Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Apple Vacations/Vacation Express charter flights
I am now starting a new discussion on whether if these types of flights (Apple Vacations/Vacation Express are not airlines but rather tour operators but many major carriers such as Frontier Airlines, AirTran Airways, Aeromexico, Sunwing Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Interjet, Allegiant Air and Bahamasair operate flights on their behalf). Let's continue the discussion here. Should these services be included or excluded from table. Any suggestions to stop this madness? 71.12.206.168 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think that they should be listed in the normal location but listed as, "Airline ABC" seasonal charter for "Tour Group DEF".--Purduefb15 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Purdue above. I think the charter flights should be listed along with the actual airline (Frontier, Allegiant, Sun Country, etc). "Seasonal charter:" could be listed in the destination column. If Apple Vacations or Vacation Express should be included, it can be done so as Purdue described, or in a footnote after the table. Another option would be to have a Charter table, but I think it would add unneeded complexity/clutter. It seems to me the question is more of how the "airline" should be labeled. I think the flights themselves are relevant enough to be included (they're not one time only things, such as a College football charter to a Bowl game, rather these charters are typically 1-4 days/week for a few months). Thanks Dj1997 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- One idea would be to list the airline (airline A) and all the flights they sell seats for in one row, then in the next row list Airline A charter flights for Tour Group A. If needed more rows could be added if Airline A had charter flights through more than one tour group. I dont know if that makes sense. An example of a format I think works well would be Mitchell International Airport (MKE) with AeroMexico and Apple Vacations. Check it out and let me know what you think. --Purduefb15 (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Purdue above. I think the charter flights should be listed along with the actual airline (Frontier, Allegiant, Sun Country, etc). "Seasonal charter:" could be listed in the destination column. If Apple Vacations or Vacation Express should be included, it can be done so as Purdue described, or in a footnote after the table. Another option would be to have a Charter table, but I think it would add unneeded complexity/clutter. It seems to me the question is more of how the "airline" should be labeled. I think the flights themselves are relevant enough to be included (they're not one time only things, such as a College football charter to a Bowl game, rather these charters are typically 1-4 days/week for a few months). Thanks Dj1997 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is your example, please don't readd this until there is a consensus. FWIW, I don't think it's appropriate to start listing travel agencies in a list of airlines. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
| Airlines | Destinations | Concourse |
|---|---|---|
| Aeromexico charter for Apple Vacations | Seasonal: Cancún, Cozumel (begins December 21, 2014)[1] |
- Thanks Dual Freq--Purduefb15 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well since Purduefb15 has only 15 edits in all of his/her time on Wikipedia I don't think it's a good idea to take their idea and run with it. In fact, since this discussion concerns major stakeholders across the travel industry I don't think we should be taking advice for any user who doesn't have a history of serious contributions to Wikipedia/airline related articles. IMHO I think we should keep to the guidelines and not include these flights. If we have information that there is a charter then possibly including it in an additional section would be appropriate but not in the same section as the regular flights. It will destroy all credibility since these flights are next to impossible to check sources for and since they change all the time without any warning. MAIN POINT: Wikipedia is for verifiable information, if we can't verify this stuff easily then we certainly should not be including it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as we are not a travel guide - the travel operator or ticket seller is not relevant and should not be included, and to repeat what I said above that the airlines and destinations section is to give the reader an idea of the range of operators and places that connect to the airport, it is not a travel guide so the actual tour or travel company is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alright I see what your saying. Would the below be a fair compromise?--Purduefb15 (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as we are not a travel guide - the travel operator or ticket seller is not relevant and should not be included, and to repeat what I said above that the airlines and destinations section is to give the reader an idea of the range of operators and places that connect to the airport, it is not a travel guide so the actual tour or travel company is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well since Purduefb15 has only 15 edits in all of his/her time on Wikipedia I don't think it's a good idea to take their idea and run with it. In fact, since this discussion concerns major stakeholders across the travel industry I don't think we should be taking advice for any user who doesn't have a history of serious contributions to Wikipedia/airline related articles. IMHO I think we should keep to the guidelines and not include these flights. If we have information that there is a charter then possibly including it in an additional section would be appropriate but not in the same section as the regular flights. It will destroy all credibility since these flights are next to impossible to check sources for and since they change all the time without any warning. MAIN POINT: Wikipedia is for verifiable information, if we can't verify this stuff easily then we certainly should not be including it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
| Airlines | Destinations | Concourse |
|---|---|---|
| Aeromexico seasonal charter | Cancún, Cozumel (begins December 21, 2014) |
- Whats wrong with the currently agreed style at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that "the airlines and destinations section is to give the reader an idea of the range of operators and places that connect to the airport," and that tour operator names should not be listed in the table. I am okay with what Purdue proposes directly above or, I think for consistency purposes, better would be:
- Whats wrong with the currently agreed style at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
| Airlines | Destinations | Concourse |
|---|---|---|
| Aeromexico | Seasonal: Cancún, Cozumel (begins December 21, 2014) |
or
| Airlines | Destinations | Concourse |
|---|---|---|
| Aeromexico | Seasonal charter: Cancún, Cozumel (begins December 21, 2014) |
and these flights should only be included if they are sourced. Dj1997 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at Burgas Airport and Varna Airport. These are Bulgarian tourism destinations. They have the three sections I discussed before "Regularly scheduled flights" "Cargo" and "charters". Using this format would avoid excluding anything.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, many US carriers operate "Special Authority Charters" flights between the US and Cuba since there are no regularly scheduled service but they have a separate section for example at Jose Mrti International Airport (Havana). Should these flights be included as well? 71.12.206.168 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I do like Monopoly's idea with scheduled commercial, charter, and cargo airlines. Lambert–St. Louis International Airport has a similar format I noticed. (With the exception of the Apple Vacations listing there). I think that would work. Dj1997 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding "Special Authority Charters", that would apply to Miami International Airport as well. That article lists Havana flights as Charter: in the Passenger airline section. I'm thinking that the José Martí International Airport page addresses this better, with those charter flights in a separate section. Dj1997 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Should be in a separate section as long as the entries are well sourced. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like we have agreement. A separate section as long the entries have sources.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Should be in a separate section as long as the entries are well sourced. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, many US carriers operate "Special Authority Charters" flights between the US and Cuba since there are no regularly scheduled service but they have a separate section for example at Jose Mrti International Airport (Havana). Should these flights be included as well? 71.12.206.168 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at Burgas Airport and Varna Airport. These are Bulgarian tourism destinations. They have the three sections I discussed before "Regularly scheduled flights" "Cargo" and "charters". Using this format would avoid excluding anything.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed merger
