Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 26 April 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 4.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

How to list the region "Southwest Asia" and "Western Asia" in airline destinations?

There has been some edit warring with two editors at Philippine Airlines destinations and Pakistan International Airlines destinations. The region which was named "Southwest Asia" has now been changed to "Western Asia". HELP!!! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty! What I said to the warring IP Vandal was: "Southwest Asia, Middle East, Upper Jupiter... I don't personally care what it's called. But selective edits are not the way to go. for whatever reason, there has been consensus to list the continental subdivisions in a particular way. And Southwest Asia is what is established in the aviation project. As is the procedure, should anyone wish to make a change, bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place, get consensus, and then feel free to make the change across the board. Until then, things should stay as they are." Jasepl (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the same IP is on another mission to change People's Republic of China in destination articles to China, or some such, using some convoluted revenge logic. Jasepl (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend not allowing wikilinks to regions. When it's banned, then nobody can claim equivalency. HkCaGu (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the next thread down regarding listing of PRC. I think now is the time to come with a consensus for such a listing. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three people deciding concensus, what a dumb world we live in, no wonder, anyways IF China/Taiwan are being written with their full correct names as in listed wikipedia articles for PRC and ROC wehich I fully support now, then why cant the newly renamed title of wikipedia article Western Asia also be used instead of former Southwest Asia.

If there is a Southwest Asia then where the heck is West Asia??? its dosent seem to exist on wikipedia which has Central Asia, North Asia, East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, I think there should also be a Northeast Asia.116.71.61.88 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have known the area that you guys are arguing about to be Southwest Asia. Seriously, has anyone stumbled across the word Western Asia in a book before? If you guys can't come up with concensus, consider Middle East, although Egypt is not part of Asia. Sp33dyphil 09:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airline headquarters pictures needed

Lately I've obtained images of several airline headquarters (Etihad, Finnair, Scandinavian Airlines, Virgin Blue)

Here are a listing of several that are still needed:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnair and Malev requests have been fulfilled. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines already has a photo of its headquarter on its article. Sp33dyphil 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citing timetables

Hi everyone

Apperently there's no standard for citing timetables I'm aware of. The way I am doing it now on the TWA destinations page is: <TWA Timetable, Jun. 1, 1949, 4: flight 7>, for example. If there's a standard way to do this, let me know. Having checked many airline wiki pages, I don't see a single citation to a timetable print source.

Thanks

Chris Chris874664 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought is that I'd use {{cite book}}. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the feedback. I guess there are any number of legitimate ways to do it.

Does anyone think wiki should establish its own particular protocol here? I don't think I've ever seen one put out by the MLA or any other traditional citation system.

Chris Chris874664 (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sp33dyphil I don't think a timetable should be added-Wikipedia is not a directory. Sp33dyphil 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timetables are useful for things like destinations, especially for defunct airlines that never had a web presence. We're not talking about posting schedules on Wikipedia articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got you now, you just want to cite timetables, not posting them onto Wikipedia. Sorry Sp33dyphil 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help in contacting image author

Who on here has an account on Airliners.net?

IBERIA747 (Alfonso) is the author of this image: He said so on this airliners.net page: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4477362/

I thought it was authored by Xocolata, who uploaded it onto EN at File:Sede_de_Iberia_en_Madrid.jpg (I subsequently uploaded it into commons here: File:Sede_de_Iberia_en_Madrid.jpg, because I was unaware of the image's history), but the rest of Xocolata's images were found to be copyvios, and I found the original photobucket page, so it is likely that he didn't ask permission to upload the image.

Would someone mind asking IBERIA747 for permission to use the image (I assume he and Xocolata are not the same person)? His profile is here: http://www.airliners.net/profile/iberia747 - His e-mail has been withheld. I am not sure if Airliners.net members may contact each other internally.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just logged onto A.net and have sent IBERIA747 an email. YSSYguy (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, YSSYguy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reply at this stage. YSSYguy (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to his profile, his last post was on March 5, 2010 - Do you think that adding "response requested" will get his attention? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet information

Hopefully this is the right place to post this, since the dedicated fleet sub page states that it should be used for analysis of how fleet data is displayed and what would be a good common display format going forward would be while this is more of a content issue. Anyway, there is currently a problem sourcing the Athens Airways fleet. A variety of sources are providing contradictory information regarding it's current fleet, including it's official website. A discussion on it has been started on the articles talk page. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Greekboy (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, this is the old problem of using fan boy/enthusiast sites against reliable references. The editors on that page have found an old discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet which doesnt reflect the latest guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content. I think we have already discussed in the absence of reliable references that the fan data is better than nothing but it shouldnt trump reliable references. Also pointed out that we dont need fleet data to be updated every day it is not what an encyclopedia is about and having a fleet that is a few weeks or months old is not a big problem. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedbird House

Is this image on Flickr that of the Speedbird House? http://www.flickr.com/photos/15218213@N06/2787638135

If so I am going to ask this person if he would like to relicense it. It would be good for the BOAC and British Airways articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGA focus city still active (future former focus city)

