Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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 airport project.

User removing future routes[edit]

This user (User:Charlesdrakew) seems to have decided for themselves that future routes shouldn't be included and is removing them at various airport pages including Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. Anyone care to intervene? VG31 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hm, not the first time this editor causes annoyance..? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Requested full protection on Sofia Airport (was protected before) and the user refuses to discuss at said talk pages. (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
They also warned @CBG17: on their talk page for 'advertising' when all they did was add a new route. VG31 14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Not much for me to say as everything appears to have been reverted but there's nothing wrong with adding future routes as long as they're sourced properly. SportingFlyer talk 23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

They're removing future routes again: VG31 13:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to intervene, this user is removing future routes again at Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. VG31 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, based my discussion with him on his talk page, I think he's intractable in his beliefs future routes should not be allowed, in spite of the fact we all think they're fine. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually SportingFlyer - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a directory nor is it news or a crystal ball and lots of other things - You may "think the future routes are fine" but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that such detail as is being described here is of very very questionable encyclopaedic value. The only reason you are mostly left alone by the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who edit outside this specific area is that mostly they do not care about such unencyclopaedic trivia and those that do see this as an expedient way to ensure some level of rigor over the "wildwest" task of mirroring airline timetables here. Please consider the likely situation that User:Charlesdrakew might be correct in his view. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with you - there's no reason not to include a future route if it is properly referenced, as it makes it easier to maintain the tables generally, and announced routes have encyclopedic value, especially from new airlines. We should probably have an RfC about this. SportingFlyer talk 03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There's already been enough RfCs relating to destination tables. There's no need for another one. VG31 11:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I have always taken the not travel view and that these lists of destinations are here to show the range of services from the airport. To achieve that we could just have a simpler list of domestic and international destinations served over the years. Something like saying "London Heathrow served 1947-2018" would be sufficient in my opinion. With that in mind it may difficult to argue that adding future destinations is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Charter flights?[edit]

Recently, users has been adding a charter service such as Miami Air International and World Atlantic Airlines to Miami International Airport, but both appear to be private charters (from what I can find). Should they be included? Arnoboro (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they are rarely noteworthy if at all. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So what should be done about Miami Air International and World Atlantic Airlines? Shouldn't they be delisted since they don't operate regular flights? Arnoboro (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
yes - there is virtually no encyclopedic value here. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There seems to be a fair amount of charter carriers on the Miami International Airport article. Someone should clean it up. Arnoboro (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit War at Tiruchirappalli International Airport[edit]