I have proposed that we merge Blast pen with Revetment (aircraft) - they seem to be different names for the same thing. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Blast pen#Proposed merger. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
List of airports in the Okanagan
List of airports in the Okanagan is a featured list. In its "Airports" section, it lists twelve airports. However, the opening sentence of the lead states that there are only five airports, and the rest are heliports and aerodromes. Still, the Heliport and Aerodrome articles are both in Category:Airports by type, which suggests that all twelve of these entities are airports and that five of these are simply not heliports or aerodromes. If this is the case, is there a name for non-heliport non-aerodrome airports? The list has a "Type" column and the options are Heliport, Water aerodrome, and Airport, but considering that all of them are airports, the third option should really be more specific. Any help anyone would be able to provide in identifying the appropriate term would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could use "certified" and "registered". So Kelowna International Airport, Kelowna (Alpine) Heliport, Kelowna (Wildcat Helicopters) Heliport, Kelowna (General Hospital) Heliport, Penticton Regional Airport and Vernon Regional Airport are all certified airports while Naramata Heliport, Oliver Municipal Airport, Osoyoos Airport, Pentiction Water Aerodrome, Vernon/Wildlife Water Aerodrome, Winfield (Wood Lake) Water Aerodrome and Kelowna (Argus) Heliport (is not in the list) are all registered aerodromes. It comes out of Section 2 on page 52 and the Canada Flight Supplement/Water Aerodrome Supplement. In the flight supplement all the places listed are in a section call "Aerodrome/Facility Directory". So in reality what you have is seven certified airports and five (now six) registered aerodromes for a total of 12 (now 13) aerodromes. As to why Oliver and Osoyoos are given as airports and not as aerodromes comes from Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. What's happened is that when the operating authority of a registered aerodrome calls themselves an airport, Oliver and Osoyoos, then its probably the common name and used on Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Mainline/Express Combined??
A couple of airport articles have airline mainline and express operations combined because they operate out of the same terminal. I really think this needs to be discussed before changing. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a couple examples? I would think the mainline and express/connection flights should be separate. The express flights are operated by a different carrier (ExpressJet, SkyWest, Endeavor, etc). I know the 'United Express operated by' isn't used any longer, but I think United Airlines and United Express should be separate, even if operated in the same terminal or concourse. Dj1997 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no reason that the same airline's budget or "express" service should be separated. They are listed together in the same timetable, flights are book together through the same reservation system and check-in is down through the same ticket counter. If they are at two terminals I can understand having it divided but otherwise that makes no sense.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I do agree with some of your points, I propose that some people have an interest in seeing what cities are served by a mainline airline vs. their regional brand. I'd like to hear some more input from other users, though. HuffTheWeevil / talk / contribs 05:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- If combined, the reader will think that the destinations are served by both mainline and regional, which tends to mislead the reader. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support keeping them separate. A significant reason we have for keeping the destination lists is to show the scope of service of an airport, and I think there is a distinction to be made in the scope of service of an airport that sees only service by an express affiliate and an airport served predominantly by mainline aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well the U.S. articles will be the world's exception then because there isn't a single other country's articles that do it this way. If the airline is the same, they use the same timetable, the flights are booked together through the same reservation system and the check-in is done at the same ticket counter in the same terminal then there is no reason to make it seem like there is a lot more services than there actually are and expand the number of rows in the table by adding a separate row for airlines who have different brand names for their flights but charge the exact same fares and (often) service the exact same destinations.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree; there are numerous examples of 'sub-brands' (such as Regional or Express) being listed separately from their mainline airline in destination tables. Air New Zealand Link, Air Canada Express, Air Canada Rouge, Etihad Regional, Iberia Express, Iberia Regional, Lufthansa Regional, QantasLink, Virgin Atlantic Little Red and Virgin Australia Regional Airlines are all examples of this, and there are plenty more. Separating sub-brands makes sense because they are usually very different to the mainline airline, often using completely different fleets, using different terminals/concourses and having independent brands/identities. Keeping them separate makes these differences clear to readers and is more accurate. Listing all destinations under the mainline carrier would likely confuse readers and would do very little to reduce table length as most articles for major airports split destinations by terminal/concourse and, as many sub-brands operate from separate concourses to their mainline counterparts, the number of rows and the size of the table would remain the same. OakleighPark 00:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and think it is important for mainline/express to be separate. They are two different services (hell, even the planes say "XX Airlines Express/Connection/Airlink". Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree; there are numerous examples of 'sub-brands' (such as Regional or Express) being listed separately from their mainline airline in destination tables. Air New Zealand Link, Air Canada Express, Air Canada Rouge, Etihad Regional, Iberia Express, Iberia Regional, Lufthansa Regional, QantasLink, Virgin Atlantic Little Red and Virgin Australia Regional Airlines are all examples of this, and there are plenty more. Separating sub-brands makes sense because they are usually very different to the mainline airline, often using completely different fleets, using different terminals/concourses and having independent brands/identities. Keeping them separate makes these differences clear to readers and is more accurate. Listing all destinations under the mainline carrier would likely confuse readers and would do very little to reduce table length as most articles for major airports split destinations by terminal/concourse and, as many sub-brands operate from separate concourses to their mainline counterparts, the number of rows and the size of the table would remain the same. OakleighPark 00:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well the U.S. articles will be the world's exception then because there isn't a single other country's articles that do it this way. If the airline is the same, they use the same timetable, the flights are booked together through the same reservation system and the check-in is done at the same ticket counter in the same terminal then there is no reason to make it seem like there is a lot more services than there actually are and expand the number of rows in the table by adding a separate row for airlines who have different brand names for their flights but charge the exact same fares and (often) service the exact same destinations.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support keeping them separate. A significant reason we have for keeping the destination lists is to show the scope of service of an airport, and I think there is a distinction to be made in the scope of service of an airport that sees only service by an express affiliate and an airport served predominantly by mainline aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no reason that the same airline's budget or "express" service should be separated. They are listed together in the same timetable, flights are book together through the same reservation system and check-in is down through the same ticket counter. If they are at two terminals I can understand having it divided but otherwise that makes no sense.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a couple examples? I would think the mainline and express/connection flights should be separate. The express flights are operated by a different carrier (ExpressJet, SkyWest, Endeavor, etc). I know the 'United Express operated by' isn't used any longer, but I think United Airlines and United Express should be separate, even if operated in the same terminal or concourse. Dj1997 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Airstrips in Tanzania: Notable per this project's guidelines?
