Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (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 airport project.

Terminated airlines and routes[edit]

Rather than remove this fro, airlines and destinations table, shouldnt they be reatained with references? maybe add a dark grey colour band to show them as terminated as was done in airline destination lists previous format. (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is probably referenced we dont have to remove terminated destinations - wikipedia is not a travel guide and should reflect the history of the airport. Making them a different colour would do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Several articles on airlines (and airforces) have a chapter "fleet" and another chapter "previous fleet", and that seems to work well. Why should an article on an airport not have separate chapters on "routes and destinations" and "Former routes and destinations" ? If we go for such a scheme, it would best have a standard layout, possible fields include "city/airport" , "operator", "aircraft type" , "date started" , "date ended". Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
That information is already included in some airline destination lists. In my opinion, we should focus on improving these articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Including Aircraft type and frequency starts to border on WP:NOTDIR, which would be of no interest to most folks (especially the casual reader) except for the Airplane gunzels. Personally I wouldn't agree with this as this starts to overbloat the Airport article with a directory that's only useful to the airplane gunzels and not the average reader (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that airport articles should contain more information about past destinations, but adding former destinations to the destination tables definitely isn't the best way to do this. Mixing current and former destinations would cause a lot of confusion and would mean that the destination tables could no longer provide, at a glance, a key to how well-served the airport is at the present time. Another issues is that information about former destinations is not readily available for a lot of airports, so attempting to list all former destinations of an airport would almost always result in some destinations being missed. By incorporating it into the existing destination table (or, to a lesser extent, any table) a perception is created that it is an exhaustive list of all former destinations, when this usually won't be the case.
It also needs to be considered whether all former destinations are notable, especially for major airports which have been operating for half a century or more. I think a written summary of the destinations served over time would be sufficient, focusing on the most significant routes (ie: international, long distance, high frequency, historical significance...) while avoiding listing every single destination served. However, if a table is used to display former destinations, it should be separate from the main table and should contain information such as start and end dates to provide more context and useful information than just a list of former destinations. OakleighPark 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. Notable terminated services may be noted, but listing all is excessive for major airports. Just think about how many airlines no longer exist. A listing of all terminated routes for most major US airports would be massive. AHeneen (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on testing this on CVG, which most know is a massively reduced Delta hub (like 700 to 100 daily flights). I currently have not transferred the list to the actual page, but plan to do so soon in order to see how it works. I have made it into an "Ultimate airlines and destinations" list, separated from the regular list. In an effort to keep the size down, I have listed the flights under the airline's Mainline (i.e. Delta Airlines, American Airlines, while including any regional carriers under the connection carrier (i.e. Delta Connection and American Eagle. I have also included the most recent terminal/concourse for the airlines, instead of listing every single place the airline operated from the airport. I have chosen to left out ending dates, because it gets quite impractical for large and current operating airlines. I am considering adding a ending dated to airlines which have ceased operations to the airport instead of specific destinations. Overall, I have found this to a very interesting idea, especially for reduced-hub and de-hubbed airports, such as CVG, PIT, MEM, CLE, STL, ect. Please leave me any comments, and when I actually upload it to the CVG article, please feel free to add to the talk page for suggestions. Stinger20 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted the former destinations list on CVG, and it seems to have worked well. It is long, but I do not feel its is too long, and there have been a lot of routes cut at CVG, so it would most likely be smaller for other airports. There is a great source for this, if anyone is interested in doing this for other airports, (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a few comments and suggestions about the implementation of the table; hopefully it doesn't come across as too negative because I think it's great that former destinations are getting the coverage they deserve in airport articles:
  • It's potentially confusing that the format of the former destination table is identical to the format of the current destinations table; I think the former destinations table needs to be visually distinguished from the current destinations table.
  • It's unnecessary to list current destinations in the former destinations table, as it increases the length of the table without adding any new information.
  • Listing the most recent terminal/concourse former flights operated from is confusing, as the flights in the table will have ended in different years, when different terminals/concourses were open/closed and potentially had different names.
  • Start and/or finish dates for the flights (or possibly just the airlines themselves) would add a lot of context to the destinations in the table and make the information a lot more meaningful for the reader.
  • My feelings are mixed as to whether it is notable to list all former destinations, or whether including a summary of the information in prose is more appropriate; in this article it seems as though the former destinations table is disproportionately long, but this may be an exceptional case, due to the fact that the article is about a downsized hub.
OakleighPark 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to remove current destinations from the former list, which for sure makes the list much shorter, but I also feel that it was nice to see the whole extent of service in one table. Here is the list on CVG, but I wanted to know how people feel about this. The topic of destination lists was brought up below, in the bottom talk page and former destinations were made. I am not sure at this point if making one unified table of present and past routes, or making them separate is the best approach. If they were one, we could star or change the color of current destinations. Let me know what everyone is thinking.Stinger20 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, after reading some comments on the discussion below, to make clear about this specific approach, this former destination list idea is not intended for all, if not most airports. The main purpose is to effectively show how major airports such as CVG, PIT, CLE, MEM, ect. have been dramatically reduced, which has a huge impact on that particular region, and key information to its history. This project is for a very select few airports, which have gone from 500-700 daily flights to less than 200. Also, to solve problems discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 8#Former Airlines and Destinations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Should former airlines and destinations be included in airport articles? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#History, former flight routes and defunct airlines, these routes are all cited and proven from historical flight guides. I am excluding many small regional airlines that did not have an impact and only talking about large airlines that made a meaningful presence to making CVG a very large airport. I am even suggesting that airports such as STL and BNA would not even get a table like this, because although they were dehubbed, still have a significant presence by other airlines. Stinger20 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Thought you might be interested in this. I made a former table at Belfast International Airport. What do you think? (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice! I think that lists like this could work for small airports too, especially looking at this example, as it is not a long list, but is useful to such an airport because previous destinations are more important. For instance, adding this table at Atlanta would be a mess, with it being ridiculously long. Thanks for making the table, and INCLUDING SOURCES, which I think will be the thing most users question whom are in opposition to adding these lists. Stinger20 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Thank you. I need to find sources for the terminated Jet2 route and Aer Lingus routes. It is also possible that I may have missed out on a few airlines, so will improve on that. (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey all. Late chime in here. This issue has been discussed years ago. Former destinations and incredibly difficult to source in their entirety, and can be confusing. They serve no true purpose. Better ways to illustrate the level of service an airport once had are using numbers of passengers, etc. What I suggest is putting the former destinations list on the article's talk page, like it is for Bradley International Airport. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of destinations of airlines?[edit]