US Airways LGA focus city didn't close yet. I try to readd info box text:

I think focus city should listed until closure happenings. Other editor disagree and wanting to blocks me:

Can you deciding whether 'future former focus city' should be okay? Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGA is a focus city until it's not, and should be listed as such. With the DOT's response to the US Airways/Delta swap regarding LGA and DCA, the exchange may not happen at all and thus LGA would remain a US Airways focus city: However, we expect that if this order is implemented as proposed the transaction will not go forward and significant consumer benefits will never be realized. http://delta.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=927 -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B767-500, to avoid yourself from getting blocked, please do not edit the article with the label (future former focus city) anymore. My question to you is... is LGA still a focus city of US Airways at this very moment? If it is, it should be listed as so in the infobox without the (future former focus city). Once it is no longer a focus city, then just simply remove it from the infobox. There is really no need to label future former focus city, instead you could describe the proposed change inside the article.
P.S. Hawaiian717, you bet me to it in answering! Aviator006 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the addition again, it seems the editor/s involved were jumping to conclusions and were eventually blocked for disruption to the page. I would like to see other input from others involved in the edit dispute before continuing. Sb617 ([[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does US Airways say LaGaurdia is still a focus city? A source must be provided saying that LaGuardia is still a focus city. People can't just decide for themselves that LGA is still a focus city or not. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is a future former focus city? Sp33dyphil 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor that came up with the phrase was trying to state in the future, LGA will become a former focus city. In other words, a focus city that will soon lose that designation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destination articles (yet again!)

