dates and peruse the page history for when people deleted terminated destinations (that's something that shouldn't be done; hopefully people will read my note) and maybe re-add some of the terminated destinations. I know of a website that will tell me when Horizon began serving certain destinations; I can use that when I add the destinations. But I'm not sure how to make the table collapsible, but that's not a big deal. Thanks for the advice, Compdude123 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Compdude, the Horizon table is wrapping for me which I find annoying, also reference can be shortened to 'Ref' or 'Refs', I also dont think its necessary to list provinces or states of countries the airline does not belong to, so only US states to be included, if you would abbreviate airport names by dropping International, Municipal, Regional it would help in ending the wrapping issue, I have adjusted my resolution but its still wrapping, maybe removing the unecessary photos would be better, do we need so many photos? even in the FL Dragonair and Braathens lists they are totally unecessary. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why images of airplanes are needed in a destinations article at all. Shortening Ref or Refs is fine with me. I'm not sure how I feel about dropping "International", etc from the airport name. We'd definitely still need it if there are any cases where two airports have the same name but still use it to distinguish. It would also seem redundant in many cases where the airport name is the same as the city name, such as Los Angeles. I also don't think we can drop the state/province since we would still need it to distinguish between places like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

For states I meant they should only be used for the country the airline belongs to in this case USA, not Canada, not Mexico, anyways here is a short samply list made to show what it would be like, with everything included. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am currently working on adding the start/end dates. @116.71.31.207, I don't like your use of the rowspan thing, because then it isn't sortable. With the start/end dates in the table, what if you wanted to sort by the date the service started? You can't do that in your version of the table. Also, I deleted the unnecessary pics of the airplanes down the right-hand side; they take up space and don't add anything to the article. And they make the table look bad at lower resolutions (i.e, 1024x768). —Compdude123 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Compdude123 about the rowspan thing. I'd be all for it if we didn't have sortable tables on Wikipedia. As far as states go, although it isn't currently the case, I could see a Canadian airline serving both Portlands, thus you would need the state column for a Canadian airline. And I think it would just look weird to have a bunch of rows with a blank state column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One additional thought: Is it necessary to include "(Terminated)" after the airport name if the start and end date columns are present? I think if an end date is included, it's obvious that it's a terminated destination. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tables in main article destinations, new issue

Jetstreamer is now going table happy and is starting to do tables in main airline articles having only few destinations see Eritrean Airlines, he is also using a different table style format not approved by wiki, I think there is no need for tables in main article lists, its not cohesive with layout of article. If one of wikipedia own is going to flout rules and go unilateral what should outsiders care about? 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a new issue. Rather, you're new to the project and it seems you're decided to criticise every effort made by others in improving and supporting the project in particular, and Wikipedia in general. Actually, all you do from different IPs (despite there's a login account of yours) is to makeup the information introduced by others who really cares about the project (this and this edits are just recent examples). I invite you to take a survey on different airline articles (Kras Air for instance) in order to figure yourself out that I did not recently introduced the table of destinations. Incidentally, the format for the table of destinations in Kras Air is exactly the same you proposed some days ago. I believe you have to refrain yourself over your contradictory behavior here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no concensus on tables in main article destinations, Yes I had suggested that table layout but for seprate article not main article and it wasnt approved in any case. I myself have reverted all tables created in main article pages including those done by me, like I said it seems like whenever some people are bored they start some new screwup of articles to keep them busy. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain the contributions you made to the articles you're mentioning I screwed up, and perhaps we can continue arguing. Besides that, read this if you know the meaning of the word "improve".--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You're a bit confused again. There are not such rules you mention. The only rules here in Wikipedia are these ones. I'm comitted to improving Wikipedia in many ways (the prooof is that three articles I worked on has been promoted to GA status). On the other hand, I don't see your commitment with clearity, but nevertheless can guess it, starting with the fact that all you do is made anonimously despite many editors have discouraged you to do so in your talk page. You cannot come and ask any other editors to follow rules or guidelines when we don't even know who you are.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Confused about what? the destinations section is supposed to discuss frequency and routings like on a travel guide, does anyone looking up an encyclopedia care to know the latest routing and frequency changes on a route? and care to explain the screw up of Turkish Airlines destinations twice, todays one was so uncalled for, there was absolutely no reason to revert it. The rest of what you are saying is not of concern to me, I just know suddenly you have discovered the joys of editing airline articles and gone trigger happy as they say. 116.71.23.212 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Another confusion of yours, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines you're asking others to follow.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin America destinations

The places are too few to warrant a seprate page or even a table format, these can easily be merged with main airline article in text list style, normally such articles are redirected to the main one and destinations moved there, but some editors seem to have taken ownership of certain articles and this is one such where there will be edit wars unless some one with clout deals with it. I had just listed the destinsations in text format in main article just to show, and it looked great, but was reverted as requested, you can go see it in edit history.116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just proposed merging the Virgin America destinations article back into Virgin America. Feel free to comment on Talk:Virgin America if you wish. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

With four support votes and none opposing, to move to main article will someone take action? 116.71.29.208 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe let's wait for some more votes. Give it another week... —Compdude123 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Future hubs/bases

When an airline announce that they will open a hub at an airport on a specific date, do we list the airport in the hubs list with the opening date or should we wait until the hub officially opens and then add it to the list? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless the airline is opening several destinations at once on a specific date, I don't see how a hub could suddenly come into existence, an airport is either a hub or not. If we are indeed talking about a future airline or a sudden hub opening, then as long as the opening has been confirmed the airport could be listed as a hub immediately. Speed74 (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Australia and Virgin Australia International

