Jump to content

User talk:Sunnya343

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anna FA (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 26 March 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome • ようこそ • ಸ್ವಾಗತ • خوش آمدید • Bienvenido • Wilkommen

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Sunnya343! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jetstreamer Talk 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Khabarovsk Airlines Russian-language source

"краевое государственное унитарное предприятие" indeed means "regional state unitary enterprise". I'm going through the history right now ... I may want to get a hard-copy dictionary. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the history page mainly discusses the airline's growth in terms of planes/pilots it had and how many flights it flew. It says nothing about the organizational structure. I would assume you are correct that it was set up and wholly owned by the state ... that was how they did things back in the USSR, and especially in Stalins's time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Actually the airline was set up in 2004. I think this is the key paragraph: В 2004 году на основании распоряжения правительства Хабаровского края на базе Николаевского авиационного отряда, было учреждено КГУП «Хабаровские авиалинии», одно из основных авиапредприятий в Хабаровском крае. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct: founded in 2004 on the orders of the government of Khabarovsk Kray on the basis of the Nikolaevsk detachment of aviation, Khabarovsk Airlines was established as a regional state unitary enterprise, one of the first airlines of the region". Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Thank you very much for your time! I have incorporated this information into the article. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for LaMia

On 1 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LaMia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when it leased the planes of a failed Venezuelan airline, a Bolivian company retained the name LaMia to avoid the cost of repainting the aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LaMia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, LaMia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:BLR domestic destinations, 11-2013.png

Thanks for uploading File:BLR domestic destinations, 11-2013.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Focus Cities and Hubs from Airport Pages

While anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, do not remove information focus cities unless the airline has announced its closure as you did with McCarran International Airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellLunger (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MitchellLunger: Please understand that a base is not necessarily a focus city. (I wrote this in my edit summary as well, visible here.) Allegiant, Spirit, and Southwest say that they have established bases at McCarran – not focus cities. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunnya343: Read this. http://www.pointsmd.com/airlines-hubs-and-focus-cities/.
Hello @MitchellLunger: Still, a base is not always a focus city; and it could even be a hub. British Airways bases its aircraft at Heathrow; is Heathrow a focus city for the airline? Regarding Southwest, they do not designate any of their cities as hubs or focus cities (their fact sheet). They do have crew bases, though. Also, please refrain from using sources like Points MD, as these are not reliable. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "McCarran International Airport". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 January 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning McCarran International Airport, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Pyongyang Sunan International Airport

A huge thanks for cleaning up the Air Koryo article. I edit North Korea articles a lot and every time I wander to that page it makes me want to cry (no more!). It's about time someone familiar with aviation articles fixed it. Would you mind taking a look at Pyongyang Sunan International Airport to see if there are any quick fixes you can apply? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Finnusertop: Thank you for your words. Indeed, I notice a lot of outdated information and questionable sources (Internet forums, etc.) in the Air Koryo article. I have been interested in revamping the article, perhaps raising it to GA. Regarding Sunan Airport, I don't see many quick fixes I can apply; but I plan to add references soon. I actually added information about the modernization some months back. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, Sunnya343. I can help you with both articles. I'm quite familiar with reliable sources concerning North Korea. If there are some aspects not covered by the aviation sources that you know, I can try those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalore Airport

A few days back I reverted the irrational move of this article to Mangalore International Airport. It was moved back again by CodePanda on 12 January. The RM was also closed as non controversial and you and I know that newspaper articles don't serve as references to names of airport articles at least in India as they refer to any name as per their will. For some odd reason, an admin declined my G6 delete to revert the move which again doesn't seem to rationalize in any way. My question here would be if it is right to revert to Mangalore Aiport or to rename the article as Mangaluru Aiport per AAI. — LeoFrank  Talk 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoFrank: I am leaning towards the official name, "Mangaluru Airport." However, "Mangaluru" might seem odd because the article for the city is still entitled "Mangalore." In that case, perhaps the title could be changed to "Mangalore airport" with a lowercase "a." I say this because "Mangalore Airport" is not a proper name. What do you think? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought the lowercase 'a' in airport applies only when you are not referring to the original name, for eg, it would be Bangalore airport. Lowercase would not be applied to airport names that have their city served in their official names. I guess this is what was discussed in WT:AIRPORT.
I am leaning towards Mangaluru Airport as well but with a capital A. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the text from the reference you gave sums up that it has to be Mangaluru Airport.

airport Capitalize as part of a proper name: LaGuardia Airport, O'Hare International Airport.

