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.

Orlando International[edit]

I know this topic has been discussed many times beforehand and really, nothing was done to resolve the problem. Recently, one user decided to switch "Orlando" to "Orlando-International" on every airport without discussing here, and their edits were not changed since then. I have a proposal. I have viewed many airport online sites and have seen how they list Orlando International Airport on their departures/arrivals lists and the most common way of listing this airport is as the following: Orlando-MCO or Orlando/MCO. I'm starting to think this is the correct way of listing this airport now once and for all. Anyone agree? Please leave your thoughts and opinions. Thanks. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am quite firmly against this proposal @*AirportUpdater*:. Airports list Orlando-MCO because they need a shorthand way for the airport. On Wikipedia, we aren't confined to space as such. London's airports are abbreviated as London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick etc. Orlando International is the name of the airport, as is Orlando Sanford, so why should it not stay as Orlando-International and Orlando-Sanford? st170etalk 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, MCO was always listed as "Orlando" since the start of Wikipedia. Then this past March, "Orlando" was switched to "Orlando-International" without consensus. This particular user (which you can see the discussion in this talk page) got a lot of heat for doing this. So, that's the history of MCO. Since then, no one has done anything to change these mass edits, probably due to the large amounts of edits to switch. Now, if you are so strongly against my edits because Orlando "International" is the name, then what about every other airport named "International"? So now we must change Pittsburgh to Pittsburgh-International, Indianapolis to Indianapolis-International, Kansas City to Kansas City-International? No, it doesn't make sense. It is much better to distinguish two airports in the same city by a specific name, not a word such as "International" that every airport has in its name. That's why every airport site lists MCO as "Orlando-MCO" and that's why I changed Wikipedia destination lists to "Orlando-MCO". Because it's the most accurate way to disambiguate MCO and SFB. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to disambiguate (and I agree we should), then full words, not IATA codes are a better method. More importantly, this is something that should have been proposed first, not done as though it were fair accompli. More importantly, I would say there was consensus to use "Orlando-International". That's certainly the way I read the prior discussion. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If you think full words are necessary, then why is New York-JFK listed the way its listed? Also, how come all of a sudden everyone's responding FINALLY to my comment? Because I ignited the spark by making all the edits. If I didn't do this, my comment would've never been responded to or discussed about. Last thing, again, there was NEVER a consensus regarding this issue. It was always discussed in the past and then put away. So, I'd say if we are never going to form a consensus, we should just go with what the airports are doing (which we should be doing anyway). *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
JFK has always been the exception, as it's not only widely used locally, but it's well known all over the world. And I would say that the discussion from last year had a consensus, with only one user filibustering because he didn't agree with the consensus because it was a change from past practice. And it wasn't me. But you knew that already. oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
By tagging some editors it would've been helpful as not everyone watches this talk page. With regards to your earlier comment about international, I'm saying that we should keep the status quo by disambiguating Orlando-International using international. You can't compare Orlando to JFK as JFK is known world wide. Also, I want to note here how Belfast has two airports and one airport is distinguished from the other by being called Belfast-International (as per Belfast International Airport). The same case applies here. I think we should revert back to International. st170etalk 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned JFK due to the comment about full words. If you want Orlando to be accompanied by a full word (International), then why not word out JFK (John F. Kennedy)? Paris-CDG words out Charles-de Guelle for example. That's why I mentioned JFK. Anyway, I'm a strong believer in shortening things and not making things too complicated. It seems everyone here wants to word out everything and clobber up the destination lists with additional words that don't have to be there. Another example is Phoenix-Sky Harbor. Why is this worded out? I think if we can shorten things down while not changing the general scope of the destination, it's perfectly fine. "Orlando-MCO" perfectly describes Orlando International Airport and also is a great way to disambiguate the two airports from each other. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Paris-CDG is an international airport that is named after a famous person so I think it is totally appropriate here instead of giving it its full title of Charles de Gaulle. To be quite frank, Wikipedia is not supposed to confuse things with a bunch of abbreviations. We're supposed to use its most well known title. I can't comment on Sky Harbour because I don't know anything about the airport but how else could it be shortened? Keep Wikipedia easy to read, easy to understand and it is therefore less confusing to use International rather than MCO. st170etalk 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, looks like CDG is yet another airport that could be discussed forever. This airport is even worse because the amount of destinations that'd need changed is staggering. Right now, they are all listed as "Paris-Charles de Gaulle". Regarding Sky Harbor, I think it should be left alone how it was before the change a month ago (just as "Phoenix"). Regarding MCO, I still can't see International as correct. I've never seen it. Between the 3 ways its been listed (Orlando, Orlando-International, Orlando-MCO), I think Orlando-International is the worst. SFB (Orlando/Sanford) has International in its name as well, using this word is just a bad way of distinguishing two airports. I can't believe no one else can see it. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that a lot of users on Wikipedia are not aware of IATA codes. I am firmly opposed to MCO because abbreviations are not user-friendly. I would like to revert to Orlando-International for the time being and I would be happy to do this. Orlando is not a well known airport in my eyes (compared with the likes of JFK) and using abbreviations here would be totally inappropriate. You have brought up a good point about SFB using the word 'International' in its name, but it is also true that MCO is the primary airport. We need to name the airports in a way that they are easily recognised by the user, and in this case, International seems to be the preferable option at the moment. st170etalk 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I also just wanted to add that I've checked a few airport pages and they list Orlando-International as just 'Orlando'. Gatwick Airport lists Orlando and Orlando (Sanford) appropriately. Sanford is therefore seen as secondary and in my opinion international should be kept until further consensus is reached. st170etalk 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If not JFK, then "New York-Kennedy" would be appropriate for space purposes. The main point there is that "MCO" is not a well known abbreviation to the general readership, unlike JFK, which is widely used in everyday speech. Likewise, outside of air buffs, Charles de Gaulle is rarely refered to as CDG. "Paris-de Gaulle" would be appropriate as a shorter form, but not the IATA code, as is obscure. But still, all this is false equivalency that distracts from the issue that there was consensus for "Orlando-International" to disambiguate from "Orlando-Sanford", and you disagreed and forced an unneeded change against consensus. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you think MCO would confuse the "general readership", then how is International better? Both Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport have that word in their names. So, now I go back to my original thought back in 2015...should it just be "Orlando" if you are worried about how the "general readership" will view these airports.
Also, once again, there has been no consensus regarding this topic. None. Here's the link to the previous discussion: [[1]] As you can see, the discussion ended with no one responding to HkCaGu's question. Please stop repeating yourself about consensus when there's been none. That's why SSTflyer's edits got a lot of people talking because there was no consensus. Now, knowing you guys, probably in your next comment you'll say some foolish phrase such as "you're bullying your way through Wikipedia". No, I am simply editing in the info that the Pros are listing on EVERY airport site for departures/arrivals. Everything is the same except for this Orlando situation and Phoenix. London-Heathrow is the same, London-Gatwick is the same, New York-JFK is the same, Orlando/Sanford is the same, Paris-Charles de Gaulle is the same, etc. Orlando and Phoenix are not the same. If we want to make Wikipedia look like it does on all professional websites, then why shouldn't we do it? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you should stop reacting defensively and try to have a civil discussion with other editors. Actually, at certain airports, London-Heathrow is referred to as London-LHR and Gatwick as London-LGW. Paris is also Paris-CDG to distinguish Paris-Orly (see Dublin Airport's website). We want a name that is readily recognisable and able to distinguish itself easily. MCO doesn't do that, it's unheard of outside of the local area and those who know about the airport. st170etalk 11:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus on the way airports should be formatted, see WP:AIRPORTS - DragTails - 10:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are my issues with the various formats:

