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.

RfC about Reinstating column with terminal information[edit]

Consensus has been reached that the column of terminal information should not be reinstated, per WP:NOTRAVEL. (non-admin closure) --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the column of terminal information be reinstated?
A/ Yes, due to recurring visitors who are looking at this information, not for travel purposes. Those visitors are complaining about the removal.
B/ No, as per WP:NOTRAVEL as previous consensus stated.
Wykx (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A) Support reinclusion. Wykx (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A) Support reinclusion. It was entirely counter-productive to remove the terminal information in the first place. It has much encyclopedic value which is not travel related. VG31 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
B) No support. This is not a travel guide, and consensus regarding this has been reached too early recently to change this again.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose There's no need to re-debate this so soon after the issue was settled. In most cases, airlines only use one terminal at an airport. The airlines using a particular terminal can be listed at the end of the section/paragraph about individual terminals. AHeneen (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
B) per comments above Garretka (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
B) This time I agree with Garret. LordAtlas (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose It is disingenuous to portray the previous discussion as just WP:NOTRAVEL although it most certainly is. Wikipedia's core policies suggest most strongly that this information in comprehesive tabular form is very very questionable - the fact that almost none of the deleted terminal information was referenced leads to the suspicion that this information is mostly unreferencable in any comprehensive manner. Also opposition to the previous change has been far from constant or consistent - the opposition I have seen has been from editor fanboys not readers of the encyclopaedia and with no argument about why this information needs to be tabular in the existing destination tables. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
A) The information provides encyclopedic value in my opinion - it gives context to airport configurations, airline alliance relations, destination relations, etc. Train stations commonly include platform information (eg. Willowbrook/Rosa Parks station, Central railway station, Sydney, Waterfront station (Vancouver)) which is the railway equivelent of terminals and seemingly doesn't violate NOTTRAVEL. I don't see how listing every airport served by every carrier in a table doesn't also violate NOTTRAVEL if terminal info does as well? -- Whats new?(talk) 03:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
B) I don't understand why it is challenged again as terminal info is obviously pure travel info ; furthermore, this topic has been discussed months before.Bouzinac (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
B) For the same reasons it was removed in the first place. Stinger20 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
A) Support reinclusion. For the simple reason that listing the airlines/destinations in the first place seems like a travel guide, why are the terminals any diffrent? KDTW Flyer (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The reason why airlines amd destinations are included is to show the scope and range of services from a particular airport, and these dont actually have to be up to date, just reliably referenced. The terminal used is not relevant to showing the range of services provided. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
A) Support reinclusion. This is factual information (just as the destinations info is) and contributes to the encyclopedic nature of the articles. cmercier (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
B) WP:NOTAGAIN. It's been three months since the last RFC. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the earlier comment in this section by AHeneen. "In most cases, airlines only use one terminal at an airport. The airlines using a particular terminal can be listed at the end of the section/paragraph about individual terminals." Peter K Burian (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose If only to give this a just went through an RFC on this with a decisive result. North8000 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • B--Petebutt (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • B - Per WP:NOTRAVEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. (invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • B) Since some of the concourse/terminal information can't be referenced anyway, like at MDT. In some cases it's also repeating information found elsewhere in the article. JamesRenard (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, can someone write somewhere in the WP:pages (AIRPORTS or whatever) clearly that no more terminal informations are permitted, as there is still people trying to put them ? It'd be appreciated Bouzinac (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, it is clearly stated there WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT Bouzinac (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Before I begin this is my first post and apologies in advance if I’ve done something wrong regarding formatting etc… I have been coming to Wikipedia for many years to source what airlines use what terminals and/or concourses as it assists me with assigning those airlines in Microsoft Flight Simulator and now Lockheed Martin’s Prepar3d. I have yet to find an alternative website where all that information is in one place, so when I saw that the airline terminal information was removed, I was disappointed. I only found out the reason a couple of days ago by discovering this talk page. Reading through the arguments for and against, I can now understand the reasons for removing it. If I had known about it sooner, I would have put my case forward. But the decision has been made, and I’m not here to change that. I would like to offer an alternative. Could that same information in the original tabular format be transferred across to the WikiVoyages site instead? It’s just a thought. Thank you for your time. BlueMagician (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I move that terminal information should be almost required in airport articles, particularly if there is more than one terminal and one terminal is mostly used by one airline or airline alliance. It doesn't have to be in a table but in the text. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Referencing concern[edit]

I'm trying to elevate Calgary International Airport to Good Article status, but I'm stuck at the Airlines and Destinations table. I've upgraded other airport articles before, and neither I nor the reviewers brought up the fact that the table has no references (of course this is all in line with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references).

However I'm not feeling that this is right. How can we ask a reader to go to WestJet's timetable and manually search each of their dozens of destinations from Calgary? Another possible source, the route map, displays cities served by connections as well. And how does a reader determine that a particular route is seasonal? Searching the timetable for its availability on various dates in the summer and winter seasons?

A detailed RFC we held in February had the consensus "Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY"... I really think we ought to figure that out.