The first name of an individual and the word international may be deleted from a formal airport name while the remainder is capitalized: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Kennedy International Airport, or Kennedy Airport. Use whichever is appropriate in the context.

Do not make up names, however. There is no Boston Airport, for example. The Boston airport (lowercase airport) would be acceptable if for some reason the proper name, Logan International Airport, were not used.

Newark International Airport was renamed Newark Liberty International Airport after Sept. 11.

— LeoFrank  Talk 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Well I thought the lowercase 'a' in airport applies only when you are not referring to the original name." True. In this case, the original/official name is Mangaluru Airport per AAI – capital A indeed. Mangalore Airport is not, so airport would have to be lowercase I feel. The opposite situation can be seen with Cochin International Airport. Cochin International Airport is the official name, so everything is capitalized. But Kochi international airport and Kochi airport are not. Perhaps I'm only nitpicking...
I would be fine with Mangaluru Airport, my only problem being that the city article is still entitled "Mangalore" per the common name. That's why I brought up Mangalore airport as an alternative. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
City name still being Mangalore shouldn't be a problem since the BLR article name was Bengaluru International Airport until it was officially renamed as Kempegowda International Airport on 14 December 2013. So, I'll go ahead and move the article to Mangaluru Airport.. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LeoFrank: True, that makes sense. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LeoFrank:, as per this logic shouldn't Kempegowda International Airport be Bangalore International Airport? --<CodePanda/>

@CodePanda: For BLR, the official name is Kempegowda International and the page in AAI website is not updated. Unfortunately, AAI basically just names airports as per some odd fashion. This weird thing is not limited to just naming but also declaring the role of the airport. AAI declared Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport as an international when there are just two flights. There are some specifications per IATA and ICAO, not just in terms of the passenger terminal, but it also includes the runway, number of international destinations and also the numbers of international passengers flying to and fro an airport.

For BLR, the official site of the airport mentions the correct name. In case of aiports that are fully owned by AAI like IXE, the only source is AAI website. I am pretty sure, the official name is still Mangalore Airport. Some users think if an airport becomes international, it automatically implies addition of the word International to its name. This is one big headache for airports in India. There was a time when we could access IATA database of airports and I did notice a huge conflict in the names of some airports. Unfortunately, they have now made this database accessible only on a subscription basis. PS: I may have gone an extra mile to bore you with all these intricacies that we face with Indian airports, but that's the problem right now. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, we can access IATA airport database — LeoFrank  Talk 16:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are flags of countries allowed in airline destination lists??

Flags make the page even more creative and colours should be used in the table where Country, Destination, Airports, Notes and Reference section. If the MOS Rules prohibit this, then why the edits according to MOS rules are not edited on other airline destination lists like Emirates and others. Some say flags are prohibited but in many airline destinations there are flags. These things make a sense as it makes the page even more creative. Can I add flags and colours to the Air India destination list?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.206.146 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@182.64.206.146: Thank you for coming to the talk page. The answer to your question is no, per MOS:FLAGS and WP:ICONDECORATION. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia above all. As to why other airlines' destination lists appear differently, please see WP:OSE. The simple reason is that there is not yet anyone with the time and interest to fix those long tables. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why there is direct information access to the countries and cities in the other destination lists?? See Emirates (airline) destinations. Then please explain to me

As I am new to Wikipedia, I do not know such rules. I thought that what edits I did looked creative and beautiful. Can u explain me the reason I have written above? Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.85.37 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@182.68.85.37: I have already explained the reasons in the section above. I suggest you read up on the rules that I list there. Also, I recommend you create an account if you plan to contribute more; it's also easier to communicate with you if you create an account. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Simplifly Deccan