LeoFrank (talk · contribs) and myself are currently involved in an edit war about whether Air India 611, which received fairly major coverage in international news media for destroying the ILS receiver and airport containing wall on takeoff on October 12, should be included in the Incidents and accidents section of Tiruchirappalli_International_Airport. I strongly believe this is a notable instance, but LeoFrank cites the essay WP:AIRCRASH as a reason not to include this information. I think this is badly mistaken, as not only does the incident pass WP:GNG, but WP:AIRCRASH is not policy. Even if it holds true here, the accident passes "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport" due to the damage the airport received. I'm pushing up against three reverts and would like someone to restore the edits I made to the article. Thank you! SportingFlyer talk 10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:N is only about whether a topic merits a standalone article or not. It has no bearing on a topic being mentioned in a another article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that even if an incident meets WP:N, that doesn't warrant inclusion. Without WP:AIRCRASH, these incident sections would be huge. There are countless incidents that receive coverage, but are considered minor in nature and not worthy of inclusion.
In this case, did the aircraft sustain major damage or hull loss? No it flew to a diversion airport. Did the airport sustain major damage? No, a perimeter fence is easily reparable. Garretka (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Garretka: None of the other incidents or accidents on the airport page at this time pass WP:AIRCRASH either, though ("the airplanes almost came close?") - and an airport receiving any damage is rare. SportingFlyer talk 12:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, Aviation Herald (typically a reliable source) has classified it as an "accident" (one short of a crash) and discusses neither the 2010 nor the 2011 incident currently on the page: [1] SportingFlyer talk 12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying there aren't other incidents on the page that don't warrant inclusion because, frankly, there probably are, but that's like using WP:OSE as an arguement. I don't think this incident is notable, and WP:AIRCRASH (even though an essay) does a good job of setting the standard to keep this lists in check. Garretka (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you think this was a notable event? Of the events currently on the airport page, this was the one which sustained the most significant damage to both the plane and the airport - and per WP:SSEFAR, Wikipedia does strive for consistency. SportingFlyer talk 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Will this incident be remembered in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? I don't think so. No major aviation policy changes are expected of it, the aircraft will be repaired, and the perimeter wall at the airport will be repaired. I'm not here to argue the merits of what exists on the page, I'm giving my 2 cents on the discussion at hand. Garretka (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I would argue it will be remembered at least locally 10 years from now, which would be enough for a mention on the airport's page, and may still end up being similar to Emirates Flight 407 (which, while I think is true, may be a bit overdramatic and probably a good time to pause per WP:RECENT). SportingFlyer talk 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:AIRCRASH represents long term consensus and should be respected you really need to make a good argument, way better than you have made, if the current incidents are to remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll give it a few days. I have a feeling this one'll be back around in the news cycle. It's not every day a plane hits something on takeoff. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually bird strikes are very common. YSSYguy used to quote some statistic for them in Australia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: A 1.5m high retaining wall 150m past the runway threshold looks very different than a goose... SportingFlyer talk 13:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with a looming edit war[edit]

There is an anonymous user that keeps reverting my removal of Miami Air International, World Atlantic Airways and Swift Air on Miami International Airport. As I discussed above, I do not believe they should be included because I cannot find any evidence that supports the fact they are a regularly scheduled flights. However, this user is persistently reverting for no reason. Can the page be protected until further notice? Arnoboro (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The right place to deal with this is WP:RPP. I have requested protection. Nevertheless, starting a discussion at the article's talk will help. According to WP:VERIFY, sources must be provided if the verifiability of any material is challenged.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Defunct airports categorisation[edit]

Hello, I've fallen into this Palmyra (Cooper) Airport and wonder if an airport that still have airstrip and where plane can still land on it ==> can it still be categorised as defunct ? Other ambiguous case : a former civilian airport become only military airports ==> it is not defunct, isn't it? --Bouzinac (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Double IATA codes[edit]

Hello, is it normal that both military and civilian airports share same IATA code ? Exemple : AAL for both Aalborg_Air_Base and Aalborg Airport --Bouzinac (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