In place of searchable timetables, I've considered the following as sources: PDF timetables (only display a few months, so seasonality can't be determined), airline websites, press releases, news reports (which can be outdated - often only available when a route starts). These issues are leading me to what seems the simplest solution: just listing the airlines. Easily done as almost all airport websites have a directory of airlines (example). We could accompany it with something like what I've done at the Calgary airport article here.

What do we think? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 18:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Seasonality should be cited by a source and shouldn't be inferred by viewing several timetables because it can be original research. I like the prose at the top of the section, like you linked to. You could list just the airlines, but having destinations is very informative. A table of only airlines would be dull. I think it would be OK to have an incomplete list, based only on destinations with a reliable source or begin the table with "As of August 2017" and include a link to the airport's PDF of timetables (if one is available) and any additional sources (eg. "As of August 2017, Calgary International Airport was served by the following airlines to the given destinations:[1][2][3][4][5]"). You could list some destinations as seasonal and then add a footnote stating that some additional destinations may be seasonal, eg. "The table contains some destinations that are only seasonally operated. The remaining destinations are based on [source, eg. Calgary International Airport's August 2017 timetable], which may include some seasonal destinations not marked as such. Additionally, there may be more seasonal destinations at other times of the year." AHeneen (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was thinking earlier. So I tried finding sources for all the airlines at Calgary airport. Air Canada and some other airlines had convenient PDF timetables, and I could find secondary sources for other airlines. However I didn't know how to include certain major airlines, including WestJet which has a large base of operations in Calgary. WestJet does not have a PDF timetable, and it flies to so many destinations from Calgary: a secondary source is unlikely to list all of them, so many such sources would be needed.
In light of this inconsistency I thought a list of airlines would be the easiest solution that can be applied to many airports. A reliable source need only be recent and mention the airline's existence at an airport, for example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 14:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The airline destination table is the most useful information that airport pages have. Removing it in any form would be very regressive. The information is mostly factual although I agree that referencing should be improved, even if it is just a link to the airline's timetable page. VG31 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
What specific improvement should be done, though? I have tried to improve referencing but am having the issue I explained above. Also, what do you mean by "useful"? For whom? Sometimes I think more attention is devoted to these tables than any other part of airport articles, allowing the other sections to deteriorate in quality. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 15:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the consensus reached before to replace the terminal information column with a references column was a good idea. It doesn't seem to have happened, with perhaps the occasional exception (Atlanta). I'm perfectly willing to add this references column to as many airports as I can but there has been little sign of any editors implementing what was agreed. VG31 18:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I take issue with the ref column that links to the airlines searchable timetable, this is absolutely WP:OR. I like the airline and destination tables, and I think moving forward we continue the practice of keeping references from the beginning inline for all destinations. I too am against removing the tables, but I think WP:V can be achieved gradually by both not deleting references and citing explicit sources for existing routes. With all of this said, I would like to modify WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT in saying that references are not normally included. This has resulted in many users deleting valid references, citing this bullet. Garretka (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Consensus hasn't been established on that, as we see in the February RFC conclusion. But my example shows that there doesn't seem to be a great way to reference these tables, a way that covers all airlines. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I found a solution. CAPA Centre for Aviation has profiles on many airlines that include route maps. Using WestJet's profile, I can click on Calgary and see all destinations from this city. Only issue is that seasonal destinations won't be indicated. However, the table would have a statement "As of August 2017" for example - it would not be "current" which I believe would violate MOS:RELTIME. The only hope is that CAPA does not make this a premium service in the future. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

But again, the fact that sources are so hard to come by for this sort of information does question whether these tables truly belong... But I know I would be burned at the stake by fellow aviation enthusiasts if such a thing were to happen... ;) — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've taken into account AHeneen and Garretka's comments (as well as my CAPA discovery) by creating an experimental table in my sandbox (scroll down a bit). Some issues I noted in this process:

  • The situation with seasonal destinations is odd. As I've noted, if I find a reference stating a route is seasonal, then it is indicated as such. However, airline timetables are only effective for a certain period of time, so they list seasonal destinations without saying they are seasonal - and there might be seasonal destinations missing (because they do not operate during that period of time). Thus, you have a mix of seasonal destinations marked as such, year-round destinations, seasonal destinations not marked as such, and the absence of seasonal destinations as explained earlier.
    • That was complicated so here's an example. For Air Canada Rouge, the timetable reference says Halifax serves ends 12 October. Halifax could very well be a seasonal destination, though. Meanwhile there is a list of seasonal destinations below that (Cancún, Huatulco, etc.), making it appear that Halifax is not seasonal but actually terminating.
  • CAPA's route maps combine United Airlines/United Express and WestJet/WestJet Encore (this is not indicated on CAPA's website).
    • Example: We have Penticton listed as a WestJet destination, when it is really a WestJet Encore destination (Encore is a separate airline under its own AOC). Now, Wikipedia can contain information that has a reliable reference but is inaccurate. Still, it doesn't feel right to add this information knowing it's technically false.
  • A reliance on CAPA's route maps might not be wise as this feature could become premium in the future. Paid subscription is CAPA's business goal. Consider how FlightStats used to offer free historical flight information going back 10 years, but now this feature is premium. If we lose the CAPA source, I don't know of a backup for airlines that don't publish PDF timetables.

