User talk:DB/Archive/Civilized Discussions

Special Branch

Hi Dbinder I noticed your edit summary to list of intelligence agencies. Perhaps you'd be interested to take a look at the lengthy discussion at its talk page. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Dbinder. Hope your input can help resolve the dispute. :-) — Insta ntnood 21:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Northwest international gateways vs. focus cities

Hi, thanks for your edit on the focus cities. I agree with you about that. I added those cities only because there were some there that I didn't think were already some cities (like SFO and JFK and HNL) listed there which were gateways and not more. And once I added those cities. I was considering that I had made a mistake by placing them there.

If we look at all the AS flights that connect to SEA and PDX flights to HNL and NRT, that kind of makes them look like focus cities as well as gateways. But I think that if we are strict about applying the focus defnition, then only MKE and IND are focus cities, not PDX/SEA with their AS code-share flights.

What do you think about another category in the table for international gateway cities which are not hubs? For instance, SFO is a gateway city for NW, but a hub for UA.

Airline infoboxes v lists

Notice quite a few of these getting added, and then edited to remove the "redundant" code & callsign info in the list based format (in particular for CSA Czech Airlines). Do you have a pointer to some background on this? Wangi 13:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the BDL thing

most airport destination lists I've seen on wikipedia only use Hartford. And I'm generally in favor of keeping destination lists as short as possible - people have already complained that there sort of long and unsightly and possibly should be removed. My general impression is that most people just refer to the airport as Bradley, rather than any city name. And entering the code BDL into a bunch of online price comparison pages, I got 4 that list it as Hartford, one that lists it as Hartford/Springfield, and one that lists as Windsor Locks. Anyway, like I said, if I thought the destination list were a place where being long and more precise was better (such as the page of the airport itself), I would definitely advocate including Springfield.Rdore 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast!

So, what brought you to my talk page? I agree with you, the affair is rather comical... Thanks for thinking of me! Paul Klenk 15:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get it; thanks for replying. If you can think of any way to help, let me know. Paul Klenk 15:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bold text in oneworld (airlines)

Hi, I just read your discussion in the talk page and subsequent decision. I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusion that it "can be formatted for first use". First, I'll admit I don't agree that this should apply to font sizes or bold or italic text, unless, as the style guide says, "it has to". Second, and more importantly, it contradicts with Wikipedia:Style#Article_titles, which says that the first use of the title should be in bold. I think this section is pretty clear, and I think it is an important convention to keep Wikipedia consistent. I agree with another user that the formatting is clearly displayed in the logo, which is also at the top of the page. I didn't want to just change it back though. Your thoughts? --Renesis13 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD votes

Hello,

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers with my comments about the AfD process. In the short time that I've been observing AfD's - a couple weeks or so - I've noticed that groupthink is a common problem. Starting off the discussion with a redundant Delete. doesn't seem to me to do anything to alleviate that problem; it may worsen it. Since AfD is not a majority vote, there's no reason for the nominator's opinion to be counted; assuming good faith on the nominator's part, his opinion is assumed to be obvious (in favor of deletion), and its grounds verifiable by others (or else he would not be submitting it for consideration).

WP:AGF is fine as far as it goes, but by the time that deletion of an article and all its past edits are being considered, that guideline is being weighed against many others. Many of the articles that get deleted on AfD were actually originated in bad faith; occasionally even an AfD is submitted in bad faith. Because of this, I would submit to you that AfD is not a part of Wikipedia where it is safe to assume good faith all the time. In this, indeed, it differs from the main namespace, where article editing rests on the assumption of good faith.

