Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Options

• Option 1: Remove the tables and replace them with paragraph(s) about notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination).
• Option 2: Only list the airlines that fly to an airport, each supported by a reference.
• Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY.

Survey

(Please only indicate which option you support here, with discussion in the section below.)

• Option 2. Per CambridgeBayWeather's decision below. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 Yes, remove these per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is very hard to maintain these (as routes tend to get updated frequently sometimes). I see quite a lot of unsourced information in multiple articles. Stuff like this goes on the Airport's website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2 List all the airlines, with references, rather than having editors try to decide which are notable at which airport. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Options 2 Support the inclusion of airlines, but not of destinations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2. A (sourced) list of airlines serving an airport provides scope without being too difficult to maintain and violating WP:NOTTRAVEL (as the current charts are), but it also doesn't cross the line into WP:OR the way option 1 seems to, as that requires creating a definition of what constitutes a significant airline for an airport. Just easier and more objective to list them all, so long as it's sourced. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3, but without listing terminals - As explained in detail in my comment under the general discussion, destinations are an important element of the subject, as it conveys the connectivity and importance of the subject. The problem with using prose is that, particularly at large airports, it is difficult to prune the list down to the most important destinations. By trimming down the lists to a few destinations, it risks edit wars and may be too indiscriminate to be appropriate (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information). Discussion of destinations is an important aspect of the subject and should be included in airport articles. However, listing the terminal used for routes in the airlines & destinations table is, in my opinion, a relatively unimportant aspect of the subject, falling under WP:NOTTRAVEL, and should be removed. However, discussion of which airlines use which terminal is appropriate to mention in prose about the individual terminals. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3, I feel that the airlines and destinations table is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe for a good airport article. As I mention below I definitely feel that something must be done to make them more reliable. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 We have done a lot of work to improve these tables -- and they are widely used. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think these are really important and the only part of an airport article I am guaranteed to browse. I do think however there is imprisonments in regards to references particular when it comes to referencing new scheduled routes announced by airlines which are clearly visible via their booking engines. I don't feel it's really necessary unlike for example a charter service which can change frequently. Jamie2k9 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Option 3 It would be a big step backwards to remove the destination tables, which are actually very useful and accurate the majority of the time. 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)VG31
• Option 3. The destination lists are a great asset. They should be kept up to date, which I think they are. They should probably be referenced better. It is obvious that each airline website are used as source, but other used sources should be listed. If we decide to remove the destination lists for airports, we must as a minimum list all airlines using it, and in airline articles list all its destinations.--BIL (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3. Destination lists are very useful information, as multiple airlines and routes explose in Europe and elsewhere. I think it is all the more encyclopedic as it sources how important the airport is (1 route = little airport vs a long table = big airport for instance). A "As of date xx" should be written, so that one knows the "freshness" of information. Terminal/hall/jetway are however needless to my point of view. I furthermore think airport list should be wikidata-friendly (with lua code) so that only one change and the table would be visible in every wikilanguage and always "up to date".--Bouzinac (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3. I think it would be a terrible idea to remove the tables for all airports. You can see my comment below for more of my opinions. I have no problems with adding sources, either on the airline name, or even in another column. The North America flight tables are some of the most up to date information on all the airport articles. Adding information dealing with which airlines use what gates, food/shops, transportation, etc. is much more of a travel guide than showing the extent that an airport is served. The whole reason an airport exists is to transport passengers on flights, so the flights at an airport are really the most notable information of all. Stinger20 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3. Fox1942 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is really important to list the destinations of an airline, but yes, something needs to be done regarding references, perhaps a separate column for references alone. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Having edited airport articles for some time, I present this argument:

• Wikipedia is not a travel guide with up-to-date lists of places a person can fly to from a particular airport. WP:NOTTRAVEL
• The lists are changing regularly and are difficult to maintain. Some airports have so many airlines with so many destinations, it can be difficult to keep track of which still operate and which do not. As a consequence, the lists may be out of date; but this is not indicated with an "As of xxx" statement (nor would this be feasible with so many airlines).
• The existing consensus is that there is an implicit reference for the information in the tables: the airlines' timetables. But how can the average reader be able to quickly find and verify this information, for so many airlines and destinations? And does the reader need to know every single destination served? WP:VERIFY
• Especially in Indian airport articles, new destinations are often added without references – the timetable shows them, but there are no news articles, etc. that confirm it. A reader has to go into the timetable, set the origin/destination and the date – and, what if the destination appears at some earlier date? Imagine checking each prior date for that.

All in all, the timetables are a hassle to maintain; and it is difficult for a reader to verify the information. In addition, I don't believe the reader needs to know every single destination served from an airport. As an alternative, I think mentioning only notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination) is enough.

— Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Sunnya343 can you explain a bit more about what you mean by notable airlines and notable destinations? The reason that I ask is for some airports if restricted to airlines that use it as a hub or their main base then they would have no airlines or charter airlines only. I would suspect that there plenty of airlines that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but could still be referenced as existing and providing flights. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I guess I do not mean "notable" in the strict, WP:N sense of the word. For example, at McCarran International Airport, I may talk about Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air – which sort of have focus cities at the airport. I may also discuss Virgin Atlantic, which started the first nonstop service from the UK; and Korean Air and Hainan Airlines, the only airlines offering service to Asia. Sunwing and Sun Country may not be so "notable", however. Meanwhile, for an airport like Bathinda Airport – which has only one airline and destination – I could be more detailed. For example, "Air India Regional is the only airline to serve the airport, offering flights to Delhi on the ATR 72-600 five times a week."

If this becomes too subjective, perhaps Option 2 is better, with an introductory paragraph or something similar. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it easier. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd steer clear of naming aircraft types and frequency. This is what changes the most -- and the beauty of these changes is we don't have to acknowledge them at all in the airline/destination tables. It doesn't matter if Delta is flying an A320 or a 738 on a certain route -- the appearance on the able is the same. It doesn't matter if the flight goes from 5 times a week to 5 times a day -- it would appear the same. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to weigh in on this: these tables are really useful and are extremely important for showing how the airport is still in use today. For articles where there are barely any sources, I think the destinations should not be added without verified sources. I am of the opinion, though, that chartered routes should not be displayed or if they are, then indeed sources should be added. Removing these tables would be a mistake in my eyes. st170e^talk 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• The question to me is what is encyclopaedic - what information enhances a reader's understanding of an airport in question and what is just unnecessary complexity? In my view information on typical routes that are flown from the airport are of interest and should be covered in an airport article, such information indicates its busyness, its sphere of influence for example. Likewise I suspect it is also interesting to cover the airlines that typically use the airport although I would consider this slightly less important than the routes. What I am certain in my own mind is that the current pedantic matrix of these two concepts co-joined adds little more to the understanding of an airport than a much simpler splitting of these concepts into separate "lists". The current matrix is very complex and full of unnecessary, uninteresting (to most readers - not you and me I know!) and often unverifiable detail. The nature of how the route information is presented is of interest, I quite like the idea put forward above of it being explained in words - this is likely to be the best way to concentrate the necessary information, I would not be entirely opposed to separate lists of destinations and airlines that serve an airport, I'm also relatively in favour of route maps as a concise way to show such information in a graphical way - although there are good and bad ways of doing this. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: Wouldn't a list of destinations be just as difficult to maintain and reference? Having to account for each airline that serves a destination (so a destination terminated by one airline isn't removed incorrectly), going to each airline's timetable to see which destinations they fly to from an airport, etc. Also, regarding route maps, solely having a route map could present accessibility issues. Regarding the presentation of route information, see how you like my response to AHeneen. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The table isn't that difficult to maintain, though. Flight's don't change as often as you'd think. Most changes are notable enough to be reported in the local news, by the airlines, and on the airport's website. I understand that they may appear to change frequently, but I spent several years working on these tables and we never really had any issues. I am proud to see how far we have come with airport articles and these tables, and I think it would be a detriment to the project to get rid of them. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: I have noticed that the Indian airlines' domestic schedules seem to change regularly; IPs are always adding and subtracting destinations. I can find these route changes in the airlines' timetables, but I rarely find secondary sources. Also, one of my biggest issues is that these tables are deemed to be "current" – there is no "As of [date]" at the top of the tables. This situation may work for big airports in English-speaking countries, but I don't think it works for Chinese, Russian, etc. airport articles. I updated the destinations across several airport articles for GX Airlines sometime back. Some months later, I found that the airline had added a few destinations, and many of their routes had changed. Google Translating the timetable, secondary sources, etc.; going to each destination article to update – a big pain, and I gave up. Again, our current situation works for airports in the US, Europe, etc., but elsewhere... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Fair point. It works very well for most airports of all sizes in North America, Europe, and many other English-speaking countries. I just don't think it makes sense to eliminate it across the board because it doesn't work everywhere. If McDonald's can't sell a certain product in Connecticut, but it sells great in Texas, then they'll keep the product on the menu in Texas and axe it in Connecticut. If this is what we have to do -- keep the tables on airports in the US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, South America, etc, and just axe them in places where they don't work, then perhaps that is what we should consider doing, but not removing them from places where they work very well. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 05:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: That is an interesting idea. Still, I have seen problems with even US airports. At LAS, WN's seasonal service to ORF was correctly removed in September of this year. Doing some research at flightstats.com, I realize this route has not operated since summer 2012! To me, there is just so much information in these tables that has to be verified on a regular basis, and people aren't really doing that here. The appearance of the tables as being current can be misleading. You bring up OAG Guides as a way to reference, but those can only be accessed by people with a subscription(?). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: That is correct -- the OAG Guides are a subscription only service. There are many ways to access this service and many who do have access; in addition most changes are published to the public. In regards to the Southwest seasonal service to Norfolk -- it happens, unfortunately. Especially with seasonal routes, if the route doesn't resume the following season it may not be noticed right away. However, I don't think this is that common nor do I think it is that different from any other Wikipedia article with outdated information. If you go to any Wikipedia article you are going to find information that is outdated (even four years outdated!). In fact, I think it's easier for us to go through the Airline/Destination Tables to find outdated information that it would be to comb through any other article to find outdated information. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tofutwitch11: The thing is, with other Wiki articles, there is an "As of [date]" statement (or at least there should be). I don't know how exactly to do this with the tables. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that listing the destinations is just as important as listing the airlines, since the destinations indicate the connectivity of the airport to the world. The names of airlines don't necessarily indicate the country they fly to. Orlando is a good example of this, as it is connected to every large US airport (except Honolulu), nearly every mid-size US airport east of the Mississippi River, every large and mid-size airport in Canada and many other international destinations, but that wouldn't be obvious in a listing of airline names (Norwegian flies to Oslo, but also London, Copenhagen, and (in July) Paris; Air Berlin will fly to Düsseldorf, not Berlin). Listing the destinations is really the only way to gauge the connectivity of the airport to the world at some hub airports where the hub airline operates most international routes with only few international airports (eg. Atlanta and Seattle/Tacoma, but not London Heathrow or Sydney). In my opinion, I don't think it would be appropriate to list one of airlines or destinations without the other. While it is true that frequency of service matters, very few routes are less than weekly and the statistics section fills in that information gap. It is possible that major destinations and airlines could be listed in prose, but I think that would be subject to frequent edit wars over which destinations are significant enough to be mentioned and how many to list.

In my opinion, there is no need to list the terminal the airlines use, as that is trivial information that would fall under the WP:NOTTRAVEL (but tables with such information may be welcome at Wikivoyage). However, both airlines AND destinations add an important element to the subject and should be included in articles. The content of the tables unquestionably need sources, per WP:VERIFY. AHeneen (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@AHeneen: I agree, where you can fly from an airport is very important to know. However, my point is that these lists of destinations are hard to maintain and have problems with referencing. That too, is every single destination notable? Looking at MCO's article, is it notable that WN flies to Flint, B6 to Worcester, Magnicharters to MTY on a seasonal charter basis? Or at the LAS article, is it important to note that G4 to Eugene, Kalispell, and Shreveport?