IATA codes are a mess anyway. Some are attributed to railway stations not aerodromes. Some are attributed to aerodromes long closed. More generally, their 3-letter codes refer to "destinations", not to any one particular aerodrome (or whatever else) so there needn't be a problem - as long as one realises they're a mess anyway. It must be said however that, for the last couple of months or so - late 2018 - the mess is clearing, slowly but yet. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The IATA database shows AAL as Aalborg Airport it is unlikely that a military airfield would have or need a code unless it has civil passenger of cargo flights. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I include @Denis.arnaud: into this topic. My comprehension is that IATA is civilian group of civil airlines so IATA codes should apply only to civilian airports (geographically speaking), and not military. But there is so many military airports with iata information on them so I am in doubt. --Bouzinac (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Military airfields that have civilian flights (BZZ - RAF Brize Norton in England for example) have an IATA code particularly if they need to use charter airlines or airline type ticketing for passengers or the movement of freight by contractors. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Here in BE, the NATO-reserve field of Zoersel (EBZR) still has the IATA code OBL, though it only serves a bit of recreational flying in the weekends. On the other hand the active military bases of Beauvechain (EBBE), Kleine Brogel (EBBL) and Florennes (EBFS) have none, though they do get occasional transport flights, some even by civilian planes. Do not seek for any logic in IATA codes, there is none. Not even to mention Euro-Airport Basel-Mulhouse which has no less than 3 IATA codes for one and the same aerodrome. It doesn't keep the planes from flying .... :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to bring me into the conversation! I fully agree with MilborneOne (talk) and Jan olieslagers (talk). And EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg is an excellent example of the messy way IATA manage those codes, as the EAP code is counter-intuitively assigned to the metropolitan area though it is obviously the abbreviation of "EuroAirport", and the airport itself is assigned both MLH and BSL codes, which are obviously the abbreviations of Mulhouse and Basel respectively. They obviously mixed everything up, and though the error is obvious, they have not fixed it so far. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It is interesting that the topic has diverted to the EAP-MLH-BSL stuff. As Bâle/Mulhouse/Freibourg is a multinational airport (with even a road directly connected to Switzerland without customs), it is clear to me that a French airline doing a Paris/Mulhouse would use MLH on bagage tags and a Swiss airline doing Zurich/Bâle would use BSL on bagage tags, so that the bag would be treated as domestic bag, and their passengers as domestic traffic. However, that logic does not apply to EAP, considered as neutral code, so if anyone has references on this EAP-MLH-BSL stuff, which one do airlines use in practice, it would be welcome. This logic looks less relevant, since France and Switzerland are inside Schengen area.
Anyway, the topic was at first aimed at how to manage the doubled-IATA code for both military and civilian airports: when double IATA code, shall we leave alone only for civilian airports ? Bouzinac (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
In Aalborg I do not see any problem, for once. There is one aerodrome and one IATA code - what more could you wish? It is however misleading that we have two articles about one and the same aerodrome, one article about the military part and another about the civilian. It is however clearly stated Aalborg Air Base shares its runway system as well as some services (Air Traffic Control etc.) with Aalborg Lufthavn. Similar situations can be seen at Eindhoven EHEH and Brussels-Zaventem EBBR, which even has a separate ICAO code EBMB for its military terminal - now THAT is confusing. The one improvement I see possible is to join the two Aalborg articles into one. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I see… All the more messy that I discover some very curious IATA code shown on their website for instance

Perhaps, a qualifier that would state if the IATA code is "noticeable" with real air traffic ? It would help clean data and keep this up to date, and ditch the other pointless codes ? --Bouzinac (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ercan airport or North Nicosia city[edit]

Turks seem adamant on calling the city of North Nicosia as Ercan which is the airport's name, the city's Turk name is Lefkosa, it seems they dont like using it and are dragging the airport name into Wikipedia airport articles, for some odd reason even their airlines prefer to refer to it by airport name than Lefkosa if not North Nicosia. Nicosia on the Greek Cyprus side does not have an active airport so Turks should have no problem using Lefkosa or North Nicosia name for the city, if Greek Cyprus' Nicosia had an active airport than the Turks could have used Ercan or Nicosia-Ercan to differntiate it as is the case with cities having more than one airport. Please look into this issue. (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call the airport ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
MilborneOne, the airport name is Ercan the city's name is North Nicosia, editors are listing the city as Ercan in airport articles, that is the issue here, was Istanbul ever referred to as Ataturk when it had only one airport? (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia calls it Ercan International Airport :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
And the city it serves? whats that called? problem is not the airports name but the city it serves being called that, there isnt an airport in Greek Cyprus so there is no need to use Ercan name for city, the city it serves is North Cyprus202.163.108.183 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"there isn't an airport in Greek Cyprus" that is sheer utter nonsense - enough said, for me. Go raving elsewhere. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
How can you accuse Turkish people of doing this when you don't even know the people editing it are Turkish? CBG17 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Because it seems only they call it Ercan in their political culture. (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Clearly not as wikipedia calls it Ercan International Airport, if you dont like it then make your case on the talk page of that article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Which part are you not understanding?? yes the airport name is Ercan but the city's name it serves is called North Nicosia which it should be listed as in destination lists and airport articles not as Ercan. South Nicosia does not even have an airport that north Nicosia needs to be identified by its airport name, its not a case of Istanbul-Ataturk and Istanbul-Sabiha its just one airport serving the divided part of one city, so the listing should be