I appreciate your devotion to Wikipedia and its various policies and processes, whether we continue to disagree or not. Ikkyu2 09:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for your information, I don't know which AfD you were involved in, and I have posted similar comments in a few AfDs. I've tried not to leave such comments in any AfD in which I have either voted or have an opinion as to how the vote should go. This is my way of trying to act in good faith. -Ikkyu2 10:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: G.W. box

Could you give me the link, I didn't know about it. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops....I meant where is the link of what Jimbo said about this. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Articles

Dbinder, you're right, those SGpedians have their own way of writing an article. I don't deal with illogical people. But so as to be clear, I made an explicit notation in both Wikiprojects that the articles of Changi Airport and Singapore Airlines are not part of the project, thus, not standardized. Elektrik Blue 82 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Airways: Russia/Russian Federation

Hi, I'm just wondering what difference does it really make it if Russia or the Russian Federation is written. I just think it's a bit odd to editing an article just to change the name from Russia to the Russian Federation since the country's article is under Russia, and 90% of the references made are to Russia, not to the Russian Federation. edolen1 16:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I can agree with that. It was just that I did take a quick glance at some other articles and the 4 or 5 articles I checked out all had Russia, not the Russian Federation. edolen1 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CX and ANC

Dbinder, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't WikiProject Airlines show that only passenger destinations should be listed in the page? If it is not a passenger destination, then a separate heading is needed? If it is just a technical stop, it is not a destination, as people cannot disembark from the plane. I believe it is misleading to say that Anchorage is served by CX but then, one cannot actually fly out of ANC on CX. Elektrik Blue 82 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Tarom edit

Hi there! I'm talking about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarom&curid=164036&diff=43056681&oldid=43056491 Can you please point me to this standard you mention? TIA! --Vlad 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your answer. Far from me to want to change the infobox, as long as right on its page it is clearly marked:

This template employs some extremely complicated and esoteric features of template syntax. Please do not attempt to alter it unless you are certain that you understand the setup and are prepared to repair any consequent collateral damage if the results are unexpected. Any experiments should be conducted in the template sandbox or your user space.

What I simply wanted was you, as an old & experienced member of this wikiproject, to point me to the rule saying we cannot alter what is written inside the template, by separate elements by commas or by uniting them with an "and". First I've fixed the space around the comma, you took it out; then I've put an "and" because there were only two secondary airports, so "1 AND 2" and you changed it again with the message "infobox standard".

Whereas I'm pretty much interested by airlines, aviation, airplanes etc. I'm afraid I cannot commit to a wiki project (I don't even have time for that on my base wikipedia, the Romanian one :) But thanks again for inviting! --Vlad 10:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now! As I haven't checked other airports, I didn't have the global view. As it is really minor, it's fine as it is now! Thank you for all the time & patience. --Vlad 10:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens?

Dbinder, I wonder why you say that London airports do not need hyphens, when the multiple airports of Paris, Rome, Osaka, Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo, Rio de Janeiro, etc have hyphens? Elektrik Blue 82 14:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DL and BOS

Hi DBinder -- in response to your changing back my edits RE: Logan Airport and Delta: the last press release I could find is from January 2006, in which Delta spokesperson says that Boston "continues to be an important focus city." In January of 06, the Sky Magazines didn't have Boston listed as a Hub airport in its information in the back, nor did it have the airport on its route maps as a Hub. I flew Delta a few days ago, and the May edition of Sky now has: 1) Boston in large, bold font on its map, the same as ATL, CVG, JFK and SLC; and 2) Boston Logan as a "HUB" in the next setion, in which airport-specific information is listed. Any further thoughts? Thanks. Trevormartin227 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airline destinations

Hi. I realize that you changed and then reverted my revert by removing the bolded country names in Europe subgroup of above article. You allege yours is standard. Can you please advise where it is written, so i can learn more. If you can not, I would ask you kindly to revert your modifications. CeeGee 20:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you failed to check your own reference. Please see Canada, Mexico etc. under your reference. They are bolded. CeeGee 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines destinations

"(cur) (last) 19:28, 21 May 2006 Dbinder (reverting move of PR and USVI)"

No. How about "U.S. territories"? I will NOT accept PR and VI in the "Carribbean" header because you are implying they are international flights when they ARE NOT. WhisperToMe 22:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines - I say that different territories should be treated differently depending on the territory's relationship with its "mother country". And no, not all territories are equal in this matter.