At WP:ANI I had previously filed a case about User:*AirportUpdater*. (My IP has changed) But the disscussion got to taking the destination lists away from articles, most of these editors were unfamiliar with this project. I dissagree, but first, lets try and generate consensus. (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: I think the destination lists should most certainly be kept. The Wikipedia is the only place that lists the destinations of airports, yet, some airports have reached GA status. Here are some examlples:

A planespotter wants to choose the best airport to planespot from, he has a choice of Gatwick or Heathrow. He looks on the internet for spots, then comes here to find out what airlines go there. He in the end, chooses the airport with the most airlines.

What would happen without the destination lists? (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that destination tables should be removed. The airlines and destinations served are some of the most important and significant pieces of information about an airport and the table format is the easiest and simplest format to display this information in. People keep citing WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK to argue that they should be removed, but I don't see how information about airlines and destinations constitutes a travel guide in any way, as it is not presented for the purpose of helping people book flights, but is instead supposed to give information about the operation and function of the airport. How can an article provide a thorough overview of an airport without showing which airlines it is served by and which destinations they fly to? Many editors are also saying they should be removed because they constantly require updating; but as long as there is a sufficient group of editors who are willing to do this, then how is this an issue? The WP:Airports community is, in good faith, attempting to keep the airport articles detailed, accurate and up-to-date, and inevitably there will be some editors who see this as pointless or meaningless, but that doesn't mean the information doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Ultimately, having airport articles without listing the airlines and destinations would be like having sports team articles without listing the players; although some people would consider the articles to be 'complete' without them, the article would be severely lacking in context and would be missing the most relevant and meaningful information about the subject. As for the issue of citations in destination tables, this is probably something that needs to be discussed and consensus reached, because it is currently very inconsistent between individual articles. OakleighPark 12:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Names of airlines, maybe terminals they operate from: rarely change, compact, easy to source. List of each airlines' destinations: changes frequently, impossibly bulky, hard to source (probably requiring primary sources), and leads to arguments about whether a change of flight number at some intermediate stop means there is or is not service from Foobar International to Melbourne.
These articles are grossly overdetailed in many places. Example:
At the time of its completion, the JFK tower, at 320 feet (97.5m), was the world's tallest control tower. It was subsequently displaced from that position by towers at other airports in both the United States and overseas, including those at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, currently the tallest tower at any U.S. airport, at 398 feet (121.3m) and at Suvarnabhumi International Airport in Bangkok, Thailand, currently the world's tallest control tower at 434 feet (132.2m).
Nothing after the first sentence serves the reader's understanding of JFK airport. (In an article on a warship, gun statistics tell us something about strategic positioning of nations. But airports don't move around and fire at one another from their towers...) It's fancruft. EEng (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and look! Let's suppose I want to know about Pittsburgh_International_Airport. I'll be more than well informed about every aspect of its current and past facilities in the minutest detail. For example:
American Airlines has its Admirals Club on the mezzanine level of the airside terminal. It is accessible by escalators in the center core area. Before a post-9/11 restructure of routes (effectively dehubbing Pittsburgh), US Airways had three clubs. The other two clubs were located on the upper levels of the A and B terminals. British Airways also had a lounge area in the C terminal during their transatlantic flight operations from Pittsburgh (1980s to fall 1999). Their lounge room is still there intact but now closed off.
Yes, that's what the reader needs to know -- the former locations of now-closed clubs by an airline that doesn't even exist anymore. It's hard to believe the bit about escalators isn't conscious self-parody, but apparently it really is not. EEng (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sarcastic statements like this are not constructive, nor are broad criticisms of the editors in this WikiProject. You can't attribute every single statement on every single airport article to this WikiProject; the majority of WP:Airport editors would probably agree that the sentence about the escalators should be removed as it is unnecessary information, so criticising the entire Wikiproject over it is unnecessary. Additionally, just because 'you' don't see the relevance or significance of a certain piece of information, it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or significant; the tallest airport control tower is definitely worthy of a mention in an article, as are the airlines and destinations served from the airport. It appears as though the majority of editors demanding that destination tables be removed have very little understanding of either the Wikiproject or the subject matter, and their demands for removal seem to be based on personal preference instead of objective analysis of whether it is notable or not. OakleighPark 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, these sarcastic comments are highly constructive, because they bring into laserlike focus the bizarre amount of fancruft in these articles. I didn't have to look around for the stuff about Admiral Clubs -- my eye just fell on it. Everywhere one looks one sees similar nonsense.
Yes, the tallest tower is worth mentioning. Even the fact that it was the tallest at the time of construction is worth mentioning. What's not worth mentioning is the names and heights of two other towers (one domestic, one foreign) which have rendered it no longer the tallest tower. Here's what that passage should say:
JFK's 320-foot (97.5 m) tower was the world's tallest for XX years.
Period. 10 words instead of 70. See how simple? EEng (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that many people would consider information about airlines and destinations to be 'fancruft', and you've given no explanation of why you think the content is non-notable. I also don't think that many people would consider making sarcastic and snide remarks to be part of improving Wikipedia, and the discussion will be much more civil if everyone abides by WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If you think that the destination tables should be removed, you need to give clear and logical reasons supported by policy (and this doesn't include adding vague links to policy without explaining how you think the policy is relevant to the situation). Broad and unexplained criticism of the Wikiproject as a whole is only going to cause arguments, and I'm fairly sure that no one wants that to happen. OakleighPark 10:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of vague links to policy without explaining how you think the policy relevant, you might skip the vague link to ASSUMEGOODFAITH since no one's doubting anyone's good faith, just their editorial judgment. As to your desire for an explanation of why destination information is "non-notable", here's a vague link: WP:NCC, which explains that notability is a test for article existence, not for article content.
Every time you defend this silliness I'm moved to make another random probe into one of these articles to see whether the incredible bloat is just my imagination. It's not. Here's more soporific overdetail:
PIT offers on site parking operated by the Grant Oliver Corporation and patrolled by the Allegheny County Police. Grant Oliver offers usage of a GO FAST Pass account to pay for parking electronically at the airport. Go Fast Pass customers may register their E-Zpass transponders to use with the system, although billing and other aspects of the system are entirely handled by Grant Oliver. There are regular parking shuttles to the Long Term and Extended lots that can be accessed from the Baggage Claim level of the Landside Terminal outside doors six and eight.