The article Simplifly Deccan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simplifly Deccan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kannur International Airport

I just removed a massive chunk of OR and essay like content from this article. It was pretty messed up. While editing this article, I stumbled upon Template:History of Kerala Airports. Honestly, I don't think this template is worth keeping. Your opinion? — LeoFrank  Talk 12:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoFrank: I have known about that article for some time... I was planning on making some major edits but didn't want to risk an edit war with one common editor of the article. Thanks for that cleanup effort. Anyways, I also agree that the template should be deleted. I don't see any significant connection between the airports, other than the fact they are located in a particular state. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have logged a deletion request here. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utqiaġvik/Barrow RM

You recently participated in a discussion regarding the title of Utqiaġvik/Barrow, Alaska. There is currently a move request discussion of the article's title at Talk:Utqiaġvik, Alaska, if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now at a new section. —  AjaxSmack  03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Latin American Wings logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Latin American Wings logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Southwest Airlines

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Southwest Airlines. I'd like your thoughts on Southwest's "large operations." Regards. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fly Baghdad logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fly Baghdad logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you show other users that you have created a page?

Hi Sunnya343, I want to know that when you create an airline page, what you type in the edit summary box to show that you created that page? Regards-- FlyJet777 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FlyJet777: The fact that you created a page is already obvious, as the article's revision history will show that you made the first edit. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right. But I have seen the pages you have created and after creating what you typed in the edit summary box that shows : (<- Created page...........) how do you do that? What do you type there? Thank you!FlyJet777 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlyJet777: I believe that text appeared because I "created a new article directly" here. Although, if you are a new editor, it is recommended that you use the Articles for Creation process here. In any case, I personally don't think it matters what it says in the edit summary when you create a page! What's important is that a new article has been added. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are saying absolutely right. The most important thing is that a new article is added. Thank You very much for your response! Regards-- FlyJet777 (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sepehran Airlines

Hello. I saw your message on HistoryofIran's talkpage. Both of the links contain exactly the same content, they are mirror of each other. The news article is saying that more than one year ago, there were some whispers about a new airline named "Sepehran". With the previous CEO, there were few hopes, but on the 11th month of 1395 SH, a new CEO came in office and he accelerated the process of receiving the necessary licenses. On the last month of 1394 SH, he got the necessary licenses from Iran Civil Aviation Organization. On 20 Tir 1395 SH, the chief of CAO.IRI signed Sepehran's operational license and the people of Fars province now have their own airline. Now, in Tehran only, more than 100 personnel are working for this new airline, and soon more than 200 personnel from the natives of Fars province will be employed. Sepehran's "organizational color" is orange and its logo is inspired by the mythical bird ghoghnus (قُقْنوس). Sepehran has 5 airliner. This map shows its flight paths. Red lines show the first group of internal flights and the green lines show the second group. The first group include flights from Shiraz to Mashhad, Tehran, Tabriz, Zahedan, Bandar Abbas, Chabahar and the same time, from Tehran to Mashahd, Shiraz and Ahvaz. The second group include flights from Shiraz to Isfahan, Kerman, Kish, Ahvaz, Abadan, Lar, Lamerd, Kharg Island, Gachsaran and Bahregan. I hope this is useful. Let me know if I may be of any help! -- Mazandar (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazandar: My apologies for the late response. Thank you very much for doing this, it is very useful! I have been a bit busy off-wiki lately but will work on incorporating this information into the article. I had a question; do the red lines indicate the destinations to which Sepehran Airlines is currently flying?
Also I found two articles published recently which appear to be from reliable sources: here and here. Would you mind skimming these and stating any new/different information? I hope I am not asking for too much; please take your time if you need. Thank you very much again! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Dear user, this is the response to your request on my talk page.

Kojaro.com says:

  • In Feb, 2016, a new CEO was appointed, facilitating the process of acquiring the necessary warrants.
  • On Jul 10, 2016, the final warrant was signed, making the Sepehran airline the first local airline in Fars Province.
  • On Jan 31, 2017, the first plane took off.
  • The official logo is orange and has a phoenix.
  • The airline has five planes.
  • It has two phases of flying routes inside Iran.