You make a great point about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps something could be written as such to deal with that policy: "As of December 2016, X airlines fly to X destinations from MCO. The top airlines by pax are X. X operates a hub at MCO, while Y and Z operate focus cities. MCO has service to X countries on X continents. The top destinations by pax are X. X was the first to offer service to X country, which is the top source of int'l passengers to MCO as of 2016. MCO is the second airport in Florida to gain nonstop flights from the Middle East, offered by EK to DXB, after QR to MIA." This is just a rough suggestion. Perhaps some guideline could be created for this. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - mild support for "too hard to maintain". I don't see anyone devoting the necessary amount of time. Speaking as a user (I would never get involved in this sort of article) my take is that wrong information is worse than a scope set to exclude certain information Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As someone who spent a few years maintaining tables, it wasn't too difficult. There are not as many changes as one would imagine. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just want to say, I can understand the debate whether it is encyclopedic or not. I'm not going to vote on this, but I will say that I am sincerely going to miss the destination tables here if they are removed. They may not always be 100% accurate, but its greatly helped with my research in the industry and was an easy place to come and check routes, that I would then verify on the airline's websites. Encyclopedic or not, it was very useful to me, but I understand the case to remove them from Wikipedia too. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aviationspecialist101: I can understand. There was an Airliners.net thread asking if there is anything else on the web like the Airlines and destinations tables here. Originally I was strongly opposed to removing the tables, but I have started to see their problems. I have raised three airport articles to GA, but I doubt they could ever get to FA because of those tables. Please consider some of the options listed above, and see how you like my response to AHeneen above. We can still maintain the important information while keeping airport articles well-referenced and easy to maintain. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Advancing certain airport articles to FA should not come with the consequence of costing all airports their airline and destination table. It is possible to source every flight on that table -- and ensure it is accurate. If that's something you want help doing, I'd be happy to help. It is possible, and it's not too difficult. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - summoned by bot. I like the idea of having the destinations served by the airlines at each airport, but only if the info can be easily maintained. I don't have any idea how frequently routes and airlines change, but a simple search found this site [[1]], which seems to suggest that there are on average about 12 route changes announced a day. If this was my sole focus on Wikipedia, I'd be able to maintain the lists myself, so it stands to reason that 3-4 dedicated and coordinated people could manage it.Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Good find! Many of these changes don't require any update on the destination table. For example: a change in frequency, from 1 flight a day to 6, would require no change. A change in aircraft equipment or time does not require a change on the timetable either. Unless it is a new service or a cancellation of a service no table update is needed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have some issues with Options 2 and 3. How exactly would the information be cited? Consider User:Ashill's words in an earlier discussion: — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether they can be verified by looking into airline schedules and the like. The issue is whether airline schedules are suitable sources. Reliable sources are supposed to be published, but airline schedules typically aren't anymore (at least not in a form that is readily available, since the PDF schedules have gone the way of the dodo for many airlines). Schedules are also transient. The verifiability and no original research policies don't require that a source be explicitly cited, only that a source be available (the example being "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need to be cited, but there is no doubt that a source exists that says that). Therefore, in principle, destination lists are OK since the schedules do exist (at least for current destinations). But they're borderline: the sources aren't published, aren't third-party, and aren't even easy to explicitly cite (since there's typically no direct link to an actual schedule: finding the schedule for a given route typically requires entering a search query).

Well, for option 2, being just a list of airlines, but not destinations, that information is typically available at the the airports' websites as part of the terminal listings. It's actually pretty easy to verify that, and far less transitory than route schedules. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: That's true, but those websites often don't say the date they were published/last modified, so they can be outdated. Example is McCarran Airport's website. It still lists Hainan Airlines as starting service on December 2. Also, it continues to display Vivaaerobus, which has not flown to McCarran since January (It seems like they fly to McCarran on-and-off, and I can never find a secondary source for this). Now, CAPA has a list of the airlines flying to every airport, example. But it states "Airlines currently operating" – with no published/last modified date on the webpage. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We are often more accurate than airport websites. Many are not updated frequently. However -- because the OAG comes out every month and because many route announcements appear in local media we are able to verify all changes in service. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I went with option 3 because I feel that the airlines and destinations section is a good indicator of the size and notability of an airport (I consider larger airports to be more notable). But here's what I would change.... 1. stop listing the same destination under multiple airlines, for example, you go onto an article like Chicago O'Hare and you see Atlanta for about 6 airlines. I feel that we should come up with a way to merge so these so Atlanta is only listed once. 2. Get more strict on people listing starting, resuming and ending on the table with terrible or no citations given. 3. Remove seasonal destinations and charters, most things listed under charter only run once and newer run again, to me this is just a place where editors place destinations that they are unsure about, they may see it once on Flightaware and list it there.
  I feel that we should just keep the current policy of only destinations that are starting and ending need citations. My argument for this is, there are people who travel on these routes everyday; if there were no such thing as that route anyone can come here and say this route does not exist and delete it. There are many tools out there to verify if a route is present such as Flightaware for most of the world. KDTW Flyer (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is such a unique and incredible place. There is no where else on the internet where you can find a list of airlines/destinations like we have here on Wikipedia. If the issue is sourcing: every domestic flight can be sourced OAG Guides, which are published monthly. In addition, most airport websites provide a list of airlines and their respective destinations. I'd argue that they are encyclopedic as well -- the lists provide a good idea of which airlines operate the most routes, have the most business, and have the largest impact on the respective airports. It would be hard to have the same level of information in a paragraph. I'm not sure what improvement we would make by removing the tables. I think that would be a detriment to the project and to what we offer. We have done a great job at updating and modifying the tables -- and to see them go I think would be a huge blow to the project and everyone that has spent years keeping them accurate and up to date. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I know many people across the industry that go to Wikipedia for the airline/destination tables. Even pilots will check Wikipedia -- as our level of accuracy often is greater than that of most airport websites. When Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia in 2001, did they think (or even want) Wikipedia would contain a comprehensive list of "Airlines & Destinations" for nearly every commercial airport in the world? No -- of course not. But did they think that Wikipedia would have over 5.3 million articles (just in English) or that the article for NYC would be over 20,000 words long, and contain over 525 references? Doubtful -- but here we are. We spend so much time explaining what Wikipedia is not and not enough time stepping back to look at what is truly is. We're so much more than an encyclopedia. We're a global resource of information, used by everyone from elementary school students to scholars in all disciplines. In a generation where everything is moving forward, I think that removing these tables is a giant step backwards. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If the main problem is unverifiabilty/being out of date, this is really a problem for pages in Asia/Africa/Rural Europe. Just try adding a destination on a US Airport table and you will be reverted within a few minutes. The bigger problem is that we put these tables on all of the world's airports, when a majority of the editors are from North America and are focused on their local airports. I myself almost solely edit Ohio/Kentucky/West Virginia airports. The US destination tables are incredibly accurate and are some of the most up to date parts of Wikipedia. I think the destination tables are an incredible resource for the aviation industry, as the most important information about an airport is its connectivity to the world. Before I started editing on Wikipedia, I would often explore the tables out of curiosity to see what airlines fly where, there is no other source like it. Listing the destinations is not a travel guide, look at Wikitravel, Wikivoyage, etc. they do not list destinations, people fly the cheapest routes they find online. If the tables on Indian airports cannot be verified, remove the flights that cannot be verified, but do not remove everything just because parts of the table cannot be verified (I.e. Small Chinese Airlines, etc). Maybe we could put a header that the tables reflect the verified operating routes. Also, we could add a source to the airline name or in another column, if no source can be found (timetables should be accepted), remove the flights. Overall, I think many of Sunnya343's points really do not apply for North American airports. I know Sunnya343 and Andrewgprout are huge international editors of flights, however there are not many other dedicated users working on international destinations. So, I would not judge all of the flight tables based on certain regions where information on flights is lacking. Stinger20 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Option 3: Next steps

I am seeing a lot of support for Option 3. If we are to go with this option, we need to address referencing. Issues with this led to this RfC in the first place. In particular, editors would be reverted for removing references for destinations that have begun, resulting in edit wars. Still, having one reference here, another there creates consistency issues; here's an example.

My concerns: The tables have the appearance of being up-to-date, but they are not always. Also, the information is not easily verifiable for the average reader; and the fact that the "implicit reference" is the timetable may not be obvious to such a reader.

The question: How do we properly reference these tables? And how do we note that the information may be outdated?

Pinging users who have contributed so far: @CambridgeBayWeather, @Jetstreamer, @Oknazevad, @AHeneen, @KDTW Flyer, @Lemongirl942, @Tofutwitch11, @Jamie2k9, @BIL, @Bouzinac, @Stinger20, @St170e, @Elinruby, @Aviationspecialist101, @Timtempleton. Please consider adding this page to your watchlist so that we can have an active discussion and come to consensus. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for every single destination to have its own reference. One reference per airline, in the airline column, should be fine. If something like this is available and current that would be the best idea. If not then this would also work provided that the editor was aware how the codeshare routes worked. And there is also this. There are a lot of destinations listed there but many are not direct flights and again the editors working on a particular airport are going to be aware of which ones are not valid. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

References must be there, either for each destination or for each airline. Otherwise we will be against a core policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The "airline websites", OAG Guides, FlightAware and airport websites will be our best resources for many of them. For existing routes that have been operating for years, there will likely be little to no news coverage to cite. I think citing the airline website, "www.delta.com", should suffice. Anyone can then go into the booking system and verify the information for themselves. You can't actually cite a specific booking. FlightAware is another good tool, but again it is all based on "dates", so there's no use citing a flight from 6 months ago, as it is no proof that the flight operates currently. Airport websites are good resources as well, but many are very outdated, so perhaps we use them when we can (and we confirm they are up to date). Otherwise, we use the other sources. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually really like the idea of referencing the airline website, the flight schedule would be even better, either on the airline name or in a new column. This should cover seasonal routes as well, since they should be listed on the schedule in the future. For airlines like Delta, we could cite their timetable instead. We could then continue to list sources for routes beginning, ending, or resuming, then remove those once the flights start. Also, challenged routes could retain a source if they cannot be found on the website. Example, please take a look, feel free to duplicate the table and make another proposal/change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stinger20/sandbox Stinger20 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the second one better, with the box for the source(s). I think the first with the source in the actual table looks messy. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tofutwitch11. A separate column for references looks cleaner, like how it's done here for example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We should remove the column for terminal/concourse, too, right? Most people seem to agree that information truly belongs in a travel guide. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that #2 looks better and I removed the terminal/concourse column. Stinger20 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am in support of removing the terminal/concourse column, basically all the airports with multiple terminals and/or concourses have the terminal-airline assessment data posted, that data is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. There are plenty of places a traveler can find out the terminal their flight is departing from so we don't need it here on Wikipedia. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks Stinger20 (talk · contribs) for his table template wih clear refs. May I advise a more user-readable table like this one. So that one can read easily how many companies (and who) are serving route point X> point Y. It has also a reminder of IATA code (==> easy to translate airport list in another languages such as french, with a single copy-paste of wikicode) :

Airport	Airline(s)	References
Aberdeen (ABZ)	Company X, Y, ZZ	Ref 1, 2
Paris-CDG (CDG)	Company AA, BB, ZZ	Ref 3, 4

Bouzinac (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, but I'm against that for two reasons. First, it would require a significant overhaul to all of the pages. Second, it doesn't show as accurately each airlines presence at an airport. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I know its been discussed before that formatting the pages like that falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL, though you raise the issue of non-english airport pages being grossly out of date. That is very important, I am currently learning Chinese, so I hope to being work on updating the airport pages in Chinese, but I think that should be raised on another topic as it goes beyond the simple verifiability raised in this discussion. Thanks for help out though, I wish more users would help in Talk Page discussions! Stinger20 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, it would make the pages incredibly long -- imagine airports like JFK or Atlanta with over 100 destinations. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Long/big tables can be collapsed/collapsible with a simple parameter in the template airport-dest-list so I don't think it is a serious problem. The problem of long tables already exist in the current template, for instance Atlanta airport with Delta having so many destinations from ATL, so the line of Delta destinations is about to be unreadable. However, I agree that it is a big challenge to modify all existing tables. May we imagine having two different templates (Airport, then companies // Companies, then airports) adapted to the size of airport? Or may we present big lines with a columns template such as in French page, line "Air France" fr:Destinations au départ de Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle Bouzinac (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the way we list it now is fine -- we don't need to change that. In terms of how to cite, I think the separate column with citations works the best. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tofutwitch11. Consider Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport. The current format produces a nice, small table; whereas a table organized by destinations would be quite long. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stinger20, in the example in your sandbox, you provide the airlines' flight schedules page or website as the reference. However, are these appropriate references? Do a control-F/command-F search on this page for "The issue isn't whether they can be verified" to see another user's concerns with using such references.