Yes, that really helps the reader understand this airport: who runs the parking, who patrols it, and how the billing works. And that doors six and eight are the way to get there. EEng (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur, EEng. Borders on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tiderolls 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In what way? I don't see how the destination tables breach WP:NOTDIRECTORY; could you elaborate on how you think the tables fall foul of this policy? OakleighPark 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to say here that anyone who is unfamiliar with this project will agree, but then. What will happen? (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP airline service list, REMOVE flights to and from. example:airport A has airlines X,Y,Z.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to remember that the destination lists in airport articles are there to show the range and extent of destinations served (both presents and in the past (although we are not very good at that bit)), not as a travel guide, not as a spotters guide but something to show the scope and extent of services, which is why they dont have to up to date, just reliably referenced and dated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting an overall feeling like there are two different groups of people arguing over this issue. Group 1: Airport Editors. Group 2: Non-airport Editors. I, myself, am an Airport Editor who strongly agrees with having the lists of destinations for each airport. As previously stated above, us airport editors are committed to keeping each page as accurate as possible and we constantly check these destinations charts to make corrections when necessary. They are there because these charts are the most important stat of every airport page. Without them, every airport page would definitely be missing something important. I think it is vital that we keep these destination lists and keep trying to improve upon them. There is also a discussion here on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports regarding former destinations charts which I also think is a great idea. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Former destinations? Are you kidding? EEng (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AirportUpdater. If this cruft is seen as important by a small group of editors, one solution is to split off and make your own project focussing on trivia like the stairways serving former transit lounges of defunct airlines. On this project we have policies which preclude including trivia like this in our articles. A small group of editors with a specialised interest do not have the right to change a long-established consensus about material included on articles. --John (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, John... you agree with who (or whom, for the sticklers in the audience)? EEng (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP accidentally forgot to mention was that several editors at the ANI were that the airline and destination lists don't have references. Keeping or ditching the lists is one thing but if they are being kept then they should be sourced. The relevant piece is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item 10. However, that does not forbid the use of references. MilborneOne. We don't include former airlines and destinations as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 8#Former Airlines and Destinations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Should former airlines and destinations be included in airport articles? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#History, former flight routes and defunct airlines. And *AirportUpdater* please don't turn this into an us versus them thing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Us versus them thing" was never stated and is another false accusation. I simply said that there are two sides to the argument. One side happens to be the airport editors who are supporting keeping destinations/route charts because they are very necessary to each airport page. The other side happens to be editors that aren't that familiar with airport pages, therefore, they believe that these charts aren't that important and these pages can go without them. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this project, but made one or two comments in the AN/I.
Is flight information against WP policy? The scope is clearly defined and limited, the data is complete, it's not a random selection, no DIRECTORY or endless list. It doesn't match any of the descriptions under WP:GUIDE as far as I can see.
Does it need inline citations? per WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". likely to be? No, there's nothing controversial. But if it's challenged a source must be added.
Are primary, self-published sources allowed? per WP:RS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:V: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities,.." (see conditions).
Just my two cents.
Maybe add a "last checked" date so people know how current the data is. I don't see any reason to remove it. For 98% of people it's the only information they are interested in, yet that's the info we would exclude? Ssscienccce (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
About the former destinations piece, if you read the above discussion, the current project on adding these tables is aimed for specific airports, most notably CVG, which has gone from Delta's Second Largest hub and 700 daily flights, to the smallest domestic hub for Delta, with under 100 flights a day. CVG was the #2 hub for over 35 years, so it was not like it was a brief event and was home to Comair which basically brought about regional flying. For these reasons, the former destination list is very meaningful on airports like CVG, and would probably really only be effective on a few other airports such as MEM, PIT, and CLE, but that is debatable to wether even they should have such a list. The destination lists, both present and former (for mainly CVG and maybe others) are very important to the page, giving an important insight and accurate view of the service offered to a particular airport. Although there are not references on every single edit and destination, many users frequently check the flights with official flight guides and quickly revert IP and other users who try to add illegitimate routes. Also, a common practice of citing routes beginning or ending in the future has been used across most airports and there is no reason to remove this info. Lastly, who cares that the articles are over-detailed, as long as it is sourced, it is still a fact, and who knows what it can be used for by someone. Why on earth would you remove info, unless it is unsourced, which then it should be removed, if the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge for free online.Stinger20 (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The airlines and routes should not be deleted because they are essential to gauge an airports connectivity, which is a very notable aspect of an airport. That said, I do agree that the current destinations need to be referenced (per WP:V). AHeneen (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus is to only keep references for charter flights. We also need to keep them for scheduled flights. (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To this respect, the ongoing discussion regarding the AfD for airline destinations should be exactly the opposite, i.e. remove destinations from airports, as they are almost totally unsourced. We can keep a record of current and terminated destinations at articles covering destinations for each airline. At this very momento, the outcome of this AfD keep all and I don't think this will change.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
But by only having information about destinations on the airline destination lists, it doesn't show the range of destinations flown to from each airport. Without a list of destinations, how would a reader easily know that, for example, London Heathrow Airport serves a much greater range of destinations than London Southend Airport, or that Dallas Fort Worth Airport is the primary airport serving Dallas, and that Dallas Love Field is much smaller? (I'm sure that anyone who hasn't heard of one those airports before, and decides to click the link, will find the destination table useful for gaining an understanding of the size and significance of the airport.) The current lack of sourcing needs to be seen as a completely separate issue to the debate about whether or not the destination tables should be deleted, because the sourcing could be improved so there's no need for deletion to occur over an issue that is easily fixable. OakleighPark 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Former destinations are a good idea for airports such as Donegal Airport. But bigger airports...? We'd need something new. (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Destinations are easy to source, even when they change frequently. It's not difficult to keep up with current changes, and we've done a great job at it thus far. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of control: BOS-CUN: No flights in November and not seasonal?[edit]