This might seem like nitpicking but I believe the A&D tables are flouting WP:V, a core policy. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 04:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I brought this up on the previous discussion, but might I suggest we refer to WP:NOTLAW. I think we can all (or at least a large majority) agree that the destination tables make the encyclopedia, specifically airport articles, much better. I think we also all understand that some parts of the tables can breach WP:V and WP:OR due to inconsistencies in referencing, but we also know that using booking engines, google flights, and services such as CAPA, we can fill in the holes from media/secondary sources. Per WP:NOTLAW, while these core policies are important, through discussion and consensus, these policies can be ignored for specific applications if it is determined they are inhibiting editors from improving the encyclopedia. I feel like this is a case where WP:NOTLAW would apply and we seem to have reached a consensus that these tables are an integral part of WP:Aviation. As long as we continue to use sources such as PDF Timetables and route maps to broadly source an airlines service at an airport, plus providing news releases for new/ending routes, I see no reason why we can't use WP:NOTLAW as a justification for use of booking engines to verify flights and check for schedule changes. The bullet talking about references not normally being required in destination tables is a prime example of WP:NOTLAW and I think it is a system that has worked quite well. Stinger20 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting argument. The premise that the routes exist and can be rather quickly verified in the airline's booking engine is correct. I have two questions though:
1) What about seasonal destinations? The reader has to check several dates throughout the year?
2) Say an editor is searching the booking engine and comes upon a new route. Can they include this information in the table? This seems like a clear-cut case of WP:OR. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
But on the other hand, there's WP:Local consensus (emphasis added): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. AHeneen (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems like WP:NOTLAW and WP:Local consensus are directly in contrast to each other... not sure which one would be "more correct". However, it does seem like if a "broader consensus" is achieved, we could use the implicit reference guideline on WP:Airports. In regards to Sunna343's comment, I think the seasonality of routes could be verified easily enough by checking multiple dates, but I do agree that using the booking engines to find new routes is stretching too far. I will point to the RDU airport page, where, DL is adding LAS for a convention and RSW for a week in December. These seem like non-notable additions and obviously were put in place by editors coming upon new routes. This is in contrast to the SJU route, while similarly short in season, was reported on routesonline, so I think that is fine as long as it has a citation. I know last time DL expanded in BOS, it was first discovered in OAG data, and editors put the routes down with a citation needed tag. Frankly, I feel that this might be a good substitute until a press release/secondary source comes out. Most of the time sourcing issues come with new routes out on OAG data, but not yet reported by the press/airline. Stinger20 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Stinger20: In my view WP:NOTLAW and WP:Local consensus are absolutely complementary - NOTLAW says even WP:V or other core policies can be changed if consensus is gained to do so - Local Consensus says you can't ignore such broad consensus for specific areas of the project - the broad consensus must be followed. To put it another way to remove the requirement of verfiability which is what you are suggesting the requirement will need to be removed for the whole of Wikipedia - which I suspect is not going to happen. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think in any case we should hold another RFC as recommended in the last one, in order to gain some outside input on whether this would be acceptable. This referencing issue appears to be unique to airport articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: I think that is a good idea. Stinger20 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention as well that it should be compulsory for charter and cargo routes to have references as unlike scheduled routes these can be very difficult to verify. I've done this for Irish airport pages as I know all the travel agents that charter aircraft but I cannot do it for other countries as I have no idea where to look. VG31 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and we can see that WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is already very cautious about cargo routes. This guideline says "should" but this should probably be changed to "must". — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible RFC question

Let's think about how the RFC should be structured. The question could be: "How should the Airlines and destinations tables of airport articles be referenced?"

  • Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references.
  • Option B: Explicit references must be provided. However, timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are not permitted as references.
  • Option C: Explicit references must be provided. Timetables that require manual searching are permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sunnya343 looks like three solid choices for an RfC to me. Garretka (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I would say switch B and C for sake of clarity, so that each option gets more restrictive. In addition, we probably should make clear that with option A, references are implicit, but that explicit references will still be required for new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes. Stinger20 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Good points. Revised:
  • Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references. However, new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes require an explicit reference.
  • Option B: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. Timetables that require manual searching are permitted as references.
  • Option C: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. However, timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are not permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 10:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One question: for Option A should we add the following: "Explicit references may be removed once a new/resuming route begins." — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 10:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Sunnya343 I would actually suggest the opposite. Explicit references shall not be removed unless the route is ending. Inline refs do absolutely no harm to the table. Garretka (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
My only caution with this is that these sources do not necessarily cite that the route is still operating. Keeping them indefinitely seems redundant if Option A is saying the sources are implicit, especially since such sources only prove the start/end date, but do not prove that the route is still operating. Stinger20 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true, and imagine if we had references for each of Emirates' destinations from Dubai, for example. Since this has been a point of contention that led to the February RFC in the first place, I think we should add the statement: "(It is not yet determined whether explicit references should be deleted once a route begins.)" Further discussion could take place if/when consensus is clear. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 18:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps this is something better discussed after we have reached consensus on the RFC, as the answer might depend on which option is agreed upon. Stinger20 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables[edit]