Also, shouldn't we provide some sort of "last updated" statement? Per MOS:REALTIME. Or are certain airport articles considered to be "regularly updated"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Certain airports I would say are regularly updated. And I do agree with the issue with that but if someone is so concerned about a particular reference, than they can go in the system and look for the flight. We have many citations on WP that are print publications or other sources which are not easily accessible -- like the OAG Guides. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That's true. So do we consider those searchable timetables to be published sources? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The "last updated" stuff fall well within WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My only concern with "Last Updated" is that people will go in and update these tables everyday and puting last updated will confuse the reader that they're reading non-current data.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDTW Flyer: True. I suppose that for major airport articles that are updated often, "last updated" does not need to be written. Whereas for smaller airports (for example see what I did at Nogliki Airport), it can be done. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello KDTW Flyer, Stinger20 and other numerous aviation professionals .. as one who links the FAA with airport operations staff, airline staff and numerous local and regional political groups - the charts are very helpful and do reflect on airports well. I would be Pro use of searchable timetables as reliable source material and Against both any further edits of future/ending routes or charts of specific aircraft usage. Funding and/or politics change both often, before quality editors can respond in that short time frame. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What do we think of this reference? The schedule data is provided by Innovata. With this reference, the reader does not have to enter a search query manually. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I could not give your specific link to work, however I found the information navigating from the homepage of the website. If we could get the links to work (this may be a problem on my end, though), this is a great reference to use and it even shows cargo flights, which would be nice for the cargo tables as well. Stinger20 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I see there have been some concern over using the airlines timetable/flight schedule to reference the destinations. I don't see a problem with it though. Multiple airline articles use the same timetable/flight schedule to reference the destinations already. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Remembering of course that each airline timetable is a Primary Source - and as WP:PRIMARY states considerable care needs to be taken with such sources - care which is often not taken, with entries often approaching Original Research for anything more than a route simply existing. Secondary Sources are always better and should always be sought and kept above simply the timetable - the fact that such secondary sources are often hard to find suggests that the subject matter of these tables definitely have trouble being of a Tertiary (ie Encyclopedic) level. It is not that the sources are poor it is that the content trying to be added in this instance is being stretched too far for an Encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Though, secondary sources are not always better. For instance, Taiwan news sources are reporting that DL is going to end NRT-TPE in May, however, Delta has not announced anything on the matter or changed anything in its schedule. While its possible Delta plans to end the route, these secondary sources are not always accurate, and we are not listing the route as ending until Delta says/schedules the end of the route. As you said, Primary sources can be used if they used with care. If an editor is not careful with the routes/does not source them, that is an edit that should be reverted. I think you have to be careful saying that secondary sources are always better, many writers take liberties with facts and rumors about all subjects, this is not limited to aviation. Stinger20 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

NO NO NO - You need to read and understand the links I gave - this is not opinion it is Wikipedia Policy - If you and others do not understand this an informed choice can not be made in this discussion. On Wikipedia it is all about what the (Secondary) sources say it is never about truth - "strange but true!". Also we all need to understand what an Encyclopedia is for - accuracy to the nth degree listing every detail is NOT what Encyclopedias do - that is what is meant by Tertiary. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Stinger20, regarding your Delta NRT-TPE example, the sources say "reportedly", so we should be careful using them. Andrewgprout, could you provide an example of how information in an Airlines and destinations table could become original research? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343✈ I did say approaching :-) - but some of the start date stop date and charter or temporary additions that are based only on timetable (PRIMARY source) entries and speculative dummy bookings would be Original Research. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I understand the Primary/Secondary source thing and have read it many many many times, I am pointing to this passage, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". My point is that Primary sources are just as good, if not better in some cases, for referencing routes. As far as your statement that "core policies/Wikipedia policy" must be followed, a quote from Policies and Guidelines, "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." All of the polices need to be put into context of a situation, just because its suggested that Secondary sources are better, this is not necessarily the case for everything. I would suggest that timetables/flightmapper/route maps are the best sources, followed by traditional secondary sources that have been verified. Stinger20 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think by your argument Stinger20 you are supporting the central point I was making. If a fact only has Primary sources and it is hard to find a secondary source (ie as you say Primary Sources are the better reference) then it is really questionable whether that fact should be in Wikipedia, which is undoubtedly a tertiary source. I some time ago suggested that those editing the destination tables gain some experience editing in a totally different part of Wikipedia for some context (you guys must be interested in other things as well as airline timetables as interesting as I will admit they may be) I still believe that those here who have very narrow editing habits should edit Wikipedia generally and by this may understand why and how this all works, because at the moment the destination tables are way way out-there in the too detailed spectrum. And the Wikipedia core policies may be editable but they are very very well established about how things work well. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO, secondary sources are preferred but if they are not available we can use airline's timetables. I'm not totally in favour of using online search engines. I prefer pdf versions or something similar, but I'm afraid they are not available in many cases.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY notes that "[d]eciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" and goes on to define the policy as (bold emphasis added; italics and red/bold "policy" in original):

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I do not see how use of airline route tables as primary sources is inappropriate. As relevant to the discussion, they are only being used to support facts (airline A flies from B to C) and no interpretation/analysis is needed. AHeneen (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AHeneen. I agree that airline timetables can be ideal sources – I doubt the airline would want them to be wrong. For example, Air India conveniently has a PDF timetable with a "last updated" date. Andrewgprout, I agree on what you said could be original research. Personally, I feel we should avoid listing charters as they are quite variable. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, @Andrewgprout:, quite the opposite. AHeneen hit my point right on, there is nothing on these pages suggesting the tables are overly detailed. As far as charters, I think ones like Apple Vacations or Vacation Express are fine since they publish a html flight schedule that can be linked by city. Otherwise, I agree charters without a proper source should not be listed as they are variable, inconsistent, and not important to show the service at an airport. Also, I think we should stop listing "operated by" on the charter entries, as this just further clutters the table and is not necessary information. Stinger20 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AHeneen and Sunnya343✈, I see no problem in using the airline's own timetables/schedules as sources since it's just confirming facts. Btw, Stinger20, I like the sandbox table that you created further up, and agree that the terminal/concourse column can be removed and replaced with a sources column. Not to mention the concourse information is sometimes not possible to find for some airlines at certain airports (for example Southern Airways Express at MDT). JamesRenard (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Are we ready to change the tables such that there is a third, unsortable column for references? I am ready to make an edit request at Template:Airport destination list. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should make an edit request there. I think this should be rolled out on a case by case basis, and see where it goes. It's difficult to draw a clear consensus from this discussion -- so let's try it out on a few articles, see how it goes, and then hold a !vote on whether it should be kept permanently or withdrawn. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. However, we would need to create a new table (not using the template) in order to add the unsortable references column (the template can only add a sortable column). I know how to do that, I'm just saying the format will look different to editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am in favor of trying it however all of you would like. I am not very knowledgable in templates, so I will leave that up to you all. I can change CVG as one of the test pages if needed. Stinger20 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsortable columns can be nested in a sortable table template, simply use class="unsortable" in the header cell of the unsortable column, isn't it? Bouzinac (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I tried that, but it doesn't work. I would have to write {{Airport destination list| 3rdcoltitle=class="unsortable"|Reference, but that does not work. Anyways, I'm not well versed in template-editing. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have instituted a new table here for Jodhpur Airport. I included an "As of" statement as this article is unlikely to be updated as often; in fact, there was a mistake in the table that I had to correct. What do you all think? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: I like the table overall, I think that is what the airport destionation table should be changed to. When the template is changes, I am assuming the current terminal/concourse data will display in the reference column, so it should not break the tables on most airport pages. Also, whoever makes the change to the template should also probably remove the 4th column option also, as I am sure some users will try to add back the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that, personally, I still have problems with option 3... I don't like the fact that references are typically the airline's schedule that has to be searched manually. There's also the fact that outdated information can be hidden in these tables, which do not indicate the date they were last updated. Here are recent examples: here and here. Also, there are difficulties citing seasonal destinations. And, secondary sources are typically published when the route started, so they could be outdated. Overall, the tables are full of information that is plain difficult to cite... I still have doubts that any airport article could pass FA. Maybe I will have to try and see...

Almost everyone who voiced support for Option 3 is an aviation enthusiast/regular editor of airport articles. And, only a few editors seem willing actually to discuss anything. So I don't think we got a proper consensus, even though this is an RfC and was posted at appropriate noticeboards. Sigh. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing: An editor added that Air Costa flies between Bengaluru and Chennai here. To determine if this was true, I had to find Air Costa's flight schedule myself and search it manually. Turns out there's no Bengaluru–Chennai flight offered by Air Costa. Now I can't revert the edit saying, "unreferenced addition," can I? These tables are just...weird and unlike anything else I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm still against them I think. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. No sources, no additions.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't that seem odd, though, as none of the other destinations have explicit sources? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Template Discussion

Pinging users who have been involved: @CambridgeBayWeather, @Jetstreamer, @Oknazevad, @AHeneen, @KDTW Flyer, @Lemongirl942, @Tofutwitch11, @Jamie2k9, @BIL, @Bouzinac, @Stinger20, @St170e, @Elinruby, @Aviationspecialist101, @Timtempleton, @Sunnya343

I think we are probably ready to submit an edit request on Template talk:Airport destination list to the format Sunnya343 provided. If you object please reply! Stinger20 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have tested these changes on the Module Sandbox: Module:Airport destination list/sandbox
This is the list of changes I think we have agreed to propose, please add to the list if you see something missing:

• Remove "3rdcoltitle" option due to WP:NOTTRAVEL (such that terminal/concourse information cannot be provided)
• Remove "4thcoltitle" option due to WP:NOTTRAVEL (such that terminal/concourse information cannot be provided)
• Add "Refs" column, initially have module scan for column and skip in order to not break tables without a 3rd column currently, eventually make this a REQUIRED parameter
• Make "Refs" column unsortable

In response to Tofutwitch11, personally I feel we can move ahead with the edit request for the template. I don't see a reason why adding references would be controversial; in fact, the presence of an empty column will force editors to keep these tables well referenced. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think we are ready to submit this request. This would change airport articles for airports around the world -- and I don't think we are ready, nor do we have the capacity to update all of those articles at once. I think we should go article by article, get many of them done, and then go from there. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will change this on a few tables to see how it goes (CVG/CMH/DAY/LUK). These are not huge airports, so it should be a good place to start. I guess its not a huge deal if the ref column is sortable for the present, but we are going to need to change the template to fix this issue at some point. Since there are no objections to removing Terminals/Concourses, I will change this from the documentation on WP:Airports so that we can gradually transition to sourcing refs in the 3rd column. Stinger20 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a list going of the pages I have updated here. I am keeping to the Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana/West Virginia area and plan on expanding to Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia soon. So far I have not had any opposition, which is good, but I am still going to stay away from major airports for the time being. Hopefully since its out there, some editors will take notice and hopefully provide feedback/suggestions. Stinger20 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to have the Concourse Information listed next to each airline, however there's no need to show which gates airlines use as airlines change or swap leased gates like people change shoes. Captoza (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The info really belongs in a paragraph about the terminals and the airlines using them. We are trying to steer away from WP:NOTTRAVEL as well, and listing the concourses in the table of destinations is pushing that. Stinger20 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked about getting a bot to make a list of airports that use the 4thcoltitle and the 3rdcoltitle at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Require a list of articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a question; are we planning on doing anything with the Cargo AirDest tables or are we just leaving them as is? --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@KDTW Flyer: To me, they are even worse than the tables for scheduled operators. Even WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is not very approving of them. On one GA, Kempegowda International Airport#Cargo, I have converted the table into a list. Although I don't even know if a list of cargo carriers is encyclopedic, but maybe that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank You, I definetly agree that they are are worse than passenger tables and something needs to be done, but lets sort out the passenger side of things before we worry about the cargo side. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, but there are cargo tables that are in very good condition. However, if you see an airport with a terribly inaccurate Cargo Table, I think there is no reason you cannot replace it with a list. I will keep this for a discussion another time, though. Stinger20 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It turns out that there are only 359 articles using 3rdcoltitle and none with 4thcoltitle. Those should be converted to references first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you CambridgeBayWeather for using a bot to get this list. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminals information deletion