There is a controversy by multiple, mostly IP editors, who insist AA's BOS-CUN is not seasonal because it runs more than one "season". FYI, there is no flights for the whole month of November. This is ridiculous to me! Can we have a consensus on a basic principle that anything that is less than year-round is therefore seasonal? HkCaGu (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What we need to discuss is how long does a flight not operate in order to be considered a seasonal flight? Some flights do not operate for 3 or 4 months every year but they consider them seasonal. We need a consensus on how many months does not flight not operate to constitute a seasonal service. (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree that BOS-CUN should be listed as seasonal. Many of AA and UA's flights (typically American Eagle and United Express) have the same predicament. If a flight is not operated (such as BOS-CUN) for a whole month (in this case, the whole month of November, for crying out loud!), then it should definitely be seen as seasonal.
When implementing/deciding whether or not flights are seasonal, I think it's best to list flights as "seasonal" when the flight(s) are un-operational for a minimum of 2 ~ 4 weeks, respectively. EnRouteAviation (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Continuing in this vein then, AA is suspending BOS-BUF and BOS-PIT for nearly 3 weeks from December 17, 2015 to January 4, 2016 (inclusive). Should those routes be listed as seasonal? Should there be any sort of annotation on those destinations? They're definitely being reinstated on January 5 and I assume AA intends to continue running them the other 49 weeks of the year. BeIsKr (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In this case, a simple (ends MMM DD, YYYY, resumes MMM DD, YYYY) should do it. BTW, the BOS and CUN situation seems to have stablized now, and I've found a decisive and definitive wording at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT that anything not year-round is seasonal. HkCaGu (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not trying to be difficult here, just clarifying in case I come across this. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the situations. When the above two routes "end X date, resume Y date," why is that not "anything not year round," i.e., "seasonal," by your definition? Is there is a distinguishing feature between those routes and the BOS-CUN route? Is it that the BOS-CUN flight is marketed as seasonal, but the BOS-BUF/BOS-PIT routes were temporarily stopped for some non-demand reason? Or is it that going forward, the routes will be 52 weeks a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim0101 (talkcontribs) 19:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Are these OK for removing a route?[edit]