How should we provide references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references. However, new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes require an explicit reference. (It is not yet determined whether explicit references should be deleted once a route begins.)
  • Option B: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. Timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are permitted as references.
  • Option C: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. However, timetables that require manual searching are not permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Please discuss/explain your choice in the "Discussion" section below "Survey". Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 20:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Some contributors have advocated an option D: removing the tables entirely and possibly listing only the airlines. However, we held an RfC in February 2017 that resulted in consensus to keep the tables. This RfC did not seem to gain much input from outside the aviation "community" on Wikipedia, so if you do not have much experience with WP:AVIATION, please feel free to ask questions and participate in the discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A parallel discussion took place at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Update September 26, 2017: I plan to offer this RfC up for closure at the end of the week, as it has gone stale for the past few days and the bot already removed the RfC template. Consensus seems iffy, so I think we should have an unrelated editor provide their thoughts. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


  • Leaning Option C. I believe explicit references are a must, but searchable timetables put too much of a burden on the reader when it comes to verification. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Leaning Option D. In many cases the airline's booking engine or searchable timetable would have to be used as references. However, these sources change regularly, and there is a constant need to update the tables. That too these references are not exactly "explicit," in that the reader has to plug in the data him/herself. It's true that the tables do not need to be up-to-date all the time, but because changes are frequent, there will be registered and IP users regularly adjusting the tables - and what reason is there to revert them? All in all the tables are an enormous "exception" to WP:V that have largely been kept around through WP:CONLIMITED, in my opinion. I am in favor of maintaining a list of airlines only. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Back to Option C. Based on my reasoning in this discussion. I recognize these tables' importance and believe primary sources such as route maps - but not searchable timetables, booking engines, or similar sources - may be used as references. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A, but Option B is an acceptable alternate. I believe the current policy of implicit references works quite well for the destination tables and per WP:NOTLAW, I don’t think explicit references are necessary for the purposes of routes that are obviously running. Stinger20 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Stinger20: "obviously running" - They might be obvious to aviation enthusiasts like you and me, who know how to quickly verify such information - but I'm not sure if that's the case for the average reader. The fact that "American Airlines flies from Dallas to Omaha" is not on the same level as "the capital of France is Paris", I feel. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Sunnya343: I am thinking Option B may be more appropriate. I commented below, but I think could work well to better source routes. This is by far the most detailed/accurate (and free) secondary source for routes, and it includes passenger/cargo, plus details the schedule for the week with aircraft types. Stinger20 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I didn't know that Flightradar has route maps for airports. Thanks for linking that, it's very helpful. Referencing for cargo routes needs to be drastically improved. For the vast majority of cargo destination tables there are little to no references so the information is likely to be incorrect/out of date. VG31 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B. I don't really see how Option C is possible. Most airline timetables require some kind of manual searching, there's no avoiding that. Option B is somewhat feasible but I reckon that it would be hard to implement properly. Yes the current system is not perfect but it's too difficult for it to be 100% referenced and mostly correct information is better than no information at all. Perhaps it is somewhat against some WP policies but common sense needs to be considered as well. I favour Option A over the other two but I think that it should be mandatory for charter and cargo routes to be referenced. Changed to Option B. VG31 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • You make a good point, VG31, but I think the absence of references allows errors to slip through unnoticed, especially when the tables are long with a ton of destinations. I don't think "mostly correct information" would be allowed in a Good Article or FA. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B, but should include date accessed. I don't think that searching an airline timetable is too much of a burden on verifiability (especially when the timetables are searched), since WP allows articles in sources that are rare or behind a paywall. Like with most online references used on Wikipedia, I think the date accessed should be included. Verifiable seasonal destinations can be denoted with a footnote. Alternatively, or additionally, the destinations table can begin with a hatnote that some destinations may be seasonal and that destinations not marked seasonal may be seasonal. This follows the style of Template:Dynamic list and Template:Complete list. I think a concise hatnote (is Template:Seasonal flights a good name?) would say: "This table includes some seasonal destinations that are not served year-round. Not all seasonal destinations may be denoted as such in this table. (Further information)" The "further information" link (could also be "Why?") at the end would link to a section of the template page or a Wikiproject Airports page that discusses why not all seasonal flights may be marked as such (eg. difficulty of finding reliable references that aren't original research). A special citation template for airline timetables (Template:Cite airline timetable) could be created for use in airport destination tables with the most useful parameters for how to cite the flights. This would be similar to Template:Google maps and Template:Cite court and be used to create a standardized citation of airline timetables, since most would use Template:Cite web and parameters included would be different based on user preferences. AHeneen (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think your idea of creating a "Template:Cite airline timetable" is a great idea. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 10:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C if not D for the specific reason that airline timetables often change without notice, and in my opinion violate WP:OR. Would prefer to see the tables moved to wikivoyage. See my comments below but they timetables do not need to be accurate but reliably referenced. Garretka (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C if it can't be referenced explicity, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. Asking a reader to manually search a database of an airline defeats the purpose of listing each destination in the table in my view. Further, what's currently to stop any editor adding a few random destinations - the current system has very weak verifiability -- Whats new?