and in airport articles table as

  • XYZ Airlines - city BCD, city DEF, city EFG, North Nicosia, city GHI, city HIJ. (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It would seem reasonable according to the project destination listing guideline to use North Nicosia in destination lists rather than the name of the airport, anybody have a view why we shouldnt change Ercan to North Nicosia in destination lists, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are people ignoring this? should North Nicosia article be deleted from wikipedia if a city name is not worthy of use or should cities be listed as Heathrow, Narita, La Guardia i.e airport names? (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has to comment, if after a while nobody has objected after a reasonable time frame then per WP:SILENCE it can be assumed it is not an issue to follow the guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I have change some of them to North Nicosia per the wikpedia article, but they may be more. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm doing the remainder but keep a look out for editor CBG17 he is adamant on controlling the Istanbul Airport article airlines and destinations section plus calling the city Ercan. (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit War at Istanbul Airport[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Istanbul Airport regarding an edit war over the formatting of the articles "Airlines and destinations" section. It appears that edit war involves interpretation and application of this WikiProject's content guidelines, hence I would like to invite members of this project to contribute to the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Sarandë Airport[edit]

Looking at the Sarandë Airport article, and checking satellite imagery, I doubt if it still exists as an aerodrome. Shouldn't the article be suggested for deletion? Or at least updated? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would support deletion, I can't find any independent links about the (current) airport, just links stating they want to build a tourist airport. SportingFlyer talk 09:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

List of busiest airports by passenger traffic[edit]

Currently I am working on an expansion of that list, attempting to trace data back to 1919. Quite astonishing, that is rather easy for 1926 to 1939 and from 1975 on, as complete data is readily available. But the time between, for which the "List of busiest airports by passenger traffic" (worldwide) is more or less the same as a "List of busiest airports by passenger traffic" in the United States, the situation is different. The FAA statiscal publications for that time contain full passenger data either only a handful of, I guess rather arbitrarily chosen US airports, or a complete set of data of passenger departures only. Anyone here wo is more familiar with US air transport statistics? Or are there privately published data on that topic? Or could a FoIAR be helpful?--Antemister (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot really be bothered, but this sounds like one more example of US-centrism. What are the sources for the "readily available" data? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Also ich bin Deutscher;-) For that period of time, civil aviation was actually very US-centered and is not a bias here. The ready-made data comes from the ICAO, its annual Civil aviation statistics of the world contains the data from 1975 on, and the Airport traffic annual from 1962 on has data for airports with significant international importance which excludes of course many US airports. For 1939-1960, only few non-US airports achieve similar passengers numbers, besides London and Paris probably only Stockholm and Zürich for the immediate post-war period and later maybe Frankfurt, Rome and Tokio, see [2] for 1966. The FAA statistical handbook of aviation includes, as mentioned only scattered data for some large US airports, and the Airport activity statistics of certificated route air carriers has only dat on departures. That's why I ask here.--Antemister (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Referring to Istanbul Airport in destination lists of other airports[edit]