A Mainland U.S. to Puerto Rico flight is considered to be a domestic flight. Puerto Rican aviation is dictated by the FAA and other U.S. governmental agencies.

A Mainland China to Hong Kong flight is considered to be an international flight. Hong Kong has its own aviation agency.

WhisperToMe 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, British Territories are considered international destinations according to British carriers. I did a search for a British person coming to the Cayman Islands using this tool: http://www.emirates.com/TravellerInformation/before_fly/visas/visainformation/timatic_visa/visa.asp

Anyone who wasn't born in the Cayman Islands requires a passport.

The Cayman Islands has more self-autonomy than Puerto Rico and therefore should be treated differently. Cayman Airways is registered as a Cayman Islands air carrier while all Puerto Rico-based air carriers are registered as United States air carriers. This picture [1] of a Prinair plane reveals that it is U.S. registered (the "N" stands for the United States) WhisperToMe 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skywads

Hey there. Just curious as to your proposed merge with Skywards and Emirates Airline and Sri Lankan. There are other frequent flyer programs which have pages and I think there is enough info to have its own page. Merging it with Sri Lankan and Emirates would raise the amount of infomation on the pages to large amounts, and if it is the same for both Emirates and Sri Lankan, why not have its own page? Just wondering your thoughts.-User:Coolmark1821:50, 20 June 2006 (BST) Okay cool. So what would you like me to do to merge it. Just a paragraph on the program? A talk about the membership status? I dont know. I spent today doing it So I'd like to finish it off and know its all done. lol. Sad I know.-User:Coolmark1822:31, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Nbsp

Hi there! Regarding this, could you please enlighten me how to enter a non-breaking space without using an HTML entity? How do you later find out a space you see is a regular or a non-breaking one? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response! The purpose of the non-breaking space in this particular case is to prevent a situation when "St." remains at the end of one line and "Petersburg" wraps to the next line. It looks very disruptive to a reader when it happens, and, of course, there is no way to predict whether or not it will happen or not. Please note, that WP:MOSNUM, for example, specifically advises to use the non-breaking space between the numbers and the units of measurements. "St. Petersburg", of course, has nothing to do with MOSNUM, but the situation is very similar, and so is the purpose. Considering that the links to St. Petersburg are usually piped ("[[Saint Petersburg|St. Petersburg]]"), it is already confusing enough to a total newbie. More experienced editors, on the other hand, would normally be perfectly aware what a non-breaking space is.

Hopefully I was able to convey my approach. I realize that this is hardly a major issue, but I felt that I should have explained anyway. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airport name, country or state?

I wonder if this is something that needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports to get a consistant look. I see that there are some like Portland Airport (Australia). But then there are others like York Airport and the potential Norwood Airport. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)

You are probably right about the country being more recognizable or recognisable that the state. Some would always have to be by the state/province, etc. Such as Deer Lake Airport (Ontario) and Deer Lake Airport (Newfoundland), which should be Deer Lake Airport (Newfoundland and Labrador). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be best. In some cases it's not too much of a problem, see London Airport, as the airports have different names. I had a quick look and have not been able to find (yet) anything that would require name, state and country. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

787 infobox (continued)

Sorry if I came off wrong; I'm not attacking or accusing you of anything (although I kind of wish the infobox had been a less intense shade of green). Please note that I've not removed the boxes a second time. I'm simply asking - since some other users feel the infobox contains useful information, and because I think it could be worked into the article more smoothly - that you work with the project. If you don't want to, that's fine. We'll figure something out.

I'm not the only one in the project who dislikes infoboxes, but as I'm a web designer who works with semantic code and web standards, I'm the most vocal about it. Because the Wikipedia is addicted to infoboxes, I need to be vocal to make the reasons understood. For example: adding the boxes, particularly to the 767 article, really messes with how pages look in the browser - I'm not sure if you'd noticed or checked. This is my biggest issue with them, that they force wikipedia editors to write and lay out their pages around the infobox rather than the other way around. Images, additional tables, headers - they all get forced around by the table. They're also inaccessible to less-able readers, a group which I feel the Wikipedia should go out of its way to accommodate in ways a print encyclopedia never can.

