Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Removal of wikilinks by User:Lzdimitar

Lzdimitar has been repeatedly asked not to remove wikilinks from destination tables. However, s/he continues to do so: Astana International Airport, Minsk International Airport, Narimanovo Airport, Tashkent International Airport, Ulan-Ude Airport and Vitoria Airport. However, in this more recent edit to Barcelona-El Prat Airport, s/he correctly adds a wikilinked destination to the table. Is there hope this editor is now following project guidelines? --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A block will educate the user. I already warned him/her about the same issue not so long ago.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've come across this editor before: last time,, they were removing years from start/end dates, after we'd agreed they should be included. However, a block is not warranted: an editor can't be blocked simply for not following a WikiProject's editorial guideline, unless there's a violation of the three-revert rule, which doesn't appear to be the case here. --RFBailey (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nobody is required to follow guidelines of a WikiProject. The only firm rules on Wikipedia are the five pillars, as we all know. —Compdude¹²³ 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If I wouldn't, I'd wonder why are we dropping tons of lines at WP:AIRLINES and here —sometimes involving heated discussions— if we will finally let everyone to do their own? Furthermore, I'd ask what are guidelines for? Last Tuesday, it took me three hours to turn the destinations table in Ethiopian Airlines destinations to the new proposed format. Are you suggesting that anyone can come and undo my edits just because s(he) doesn't like the new format? --Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, we want everyone to follow the guidelines, but they are not required to. The guidelines point out what the project consensus is, and most people will follow them if you just point it out to them. —Compdude¹²³ 22:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If people refuse to follow them, and violate the 3-revert-rule to make their point, then they could get blocked. —Compdude¹²³ 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that this user shouldn't be following the guidelines, or that the guidelines can't be used as a reason to revert this users edits, just that we can't go around demanding that the user be blocked for not following them. In any situation, the purpose of a block is not to "educate" a user. --RFBailey (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is after deliberately going against them, even after being warned many times.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At what point does editing against consensus become vandalism? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, what are guidelines for? Separately, can you please tell me as an admin the reason why another admin blocked the user this time? Disruptive editing was argued.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can not explain why another editor or admin does something. Guidelines are in place to help everyone build a better encyclopedia with more effort spent in doing actual work rather then arguing points over and over. Blocking an editor is a stern sanction. I have blocked quickly in some cases, and it others only after a full set of warnings. Why? Judgement about what the issue is and the extent of the problem. Where all of these right? I don't know. The guidelines help everyone make the a more correct judgements. Are we perfect? Probably not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, you would have to ask the admin concerned as to why they made that decision, although with it being several months ago they may not remember. The grounds given were disruptive editing. --RFBailey (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just re-wikilinked destinations in Sofia Airport. I would argue that Lzdimitar is engaged in disruptive editing. While the changes to WP:AVIMOS and WP:WikiProject Airports/page content were deliberately made optional by consensus, that does not give an editor license to disruptively revert edits made per that consensus, with no explanation given for the revert, as called for in Help:Edit summary. I invite Lzdimitar to reply here. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

By repeatedly removing links and not explaining why, one could say that he is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and that would be a reason to block. —Compdude¹²³ 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user hasn't made any edits at all for the last five days, so no action is needed for now. If the disruptive behaviour resumes, then something may need to be done. --RFBailey (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Thai Air Force Bases