I see that the new Istanbul airport is listed as Istanbul–Havalimanı on many airport articles. That won't work because "Havalimanı" apparently just means "airport", but there needs to be a way to distinguish it from Istanbul Atatürk Airport, especially for airports where there are flights to both. What should it be replaced with? Some ideas in my head: Istanbul–Grand (as it is referred to as while under construction), Istanbul–New (another commonly used name), Istanbul–Arnavutköy (naming after the district it is located in), what else? Note that the airport will continue to need disambiguation even after Atatürk closes (RIP), because Sabiha Gökçen International Airport will continue to operate. feminist (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with just referring to it as Istanbul Airport since that's it's English name? Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Because of the confusion with Gökçen (and Atatürk before it's closed). feminist (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
No, Istanbul Airport, Istanbul-Ataturk, Istanbul-Sabiha Gokcen, dont see any problems. (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I cant see using Istanbul Airport as a problem, it is linked to the airport article if anybody is that confused. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I can see the O/P's point, and will admit there is something to it; but imho nothing really serious. We all seem to agree Atatürk is to close before long, no issue there; and as I understand Gökçen is and has always been and was always meant to be a secondary airport to this big city. So Istanbul Airport primarily refers to Atatürk today, and to the new airport tomorrow. As long as Atatürk remains active, the new airport can be disambiguated as "new" ("Yeni"), as is the case on openstreetmap, for one example. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, it needs still disambiguation, for instance Paris has one very big airport, CDG, and one relatively smaller, ORY. It is still needed to say either Paris-CDG or Paris-Orly. I suspect it is the same case here for Istanbul. --Bouzinac (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a need to say "begins" and "ends" in every destination table with Istanbul service. Service is not ending to Istanbul. I would prefer to see "Istanbul Airport" with a footnote stating service is currently to Ataturk but will move to the new airport on XX date. Garretka (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What about airports currently with service to both Atatürk and the new airport, or even to all three Istanbul airports (as with the case of Ankara)? Plus this is for destination lists, these links don't normally include "Airport". feminist (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively could just leave it as Ataturk with a footnote. Such a change is hardly worth mentioning as I explained previously. Garretka (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Istanbul–New for me sounds good.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not "hardly worth mentioning" when there are currently flights to the new airport. Istanbul New Airport is already operating, albeit with only a few destinations. There needs to be a way to mention both airports without confusion at least in these few airports. So... should I change all instances of Istanbul–Havalimanı to Istanbul–New? feminist (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a tendency to overthink solutions to problems such as this. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a directory. The encyclopaedic need provided by the destination tables is to indicate the sphere of influence connections to and from and from an airport have. It is not necessary to be 100% accurate or clear that is what a directory does. Airport articles (except the one or two specific ones) are not really concerned with the situation with changing airports in Turkey and any solution must balance this situation. Personally I would use the age old idea that needless disambiguation confuses more than it clarifies and just leave it simple. Instanbul - Ataturk and simply Instanbul (for the new airport) Andrewgprout (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone object to changing instances of Istanbul–Havalimanı to Istanbul–New? Istanbul–Havalimanı is problematic as it is ambiguous. feminist (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

While I do not absolutely oppose such a solution this is not a long term solution - The intention if I am reading it right is that the "new" airport is deliberately being called by the Turkish authorities Instanbul Airport. Us simply saying simply Instanbul serves the encyclopaedic need and is likely to be well understood in the long term by those who care and ignored by the vast majority who don't, as said above Wikipedia is not a directory or guide. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
At the contrary, it seems to me to be the "least unfortunate" way to go. Still it is not a long-term answer, as pointed out above. But nothing keeps us from modifying again, if/when the situation changes. As we will have to, in my view: I cannot help expecting the new airport to get some fancy name at its inauguration, instead of the bland and very un-Turkish "Istanbul Airport"; which will necessitate updating our articles anyway. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be simply per article title Istanbul Airport now that New has been dropped from name, Havaliman means airport so its weird to list it as Istanbul-Havaliman. (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Preferred formatting for destination table references?[edit]