Cann.ir has an older version of the first article. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HamedH94: Thank you for your time, I really appreciate this! I will add this information to the article. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
anytime--HamedH94 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edit on Mumbai Airport

Well, you removed the entire Cargo subsection from "Airlines & Destination" section of page Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport citing reason for it to be unsourced. What kind of reference this section needs ? I don't think "Passenger" and "Cargo" subsections of "Airlines & Destination" section of any airport article need any reference to any destination as long as already scheduled flights (for passenger) and scheduled cargo operate to those destinations. Reference are needed when a new flight is commencing operations on a given date or when a scheduled flight is ending operation again on a given date. References may be needed for some "exceptional" destinations or new passenger/ cargo airlines or new subsidiaries of existing airlines but not for all. See the airport articles of other busiest airports in India and even world. See these articles: Beijing Capital International Airport, Miami International Airport, Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, Shanghai Pudong International Airport, Amsterdam Airport, Istanbul Atatürk Airport, London Heathrow Airport and countless others (almost all major airport articles don't provide references for most cargo airlines/ destinations). So, are you going to remove Cargo section from all these articles ?

I think you intended to remove the following subsection "Busiest International Routes from Mumbai" as it was completely unsourced and it definitely needed sources. I would have agreed with its removal but first would have tried to find sources for that. Before removing an entire section, we must look for all possibilities of validating the data in that section But perhaps you mistakenly removed the entire Cargo section. Even if that is the case, you are on fault. You didn't even saw the page after saving your edits. Such mistakes from auto-confirmed editors is totally unacceptable. This is sheer vandalism. I had a long debate with you earlier on the issue of logo of Kolkata Airport and you were definitely right at that time which I came to realize later. But this time, you are definitely wrong and you have done a big blunder. Well, I have reverted your edit and currently I am looking for sources for "Busiest International Routes from Mumbai". If I don't find them, I'll remove the unsourced section for sure. If you intentionally removed the Cargo subsection as would be known for sure by your future edits on article, you are surely going to be proceeded against for vandalism. Besides being destructive, your edit was simply meaningless. Just read the policies and notability guidelines of Wikipedia first before giving lectures on these. Vibhss (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vibhss, my apologies for the late response. I do wonder, though, you have written on my talk page in order to have a discussion, no? Because the tone you are using here and have previously used on my talk page does not make me feel as though you wish actually to discuss. I am only willing to have a discussion as long as it is WP:CIVIL.
WT:AIRPORTS cautions strongly against the airlines-and-destinations table for cargo airlines. The tables are difficult to reference and are of questionable notability. Also, the WP:BURDEN is not on me to find references for the table. I removed it, but anyone can go into the article's history and re-add it with reliable references. Although, as I said, the table is of questionable notability.
Regarding your point on cargo tables in other airport articles, kindly read WP:OSE. I don't have the time to edit all those articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INDICSCRIPTS

