Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 51.7.229.207 (talk) at 00:08, 30 June 2019 (→Deletion of content about VOR/DME beacons from airfield articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconAviation: Airports Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the airport project.

Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects


Charter/nonstop flights

I am going to make two suggestions for the airline and destination tables.

1. We need to remove all charter flights from the airline and destination tables, including ones operated by major airlines. Often times, these cannot be properly sourced and such, are useless.

2. We should change the policy to only allow nonstop flights to be listed on airline and destination tables (flights that have at least have one leg that is nonstop) going forward to avoid confusion about "direct" flights. I am noticing far too often destinations are being listed on tables that contain a stop in a hub, such as secondary airports in India and China being listed on major US airport tables despite containing a stop in Delhi, Beijing, etc.

Just my two cents for today. Arnoboro (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on both -- Whats new?(talk) 09:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
agreeAerostar3 (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on first point, but raising the point at WT:AIRPORT will have an effect on airports only. As to the second point, direct flights are perfectly valid to be included, airports do not operate direct flights only. Finally, we do not establish policies but guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the first point. Disagree on the second point. Direct flights can have one or more stops. As long as passengers do not have to disembark and board another aircraft for the remaining sectors, it is perfectly valid to include direct flights with one or more stops. — LeoFrank  Talk 03:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on first point. Also agree on the second point to an extent. If a direct (not non-stop) flight can be reliably referenced (not using flight trackers or booking engines but a WP:RS), I see no reason not to include. Garretka (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Garretka: Agree that a RS is required for second point. But as always, there are exceptions. In the case of AI 127 (Hyderabad–Delhi–Chicago), Chicago was always listed as destination in the Hyderabad Airport article and Hyderabad in the Chicago airport article because the flight was listed being operated on a 777 on both sectors in the airline website. It was the flight tracking website which showed different 777s being operated on each sector. When an airline itself designates all sectors as direct flight in such a case, what I know is that we reply on the aircraft type operated on each sector to determine if they are merely through hub flights or actually direct. What do we do in situations like AI127? Tricky. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
0: we should relegate ALL such info to specialised services such as wikitravel, wikivoyage, ... and get rid of this eternal source of discontent for once and for all. (since @garretka declined to throw the hot grenade, here's me instead :) ) Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support migrating these tables to wikivoyage, and I would leave an external link on the Wikipedia pages as to where the tables can be found. All that should be left is a historical summary and a list of airlines, ideally. Garretka (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Garretka: I'd be glad to support this change and also two more: correct page names for airport articles (perhaps an RfC is required, esp given that this discussion died down) and how to designate an airport as international or customs in their respective articles. — LeoFrank  Talk 18:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what the correct answer would be, there are quite a few scenarios that you have described that do exist. I know Southwest operates the same flight numbers that make 3, 4 or even 5 stops which would qualify as a "direct" flight, but only the first stop gets listed in the table.
As far as airport naming goes, I will admit I'm not familiar with Indian airports, I see the common name and whatever reliable sources say is what we should be following. Garretka (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Garretka: Agree. That is yet another example of why "direct" flights shouldn't be listed, it is simply too confusing for the average reader. I support the removal of the tables from here as well. While I admit I like the tables, they are difficult to keep up with and practically impossible to reference. Arnoboro (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should include charter services, because at least for smaller airports, they are noteworthy. The airport might have a few scheduled destinations of around an hour flight length, and some far away tourist charter services a number of flight hours. But they should have a proper reference, otherwise they could be removed.BIL (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Luton Airport page claims that seasonal charter flights go to Chambery and Salzburg operated by TUI but the TUI website says that these flights don't exist, the page also claims that Freebird Airlines will start seasonal charter flights to Antalya in May but I can't find a reliable source for this (although the TUI website claims that they operate a flight there). Should these claims be removed? Thameslinkrail (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of all charter flights on airport destinations lists. These services are sporadic and not even worth the effort, we are not a directory. Most of them have references are to holiday booking sites and just another way to promote spam. Ajf773 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to be getting rid of all charter flights, they are not regularly scheduled and so why are they listed? Why is it enforced on some pages and not others? Blissfield101 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Airports for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Airports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Airports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations: United Express or United and similar

In the majority of airport articles, there is a destination table sorted by airline. In most of them, regional partners of major airlines are listed separately but in a few cases, this convention is not followed. In most airport articles, United Express or Delta Connection or Air Lingus Regional flights will be separated from United, Delta, or Aer Lingus respectively.

Airlines seem to stress that regional partner name when there's a crash. "No, not Continental but Colgan, they say".

Looking back in history, in early 2018, there was either one editor or a few editors who began to change many articles to eliminate regional partners of major airlines. This created a discussion and it was changed back. There was at least one editor who said "sorry" for making sudden changes to so many articles and agreed to let it go back to the way it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

Question for discussion: 1) Should it be standard practice to continue separate the regional partners of major airlines as is currently the case? Or is it ok to do it any sort of way, sometimes one way, sometimes another way within the same article/destination table? Aerostar3 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC is being started by me. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Destinations: United Express and United, like it currently is, or no standard way is ok

While all or almost all airport articles have a destination table that lists destinations the airline and destination city, making a distinction of the major airline's name, such as United Airlines, Delta Airlines, or Aer Lingus, as well as the affiliated regional airline's name, such as United Express, Delta Connection, or Aer Lingus Regional, is it unacceptable to treat airlines differently within the same article, for example, listing the United Express and United Airlines destinations under United Airlines but listing Delta Connection destinations separately from Delta Airlines within the same airport article.Aerostar3 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion in early 2018 about not lumping the affiliated regional airline with the main airline. This is a little different from this RFC, which asks about uniformity within an article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