There are a number of stub articles about Tanzanian airstrips that may (or may not) satisfy this project's notability guidelines. To wit:
- Kikoboga Airstrip
- Loliondo Airstrip
- Mombo Airstrip
- Morogoro Airstrip
- Msembe Airstrip
- Mtemere Airstrip
- Rubondo Airstrip
- Same Airstrip
- Singida Airstrip
- Songo Songo Airstrip
75.34.101.43 (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello User:AfricaTanz. I believe it does satisfy the guidelines as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports#Creation_of_a_new_Airport. Please note that the use of multiple IP addresses is against Wikipedia's guidelines and policy. See: Sock puppetry. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC) P.S> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz/Archive
- Most importantly, WP:BLOCKEVASION applies. AfricaTanz (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Australian Business Traveler reliable source?
Australian Business Traveller is on the blacklist of references, so any reference citing ausbt.com.au gets automatically reverted by XLinkBot (eg this revision). I assume that this is because someone considers ausbt.com.au a spam/self-promotional site with content that can always be found elsewhere.
My feeling is that, though it's certainly a special-interest publication, it meets the criteria in WP:RS and, at the very least, shouldn't be automatically removed as a reference on site. As a news reporting site, it's really a better source for schedule changes and the like than airline schedules, since its stories are secondary sources which are permanent with an identifiable date, time, author, and title, rather than being a primary source that can and will change in the future.
Before bringing this to the appropriate place elsewhere (I'm not sure where that is yet), what do the ariport folks think? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- if other sources say the same thing and the changes are reflected in the timetable then it should be used. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that AusBT often the best or only source for things like schedule changes. (A timetable really isn't a reliable source, per the Wikipedia definition, anyway.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we should raise the matter at WP:RSN to get some feedback.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see that this was brought up at WP:RSN by an AusBT editor in 2012. [2] At that time, the publication was new, and it being brought up by an AusBT editor probably looked like a conflict of interest. It appears no action was taken, though there wasn't any disagreement. So I will bring it up again there. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I suggest continuing any discussion at WP:RSN#Australian Business Traveller reliable source?. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see that this was brought up at WP:RSN by an AusBT editor in 2012. [2] At that time, the publication was new, and it being brought up by an AusBT editor probably looked like a conflict of interest. It appears no action was taken, though there wasn't any disagreement. So I will bring it up again there. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Seperating Flights by the same airline at the same airport by terminal
I'm wondering why we place flights by the same airline, at the same airport, into two different lists if they operate out of a different terminal. Is it not sufficient to simply just say "Terminal 2 & 3" instead of needing two lists? See the example below, which is Delta Airlines at LHR.
| Airlines | Destinations | Terminal |
|---|---|---|
| Delta Air Lines | Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles,New York–JFK, Newark (begins 29 March 2015), Seattle/Tacoma | 3 |
| Delta Air Lines | Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Philadelphia (begins 8 April 2015) | 4 |
Why isn't it sufficient to have them together, and simply put "3/4" or "3,4" for the terminal? I don't see the purpose of listing them apart, WP really doesn't need to be THAT specific. Plus, it's possible that some flights may operate in the other terminal depending on gate space.
| Airlines | Destinations | Terminal |
|---|---|---|
| Delta Air Lines | Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York–JFK, Newark (begins 29 March 2015), Philadelphia (begins 8 April 2015), Seattle/Tacoma | 3, 4 |
Is the second option not sufficient? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- As this is not a travel guide the actual terminal is not relevant and not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. So can we remove the separation of flights by the same airline at the same airport by terminal? If we want to list terminal, simply list both terminals together. Thoughts from anyone else? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I too agree that separating out destinations by terminal they operate out of is unhelpful. It particularly bugs me at a many US airports where all international destinations are handled at one terminal but domestic destinations are out of multiple terminals including the international. Eg ATL lists DL domestic destinations as T, A, B, C, D, E, F but international destinations as T, A, E, F. Just put all the mainline destinations in one list as T, A, B, C, D, E, F. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- However the issue is not as simple worldwide. The US mess is here because there is no departure passport control and international flights can depart from any gate. However, for a country with passport control, domestic and international flights will be totally separated. Also, the other issue is nature/distance/aircraft type for these flights. Caribbean and Canadian flights use the same aircraft as domestic (hence they could operate out of any gate), but flights to Asia-Pacific and Europe do not (they always arrive from international so they always depart from international gates). HkCaGu (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree in the sense that showing the exact terminal are less encyclopedic but more like a travel guide. For instance, Kuala Lumpur International Airport (though only Malaysia Airlines affected in the current arrangement) have two terminal, namely KLIA (consisting Main Terminal Building and Satellite) and klia2 (low cost carrier terminal). But KLIA terminal has been exaggerated into Main and Satellite. In real situation, both building operate international/regional flights. In some situations, an airlines which normally arrive/depart from Satellite building, need to operate out of Main building due to airport's operation. Tafeax (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So maybe a standard we can follow is by asking "Are departure terminals 'generally distinct' or 'convoluted'?" HkCaGu (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- That being said, why do we even have to list the terminal? If we are so dead set on doing so, than I think it is fair to simply list all the terminals that a certain airline uses, and not have to make two separate lists based on the terminal. As mentioned, WP is not a travel guide. It's highly unlikely someone is going on WP to see what terminal their flight will depart from. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Then we go back to why we have a destination listing at all: to see what an airport "is like". A destination table makes it simple. You can sort by airlines, you can sort by terminals. When you have a "convoluted" place like ATL, the illustration's ability is limited. But when you have a clearly distinct (almost like separate airports) place like SYD, and already have one combined table, combining listings does not help you understand what things "are like". HkCaGu (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what is the issue with listing both terminals the airline operates from in the same list? Why make two lists? It's seen mostly at US Airports, where it is unneeded. You could make an argument for SYD, but most airport could not. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- So there you have it, my earlier suggestion of "generally distinct" versus "convoluted". Also, may I also mention "source-ability"? For LAX, QF specifically tells customers how flights are divided between T4 and TBIT, and these terminals are generally separated. In contrast, at ATL and SFO, airlines have separate check-in and arrival facilities for international versus domestic, but the planes end up using "each other's" gates and terminals on a regular or irregular basis. If DL announces how flights are separated at LHR (like what UA/CO did), then when we illustrate an airport and its terminals, it makes sense that we list separately. But when we need to go to flightstats.com to do our own research, it surely becomes WP:NOTTRAVEL. HkCaGu (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point. But, as mentioned, WP is not a travel guide. People aren't (and shouldn't) be coming to WP to figure out where to check in and what gate to go to for their flights. I think it's fair to list all the terminals that an airline operates out of, but unnecessary to separate the lists based on terminals. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- So there you have it, my earlier suggestion of "generally distinct" versus "convoluted". Also, may I also mention "source-ability"? For LAX, QF specifically tells customers how flights are divided between T4 and TBIT, and these terminals are generally separated. In contrast, at ATL and SFO, airlines have separate check-in and arrival facilities for international versus domestic, but the planes end up using "each other's" gates and terminals on a regular or irregular basis. If DL announces how flights are separated at LHR (like what UA/CO did), then when we illustrate an airport and its terminals, it makes sense that we list separately. But when we need to go to flightstats.com to do our own research, it surely becomes WP:NOTTRAVEL. HkCaGu (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- But what is the issue with listing both terminals the airline operates from in the same list? Why make two lists? It's seen mostly at US Airports, where it is unneeded. You could make an argument for SYD, but most airport could not. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Then we go back to why we have a destination listing at all: to see what an airport "is like". A destination table makes it simple. You can sort by airlines, you can sort by terminals. When you have a "convoluted" place like ATL, the illustration's ability is limited. But when you have a clearly distinct (almost like separate airports) place like SYD, and already have one combined table, combining listings does not help you understand what things "are like". HkCaGu (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- That being said, why do we even have to list the terminal? If we are so dead set on doing so, than I think it is fair to simply list all the terminals that a certain airline uses, and not have to make two separate lists based on the terminal. As mentioned, WP is not a travel guide. It's highly unlikely someone is going on WP to see what terminal their flight will depart from. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So maybe a standard we can follow is by asking "Are departure terminals 'generally distinct' or 'convoluted'?" HkCaGu (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree in the sense that showing the exact terminal are less encyclopedic but more like a travel guide. For instance, Kuala Lumpur International Airport (though only Malaysia Airlines affected in the current arrangement) have two terminal, namely KLIA (consisting Main Terminal Building and Satellite) and klia2 (low cost carrier terminal). But KLIA terminal has been exaggerated into Main and Satellite. In real situation, both building operate international/regional flights. In some situations, an airlines which normally arrive/depart from Satellite building, need to operate out of Main building due to airport's operation. Tafeax (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- However the issue is not as simple worldwide. The US mess is here because there is no departure passport control and international flights can depart from any gate. However, for a country with passport control, domestic and international flights will be totally separated. Also, the other issue is nature/distance/aircraft type for these flights. Caribbean and Canadian flights use the same aircraft as domestic (hence they could operate out of any gate), but flights to Asia-Pacific and Europe do not (they always arrive from international so they always depart from international gates). HkCaGu (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I too agree that separating out destinations by terminal they operate out of is unhelpful. It particularly bugs me at a many US airports where all international destinations are handled at one terminal but domestic destinations are out of multiple terminals including the international. Eg ATL lists DL domestic destinations as T, A, B, C, D, E, F but international destinations as T, A, E, F. Just put all the mainline destinations in one list as T, A, B, C, D, E, F. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. So can we remove the separation of flights by the same airline at the same airport by terminal? If we want to list terminal, simply list both terminals together. Thoughts from anyone else? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there's no really good reason to separate one airline's flights by terminal. When we do that, it becomes not just a WP:NOTTRAVEL problem, but also a WP:NOTDIRECTORY problem, as it isn't all that different from a floor directory of the airport. Might as well also say which fast food restaurants are in each terminal. (Intentional argumentum ad absurdiam, yes.) Just listing all destinations in one row with all terminals used listed is enough. For a case like Delta at ATL (which is an extreme case), we could just put "All terminals", as it is true. oknazevad (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Can we get input from some other project members before we move forward with anything? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 14:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- As before, not totally agree. We can't just say something is slightly WP:NOTTRAVEL and get rid of it. We have to look from the other side, the bigger principle of "giving an illustration". There will be "necessary evil" that comes along. We can't throw the baby out with the bath water. We agree destination listing and terminal annotations are necessary, and this will for sure lead to undesired but "necessary" complications that look like WP:NOTTRAVEL such as (1) Oh they depart here but arrive there or (2) Oh VA uses LAX TBIT but checks in at T3. Of course for SFO and ATL things are more simple than that. UA has counters at T3 and Intl and flights (anything not Europe or Asia) may use T3 or Intl. We combine, list both, and can't worry too much. But if we just single-mindedly proclaim "NOTTRAVEL" and go combine all QF and VA listings at SYD or BNE, we're forgetting the original purpose. (Hey if we have to repeat four or five domestic destinations QF or JQ may operate on international flights, so be it. Not a reason to combine the 40 domestics and 30 internationals and totally losing sight of each terminal's significance.) So I just have to go back to the question: Is it convoluted or distinct? ATL and SFO are convoluted. LHR DL are distinct (and temporary). SYD, BNE, PEK, CAN are distinct. Going back to our discussions about regional carriers, we decided US legacy sub-carriers are convoluted. Alaska and EU/AU carriers are not, and so we did what we did. HkCaGu (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would say it is fine how it currently is, I wouldn't say it is a travel guide, as that would include a lot more information like which check in desks/areas and what gates which it doesn't. It is useful to know what terminal an airline operated out of. In some places flights to certain places can't operate from the same terminal due to political reasons or even operational ones (Size of the aircraft). Mark999 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability of Airports
Are airports inherently notable? --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on the the type of airfield/aerodrome, on wikipedia for some reason all airfields are called airports when they cleary are not (it may be an eng var issue), so you have to be clear what type of "airport" is being discussed, that said an airport or any airfield/aerodrome that has or had a scheduled service is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Airports and railway stations seem to be somewhat inherently notable. I can only remember one or two airports that I created sent to AfD and I think they were kept. There was one deleted that I sent to AfD but it was impossible to prove that the thing existed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thru Domestic Hub
The following direction has been given to avoid domestic flights which has a stopover in its hub and continue to another destination.