(talk) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Whats new?: I think you're spot on about the weak verifiability. However there are some airlines that only have searchable timetables, and it would not be feasible to find secondary sources (news reports, etc.) for all their routes. Examples are United Airlines and WestJet - major airlines indeed. How do we address this issue? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If there aren't secondary sources for a route - it shouldn't be listed. Just as with everything else on Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason why particular airlines or routes should be an exception -- Whats new?(talk) 01:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Whats new?: I definitely agree. However, this creates tables that could have big gaps in information. Would this still be acceptable? What about only listing the airlines, a much simpler task in my opinion? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that's ideal either -- Whats new?(talk) 06:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are not impermissible to support straightforward statements, like airline routes, that do not require analysis (WP:PRIMARY explains how primary sources should be used). Regarding weak verifiability, this is also the case when citations are made to print-only books and, especially, rare or paywalled sources (books, journals, videos). I don't think that this is a particular problem for airport destination tables, as the same can be said about an article on a historic site that uses mostly cites rare books/journals that can only be found in a few libraries, or a medical article that cites a journal that is behind a paywall. IMO, since airline timetables are online and can be accessed easily (even if it takes a couple steps to enter the origin/destination airports), the "weak verifiability" is not a real problem for the airport destination tables. AHeneen (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@AHeneen: Looks like I misspoke when I said that information cannot be added to Wikipedia without a secondary source - I've read WP:PRIMARY and would support the use of primary sources in this situation. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 17:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Option B I would expect the vast majority of readers to take the information in the tables at face value and not bother to look it up in the reference. For the relative few that do want to verify, I agree with Sunnya that providing a link to a searchable reference shouldn't pose that big of a burden, especially if that's the only place it exists online (if it exists explicitly elsewhere, that reference should be used instead). Physical book (i.e. unavailable online) citations are far less accessible than online-searchable timetables, but are perfectly acceptable references and are widely used. Granted information in books don't change (unless a new edition is released) and searchable timetables can, but that's why I also agree with Sunnya about providing access dates. In my opinion an access date should be included with all online references. Cthomas3 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cthomas3: Just to give credit where it's due, it was AHeneen who had those ideas. Anyways, I would argue that the constant change in airline timetables creates a constant demand to keep these tables up-to-date, shifting attention primarily to the tables over other sections of airport articles, in my opinion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A status quo is fine. Referencing all routes is not practical. Airlines commonly announce new routes but do not publicize cancellation of routes, so even having a reference is no guarantee that the route exists. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zanhe: Should we consider this point: maybe this is all an indication that these tables do not belong on Wikipedia. I know we discussed this in a previous RfC, but to be honest I don't believe this problem exists anywhere else in the encyclopedia. WP:PROVEIT is clear on this: virtually any information added to Wikipedia needs an explicit reference. I don't think WP:AIRPORTS can be the sole (massive) exception to the rule. We should bear in mind WP:CONLIMITED. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess they could be deleted if we wanted to be purists and follow WP guidelines to the letter. On the other hand, they're very useful and popular with users, so it's unlikely that any proposal to delete them will pass. -Zanhe (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I don't think it's about being purists - As AHeneen notes below, these are some of the most fundamental policies on Wikipedia we're talking about. You say that these tables are highly useful and popular, but I would argue among whom - it seems that primarily aviation enthusiasts are defending the tables. Some editors outside of WP:AIRPORTS have chimed in and do not seem to be supportive, on the other hand. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus are core policies on Wikipedia! Here's a key part of the latter, from WP:Local consensus (emphasis added): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. We can't simply ignore the Verifiability policy!! AHeneen (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason why referencing should not be improved, but removing the tables altogether is totally counter-productive. VG31 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B to ensure WP:Verifiability. Links to searchable timetables should include the relevant search term whenever possible, and citations should provide an |access-date= parameter, so that new readers or editors can accurately assess the timeliness of the information. — JFG talk 09:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @JFG: As different references will have different access dates, how do we introduce the table: "As of [what date?], the following airlines offer service from X airport." As of now, the tables have no such indication - they appear to be current - even though I think this is quite misleading, particularly in airport articles that receive much less attention (e.g. articles on small airports or airports in non-English-speaking regions). We should consider MOS:RELTIME. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C WP:VERIFY clairly states that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I don't see how a manual search directly supports anything.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • My concern with this option is that, for some airlines, there are limited to no sources available outside the searchable timetable or booking engine. Route maps can be hard to read when there are so many destinations, such as from hub airports. When there are so many destinations, it can also be difficult to verify all of them on a regular basis, given the regular changes airlines make to their schedules. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option D (move to Wikivoyage) I see no other choice. The airlines seem intent on making it impossible to verify these tables without a significant amount of original research. As noted, that's permitted on Wikivoyage. With sufficient inter-linking, it shouldn't be a hindrance to readers. My second choice would be to maintain the status quo (option A), somewhat per WP:IAR. The data is still verifiable, by visiting the physical airport if nothing else. There isn't anything reasonable to cite for inline references, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • There does need to be a discussion on Wikivoyage as well before any content is moved there. The templates don't work, and as noted in discussion, not all airports have pages on Wikivoyage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


