Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Tigerair destinations[edit]

Artclie redirects to merged Scoot destinations list instead of TR previous own list, is it ok or sould TR list be restored?. (talk)

Project standards?[edit]

Can someone clarify why there are standards and consensuses to approve them? some years back a simplified table format was decided upon for destinations, yet people are creating new destination articles with old text style list and saying it's still allowed, if it's so, then why the consensus and upgrade to table style list?

btw so far only one person dared to create old text list at Wataniya airways and interestingly my attempts to update it to new wiki standard table list is being reverted repeatedly with project admin support and old textd look is being allowed to stay and we edit warriors are being told to hold consensus on it amongst ourselves while admin deliberate over it, sounds kinda like a joke, deliberate over what? hold consensus on what? its a simple matter of either keeping new style list or old text style, nothing else.

initially edit warrior kept removing former routes but now has relented to include them but in old text list format looking exactly like current route, it was also decided by consensus is text style list days that terminated routes would only be listed by country name in bold non-wikilinked style and city name next to it in regular text but wiki-linked, no airport information or wikilink to be included, so again consensus format being flouted.

anotjer question is why was he allowed to create a separate destinations article listing only 3-4 routes when these could have been easily accommodated in main airline article? be it in old text style list or even table format, ofcourse i would keep putting in the former routes while he kept tossing them out, so flouted another standard again, with project admin support who allowed edit warrior to keep reverting my project standard edits and maintain his ex-standard article, as mentioned initially he kept removing former routes i.e historic data and information which was included with reference per wiki project standard. (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How can you complain about using text style list when you yourself changed a table to a text style list on Swaziland Airlink [1] so why are you trying to act like you are the innocent one if you are doing exactly the same thing on another page. Also you haven't even messaged me about this to try and resolve it, you're just bringing in other users who quite frankly do not care about the situation which is why no conclusion has been made. So if you want to try and resolve it try actually talking to me instead of others who aren't even involved. CBG17 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's comment: Please do not resort to personal attacks. Also, asking for somebody else's opinion (when clearly the dispute does not seem to be moving forward) can't be classified as a bad idea. (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a bad idea if they haven't even acknowledged the person they are having the miss understanding with and tried to resolve it between the two of us but they haven't they have involved other people when it could have been settled between the two of us if they had written a comment on my talk page about the situation CBG17 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Incase you are not aware there is no rule for listing a handful of destinations on main article page, it can be text or table, and WOW! tracking m edits in other articles, i don't follow yours so stay away from mine. (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Creating a new article for destinations in text style list is not allowed, posting a table format list in main article for less than five destinations is nonsensical. (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to see what you're editing there is nothing against this so what is the problem if i want to look at them i will. I only check them to see what rubbish you're saying about me on various pages that don't need to be said. Where does it say that a text style list in a new article is not allowed give me some evidence instead of picking stuff out the air to show thag you are right in this situation. CBG17 (talk) 2:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@ It is perfectly OK to track another editor's contributions, for example if you are concerned about their quality. What is not OK is to stalk them and meddle in their editing just to harass them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not stalking or meddling I'm not a weirdo why would i possibly want to stalk someone or here.CBG17 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware that you are, I was merely clarifying Wikipedia's position with respect to the IP editor's comment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
He stalkd my IP and therefore my edit at Arlink Swaziland, not me stalking him read caefully before you post. (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's plain silly. I presume you are referring to this edit of his at Airlink Swaziland, in which he trivially tidied your edit. That is perfectly normal if one is concerned about another editor's behaviour, it is baked into Wikipedia for very good reason. And don't tell me to be careful, that's even sillier coming from an IP editor who makes unsubstantiated accusations of stalking. If you can't be sensible I am not going to be able to help you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that believes that the consensus for destination tables was to use the simple table format, but clearly WP:ALD has never been changed and allows both formats. I protected the Wataniya Airways destinations article to stop edit warring between the list and table formats. If both are allowed by WP:ALD then it should be up to a talk page consensus as to which is suitable. If 139 is not happy then perhaps we should discuss and see if there is support for changing to just one recommended format. Anybody have any thoughts on this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to have multiple layouts for destination list, initially there was just a single one, text version, there was no need for any kind of table, but now instead of one there are three or four options for table, including collapsible in main airline article. it can handle so many destinations that separate destination articles should have become redundant, there should be a single format for destinations, either collapsible table in the main airline article, OR text OR table in separate destinations article, please standardise. (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
text list continent wise is causing the same problem for Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia as before, some want to list he Islamic ones in Asia the other two in Europe, table format has no such issues.. (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We dont have to use continents in the text list format so not really an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a suggestion on which format that can be discussed and a new consensus agreed as that is the only way to change the current guide. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Text list was always preferred and easy to edit, but people said it looks outdated when elaborate table was created as new option, so simple version of table in use now is best, I would favor just collapsible table in the main airline articles as it would rid unnecessary destination pages from being made but it was never popular, maybe it will be now in consensus, let's see. some people are under the impression every airline needs a destination page as seen in Wataniya case, so unnecessary. (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS[edit]