Some editors are questioning the naming policy after articles on RTAFB Don Muang, RTAFB Korat]], RTAFB Udorn and RTAFB Ubon were re-named to this style which is similar to other military airport articles (such as RAF stations) where the country is indicated in the title (unlike Eielson Air Force Base]]. Can an administrator make a decision. Previous discussion can be found at User talk:Petebutt#our renaming of Thai Air Force base articles Petebutt (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual format used is immaterial in truth as just about every iteration is covered by a re-direct and search engines will pick up the article whatever he title. No need to panic about loss of accessibility etc.Petebutt (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what #redirects are used for. The abbreviation is not the official name of the base, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There is a #redirect for Wright-Patterson AFB. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: A move request has been opened at Talk:RTAFB Don Muang#Requested move. --115.67.34.74 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the long version of the name looks wrong do we have a reliable reference to what the RTAF actually call these bases in English? MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is what they were before they were renamed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder, what is the regular name used for these locations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Petebutt, I am an administrator, but the proper process is underway at the Requested Move discussion. However, if you would like my personal opinion, we should be using the WP:COMMONNAME of the base. Did you check or research what these bases are actually called by the Thai man or woman-on-the-street before you moved them all to the acronym only title? Bwmoll3, do you have *any* evidence that they aren't just generally referred to as 'X air base'; do you have any Thai sources on the names of the bases? We should prioritise Thai sources over USAF sources here - these bases are in a foreign country. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually live in Korat and the base is known as RTAFB Korat (in english)Petebutt (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

FANTASTIC !! We've got a local talking. Thankyou for your edits and the moves, Petebutt. What you have done is *exactly* in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. However, this is Wikipedia, and we need WP:Verifiable sources. Can you link us to a local newspaper, or some other source, that refers to the base as 'RTAFB Korat'? This is because User:Bwmoll3 is an excellent editor of U.S. Air Force articles, and in his USAF sources, they may be all referred to as Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, or something like that. But first, what's the name in Thai? Have you added the name in Thai, in Thai script, to all the bases, immediately after the English name? It should have the Thai name added - that's another of Wikipedia's rules.

Again, thankyou for your edits and the moves - you have done exactly the right thing, but we will need verifiable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately I can't back up my assertion with verifiable sources but the shorter the title the better. If there is huge objection to using RTAFB then just Korat Air Base etc etc. would probably be best.Petebutt (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you give us a source, PeteButt? No local online newspaper? Thai national newspaper web version? Thai language version? Thai language website? Doesn't have to be English - we're Wikipedia, we've got translators on tap... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

AFHRA Records Search for "RTAFB" Here is a search in the Air Force Historical Records Agency archives. They are always are designated "Royal Thai Air Force Base", even when I submitted the abbreviation "RTAFB" in the search. That and being stationed at Korat many years ago was the designation I was always aware of, and the name I used when I originally wrote the articles several years ago. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Airports RM

Hello. There is currently an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on whether to use hyphens or dashes in airport names. You may be interested. Thanks, David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Destination Maps

At General Mitchell International Airport there is the following map. Is this going to be an airport wide policy or should someone remove it? I personally think that this is a nice map but the latitude and longitude and just the whole code is difficult. Kairportflier (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Destinations map

Milwaukee Akron/Canton Atlanta Baltimore/Washington Boston Charlotte Chicago-O'Hare Cincinnati Cleveland Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Des Moines Detroit Ft. Lauderdale Ft. Meyers Houston Kansas City Las Vegas Los Angeles Memphis Minneapolis-St. Paul New Orleans JFK LaGuardia Newark Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Rhinelander San Francisco Seattle/Tacoma St. Louis Tampa Toronto Washington-National class=notpageimage| Domestic destinations from General Mitchell International Airport

Looks kinda cool to me, though I'd create a wrapper template (even if just to be used initially as a subst) to abbreviate things a little, like:

 {{Dest map
 | caption =		Domestic destinations from General Mitchell International Airport
 | title =		Destination Map
 | defpos =		right
 | deflabsize =		100
 | defmarksize =	7
 | lat0 = 42.95 | lon0 = -87.90 | lab0 = Milwaukee	| pos0 = left
 | lat1 = 33.64 | lon1 = -84.43 | lab1 = Atlanta
 | lat2 = 39.18 | lon2 = -76.67 | lab2 = Baltimore/Washington | pos2 = under
 ...
 }}