Another editor recently made me aware of this, where a destination article has a completely different format and structure from what we have been using across the project. Granted this Braathens article managed to get featured, but it also is part of the aviation project. Any thoughts on the best was to address this? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the table format (aside from the country flags), and while I don't think the airport codes are necessary, they don't hurt either. The begin/end dates are great (I think we've thrown that idea around before), and having a column for the reference helps to encourage getting the destination lists better sourced. If anything, I'm not sure the article needs the "List of" at the beginning of the article, since it has a substantial amount of prose as well. A brief introduction to the carrier, a destination focused history section, and the list I think make a decent standalone article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing List of Braathens destinations to FL required a lot of work, and by far do I expect all destination article to comply to this. After a peer review and FL review, the list is now regarded as part of Wikipedia's finest work after consensus by Wikipedia's most experienced list-makers. The review differs quite a bit from the nomination, and quite a bit of the innovations were introduced after suggestions and consensus among the reviewers. To present some of the issues:
  • WP:LISTNAME is very clear that the article be named 'List of...'. While I nominated Braathens destinations, the promoted article was called List of Braathens destinations.
  • Consensus is that all lists, as far as possible, are to be sortable (had I nominated a list without it being in a table, it would have been quick-failed). The FL Braathens list can be sorted by, for instance, city name, country, IATA code, airport name, year the service started and year it ended. This allows a list to be created either as a chronology or by country in the whim of a quarter-second.
  • The featured list criteria are very strict in that a list article starts with an introduction, and includes a clear definition of its scope and inclusion criteria. A decent lead is expected, which both introduces the topic and the list itself. In our case, this means presenting the context the airline is operating in and a summary of the destinations (number, geographic spread etc.)
  • The history section was created because the nomination did not contain a begin and end date for each destination in the article. After I was challenged, it proved possible to make a start and end date for each destination. This may of course not be possible for all airlines (I have for instance tried to establish this for Scandinavian Airlines, and it seems to be very difficult to compose a complete historic list). Given that Braathens is a defunct airline, no "current" list can be composed, so a full-historic list is a necessity for it to be complete. I will probably not make a "history" section in any future nominations.
  • As for containing past destinations, remember that notability does not degrade over time. The rationale for a destination list is that it presents a simple, yet exhaustive list of the production (or output) of an airline, which is again in most cases (at a per-destination level) the subject of independent, reliable souces. In the context of an encyclopedia, the past is as important as the present. Arguments present to exclude former destinations have been that they are difficult to source and difficult to make complete; in Braathens' case, this has been countered through the use of a book on the history of the airline.
  • I do not really have a big opinion of IATA and ICAO codes, but once they are there, there is no need to remove them.
  • I debated not using flags, especially since I am an editor who is very opposed to use of flags for decoration. However, in a list they may be a navigation aid, because people will often quicker be able to find a particular country by its flag because of its color and shape, than by a word. Finding for instance Sweden in a list by flag (given one knows what the flag looks like) is a lot faster than looking for the text 'Sweden'. MOS:FLAG is liberal on the use of flags in tables to denote flags in the context of denoting geographic locations, but more restrictive on super-national or sub-national flags. Given that this passed through FL without any comments, I will stand by this way of presenting the information.
  • If a similar table is used for other airlines, if only domestic services are provided, leaving out the country column would be appropriate. For the US and Canada, adding a state/province column would also be appropriate.
Wikipedia is in constant need of innovation, or it will stagnate. The current suggestions at WP:Airline have been along for at least as long as I have been at the project (almost four years now). The Braathens list meets all the criteria, except the archaic suggestions to not use a table, and the trivial issue of flagicons. I reserve the right to be bold and adhere to numerous higher-lever guidelines, and even to policy, in following WP:FL?, WP:LISTNAME, WP:MOS, WP:LIST, WP:V and WP:RS. Arsenikk (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this discussion mentioned on the Featured list talk page so I'd thought I'd give my two cents. Personally, I don't know how one could propose that this format is better than this one. The latter is based on the style used in another Featured arline destination list and the former wouldn't get a second breath in a featured discussion. If the featured layout violates the guidelines set forth by the project, then the project needs to reconsider their guidelines. Also, where is this style guideline? I search the project but couldn't find it.—NMajdan•talk 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also saw this discussion mentioned at the FLC talk page; I helped to review the Braathens list and it's an excellent piece of work, in line with standards set across Wikipedia for the very best lists. I entirely agree with NMajdan, and entirely support the work of Arsenikk. If the (completely inadequate) Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists is the guideline that Arsenikk is accused of violating, then I suggest that the WikiProject writes a proper style guide for lists using Arsenikk's excellent work as a starting point. BencherliteTalk 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Guidelines are supposed to describe what editors agree is best practice (i.e., consensus), so if this many editors disagree with the guideline, then it is obvious that it is the guideline, not the article, that should be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have lots of visitors new to the project - just to note the current project standard is actually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page_content#Destinations. I dont have a big problem with the format but I dont think that having flags and the country names is really needed and I dont think the ICAO and IATA codes are not really needed when a link to the airport is provided. And I have to agree with Hawaiian717s comment in particularly it doesnt look like a list more like an article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note, the lists being proposed at FLC are for general consumption, not just by this project. If editors are prepared to make lists comprehensive, referenced, illustrated and stylistically appealing, it bemuses me that project editors blindly revert to unreferenced alternatives citing project guidelines. We're more than project aviation, and we should embrace development. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for flags – I don't care whether they are present or not. "And I have to agree with Hawaiian717s comment in particularly it doesnt look like a list more like an article" Not really. It's just an annotated list with a fleshed-out lead and a few other paragraphs introducing each section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the correct guideline. I agree with Dabomb. A lot of us that are coming over here to comment look at high-quality lists every day, and I assure you, this is a list. The ultimate goal for every article or list on Wikipedia should be to achieve featured status. Granted, a vast majority never will but they could if someone worked hard enough. However, with the current guideline for this type of list/article, achieving featured status would be impossible. To address some points that have been made, I, too, have no opinion on the flags while I do believe the country name is needed. Otherwise, I would have no idea where cities like Bodø, Luleå and Málaga are without opening up another article. Regarding the IATA and ICAO codes, they are a nice addition to the list and while maybe not a must-have, it is definitely an additional feature. It may not mean anything to me, but if a pilot or somebody in the industry what trying to get this information, it would be in one please without having to, again, open up another article.—NMajdan•talk 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think anybody is saying that the format can not change or be improved on following discussion, and nobody should really be reverting or changing anything while a discussion is ongoing. But content rather than stylistic issues should be the remit of the project. And you have to appreciate that some of us are still not sure why the example given is actually a list and not an article. Perhaps if off-project visitors could explain and educate us on stylistic issues and we could give our experience on content issues then we could all work together for the better good. (Getting rid of flags would be a good start!!) MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the list as it has been reformatted now contains considerably more information than the previous version (as sanctioned by the Aviation project) did. It is heavily referenced, and contains information that may be of interest to people outside the aviation project, such as airport codes. As for flags, well if an article meets the Manual of Style, and in particular WP:MOSFLAG then that's just fine. I can't see why there's so much emphasis on "getting rid of flags" to be honest. The reversions of the most recent list are borderline vandalism, show a clear display of ownership and a total lack of respect for editors who are actively seeking to improve the content of the encyclopedia. As for whether it's a list or an article, a quick breeze over our current candidates for promotion, or those which have been recently promoted will show that lists now (for about the past year or so) have a thorough and comprehensive lead, not just "This is a list of x destinations." Standards improve, and hopefully the aviation project can move with the times too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Airlines Project can seek expert advise from FL participants for style issues, the project must itself decide on the content guidelines. For style, we should comply the project guidelines to the manual of style, and set standards that do not contradict the featured list criteria (although they need not be as strict). Style issues include use of sortable tables, whether to use flagicons, complying to WP:LISTNAME (i.e. 'List of Foo destinations'), use of a key, color and symbols to indicate hubs, regional-only destinations etc.
The project guidelines sets up some main content criteria, all which there is consensus to keep (as far as I have seen on discussion pages):
  • Only list the destinations, not schedules and routing.
  • Only scheduled services are included, not charter, even if regular (not stated, but implied, at least in other places).
  • Code share destinations are excluded.
  • Airlines with limited destinations can have a table in the article. Because tables will be shorter than the current bullet points, and in lieu of recent AfDs, the number of destinations for a stand-alone list might have to be raised.
  • List the city, country, state/province (US/Canadian airlines only) and airport.
  • Indicate hubs, focus cities, bases, seasonal services, regional/subsidiary-only destinations and begin and end dates for future services/terminations. (not stated, but implied, at least in other places).
The content which has also been added to the Braathens list is:
  • IATA and ICAO codes. Personally I am ambivalent about this; it does require a bit of work to put them into a list.
  • Begin and end dates. These of course require a lot of referencing (not just to the current online route map), but greatly improve the value of the list, since chronology can be established.
  • Terminated services. This can, for some airlines, be almost impossible to establish without original research. IMHO, it is probably best to leave it as an option.
Another issue entirely is that of complying to verifiability. Articles are now mostly unreferenced, often leading to edit warring because, typically someone in good faith claims a route will start, then it is reverted by someone who hasn't read todays/that country's newspaper. The lack of references also works against the lists at AfD, where there seems to be a tendency that the 10+ destinations rule for stand-alone list has not reached community consensus (which will overrule project consensus at AfD). Being more strict about adding only referenced content will in the long run stabilize the project and create more goodwill among editors, in addition to improving the standing of Wikipedia in the community at large. Because referencing is policy, there isn't much to discuss about it.
Trains WikiProject has a number of very nice station lists, which all comply to the latest FL criteria, see for instance List of London Underground stations and List of Copenhagen Metro stations. These all have a shorter lead than the Braathens list, but use sortable tables and maps, and give good overview of the operations of the metros. Of course, upgrading the project guideline will not mean that everything needs to look like the Braathens list. It can be as simple as converting to a table with city, country, airport and notes. Arsenikk (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a draft of Tiger Airways Australia destinations on my sub page, User:Sb617/Tiger Airways Australia destinations, following the similar FA-style format from the above. I have removed Australian state/territory flags however and currently working on other references. Will be sorting out a layout before transferring it to mainspace. Sb617 ([[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 07:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out my User subpage for Tiger Australia, it is now implemented on the mainspace article, and I have marked my draft for userpage deletion. Thank you all for your suggestions. For those objecting the layout, please discuss here or on the Tiger AU destinations' talk page before making any major changes. Sb617 ([[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 08:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenikk et al. I am also trialling the same thing for Dragonair destinations in my Sandbox following your FL-approved format. There are a few things I would like input on:
  • Is there any particular reason why you are not using {{flag|country}} template in your Country column? Just in case I missed something.
  • I used {{ref label||Cargo|Cargo}} and {{note label||Cargo|Cargo}} instead of '†', because it is linked to the definition. Do you like the idea?
  • How should we deal with destination that we cannot find a 'Begin' or 'End' date? Or there is no end date as it is still operating?
P.S. Please ignore the asterisk (*) that I have in the first column, it just indicate to me that I don't have either the Begin or End or both dates with citation. Aviator006 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work both of you :) Sb617: I think you are correct to not use subnational flags. To answer Aviator006's questions:

  • {{flag}} was at one point not being used at FL because it did not display the correct alternate text. This may have been resolved, and if definitively not an issue unless bringing the the article to the last step at FL.
  • The ref label syntax will work fine, but the addition of color codes is what is preferred at FLC right now. But who knows, maybe you're innovating with an improvement that will become the future standard for all lists. Perhaps some other people from FL still monitoring the discussion can answer as well. The other option is of course to make a separate column for 'notes'.
  • I have made Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations, where I encountered this exact problem. There are a few destinations I can't find sources for, and for the mean-time they are just left blank, although '?' I guess is also fine. For routes still running, i use 'present'. Arsenikk (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenikk, I ran the Alt text checker for both your List of Braathens destinations and my User:Aviator006/Sandbox2, and it shows no alt text for both 'flag' images. Can I assume it will be okay for me to keep using the {{flag}} template?
In regards to the ref label, I have adopted the best of both worlds, using your colour code method and legend box, but using ref label instead of symbols to add inline linking. Check > User:Aviator006/Sandbox2
About the un-cited 'begin' or 'end' dates, we should come to some consensus about how to treat it, I used '?' in my example, but I feel both 'blank' and '?' are not very good. How about 'unknown'? Aviator006 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts. For US/Canada/Australia-based airlines with a mix of foreign and domestic service, would the same column be used for state/province and country, or would different columns be used? What about other airlines where a state column wouldn't be used (i.e. would we list Los Angeles, California or Los Angeles, United States on Singapore Airlines destinations)? Also, I worry a bit about using color coding exclusively for denoting things as it might impact readers with color blindness. I do like the table idea. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it to members of this project to answer your first question. But regarding using colors to denote things. You are correct. You can use colors but you need to combine it with some other type of indicator (like an asterisk or dagger, etc). See WP:COLORS for more info.—NMajdan•talk 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a separate table for the "domestic" destinations of the airline, with state/province/etc replacing the country in the columm of the domestic table, followed by the "international" table with the Country in the column in place of the state, etc. State/Provinces should really only be listed on the "home country" of the respective airline's destination list. Sb617 ([[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, if destination lists are to be listed as a table in the future, I would strongly recommend keeping it grouped by continent (America, Asia, Oceania, etc) for large airlines. The "Home Country" of a large airline should be in a separate table (outside of continent grouping), with State/Territory/Province replacing the "country" in the appropriate column. Sb617 ([[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 07:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of using a table is to make it sortable, and by using several tables, they cannot be sortable as a whole. Remember that to access the home country, just sort the table by "country", and scroll to the relevant section. I don't see the need to sort by continent, although for a few intercontinental airlines adding another column with continent is possible. Then again, there is always the old POV debate about some borderline countries, particularly Russia and Turkey, which are undoubtedly in two continents. If an airline has international services, all destinations need to be marked with a country. even if only serving US/Canada, because a lot of people do not know which country various states and provinces are in. For instance, I doubt the average European keeps track of which of the countries Manitoba and Minnesota, respectively, are in. For non-state/province-countries, use the syntax align=center | — (that is a center-aligned em dash) in the state/province column. We currently do not denote US cities by non-North American carriers with state suffixes; I believe the rationale is that most US cities are more known than most states. Among for instance Norwegians (people who almost all read English and are potential en.wikipedia users), very few have heard of places like Illinois or Massachusetts, but many know about Chicago and Boston. Because intercontinental airlines will only fly to major cities, it can be presumed that the cities are more well-known that the state they are in. This is of course not the case for smaller cities served by domestic carriers. Arsenikk (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted Air Canada destinations to table format. It includes the Air Canada Jazz destinations by creating two columns which indicate main/Jazz services (so it is possible to sort by the Jazz column to see which are only served by Jazz). The list contains city, province/state, country, airport, but not IATA/ICAO codes and no flags. Concerning the idea of having a sort by continent, how about including a map for intercontinental airlines? This would make it possible to "see" the geographic spread without adding a column. I've done some .svg maps for airports, so I could take a look at this; they are pretty easy to make with a blank map from the Commons and Inkscape. About including [hub] etc. as a visual indicator, how about using the format <sup>[hub]</sup>, as this created the nice "box-and-text", but doesn't create a link to the notes section.Arsenikk (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just converted Virgin America (it doesn't have a separate destinations article) to use the table format, based on Tiger Airways destinations. A couple changes to the table format I made as I was working:

  • I used {{sort}} as suggested at WP:DATESNO for the begin and end date columns so that the sorting would be meaningful. For currently served destinations with no end date, I used the date 9999-12-31 to force them to sort to the end of the list. Since this is a US-based airline, I used the US date format.
  • I changed the label for "Main base" to "Hub" and the label for "Base" to "Focus city".

Also, I found the formatting for the colored backgrounds and tags for Hub, Focus city, and Future date to be rather non-intuitive. Perhaps we should make templates for these? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, templates for the color formatting would be a very smart move to make this usable. Also templates would move the color choice out of each table and into one place so if we need to change in the future, you only need to update in one place. For the date sorting, {{dts}} requires a lot less typing for the real dates. Don't know if using two templates is a problem. The headings for start and end probably need to be changed to Began and Ended' since if there is a date, it is something that happened in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really hate this new table format. Former destinations shouldn't be included at all...it looks all messy and confusing to me. I think that we should go back to the old format of listing destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree; former destinations should be listed on the airline's article, as it provides additional historical details for the carrier, not just current details. Hawaiian Airlines, for example, used to serve a number of South Pacific destinations but no longer does, and providing the details helps to show a shift in strategy to focus most of the airline's long-haul service on the US west coast. Perhaps we could maintain a separate table, though the effect would be similar to sorting by end date. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You also got the issue of the seasonal services, as well as the "non-continous" destinations (Destinations which are on and off again every few years), which can be easily solved as such by being marked in either list or table format. Sb617 (Talk) 07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Jane Harrison

Is Barbara Jane Harrison of interest to this WP? If so, the talk page needs tagging. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Table Colours

Hello all. I like to edit fleet tables to bring them up to expectations but recently there has been problems regarding table colours. I have a proposition that is already in place for just one airline alliance.

  • Specific colours for each airline alliance: (#9592C6 - already in use for Oneworld) e.g. a lightblue type colour for SkyTeam, dark colours for Star Alliance to resemble the alliance colours.
  • Colurs that match the airline identity as long as they are readable.