Hi Sunnya343, WP:INDICSCRIPT only applies to WP:LEDE, not to WP:INFOBOX. I am against removing Indic scripts from infoboxes, especially in geographical articles where there was a strong opnion that they should contain the name in state language. Note that geo infoboxes contain a "native name" parameter on purpose! Thanks. — kashmiri TALK 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kashmiri, we had this discussion about two months ago. Is there some reason you have changed your mind? Regards — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was about an airport, which is something in between a geographic place and a business and where English language rules. But I did not really mean proper locality names. Having original name, in local script like on traffic signs, offers a lot of added value to the reader. For many localities in India, English spelling can be ambiguous and only local script identifies the locality unabmiguously (to illustrate the point, tell me please where Kutwa is situated). — kashmiri TALK 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, this may be your opinion, but the RfC is clear on this. "All other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass." If you are interested you can start a new discussion or RfC on the issue of Indic scripts with regards to geographical articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. So, the consensus was to use only IPA in the lead section. Note this RfC applied only to lead section. There is no consensus on removing scripts from infoboxes, templates, etc. As templates allow adding native names, I see no reason to now go and remove them, especially from geo infoboxes. But feel free to start a RfC if you like. — kashmiri TALK 20:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, I will quote myself from our previous discussion: "To me, adding languages to the infobox sets us up for the conflicts that led to the WP:INDICSCRIPT discussion. Also, it should be noted that the "native name" field in the infobox predates WP:INDICSCRIPT." — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either we discuss the wider problem that led to the RfC, including applicability to infoboxes and any bearing the policy would have on geographic names, or we stick to the RfC letter, forget about the discussion in "all other sections" and also forget about anything but lead. Your choice. Simply, you cannot pick from RfC only the bits you need. — kashmiri TALK 01:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri I don't understand. I'm basing my actions off of the conclusion of the RfC – that is what ultimately matters, no? "All other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass." What more is there? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but I have to jump in here. The exact text of the section WP:INDICSCRIPT is not holy, and it does not address geographic names in infoboxes at all. Furthermore, it was pretty clear from the RfC discussion that users largely support Indic names for geographic entities even in the leads. In fact, based on comparison with other geographic/political territory articles (see Switzerland, Singapore) with multiple languages, the standard clearly seems to be that the infobox include the native names even when the lead doesn't. (Some/all? of the articles you edited don't fall only under the purview of Wikiproject India, they have other considerations too.) I think it should be uncontroversial for us to agree to put native names in the infoboxes but not touch the leads. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basawala, don't feel sorry, anyone is welcome to comment. WP:INDICSCRIPT may not be "holy," but it is policy as part of the Manual of Style. The RfC conclusion states that there simply was not enough consensus for the sections other than that on writing the IPA in the lede. (Of course, a new discussion or RfC could be held to talk about this.) Also, remember that the whole reason for the RfC was to avoid bickering over which Indic language to include in an article. Adding Indic scripts to the infobox but not the lede still means there is the potential for bickering over which Indic scripts to write in the infobox. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the result of the RfC was that there isn't consensus for other sections in general (nor in the lead for that matter, but the policy of removing scripts in the lead wasn't the result of consensus, but of lack of consensus, only because this was controversial). But there's no need to remove native names which are uncontroversial and do not cause POV problems, such as those of geographic entities, which generally have official languages areestablished for them. In fact, the official language(s) are sometimes specified in the same infoboxes from which you're removing the native names (for example, Karnataka). For all of the articles you've removed native names from, you'd have to first establish that choice of the Indic script name(s) you're removing are controversial, and then to establish that a consensus can't be reached on which to include. So far I haven't seen that. You're removing scripts because of "potential for bickering", but this is resulting in actual "bickering". What I mean is that the choice of having no Indic script on an infobox is much more controversial than having some specific set of scripts. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 05:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also a technicality: WP:INDICSCRIPTS is in fact not policy as part of the Manual of Style, it hasn't been moved to a WP:MOS subpage yet. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 05:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll have to agree with both Basawala and Kashmiri. I came here to point out this misapplication and looks like they've already done it. Removing it from the infobox in such articles by citing something which says in the it only applies to lead and has exceptions doesn't look good. I would like to know what policy as you referring to? As such the most you'll get about foreign terms is a vague "Use it but sparingly" from the MOS guideline, that's it. Anything concerning the Infobox is even more sparse.