Note that, with a 1000pel-wide map, the res is about 5km/pel for the whole-US map. Lat/lon only need 2 decimal places (~1km precision), which helps abbreviate things further. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice but it probably doesn't need to be so big. Definitely would need to be a template for easier editing. Something like this could even be useful for airline articles, to show all the destinations they serve (but it'd probably get too crowded, especially for big airlines). Just a thought... —Compdude¹²³ 05:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually looks good, but I'm afraid we're relying upon visual aspects rather than content if we include it in every airport article. Where at any specific article will the sources supporting the destinations appear? Just another thought.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't replace the existing destination table (with footnotes to sources) – just add the map below it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it really adds to the article, airports like JFK or LHR would be so complicated as to defeat any value. Most people can make a mental picture from the destinations lists. We would still need the lists to provide reliable references and it would have a maintenance cost. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, it doesn't work for larger airports, but I think it is of value in visualization for the typical regional or developing country with a dozen or two destinations. The references should already be in the table (for those that agree with that). The map should simply reflect what's in the table. Nothing wrong with a little window dressing around the substance :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Having something like this is better than having an image with all the destinations. It would be easier to update, to begin with. —Compdude¹²³ 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It would definitely be better than this:

Current map style
Cities with direct international passenger airlinks with Honolulu International Airport

—Compdude¹²³ 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Style guide

I have some issues with the style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content:

• Note 7 says List non-stop and direct flights only. Since non-stops, by definition, are direct flights, this seems unnecessarily confusing. Further, this issue is repeatedly violated by newbies, and should be moved up to position 2 to emphasize its importance.
• Note 10 says For future destinations, add: "[begins date service begins]". Why are square brackets used in this particular place? Parentheses are the more appropriate English punctuation anywhere else and don't present the same parsing issues (i.e. confusion with external weblinks).

Further, should we really be adding supposed future service dates? I suppose if they are in the reservation systems, there is some chance that service will occur, but I just saw someone add one supposedly starting in December, 2013 (15 months from now)! Maybe a clarification on verifiability (e.g. via a res system) or limit on how far in advance is appropriate?

• Note 13 says Do not separate flights into domestic (national) and international but my guess is that this is often incorrect, with the flights usually using different terminals for international security requirement reasons in all but the smallest airports.
• There is some "weak" language (like "may" instead of "must" or "do") that should be strengthened.

The last line on the page, in bold, is Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article. I contend that this bit of touchy-feely WP:IAR anarchy isn't really true, at least not as a literal reading of it implies, and that having it here can't possibly help. It's guaranteed that ignoring standards for airport articles in particular will, and should, get someone blocked, since these articles are really just a textual rendering of factual database elements, designed to make the data (supposedly) easier for human consumption. It's tough enough to maintain articles in this format – without the fairly minimal standards that have been documented, it would be a lost cause. There's really not a lot of room for editorial creativity in these articles, is there? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re non-stop/direct: I think it's better to mention both, as it reinforces that the two terms are not synonymous, which is a common misunderstanding. But perhaps it should be moved up the list.

Re square brackets: maybe parentheses would be better, but the amount of effort required to change them would likely not be worth it.

Re future dates: if there is a reliable source (e.g. airline press release, local news story) with an actual, confirmed start date (e.g. "20 September 2012" rather than a vague "late 2012") this shouldn't present a problem. However, flights existing in a reservation system should not be a prerequisite, if another reliable source exists---too often, certain editors have insisted on imposing this as a requirement, even though no such requirement exists, with stupid edit wars being the result.

Re domestic/international: I'm not sure what you mean here. (In Canadian airports, for instance, domestic and non-US international passengers are often mixed, and US passengers segregated as they've passed through border pre-clearance, rather than for security requirements.)