Your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont have a problem with using a colour related to the alliance but I would suggest that non-alligned airlines are just one colour. Otherwise we get a mixture of colours some of which may give problems with users with visual problems. Dont really have a non-aligned colour to suggest but we need to take into account WP:COLOR. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was my concern. Light blue maybe? It's simple and easy to read. Zaps93 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I was overhauling the Oneworld and its members' articles, particularly Cathay Pacific and Dragonair, I used their respective official colour in the tables,
  1. 120C80 for Oneworld,
  2. 015347 for Cathay Pacific,
  3. DF0422 for Dragonair. I believed it gives the article identity. By the way, I have updated the Oneworld Navbox colour to one of its official light blue colour #00C0F3 (as used in oneworld.com). --Aviator006 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was trying to say though. What I think would be best is changing the Cathay colours and Dragonair to match that of ONE colour used throughout Oneworld members, like British Airways and Japan Airlines. Not one to match the airlines identity. I think a pacific colour should be used throughout them all along with SkyTeam and Star Alliance. Zaps93 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I actually prefers the tables to match the airline's identity, rather than alliance. However, if the consensus is to use alliance's colour, at least use their official alliance colour, either
  1. 120C80 or
  2. 00C0F3 for Oneworld members, as per oneworld.com.--Aviator006 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For: Obviously I'm going to be for the idea as I suggested it. I simply think it will help people understand which airlines belong in an alliance better as there is a much more noticable reference (being colour). For non-alliance members I still suggest we keep to the airlines identity. Zaps93 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone point me to the discussion that led to the reported consensus for using alliance colors? I have referred to the discussions here in the past, and for instance the Oneworld alliance previously used
  1. 9592C6, as is the case on Qantas. Now there is a consensus to change to #120C80 or #00C0F3? I find using
  2. 00C0F3 problematic for alliance member Japan Airlines, because those colors give striking resemblance to that of its archrival All Nippon Airways. IMO, Aviator006's suggestion for focusing on tables to match airline identity works best, especially in this world of changing airline alliances. It also seems rather discordant to have many individual non-alliance airline articles with a consistent identity-matched color vs. OW/ST/SA airlines whose tables don't match the airline identity at all. Moreover with historical fleet tables, and other airline tables (incidents/cabin/frequent flyer program) it becomes rather strange to have alliance-color and airline-color tables on a single airline page, when instead it would be more visually organized to have an airline identity-matched color throughout. SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional comments on perhaps using airline-colors, or establishing which alliance colors are to be used? Thanks. SynergyStar (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of route/haul information

I don't want to pester this editor too much, so I thought I'd post here. I am just wondering if this editor's removal of this is okay. It seems like useful information. Similar content has been removed from other articles on March 5, 2010 with the edit summary "route / haul not notable". I don't know much about airlines, but I keep an eye on Hainan Airlines article and noticed it. Please advise. Here is my post to the editor in question. (I'm watching this page.) Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Hi everyone! I don't know if this project was ever notified (I can't find a record of it if it was), but Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is up for featured article review at WP:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1. The review has moved to the FARC section, where declarations are made for keeping the article as a FA or delisting it from that status. No declarations have been made since the FARC began almost a month ago, and so we need to get a few more eyes on this review. Any comments from interested editors, especially experts in this field, will be welcomed! Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin air crash

Two dead in Darwin air crash. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accident is already in Airnorth article are you looking for any other project involvement? MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is a company that owns and operates aircraft an airline?

Please take a look at Safair. This company owns aircraft. It leases some of them to other companies. It operates some of them itself - mainly for cargo charter flights. One thing is does not do is operate flights on predetermined schedules and routes. As I understand the meaning of the word it does not fit the definition of an "airline". Somewhere on the main project page there should be a concise definition of "airline". Roger (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead of Airline An airline provides air transport services for passengers or freight, generally with a recognized operating certificate or license. The key element is that to be an airline it has to have a recognised operating certificate from the national aviation authority to operate cargo or passenger flights, it does not have to have a schedule. According to the CAA website is is a Part 121 Large Aeroplane operator so it is an airline. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of Hong Kong on destination pages

