Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

New RFC for Airline destinations tables

We need to do a new RFC for Airline destinations tables as the old one was from 2018. So we can find what the current Wikipedia community views are on them being included. CHCBOY (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking that we should wait a few months before doing the new RFC, just because we've had a lot of discussions on the topic recently. We can plan the RFC here and make sure it's worded properly. Sunnya343 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, no. We just did this about six months ago and it was messy like it always is. I'm not sure why we need to keep having this RfC every year to always get the same result.... ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually that was for Airport specific tables not for the individual airline destinations tables. CHCBOY (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

AH, I see. I mixed up what you meant - my apologies. Ironically, I do support an RfC on this subject. I think it would be smart to plan a well worded RfC, but we may not want to wait too long as a lot of "List of XX Airline Destinations" articles have been showing up at AfD and may need to be recreated depending on the RfC results. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed very true. Are you any good at starting one? CHCBOY (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like people including me realized at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 3 that having more AFDs is a time sink, so I don't think there will be more. I started the last two AFDs and won't be doing any more for that reason.

This is arbitrary but how about doing the RFC in July (3 months after the last AFD)? Though we could start planning it whenever. Sunnya343 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems ok to start in July. It's only 6 weeks away from now. CHCBOY (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How would a new RFC be useful to improve the Airline destinations lists? Axisstroke (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It will help finding a consensus by users on Wikipedia of what can be included in the list. CHCBOY (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you all think of the proposal below for the RfC question and background? Pinging frequent contributors to the past discussions: CHCBOY, ChainChomp2, Rosbif73, Reywas92, FOARP, Lifetimelucid, SportingFlyer, Coastie43, Jetstreamer, and Pmbma.

Question: Do lists of every current and former destination of airlines violate WP:NOT?

Background: Wikipedia currently has 187 stand-alone lists of airline destinations. Other lists can be found within airline articles, e.g. T'way Air § Destinations. An RfC on this topic was held in 2018; the closing summary stated that Wikipedia should not have these lists, with the main argument being NOTDIR. A subsequent AN discussion advised editors to follow the AfD process and closers to take the RfC into account. From May 2023 to February 2024, 26 AfDs resulted in the deletion or redirection of over 260 lists.

In March 2024, however, an AfD to delete 153 lists was closed as No Consensus. At DRV, some people raised concerns about the age and limited participation of the 2018 RfC and described the recurrent AfDs as a timesink. It was suggested to run a new RfC as a de facto AfD or DRV, with every article tagged with a link to the discussion. Though I have tagged all the stand-alone lists, I favor uncoupling this RfC from the AfD process because some of the articles contain prose. The prose would first have to be copied to the parent article, and then the list would have to be redirected rather than deleted. So if there's a consensus that the lists violate NOT, I believe a few more bundled AfDs should be held to make sure the articles with prose are handled appropriately.

I phrased the RfC question this way based on my review of the past discussions, where it appears that the crux of the debate is the applicability of NOT. I also think this is the best way to address both manifestations of the lists: 1) embedded within airline articles, and 2) in stand-alone format. NOT influences both (1) and (2). In some of the AfDs, people also made arguments based on notability, but these only apply to (2) and don't preclude merging the lists into the parent articles. Indeed, the main policy basis of the decision to delete, not merge, those 260+ lists was NOT.

Note: Other people notified are WT:AIRLINES, WT:NOT, and the participants in the 2018 RfC and subsequent AfDs.

Sunnya343 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In general, I think people on wikipedia can be too keen to use WP:NOT as a reason to forbid something. I see WP:NOT as a guide to avoid excess in a particular direction, and not as a prohibition from something even starting or existing in moderation. We can however provide *summary* information, particularly if this is difficult to find elsewhere on the Internet.

As an example, wikipedia is not a travel guide - that's a nice way of saying we should not start giving out detailed timings of when an airline flies between two cities.

Commercial companies have an interest in over-inflating their importance. Airlines as an example like to talk how they and their partners can take you to hundreds of places if you're prepared to change airplanes multiple times even if an airline actually has just 10 airplanes of its own. This is the kind of thing where airline destination tables on wikipedia can do a good job of providing transparency where commercial interests prefer to disguise reality, and where wikipedia can be useful. Airline websites however do a good job of saying clearly what time flights go on a specific day between 2 cities and are generally transparent on detailed timings.

The line between "what can wikipedia do well and what other websites do better" can be a good guide of the boundary as to when WP:NOT should or should not apply to stop us getting into minor detail. Wikipedia has a constant battle between those who seek to add trivial info and those who want to delete important info. I think keeping the current who-flies-where-but-not-when tables has been a good balance in providing summary info that can be difficult to find transparently without us going down the rabbit hole of becoming a travel guide or doing what airline websites can do better. Pmbma (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there are many other good reasons for deleting these articles other than just WP:NOT and this question is almost custom-written to deliver a “no” result. Focus on the articles and what’s wrong with them, not trying to get a result (EVERY article in a class violates NOT) that Wikipedia is constitutionally incapable of delivering. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This crap again. There's nothing wrong with an article on historical airline destinations if it's properly sourced. The problem was most of them were not properly sourced, not that we should exclude an entire category of articles from the site. SportingFlyer T·C 07:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My idea is to specifically address the practice of listing all of an airline's destinations, not about whether there should be articles on airline destinations. For the latter, notability comes into play and is going to be article-dependent (ie. is WP:GNG met, etc.). This RfC would be focused on the lists themselves, whether they're in the parent article or in an article called "List of ... destinations". I will work on modifying the background to reflect this.