Re "weak language": this is often deliberate, as these guidelines have frequently been the subject of some excessively-heated debate, and using "stronger" language would only have ignited more arguments. Similarly, the "touchy-feely" reminder about WP:IAR is probably there for a reason: far too often have stupid arguments arisen on this page as a result of editors taking the guidelines too literally in situations where it was appropriate to ignore them. --RFBailey (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We should remove direct flights from that as direct flights can stop in another city before going on and that would make it very difficult for SWA flights for example where almost all flights continue on somewhere else. I also think we should change the start and end date square brackets to parenthesis because it just makes more sense. Kairportflier (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't get what the reasoning is behind using brackets instead of parentheses. —Compdude¹²³ 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Brackets are from the old pre-table, text list days. I agree we can proceed to parentheses. Regarding directs, we do have a need because of their relevance as people actually stay on the plane (best example being Continentel/United's Island Hopper (HNL-MAJ-KWA-KSA-PNI-TKK-GUM). Listing just two destinations for the middle islands seems bad. We already exclude through-hubs, plane changes, timetable directs (this already excludes, in practice, all SWA continuations). HkCaGu (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

About the whole domestic/international thing, that was put in here because people were separating the domestic and international destinations for each airline, even though they were both in the same terminal. If that bit wasn't there, we'd be having destination tables that look like this. The change was mentioned in an archived discussion here. —Compdude¹²³ 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the discussion. I think separating the destinations by country (with flag) is informative (I don't recognize a lot of the small towns I'm dealing with lately). I started to leave the country names in the destination links yesterday, but realized that, because the city and country are comma-separated and then the destinations are comma-separated from each other, it just led to more confusion. I think grouping them by country resolves the need to name the country on each link, and just presents a more clear mental picture of where they are. Without that, if you're trying to determine where Ryan Air flies to in Great Britain, you'd have to read and evaluate dozens of alphabetically-ordered city names, remembering the ones you recognize as being in GB (assuming you have that knowledge). The example seems far more useful to me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to switching the start and end date brackets to parenthesis? Kairportflier (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think parenthesis are used too often, and brackets look better anyhow. N124BC (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the looks doesn't mater. There needs to be a valid reason to objecting. Overuse and bad looks is no valid reason. Kairportflier (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one? I will change it then. Kairportflier (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On references/sources for a new service, where do the citations normally go? I have seen some article that have citations after the punctuation and some before. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After. I believe. No one has told me that when I corrected in that direction I was wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After, per WP:CITEFOOT. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Are we talking about a city name in the destination table, like "Paris, London, Madrid"? I would say this falls under the exception where the reference needs to be tied closely to just one clause of a sentence, and should appear before the comma (i.e. "Paris^[1], London^[2], Madrid^[3]"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEFOOT is clear about that. Why making an exception?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why it'd make any difference to have the ref after the comma. It just looks weird when it's put before any sort of punctuation mark. —Compdude¹²³ 05:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks particularly weird when there are multiple citations (perhaps not as applicable in this case, but still). --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since we got para/brackets on start/end dates and citations covered. If an airline operate from multiple terminals at an airport or for instance ExpressJet and SkyWest both operate for United Express and Delta Connection and there are listed twice. Is it really necessary to link every entry or just link the first entry is sufficient? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd link all the entries, not just the first one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

American Eagle operated by SkyWest flights

From November 15, 2012, SkyWest will operate some flights on behalf of American Eagle but sources did not specify which routes are going to operate by SkyWest. However, on LAX page, some Eagle destinations are listed as "ends November 14, 2012" with SkyWest flights beginning the next day. Can anyone confirm this? Snoozlepet (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Colgan Air

Colgan Air has ceased flying on September 5, 2012 per Colgan Air's and United's website. However, some UAX's Colgan Air are still listed at some airports (flying to/from Washington-Dulles which the last batch of flights have "ends October 1, 2012" or a day or two before that date). Need someone to confirm that Colgan has ended all flights and no longer operating. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New RfC

After the RfC located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 11#Request for comment didn't come to a consensus on whether hyphens (-) or en dashes (–) should be used in airport titles, I filed an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport#Requested move. That hasn't produced a definite result either, so I'm going to try an request for comment again.

Here is the question: should airports use hyphens (like Raleigh-Durham International Airport) or dashes (like Seattle–Tacoma International Airport)?

David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens

I googled both airports and the results both showed up with hyphens. I think we should continue to use hyphens. Thepoodlechef (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)