"However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two."
Is it allowed to mention such destinations if the a/c is not shuffled for quite a long time, the route doesn't change often and flying for years with the same rotation? --Amdmustafa (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Any wikipedians to respond this?--Amdmustafa (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Could you provide a concrete example instead of a vague question? I'm not aware of any true direct flights through domestic hubs. (All the qualifiers there are important.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
What punctuation mark should be used to separate a city from its airport?
Hello everyone. Please take a look at this edit made by Cherkash. I have reverted it. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT requires a hyphen to separate the airport in multi-airport cities. We need feedback on the matter to settle this once and for all.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like a fairly typical case where the way the guidelines are written wasn't intended to point to the categorical use of one separator (in this case hyphen) in favor of other similar ones (dashes in this case), but rather to prescribe the use of such separator vs. its non-use ('Washington-Reagan' being preferable to 'Washington Reagan'). WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT seems to be concerned with articles formatting, etc. more than with categorical prescription of the sort "always use a hyphen instead of a dash" which wouldn't make much sense here. So it's surprising you choose to read it that way.
- Stylistically and grammatically, this a fairly straight-forward case of en-dash being preferable to hyphen. Hyphen doesn't belong in cases where the connected entities (city/airport pair in this case) don't form a single entity with its own independent standing (like being a proper name). E.g. Washington–Reagan is not a proper name of the airport and it's not its official name – but rather a construct, or a short-hand notation, to differentiate one of the Washington airports (with its full name 'Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport' being shortened to 'Reagan') from the rest of them (Dulles, etc.)
- Since this is causing confusion, I think it's overdue that we should simply clarify that hyphen currently used in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guidelines is really an en-dash. It's a trivial edit of the WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. But keeping in mind that it's easier to enter a hyphen on most keyboards than an en-dash, I would leave hyphen as an option. The fact is, most people can't be bothered with the distinction, and convenience alone will lead some editors to continue entering hyphens in such cases – which is actually ok as a shortcut and is not something to get worked up over, since it can always be corrected later with scripts/bots/etc. What I think is plain wrong here is to prescribe use of hyphen where it doesn't belong, simply because sometime ago the WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT was written this way (most likely inadvertently, by someone who couldn't care less about hyphen/en-dash distinction – and let's face it, most people don't).
- I would go and be bold, and just edit the WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT – since reading the whole section there makes it abundantly clear that prescription of the hyphen use vs. that of an en-dash was just an inadvertent oversight. cherkash (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to wait for some feedback just to make clear the next move is done by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- My reading of MOS:HYPHEN is exactly the opposite of Cherkash's: I think this is a straightforward case in which a hypen is correct. (I certainly agree that it's the manual of style that is the guideline we should follow, not the project-specific style guide.) The Wikipedia style guide prescribes the use of en-dashes for ranges and connections (a specific example is "a New York–Los Angeles flight"). I think the most relevant guidance in the style guide is "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." The en-dash examples are for compounds which might otherwise be connected by "to" etc, which doesn't apply for airports.
- The exception in which an en-dash should be used in Wikipedia style is when the noun to which a prefix is applied with a hyphen has a space. ("Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound that includes a space".) Therefore, Tokyo-Narita, Washington-Reagan and New York-JFK (with hyphens) all seem appropriate, but New York–La Guardia and Phoenix–Sky Harbor (with an en-dash). What a mess! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- (And I agree that we should wait some time — at least a week — before making such a wide-reaching but minor change to the project's style suggestion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to wait for some feedback just to make clear the next move is done by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability of new services, up-/downgauges at airports?
I'm getting into disagreements with editors at San Francisco International Airport. In the section about changes in services in recent years, someone wanted to add what I consider too much. Can I get some consensus here on not just SFO, but similar international airports of this size? Here are principles I have been going by:
- Changes in frequency and aircraft types are generally not notable. An airline already serving there adding routes is generally not notable.
- Who's flying A380s to an airport is generally notable. An international airline in existence adding a new long-haul route can be notable.
Can I get some agreement? HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- As the editor in disagreement here, I'd posit the argument that any service change with in-depth reliable coverage (i.e. not an airline press release, nor a news article simply a description of the changes) qualifies as notable and thus should be included in airport articles. Conifer (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then you don't care about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and therefore WP:NPOV. Let me tell you, CI spent a lot of PR money announcing their TPE-LAX upgrade from 747 to 777s. They even put new seats for trial use at the mall. Every paper reported once. BR or CX couldn't bother to do that. HkCaGu (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with HKCaGu, the important information is that an airline has services to the airport, not the equipment doing it. Some Australian examples: Qantas doesn't always use the same aircraft types on the same routes every day; Emirates operates to BNE, SYD and MEL with two different aircraft types; Virgin and Qantas operate between MEL and SYD with two different aircraft types; Thai operates to SYD with two different aircraft types. YSSYguy (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the intricacies of airline operations need not be mentioned in articles, but if frequency/route changes extensively reported in reliable sources are apparently not NPOV, then why would the announcement of A380 use somehow not be WP:UNDUE? Airlines certainly advertise the fact that they are using the largest passenger jet in the world when they serve a city, so I can't see why that particular fact suddenly becomes fair game for inclusion. Conifer (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm also with HkCaGu. Changes in equipment are not notable. This is not a fansite but an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Still never worked out why the A380 should get special