Lately, I've noticed editors removing airline routes, with the following edit summaries:

It's not on their airline timetable
Flights are not on sale anymore
It's not bookable on their website

Are these ok edit summaries for removing routes? Or should they include a source? - DragTails - 16:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

IN MY OPINION, if we are talking about a charter flight, these summaries are totally wrong. However, if we're talking about a scheduled flight opereted by a major airline, we can remove it if it's not bookable anymore on internet. Of course who removes these flights must provide a source (also just airline's website), to show that he's right. Wjkxy (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Man this project is weird. Nowhere else on WP does anyone demand a source to remove something. WP:BURDEN and all that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither an edit summary of your liking is required.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, edit summaries are a good courtesy. Maybe what was meant was to at least explain why to remove it, but there should be no need to present an actual reliable source proving the lack of route. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Airlines do not always publish sources for adding/removing routes. (especially for subsidiary carriers such as American Eagle, United Express, SkyWest Airlines, Horizon Air, Delta Connection, Air Canada Express/Jazz, etc.) Normally, most of these editors rely on good faith. If the route that is added/removed is clearly seen as vandalism, then it can be removed from the wiki-article without having to add a source confirming this. In other words, it would be practically impossible to find a source that validates any flight that is not published within the media. EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If it is not possible to validate via reliable sources then do not add. If someone added without a proper source, you can mark the edit as needing a citation with {{cn}} tags. Wikipedia requires sources for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - DragTails - 22:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

LAX to MNL (Philippine Air Lines) layovers/stopovers?[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this is not a reliable source (, but I'm seeing that PR flight 113 flies from LAX to Honolulu and/or Guam before arriving in Manila. Can anyone confirm/negate this? Thanks! EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, the best source is the airline's timetable but PR doesn't seem to have one. However, if that flight exists I don't think the airline has traffic rights on that sector.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
From personal experience, PAL (Aka plane or passenger always late) flies via Honolulu but that would fall under WP:OR. I flew PAL so much in the 1980s and not surprisingly have a ton of stories from it. Swarms of bees in the airport terminal to a woman offering me her services, to what was a sure wire way to get some airport security guards to close and return your luggage quickly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
According to and, PR flight 113 operates LAX to MNL nonstop. It may be that PR113 has a technical or fuel stop at either GUM or HNL before continuing on to MNL. But if this is the case, PR doesn't have traffic rights from LAX to GUM/HNL. One of PR's flights from SFO to MNL was treated the same way in the past but all of those flights are nonstop now. (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
To me, the weirdest part about this is that there isn't any mentioning about any sort of fuel/mechanical stop when going to book this flight. Neither PR's website or Google flights indicates this, and treats it as a non-stop flight, rather than a direct flight. It wouldn't surprise me if was just bugged, it usually is anyways... EnRouteAviation (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
P.A.L. = Plane/Passenger Always Late: This acronym and your comment just made my day... XD EnRouteAviation (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Larnaca International Airport[edit]

I think this article needs some attention. Recently some charter routes have been tagged "citation needed" but continue to get removed for no reason. Can someone take a look and help! (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say report the user(s) to WP:AIV and let them deal with it... the (persistent) vandalism seems severe enough to me... EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
IP was reported and blocked for 24 hrs. However, the IP is apparently editing under a registered account (as Wappy2008) after the block and continuing making the same edits to page. I suspect sockpuppetry. (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Trickery by Delta at LAX[edit]

Delta seems to be using smoke and mirrors to "de-hub" LAX to give the appearance of capacity discipline. Perhaps they want the public to perceive that SeaTac is the one and only Pacific Coast hub? Delta is upgauging at LAX, not cutting back; this includes conversion of half of Delta Shuttle's equipment to 717s and several regional routes being replaced with mainline service. Their cancellation of LAX-LHR service isn't a true cut because their joint-venture partner (VS) picked up the slack with additional capacity and Delta sells seats as if it were their own. This is another example of the silly smoke and mirrors.

As an encyclopedia, Delta should be kept honest, when conflicting info is presented:

This next link is informational only, since it shows the number of flights at certain hubs (back then, Delta was more forthcoming with hub passenger numbers and aircraft movements):

Delta's press releases are tweaked to appeal to particular narrow audience (er, let's say perhaps those that tune into that Peacock-logo station that doesn't start with "MS"). I think Delta's information for the general public, such as their route map (above) or Sky Magazine are accurate; even Ben Mutzabaugh's analysis of a given market might be more spot on than Delta's nuanced press releases.