I noticed that some airlines (e.g. Air Pacific destinations, Transaero destinations, Hong Kong Airlines) have Hong Kong listed as if it were an independent country. I went ahead moved Hong Kong under PRC. Shouldn't Hong Kong be listed as a city under PRC since it is a "Special Administrative Region"? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, honestly, when you go to Hong Kong, people don't like to be named 'China', rather they prefer being recognised as their own independant country with the name Hong Kong. PRC doesn't actually have any countrol of Hong Kong, Hong Kong is still independant. I think it's best that is is countinued to be listed as 'Hong Kong' and not under PRC. PRC doesn't actually have any power of the country. Zaps93 (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it is independent in everything but I think in aviation terms it is still considered as separate from PRC in that it has its own aviation authority and airline route agreements due to it being a former colony. So an agreement to fly from x to the PRC may not include the Hong Kong SAR and the opposite may be true. Not sure if that is still true, perhaps we should wait for comment from our editors more familiar with the region. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing what I was trying to get at Milborne, and yeah it is true, they have their own rules and Government compared to that of PRC. The same with Macau I think, though I am not sure of Macau. Zaps93 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not just relevant for Hong Kong, but also effects a number of dependencies, areas with home rule etc. At the top of my min I can think of Jersey, Isle of Man, Greenland, Faeroe Islands and Netherlands Antilles. Should these be listed as part of the UK/Denmark/Netherlands, or in their own right? Arsenikk (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We (Hong Kong) are independent except for foreign relations and military defence. Special Administrative Region is just another term for colony. We were listed as Hong Kong (independent and not as a subset of the UK) before, we should be listed as Hong Kong (independent and not as a subset of China) now. Aviator006 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we list Hong Kong as independant country? Also would the same count for Macau? Zaps93 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should do the same for Macau since has its own aviation agreement from PRC as well. Since it is also a "Special Administrative Region", we should do the same for Macau as we did for HK. 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Since we are listing Hong Kong as an independent country now. Shouldn't we move Hong Kong and also Macau (which are listed under PRC) out and list them as a independent country since the majority of the other carriers still list HK and Macau under PRC. However, some Chinese carriers such as Air China, China Southern Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, etc have all of the PRC destinations listed as provinces/municipalities and HK and Macau listed under there too. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the Chinese carries, the same rule applies, move to independent country. Zaps93 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snoozlepet; Hong Kong belongs to PRC, whether it is a different administrative region or not, or has a different aviation authority, for that matter. The point is, it belongs to PRC, and this is where we have to follow the rule of naming a city under the country of which it belongs to. Many people, even before 1997, thought that HK belongs to PRC, and since then, Hong Kong has been handed back to People's Republic of China. Why don't we just place Hong Kong under PRC at the very bottom of a list, as well as Macau, and format them in bold or italic. Sp33dyphil 03:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any apply-to-all guideline in place for the countries you've mentioned, and for Guam, Guernsey, the Falklands, Gibraltar, the Northern Marianas, Bermuda, Aruba, Puerto Rico.., and perhaps Åland too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sp33dyphil, I believe Snoozlepet was asking a question on the classification of Hong Kong and was seeking a consensus. Prior to your comment, we already have a consensus on its classification, which included Macau. Your comments are rather ignorant in two counts, (1) this is about an airline article, hence, if it is governed by an independent/different aviation authority, obviously it is important for its classification, and (2) your assumption of many people thought Hong Kong's status prior to 1997 is unsubstantiated. Additionally, your suggested classification does not comply with the agreed format by the WikiProject. An user, Huaiwei, has made changes to over 20 articles, in contrary to this consensus, these will be reverted.Aviator006 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it utterly shocking that an issue which is as sensitive as this is being discussed amongst just a few wikipedians in this obscure corner of the site, when other articles related to sensitive political issues are much better handled. Where is the clear consensus made, and why were my edits reverted, when they were to restore them the way they have been presented since most of these where started years ago until the edits by User:Snoozlepet?. Was any major consensus sought from the wider community before the move to move HK out of the PRC in the first place?
Kindly be aware that as far as NPOV is concerned, listing HK as a separate entity from the PRC is akin to making a political statement and support for HK independence, in contrast to the current format which is much less disputable. This is not your local tabloid or your school newsletter where a few of you can choose to change the way sovereign countries and their constituents are being presented just by some kind of gut feel that HKers do not like the mainland. This is shockingly unprofessional.
Finally, kindly be aware that on matters pertaining to naming conventions on the Greater China area, other conventions apply, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). This is the reason why the China article does not refer to the People's Republic of China (and therefore we avoid using the word "China" alone in country lists), and why HK is classified under the PRC as long as the phrase PRC is used. So I would suggest that the above users and the editor who first made the sweeping changes in the past month without wider consultation reconsider their current stance and revert all edits made to what they once where prior to April 2010. If no proper action is done in a week, I will revert all changes myself, or bring this matter up for mediation.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto here. A local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policies. I don't see any consensus here, either. And as a point of fact: HK and Macau have independent, but subservient, commercial aviation authorities to the national PRC authorities. The commercial authorities also take a backseat to the national military authorities, which claims the airspace itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As far as I know the Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong and the Autoridade de Aviação Civil of Macau are both government departments. They aren't commercial authorities. And for the case of Hong Kong, aeroplanes in Hong Kong's airspace have to reach a certain altitude to get into or get out of the airspace of the other side of the border. This restriction is in place due to military reasons - the mainland airspace is controlled by the military rather than by the civil aviation administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.136.235 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Sterling Airlines destinations has been listed for deletion. Arsenikk (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to list the People's Republic of China

I was wondering how we should list PRC:

OR

Since some airline destination pages have both ways written, i was wondering if both ways are acceptable. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer 'China, People's Republic of', therefor it's still got the whole name and yet it's listed in the way people will be looking for it. E.g. Someone looking for China will be searching for 'C', not 'P'. Zaps93 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think either way is acceptable since they both basically mean the same thing. I think that we should wait fot input from other editors first but per previous discussions and MoS, it cannot be written as just plain "China". Snoozlepet (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know to be honest. I'm more happy with my prefered choice, but yes, we will wait. I don't see the problem with just 'China' though to be honest, as long as there is a redirect to People's Republic of China. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zaps93 for 'China, People's Republic of'. I do have one additional question in regards to the usage of the official country name in our destination lists. Since we're using the full official name of 'People's Republic of China' and 'Republic of China (Taiwan)', do we apply the same to other countries like 'Republic of Korea' instead of 'South Korea', 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' instead of 'North Korea' or 'Republic of South Africa' instead of 'South Africa'? Aviator006 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zaps93. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China first is better. The People's Republic is commonly known as China, and for nearly all other countries, we just list the common name (not 'Republic of', 'Kingdom of' etc.) The reason for the PR is to disambiguate, which therefore should come at the end. Arsenikk (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the few of you get all excited over this, perhaps you are not aware that in the earlier stable versions of the destination lists, China was presented as "People's Republic of China" and still listed as thou it begins with "C". This is why the PRC appears first in most pages for East Asia. People don't get lost looking for "China", and there is no need to add additional bytes of wikicodes.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

How should Taiwan be listed as on airline destination lists? Should it be listed as "Taiwan (Republic of China)", "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "China, Republic of (Taiwan)"? (I'd of course expect that this rule wouldn't apply to destination lists of defunct airline companies that were shut down before 1945 or 1949.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And should it be listed under #C or #T? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this section and make it into a sub-section of the How to list the People's Republic of China, as I am about to suggest a way to list them and seek consensus. Would you agree that these two countries are commonly known as China and Taiwan? However, we would like to show its full name in destination list or table. Can I suggest that we list them by it full name but sort them by their common name? Please see example below.
The same will apply if it is listed in a table (see List of Dragonair destinations for example, please note in the table version I have used the Sort template {{sort|China|{{flag|People's Republic of China}}}} and {{sort|Taiwan|{{flag|Republic of China (Taiwan)}}}} to enable sortation by C and T, respectively.) This method while enabling readers to locate China under C and Taiwan under T, it also show the destinations by its full official name. Aviator006 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this section has to be moved. I agree basically with what you suggested... but I think {{sort|Taiwan|{{flag|Taiwan (Republic of China)}}}} would be more convenient and logical... except for those destination lists that cover Quemoy and Matsu..., and perhaps other Fuchien and South China Sea islands. (Btw is South Korea sort under #S or #K?)
The reason for the move is to discuss them together under one section. My understanding the consensus in regards to Taiwan is listing them as 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. South Korea is listed under #S in this context. Aviator006 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, again, please be aware that you guys are stepping on an hornet's nest. See [1] for the far more established consensus which was arrived after years of discussions by countless folks, and not concensus reached between three people in 7 days. If you wish to change that consensus, feel free to begin the discourse in the talkpage over there.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto of Huaiwei's statement here, and a note that this conversation about Taiwan was initiated by a banned user. Banned because his method of discussing these issues was disruptive to established consensus and ignoring NPOV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Aircraft names

I didn't see it specifically called out on the page content guidelines. Do we consider a list of aircraft names to be encyclopedic? An IP editor added them to Virgin America the other day and I just cleaned up the list a bit, but I'm not sure it belongs. Frontier Airlines gets a list (not of names, but of the animals on each tail) because of the individual tail art, but I notice we don't have a list of names on JetBlue Airways. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered this too. I made the list on Cyprus Turkish Airlines and I've never been sure if it meets guideline regulations or not. If someone could please enlighten us that would be great. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that listing individual aircraft names is not realy needed, an explanation of naming conventions like on Olympic Airlines. So we can say that aircraft are named after towns, famous peoples etc or that Boeing 737s are named after rivers and Boeing 747s are named after Mountains, but listing individual aircraft names is like listing individual registrations which is not really notable in an encyclopedia. I would say that the Cyprus Turkish Airlines and Virgin lists are not really needed and can be referenced out to specialist websites. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that Milborne. Is there not a guideline then? Zaps93 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This covers registrations but not specifically aircraft names, just the general notability guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm guessing that we should come up with a decision now then to clear up the name issue and make sure that it is included on the project page to allow people to know. Zaps93 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airticle peer review for Vietnam Airlines

Hello everyone, can someone just pop into the article for Vietnam Airlines, have a read of it, and leave some feedbacks and comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1‎; any input, no matter how small, is greatly appreciated. I'm doing this to give it a bit of cleanup. Thanks Sp33dyphil 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? So, how I can peer review an article? I can tries to contributes with my poor English. Hope you doesn't mind my ESL backgrounds!? --B767-500 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, I don't mind your poor English, don't worry about that, you can just give me some ideas of what to improve. Thanks Sp33dyphil 08:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V Australia destinations

V Australia destinations has recently been created, seems to me that an airline with so few destinations doesn't need a separate list for them. Opinions? YSSYguy (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, probably too small of a list based on the guideline and Afd actions. Merged into main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon that's way too small to be created into a list; the last time I looked at it, the airline flied to the same destinations, but list like that wasn't in place. So, could someone change it back, or do I have to do it? Sp33dyphil 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vegas has done it; thanks for that. YSSYguy (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano airlines

I make some redirects ... you can make some comments:

Enjoys! Thanks! --B767-500 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines&oldid=358362023"