  • What about an option D... omit the tables entirely? The text should certainly cover which airlines serve an airport, but I am not at all sure we need to state the specifics of where those airlines are flying to and from. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • We actually had an RfC about that in February, here. Consensus was to keep the tables. I will note that many of the contributors were regular editors of airport articles. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies ... I came here after seeing a neutral announcement at RSN, and was not aware of the previous RfC. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the inclusion of explicit references for these tables. My problem with searchable timetables is that they put too much of a burden on the reader to manually search for each and every destination. If they want to be sure the list is not missing any destination, they would have a lot of searching to do. And for seasonal destinations, it can get confusing, as a reader has to search for dates throughout the year to verify them. Still, I'm not sure if they violate WP:OR, as most information can clearly be verified by searching the timetable. Also, we are just listing the destinations without any interpretation, so I think they would be acceptable primary sources.
Besides the timetables, there are many possible sources for these tables: airline press releases, standard news articles, CAPA Centre for Aviation, some airlines publish their timetables in PDF format like Air Canada, etc. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have an aiport or a few airports on my watchlist and I have seen IPs understand the current situation, sometimes with an edit summary. Is anyone else aware of this or is this a small case? Please ping if you reply as I don't have this on my WL. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Emir of Wikipedia: I don't really understand what you're saying. Do you mean that IPs are familiar with the current guidelines and add/delete routes in accordance? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I have seen IPs edit airport and they have shown to me that they are familiar with the current guidelines. I am not sure how much they edit these articles but how would they be made aware of any changes? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Emir of Wikipedia: Naturally they would come to know about any possible changes when they see them, when they're reverted with an explanation, etc. - just like all other users. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to quote a previous comment in that the tables do not need to be accurate. What they do, however, need to be is accurately referenced. I note the previous point about most references stating that the route is due to start and not proof that it has started, however, unless another source is provided otherwise then that reference is considered accurate. Leaving explicit references in the table does absolutely no harm. Garretka (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. I don't think there is anywhere else in Wikipedia where vast swaths of information are intentionally left without explicit references. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What do we do in this situation: WestJet doesn't have a searchable timetable, instead it has a PDF version here. However this PDF doesn't differentiate between mainline flights and WestJet Encore flights. Nor does the route map. On the other hand, the booking engine does differentiate. Does it come down to searching the booking engine? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Option D (remove entirely). Put the tables on Wikivoyage. This way they are still kept (per the previous RfC).--Commander Keane (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Commander Keane: As an administrator with presumably a lot of experience on Wikipedia, why exactly do you support such an option? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the followup @Sunnya343:. I find the tables really useful and I think they have an important place in the Wikimedia group of wikis but they should exist in one place. I think the best place is Wikivoyage. This is because Wikivoyage does not have Wikipedia's WP:VERIFY restriction, indeed they "encourage original research". The Wikipedia articles should still include information from reliable sources about destination changes (eg from newspaper articles). I also take a rather strict view on Self-publsihed sources. If I create a website and a pdf timetable for a fictional "Commander Keane Airlines" how to do you decide not to include the information in Wikipedia? I am thinking it takes original research. Of course at this stage I don't know if Wikivoyage will accept the tables, but I live in hope.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I would support this option an alternative to option C. Move both the tables and the terminal information over to wikivoyage. Garretka (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
          • @Commander Keane: This is an interesting proposal that I don't believe I've heard before. Wikivoyage does sound like the ideal "destination" for these tables, especially when I see edits like this one, this one, and this one. References are nowhere to be seen, yet these sorts of edits are routine in airport articles... — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
            • Although I would note that many airport articles do not have corresponding Wikivoyage articles, which could result in a ton of airport articles on Wikivoyage consisting of only these tables. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 01:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I used to be very active on Wikivoyage (and am still an admin on en-WV) and was among the initial editors on the voy:Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition to create airport articles around 2013. However, the project never really got off because there was a lot of disagreement about what size airports should be allowed to have stand-alone articles, as many wanted only those that outgrew a reasonable size on the city page that the airport serves. For example, see voy:Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Airlines & destinations, in which I tried to add destination tables in airport articles, but the response was mixed. As an example for the project, I created voy:Orlando International Airport. Pros of moving to Wikivoyage: no verifiability policy. Cons: few existing airport articles and the project hasn't been receptive to widespread creation of airport articles. If others are serious about the possibility of moving the tables to Wikivoyage, I don't mind serving as a liason and starting discussions on that project to explain why there is a desire to move the destination tables and how to decide where to move the content. P.S. I live in central Florida which, at the time of writing, is currently predicted to be hit by powerful Hurricane Irma Sunday/Monday, so if it stays on that predicted track, I may be busy in real life and unable to spend much time on Wikipedia until next week. AHeneen (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @AHeneen: First off I hope you stay safe, and please don't feel any pressure to respond soon! Regarding Wikivoyage, where "the traveler comes first", I wonder whether these tables would be necessary in the first place - most travelers will proceed directly to booking sites (Kayak, Expedia, airline websites, etc.) to find the cheapest itinerary. And with Wikivoyage's smaller editing base, the information is likely to become outdated fairly quickly - as some Wikivoyage users indicated in 2013. Personally I doubt this is a feasible solution. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this talk of an Option D is quite counterproductive, there are many primary and secondary sources that can be used to verify routes. I am really liking FlightRadar's route map feature, which shows you all the routes operated from a particular airport and the airlines that operate them. It is really detailed and shows the schedule for the week and aircraft used (mainline vs regional). It also shows most cargo flights as well. Here is CVG's link, there is also a button to expand the list so you don't have to manually click each destination: I think this might be a better source for routes rather than searching through a timetable. It also works for international airports, here are some other examples:,, and Stinger20 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Stinger20: Interesting find. Note that you can also pull up a list of all routes without having to click on the airports (e.g. here for Calgary Int'l). I am considering Option C again. We should remember not to over-rely on any one source like this one, however - CAPA, PDF timetables, news reports, etc. should be used as well. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 19:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I think remembering to not over-rely on one source is a good point. I think it would be nice to see a template header on the table with a link to that website or alternatives, keep PDF timetables/search engines in the 'Refs' column, and put news articles/other secondary sources in-line with the routes. Here is kind of what I was thinking: User:Stinger20/sandbox. Stinger20 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I feel that would be too complicated when it comes to quickly fact-checking information. If not "option D" I would support Option C; searchable timetables/booking engines theoretically require a reader to search every possible destination from a particular airport - if he/she wants to be sure no destinations are missing. I also concur with Jetstreamer that such sources do not "directly" support the information. I am furthermore against the notion that the tables are "current" per MOS:RELTIME.
Per my stance, I created this table for Calgary Int'l in my sandbox. I used {{Template:As of}} and made a note that seasonal destinations operated outside the specified time frame are not included. There are some cases where the searchable timetable/booking engine specifies that a route is operated by a subsidiary; however, (per Option C) other sources do not specify as such. For example, some destinations under WestJet in my table are technically operated by WestJet Encore. I'm not sure what to do here... — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 22:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: You can now add a references column that is not sortable by appending |3rdcolunsortable=yes. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 03:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Airports names cleansing[edit]

