Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the airline project.

Article nominated for deletion[edit]

Please note that I've AFDed List of Sriwijaya Air Group aircraft. You may share your thoughts here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Gallery in fleet list[edit]

I recently removed a large gallery of images in American Airlines fleet as normal practice is to provide a link to commons for images. User:TheJack15 has questioned the removal as he understood that a decision had been made previously to include such galleries. Although I believe that we should follow the Wikipedia:Image use policy which discourages galleries. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

While I also actively trim images from articles, it doesn't seem entirely off base to have more than one image in a fleet article. In this case, I'd definitely get rid of the unneeded dupes (here there are four A319/A320/A321 images, two A330s and three 777s) and bad photos. Maybe keep one of each of the most representative types (in the case of American, 737, A320, and (still!) the MD-8X). This discussion might be more appropriate at WikiProject Airlines. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not saying we dont need any images just not in a gallery format per the image use policy, a bit like Malaysia Airlines fleet is probably OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree in not including aircraft images in fleet tables. We have Commons for that.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Red[edit]

I just proposed for deletion new article on Virgin Atlantic Little Red which is a brand and not an airline, it has been challenged with the other stuff argument pointing to Aer Lingus Regional as another brand with an article. On first sight the Aer Lingus Regional one should really be redirected to Stobart Air as it just duplicated most of that article. The Virgin Red stuff is already covered in Aer Lingus and Virgin Atlantic so I dont think an article is needed, any thoughts? Also I dont thiink they should use the airline infobox as it is probably misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think the infobox is misleading then I'll be happy to remove it. As for Little Red, it has received sufficient 3rd party coverage to fulfil WP:GNG and also being a brand that operated from Heathrow as competition for BA, should cover the requirements in WP:ORGSIG as well. Just because it is a brand doesn't mean it can't have it's own page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It is clearly notable enough to be included in the Virgin Atlantic and Aer Lingus pages but I proposed deletion because it was just a brand for ticket sales, the leased aircraft were in standard Virgin Atlantic colour scheme so the branding didnt spread to the actual aircraft unlike Aer Lingus Regional. I will probably take it too AfD as I still dont think that it needs a stand-alone article but I am just waiting for other opinions on it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually they did plan to spread to the planes as this source attests. I have to reiterate that just because it is a brand, does not mean it isn't automatically non-notable. Yes it may not be under WP:INHERITORG but under WP:GNG it defiantly is as it has have the neutral 3rd party coverage from the BBC and several national newspapers to merit its own article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I dont think anybody would say it was not notable thats why it is mentioned at Aer Lingus and Virgin Atlantic, being notable doesnt give something a free ticket to a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A vague reference to how the slots were acquired, the trouble with loads and stopping the service is hardly covering the same level of detail that the individual Little Red page does. It would either make the Atlantic and AL pages unwieldy if it was all put in the other articles or only have limited information about it if the reference in the Atlantic or AL pages are all that is taken to cover Little Red. I think it is much better to leave the Little Red page independent so that the optimum amount of detail of it can be maintained and expanded upon. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I am happy to wait and see how the article develops and perhaps consider a tidy up the comments that it was an airline as it clearly was not and for example it says the A320s were returned to Aer Lingus which would have been hard as they were operating by them all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanilla Alliance[edit]

New unreviewed article. Can this alliance be compared to Oneworld, SkyTeam and Star Alliance?--Jetstreamer Talk 21:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really it just appears to be a cooperation agreement at the moment, it may develop into a proper alliance but doesnt look more than a marketing thing at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Name and format help - Loganair Westray to Papa Westray route[edit]

I just created Loganair Westray to Papa Westray route, an article about the world's shortest scheduled commercial flight, but there is very little guidance on how to make an article about a flight as opposed to an airline or an aircraft. The few articles about notable scheduled flights (usually about the world's longest flights at one time or another) don't seem to have any uniformity. I used the airline infobox (sparsely) and did my best for the formatting. I have particular difficulty with the title, which currently implies one-way service, but everything else I try just gets more convoluted. These flights go by 12-13 different flight numbers. Any suggestions? Dcs002 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; I hope you nominate this for DYK! Regarding the titling, my suggestion would be to drop Loganair from the title. My reasoning is that this is the shortest flight regardless of who operates it, and this source indicates that it is a contract route that could be awarded to others in the future (even though it may be unlikely). I also think that the use of the airline infobox doesn't contribute much to the article, but I'll continue that point on the article's talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Removing the airline from the name would leave "Westray to Papa Westray route", which would need something to say it's a flight, or air route, as opposed to the much slower ferry route. "Westray to Papa Westray flights" has a little more zing than "Westray to Papa Westray air route" IMO, but both still suggest one-way travel. Maybe "Westray to Papa Westray and return flights"? Still clunky I think. You're right though about the contract nature of the route. Only Loganair has ever flown the route, but it's offered up for bidding every 3 years, so it lacks permanence. I got rid of the infobox though. That was just a bad idea from the start. Dcs002 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran Air[edit]

We have a lot of passionate editors who keep adding the intended order for Airbus aircraft to the Iran Air fleet table, they dont appear to understand it is an agreement to discuss an order and the actually orders have not been placed and are not expected for a few months. Appreciate if others could keep an eye on the article please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Full protection is the better choice here. I'm filling a request at WP:RPP.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It is still a bit like pushing water uphill. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
My request at WP:RPP was declined.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying unfortunately I am WP:INVOLVED so cant do much myself. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines destinations[edit]

Can someone please take a look at the article? Ottomanor (talk · contribs) has been adding two future destinations with no exact dates as required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that it has been removed by another user. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does Air Serbia have a separate article?[edit]

Its simply Jat Airways rebranded not a new airline, if historic JAT-Yugoslav article could be retitled Jat Airways then the latter article should be renamed Air Serbia, can they be merged? that said even Aeroput and Jat Airways article needent have been seperate, since Aeroput was the same airline just the name was changed to JAT-Yugoslav when it resumed operations, should post USSR Aeroflot also have a seperate article?139.190.165.199 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)