Hi, I wasn't aware of the discussion on terminal information deletion. I regret the decision taken because it's interesting to know: which airlines are grouped together, the volumes of international and domestic destinations, where each alliance is mostly represented inside aiports. I think this go beyond pure WP:NOTRAVEL policy. Wykx (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is in the above "Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables" discussion. The major point was we are trying to keep the airline tables from falling under WP:NOTRAVEL. It is not that terminal information violates WP:NOTRAVEL, its actually very important and notable for an airport page, but the problem is the way its presented in the destionation table. The current format seems like something a travel guide such as WikiVoyage would have, which we are trying to stay clear of per WP:NOTRAVEL. We are trying to encourage the information to be in actual paragraph form with useful information like: "Terminal 3 houses all SkyTeam carriers, Air France, Delta, KLM. The terminal was built in 1969 and was the first to feature moving walkways in addition to a tram. The terminal is equipped with international arrivals facilities, handling all international arrivals at the airport." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29 for a simple example of this. A paragraph such as this is much more encyclopedic than a large table which does not give you any information other than Airline A uses Concourse B. In contrast, its difficult to show the destinations of an airport in a paragraph form, so its makes more sense to list the actual destinations in a table form. I hope this made sense, please tell me if I am not explaining this well. Stinger20 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: In that case, I would advise to reformulate articles at the time that you delete terminal information. Wykx (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wykx: I am not going to add that information to an article without references and information on the terminals/concourses of an airport. Just a quick example, I removed the concourse information for SDF in the table, but looking at the airport's website, I do not see any information about which airlines use which gates/concourse. All of the terminal information currently in the tables in unreferenced. Stinger20 (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Of course the information should added provided it is sourced, like for any other information. Wykx (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wykx, why do you think the terminal information is beyond WP:NOTRAVEL? It is like telling passengers where to go for their flight. An example of this was at the Heathrow Airport article, where it was noted that certain British Airways flights departed from T5 while others departed from T3. Another example is how notes would be added indicating, say, "arrivals are handled at T1 and departures at T3." Overall, terminal information very much belongs in a travel guide in my eyes, not in an encyclopedia – it is not notable enough, and secondary references are hard to find.

Stinger20, I don't think the solution is just to place the terminal information in a paragraph instead – the information is still there. I don't feel it is necessary to indicate the terminal used by each airline. In the case of Heathrow Airport, it can be noted that T5 is dominated by British Airways. Or at McCarran Airport, it can be written that, "T1 only handles domestic flights, while T3 handles all international flights and some domestic flights." If a passenger wants to know from which concourse his or her flight will depart, they should go to the airport's website or to a flight tracker – not to an encyclopedia. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: You can see the terminal information from the traveller's perspective but you can also see it from the airline or the airport's perspective with some confort, facility of correspondances and economics criteria. Wykx (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for coming late to this discussion, but what exactly is the policy now for including terminal information in airline tables? As a casual observer to airport articles, I find it a bit confusing to follow -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whats new?, there appears to be consensus to remove this column. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Having a quick read through the above discussion, it doesn't seem the column's removal was a main focus of it and it appeared to just happen as a by-product. I think it serves, in many cases, encyclopedic value personally, and I think an issue regular members of this project will find is that many editors will be caught unaware and take issue with it, which seems to have started here at least. Having found something similar when making changes to a Manual of Style in a different Wikiproject and then attempting to implement them, you get a lot of editors caught unaware when you make the changes across multiple articles. Might I suggest, before you start deleting these columns from every article, you attempt to make editors aware of the impending changes before you actually do them. Doing that in itself is hard and you still won't capture everyone, but you may run into some edit wars and then wider problems otherwise. Personally, as someone not involved in the original discussion, I don't think it has been clearly expressed. Just my 2 cents -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Disapointed in the removal of terminal information. Found it useful. Jamie2k9 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I think a lot of editors will be disgruntled when they see terminal info being deleted. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Whats new?, you're right that it's hard. Getting people to contribute to that RfC was hard enough. It seems the only way to get people's attention is to be WP:BOLD and make the edits. To editors who may be disgruntled, I would consider WP:SILENCE. Although it's nice to see that people are talking about it now.

Jamie2k9, to echo the comments of Andrewgprout, you and I as aviation enthusiasts may find this information useful, but I don't think it is notable overall to the average reader. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: No arguments about difficultly attracting comment on matters like this from me, I know it all too well. Remember also that consensus can change especially given silence is the weakest form of consensus. It is why I suggested above that before making widespread deletions, attempt to warn editors of the perceived consensus, perhaps through talk pages at major airport articles and various aviation themed Wikiprojects to either sort out any issues before edit wars begin, or strengthen consensus on the matter. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Wikipedia is not only for the average reader. Wykx (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither it is a fansite.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a number of articles where users have attempted to revert deletions of this column. I would strongly suggest opening a discussion specifically on this issue of whether or not to include terminal info. You do have only the weakest form of consensus in SILENCE with multiple instances of other user's disagreeing. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made a majority of the changes and out of the pages I have changed, I have been challenged only TWICE (See below for LAX). I am not sure where you are seeing all these "attempts to revert the deletion of the column". Due to WP:Silence, I am completely justified to make the edits since there were no major objections and the removal of the destionation column was discussed pretty explicitly. I have since stopped as a result of this discussion, but I think we need to keep the changes and hopefully point more users to this discussion so we can come to an actual consensus. Stinger20 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I wasn't criticising any one editor, nor any editor that made changes. I was just making the point that, in my opinion, there is some dissent to the removal of the terminal information. It was not a focus of the above wide-ranging discussion, and happened as a by-product thus why it is covered by SILENCE rather than an overt consensus. I would very much like to see an explicit consensus made on the issue. I suspect that, despite my opposing view, you may get more editors in support of removing but I don't think it is clear enough to start making wholesale changes. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm watching LAX and I think we should be moving the info out of the table instead of simply deleting. A textual listing or even another table of just what airlines are present in each terminal is more than encyclopedic (at least more than the destination listing!) HkCaGu (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To all the users involved in the edit war on LAX, while I agree the terminals should not be listed, I think we need to wait for more consensus before changing very important airports like JFK/ATL/LAX/CDG/ect. I would ask that we change medium airports and some larger airports like BWI/LGA/SLC, but I am not sure were are ready to change pages like LAX. Stinger20 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest stop making changes to any airport until you get an explicit consensus. Your statement to change only select airports is admitting you have an issue, and sounds like trying to shy away from larger airports where you think you can get away with deletions with less page watchers. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I already stopped changing airport pages since WP:SILENCE is no longer valid, I am trying to stop any more changes from taking place, but I am saying keep what is already changed to avoid more edit wars. I am not "getting away" with deletions, I am perfectly valid in making an edit that users have agreed upon. My issue is with users refusing to participate in discussions then disagreeing with the changes we make. We need to focus on wether the terminal/concourse information should be removed, not wether users were justified in making the changes that have already occurred. This happened on the last RFC, we need to be clear and focused if we are ever to get consensus on an issue. Stinger20 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps the best way to achieve consensus is an RfC on specifically the terminal issue -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, I don't have time to set it up tonight, but if anyone else can that would be great! Stinger20 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have been an anonymous follower and editor in good faith of several major airport pages for years. Let me begin by saying the editors I have disagreed with have done nothing wrong, having now seen this page. However, the decisions regarding deletion of airport terminal information seems extremely questionable and a step in the wrong direction. The comments above seem to have ended a month ago, around early March, but I am in the past week seeing just a few airports being reverted to the format discussed here. However, this is not consistent. So the first issue is the inconsistency that currently exists between airport pages. Also, this page seems to indicate that changes should not be made anymore while further discussion occurs. However, changes are still sometimes being made and no further discussion is happening. So second issue is commitment to a strategy needs to be made. Additionally, I (and many of my peers, who outnumber the small group of users engaged in the earlier conversation on this page) all agree there is added value to the terminal information. If I am reading this page, the concern was WT:Travel or that it is being a travel guide. However, the information is useful as it indicates operational information that is valuable to stakeholders of an airport, and not just passengers who need a travel guide. While that may be an additional use of the information, eliminating it completely only removes added value/has negative impact. There is no upside or positive to removing terminal information. This is the third issue. I registered today because of this specific issue as it is important to many Wiki users and currently is in a very poor state. Forgive me if I am using this page incorrectly. I welcome feedback and clarity from more experienced users but want to represent many individuals in adding to the disagreement with removing terminal information. I have no issue with people having made edits but agree with the comments from 1 March 2017 that the decision to remove terminal information at all is not the right decision. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OslPhlWasChi, it looks like you missed this discussion, which was a WP:RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343, Thank you, I do now see the second closed conversation. I and my peers still have a few major concerns with the current outcome. The single argument that seems to have resulted in removing terminal information is that it falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL as it is only useful for passengers/travelers. This however is incorrect. People across many professions and stakeholders of airports who are not travelers find great value in knowing what terminals are occupied by which airlines. From real estate professionals, to facility planners, to operators, whether they be direct employees of an airport, consultants and partners of an airport, or even just enthusiasts all receive value from knowing this. So between a primary argument that seems flawed, and a sample size of just 17 users, this outcome seems very flawed. Even if this in the final outcome as of March 26, the condition has been let inconsistent and the differing level of information across airport pages is creating, in my opinion, more of an informational issue than the initial NOTTRAVEL assertion. This is a major/greater risk of the small sample size. If less than 20 users are going to make such a change, then the changers must be ready to implement it and yes, that means it will be a great burden as the sample size is so small. But it has been nearly 10 days (after earlier periods of inactivity) and the conditional remains inconsistent creating much greater issues. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OslPhlWasChi, I believe your argument has been addressed in the RfC. Regarding the sample size, I think it's sufficient; I don't think expecting a much higher number of participants is reasonable, as there are not too many frequent contributors to WT:AIRPORTS. Also, most importantly, the RfC contains the opinions of random editors who may not be regular editors of airport articles/aviation enthusiasts, creating a diverse sample of opinions and avoiding WP:CONLIMITED.

As to the fact that the change has not been implemented widely yet, we cannot expect it to happen overnight. Also, the responsibility to remove the terminals column lies not just with those who explicitly supported its removal in the RfC; other editors can read the discussion and assist. Of course, editors don't always have the time to edit the thousands of airport articles. In addition, it is advised to implement changes slowly in order to account for any new concerns that arise. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Thank you again for your response and I promise this is the last one from me. I understand the desire to close this topic out for good having caught up in the last 24 hours on this page. In response to the RfC addresses the issue, I think this gets us into a cyclical pattern. Some say terminal information is for passengers - this is true. Others say there is value for non-passengers to understanding terminal information - this is also true. Therefore, the decision to remove the information may result in some passengers no longer using Wiki as a travel guide, but it will additionally result in lost information, of an appropriate use, by others. Simply on logic, my support would have been for keeping it as removing it has additional negative impact. On sample size, I appreciate your response and see now that there are in fact few users on this WT page. However, I think it is misleading to think that this small sample could be representative of the larger user base who use the airport pages. I myself have been a user and editor for years and have only discovered this WT function in the past 24 hours (I am also not technically savy, but same goes for many readers). I also can appreciate that change takes time. However, again because the supposed benefit of this change is so minor (if at all), the inconsistent nature over the implementation period could be a temporary negative condition that outweighs the long-term value of this change. Anyways, thanks to the folks on this page who care and put the time in. Lets hope for some better outcomes moving forward. OslPhlWasChi (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Statistics

Hello, the Airports Authority of India publishes PDFs every month with traffic statistics for the airports it manages. For example, here are the passenger statistics for January and for February. Would it violate WP:SYNTH to add statistics from different PDFs, ultimately calculating, say, an airport's passenger count for the whole year? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say per WP:CALC it would be fine to add the totals from each month to get the passengers per year, provided that you include all of the sources for each PDF. Since adding the passengers is "basic arithmetic", it seems permissible under WP:OR. Stinger20 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Airport names in local languages

Pardon my ignorance here, but when did it become consensus that airport infoboxes should no longer contain the airport's name in the native language(s) of the city/country where it is located, and that in the text itself they should be prosified instead of being put inside parentheses? I've checked the archives and there seems to be no indication that such a consensus was reached.