This is an example of a destination table [1]

AirlinesDestinationsRefs
Air Canada Express Toronto–Pearson [1]
Alaska Airlines Seattle/Tacoma [2]
Allegiant Air Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville (FL), Las Vegas, Orlando/Sanford, Punta Gorda (FL), Sarasota, St. Petersburg/Clearwater
Seasonal: Charleston (SC), Destin/Fort Walton Beach, Myrtle Beach, New Orleans, Phoenix-Mesa, Savannah
Seasonal charter: Cancun, Punta Cana 		[3]
American Airlines Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Phoenix–Sky Harbor
Seasonal: Philadelphia 		[4]
American Eagle Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Miami, New York–JFK, New York–LaGuardia, Philadelphia, Washington–National [4]
Delta Air Lines Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City, Seattle/Tacoma
Seasonal: Cancún, Fort Myers 		[5]
Delta Connection Boston, Detroit, New York–JFK, New York–LaGuardia, Raleigh/Durham
Seasonal: Fort Myers, Miami, Minneapolis/St. Paul (ends June 8, 2019)		 [5]
Frontier Airlines Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando
Seasonal: Fort Myers 		[6]
Southwest Airlines Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston (ends September 28, 2019), Chicago–Midway, Dallas–Love, Denver, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Houston–Hobby, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Oakland, Orlando, Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Tampa
Seasonal: Cancún, San Diego 		[7]
Spirit Airlines Fort Myers (begins November 14, 2019), Las Vegas, Orlando, Tampa (begins November 14, 2019)
Seasonal: Myrtle Beach 		[8]
United Airlines Chicago–O'Hare, Denver, San Francisco
Seasonal: Houston–Intercontinental, Newark, Washington–Dulles 		[9]
United Express Chicago–O'Hare, Denver, Houston–Intercontinental, Newark, Washington–Dulles [9]