  • Orlando and Orlando/Sanford - Someone who is flying Allegiant or Thomson into Sanford might see Orlando on multiple articles and figure that is the same airport they're flying to. There needs to be some distinction to indicate that Orlando has more than one major commercial airport serving it.
  • Orlando–International and Orlando–Sanford - As AirportUpdater stated, both airports have International in their names.
  • Orlando–MCO and Orlando/Sanford(?) - I think this is the best option. If someone is confused by MCO then they can just click on the airport link.

Note that this problem also exists for Dubai International Airport (referred to as Dubai–International) and Al Maktoum International Airport (referred to as Dubai–Al Maktoum). Should DXB become Dubai–DXB? - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There needs to be some sort of disambiguation between the two, and "International" does not accurately distinguish one from the other as both airports have that word in their name. "Orlando–MCO" and "Orlando/Sanford" is the best option. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The current situation here while strange is not particularly hard for people to comprehend, one of these airports is clearly more prominent than the other and the current situation reflects this situation perfectly. Anything you do like the absolutely horrible MCO suggestion will only confuse people and make matters worse. Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is not a guide book or a travel guide, and we cannot just make up a name because it is inconvenient. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: All in all, I evidently have to agree with you here Andrew. For someone that were to see the suffix of "MCO" added to Orlando would most likely be confused because it is not common knowledge to associate "MCO" with Orlando, though this is the ICAO code for the airport. I'm pretty sure the only common knowledge labeling of an ICAO code is New York–JFK, which is currently working very well. With that said though, adding the "International" suffix to the airport would also be confusing because both MCO and SFB (Orlando/Sanford) fly international routes; its just that the title of the MCO article is labeled as Orlando "International" Airport.
I know that we've started this discussion up several times already at WT:AIRPORTS, but Andrewgprout does bring up a good point that the current labeling will definitely confuse people more than helping them to distinguish the two airports, which is the underlying goal here in the first place.
I really think that we need to go back to labeling MCO as "Orlando" as it originally was. Now I do believe that we came to a consensus a long while back to keep this as such, but this discussion came about when a particular user was repeatedly changing the labeling of lots of different airports, such as "Phoenix" to "Phoenix–Sky Harbor", among others including the Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh airports as well. Overall, the "International" suffix should not be used because of the fact that it is very redundant since an airport that would supposedly be labeled as "International" would be the larger airport of the two (or more) airports anyways... This also applies to the Kuala Lumpur and the Dubai airports as well. Eliminating the "International" suffix on all of the labels that currently contain it in my mind seems like the best solution to take care of a lot of labeling issues because the airports are already "International Airports", making it not only confusing but also being redundant as well.
Regarding the labels that don't use the "International" suffix, such as Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Phoenix/Mesa, Orlando/Sanford, and Dubai–Al Maktoum, among others, the labels should probably not contain an additional suffix unless the airports are clearly distinctive in the amount of operations occurring between the two (or more) airports. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:3E77:E6FF:FE9F:4AF3 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando International (redux discussion)[edit]

Restarting this discussion again because the last one clearly went nowhere, and the last IP to comment on the previous thread is apparently now blocked. Anyway, in light of the edit warring that has occurred at John Glenn Columbus International Airport back in June and more recently at Calgary International Airport. Here's my take on the issue:

The current labeling of Orlando International Airport as "Orlando–MCO" causes a lot of problems because the ICAO code "MCO" is not commonly associated with the airport itself. In comparison to this, the labeling of John F. Kennedy International Airport as "New York–JFK" makes much more sense because the JFK suffix in the labeling is abbreviated from John F. Kennedy. Because of this, it is common knowledge to associate "JFK Airport" in relation John F. Kennedy, and thus, it makes sense to label the airport as such.

On the other hand, "MCO" is not of any sort of common knowledge to most people, because the title of the airport is merely, "Orlando International Airport". Nowhere in that airport's title, does the abbreviation of "MCO" come into play, as New York's JFK airport, the abbreviation of "JFK" refers to the title of that airport in itself.

With this all in mind, we need to look at other cities with multiple high-usage airports. For example, Dubai's Al Maktoum airport is currently labeled as "Dubai–Al Maktoum". This works greatly because the suffix "Al Maktoum" is within the title of the airport, similarly to JFK, which is abbreviated after John F. Kennedy. If Al Maktoum International Airport were to be labeled with the ICAO code as "Dubai–DWC", this would cause a similar issue as the Orlando–MCO issue.