If my proposed question is felt to be too narrow/constrictive, an alternative could be: "Are lists of all the current and former destinations of airlines acceptable content for Wikipedia?" Sunnya343 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ryanair Page Setup

Notifying Cagliost with this. Hello, all. There’s been a back-and-forth the past few months over at Ryanair and I was hoping we could get the wider Wikipedia aviation community involved for feedback/consensus. Originally, and for a long while, the page had a single infobox (following the Template:Infobox airline format). Recently, a 2nd infobox was added for the parent company. I feel as though this isn’t really needed, although other editors disagree. Most people going to the page are most likely going to read about the airline, not the parent company. Additionally, plenty of other airlines have parent companies that we don’t have full infoboxes for. Airlines such as Allegiant Air, EasyJet, Avelo Air, etc. don’t have full infoboxes for parent companies. I feel this bloats the page and the information can be included in the article rather than taking up infobox space on a page for an airline, but I wanted to hear the thoughts of others. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Ryanair, the article deals with the group company and the airline Ryanair DAC. They are in the same article because the DAC predates the group, so it is more natural to deal with the company history in a single article.

Your proposal to combine the infoboxes causes some problems. It puts the Ryanair DAC CEO in the "key people" field, but ignores the CEOs of the other subsidiaries. It lists the subsidiaries in the same box as the Ryanair DAC callsign, which is misleading/incorrect.

"Most people going to the page are most likely going to read about the airline, not the parent company." This is a red herring, and, I think, false. Most people don't know the distinction, and those who do, may well want to read about both. In any case, you have been populating the infobox with group info rather than DAC info.

What do you think the advantages of a single infobox are? The claim that it "bloats" the page is false, since it's the same amount of information, just split (correctly) between two boxes. cagliost (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Cagliost but I have to agree with VenFlyer98 on this one! It's unnecessarily clunky and inconsistent with the vast majority of other airline articles. If there is enough appropriately sourced history and detail relating specifically to the parent company that it needs an infobox, then it should probably be split off into a separate article. We have an article on Air France–KLM, the holding company that owns both Air France and KLM, but both airlines still have separate articles.

Whether a reader who looks up an airline is also interested in the parent company will depend on the individual and context. It is a poor rationale to deviate from a standard format. Besides, the Template:Infobox airline already has a field that allows us to wikilink to an article on a parent company. Per MOS:INFOBOX, less information contained in infoboxes generally serves the purpose of summarising the key facts most effectively. Using multiple infoboxes to try to clarify the relationship between two separate entities seems to go against the intent of the MOS. Dfadden (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy with Air France-KLM works. Are you proposing to split the Ryanair article into separate articles for Ryanair DAC and Ryanair PLC? I don't think that's a good idea for the reason given above (makes company history more confusing to have separate articles), see also the discussion about it at Talk:Ryanair. cagliost (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

An alternative I considered was to use Infobox Company for the holding company. But this wasn't ideal because it lacked certain parameters like fleet size. I assert that using one infobox is *more* clunky because it forces us into either saying falsehoods (like Ryanair DAC has a fleet size of 500+, or Ryanair Group has a callsign), or leaving information out that is better in the infobox than in the article.

I suggest that, as a starting point, users proposing a single infobox should clarify whether they want it to be for Ryanair DAC, or Ryanair Group, and then we will know what information will have to be removed. cagliost (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting a split of Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings PLC into separate articles and I acknowledge your comment that _{[...] I don't think that's a good idea for the reason given above (makes company history more confusing to have separate articles)}. However, that is very subjective. My proposal also addresses those falsehoods that you mention about callsigns and fleet sizes, but more importantly it reflects that the two companies are separate entities with different functions - the holding company is concerned with group finances and assets and provides oversight to make sure policies are consistent between with brand identity and strategy across subsidiaries. It does not provide any services to the travelling public. The DAC is a subsidiary company that is responsible for the day to day operations of running an airline like scheduling, route development, maintenance and customer facing functions etc. As they have distinctly different functions, it makes more sense to treat them as separate entities! Dfadden (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, then you'll have to propose the split on the article talk page! There has already been a bit of discussion on this. I don't think your proposal will find much favour, and I think you should reconsider. The case of Ryanair group is really not much like that of, say, Air France and KLM, two companies with independent histories.

In the meantime, I'll leave it as two infoboxes. Again, if someone wants one infobox, they should clarify which they want to delete, the group or the DAC. cagliost (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of two infoboxes, because the content of the one infobox with the headline "Ryanair Holdings" is factually wrong:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryanair&oldid=1225036503

• The IATA code of Ryanair Holdings or of every airline of the group is not FR.
• Same for the ICAO code and callsign
• Ryanair Holdings was not founded 28 November 1984; 39 years ago
• Ryanair Holdings did not commence operations 8 July 1985; 38 years ago
• The parent company of Ryanair Holdings is not Ryanair Holdings
• The founders of Ryanair Holdings were not Christopher Ryan, Tony Ryan and Liam Lonergan

Having two infoboxes helps the reader to understand the difference between the airline Ryanair and the group. 2A01:599:215:4135:9:DE38:A4E2:F58A (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary source concern at WestJet Encore

A couple months ago, WestJet Encore, a featured article, was tagged with several "Primary sources" orange banners. Is anyone willing to address these concerns on the article's talk page? If not, this may be sent to WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Join WikiProject

Hello, somebody please provide me a link to sign up to WikiProject Airlines. I am a member of the Aviation WikiProject, but I can't join WikiProject Airlines. BuddyHeigh (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Participants page? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tulpar Air

As it stands, this article does appear to be notable. I could find no English language reliable secondary references. The only primary source I could find is the airline's website (https://en.tulpar.aero/structure/tulparaircompany). However, mid last year, a new editor removed a bunch of text and foreign languages references. Could someone from this project assess whether those deletions should be reverted, or the article should be PRODed, or something else. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)