I've looked at several airport articles both locally (I'm from the Philippines, so I'm appalled to see "This airport is also known as xxx in Filipino" when it was previously parenthesized) and abroad, and it looks like these edits have taken place within only the last few months. I'm loath to endorse the engineering of consensus based on changing the facts on the ground (i.e. edit articles the way you want, then force a new consensus based on those edits), so unless something has changed I'm seriously considering reverting things to how they previously were. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know it is still standard practice by the project to use the local language name in the infobox "native name". MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sky Harbor, may I ask what you find so appalling about that? You may have noticed that I made those edits. At Mactan–Cebu International Airport for example, I removed the native names from the infobox because there were two of them and it was adding to the length of the infobox. Also, I moved the translations out of the lead sentence per WP:LEADCLUTTER and MOS:FORLANG: "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence" (emphasis mine). The separation between subject and verb in that sentence was too great in my opinion. All in all, I wanted the translations to stand out less, as this is the English Wikipedia.

Of course this is largely a WP:BOLD move on my part; if you feel it is wholly inappropriate, feel free to revert. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on terminal information in airline and destination tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

NOTE: This section is for indicating support or opposition only. Discuss or replies should be made in the next section.

• Oppose removal: I would keep the information provided there is a source for the information, as it is often the case for large airports which several terminals. It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals by level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances. This information could be also summarized in a encyclopedic textual format but having the list is also easier for the reader to interpret any text attached and in case of any changes information will be more precise. Wykx (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: this information can and should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, and can be found on airport and travel websites. I would also like to take this opportunity to bring up the conflicting information that can be found here[2], where the lead paragraph and bullet #16 are conflicting. Garretka (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: unencylopedic info. --Bouzinac (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: Serves a purpose in demonstrating how airlines are grouped at various airports with more than one terminal, particularly in certain contexts such as airline alliances. Doesn't breach NOTAGUIDE in my mind, given specific gate info isn't included. Train station articles commonly list platform arrangements (Willowbrook/Rosa Parks, Stadium, Central, Waterfront, Promenade, etc) which is comparable to terminals. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Largely unreferenced and nearly always un-referencable and absolutely questionable under WP:NOTTRAVEL.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Per my arguments below, WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I still hold that we should include the information SOURCED in an more encyclopedic form. Stinger20 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Per Andrewgprout's comment above. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: I agree with earlier said comments that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized. From the way I understand the WP:NOTTRAVEL policy, I feel that listing the terminals and concourses is perfectly fine according to WP:NOTTRAVEL. We aren't writing about our experiences during travel and we aren't mentioning distant landmarks, nor are we saying the price of goods; which I feel is the 3 big bullet points of said policy. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: As per WP:NOTTRAVEL. The terminals, to my mind, do not provide any indication as to how an airport is organised. Look at Toronto Pearson International Airport#Airlines and destinations. What does that tell me about the way the airport is set up? Why is a particular airline at a particular terminal. Both 1 and 3 have cross border, domestic and international flights. You can find out why the airlines are grouped like that further up the page in the Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section where it can be better explained. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: Based on WP:NOTTRAVEL and the reasons articulated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal: strikes me as superfluous and un-encyclopaedic content that adds nothing to readers' understanding of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal; mainly as we are not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal- summoned by bot. I supported the earlier decision to maintain the list of destinations at each airport, since I found a site that listed the changes daily, but don't really see similar value in maintaining the list of terminal numbers for each airline. I'm familiar with WP:NOTTRAVEL, but am interested in exceptions where Wikipedia can offer something of specific value that no one else can. If you are trying to determine if you can get to a certain location from a particular airport, then having the destination info is quite valuable. The only other way to get it is through trial and error on the travel sites (or call a travel agent!). I personally have tried to book flights on Jet Blue by selecting endpoints only to learn that the airport pairs I selected have no interconnecting service. I don't see a similar use case demonstrating the utility of knowing what terminal you are flying from until you book your flight, because at that point you will be given all the terminal and gate info by the airline when you travel. There just doesn't seem to be enough value for the maintenance effort required. Another way of looking at it is to flip things around. Instead of having just a list of terminals at each airport, why wouldn't you be able to make a similar argument to have a list of terminal numbers (in addition to the airports served) for each of the airline articles? For example, you'd have to also agree that it made sense to add terminal numbers to this table of British Airways destinations. There are already five ref date errors, which no one has bothered to fix. Therefore, it does not seem to be as useful or necessary to have the terminals numbers. The other arguments in favor don't sway me. Because most airport alliances are already listed somewhere, knowing the terminal groupings doesn't help as much upon deeper inspection. Timtempleton (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTTRAVEL, unencyclopedic. Undue level of detail. (invited by bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal but needs clarification This RFC would most likely get interpreted as forbidding ever including such. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Tim's argument. Difficulties in maintain accuracy, etc. they see me 'troling for RfCs L3X1 (distant write)

Discussion

Following on from a previous RfC here, there was a silent consensus to remove the terminal information column from airline and destination tables at airport articles, such as seen at this diff at Dubai International Airport. A support to remove this column would establish a clear consensus to apply the change to all airport articles with such a table. An opposition to remove the column would provide clear consensus that the column serves a worthwhile purpose and should be permissible at articles. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Garretka, thank you for noting the contradiction at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. It appears that was added after our weak consensus was formed as part of the previous RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables. I've removed bullet #16 until we come to consensus in this RfC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the bullet, I added that quite a while ago during the original "consensus". I should have removed it! Stinger20 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Wykx, could you please explain what you mean by, "level of confort, facility of correspondances between airlines and alliances"? I don't really understand what this means. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Terminals have been built at different times in history or for different purposes and then have different level of confort. If two airlines are in the same terminal the facility of correspondance is improved. If you have to switch in Kuala Lumpur or in Paris between terminals, it is almost as if you were not in the same airport. Thus it is interesting to know which airline/flights benefit from which level of confort and connexion. Wykx (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Garretka and Andrewgprout, the fact that information is sourced in not against introducing the information. Actually it is the reason why the information can be properly added. If there is no source, it shouldn't be added. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WykxI suspect you have misunderstood the point I was making - my point was exactly as you appear to agree - No available source - shouldn't be added. Mostly the existing terminal information is not reliably sourced.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because there aren't references within tables currently doesn't mean they don't exist and could not be added. Sourcing terminal information should be possible in almost every case. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if such sources exist that would pass WP:RS and are publicly available on the open Web or through library databases (which I doubt), would you be willing to volunteer the 40 hours per week it would take to keep such information current with citations to sources acceptable under WP:RS? Most Wikipedia airport articles are already poorly sourced, but at least the initiation or discontinuation of service between two airports is likely to result in coverage in the news media. Moving airlines between terminals is much less likely to result in such coverage. For example, I just recently learned about the move of American Eagle from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5 at LAX as a result of a gate swap with Delta, which actually happened about a year ago, but did not lead to any news articles at the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually yes it is the principle of Wikipedia to update information when it is updated in the sources available. Wykx (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

CambridgeBayWeather: The Toronto terminals are separated by the 3-minutes LINK Train as mentioned in the Toronto Pearson International Airport article. The Toronto Pearson International Airport#Terminals section gives some indications and general principles on airlines repartition which are necessary. But the section doesn't include all the airlines and illustrates perfectly the explanation given. Wykx (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the point. The body of the article gives the information but the template does not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk),

Sunasuttuq 17:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. The body doesn't list every airline within every terminal. The table can handle such information much better. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the body lists all the airlines and we already agreed that the information should be in the table in the RfC above. Wykx said that "It gives an indication of how airport is organized in term of allocation of terminals" and KDTW_Flyer said "that terminal information can indicate how an airport is organized." Those statements are what I disagree with. In the example I gave the table list which terminals are used by which airline but not why. The reason the airline use that particular terminal is covered in the body of the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following your comment there. Having the terminal number in the table provides a quick reference guide and not an explanation, you are right. But I do not understand the harm in having the terminal within the table, and the explanation in terminal sections above. Those editors saying remove terminal info because of NOTTRAVEL yet advocating terminal information in prose form elsewhere are displaying quite the double standard. Tables are supposed to provide information in a quick, easy to read format. I still see no reasonable argument against terminal information. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? Only WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:V, WP:OR all of these things together attempt to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia - Encyclopedias are a tertiary source of information - in simple terms this means that they collect and describe already predigested information in a concise form. Any terminal discussion should be based on and referenced to already published in WP:SECONDARY sources such as those in magazines or trade journals. Timetables and Airport websites are WP:PRIMARY resources and should be used only to keep the secondary sources honest not by themselves. This is why the Terminal information (and in my opinion other information commonly found in Airport articles) are very very problematic and stick out like a sore thumb when compared to other parts of Wikipedia. The prose example above is exactly what you would expect in an encyclodedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? When I say adding the information to a paragraph I am talking about general overview's like Delta owns Concourse B, all SkyTeam airlines operate from Terminal 3, LLCs use Terminal 2, ect. I think the listing of every airline and which terminal is a) not notable and b) acts too much like a travel guide. In addition, its a table to demonstrate the extent of service at an airport, the terminal listing is not really related to the original purpose of the tables. Stinger20 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to Andrewgprout you seem to be confusing a lack of sources with the absence of sources in the articles. If they were reliably sourced, would you still oppose their inclusion? If so, why? To Stinger20 I agree the prose form is good but I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine. One could make a very similar argument that every airport served denotes a travel guide and every flight between two airports are not notable. Your comment about tables demonstrating extent of service also doesn't add up to me - why does including terminal information not also show the extent of service? Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form? At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world? Why is it not pertinent to clearly show where each airline is housed, in addition to more contextual and detailed information about specific terminal buildings in prose form elsewhere. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Listing terminal and destinations are completely different. For instance, if you are looking to book a ticket, looking at a Wikipedia destination table is not going to help you. You book a plane ticket primarily based off price and schedule, simply listing the destinations served by an airline at an airport does not help "guide" a traveler. They do not tell you the schedule, frequency, aircraft, seats available, ect. The list of destinations provides summarized information about the extent of service a particular airport receives (We could list frequencies, aircraft used, gates, schedules, but that would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL). Whereas, a list of which airlines service which terminal(s) is very useful for a traveler and is an essential piece of information that fliers look at travel guides for, such as airport websites, terminal signs, and airport question forums. A paragraph as I described above (notable assignments, airlines owning concourses, ect) would not be helpful to a traveler, but instead provide information about a specific terminal to a researcher/reader of Wikipedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Andrewgprout is trying to say that, generally, terminal information is not found in secondary sources, but in primary sources - which are not highly preferred at Wikipedia.

"I don't comprehend the argument that terminal information isn't notable and breaches NOTTRAVEL yet every destination is fine." While I personally continue to have issues with the 'Airlines and destinations' tables (I started that previous RfC), the destinations to which a person can fly from an airport are much more notable than terminal information. They also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport. (I don't see how terminal information does.) The fact that a person can fly from Heathrow to major cities all over the world as well as to smaller cities in Europe conveys the level of service present at the airport. However, terminal information seems to cross the line. The fact that, say, British Airways' Las Vegas flight departs from T3 while the Bangalore flight leaves from T5 does not sound encyclopedic at all. It sounds like a travel guide directing passengers when they connect through Heathrow.