Now, Dubai's other airport is labeled as "Dubai–International" in order to help disambiguate Dubai's two airports. I see this situation with "Orlando–MCO" to be extremely similar to Dubai's airports. With the following in mind, here is my proposal:

Current labeling: Orlando–MCO
Proposed labeling: Orlando–International

If anyone sees this thread, please discuss your thoughts below, as we need to come to a clear consensus before this starts to get out of hand/out of control. Thanks everyone, — (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: I fully support this proposal. I believe that it's more fitting for International to be used rather than MCO, which is complete nonsense. Sanford is referred to as Sanford and, as Orlando is the primary airport, I see no problem calling it Orlando-International. --st170etalk 03:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support: I do not support the "MCO" title at all. I think Orlando should just use Orlando preferably or if not Orlando–International for Orlando International Airport and Sanford/Orlando for Orlando Sanford International Airport. My thought is, look at other Allegiant cities in Florida. In Tampa we use Tampa for Tampa International Airport and St. Petersburg/Clearwater for St. Pete–Clearwater International Airport. Simarly in Fort Meyers we use Fort Meyers for Southwest Florida International Airport and Punta Gorda/Fort Meyers for Punta Gorda Airport. I do not think the international part is necessary, but it is certainly much better than MCO. Stinger20 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support/Comment: I think Stinger20 brings up the most logical solution to all this. It fits the most with how other city's airports are currently labeled. One other example is with Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh International Airport is labeled as "Pittsburgh" and Arnold Palmer Airport (Latrobe) which is 65 miles away is labeled as "Latrobe/Pittsburgh". Orlando should probably follow this same path. "Orlando" for MCO and "Sanford/Orlando" for SFB. I believe Dubai International was also brought up above. This should also be looked into about changing to this type of format. (Main airport: city's name alone, Smaller regional airport: that town's name/closest major city's name) *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support: I do not support the labelling in its current state. It is confusing and cannot be compared to JFK or even CDG, where the physical airport names happen to relate to the ICAO codes. After searching various airlines websites, those who fly into Sanford list the destination as Orlando/Sanford or a similiar wording. Orlando is listed as "Orlando" on the vast majority of the carriers websites (Air Canada, Delta, Spirit, United, WestJet to name a few), however is listed as Orlando-International on American's website. Based upon that, I see no reason why Orlando-International (or even just "Orlando") is not a suitable, and support the decision to go with that labelling. Garretka (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: The proposal seems quite reasonable to me.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: Very logical and agree with the proposal. Orlando-MCO is a horrible option. SempreVolando (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: There is no real easy solution here as one of these airports has consciously named itself confusingly. My view as I have said before is that simply "Orlando" for the big airport that gets 99% of the traffic and is the airport for Orlando in 99% of peoples minds is just fine - the simple solution is always likely to be the best. The upstart (perhaps inappropriately named) airport needs a qualifier and that qualifier must include Sanford. The word international is a little problematic but I would not be worried if consensus included it. Additionally we should perhaps be guided by WP:COMMONNAME which is one of the biggest reasons the MCO solution is so horrible and perhaps WP:NATURALDIS I know these are mainly about article titles but it would be sensible that entries linking to pages should reflect as best possible actual article titles. Also important is to not take the maintenance and scope of destination lists too far, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRAVEL, but perhaps that is another discussion. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Agree. Orlando and Sanford/Orlando seems to be the most logical way to list these two airports. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Orlando-International" and "Orlando-Sanford". I ca may pathos with wanting to avoid confusion because both are international airports and have the term in their full names, but the current solution is lousy (as the "MCO" airport code is not well known like "JFK", which is used in everyday speech around the world) and just "Orlando" is actually less informative, as both are airports serving Orlando, so the plain city name doesn't actually tell the reader which airport it is. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support Much more easier to understand and to avoid confusion. - DragTails - 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment An easier way to solve this would be 2 airports: Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport. Belfast International is labeled in destination charts as 'Belfast-International' while Belfast City as 'Belfast City'. I think this is similar to the Orlando issue and that MCO should be formatted as Belfast International Airport's format. - DragTails - 13:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs to be wrapped up - no one here or out on Wikipedia in general appears to disagree with the proposals being made here. Is there enough consensus to start to change current entries to Orlando and Sanford/Orlando as appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to disambiguation rule[edit]