treatment when we dont mention the introduction of other types like the Boeing 747 which had a bigger effect on infrastructure. So really if a new type causes big changes in the airport infrastructure then it may be of note but otherwise it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Milborne, it's recentism. Anything that happened in the last few years is obviously of greater impact to some editors and people in general....William 16:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the chimes. I'm certainly not defending every detail in contention. Once something new started, some of the exact dates and announcement dates have no relevance anymore. For A380s, limited capabilities at many non-new airports and the large number of passengers they bring (affecting runway/taxiway capacity and immigration queues) are the notable factors--but only a count/list of current operators and confirmed future ones. HkCaGu (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Milborne, it's recentism. Anything that happened in the last few years is obviously of greater impact to some editors and people in general....William 16:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Still never worked out why the A380 should get special treatment when we dont mention the introduction of other types like the Boeing 747 which had a bigger effect on infrastructure. So really if a new type causes big changes in the airport infrastructure then it may be of note but otherwise it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm also with HkCaGu. Changes in equipment are not notable. This is not a fansite but an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the intricacies of airline operations need not be mentioned in articles, but if frequency/route changes extensively reported in reliable sources are apparently not NPOV, then why would the announcement of A380 use somehow not be WP:UNDUE? Airlines certainly advertise the fact that they are using the largest passenger jet in the world when they serve a city, so I can't see why that particular fact suddenly becomes fair game for inclusion. Conifer (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with HKCaGu, the important information is that an airline has services to the airport, not the equipment doing it. Some Australian examples: Qantas doesn't always use the same aircraft types on the same routes every day; Emirates operates to BNE, SYD and MEL with two different aircraft types; Virgin and Qantas operate between MEL and SYD with two different aircraft types; Thai operates to SYD with two different aircraft types. YSSYguy (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then you don't care about WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and therefore WP:NPOV. Let me tell you, CI spent a lot of PR money announcing their TPE-LAX upgrade from 747 to 777s. They even put new seats for trial use at the mall. Every paper reported once. BR or CX couldn't bother to do that. HkCaGu (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The general public does seem to have a special interest in the A380. I was in the viewing area at MAN in the UK on an autumn afternoon in 2010. There were hundreds of other people there - until the Emirates A380 service departed, whereupon almost all of them left, leaving a dozen or so of us diehard idiots to endure the cold. Thousands of people turned up at SYD to see the first Singapore Airlines commercial A380 service arrive. YSSYguy (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with excluding all aircraft and frequency changes from articles, but A380 service then is only specifically notable if modifications are made to the airport, not simply of its own accord. That would also extend to other examples: the first widebody service to an airport would be worthy of inclusion if a runway was lengthened to allow the flight. Conifer (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand it, all such airports did have to be modified for the A380, with special terminal gates. YSSYguy (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Right, so the first A380 route to LAX—notable. The subsequent ones—not notable, since they all can use the same facilities. Conifer (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- That seems a reasonable summary Conifer. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me. YSSYguy (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- So we would mention the first 380 service to LAS even if no new work is needed to accommodate that aircraft? All changes were done as part of a new terminal build. And may not be used for many years. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Gate modification is only a part of the relevance. There are taxiways that are sort of OK but not completely OK. 747/777/340 may be banned from certain taxiways for 5-15 minutes while an A380 is on the move. And if there are as numerous of A380 flights at LAX (highest in the US, I heard), they can cause frequent traffic jams. Since US airlines did not buy any A380, you only have foreign carriers flying mostly 1 or 2 a day each, so a count may be more relevant than SYD or SIN, where it would become schedule-like. HkCaGu (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- So we would mention the first 380 service to LAS even if no new work is needed to accommodate that aircraft? All changes were done as part of a new terminal build. And may not be used for many years. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Works for me. YSSYguy (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- That seems a reasonable summary Conifer. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Right, so the first A380 route to LAX—notable. The subsequent ones—not notable, since they all can use the same facilities. Conifer (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand it, all such airports did have to be modified for the A380, with special terminal gates. YSSYguy (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Top Destinations/Traffic and statistics/Statistics/Domestic statistics/International statistics
Should there be a formal guideline for pages to organize the statistics tables that are frequently exhibited under one of the above section tables. Looking through several airport articles there are many different ways that the information is organized.
E.g:
Under a single Traffic and statistics section where past annual traffic numbers busiest domestic routes and busiest international routes are all grouped together as exhibited in the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport and London Heathrow pages.
Under three sections: Statistics, Top international destinations, Top domestic destination as exhibited in the Chicago O'hare International Airport
While other airports also include breakdowns in the total number of passengers carried by different carriers such as JFK Airport and McCarran International Airport
And even weirder LAX has has three dedicated sections Traffic and Statistics, Top international destinations, and Top domestic destinations yet Traffic and statistics only contains text while the past annual passenger numbers table is located under the Top domestic destinations section.
Before I started to make changes on several of these major airport pages I wanted to come here first and try to see if a guideline already exists that I could refer to or if a guideline should be made first. Travisn917 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Category:Runways
While looking at "ice runways", I was surprised to not find a category for runways. It would seem to be a subcategory of Category:Airport infrastructure. There appear to be a number of runway related articles. Is this an oversight or am I missing something?