"Why can't all destinations served by an airport be listed in prose form?" I think you know the answer to this. Listing all the destinations served from Heathrow Airport in prose is not feasible. This works for smaller airports, though (and should be done per MOS:TABLES), such as Belgaum Airport.

"At DXB for example, is it not notable that only two airlines use the largest terminal in the world?" It certainly is. This can be noted elsewhere in the article. (However, merely moving all the terminal information to other parts of the article doesn't make sense, as you noted. Notable cases, such as the fact that British Airways dominates T5, can be included.) — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You stated "they also provide an idea of an airline's presence at an airport" yet why does that argument not hold up for providing an idea of an airline's presence within individual terminals. Adding a terminal information column adds one character of information to the table in a very neatly, summarised form. Based on what policy does it "cross the line?" As I said earlier, you could quite easily make the case that a list of destinations breaches it (I'm not advocating, just pointing out the hypocrisy). I'm also not advocating prose form for destinations, again pointing out the double standards in this discussion. Railway station articles routinely include which trains serve which platforms, without incident, and I don't see the difference here - if anything, terminal information is more notable. Listing gate numbers and the like is far too specific, I just don't see the argument, based on policy let alone anything else, that denies a terminal column. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides the points raised above, another point is that it is simply not notable. To paraphrase John Marshall, we must never forget that it is an encyclopedia we are expounding. We include railway station information because at most stations it is much harder for the station operator to rearrange service, since they normally need to undertake enormous capital expenditures in the millions or billions of dollars. For example, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is spending over $800 million to build the Regional Connector tunnel through downtown Los Angeles, which will enable Metro to radically reconfigure its light rail network. In turn, it is because such capital expenditures are so expensive and hence so rare that makes the resulting service changes notable. That is, rail vehicles are literally locked to the rails in a way that planes are not. Airlines routinely move service around between various existing terminals at airports in ways that also impact millions of travelers, but because rearranging service is so easy (setting up their computers at an existing counter and putting up their logo and signs), it rarely gets news coverage and is usually not notable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If I take the example of Gatwick Airport where some the removal of terminal information has been implemented, new section has been added to explain terminal relocation - which is fine - but fails to explain what is the new situation and we don't know which airline uses which terminal. And I would like to remind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which is applicable here where the information is directly provided by the airport and copied in press article. Wykx (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Wykx here. Further, Coolcaesar makes a notability argument for train stations but not airports which doesn't stack up. Notability is established by reliable sources not by which topics you deem "expensive" enough to warrant mention - that is a poor argument. A quick Google search turns up numerous terminal changes in RS: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Furthermore, as noted above, primary sources are pertinent in this case. Again, most of the support arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and interpretations of NOTTRAVEL rather than actual substantive policy -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Point me to a statement based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we are disagreeing on wether the current format is too suggestive of a travel guide, not wether it makes the destination tables look better. The terminals column was added to the tables when we went from listing destinations by terminal to the current format, they were never added to show the distribution of airlines at an airport. As many users have responded, the current way terminals are listed makes the destination tables look like a travel guide. Without them, the tables do not "guide" passengers but rather depict the extent of airline service at an airport. I am NOT arguing that terminal/concourse information itself violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, as long as its sourced, I see nothing wrong with including it. However, I am arguing that the current format "guides" a potential airline passenger rather than displaying the information in an encyclopedic way. As already done on many airports, the information can be presented in a more informative way that does not look like a travel guide. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Main_Terminal_.28Terminal_3.29, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Current_terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas/Fort_Worth_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_International_Airport#Terminals, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Capital_International_Airport#Terminals. LAX actually has a great format, which could be followed by many large airports, its nice and simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_International_Airport#Terminal_Arrangements. Stinger20 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the above, and I very much like the LAX format. But how are any of those formats compliant with GUIDE? It is presenting the same information in a different way. The content is the same - so ergo by your rationale the content breaches GUIDE? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The content is totally different, these paragraph formats do not "guide" because they are giving information about the terminals (history, size, use, and AIRLINES). Whereas the table does not provide any of this information, but rather just says airline XXX operates in terminal XXX. That seems like a travel guide rather than providing encyclopedic information. In contrast, the list of the destinations served by that airline is encyclopedic because it shows the extent of service from an airport. It is not a guide like the list of terminals because it would not help "guide" a passenger at an airport, rather its more useful to someone wanting to know more about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semantics. Writing "American Airlines flights depart from terminal 1" is no more or less a guide than having 1 next to American Airlines in a table column headed Terminal. The only difference is formatting. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice you are using a fragment of a sentence, which is very similar to the format of the table:

"American Airlines flights depart from terminal A" or in the format of a table: "American Airlines | ...destinations... | Terminal A"

vs

"American Airlines and its regional affiliate American Eagle have a large presence at Dallas/Fort Worth. The world's largest airline, as of December 9, 2013, operates its largest hub at DFW. The two airlines operate at all five of the airport's terminals.[36] Terminal A, called "Terminal 2E" when the airport was opened, is fully occupied by American Airlines for domestic flights. Prior to the opening of Terminal D, Terminal A operated most of AA's international flights at the airport. During the late 1990s, many American Eagle flights began moving to Terminal B. Before Terminal D was opened, American Eagle flights also used a satellite terminal (named Satellite Terminal A2) near Terminal A due to gate restraints. Passengers were taken to the satellite via shuttle buses from gate A6. Satellite Terminal A2 (Gates A2A–A2N) was abandoned in 2005 when all American Eagle flights were consolidated into Terminals B and D. This terminal is used to house all of American's A321, 737, and 757."

There is a huge difference between the two... Stinger20 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not a direct comparison. I'm not disputing notability of terminal opening dates, history, etc. I'm asking specifically how writing airline terminal numbers in prose is any more or less NOTAGUIDE than writing it in table form. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The context matters, just stating the fact that AA flies out of terminal A, wether in a table or sentence suggests a guide. However, when in the context of a paragraph about the terminal, it is no longer a "guide" for a passenger, but information for an encyclopedia. Stinger20 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Whats new? and Stinger20, I don’t really know how to word/say my response so please bear with me here. I think you both have to change how your thinking of the reason for this discussion. In the first discussion, we reached a sort of consensus that the listing of terminals was kind of bad and we should cite the airlines' route map or destination guide. We started doing that then we ran into edit wars with a few articles which is why this second discussion is going on. The edit wars were happening because the general readers who read these articles weren’t happy with the new standard for airport articles. I feel that the word “general reader” is the keyword that needs to be focused on throughout this discussion and I truly feel that everyone who has contributed this discussion has overlooked these two words. I know that terminals are on the top 10 list of things people look for in an airport article. I feel that taking it away or making it harder for the readers to find is a failure to the purpose that Wikipedia is even in existence. To tell you the truth, its time to stop worrying about it being a travel guide or not. The best option that will make everyone happy might have to break a policy or two for it to be the best choice.
I understand both of your opinions and I can connect to the both of you. What’s my name?, I get the impression that you want long detailed descriptions while Singer20 is fine with slightly shorter descriptions. What's my Name?, the only problem I see with your plan is that most airports don’t really document the history of their terminals, so your plan might get difficult to implant once we get to the medium/small airports.
In my opinion, I really feel that what was there before; having a third column for terminal and adding a fourth for the timetable reference is the best choice for our readers. Thank you, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@KDTW Flyer: Thanks for your input, and I too agree with much of what you have said. To clarify, I am strongly supportive of terminal information - both the terminal column as well as prose sections for history and detailed info about terminals. Obviously in small airports, if there is no verifiable information then there should be no unsourced terminal sections. My points here were that NOTTRAVEL is not a valid rationale for how terminal information is displayed -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

KDTW Flyer, I don't understand your definition of the "general reader." You mean aviation enthusiast IPs like the revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport? I don't think the average reader cares about where each airline is located at an airport. As aviation enthusiasts ourselves, I think we need to step back and consider whether the information we are adding is truly encyclopedic. I've given examples above of why I feel terminal information violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think the average reader cares. Who are you to determine that? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Whats new?, Sunnya343 and Stinger20, Thank you for your replies. So about the long time in getting back you, I have been working on this for well over an hour and a half; I am going to get into a few things you all mentioned so once again thank you for bearing with me. First my reasoning for using the statement “general reader”. To me this discussion is is not legal according to Wikipedia standards because theres only like 10 of us in on this discussion. Sunnya343, this my be hard to think but I think the “revert-happy one at Los Angeles International Airport” is the user who we have to give the A+ to, he/she is the one that said “excuse me but we didn’t get a voice in this desition, could we get a voice in this discussion”. This whole second discussion is just as bad as the first, for us to come to a consensus the right way in the way that the wikipedia policy wants us, we have to invite some people in, and these have to be newer users as well. I don’t want to be mean to you Sunnya343, but the way you described these newer editors in your post is a bit rude and uncivil. I care about how an airport article is laid out and I bet the average readers care just as much and want to have a voice. I don't mean to make you feel bad Sunnya343 nor is it my intention, because your not the only person here on Wikipedia with the attitude that newer users have no voice. I strongly believe that there is a huge issue with how older users treat newer ones, but this is material for a different discussion.
What's my Name?, I agree that smaller airports shouldn't have the terminal information, actually as far as I know at most small airports airline float around to different gates depending on traffic, different equipment types, etc. I know that my hometown airport does that.
One last note that I want to leave with you 3, is I'm kind of 50/50 one the whole travel guide argument, I travel a lot and I sometimes read the little binder travel guide thing they have in the room and there's almost always a page on the local airport, mostly the airline(s) that serve the airport. So my point is that if your going to call listing the terminals travel guideish, we might as well call list listing the airlines as a travel guide as well.
Sunnya343, I really am sorry about putting up you in the spotlight, but you were the perfect example for this situation and I've been burning to get this concern with Wikipedia out for a while now. You seem like a nice person from the one or two mini discussions we had in the first discussion.
I hope you all have a nice evening, KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

KDTW Flyer, I wasn't thinking that way at all. An IP or a new user can try to have a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting multiple times. If such a user wants to have a voice, they're not helping their case by reverting in such a manner. (And with IPs like the ones at the Los Angeles airport article, having a discussion is quite difficult.) I really don't know how you concluded that I have a low regard for IPs or new editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what much of that has to do with this RfC anyway. In any case, this discussion is ultimately a matter of formatting from my view. No one I see here is suggesting that terminal information is not notable. Editors simply have different views with how some of that information is presented. Those quoting NOTTRAVEL are implying that which airlines use which terminals are not notable for inclusion regardless of how it is presented, as it is a guideline which implies notability not presentation. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the question, "Should the terminal information column be removed from all airline and destination tables at airport articles?" I am taking a slightly different stance that the terminal information is notable, but needs to be presented in a way that is more concise, encyclopedic, and properly referenced. The current formatting does not fit any of these three categories. I think the WP:NOTTRAVEL is partially a good argument, but both sides can be seen equally, so if you are going to argue for support/oppose, you need to provide more evidence beyond it does/not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Stinger20 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What could be more concise than one column in an existing table, rather than multiple paragraphs or lengthy lists of airlines in each terminal? Adding references to the column can be done easily. NOTTRAVEL is a notability test, not for formatting! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen no answer to the fact the text summary doesn't cover all the airlines serving the airport. I would like your feedback on this. Why do you think this information shouldn't be included for small airlines and not for the big ones? Wykx (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Throwing in my 2 cents here. The destination table is something that seems to be taken straight from a travel guide. While I was too busy to provide my opinion in the previous RfC, I'm simply voicing my opinion here. I strongly believe that the history of the terminal, and airlines with a major presence, operating from that terminal are necessary. Small airlines, as well as larger ones with minimal presence at an airport, are, in my opinion, not notable. The terminals section seems like a good place to raise the major players, but only in an encyclopedic way as Stinger20 suggested. Thank you. Garretka (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