--DLDL flyer (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also noticed these actions by Delta, and have personally found it weird that they want to use SEA as their transpacific hub rather than LAX. Personally, if I were the CEO of a major airline, I would use LAX (at least over SEA) as the airline's [main] transpacific hub due to the significant amount of passengers that already travel though LAX (as a well-known/popular destination and also with connecting flights). I don't know if it really causes a major problem for the editors/members of WP:Airports though... Although Delta recently announced that LAX is no longer a hub for the airline... Taokaka (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Permanently Deleting the Cargo Destinations Table(s)[edit]

The fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content states that cargo destinations should only be listed if nonstop seems confusing—and even contradicting to me...

It is clearly definite that on more (way many more) articles than not, these destinations for cargo airlines include one or more stops. (direct along with nonstop flights) I was aware for a long time that adding direct destinations along with non-stop has been encouraged. This is mainly due to the fact that, cargo-only OR cargo-heavy airports rely on persistent cargo-airline traffic for economy and/or air traffic boosts. Such airports include but are not limited to:

My proposal here is to completely abandon (and therefore remove) the cargo destinations (table) project altogether. My reasoning for this is due to the lack of sources that are published by the airlines for these routes. As of now, it is very hard to tell if these routes are reliable without (or lack of) sources that are instated for these routes. Also, there are a lot of accounts/IP's that are adding routes that aren't verifiable. (Including myself—which I clearly see as a mistake on my part due to the lack of verifiable sources and also the gratification/significance of the issue. Because almost all of the routes are not verifiable...) Any other suggestions editors? Thanks! Taokaka (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward agreement. It seems to me that while it is trivially easy to verify which cargo airlines use a given airport, it's much more difficult to verify which destinations are flow to from that airport, and that such information may be too ephemeral to be useful. Cargo airlines do certainly have scheduled routes, but they also have far more flexibility to change those routes as needed, and to add additional temporary routings as traffic warrants. Heck, FedEx keeps empty planes circling the country just in case they need to quickly cover an unscheduled route. In short, trying to use the same format for cargo carriers as is used for passenger carriers is a mistake, as they don't operate in the same fashion. oknazevad (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I also wouldn't object to removing cargo destinations completely. Just like the previous US regional carrier issue, maintainability is obviously suffering. IPs add but don't ever remove. But before we reach a new consensus, we already have a previous consensus (that doesn't look like editors in the know will disagree) that routes beyond the first stop are not notable. HkCaGu (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I dont see what the problem is the destinations section is to show the range and quantity of connections to the airport(which is why it doesnt allways need to be up to date aslong as it is referenced) and the fact that the airport operates cargo services is of note. Also we only list the first stop as we are not a travel guide and subsequent destinations are not relevant to the airport. Also we should only be limited to scheduled cargo services as ad hoc stuff is not really notable and are never listed as per passenger services. The original problem was to do with reliable references, thats easy if it cant be referenced then it can be tagged and removed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
According to the proposal we should also consider deleting the scheduled destinations charts, as they are virtually unsupported by any reference across all airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider just having a list of airlines that use the airport and move the destination lists to wiki travel! MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a terrible idea. The destination tables have always felt more like an almanac and less like an encyclopedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
A list of airlines without destinations would be more encyclopedic, something like:
Airline Dates Type Notes
Foo Airlines 2002- Scheduled International Passenger
Large Airways 1999-2010 Ad-hoc international cargo Base
Metro Way 2015- Scheduled domestic passenger Hub
Smith Flight 1956-1977 Scheduled domestic passenger Home base, moved operations to Big airport in 1977
Zero Airlines 2002- Passenger Charter

Just an idea obviously needs more thinking about before it can be proposed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the proposed ideas. Just having a list of airlines operating at each airport, be it cargo or passenger ones, is much better than the current format.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would keep all .Wikipedia is the only source that lists these destinations and the destination/airline lists have been very useful in the past for me. Cargo destinations are never listed on any other websites like this and I would not like to see any destination tables removed. - DragTails - 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Forget that statement I just made. Thinking back, I do agree that cargo destinations are not notable, as there are almost no sources that provide information for cargo flights. However, I would not agree with passenger lists being removed. - DragTails - 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