Hello, can we imagine/request a bot that would run time to time to clean airports names inside airport-dest-list template and redirections and unify them ? For instance,

  • [[La Tontouta International Airport|Noumea]]
  • [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Noumea]]
  • [[La Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa]]
  • [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa]]
  • [[Noumea Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa-La Tontouta]]

etc would become uniquely [[La Tontouta International Airport|Nouméa-La Tontouta]] ==> It would help easy copy-paste between the wikis in different languages --Bouzinac (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

possible but ill advised. There is really no requirement that these names are the same in each table. The requirement should be that they are sensible within a table This means that some variation should be expected.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's some samples what I found on correction when translating Eng>Fra, does it make sense to keep such differences ?

[[Arlanda Airport|Stockholm]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Arlanda]]
[[Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm-Arlanda Airport|Stockholm]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm-Arlanda Airport|Stockholm-Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm–Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm–Arlanda Airport|Stockholm–Arlanda]]
[[Stockholm Arlanda Airport|Stockholm Arlanda]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris-Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles Gaulle]]
[[Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Paris–Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport|Paris–Charles de Gaulle]]
[[Charles de Gaulle Airport (Roissy Airport)|Charles de Gaulle (Roissy )]]
[[Kyiv Zhuliany International Airport|Kiev-Zhulyany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kiev Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kiev International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Zhuliany Airport|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kyiv-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhulyany]]
[[Kiev Zhuliany Airport|Kyiv-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kiev-Zhuliany]]
[[Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany)|Kyiv (Zhuliany)]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul-Ataturk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul]]
[[Ataturk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul-Ataturk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Atatürk]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Ataturk Airport|Istanbul]]
[[Atatürk International Airport|Istanbul–Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul-Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul–Atatürk]]
[[Istanbul Atatürk Airport|Istanbul Atatürk]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-OR Tambo]]
[[O.R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O.R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg–Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg–O. R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-OR Tambo]]
[[O. R. Tambo International Airport|O. R. Tambo]]
[[OR Tambo International Airport|Johannesburg-O. R. Tambo]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Kelflavik]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavik International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík-Keflavík]]
[[Keflavik Airport|Reykjavík–Keflavík]]
[[Keflavik International Airport|Reykjavik-Keflavik]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík–Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Keflavík]]
[[Keflavík International Airport|Reykjavík]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Barajas]]
[[Madrid Barajas International Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St Paul]]
[[Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis-Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St.Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis-Saint Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport|Minneapolis/St. Paul]]
[[Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (Wold–Chamberlain Field)|Minneapolis–Saint Paul (Wold–Chamberlain Field)]]
[[Oslo Airport|Oslo]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo/Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo]]
[[Oslo Airport Gardermoen|Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo]]
[[Oslo Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Gardermoen Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo–Gardermoen]]
[[Gardermoen Airport|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo-Gardermoen]]
[[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|Oslo , Gardermoen]]
[[Bucharest-Otopeni Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Otopeni Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Bucharest Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Bucharest Henri Coandă Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest-Otopeni]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coanda Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Bucharest]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Bucharest-Otopeni]]
[[Henri Coanda International Airport|Bucharest–Henri Coandă]]
[[Henri Coandă International Airport|Henri Coandă]]
[[Sabiha Gokcen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gokcen]]
[[Sabiha Gokcen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha-Gokcen]]
[[Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökcen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Istanbul–Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Sabiha Gökçen International Airport|Sabiha Gökçen]]
[[Montréal Trudeau Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montreal-Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montreal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal-Trudeau]]
[[Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Trudeau]]
[[Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport|Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau]]
Bouzinac (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Delta hub at AMS and CDG?[edit]