As writer, I feel that the information you'd placed in the infobox might as well be threaded into the introduction rather than presented as a standalone block. Some of the information you've added to 787 (in particular) contradicts what is in the main body: launch is scheduled for 2008, and the 3 is short, not medium-range. As I already said - I'm not going to remove them again. If or when you (or someone) else ever integrates them better into the articles or cleans up the infobox (which is why I dropped a message to user:xmnemonic, cleaning up wikipedia tables is what he does) then I'll do what I can. Again - sorry for the miscommunication on my part. -eric ✈ 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we've gotten this worked out. The wikiproject doesn't have any real rules by a long shot, mostly replacing them with opinionated loud people, so thanks for agreeing to work on how the information is presented. For some examples of some articles we in the project have been able to really refine, check out B-36 Peacemaker (ex-Featured Article) and PBY Catalina (ongoing). -eric ✈ 17:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss & South African

In regards to your question about LX and SAA joining the Star Alliance, I read a thread on airlines.net stating the move, must've been a rumor. But according to UA's website the two airlines will be joining on the 31st of this month, with codeshares beginning immediately. We can edit Star Alliance page then. Apologies if my message is in the wrong category Jendeyoung 07:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text in oneworld

replied Thanks/wangi 14:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline articles

Wow. I was only trying to remove a single external link, I have no idea how all that happened. Sorry about that. // Pathoschild 23:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, would you mind telling me why you replaced my user page with text from my talk page? // Pathoschild 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Alliance

Hi there, just looking for an explanation of this edit. When you go here, it says (in the bottom left corner) "Air Nova is proud to be a part of Star Alliance". I could be missing something though. Thanks! Ouuplas 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. I think Air Nova was independent at the time that website was made though. Air Canada bought them in 2001 and merged it into Air Canada Jazz. I'll let you deal with it though. Thanks, Ouuplas 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same dbinder?

Did you work as a summer intern at PatientKeeper in Brighton? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a spooky coincidence. I had written a script (in sh, natch) to select usernames randomly from Special:Recentchanges, fetch their user page, and count the userboxes. (No, don't worry, I'm not a fanatic on either side of that stupid debate; I'm just trying to collate some hard data on actual usage.) While debugging it, of course I had to fetch some pages by hand to check the counts, and yours was the first that came up. (My script correctly counted 10. :-) )

As you may know, I'm not at PK any more; and as you may also know, it's in Newton now.... —Steve Summit (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dig deletion debate

Howdy. I didn't mean anything by removing the AfD notice, I only took it as vandalism since the starter didn't open a discussion. My bad - RPIRED 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oneworld

Hi, I saw that you followed a couple of my edits on Oneworld capitalization. I have two comments. I personally am fine with the "first instance" rule, but I don't think the MOS really "allows" this. Do you think we ought to work this into the MOS? Second, would you be ok with only allowing lowercase "oneworld" when the instance is bold-able, such as the the first line of an article (Oneworld or Oneworld destinations) or the template? I still think it looks weird and is more against the spirit of the MOS when it is lowercase in inline text with nothing to make it stand out. -- Renesis (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AerOasis destinations

How come you merged it into the AerOasis article, the consensus in the afd was to keep all of these? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the consensus was to keep the data, that doesn't mean all of the articles have to be kept. There were some comments on moving some of the really short lists back into the airlines, and there are a few that really don't need their own separate articles. The separate page is created to avoid cluttering the main article with the list, but if the list has only 10 or so airports, it's not necessary. DB (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just making sure you weren't just some renegade unhappy with the results, ha ha. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ratings

I have been following the guidelines on the airport project rating page. As was pointed out, these ratings are subjective, and the explanations are still very vague. As a very large international airport, I am going with airports above 15,000,000 passengers/year. Some of the airports I upgraded to "top" have far more than that number, such as Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta, etc. Maybe the deliniations in ranking need to be clearer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gittinsj (talk • contribs) 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]