If you look at the archives in WT:INB whenever a new user raises this issue, the general application of it is to prevent edit wars not cause them. By removing it from pretty straightforward cases like Mumbai, you're simply causing a potential dispute and pretty much wasting your time, as someone will re-add it back; no one is likely going to support your removal because it doesn't cover it. We're all pretty reasonable editors here and not the hotheaded language warriors whose disruption this RFC was made to subdue. That's why I didn't bother to revert you (FYI I watch Kerala, Mumbai and Maharashtra) but I'm just here to tell you don't expect to cite this RFC in your arguments. Hearing from what others say, this RFC is useful to prevent edit warring at BLPs who have mixed ethnic heritage or some geographic locations as well (see Pondicherry). The issue of clutter affects the lead primarily compared to the infobox.
Another thing is even if you want maybe start a discussion to remove it from the infobox as well, etiquette would be to take it on a case-by-case basis, discuss it on each of those articles and get consensus--I mean this for any change like this where you cannot just apply to all concerned articles due to lack of any guidelines or RFCs to support you. Going to each article of that category and enforcing this where you've probably never worked on and aren't aware of issues pertaining it (like some other Indian state or city) and applying your change without much discussion will likely ruffle a lot of people's feathers. Or best is just start a discussion whether an RFC would be appropriate (going by what goes on at WT:INB, people will likely discourage you, as not many have an appetite to revisit this for the nth time). There was a case where a sockpuppet decided suddenly that infobox images in Indian states were wrong and went ahead mass removing them citing vaguely the MOS (it doesn't btw), don't get me wrong, I hate infoboxes, scripts etc and the lame edit warring they cause but on this instance at Kerala and Maharashtra, I and a two other editors had discussed the image selection among other things some time ago. And then you had this fellow, enforcing his own arbitrary change, so I was forced to intervene.
I'm mainly saying this because recently another experienced editor misapplied this the very same way, causing a new user to start "revenge-editing" and doing the same on all other articles besides his own article where he got reverted. This was highlighted on the user's talk page and again, many editors from WP:INDIA were pinged to weigh in supporting the very same thing. I can't recall the link at the moment but if you want can dig it up it if you insist. I don't know how to make INDICSCRIPTS clearer, it says only lead, adding a note clarifying that seems redundant. To what you're doing, putting these above points in mind, to still knock yourself out removing them and they don't care. I'm concerned though, that time is being wasted and unnecessary disputes are going to be caused, hence my long post. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basawala and Ugog Nizdast, I thought WP:INDICSCRIPT was part of the MOS because it is under the heading "Manual of Style" at WP:INDIA. As far as the relevance of WP:INDICSCRIPT only to BLPs and the like, it does say that exceptions only "are articles on the script itself, or on a language that uses the script." Also, what is the fundamental difference between the lead and the infobox? Is it not odd to allow Indic script in the infobox but not in the lead sentence? That sounds contradictory or whatever the word is. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good catch, will fix the misleading MOS header for it, should be rather uncontroversial but posted anyway at WT:INB#Placement of INDICSCRIPTS in the project page. The actual MOS is the link given there going to MOS:INDIA (you'd be surprised to know, this MOS talks about how to put scripts in a page rather than discouraging), but this RFC doesn't belong there. It may sound odd, they have similar roles but they are very different; infoboxes are relatively new and more cosmetic wherehas leads have been a fundamental part of an article. There are lot of MOS and guidelines on writing leads but barely anything in about infoboxes (heck, they're not even compulsory on a given page). I think related links for this has been provided in by others in this section. The RFC was pretty specific and they usually are; it's lower than a guideline (also in terms of consensus). See the levels of consensus and about difference in policies, guidelines at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PGL. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree the decision was to apply the policy to leads. There's absolutely no need to go beyond that, or to philosophise about the difference between leads and infoboxes, given that the whole point of the RfC decision was to prevent POV issues when the choice of the script(s) is contentious, which is not the case for geographic infoboxes generally. In fact, we've probably all seen the arguments why geographic articles ought to have script (and basically all non-Roman script geographic entities do, at least outside of the India-related removed ones); I'd say that most users support that even in WP India, from reading the RfC and followup. But given the broad scope of the RfC decision now under WP:INDIA MOS (and potentially MOS), the script belongs to the infobox, and in fact should be there. It's one thing to be technical about a rule in place, it's another to overextend the rule in a way that's either intended or conflicts with other principles. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 14:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop invoking WP:INDICSCRIPT in infoboxes, such as on pages about airports. You're still doing so after Ugog Nizdast asked you not to. We have already established that WP:INDICSCRIPT does not have scope over infoboxes. Feel free to remove scripts on such pages, but do not describe your edits as WP:INDICSCRIPT. (In fact, please stop invoking WP:INDICSCRIPT in general, for removal of scripts in infoboxes. There's pretty strong consensus that they belong on geographic entities (and this is the practice outside of India-related geographic entity infoboxes anyways), which I'm reverting, but I right now won't revert your edits on airport pages.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seemed to have been that it applied to infoboxes—you're the first to challenge this that I've seen (except for me). I have no strong opinion, either way. El_C 19:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From this discussion above, it should be clear that there is no such consensus. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Kolkata airport.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Kolkata airport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits

Hi. So I don't know what's up but I find it rather odd that you don't edit on JetBlue Airways, or at least not since September of last year, and as soon as I make an edit, you swoop in at make changes to edits I make. Not that I disagree with your edit but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. I don't know if you're just following my edits but can you maybe back off me a little. Much appreciated. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aviationspecialist101, I can't help it if it appears that way. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. If I come upon an edit with which I do not agree, then I will address it. I don't consider who made the edit. With regards to the JetBlue article, I didn't know nor care that it was you who had added an additional image. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JetLite

JetLite is dead since 25 March 2012. It was merged into JetKonnect, the low-cost brand of Jet Airways. JetKonnect was further dropped to move to a full-service model. Please do read the references cited in Merger with JetKonnect section. I don't think CH Aviation is a reliable source. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LeoFrank, it was stated in 2012 that, "Jet Airways (India) Ltd and JetLite (India) Ltd will continue as distinct business entities operating under their own airline operating permits" (source). It appears that JetLite (India) Ltd began to operate under the JetKonnect brand in March 2012. "Jet acquired Air Sahara in 2007 and re-branded it as JetLite to compete with low-cost airlines. The subsidiary airline underwent re-branding once again in 2012 and was renamed Jet Konnect. [...] The airline had hoped the re-branding of JetLite as Konnect would help improve its yields and attract a pie of premium traffic" (source).
Now Jet Airways is working to merge JetLite (India) Ltd into itself (source, published Apr 2016). However, it appears that JetLite (India) Ltd's air operator's certificate will remain (source).
Ultimately, JetLite (India) Ltd is still operating - its air operator's certificate with codes S2/JLL/LITE JET remains in effect. The brand name is JetKonnect (so the article may need some editing). While Jet Airways and JetKonnect have the same full-service brand, and while Jet Airways does not nominally distinguish between the two, JetKonnect is still functioning. It even appears in the website timetable (open the PDF at this link and do a ctrl-F/command-F search for JetKonnect).
On another note, why do you find ch-aviation unreliable? Here is their 'About' page. I find them incredibly useful for obtaining quality, reliable information on airlines and airports all over the world. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air India destinations