This keeps getting added to the infobox for the hub parameter but it has stopped for right now. Can someone watch these pages or can we get a consensus whether or not these are to,be considered hubs or not? Thanks! (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Albenga Airport[edit]

Can someone take a look at Albenga Airport? The last few edits have gone back and forth over the proper name of the airport and I can't check the refs myself. Thanks Sario528 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The name discussion seems to have found its own cool-down, good! Still I took a look, and questioned some phrases that sounded all-too-commercial. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


Currently a crash is mentioned only if it occurred close to the airport. This is too restrictive. Sometimes there are significant sentimental, news, or historical links if a crashed flight originated at an airport. I propose to change the article outline such as brief mention may be made for flights that was scheduled to originate or arrive at the airport. Such mention should be briefer that accidents that happened in the proximity of the airport and should have at least one link or reference so further information can be found by the reader but not at the expense of a detailed description in the airport article. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree mostly, the scope of an airport article is about the airport, an incident with nothing to do with that airport other than it was part of the aircraft's route is rarely of enough significance for mention within the airport article. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The Airport accident and incident articles should only include those happenings that occur at the airport or on approach or just after takeoff IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. I agree with the inclusion only if the crash took place in the airport (or in the vicinities at most).--Jetstreamer Talk 12:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the proposal was this sentence in the Newark Liberty International Airport article, which I believe is very appropriate.

On September 11, 2001, Newark International Airport was the starting point of United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that was hijacked as a part of the September 11 attacks the flight was crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

In the Montreal Mirabel Airport, there is mention of this sorry bombing.

June 23, 1985: Air India Flight 182, a Boeing 747-200B en route from Montréal-Mirabel to London Heathrow Airport was blown up by a terrorist bomb off the coast of Ireland, killing all 307 passengers and 22 crew.

By the current rule, these two sentences should be eliminated. Not sensible, I think.

This sentence is in the Alaska Airlines Flight 261 article but, according to the rules, it cannot appear on the Seattle Tacoma International Airport article or, better yet, even a one sentence mention of the crash in the accident section of the airport article.

hat the western portion of Washington State "had never before experienced such a loss from a plane crash."[22] Many residents of the City of Seattle, Washington had been deeply affected by the disaster.

Vanguard10 (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the above should probably be deleted - They are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia and it is questionable how significant such details are to the airport article itself.

Experimental A&D table format[edit]

I have designed a new format for the "Airlines and destinations" tables that reconciles Wikipedia policies as discussed in the recent RfC. It is located here on the Calgary International Airport article. I have more explanation here on the article's talk page. Please provide your thoughts either here or there. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What a pity a simple table cannot be transverse to many wikipedia language. The same A&D table with a wikidata module would be the same whichever language. I tried a (failed) attempt at Ajaccio-Napoléon-Bonaparte and one would update one time an A&D and this update would be visible to any wikilanguage. --Bouzinac (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is it necessary for the reference column to be seperate? Wouldn't it be simpler and fit Wikipedia expectations if an appropriate reference covers the whole entry to put it after the airline name in column one. While WP:V says everything has to be verifiable it does not say everything must have an explicit reference - all of Wikipedia uses this principle. By enforcing a general explicit reference you risk getting very bad and general references that do not really support the details given. The existence of these general references do not remove the need to seperately explicitly reference any detail that is questioned or questionable. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Aesthetic reasons really, especially if there is more than one reference. However I'm not really understanding your other point. In the case of the Calgary airport article, I carefully read through each reference and copied over the destination list. Are you saying editors could add "general" references that do not actually support the entire list of destinations? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew, I don't see why a references column in necessary -- Whats new?(talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anyways, my WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. This is how it looked previously. I'm waiting for a decision on the RfC above before I take additional steps. Still, I encourage editors to consider and debate the format I have proposed. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 12:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)