In the text for sure but in the table format, since it gives the opportunity to bring the information in a clear and concise manner I don't see the point. Wykx (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The table format spells out every case, as mentioned previously, where the majority are not notable. For example, I don't care if an airline has all their flights at one terminal but the one international flight is processed at another terminal. Terminal designation for every airline, to me, is non notable. If you're looking for terminal information in a clear and concise way, you look at the airport website or a travel guide or even wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. Garretka (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage focuses on ground transportation, eat, drink, buy, do, which gate is where and advises to check terminal with airline. Airport website are rarely concise. As for notability, it is based on coverage. So Air France or Qatar Airways should be notable in Paris or Doha but not notable in Singapore or Los Angeles? And it's a valuable information to know if the hub of an airline is not completely in one terminal. Wykx (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Airport websites are more often than not concise. If wikivoyage says check terminal with airline, why would Wikipedia go any more in depth? That's exactly my opinion, they fly a few daily trips to those destinations and should not be covered beyond the destination tables. Again, that's what paragraph form is for, spelling out the history and major use of each terminal. I've given my opinion which mirrors the majority of other users, and I stand by my opinion that this information can be found on airport and travel guides, and beyond the encyclopaedic information of major operations, should not be listed. Thanks. Garretka (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

People mention WP:NOTTRAVEL but that policy if one reads it, does not ban travel related information. It only says that such info should be of general interest to the article subject. A list of good restaurants or hotels are of interest to the traveller, but probably has not enough general interest to a city article. The destination table is definitively of interest to understand an airport. The name of each airline is mainly in my opinion needed to assist finding a source (in tables the source can be located in each listed article). Which terminal each one use is probably of doubtful notability.--BIL (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Concur with BIL. Also, to respond to User:Whats new?'s point, it sounds like he or she probably does not fly that often. As any experienced flyer knows, large airlines like to shift operations between different terminals at major hubs in ways that are not covered by reliable sources, let alone the airlines' own Web sites. For example, United Airlines has an annoying tendency to quietly move domestic flights around at SFO, such as when it was flying certain domestic flights (e.g., SFO-IAD) out of the International Terminal last year, instead of Terminal 3. There was also the time United moved some domestic flights to Terminal 1 back in 2012. Neither move was publicized by United anywhere on its Web site or covered by reliable sources. The 2012 move was covered only by some aviation blogs. Similarly, as I noted above, American Airlines moved the bus terminal for the Eagle's Nest remote terminal from Terminal 6 to Terminal 5, but that move did not gain news coverage. The point is that there are many moves between terminals for which no reliable sources exist under WP:RS.

Destination tables also have their own issues, but they are at least tolerable under Wikipedia core policies because they can always be verified from many airlines' official timetables (for the airlines that still publish them) or the OAG database (by anyone with a subscription). In contrast, when an airline has done a stealth move of flights between terminals at a hub with no mention on the Web sites of the airline or airport, and there hasn't been any coverage apart from some squawking on some aviation blogs, then an edit to the airport's article to reflect that move (i.e., by a passenger who just experienced it) would be first publication of original research in violation of WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well its so nice of you to assume. There are certainly times when airlines may use a different terminal for operational reasons, whether planned or last minute. I'm not suggesting including every mention of every case, just retaining information about which airline use which terminal(s) predominantly for flights. If AA does a charter flight we don't list it in the table, so neither would we list a temporary terminal change. The information can be reliably sourced from secondary sources or primary (airports, airlines, airline groups). I found plenty of sources about the AA remote terminal moves you mentioned for example. In any event, and I say this again: this RfC is for WHERE the information should be displayed (in the table or not) and, for most supporters of the removal of this column, your rationale is NOTTRAVEL which is a notability argument and it therefore means you are arguing ALL airline/terminal information should be removed from the article. If you are saying including Terminal 1 in a table is a guide, then so is writing "Terminal 1 houses American Airlines and British Airways" in prose form. If it can be included and sourced there, why can it not be included and sourced in the table? -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think notability plays a huge part in this in addition to WP:NOTTRAVEL. For instance, at CDG, its relatively unimportant that all Delta flights operate out of Terminal 2E, however, its much more notable and useful for a reader to say all SkyTeam airlines operate out of Terminal 2E&F. Listing all the terminals (and keeping up with all the changes Coolcaesar mentioned) is not encyclopedic, that is besides the problems with WP:NOTTRAVEL that have already been pointed out. Stinger20 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good when terminal arrangements are neat and tidy - what about when they are not? What happens when 3 SkyTeam airlines use terminal 1 and 3 others use terminal 2. What about unaligned airlines - do they get listed individually or get lumped in as "some unaligned airlines?" What about when one airline uses 3 terminals? Why are airline alliance terminal arrangements notable but individual airline arrangements are not? What makes an alliance more notable in your view? How about alliances below the 'big 3' - codesharing arrangements, common lounge facilities, etc also play a big part in who's in which terminal - are they notable enough to mention? It seems you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand there. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Actually no there are five exceptions in Charles-de-Gaulle Airport although these airlines are members of Skyteam: Aeroflot, Saudia and Kenya Airways are from 2C, Czech Airlines from 2D because it is Central Europe out of Schengen... and even Air France from 2G for smaller aircrafts. So easy to check those exceptions with the table... Wykx (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Acually that's a great example of non-notable terminal arrangements. I highly doubt most readers know or care that these Airlines are part of SkyTeam and in the context of CDG, they are not notable compared to Delta or Air France who have hubs at the airport. What is more important and notable is that most SkyTeam members are concentrated in Terminals 2E&F to make connections/codesharing easier. I see no encyclopedic value in listing all these exceptions (which is what the terminal column does) other than providing a traveler with a guide for what terminal their flight will depart from WP:NOTTRAVEL. Even the Air France exception does not provide any useful/encyclopedic information other than assisting a traveler. Stinger20 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If terminals are not notable for an airport, what is notable?? In many of the articles, terminal descriptions and information are covering half of the article! Wykx (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The terminal descriptions are the notable part! Not the listing of every terminal assignment, which is only useful for travelers! Stinger20 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Only useful for traveler" is WP:OR. At the contrary we have demonstrated that there is interest from several contributors and readers to reinstate terminal information. Wykx (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Wykx, terminal arrangements are notable and Stinger you are saying that some airlines are worthy of inclusion and some aren't. On what basis? As I said earlier, what about unaligned airlines - do they get listed individually or get lumped in as "some unaligned airlines?" What about when one airline uses 3 terminals? Why are airline alliance terminal arrangements notable but individual airline arrangements are not? What makes an alliance more notable in your view? How about alliances below the 'big 3' - codesharing arrangements, common lounge facilities, etc also play a big part in who's in which terminal - are they notable enough to mention? It seems you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand there. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

perhaps the inclusionists can explain the encyclopedic value of edits such as this [[8]] and make a sensible case as to why this does not contravene WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE because I can't see it _ I know it is true it is just not encyclopaedic. Anytime you are forcing people to be absolutely accurate to the minutest detail is when it has gone way past being an encyclopedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean we shouldn't have updated information? I would have understood your point if the information was constantly wrong and never updated. If it is updated, it's not "forced" Wykx (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that does not really answer the question I posed.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A regularily scheduled flight began operating from terminal C, it was added to the table. That particular airline flies out of two terminals at that airport. Why is that any more or less notable than the destinations themselves? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does that add to any understanding of the subject? which was my question which is still not answered - the only use for such a bit of information is as a "GUIDE". There is no requirement in Wikipedia to be comprehensive - just because something "is" does not make it encyclopaedic. "How is this different than the destinations themselves" - well - quite possibly not much but that is not the question being asked by this rfc.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As has previously been explained, it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist, and for most major airports they do. You mention that individual destinations aren't particularily different - then why have the table at all - perhaps the RfC should be changed to removing the entire table. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it appears that most editors who have contributed to this RfC - at least in the survey - identify that information as not notable. Also, if you scroll up a bit, you will find a long RfC on that very subject. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute where majority lies to date, I just dispute the reasons given and the double standards -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a question for users against removing concourse/terminal information, what encyclopedic value does the terminal/concourse information serve a reader on an airport page? I am having trouble seeing the current setup as anything other than useful for a traveler, hence it is content for a travel guide, not an encyclopedia (what WP:NOTTRAVEL is pointing to). Here is a quote by Whats new? that attempts to answer this question, "it goes to how airlines are grouped or arranged at particular terminals, particularily relevent in terms of codesharing and alliances, as well as the overall structure of the airport (domestic and international flights seperated, one terminal per alliance, etc). In any case, terminal arrangements are notable where sources exist." If airlines are grouped according to codeshares/alliances, is that not something that can be put in a properly sourced paragraph? Again with the mention of "overall structure of an airport", that can be summarized in a sentence, detailing the international and domestic concourses/terminals. You just provided an example of the important parts of terminal/concourse information. That is not the same thing as the unencyclopedic listing of every concourse assignment that would only be useful for a traveler. In comparison, I can easily answer this question for the destinations, they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler. We have already held numerous discussions about the notability of the destinations and every time there is strong support for keeping them, please keep this RFC focused to only the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The summary doesn't give exceptions and the full details on terminal assignment of all the airlines serving the airport. Wykx (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am asking what the significance of these "exceptions and full details on terminal assignments" are to the airport article. This information seems like its more of a travel guide than encyclopedic information about the airport. Stinger20 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, the changes of terminal assignments are i) covered by news articles and ii) we have reliable airport pages sources. This information is useful from several perspectives: airport, airline, traveller. "Encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject for which the article is named". Terminal assignments are factual information concerning airports. Wykx (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"...they help show the extent of service an airport has and are useless to a traveler" for every destination served, yet the same doesn't apply for the extent of service at a terminal and aren't useless to a traveller? Circle that square. Airport destinations are "useless to a traveler" are they? Sorry, but if the NOTTRAVEL argument applies to the terminal information then I continue to fail to see how every destination served isn't, and I look forward to putting that forward at a future RfC on destination information. If terminal information can be nearly summarised in prose form, why can't destinations as well? And if every airline terminal arrangement isn't notable, why is every tiny airport served once a week, or destinations served seasonally for a month or two of the year, or even charter destinations which operate essentially on demand only, notable enough to be included in a table? Double standards litter this NOTTRAVEL argument -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, the fundamental problems with terminal information are notability (as amply explained above) and WP:RS. Many of the sources that would have to be relied upon to substantiate terminal locations for airlines are of questionable reliability under WP:RS because they are self-published sources, primary sources, and the like, and so either we let those terminal columns go unsourced, or we tolerate really sloppy sourcing. For example, both United and SFO failed to update their Web sites to reflect the important terminal changes that I mentioned above (despite the confusion and distress they caused to many travelers), which brings the reliability of both of their Web sites into question. In contrast, the initiation and termination of an entire route is a much more notable event (because of the paperwork and expense involved) that usually draws coverage from secondary news media sources and is also updated regularly in reliable secondary sources like OAG. After all, if OAG ceases to be accurate, they won't have paying subscribers for very long. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated sources exist for terminal changes - primary and secondary - earlier in this discussion. If there isn't a reliable source for a particular terminal change, then I have no problem omitting it in that circumstance. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

While I do not see the terminal information as currently presented as noteworthy or encyclopedic, I could be persuaded the other way if we started sourcing the terminal information with sources, and continued to do the same for the routes. The biggest point I see is that all the documentation is not "set-in-stone", so while I feel its not encyclopedic, I am not sure the argument can hold up. We also run into the problem we discussed on removing the destinations, what exactly is notable/non-notable, and how do we distinguish between the two. I think its clear for the destinations that we should have them all, as long as they are referenced. Do any of the Support Removal group feel accurate sources would increase the notability of terminal assignments? I have had a lot of trouble finding sources for many airports terminals/concourses, so I am concerned about consistency across airport articles as well. I also included an idea for a new Terminals and Airlines table, with the header column listing the terminals rather than airlines, hoping to show the layout of an airport vs a travel guide where the airlines would be listed in the header column. Here are some proposed formats: User:Stinger20/sandbox, feel free to edit it if you would like, just duplicate the table and insert it below the original. Stinger20 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Responding again to Whats new?, it's not the existence of such sources that is the issue, it is the quality of sources and the extent to which reliable sources actually publish articles covering changes of terminal assignments in a timely fashion. It makes no sense to assume the existence of such sources for the majority of airport terminal assignments. Whats new?'s logic, extrapolated over time to its logical conclusion, would lead to airport articles being populated with tables full of long out-of-date terminal information because (1) airport and airline Web sites are notorious for lagging behind service changes and (2) the news media is incapable of documenting such changes in a timely and accurate manner. The alternative would be to throw out WP:NOR, and that is a non-negotiable policy of the WP project. It appears that Whats new? is unaware of the ongoing crisis in journalism for the last 20 years, the very reason for why many humanities majors, myself included, chose to pursue careers in law or other more lucrative professions rather than journalism.