In previous discussions on Orlando I had brought up parallel issues like Phoenix, Seattle/Vancouver (and their water airports), and someone brought up Montreal and Cincinnati, and then there was Panama City. Things are so complicated, we didn't get anywhere. Yet the edit war slowly continued. After all these and the recent discussion, may I propose relaxing the disambiguation rule (multiple airports in same city, must disambiguate) in favor of WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how to rephrase WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT yet, but it goes something like this:

  • If a city has multiple airports, but one is overwhelmingly dominant, and much larger than any other competitors, and is known simply by the city's name without much confusion, let it take over the simple city name. This would include Beijing, Phoenix, Orlando, Vancouver, Panama City, Montreal, Cincinnati, Kuala Lumpur.
  • The much smaller airports that have obscured location or city name will have the disambiguation. This would include Beijing-Nanyuan, Phoenix-Mesa, Orlando-Sanford, Vancouver-Harbour, Panama City-Albrook, Montreal-Saint-Hubert, Cincinnati-Lunken, Kuala Lumpur-Subang.
  • All other cities with smaller airports of significant sizes will continue to disambiguate all airports. This would include London, Tokyo, Jakarta, Seoul, Bangkok, Shanghai, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Paris, Berlin, Toronto.

Basically, we shake off the disambiguation for the big airport where everyone serving there does not "disambiguate" in their operations. HkCaGu (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is also an acceptable solution, but I foresee conflicts also with it. What happens with cities having airports with comparable traffic (i.e, Paris-Orly and Paris-CDG or Buenos Aires-Ezeiza and Buenos Aires-Aeroparque)? Let's just wait for other's comments.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. As mentioned above, airports with comparable traffic should continue to be differentiated. But a line needs to be drawn as to where we need and don't need disambiguation. Garretka (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
General Support. I'm not sure this needs to go past some guidance about disambiguation principles. Mine would be 1. Only disambiguate where necessary 2.use the principles of WP:COMMONNAME as guidance, and in this case - 3. it is alright to disambiguate by having a general term for a big thing and qualified general term for a lesser thing. This is most likely the simplest most understandable solution to the most people. Torturous constructions trying to minutely explain differences will nearly always fail to do so clearly.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Tan Son Nhat International Airport[edit]

Can any autoconfirmed users continue to monitor this page? Newark continues to be added to the table for United Airlines as the airline operates a direct flight there via Hong Kong but the 2 segments are flown by 2 different types of aircraft (a Boeing 737-800 from SGN to HKG; a Boeing 777-200 from HKG to EWR). A hidden note was made but IPs continue to alter it saying that there is no aircraft change at HKG even though says there is. The page has been semi protected until 4 July 2016 but once the protection expires, there will be continued addition of this service. Thanks! TravelLover37 (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC) If it starts up again after 4 July let me know and I will protect it for longer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Douala International Airport[edit]

An interesting way to introduce the list of accidents and incidents that avoids the lack of references in the airport article.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a ban on the "ban" of Turkey destinations in the US?[edit]

The US FAA flight ban on flights from Turkey due to those airports' temporary lack of security has led to numerous edits adding "(suspended)" into various airport articles. But this is Turkey, and the temporary suspension is expected to last as long as Brussels'. This is not Yemen or Syria or NE Japan. Such kind of suspension ought not to be encyclopedic. Can I get everyone to chime in? HkCaGu (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is subject to a more generic discussion: when does something temporary become encyclopedic? Whether it be Bryacalabowizj or ZraZraZra is little relevant. Above all: our discussion should not last longer than the ban being discussed. Come to think of it, those editors who were quick to add the <suspended> ought to be trusted to remove it just as quick. No problem that I can see. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
They should, ideally. But I don't think they will. I don't believe the changes in discussion are encyclopedic. This is not a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If there were flight suspensions to a given destination for a few days because of a natural event such as an earthquake, a cyclone/typhoon/hurricane, or a volcanic eruption would we list those as "suspended"? I very much doubt it. I see no need to make mass changes to airport articles because of this. YSSYguy (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The FAA have now lifted all restrictions. Gavbadger (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The user that marked the destinations as suspended at IST [2] did not undo their edits, as expected.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)