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I have just been told off for using as a citation source. I don't understand why this is regarded as an unreliable source. I have been using it extensively on a range of aviation projects (including on Wikimedia) and have found it generally extremely accurate and up to date. For instance, in most cases it matches entirely with the Global Airline Guide 2017 (from Airliner World and ch.aviation, ie respected sources). This stance on needs to be reviewed please. Ardfern (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether accurate or not, planespotters is a fansite.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Surely accuracy as a source is important. Don't understand why it being a fansite makes a difference. If by a fansite you mean one kept up to date by volunteers, then it seems little different from Wikipedia itself. Ardfern (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not a valid source on Wikipedia, either, for the same reason: if it's a work that has no central editorial oversoght, then its accuracy is too easily compromised by unscrupulous contributors. Along the same

Lines, don't accept IMDB, as it's now just user contributions, with no actual editorial oversight, but we do accept the Internet Broadway Database, as that has such oversight. The IBDB has a form to submit corrections or contribute missing information, but all such contributions are double-checked by the site administrators before publishing. There's no such double-checking at It relies on other users making quick corrections when errors are present. This is the same model we use here at Wikipedia, but in both cases, there's a difference between end-used reading and formal sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, got itArdfern (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Global Airline Guide 2017[edit]

I have been using the Global Aviation Guide 2017 (from Airliner World, compiled by ch.aviation) to update airline fleets, ie journal citations. When I did this last year someone tried to stop me on the basis that web citations were preferred over journal citations (supposedly being more easily available and checkable). I have had no such trouble this year (so far), but perhaps someone could advise on the position. I find it hard to believe there is a 'preference' for web citations. Ardfern (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Off-line sources are as valid as on-line ones.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that a source is difficult to access makes no difference. A preference for web citations may be the opinion of some editors, but it is not consensus policy or even a guideline. WP:VERIFY and WP:RS apply the same criteria to all sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks.Ardfern (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Surely if a reference is difficult to access then it has no place in the article, the point of a reference is to provide evidence for what has been written but if it can't be accessed how can you tell the reference is correct or not e.g. fleet tables. How will other uses be able to update the tables if the reference provided can't be accessed? just a thought. CBG17 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No requirement for a source to be easy to find it just has to be reliable, in this case the Global Aviation Guide has only recently been published so cant be that difficult to find. You dont need the original source to update the information you just need another reliable source. Just to note that the first Part of the guide can be bought from the so hardly in the difficult to access category. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The answer to the question above is WP:AGF.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The WP:VERIFY policy is quite specific about accessibility. I didn't offer that link for showmanship, but for doubters to read and learn from. This is not the place to challenge it, it has its own talk page for such "just a thought"s.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 00:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)