I recently added a reference column to an Airlines and Destinations table which has turned into an edit war with another user claiming it's not on the project's "airport content" page listed, though many of our good articles include the reference column. Is there a preferred version of the A&D table now? SportingFlyer talk 02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For an example, see McCarran International Airport#Airlines and destinations (with reference column) compared to Melbourne Airport#Airlines and destinations (without). (I'll add one to Melbourne if we think there should be one.) SportingFlyer talk 02:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No it is not a good idea - all adding a seperate reference column does is attract bad usually useless generic references (which are already implied anyway) to airline websites which do not fulfill the requirements of WP:V - while such references could be considered better than nothing these references if present often are used as an excuse by many to delete valid specific detailed secondary references, which is a bad thing. If you think a general reference is warrented for an airline in the table the correct place to put such would be after the airline name in column one. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Same thing happened with me at Indira Gandhi International Airport. @Andrewgprout: Could you point out where it mentioned in the project guidelines not to use a 3rd column for refs or to avoid them? It's an obvious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Most destinations of an airline have a generic source, which is their schedules unless a new route is published as an article by routesonline or any other news article and even in the airline dest list articles (list List of Emirates destinations), many destinations have a separate column for refs and most of the destinations are sourced with the airline's schedule page. As such, per this RfC, a searchable flight schedules' link is also allowed. Going by what you say, we need to probably do away with the destinations table itself. IMO, the 3rd column is a good placeholder for refs related to destinations and it does not make sense to add them in the 1st column.  LeoFrank  Talk 04:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the RfC results, all general references do (booking engines or dynamic links to the airline home page in particular, explicit timetables are fine in my opinion) is encourage original research. References supporting specific destinations should remain inline by the detail that ref is supporting to make it easier for the user to verify. There are a few comments at Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport#Timetables which raise additional concerns with a general ref column. Garretka (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This is more about core policies rather than project guidelines - @LeoFrank: of course the project guidelines don't say not to have a third column they also don't say make them all purple or write them all in Russian either - the guidelines not saying something is not a good idea does not make it a good idea. Verifiability means each fact added to Wikipedia must be verifiable this is nearly always done by an inline reference, if needed, directly after the detailed fact - that is what inline means. Can you please explain why you maintain it is not a good idea to place a generic reference in the first column this is the obvious inline place to put a generic general reference when following the norms of Wikipedia as a whole. And yes the genericness of sources is one of the things that makes the tables' encyclopaedicness questionable to some people. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Garretka: I am not saying that once there is a 3rd column, we should include only general references. Route specific refs should be sourced if available. But the question here is, what about the routes served which do not have a specific reference? This was argued in the RfC and hence the outcome was to allow even searchable schedules. Agree that to some extent, it would encourage WP:OR, but how do you tackle this? Perhaps by completely removing the dest table or to just list the airlines operating out of an airport?  LeoFrank  Talk 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Understood. There are many users out there who do not get that, however (the availability of a general reference means they can remove specific). I'm not sure how to tackle the OR issue except for strict removal of unsourced or sourced with booking engine route starts and stops. Explicit references for routes beginning/ending is already a project requirement, I believe. Removing the tables is probably the best solution, but that's going to be treated like a live grenade and I'm not going to be the one to throw it. Garretka (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't there a recent discussion regarding general referencing of these tables, or am I losing my mind? SportingFlyer talk 06:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17#Referencing is the discussion you're thinking about? Garretka (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It would be better to replace these tables with a summary in text with inline citations, further avoiding the problem of the tables purporting to be current when I doubt that even three quarters are up to date and there is no need for a current guide. Another approach would be to replace them by an external link.SovalValtos (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Charter/nonstop flights[edit]

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)

Agree on both -- Whats new?(talk) 09:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

Wikidata text dumps[edit]

Huge amounts of data from wikidata are being dumped on List of airports in foo talk pages not sure it helps anybody at the project, has this been sanctioned anywhere? MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really sure what the info is meant for and can't really see a need for it. Garretka (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Nor is wikipedia a reliable source. Cheers. --Bouzinac (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The data I believe comes from wikidata not wikipedia so I am not sure why that is relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I just removed the bot spam and this (only on the Canada page) which causes the bot to spam the pages. Bouzinac if you want that information then keep it in your user space. Don't have a bot spamming and bloating talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of Nautical Miles in lead section[edit]

I looked at Leeds Bradford Airport, noticing what I felt was an inappropriate convert template, showing nautical miles first (then kilometres, with miles last), seen thus: "...6 nautical miles (11 km; 6.9 mi) northwest of Leeds..."({{Convert|6|NM|lk=in}} northwest of [[Leeds..).