Aerostar3 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "Flight Schedules". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  2. ^ "Flight Timetable". Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  3. ^ "Allegiant Air". Retrieved 22 August 2018.
  4. ^ a b "Flight schedules and notifications". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  5. ^ a b "FLIGHT SCHEDULES". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  6. ^ "Frontier". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  7. ^ "Check Flight Schedules". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  8. ^ "Where we fly, flight schedules, flight map". Retrieved 11 December 2018.
  9. ^ a b "Timetable". Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  • It boils down to who is operating the flight, if Foo Regional are operating a service for Big Foo Airlines using Big Foos flight number it will be listed under Big Foo. If they are operating as Foo Regional with a Foo Regional callsign then they will be listed as Foo Regional. You have to remember wikipedia is not a travel guide, most of this is really not relevant as the purpose of the destination list is to provide a measure of the scope and number of destinations from the airport. We could simply say "four airlines operate services between this airport and another far away" would be enough for an encyclopedia we dont actually need to name them but the consensus is to list them, we dont need to go into the fine details of interline arrangements and such like in an airport article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may not be a travel guide but Foo Regional is usually a different product than Big Foos. They tend to be cancelled more. They tend to take your cabin luggage more often. They are staffed with cheaper labor. They almost always fly smaller planes, sometimes propeller planes. The public does want to know. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would prefer to always err on the side of merging such cases, I believe this better represents how those reading the article perceive airlines. It may surprise some of us here to know that most people do not make, do not need to know, and quite simply do not care about such distinctions and even if they did a table is the worst way of presenting this information understandably. As said above by MilborneOne such fine detail is not really encyclopaedic. There is a line where it is or isn’t appropriate to make these distinctions, my line is somewhere around would the normal traveller notice and understand the difference, branding and to some degree ownership would be considerations. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Splitting the mainline and regional carriers feels like an overly complex solution with very little benefit to the casual readers of Wikipedia that we are writing for. Take the above example, service to Minneapolis/St. Paul on Delta Connection is listed as ending June 8, 2019. That, to a casual reader feels like a loss of service, when in fact, those flights will continue to be offered by Delta. Also, looking at this chart, you get the impression that a lot of services are operating, when in fact, the service between the parent and the regional carriers is largely redundant. It boils down to sometimes the airline offers service on a big jet and sometimes they offer service on a small jet. Either way, you book the ticket with the same airline. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. It is not about a content dispute because nobody is debating to include or exclude the airline chart. The purpose of the RFC is to clarify and get uniformity. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the RfC was to label the brand. Alaska was the extraordinary circumstance where flights operated by Skywest and Horizon are branded as Alaska Airlines, not a regional affiliate. As a result, Alaska Airlines and the latter two were merged on all tables, as a result of the consensus in this discussion. Hopefully this clears up what's going on at Paine Field's article. Garretka (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. As I read it, I do not see a consensus to treat Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air differently. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then unfortunately I can't help you, because that's what the consensus currently is, as you've been told several times. As for merging of regionals and mainlines, I have no preference. Garretka (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I favor uniformity above most anything. If we treat United Express separately from United Airlines, then all regional airlines, like Delta Connection, should be treated separately from the main brand, Delta Airlines. End of discussion. No favoritism to American by hiding American Eagle flights and combining them with American Airlines. The next decision is whether to lump or split. I favor split because of the differences in the smaller brand. For example, Air Canada Rouge is very different from Air Canada. So is AlaskaHorizon different from Alaska. With AlaskaHorizon, you may be on a propeller plane with lots of vibration. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We probably should just go ahead and remove separate mainline and regional carriers (i.e, Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection, United Airlines and United Express, etc) and mark it all as one carrier (i.e, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, etc). Mainline and regional is extremely fickle and it constantly shifts back and forth, as such, a lot of the information on these articles is probably inaccurate. I also agree the general public isn't really going to care or notice, they know that even if it's on a regional jet, it still carries the main brand. Merge all mainline and regional. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lump em. The rationale for splitting doesn't fly (pardon the pun) for an encyclopedia that is distinctively not a travel guide. If somoeone wants to know if a given flight is being operated by a contracted regional operator, there are other far more appropriate places to find that information, as it's impossible for us to always keep up with the shifts of routes between mainline and partner airlines, and that some routes are served by both depending on the specific flight number. That level of detail, and that motivation for knowing it, it purely travel guide material, and doesn't belong here. oknazevad (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we please start merging the sections? I am finding an increasing amount of inaccurate information in the mainline and regional sections. It is impossible to keep up. Blissfield101 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The regionals and mainlines should be merged. There are many routes where it is next to impossible to keep up with their shifts back and forth from regional to mainline service. Above all, I think it is very difficult to find reliable, up to date sources to support classifying a route as regional and not mainline. Most airports do not note whether a route is mainline or regional on their website's destination map. Editor10293813 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aerostar3's point of view. I vote we split regionals and mainline as the experiences, expectations, and levels of service are different from their mainline counterparts. I also suggest that we don't go ahead and combine mainline/regionals together until we can receive more input. Rafale9312 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the shifts from regional to mainline and back maybe much, but surely there's a better solution than just combining everything and call it a day. Maybe only routes that switch back and forth between mainline and regional should just be listed under mainline, then destinations that are definitely 100% regional service only should be noted as such. Rafale9312 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may matter to the folks on airliners.net, but to the average person, it's all Delta, American, United, etc. It is booked via their website, you check in at their counters at the airport and they carry the same brand. Often they'll even name their hard products the same as the "mainline" planes. We already lump other airlines regional/mainline together, such as European airlines, why should North American airlines be different? As said, it is impossible to source mainline/regional, and because it fluctuates way too often, the tables become an unorganized mess. I have found a lot of inaccurate information regarding mainline/regional as of late, and I'm tired of trying to keep up with it. Your idea about keeping routes that switch back and forth won't work because those are too numerous to keep up with. Merge them. Blissfield101 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a problem with combining regional/mainline flights but I think there should be some kind of footnote on the table to make it clear that some flights are operated by regional carriers. Otherwise, to the average Joe it appears all flights are mainline. If at least part of the point of the information contained in the destinations table is to indicate the level of service at each airport, the difference between a 757 and an E175 is material to painting a picture of those levels of service and it's misleading to lump it all together without clarification. --Resplendent (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But why? This isn't a travel guide, and already as it is the tables are very close to WP:OR. A lot of the European carriers have service on regional jets (like KLM Cityhopper for example), but it is not listed separately there. People only need to know what airline flies to a particular destination, they don't need to know whether or not it was on a regular or express carrier. Often times, the airport itself doesn't even make a distinguishment when listing the destinations. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw edits on a few airport articles I'm watching showing that Blissfield101 is merging regional destinations with mainline (Example). I was curious about what prompted this across so many airport articles so after some looking around I found this discussion. I'm bringing this up here not because I'm opposed to this action (in fact, the lists should be merged in my opinion), but rather to keep everyone at this discussion informed. TitanAndromeda 19:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am going ahead and merging them because the majority here are in favor and it just makes sense on multiple levels. However, no one was starting the process and since it takes a while, I'd figure I'd start. Blissfield101 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just popping in again to point out that some of Blissfield101's consolidations are being reverted (example at JFK). While Blissfield is at no fault in my opinion for being bold, I think there needs to be some conclusion here on what the consensus is regarding merging mainline and regional destinations. That will avoid edit warring and give justification for maintaining a standard across all airport articles. My personal opinion is that they should be merged in destination tables and most commenters here seem to agree, but it's not necessarily for me to decide whether we have consensus. TitanAndromeda 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't go around changing stuff without consensus. It comes across as sneaky and dishonest, even that is not the intent. Someone else tried this last year and it was reverted because they went out ahead without consensus and it bothered a lot of folks. In this case, there are literally different brands and companies behind regional flights compared to mainline ones. Look at Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, different products, operating certificates, employee groups, etc. Same for Westjet and Swoop, Delta Connection and Delta Air Lines. Build consensus first, then make changes User:Zackrules90 12:15, 29 May 2019 (EST)
How is it dishonest? The majority here are in favor of merging. Just because the airliners.net folks think they should be separate doesn't mean they should. Again, it is getting to be IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with the changes between mainline and regional. To the end user, it is all Delta, American, United, Air Canada, etc, so for purposes here, it is much simpler to keep it all in the same. And by the way, most of the products on regionals are branded the same. You need to stop reverting. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopedic standpoint, there's no difference between regionals and mainlines; to the community of Airliner.net maybe, but the average reader no. The fact there are "substantial differences in the quality of the product" means these tables are being used as a guide. Leisure carriers such as Swoop, Rouge etc. may be a different story, however. Garretka (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Rogue, it is still Air Canada. Swoop might be a different story. Nevertheless, people need to stop reverting these changes. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate I noticed that Blissfield101, boldly, has started making these revisions (like to BWI), though consensus doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly in favor of doing so. In my opinion, from a factual standpoint, regional airlines are separate companies, licensed/contracted to operate for the main brand, but under a distinguishing name (American Eagle, Delta Connection, etc). When you book these flights, it's made clear to you that it's a regional airline. Different company, planes, pilots, and experiences. Booking from the mainline shouldn't matter. Whether the customer cares about the difference or not is irrelevant, and we can only make assumptions on that anyways. I don't see it any differently than National Rail and Train operating companies being separate, though you can book directly from the National Rail website. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but when the routes change, I would assume that the split is also clear there as well. Yes, this is not a travel guide, but I would still expect the information shown to not be misleading. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, regional airlines are separate companies, but it still has the Delta, American, United, etc brand on it and carries their code. Again, the average person isn't going to care about the whole mainline/regional. We don't do this for European airlines (like HOP! for Air France or KLM Cityhopper for KLM), so why are North American airlines exempt? And like I have said ad nauseam, it is getting impossible to keep up with the changes. I can't tell you how much inaccurate information I found when merging the airline sections, from destinations that were on there that weren't served at all, to destinations that were listed as being served on mainline but were only on regional in reality (and vice-versa), etc. Consolidating them reduces the chances for inaccurate information and it is much easier to keep up with so one does not have to keep track of all the mainline/regional changes. As far as consensus goes, not a whole lot of people chime in on these things typically, and since most were saying merge, I went ahead and did so, and I'm glad I did. Already as it is, the A&D tables border on being a travel guide and this change makes it slightly less so. I don't understand why some people are all up in arms over this, it's not a big deal. The information is still listed, just in a different form. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree that there is no consensus or any decision made? Until then, please stop making unconstructive changes. It is a big deal and the regional/mainline schedules do not change as often as claimed. Sorry, the likes of Lynchburg or Peoria will probably never see mainline service. Many people are still confused over the difference between regional service and mainline service so it is useful to provide that information, if not here, then where? [[User:zackrules90] 23:09, 29 May 2019 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackrules90 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but its useful isn't a valid "keep" reason. This information is readily available directly from the horses mouth, the airline websites themselves. Please remember this is not a vote. Arguments like these only make me lean further towards merging. Garretka (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Garretka: That is pretty much what their argument boils down to, "it's useful information and we've always had it like it". There is no logical reason from a purely encyclopedic standpoint to keep them separate, and most reasonable minded people will see so. The issue is, we have airline enthusiasts, some of whom have ties to airliners.net, coming on here and objecting for the reason listed above. They can't argue reasonably and so they are throwing a tantrum and resorting to tactics like accusing me of sockpuppetry (like User:Chidino did). We do it for European airlines, we do it for Alaska Airlines and countless other airlines, why are American, Delta, United, Air Canada, etc, different? Furthermore, this user User:Vmzp85, who has a history of being disruptive, continues to be disruptive and revert the edits. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The discussion up to this point has been somewhat disorganized and not conducive to determining whether there is consensus on a way forward here. This section is my attempt to formalize our discussion so that we can see where the community stands on this issue.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus against implementing this proposal. TitanAndromeda 03:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Airport articles on Wikipedia will not differentiate between mainline and regional destinations of airlines in their destination tables.