We apparently have two different articles for one airline. Virgin Australia and Virgin Australia International Airlines seem to be the same airline with evidence from their website. The Virgin Australia fleet now contains the V Australia Boeing 777-300ER, which is why I don't see how there need to be two articles for the same airline. I hope someone can clarify this. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 11:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

They are still I think different airlines just using the same branding, but it is all a bit confused by editors moving and merging the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this press release - it proves that both Virgin Blue and V Australia have been rebranded and combined to form one airline, Virgin Australia. They aren't two separate airlines anymore. I'm assuming this means that V Australia is now defunct and that it has merged with Virgin Blue to form Virgin Australia. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK but the what was V Australia article (which has been renamed the doubtful Virgin Australia Long-Haul International) should have been left as a defunct airline article rather than redirected. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup...exactly! But I fear that if I change it to past-tense, I will get a backlash of angry editors that revert my edits. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• This has been fixed the page has been moved back to V Australia —Compdude123 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Air Koryo destinations

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

I don't think so.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems short enough to me with the table format to be merged. As we're talking about a similar length list as Virgin America (18 entries for VX, 21 for Air Koryo), I suggest waiting to see how that discussion is resolved and apply the same resolution to this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually they dont even serve half the destinations listed in there, all the more reason to move to main article, their current fixed services are Beijing, Shenyang, Vladivostok while Kuwait, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok are not even mentioned in summer 2011 schedule which was valid till October, the rest are charters or seasonal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.29.208 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you all that Wikipedias is not a travel guide, so there's no need to have most of the destinations in a list currently served. What if an airline has dramatically shrunk its services and now serves a small number of destinations? I support stand alone articles for airline destinations as long as the airline flies or flew to more than a minimum number cities/airports, disregarding if these are current or terminated destinations.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The minimum number is arbitrarily assigned, and having the separate destinations lists tends to expose them to AfD nominations as has occurred at least three times now. Each article nominally has to be an encyclopedic topic in and of itself; not all editors buy the argument that the destinations articles are really sub-articles of the main airline article which generally doesn't have difficulty being established as notable. The table format is more compact, and the ability to collapse the table completely suggests that we should consider moving the destinations back to the main article, as the primary argument for moving them out was that a long destinations list easily overwhelmed the rest of the article. As far as the case of Air Koryo having shrunk dramatically, having a separate table for previously served destinations (as some like) or having a combined, sortable table that shows end dates (as I prefer) would show that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite I do not share your position, I get it. Aside from this, the project cannot be continuously discussing this matter any time (most of the times, actually) IP editors raise their concerns over it. Many of the pages within the scope of the project are far from being concluded, with most of the articles in desperate need of expansion and sources. In plain words, I suggest joining our efforts to improve these articles, rather than revisiting past stuff.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the destinations list would fit quite nicely into the parent article, considering that the parent article is not that long, either. This article is just barely longer than the VX destinations article, and it too would fit nicely in the parent article. BTW it's quite interesting that we're bringing up this debate on the North Korean airline considering that their supreme leader just died. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Air Koryo list was much longer including charter and terminated destinations but someone deleted those. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to a version with terminated destinations. It's somewhat longer than before, and I think if we kept it like that, we could keep it a separate article. However, it would be nice to list the start/end dates, though. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So there's no need to continue the discussion, but the current version needs a lot of cleanup to become in standard form.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But here is the official summer 2011 schedule listing only three cities http://www.korea-dpr.com/airkoryo.htm what does that say? 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That really goes to show how much their amount of destinations has decreased over the years. Keeping it in its own article will continue to give us the ability to show that. Boy am I surprised they even have a website! And the fact that North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is, unfortunately, a real "knee-banger." —Compdude123 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is all that you said of any valid concern here? 116.71.2.77 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the number of destinations the airline currently serve. Period. I still support maintaining its destinations article as a stand-alone one. Presenting its list of terminated destinations is as valid as showing the list of destinations of Lufthansa or Emirates. The project is here but to maintain all related stuff as accurate as possible.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, that's why I just crossed it out. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Flags are not encouraged by the project in list-based formats, not in table-based formats, as is the case here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant compdude's rant on North Korea as a country, as for the list yes it can now remain as an article in its own right, and for Seoul, Air Koryo have operated several charter flights there taking South Koreans to meet their families in the North and not one off VIP flights. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jpatokal-- Yes you are completely right; we do not need flags!! They are totally unnecessary and and since we are using them in a manner that's not in accordance with MOS:FLAGS, well then that's all the more reason to remove them! Thanks for the "third opinion" here. Please stop putting flags in destination lists people, and get rid of those not-so-pretty colors. The color coding is too confusing and whenever I look at destination list with those colors, I'm always thinking "Wait, What does blue stand for again?" (scroll back up to legend) "Oh it stands for cargo destinations" (scroll back down the page) "Wait, what does green stand for again?" ... Anyway, you get my point, enough said. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The list is approved as is and stays as is, stop cribbing. 116.71.20.3 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Boeing 767 featured article candidacy

The featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 is open, and is in need of comments from fellow editors. This is a widely used aircraft among many airlines; hopefully members of WP:AIRLINE can provide some input. Thanks in advance! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)