I then looked at Luton Airport, as a control, finding the same: "...located 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km; 1.7 mi) east..." (located {{convert|1.5|NM|lk=in}} east...).

As a further control/comparison, I looked at Heathrow Airport, finding that it was the same, up until this edit by Martinevans123 dated 16 September 2016.
*It had previously been raised at Talk:Heathrow Airport#Non sense useless and inaccurate sentence: Heathrow lies 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) west, dated 6 December 2014. The same sentence however continues to give the area as kilometres-first and needs to be uniform.

*Has there been any discussion regarding standardisation of formatting?
*Is there a presumption that international pilots would look at the intrinsically-unreliable Wikipedia, and that there is a convention that NM used in avaiation should dictate what is a general encyclopedia?

I could just change things, but my anticipation is that a 'regular' would knee-jerk press the 'undo' button. Thanks.-- (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a general encyclopedic not a pilot or travel guide so would not expect general distances to lead with nautical miles (or in fact use nautical miles at all!). You mention British airports you have to remember that there has been many disuputes about using metric first or imperial first despite the fact that the general reader is capable of working it out for themselves if you give both figures. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I can see that nautical miles might be relevant for aircraft wanting to fly between airports. For most other people wanting to know how far they are e.g. to drive by car, or just generally as geographical features, I would assume miles are more relevant. That's why I changed nautical miles to miles. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I have amended Luton to be uniform.-- (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)



I think there is some work to ensure consistency between airport article title. For example, Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport omit "London" in the article title, whereas London Southend Airport does not. Similarly, Istanbul Atatürk Airport and Istanbul Airport include "Istanbul", whereas Sabiha Gökçen International Airport does not. Could someone please clarify?

Thanks ElshadK (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

They're based on the actual names of the airports and what they call themselves. Heathrow and Gatwick don't actually have the word London in their names, it's not what they're called, whereas London Southend Airport is the actual name of that airport. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But Sabiha Gökçen calls itself Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport (look at their logo) ElshadK (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from their website they only refer to themselves as Sabiha Gökçen, never with Istanbul in it which they would if it was the name. The self same website always refers to Istanbul Atatürk and not just Atatürk, but never Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"Template:Airports in France" major vs minor international[edit]

Hello. I'm coming here to ask something related to this revert. While in a previous edit I said that I added the airports to major international because of the passenger number, the IP address account that reverted my edit said that what I did is a "guideline violation", because "its not the passenger number, its the importance for the country" that matters. I would like to be pointed to that guideline article that specifies this and be proven in a short, but clear way how those airports are minor and not major international. I see a prevalence of international routes on their (Nantes and Basel/Mulhouse airports to be precise) articles and, as I said, they are too in the top 10 most frequented airports in France in 2017, similar to how Bordeaux is, and no one has withdrawn that from major international category. As that IP is not a registered user account, I'm asking someone here. Thanks. BaboneCar (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I would ask the question what is the purpose of making the split between major and minor with all the controversy that goes along with this. It seems to me that this distinction serves very little purpose and the two categories should be merged into one "international" grouping. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Andrewgprout just use international. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
What is an international airport? I often see airports calling themselves "International airport of city XXX" and having almost no patrons at all. I would prefer a ranking like "Airports with total passenger>1M" // "Airports less than 1M passagers yearly" etc … --Bouzinac (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
An International airport is one that has scheduled flights outside of the country as opposed to domestic flights for inside the country. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)