  • Support for many of the reasons listed above, primarily that separating out regionals causes clutter and gives no encyclopedic information. TitanAndromeda 17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for my reasons stated above. Too much fluctuation and redundancy between regional and mainline destinations to keep up with. We have merged the sections for airlines in other parts of the world, we have merged the sections for airlines such as Alaska Airlines, why is Delta, American, United, Air Canada, Aeromexico so special where it needs to list the regional brand separate? Those who oppose this are mostly airline enthusiasts who do not understand the nature of an encyclopedia and use tired arguments like "it's useful" and "we have always done it this way." Already as it is, the tables border on being a travel guide, so simplifying them would make them a bit less so. Merge em and move on. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we went through the same path a year ago. There is nothing wrong with status quo (mainline separate from regional). The blanket change was actually a violation to Verifiability policy. Take Toronto Pearson International Airport as example. Air Canada Rouge's destinations are merged into Air Canada even though media release clearly distinguish flights between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge flights. So merging the destinations together is actually a deliberate attempt to introduce errors into articles. Other editors in that poll I linked have raised very good points about the difference in service quality, aircraft and operator license are vastly different between regional and mainline. And Wikipedia has no deadline. We know that we can never correct all errors in every article. But that doesn't give a carte blanche to actually add wrong info just because consensus (if any) seemed to sway that way. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OhanaUnited: Once again, please read the statements above. At the end of the day, it carries the Air Canada logo. It does NOT matter whether it is Express, Rouge, etc, for purposes here, all that matters is Air Canada flies to so and so airport, they all carry the same flight code. To say that merging the destinations together is actually a deliberate attempt to introduce errors into articles is a baseless statement. On the contrary, the opposite is true; I found a ton of errors in destinations that were listed as mainline and/or regional that should not have been. Also, there are policies such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING that state not all exhaustive details need to be listed in an article. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive travel guide, the tables already border on WP:OR, they need to be simplified. We already do this with carriers around the world, it's time to do the same with North American airlines. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because wikipedia is not a travel guide; this means that the airline information stated should be as accurate as possible, not needlessly lumped together for asthetics. It is completely false to claim that sections for mainline and regional airlines in parts of the world outside of North America have already been merged, and I point to Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport, O.R. Tambo International Airport, Frankfurt Airport, and Delhi Airport as just a few examples. In addition, airlines with regional operational distinction such as LATAM, Avianca and Copa Airlines have not been merged under a single umbrella section but instead are universally listed separately, as can been seen at John F. Kennedy International Airport, São Paulo–Guarulhos International Airport, El Dorado International Airport, Jorge Chávez International Airport, and Miami International Airport. The status quo is factually accurate, and the proposed changes would accomplish nothing but the unnecessary removal of relevant and fact-based information. CdnFlyer (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's nothing wrong with the way this currently works and as someone who uses this information in a non-travel-centric way, we would stand to lose a lot of information. Furthermore, the initial re-proposer of this has long since been banned as a sock. SportingFlyer T·C 06:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no reason not to present the information in the most accurate way possible, as the line that determines when a page becomes a travel guide is imaginary anyway. This is identical to the endless debate we had a year ago. -- Acefitt 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Airport articles are not travel guides. This discussion is far from reaching a consensus. I second Sporting Flyer's comment that we are losing vital information by lumping in separate companies together. Standby, non-revenue passengers of mainline carriers (such as crew and their families) maintain lesser priority to those who are affiliated with the regional carrier or mainline carrier. This is because the relationships are contracted and only contracted. The airlines themselves always list these flights on their media according to their appropriate regional carrier. Pilots and crew on regional carriers are subject to separate company policies because they are separate companies. We should not be in the business of consolidating these flights because we are assuming passengers do not differentiate between them. They do. (E.g., A local Fox news station is not Fox News, even though they use their branding and air their shows.) This information is relevant and should undoubtedly be included in these templates. GEORGIANGo Dawgs 21:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: I would like to add that it is not difficult to keep track of these changes. From what I have seen on airport pages, service changes are quickly reflected in the articles. It's the responsibility of editors to make these changes. We do it on city articles when population information changes, on sports articles regularly as the season progresses, etc. We are wholly able to keep these tables current as we do for information on other articles. GEORGIANGo Dawgs 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is a learning resource. By combining regional and mainline routings, we defeat this purpose. The general population will not be confused, as, for one example, the “Delta” name is in both titles “Delta Air Lines” and “Delta Connection.” Either way, people see that the route is operated by Delta. The distinction between the two only adds to further increase intellectual clarity and learning. Aboard commercial aircraft, this difference is distinguished by cabin crew through their announcements. When new routes are announced by airlines and other media sources, they are often differentiated as mainline or regional in the publication(s). Even when you book a flight, the airlines themselves make it very clear during the booking process as to whether you are flying with the airline itself or a regional affiliate. Keeping the separate sections updated and accurate is also quite simple, as the information is easily and readily available through timetables and other various resources. Combining these routes adds no value, but instead reduces perspicuity, leaving room for confusion. Rrw536 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons listed by fellow users above. I also believe there have been no problems for editors determining whether a route is operated by regional and/or mainline. Basically every single source whether it be in the media or a release from the airline clearly states if a flight will be mainline or regional. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute Resolution