But they are as unsourced as cargo destinations are.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to be harsh, but the argument is stupid, really. Oknazevad made a point about the removal of cargo destinations while the rest are bickering about sources and "unsourced" tables. If they are not sourced enough, we can find a better way to solve it, not by just removing it. - DragTails - 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Nobody is bickering, taken into an account the discussion further up on destination lists both passenger and cargo it is being suggested they be replaced with a list of airlines that have or do operate from the airport which is more encyclopedic and less travel guide. If you wait I suspect a proposal on this will be along soon to comment on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And we can discuss anytime whether airport articles are turning into travel guides...--Jetstreamer Talk 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that the cargo destinations table should go and should list only the cargo carriers serving the airport as long as there is a source stating so. (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am in disagreement with this argument, as many cargo carriers actualy post route maps on their websites. Also, FlightAware is a great resource for checking if certain routes are operated by a particular cargo airline. There are definantly sources for many routes, the problem is fewer users check and maintain these tables. Just like passengers, cargo movements are an important part of an airports operations, especially for cargo hubs like CVG, MEM, LAX, JFK, ect. These routes can be sources if that is what people want, I think most people do not know where to look. I have maintained the CVG Cargo list for quite awhile, and I always put the flight number when I add the route in my summary, maybe we could add this as hidden text in order to keep track. Lastly, it is important, just as with passengers to see the extent of operations, and the only way to do this is a table. Also, there is a difference between a cargo airline and a charter cargo airlines. You do NOT put the routes for charter cargo routes, as they constantly change. An exmaple is Kallita Air vs. Kalitta Charters, in this case, Kalitta Charters should not be listed. Stinger20 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a point there, people always rely on airline published sources for routes. Google flights are also a good source for passenger routes. - DragTails - 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Tracking a single flight does not mean the route is permanently served. That's what timetables are for.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this was not clear, you find the flight, then look at the history of the number, that will show you the past flights, and if it is a charter or scheduled route. It is actually really simple and an effective way to figure out if a route is being flown by a particular airline regularly. When a cargo airlines does not offer a timetable, this works well. Also, to a point above, as has been discussed in prior sections, the purpose of destinations tables is to show the extent of service, not to be travel guide. Actually showing what airports are served by both cargo and passenger carriers give a lot more informations to a user than just x airlines serve x destinations at x airport. If the problem is sources, they exist, and can be added if that is what consesus concludes. New routes are already being sourced before they begin. It would not be that hard to source all other fligths. Stinger20 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of getting rid of the cargo tables as well, although a list of airlines could be maintained. I was updating the Cargo table at Kempegowda International Airport using , which lists scheduled cargo flights. But I didn't know whether to list cargo destinations served roundtrip, one-way, etc. For example, SQ flies BRU-BLR but not the other way around, so should it be listed? It's just confusing so I'd prefer to eliminate the tables. - Sunnya343 22:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery in fleet list[edit]

Renaming Kuala Lumpur in destinations list[edit]

Please cast your vote at Kuala Lumpur International Airport's talk page to support or against the naming. Thank you.Tafeax (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Lumpur–International in all related articles (airport's destination list). This was done based on the vote conducted on Kuala Lumpur International Airport's talk page. However, little did I know that voting shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Thus, I invite everyone to discuss on this changes. Should there be unfavourable consensus or disagreement, I will revert back to Kuala Lumpur instead. Thank you. Tafeax (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This archived thread may help.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Former Destinations[edit]

I noticed that a table noting former destinations had been removed from Belfast International Airport, there was 3 comments made, but that was all. I also note that there is a section above regarding this topic, I am opening this section and topic again because there was no clear consensus made on this topic.

Note: I added the table at BFS, I was just still editing under an IP at the time. - DragTails - 20:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the table at CVG, and I had the tabe removed many times. It seems that the consensus is that "small" airports should have the list, while larger airports should not. I had numerous people say it was too long and remove it, so I have settled for a shorter version with just Delta Air Lines and Comair flights (as DL downsized its CVG Hub). The full list has been kept in the talk page just in case users allow it. I do think former destinations should be included on ALL pages eventually, but I think discussion is needed on how to most effectively implement this. I feel that it is though a very cumbersome and hard task to make the list, especialy for U.S. Airports, which have seen almost 100 years of activity.Stinger20 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
BFS is a small airport, and the website you provided, "departed flights" or something like that. Was a very good source, perhaps more edtiors need to contribute to this disscussion. - DragTails - 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the list for BFS. All these random airlines and cities served from BFS are really not significant. If there is anything significant, e.g. international flights to small airports that have since been discontinued (Air Transat to BFS maybe), it can be noted in the History section. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted, I am also starting a new section linking to this discussion. As no one has discussed this let's leave BFS alone and focus on the importance (if there is any) on these routes. - DragTails - 18:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO there does not need to be a discussion. Virtually no airport article includes such a list; even the small airports (and BFS isn't that small) don't, rather they might mention former service in the History section. Here's one issue with former dest's lists: How far back do you go? BFS has existed since 1917. Is it important and encyclopedic that Airline XYZ flew BFS-ABC in 1979?
I will leave the table there as I'm not interested in an edit war, but I doubt it will be there for long. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Me either, I just hope to see that we can leave this discussion with some kind of consensus. I get really annoyed when people abandon discussions. It's getting really bad. I'll remove the table and put it on the talk page at BFS. So we can share our opinions at BFS. - DragTails - 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, former destinations should be included in airline destination articles, not in airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Athens International Airport - Finding Sources for Terminals[edit]

Just as a general note to editors: On Athens International Airport, it seems that a significant amount of airlines have their terminal (hall) listed as "Unknown". This might be worth checking out and if sources are available stating what terminal these airlines are located at, it would be very helpful if some editors could address this issue. Thanks! RanterCritic (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Only seasonal/charter services are in that condition. As far as I know, charter flights are not to be included in destinations charts.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? I didn't know that. (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Point 10 here: "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services."--Jetstreamer Talk 19:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If the airline operates the charter flights on a regular basis, then it can be listed. (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct, regular scheduled charters (mostly leisure flights) are neither ad-hoc nor irregular nor private and need to be listed. (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the Tumxuk airport page be merged with the Tumxuk page?[edit]

The page is kind of redundant since there is rather little information on there and it wouod be better served by attaching it with the Tumxuk page.