SBaker43 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone keep an eye on this page? An IP is constantly removing the destinations and cargo from the table as he is stating that there are no sources provided. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well somehow he/she's right... There's even a "warning" about that just above the cargo section ;) Slasher-fun (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I went and tagged the sections as needing additional references. Passenger table has some sourced future routes but the cargo has none. Hopefully someone can find sources for them. Citydude1017 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Etihad Regional flights from Zurich to Trieste
There has been a dispute between 2 IPs on this service. It has turn out that Etihad Regional will operate these flights as charter flights for cruise services and that these flights won't resume in 2016. Do we consider these flights has irregular charters or regular occasional charters? Are they even notable to include in the table? Can someone take a look to see if it should be included or not? Regards! Citydude1017 (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Destination maps
User:Macadamia1472 has been adding a large map to airport articles, I am sure that previous discussions at both airlines and airports decided that these duplicate the lists and were not needed, do we need a new consensus to include or not? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Link to previous discussion? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited, MilborneOne, and Kingroyos: Here's the link to the previous discussion. I've reverted this edit accordingly.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there is no clear consensus on the previous discussion, instead User:Hawaiian717 have given very good reason why they are useful. (Kingroyos (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC))
- The only reason we have a destination section is to give a scope of the services offered over the years by the airport, having this information in a table and a map is a bit of an overkill, and in some cases having it hidden is a clear indication that it shoudnt be there. Perhaps we should ditch the tables and just have a series of maps showing the destinations over the years but that would need some discussion but adding tables and a map is a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingroyos and MilborneOne: I've reverted this edit again. Kingroyos has never participated in the project discussions, and the second thread for "Destination maps" in the archive 13 pointed above includes no comments from Hawaiian717. There's a clear consensus on the matter for not to include the maps. Please stop warring and discuss here if you want consensus to be changed. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think a map does a much better job than a table of showing the breadth of services from an airport. Harder to maintain, but that's not necessarily bad: just say these are the services as of some date and update the date whenever the map is updated. The data don't need to be maniacally up to date to give a sense of the breadth of sercice from the airport. I recognize that this is a huge change that will be unpopular with many readers (including myself, frankly) who use the tables as a travel guide. Perhaps fork the tables off to a more appropriate project, wiki voyage? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the data will be updated less frequently and harder or impossible for the average editor to do, why use it? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm against their inclusion simply because of WP:NOTRAVEL. List of destinations in airport articles the way they are today can hardly be maintained given that lots of editors, some of them established ones, keep adding start and end services without providing sources, against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Can you imagine what will happen if we also accept maps?--Jetstreamer Talk 10:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to start using {{fact}} for all of those adds without references? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think, just like the table destination, it is a much better presentation of regions served by the airport, it is also very helpful to get an idea where to transit when direct flight is not available or is more costly. It is also very easy to update, editors just have to add the coordinates of the airport which is readily available in the respective airport's articles. A clear consensus should have been reach before all these maps were remove from different articles. @User:Jetstreamer, indeed i can still see User:Hawaiian717 comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_13#Destination_maps. Kingroyos (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- But per WP:NOTRAVEL, the fact that it's "helpful" for planning travel is not an argument for including the tables. (In fact, it's an argument to remove them!) Instead, the tables should go on an actual travel guide wiki like Wikivoyage. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- We have maps on many different articles, none of which violate WP:NOTRAVEL. A map easily demonstrates to our readers the full services of the airport, that isn't a travel guide. I think @Jetstreamer: should read WP:NOTRAVEL. Here is the main bit Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. I'm not sure what a map with the flight destinations has to do with a travel guide. If we had a map of the hotels, shops, restaurants and other facilities at the airport, then that would be a travel guide. IJA (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- But per WP:NOTRAVEL, the fact that it's "helpful" for planning travel is not an argument for including the tables. (In fact, it's an argument to remove them!) Instead, the tables should go on an actual travel guide wiki like Wikivoyage. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm against their inclusion simply because of WP:NOTRAVEL. List of destinations in airport articles the way they are today can hardly be maintained given that lots of editors, some of them established ones, keep adding start and end services without providing sources, against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Can you imagine what will happen if we also accept maps?--Jetstreamer Talk 10:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the data will be updated less frequently and harder or impossible for the average editor to do, why use it? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- The only reason we have a destination section is to give a scope of the services offered over the years by the airport, having this information in a table and a map is a bit of an overkill, and in some cases having it hidden is a clear indication that it shoudnt be there. Perhaps we should ditch the tables and just have a series of maps showing the destinations over the years but that would need some discussion but adding tables and a map is a bit over the top. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there is no clear consensus on the previous discussion, instead User:Hawaiian717 have given very good reason why they are useful. (Kingroyos (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC))
- @OhanaUnited, MilborneOne, and Kingroyos: Here's the link to the previous discussion. I've reverted this edit accordingly.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't see the reason I'm pinged here. I'm not the only one against map removals.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
AA/US SOC
It was announced at http://news.yahoo.com/american-airlines-group-expects-merger-milestone-april-8-212318337--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBEiR_JBRVRSQAgozQtDMD that both AA and US is expected to receive a single operating certificate on April 8, 2015 but it is just speculation with the word "expects". However, whenever this happens, how should we list the former US Airways flights when the SOC is given? I know some have already been done but this is due to both airlines's cross-fleeting operation.
Merge all the US/AA destinations together into one listing: this is for both airlines' hub airports:
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| American Airlines | Chicago-O'Hare, Charlotte, Dallas/Fort Worth, Philadelphia, New York-JFK, Miami, Phoenix, Washington-National |
or
Still make 2 separate listings but have "US operated by AA" (the US Airways' name and brand will still stick around but flights operated under the AA certificate) and merge destinations into AA when US Airways name is retired:
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| American Airlines | Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, New York-JFK |
| US Airways operated by American Airlines | Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington-National |
or
Just put "AA operated by US" as any editors would do regarding past airline mergers (and merge into AA listing when US Airways name is retired):
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| American Airlines | Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, New York-JFK |
| American Airlines operated by US Airways | Charlotte, Philadelphia |
Here are some examples on how we should list them since when that time comes, there is going to be a lot of edit wars regarding this and I want to come to an agreement when they receive an SOC. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- The first option is inevitable eventually, but while flights are still marketed as US Airways, the second option does make sense. The third option is simply wrong as US Airways can no longer operate any flights once they are under the SOC as they have no Air Operator's Certificate with which to do so. All flights will be operated by AA. SempreVolando (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on Option 2. Let's not over-emphasize the importance of SOC, given the lessons we learned from past mergers. ATC call signs and passenger branding can take a long time to settle after SOC. We should not merge completely until the last of these aspects are merged. HkCaGu (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that the operating certificate will have both "US Airways" and "American Airlines" on it at first. So it's not even clear to me that "operated by American Airlines" would be technically correct until "US Airways" is dropped from the certificate, which presumably won't happen at least until US switches over to the AA reservations system. blog source and FAA letter. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on Option 2. Let's not over-emphasize the importance of SOC, given the lessons we learned from past mergers. ATC call signs and passenger branding can take a long time to settle after SOC. We should not merge completely until the last of these aspects are merged. HkCaGu (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Or, according to the sources provided by Ashill, just leave US Airways and American Airlines listed as it is as if they were still 2 separate carriers since the certificate will have both airlines listed temporarily and go to Option 2 when the US Airways name is dropped from the certificate. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
SOC achieved
Since it is now midnight on April 8, 2015, SOC has been achieved for both airlines. Since there is no further discussion on this matter, I am guessing we are going with Option 2 (with one user already jumping the gun and changed them already). However, I am very puzzled at the moment. Since SOC is achieved, should we make the US Airways page defunct or past tense since it is no longer a operating carrier according to the FAA but it will continue to operate as a brand name rather than a airline until passenger reservation systems are merged. Also, should all the former US Airways hub airports (CLT, PHL, DCA, PHX) in the "hub for" parameter be changed from "US Airways" to "American Airlines". I am not sure how we handled this for other airline mergers (US/CO, DL/NW) post-SOC. Citydude1017 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please, everyone, be on guard for editors who do not understand how "US Airways" is not disappearing any time soon. I just reverted a bunch of changes from "US Airways Express" to "US Airways Express operated by American Eagle". Someone even reverted me using "SOC" as a justification! What does SOC have to do with regional branding? HkCaGu (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Still "operated by US Airways"
As noted above, the single operating certificate is for "AMERICAN AIRLINES INC AND/OR US AIRWAYS INC". Also, booking any flight, the "operated by US Airways" tag remains for AA flights operated by US; similarly, for US-marketed and operated flights, reservations systems do not say "operated by American Airlines". Therefore, it seems quite clear to me that US Airways remains a distinct operator, so airport listings should still say "US Airways", not "US Airways operated by American Airlines. I have added a citation needed tag for "US Airways operated by American Airlines" at Philadelphia International Airport (though at least two editors have tried to remove it); I haven't gone through and changed all the airport articles. Is there any reliable source that says that US Airways doesn't still exist as an operating entity? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- According to American's website[3], US Airways still operates its own flights. There is no need for an "operated by..." note for either airline. Once the merger is complete, all flights will be branded under the American name and US Airways will no longer exist. I've notified the editor who made all the changes to go and revert their edits; we shall see if that happens. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
According to http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-usairways-reservations-20150512-story.html?track=rss, both airlines reservation system will be combined beginning July 2015 and lasting until October 2015 (that's when the US Airways name and brand will officially disappear). Citydude1017 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
US Airways or American Airlines in the "hub for" parameter of infobox for US Airways hub airports?