For example, neither American Airlines nor LAX expressly explains anywhere on their regular Web sites in plain English the embarrassing truth that American Eagle flights are served by a hidden remote terminal (the Eagle's Nest) located east of terminal 8 (which means passengers need to anticipate a long bus ride to/from terminal 5 to that location). The only mentions of that remote terminal on the LAX Web site appear to be buried in passing mentions in press releases and newsletters as part of various minor news items, but not as part of stand-alone articles precisely explaining what that terminal is or warning of the severe inconvenience that it inflicts on travelers. And the news media is too busy covering political scandals, car chases, and police shootings to cover that story. As they say in journalism, if it bleeds, it leads. No self-respecting journalist is going to waste their time or their editor's time writing that story, because it's not the story that will lead to a Pulitzer Prize with their name on it. Yes, the Eagle Nest and the sheer craziness of flying through it are documented elsewhere on the Web, but only in airport/airline reviews and aviation blogs of questionable quality which are less likely to qualify under WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well obviously you didn't bother to check for RS regarding your example. I found several articles with a 5 minute g search: [9] [10] [11]. Don't let your apparent disdain let you assume things. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also consider WP:NOTNEWS with regards to the terminal changes. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. A terminal change is neither original reporting, nor emphasized breaking news. Wykx (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean that all these little terminal changes, e.g. American Airlines moves from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2, are not notable. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would temporary destinations, such as charter or seasonal flights, not fall in the same category? -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

How so? The rationale for one should hold for the other -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a final consensus on whether or not we should keep the terminals/concourse column and replace them with the references with the airline's timetable???? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

---

With 14 Support Removal and 3 Oppose Removal, there is an overwhelming majority in favor of removing the terminal information. We seem to be repeating the same points, the overall interpretation seems to be that most people seem to agree that the listing of terminal information is not encyclopedic in its current format, which is the purpose of this discussion. I would argue that we have made, according to Consensus decision-making, a "not-perfect" consensus, but one that would remove concourse information from just the tables as we discussed. I will submit a request for closure so an administrator can look over the discussion in a neutral point-of-view and decide if we have reached a consensus to remove the concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which city to be listed for airport shared by more than one?

Should the nearest city be listed or the biggest one size and population wise or the most popular one even if small and far? as in case of East Midlands region, Derby is closest but Leicester is biggest population wise and the farthest, Nottingham is in between with with a sligghtly lowr population than Leicester, which of the three is more popular a destination? 139.190.175.128 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Typically the nearest city, no matter size, should be listed as the location. You can mention in the intro paragraph that the airport serves the larger city in the area. For instance, in the case of CVG, it is located in Hebron, Kentucky, however, it serves Cincinnati, Ohio. Stinger20 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the future, I think a template could be created for the talk pages of airport articles with commercial service that would provide a consensus of what it should be called in destination tables. Discussion about the city name would then be on the talk page of the airport article, with the template updated based on consensus. The template could provide a central notification page that could be watched to alert project members to the discussion with a parameter |under_discussion= that would be changed when there is ongoing discussion about the city name. The template would have a minimum four parameters:

• |name= for the name of the airport in destination tables,
• |under_discussion= could be set to yes if name is under discussion (explained earlier),
• |discussion_link= would be a link to the archived discussion(s) about the name (it should support multiple discussions, eg. |discussion_link1=, |discussion_link2=, etc.),
• and |note= for a brief explanation about the consensus (if necessary). AHeneen (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Airline websites no acceptable source for route changes?

Fellow editors, please have a look at London City Airport where User David.moreno72 keeps removing sourced content regarding the ending of several routes stating that airline website booking sites are no acceptable source and violate WP:ELNO and WP:REFSPAM. He also seems to not accept secondary sources and keeps referring to WP:ELNO as he removed some of these as well. As the use of these sources is common practice I would like to have some opinions on this. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.177.145 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Seasonal flights

I'm having a disagreement with an editor about seasonal flights. The another editor is saying that Eurowings flights from Glasgow Airport to Düsseldorf Airport are seasonal as they stop for one week in January. I know that it is sometimes unclear whether a route is seasonal or not but listing it as seasonal when it stops for one week only is crazy in my opinion. It would want to be stopped for 3-4 weeks at a minimum to be considered seasonal. Any input appreciated, thanks, VG31 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the other side of this argument. See the flights are 4x weekly from end of October through to just after new year 2018. The flights then Stop before starting up again at 2x weekly over a week later. The difference in weekly frequency here suggests seasonality whereas if the flights were 4x weekly the whole time with only a short break, then it would be less suspicious. However the 2x frequency suggests the airline is re-introducing the flights after the break - therefore seasonal. I strongly believe this is seasonal as the airline clearly doesn't have sufficient passenger demand for January and that explains the no ops in the middle of January and the re-introduction at 2x weekly. Futurepilot1999 17:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's very minor details like this that make me question the encyclopaedic value of a one week break being declared as seasonal. In my opinion, a one week break is not enough to declare the service as seasonal. Garretka (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, a month without any flights might be different but one week is not notable. The flights changing in frequency doesn't matter, they're still not seasonal. VG31 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that a route must operate at least once in every month of the year to be declared "year-round", otherwise its seasonal. In this case, the route is clearly year round. Stinger20 (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case I would definitely agree that a service suspension of a week or so out of a whole year does not make a service seasonal. Unofficially (in that it isn't written exactly like this at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT) most of us have been following the policy that provided the airline operates the route every month of the year, the service is not regarded as seasonal in the Airlines and destinations tables. However this itself is open to some disparity - an airline for example 'suspending' a service from 30 November to 1 January (1 month of no operation) would have the route listed as seasonal (because there are no flights in December), while an airline suspending a route from 2 December to 30 January (2 months of no operation) would have the route listed as year-round as there is at least one flight operated in each calendar month of the year. That doesn't seem an accurate / fair representation. SempreVolando (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to start removing unreferenced charter flights, this is not on, anyone can add anything they like to their favourite airport to boost its image, in any case charters are unreliable, they are mostly never referenced and even if so the information is no guarentee wether the service is continuing or ended with just a handful of flights for a few weeks or months at the most a full season.139.190.175.128 (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lufthansa changes

Some Lufthansa flights are switching from CityLine to mainline (and vice versa) from 28/29 October but it has been creating a whole lot of mess and people keep saying that it is 7 months away from mentioning this change right now. Should we mention this as new or ending service? TravelLover37 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think the average reader cares if service is operated by mainline or cityline. That said, how is this situation any different than an Air Canada mainline flight switching to a rouge flight, where the service "ends and begins". On the topic of being "too far out", I would suggest that Vibhss stops reverting these edits. These are sourced edits and what you are doing is considered vandalism. Garretka (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain the average reader is very bemused and confused by such pedantic detail and it should be avoided at all costs. The problem I believe is with the inclusion of the ' operated by' entries. It is my belief that these only cause confusion, are often hard to substantiate and often change randomly. If the big words on the plane say Lufthansa then just write Lufthansa. Anything more than that gets into trouble with NOTTRAVEL, being a guide and basically being a fan site for the pedantic among us. Andrewgprout (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here. That sort of information is not travel information. Maybe the "average reader" does not care what airline operates the flights but it is still encyclopedic information that should be included. VG31 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

of course it is travel information? What else can it be. And please explain how and why you think such detail adds anything to a readers understanding of the airport article.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If it were travel information it would be something that would be of relevance to your average airline passenger. I'm sure most flyers don't care what airline operates their flight. This information is not of interest to most people but those who do read this section of Wikipedia airport articles most likely are interested! Just because the majority of the public aren't interested in certain information doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. This information is of benefit to many people. VG31 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the aircraft seats are sold by "Lufthansa" in both cases, the distinction is largely irrelevant for travelers and therefore NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply. That said, I am neutral about the importance of noting the operator of the flight. IMO, it's not very important, but not so irrelevant that it is worth the effort to debate the issue or purge it from all articles. AHeneen (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is actually quite important that the operating airline is included. For many airlines, particularly if a regional airline operates some flights, there is a big difference in aircraft used and often the branding. VG31 18:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite important for who? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a fan site it is an encyclopaedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Flights not starting on the established start date

Back in December last year, OneJet announced that they would start flights between Pittsburgh and Albany on March 22, 2017. The date has passed, and the flights aren't operating yet. In fact, they can't even be booked and I've not been able to find a new start date anywhere. What would the consensus be on this issue? Should the destination either be removed from the table until a new start date is established, be kept on the table with a note, or something else? JamesRenard (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If no reference can be found to prove the route will be starting it should definitely be removed. It's not all that uncommon for an airline to announce a route and then cancel it before it starts, often with little publicity. VG31 20:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I'd initially removed Albany as a destination from the Pittsburgh International Airport page (and vice versa) but someone else just added it right back again. JamesRenard (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

IP removing refs

Please be on the lookout for a socking IP removing www.routesonline.com references from airpot articles.

Example: [12]

Found so far:

• 223.206.247.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 223.206.250.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 171.4.106.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked 223.206.240.0/20, and 171.4.106.128 for 72 hours for block evasion. If more IPs pop up, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the articles edited by the IPs in case you wish to dump them into your raw watchlist (no bullets):

Beijing Capital International Airport Changsha Huanghua International Airport Da Nang International Airport Daegu International Airport Fuzhou Changle International Airport Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Kuala Lumpur International Airport Kunming Changshui International Airport Muscat International Airport Naha Airport Nanjing Lukou International Airport New Chitose Airport Phnom Penh International Airport Siem Reap International Airport Soekarno–Hatta International Airport Sydney Airport Tan Son Nhat International Airport

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak and Oshwah: Hello there both. I see no issues with the removal in the diff above. The consensus (whether controversial) is not to have citations for current destinations, as they are only required for the start of new services and for the termination of current ones.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases references aren't needed for current routes as it's quite easy to check if a route is still running by looking at the airlines' timetables or booking engines. References should be kept for charter and cargo routes however as it can be difficult to verify if they are still running. Thanks, VG31 13:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If you look further up the page there is a consensus for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY." Which would indicate that routes do need references. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus for Option 3, but there is no consensus on how to deal with the references.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There was only a WP:LOCALCONCENSUS. Removing them is not dealing with them. As I understood it dealing with them meant how to go about putting the references in the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another issue is that when others dispute the removals and revert, and communicate with that editor asking them to stop, then that editor ought to stop. The IP ignores all talk posts and hops to another IP. That is a concern. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot make a consensus against WP:V the verifiability core principle. Removing references that (however badly) support the fact being presented is absolutely 100% against this principle. Just because the facts can be easily verified (which is debatable - in fact for much of these details there is no real reliable secondary source available) has never meant that it is correct to delete such a reference. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is such a practice tolerated. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I just thought to double check and see exactly what the local consensus actually is. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item #10 says "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." So in this case the destinations have been challenged and a reference is required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This once again highlights the fact that gaining consensus on the inclusion of references for all the destinations in airport articles is mandatory. Many people oppose to this, which in my opinion is against the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More

• 223.206.250.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ...and the talk post

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• 49.48.146.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (removing other refs too, no edit summaries)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)