In an attempt to have the policies clearly explained and to find a solution going forward, I have started a dispute resolution. I will suspend all further revisions pending the outcome of this. You can view the dispute resolution report here. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Blissfield101: Why are you taking this to dispute resolution when there's an open RfC? SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose the dispute resolution pathway because it's forum shopping. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: Because the people who are opposing this are failing to cite which policies support their arguments, in other words, why regional carriers should be listed separate from a purely encyclopedic standpoint. I am trying to see what the proper way to formant and cite these tables is based on Wikipedia policies so we can put this to bed once and for all. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Blissfield101: Unfortunately that's not the way it works. A RfC has been proposed, and the RfC is currently deciding the nature of the content dispute, though it does not appear the proposal will be adopted. Per the rules of dispute resolution, clearly at the top of the page, disputes cannot be accepted if they are already part of the RfC process. Noting full well you currently are the only user supporting the proposal, dispute resolution is not an "appeals court" for when a RfC isn't breaking your way. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTS passenger section dispute

Hello all, currently I'm in an argument with Peter1170 about the listing of certain seasonal destinations served from Bratislava Airport. This is what the destination template looks like now, the version supported by Peter1170:

AirlinesDestinations
Air Cairo Seasonal: Hurghada (ends 25 October 2019)[1], Sharm El Sheikh (begins 26 June 2019, ends 25 September 2019)[2][3]
Corendon Airlines Europe Seasonal: Heraklion (begins 12 June 2019, ends 18 September 2019)[4]
Cyprus Airways Seasonal: Larnaca (begins 8 June 2019, ends 24 September 2019)[5][6][7]
flydubai Dubai–International
Pobeda Moscow–Vnukovo
Ryanair Alghero, Athens, Beauvais, Bergamo, Birmingham, Bologna, Charleroi, Dublin, Edinburgh, Eindhoven, Girona, Kiev–Boryspil,[8] Leeds/Bradford, London–Stansted, Madrid, Malta, Manchester, Niš, Paphos, Rome–Ciampino, Thessaloniki
Seasonal: Burgas, Corfu, Dalaman, Eilat–Ramon, Málaga, Marrakesh, Palma de Mallorca
Smartwings Slovakia[9] Seasonal: Antalya (begins 30 May 2019),[10] Burgas, Catania (begins 9 June 2019),[9] Corfu, Heraklion, Lamezia Terme, Larnaca, Málaga, Olbia, Palma de Mallorca, Rhodes, Zakynthos
Wizz Air Kiev–Zhuliany, London–Luton, Lviv, Skopje, Sofia

References

  1. ^ "Timetable summer-winter 2019". flyaircairo.com.
  2. ^ "Timetable". flyaircairo.com.
  3. ^ "Timetable summer-winter 2019". flyaircairo.com.
  4. ^ Liu, Jim. "Corendon Airlines Europe S19 new routes/sectors". Routesonline. Retrieved 17 April 2019.
  5. ^ "Cyprus Airways announces the launch of ticket sales for summer 2019. New improved baggage policy as of 31 March 2019". www.cyprusairways.com.
  6. ^ "Cyprus Airways spustí pravidelné lety z BTS do Larnaky". www.bts.aero.
  7. ^ www.letenkyzababku.sk https://www.letenkyzababku.sk/novinka-cyprus-airways-otvori-svoje-linky-do-bratislavy-aj-kosic/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ "Z Bratislavy pribudne nová letecká linka do Kyjeva-Borispolu".
  9. ^ a b "Flight schedule". smartwings.com.
  10. ^ "Smartwings expands Antalya service in S19". www.routesonline.com.