The Winter of Steppes (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems it is under construction and should be handling around 80,000 passengers annually by 2020 so it would just gain it's own article in a couple of years anyway. Gavbadger (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles[edit]

I'm working on clearing out some of our older unreferenced articles, and there are a collection of airport articles that have been sitting unreferenced for almost a decade at Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2006. Here are the airport articles from the first part of the alphabet:

They all seem to be in and around Russia. Does anyone have sources they know of to get references for these pages? - SimonP (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have come across these types of articles (again, most in Russia). There is few reliable sources that provide notable information for the article. As I don't have time now, tomorrow I will have a look at some of the airports on this list. - DragTails - 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

When writing the article Bogorodskoye Airport, I googled the airport's name in Russian and found some results. For these tiny Russian airports, the best (and often only) references will be in Russian. Use Google Translate to get a rough translation. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


Below are some discussions: Deleting the Cargo Destinations Table(s)

I would like editors to contribute to these to form consensus'. Thanks, - DragTails - 18:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacksonville Airports[edit]

This may be obvious—as one of the airports only has two current passenger destinations, but is it worth differentiating Jacksonville International Airport and Albert J. Ellis Airport regarding the labeling in the destinations' lists/tables? Thanks! (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The first would be listed as Jacksonville (FL) and the second would be listed as Jacksonville (NC). - Sunnya343 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines LAX[edit]

According to/per:
NRT-LAX-PDX (American Airlines)
SYD-LAX-PDX (American Airlines)
LAX-PDX (American Airlines)

The new LAX flights only show up when booked along with a connecting flight, but the flights may not be reserved individually yet...

Does anyone know why the new AA LAX flights are not showing up when searched individually...? (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Charter Flight Listings[edit]

This definitely is one of the most discussed questions within the Airport Editing community and probably has already been discussed in another thread (maybe it was archived too soon?), but how should charter flights be listed? Should they be listed separately or should they be listed along with the regularly scheduled flights? I have browsed around through many airport pages and have noticed that some have separate "Charters" sections and some don't. Thoughts? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that they should be listed along with the other passenger destinations, but with the bolded "Charter:" designation. I say this because they are often just operating out of the same terminals, often operated by many of the same airlines, and in effect are the same 'thing' as a regularly scheduled commercial operation, if we want to get all philosophical about it. Listing only 'public charters' as defined by the FAA is an easy bright line to resolve which charters should go on the list, if that's up for debate. The FAA publishes a regularly updated list of approved public charter prospectuses at
Sorry that above comment was me. Constantly forgetting to sign my posts. Jim0101 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Direct Flights with stops[edit]

My question here is specifically regarding direct flights that are not spoke-hub-spoke with passenger pick-up rights on all legs. I'm talking about international flights such as JFK-FRA-SIN on Singapore Airlines or JFK-YVR-MNL on Philippine Airlines. I recently removed some of these 3rd non-nonstop destinations on the JFK article because, to me, it didn't seem logical to list SIN or MNL as 'destinations' from JFK when they literally do not have a single flight to those destinations. (Note: I do get the JFK-LAX-SYD issue, where there is no right for Qantas to fly simply from JFK to LAX, but this is different, b/c there are 5th freedom rights from JFK-FRA and JFK-YVR.)

I noticed that two of my edits, JFK-LFW-ADD on Ethiopian and JFK-MDE-CLO on Avianca, were promptly reverted. Feel free to revert others if I was off base my edits. I know that the WP:AIRPORT content guide says only list direct flights that are not spoke-hub-spoke, but why list the 3rd destination when it's spoke-focus-focus or even hub-hub-hub? It just doesn't seem accurate to me to say that Avianca 'flies' to that 2nd focus city. Moreover, drawing a bright line at non-stop destinations (with the exception of the JFK-LAX-SYD situation) would make this whole thing much simpler, while eliminating subjective judgment calls as to what's really a "real" destination of a multi-stop direct flight.

Thoughts?Jim0101 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guide point #7, direct flights are included as long as the same plane and flight number is used all the way through to the final destination (please note that SQ and PR uses the same aircraft and flight number on these routes and Frankfurt/Vancouver are not hubs for the SQ/PR) and that they do not contain a stop at an airline hub. But as for QF JFK-LAX-SYD, QF does not have eighth freedom rights to transport passengers solely from JFK to LAX (therefore, LAX is not listed at the JFK article but it has a footnote explaining the stop and regarding the rights. However, PAL also operates a YYZ-YVR-MNL route but I am not sure if the aircraft used on that route is the same as the JFK-YVR-MNL route. (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, Lome is neither a hub or focus city for Ethiopian but rather a hub for ASKY Airlines. (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nashville International Airport[edit]

Someone keeps removing OneJet, Boutique Air, and Corporate Flight Management as airlines operating out of BNA. They keep saying that these are charter flights but you can book these flights on the airline's website and the airlines operate out of the main passenger terminal there (they use Concourse B as per If these are charter flights, they should be in the dedicated charter section below the scheduled passenger section. (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page, but yes I definitely agree. This one particular user is constantly deleting these airline routes. I am trying to work with the Admins to block this user or protect this page. This user has not responded to warnings and has not even included a description along with it's edits. This is certain vandalism to me. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)