Hi Sunnya343. I have revamped the Air India destinations table with more information and sources. I have added the terminated destinations and its reference is listed there. If you revert my edits on the same then before editing please inform me on my talk page. :) The table is not long. I wish you will not revert my edit. Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJet777, your edits violate MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:ACCESS. Also, I would argue that terminated destinations are not notable, but that is not consensus, so you can add them. However, I strongly believe your edits should be reverted as they violate core Wikipedia policies. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunnya343. If you find that my edits should be reverted then first let me read MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:ACCESS. Then I will try not to overlink the page and make the page easier to read by any user. But till then please don't revert it. I hope you will understand. Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJet777, it really is not my problem that you were not familiar with these policies beforehand. The table was already easy-to-read and compliant with Wikipedia policy before you instituted these changes. Also, I notice you are adding many terminated destinations without any reference whatsoever. This is not permitted per WP:V. How can you ask an editor not to revert your edit when it violates Wikipedia guidelines? I don't know what I am waiting for. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sunnya343. I have also noticed that when I had not instituted the edits, for the timetable reference, you had provided only one source. What about that. If I add the sources to all terminated destinations then you will say it is overlinking as per MOS:OVERLINK, now if I have also added the same then you are saying it doesn't complying with Wikipedia policies and WP:V. I am not able to understand what you are actually trying to convey. Like you I am also here to improve articles of Wikipedia. If you find that something has to be added or removed, tell me, I will try to improve it. I have read through MOS:ACCESS. The article is easy enough for viewers to read, navigate etc. FlyJet777 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJet777, I think you are misreading MOS:OVERLINK. This policy warns against adding too many links to other Wikipedia articles, for example Andhra Pradesh → [[Andhra Pradesh]] in the table - not against adding too many references. (That would be WP:OVERCITE.)
The table violates MOS:ACCESS because of the unnecessary colors, e.g. of the top row. You may have noticed a color change on the infobox for airport articles. That was instituted because of MOS:ACCESS. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so then I am editing the destinations now to comply with MOS:OVERLINK. Thanks for making me understand about this. But, can you explain why the colors are unnecessary? FlyJet777 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have complyed it with as per MOS:OVERLINK now check the table is it ok? FlyJet777 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJet777, no, really only the airports need to be linked. They are the destinations after all. A reader can go to the airport article and proceed from there if he or she wishes to learn more about the city/country in which the airport is located. I really suggest we go back to this revision; terminated destinations can be added in a separate table.
As far as MOS:ACCESS, take a look at the infobox example I provided earlier. Also, the main hub/focus city/etc. colors are redundant, as a description of these destinations already is found in the Notes column. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the fleet gallery provided encyclopedic value to the article. People who don't know a lot about aviation see all the different aircraft operated by Delta, they had suitable captions with links, and corresponded to the current fleet. From WP:GALLERY "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashion for an example of a good use of galleries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Fleet No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for.

"Images should not be placed before a list such that they push it downwards from its section heading or page title in mobile browsers or shrink it sideways in desktop browsers. Such images should either be placed elsewhere, for example to a gallery (but see WP:GALLERY), or not included."

The inclusion of a fleet gallery is arguably necessary for airline articles. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlanespotterA320, thank you for coming to my talk page; I was wary at first when I didn't see an edit summary for the revert. I understand the explanation you have provided. While the gallery seems excessive for me (e.g. images of the 737-700, -800, and -900; of the 757-200 and -300) - I feel as though one image of a narrowbody and one of a widebody could suffice - I suppose this is not consensus. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that one image of a narrowbody and one of a widebody could suffice--Delta has operated many different aircraft over time, inheriting different varients from mergers... Delta operates a variety of narrowbody and widebody aircraft, two images would not suffice. As for the different varients, each varient has a different role in the domestic fleet. (ex, Southwest operates 737-300, 737-700s, and 737-800s. To imply they just use one standard aircraft type would be misleading. I guess it could be condenses to 737 NEX Gen, but remember that Wikipedia is read by everyone, not just experts in one field, the ordinary person doesn't know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PlanespotterA320, I don't think it is misleading, as there is already a table or paragraph listing the different types of aircraft that the airline operates. The emphasis here is on the prose, not on the images. If a person wants to know the difference between the aircraft, they can click on the article link to see as many pictures as they want of that aircraft. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading wasn't the right word, I meant confusing. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there is nothing providing more information.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits on Air India Regional destinations.

Hello Sunnya343. I saw your recent edits on Air India Regional destinations page. I admit that the Surat information was mistakenly deleted by me. But, as you stated that Hindustan Times source does not clarifies that the Delhi to Chandigarh to Kullu flight will be operated by Air India Regional, I think you already know this Air India's A320s can't land in Kullu Airport because of its narrow runway. And also Air India Regional operates to remote areas of India. So it is clear that the flight will be operated by Air India Regional. I am reverting your edits as of now. If you think it should be reverted then please tell me on my talk page. Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJet777, that's called WP:OR. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yes. I forgot about WP:NOR. No original search is allowed in Wikipedia articles. Sorry I totally forgot about WP:NOR. You can revert my edits. Thank You!:) FlyJet777 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JC International Airlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Airlines edit

Undo of edits to remove "safety standard" of Alliance Airlines page. Accreditations are notable within the aviation industry. Removed first line of text to remain objective. Anna FA (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sunnya343&oldid=772380510"