The problem is the destinations served by Air Cairo, Corendon Europe, and Cyprus Airways. Peter1170 claims that the sources state that the destinations will end operating after the respective dates and, since there's no source claiming that they're going to be served the next year as well, they need to be marked as to end until the new source claims that they'll be operated the next year too. In my opinion, this is not the correct way of listing destinations, because for now, there are no timetables of scheduled services published for the next seasons, not even for WS 19/20, so following this logic, we'd have to mark ALL destinations as to end, including the destinations served by Ryanair, Wizz Air, flydubai, Pobeda etc. In my opinion, until there's a source confirming that these routes will not be operated in the future (Peter's sources say nothing about the future seasons, they only talk about the 2019 summer season - and to conclude from this information that the destinations are going to be terminated is quite a stretch in my opinion), we must keep status quo - and current status quo is that the destinations are served seasonally, with no proof of their upcoming termination.
Another problem is Heraklion served by Corendon - based on his source, Peter concludes that it's a scheduled destination (not a chartered service), the problem is, that Corendon doesn't offer the tickets for this route on their webpage, nor is the route listed in the summer 2019 schedule published by BTS ([2] - the only Heraklion route listed is served by Smartwings), therefore I dare to say the service operated by Corendon is chartered only and should be marked so.
The next issue doesn't have to do anything with Peter this time. I Initially listed London-Luton as a separate destination served by Wizz Air UK, not by Wizz Air, since all the flights are operated with Wizz Air UK IATA code (W9), not Wizz Air IATA code (W6). Even at Bratislava Airports, flights to London-Luton are always announced as "operated by Wizz Air UK", not "operated by Wizz Air". Anonymous user 88.217.117.57 keeps reversing this edit. I personally don't understand what's wrong with my way, especially when you look as articles about airports served by easyJet (Geneva, Basel etc.), the destinations served by easyJet Switzerland are always separated from the destinations served by easyJet, in an article about Alicante, there's even a separate line for destinations served by easyJet Europe. Though all these routes are operated with easyJet IATA code (U2), not easyJet Switzerland IATA code (DS), or easyJet Europe code (EC). They're nonetheless listed as destinations served by various separate airlines. Meanwhile flights connecting Bratislava Airport and London-Luton are clearly operated as "W9" flights, Flightradar could be a good source ([3]). So I don't see why it shouldn't be listed separately, as the destination served by Wizz Air UK, not Wizz Air.
The last issue I want to discuss is usage of a destination map. Back in December I added three destination maps, for European destinations, Asian destinations, and African destinations ([4]). Later it would be removed as violation of wiki rules. Though you can easily find articles actually using destination maps, such as Providence or Guangzhou. So now I'm confused and don't know whether the maps are allowed or these articles also violate the rules.
Despite what my user page suggests, I'm not entirely new user, I've been familiar with Wikipedia and wiki culture for years (but I'm not really among the most experienced users either), and also I don't really intend to wage any edit wars, but Peter and I aren't really able to settle this dispute down, and also I'm confused by the latter examples I included. I don't know where else to go, hopefully I'm not asking on the wrong place, if so, please correct me and navigate me where to go, if this is the right place to ask, someone please give the final judgment so this dispute could end. Thank You all in advance, Ondrusj (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Start and end dates all need clear referencing with a source that provides a firm date that the service is starting or ending. A press release from a reliable source (including the airport or airline) is usually acceptable. Links to timetables don't give a firm date. For that reason we avoid adding dates in. We are under no obligation to provide destination lists for airports at all, given that Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, it's an encyclopedia, and the best course of action when dealing with disputes is to withhold content until it can be clearly verified. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is not the right spot to post this. The FAA airport information link is broken in the {{US-airport-ga}} template. This issue was identified and a solution was provided back in November 2017 on the template's talk page, but the change has not been made. When I went to make the change I noticed the warning that said: "Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed.". So I am looking for some other editors to review and discuss to see if there is consensus to make the indicated change. — Archer1234 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time to nominate it and related templates for deletion again. The template adds external links to articles about airports in the United States. The links do not add any value to the articles but provide indiscrimate information which is not encyclopedic including, current weather, live flight tracker, current airport delay information. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or flight planning resource. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MilborneOne on this. Ajf773 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airline destinations maps

IP address user 173.68.125.114 is adding dozens of destination maps to airport articles (particularly in the US) separating into domestic and international destinations. Another user has reverted some of them, and I have followed the lead in doing the same on a few, however before I commit to a mass undo, can anyone point to a particular guideline in this WikiProject that deals with destination maps on articles? Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Destination_Maps_on_airport_pages and before that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_14#Destination_maps with links to more, though a consensus has not clearly been reached. Honestly I kind of like them, though for bigger airports the code to make the map would be too unwieldy, and the red and green markers are not accessible. I don't think it violates nottravel to visualize the information in the table but these aren't necessarily needed since they lack airlines and are another thing to update. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're terrible, and I don't think they violate WP:NOTTRAVEL either. They're a good way to visualise the information, but can easily fall out of date. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata could have been used to help maintain these maps up to date (plus the fact Wikidata is multilingual). Bouzinac (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/50.100.243.102 is currently performing a mass removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Parallel discussion about user conduct had been started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot-like_removal_of_airport_destination_maps ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to show the range of scope of flights from an airport and a map can do that, the problem is you either have a map or a destination table and I understand the current guideline encourages the use of the table not a map. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find the map less not travelly than the tables, since airlines aren't listed. But the introduces another problem in that you can't judge an airlines presence and thus "global influence", if you will. I personally don't see this as a one over the other; both can co-exist. My preference would be a map, with a table showing airline daily departures and do away with the A&D table. Garretka (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable idea - have you any thoughts what the table would look like. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't much, no. I vaguely remember some airport articles as having a "weekly departures" table but after a brief search I cannot recall which articles had (or have?) them.
It need not be overly complicated, just a simple table with a heading of "Airline weekly departures" with the airline listed and the number of weekly departures. I'm sure this information is readily available to be sourced. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a few of the maps from US airport articles recently after one popped up on my watchlist. A map was added to an article about an airport that has service by just one airline to just one city. I prefer the table format, as one can at least get a sense about the importance of a route by the number of airlines operating to that destination. Having a bunch of dots on a map doesn't really convey any useful information in my opinion, whereas a table does. YSSYguy (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'm new to this WikiProject and before coming across this discussion, I wrote a python script that automatically generates a destination map from A&D tables. I really like these maps and wanted to make more of them (I had no idea that this topic was so controversial.) If the consensus of this project ends up being in favor of the maps, I'd be happy to share this tool for creating/managing them. Rfts (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the maps could be at least semi-automatically generated, that eases at least my concerns with maintenance and referencing, as we're generating the maps off of (hopefully referenced) Wikipedia content. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delta focus cities

Question.

Should we really be listing Austin, Nashville and San Jose as Delta focus cities? There is only one source stating as such and it is only mentioned in passing. There is nothing from Delta directly stating as such. I also think the way they are using the term "focus city" here does not match the definition of focus city we have on here. Blissfield101 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

A request to long-standing editors with experience in this project: I've searched the archives, but not had any success - has there been (I'm guessing there must have been) any discussion on the format of the airlines and destinations tables and why listing by airline, rather than destination, was chosen as the sorting category? Would greatly appreciate an editor pointing me to those discussions, thank you.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be curious to know if this has been discussed. It seems to me that listing by destination (probably split by domestic and international) would give a better picture of an airport's connectivity. Conceivably, we could even list destinations only and not mention airlines at all in the tables, thereby better respecting WP:NOTTRAVEL. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably saw from the archives, the format of the airlines and destinations table has been debated a lot over the years, from deciding whether to have a uniform table at all, to listing whether to link to destinations, including airline concourse and gate information (believe it or not), etc. I had to dig, but these discussions touch on grouped formatting: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Before the template became uniform, some airports had both an airline-grouped table and destinations, and some had domestic and international route maps. I do know there was some discussion specifically about switching the grouping from airlines to destinations here along with an example table, but it did not gain traction since it would lengthen the tables and make them repetitive. That's also my hesitation: for hub airports, rather than have an airline listed once with destinations that follow, we would have a situation where, in the case of Hartsfield-Jackson airport, "Delta" would be repeated 206 times (that is the number of cities served by that airline alone). Having it grouped by airline saves that redundancy; the information is communicated regardless since the cities listed are alphabetical and IMO fairly easy to locate. GEORGIANGo Dawgs 01:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgian: - thank you! I assumed it was a complicated discussion...and not planning on getting involved! :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville Int'l Airport protect edit request

Hello and good day. On January 28, in the facilities section, SDF size was changed from 1,500 acres to 1,200 acres, which is correct through FAA data (Reference#1,form 5010). This figure was reverted to 1,500 on 8 June at 5:12, reverted to 1,200 by me on 13 June at 13:31 then back to 1,500 acres on 14 June at 5:08 (check revision history). These editors are using the airport website as their source and in several cases (i.e. BWI, JFK, BOS to name a few) the websites doesn't match the FAA data, which I believe is 100% accurate. The lead paragraph says 1,200 acres, which was not reverted in either case. I can simply change it again, but will be reverted back. Is there any way the figure in the facilities section (as well as being protected in lead paragraph) be changed to 1,200 acres and be protected? Don't want to get into edit wars here. Thank you all for your help and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:2CD2:1DE5:9108:A6B5 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics on airports pages

Hello, has there been a guideline set for statistics on airports ? I've put a graph on a [[5]] and it has been reverted by an IP user "because one shouldn't put too much statistics as per WP:airports". There is however a general bug with the template {{Graph:Lines}} so I won't insist for Linate. But in the future, I'd like to know whether graphs would be allowed or not. Thx. --Bouzinac (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see either of those two edits, and I don't know why a graph wouldn't be allowed - anyone have any ideas? SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content about VOR/DME beacons from airfield articles

Could I request that interested editors comment on the inclusion or deletion of apparently well-cited content about VOR/DME beacons in airfield articles, please?

I have asked an IP editor (User:51.7.34.168) to cease deleting content from numerous airfield stub articles for a while, and to first discuss the matter at one sample article (see discussion at Talk:Rio Turbio Airport). As I know nothing about this topic (having simply arrived via 'Recent Changes'), it would be great to gain a consensus there on whether repeated deletion of this content from numerous articles is OK. Is it "trivial and pointless" as the IP editor suggests, or is it relevant to the articles?

Courtesy ping to Cptmrmcmillan who appears to have made many of these additions in the first place. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have any problem including the information as written. It's encyclopaedic and not so specific that it can be used as a guide by pilots. There's a problem with specific VOR/DME/NDB information, for instance adding in the frequency, as that would fail WP:NOT, but simply stating that it exists shouldn't be a problem. SportingFlyer T·C 02:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has been discussed before indeed; check the history of Kasane Airport for one example. There has been discussion here, too, but I cannot find it back in the archive right now. Concensus was that the mere presence of navaids can be mentioned but that the details (code, frequency, location) are not encyclopedic. I have occasionally updated aerodrome articles accordingly, when coming across, but not systematically. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick Moyes and Sporting Flyer. I don't put in radial or frequency, so someone appropriately has to go to official sources for that info, but knowing the type and distance lets the user judge the navaid's usefulness in finding the airport. A VOR at 60 miles is useful, where an NDB at that distance would be marginal.
The main source for our airport lists is info from other airport lists. Three of the main lists are World Aero Data, SkyVector, and Our Airports. All include navaid data on their airport pages. Great Circle Mapper includes it in map form if it's near the airport. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jan olieslagers's "consensus" on Kasane was three pilots who didn't otherwise appear very interested in the subject. Kasane in fact has a VOR on the field, and is a major navigation point for that region. I let it remain deleted because I had moved on to verifying data on other African airport wiki pages and it wasn't worth the annoyance.
The current dustup concerns Special:Contributions/51.7.34.168 who has mass deleted navaid and map info on 200+ of my recently edited pages. In 71 minutes. I suspect this is a reincarnation of User talk:51.7.229.224, often wrong but never in doubt. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"apparently well-cited content" - verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. The set of things that are verifiable is vastly greater than the set of things that are encyclopaedic. So even if a citation to a reliable source were given, it would not mandate inclusion. But, the citations are to ourairports.com, which is a collaboratively created website. Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable.
"As I know nothing about this topic" - you don't need to. In fact, this makes you well placed to comment. What exactly did you think when you read about the "VOR-DME" beacons 50 miles away from obscure airfields in Argentina? What about when you read about the number of parking spaces they have, or the surface area of the terminal buildings? Did you think "Gosh, that's interesting and useful"?
"knowing the type and distance lets the user judge the navaid's usefulness in finding the airport. A VOR at 60 miles is useful, where an NDB at that distance would be marginal." - what you've said there is meaningless to anybody without specialist aviation knowledge. This encyclopaedia is for general readers, not for anyone with specialist knowledge on a topic. I've just checked the articles on the ten busiest airports in the world; only one of them even mentions navigational aids at all. It does so in an encyclopaedically useful context. That context is totally lacking in every case that I've removed.
I also removed links to openstreetmap.com. They are not useful. See Links normally to be avoided:
Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
The articles all have their geographical coordinates specified, giving a link to numerous curated map sources. The widespread adding of a link to one single map source is simply spamming. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion on this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18#Navigation aids: noteworthy?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18#Matsieng Air Strip. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several days have passed and no further arguments have emerged. Thus, I think the consensus indicated by this discussion and the two previous ones is that the text about "VOR-DME" beacons and their locations is not encyclopaedic. Also supporting this view is the fact that in the articles about the 20 busiest airports in the world, only one even mentions "VOR". If they are not important in articles about the biggest airports, they certainly aren't important in articles about obscure airfields in Argentina. Therefore, I will continue to remove this trivia where I find it.
It seems also necessary to reemphasise some guidelines which the problematic material also violated:
MOS:ACRO - acronyms must be defined when used. It is useless to mention "VOR-DME" without doing so.
MOS:CONTRACT - don't use contractions. "Ident" is not even really a contraction, it's just an unbelievably lazy failure to write out a whole word.
MOS:BOLD - the article title and its synonyms go in bold in the first sentence of the article. No other text does.
Separately, I will also remove map sources from external links sections: WP:ELNO states that sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools shouldn't be re-linked. An external link to open street map is redundant.
51.7.229.207 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussions that I linked to, I saw people saying things like "too specialised and non-encyclopedical", "Wikipedia is not a guide for aviators so navigation aids are not really that noteworthy to mention", "Probably not that much help unless you are a pilot (and you would not use wikidata if you were)", "this has already been discussed and consensus is that they should not be mentioned in the subject article". I'm not the only one who has argued to remove this information; on the contrary, I see only one person arguing to retain it, and the person who started this discussion claiming to know nothing and expressing no real view either way. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove beacons - It is hard to imagine that navigation beacons are ever encyclopedic either on or off the airport, they are thousands of them and I cant think of any of note. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The concensus from previous discussion was that the presence of navaids can be mentioned, but that details like frequencies or ID's are too specialised. Removing the mention altogether is taking things a bit too far for me. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comment surprising because you previously removed such details ([6]) and complained about the person who keeps adding them ([7]). What is the value that you now perceive in mentioning navigational beacons? 51.7.229.207 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously want a consensus on VOR and NDB inclusion, visit Our Airports. It comprises hundreds or thousands of registered accounts of people who know airplanes and airports. It is one of my prime references, and every airport I've visited there has its nearest navaids listed, and with more detail than I have used. The only consensus we generate here is from a handful of editors who've noticed we're having this discussion. The navaid data on these airports is is valid, verified, and pertinent to the airport. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that a consensus to include information here can be inferred from an entirely unrelated website? No, that's not how it works at all. If you seriously believe that, I'm very concerned about your competence to edit Wikipedia at all. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports&oldid=904098676"