US Airways and American Airlines are now recognized as a single carrier by the FAA. The former US Airways flights are still branded as "US Airways" (which will remain a brand until passenger operations are merged) but are operated by American Airlines. Should we put US Airways or American Airlines in the "hub for" infobox for the US Airways hub airports? US Airways until passenger services are completely merged or leave it as American Airlines? The US Airways airport hubs are now listed as "American Airlines" for the hub and the airports are listed at the American Airlines article. Citydude1017 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would leave it alone for now. No harm is done by waiting. Does anyone know when the res system will be combined? Vegaswikian (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not true anyway that US Airways flights are operated by American Airlines (as noted above but ignored). The operating certificate says operated by "American Airlines or US Airways". If you go book a flight on usairways.com, Expedia, or wherever, you will find that US-operated flights do not have any "operated by" tag (as would be required by law for any flight for which the operating and marketing carriers differ), whereas AA-operated flights say "operated by American Airlines". Similarly, AA-marketed, US-operated flights say "operated by US Airways". So changing anything about the description of operating carriers for US/AA was jumping the gun.
- The announced timetable for a single reservation system is end of 2015, with reports from non-reliable sources (aviation forums) suggesting perhaps October 2015. A ways away. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 16:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ashill, July 2015 until October 2015 as per http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-usairways-reservations-20150512-story.html?track=rss. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
U-Tapao International Airport
This is a confused airport. U-Tapao International Airport located between Pattaya and Rayong of Thailand. Historically, it was named after 'ruea-tapao', type of Chinese junk (ship). From its website [4], the airport was identified as 'U-Tapao-Rayong-Pattaya International Airport'. I not really sure whether U-Tapao itself a city or just a mere name for the airport. According to IATA [5], the city name is U-Tapao, while the airport name is Rayong-Pattaya International. My main concern, how should we list UTP on destination table? It was written as 'Pattaya-U-Tapao'. For me, this name too long and give unnecessary impression as if there was another airport serving Pattaya. For instance, AirAsia [6] and Bangkok Airways [7] listed UTP as 'Pattaya'. On the other hand, Kan Air [8] refer it as 'Pattaya-U-Tapao'. I need a consensus whether to keep 'Pattaya-U-Tapao' or a simpler and straight-foward 'Pattaya'.Tafeax (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
New Routes/Services: Exact date issue
There has been a disagreement among three users regarding the starting of new services at an airport. At Pristina International Airport, Air Serbia announced that it will start services to the airport sometime in 2015 and there is a source for it but there has been no date announced or mentioned. However, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guidelines state that future services must be provided in full including the year. I would want to welcome any new suggestions on how to deal with this issue. Should we just go ahead and include the new route eventhough a date hasn't been announced (we can just update it when a date is announced), not include it at all, or make a note of it somewhere in the table. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- The sourced facts can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table. Not the case here. We have guidelines for their inclusion and they say to include only if a firm date is provided.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- How about a section specifically for prospective airlines as at Brisbane_Airport#Prospective_flights? It's not in the table and all these entries are properly sourced. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't see any conflict with something like that. Actually, at Ministro Pistarini International Airport is mentioned that Air New Zealand has a planned future service, but this is done outside the destinations table.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- ok, but let wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion and see their opinions. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say be bold and do it. As long as it's in the text, properly referenced with a reliable source, and relevant, no need for permission from the WikiProject. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm involved in this discussion on my talk page, but I'm busy in my personal life at this very moment in time so I'll reply properly tomorrow. But to be going on with, why is it apparently so that "sourced facts can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table"? That seems a very obscure and ludicrous thing for Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopaedia which gives free knowledge to anyone, anywhere in the world. Tables are not excluded. Regards IJA (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Simply because the project has guidelines which reflect years of established consensus on the content of the tables, so violating those guidelines is likely to provoke significant disagreement. But content in prose is not so harmonized across the project, so add it and discuss at the article talk level if someone objects — there's no consensus to point to to say it shouldn't be there. (I happen to think that the entire existence of the destination tables violates larger, project-wide policy (WP:V and WP:NOTRAVEL, both of which are policy, not mere guidelines), but that's not a discussion to have on individual articles.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm involved in this discussion on my talk page, but I'm busy in my personal life at this very moment in time so I'll reply properly tomorrow. But to be going on with, why is it apparently so that "sourced facts can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table"? That seems a very obscure and ludicrous thing for Wikipedia. This is a free encyclopaedia which gives free knowledge to anyone, anywhere in the world. Tables are not excluded. Regards IJA (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say be bold and do it. As long as it's in the text, properly referenced with a reliable source, and relevant, no need for permission from the WikiProject. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- ok, but let wait for other editors to contribute to the discussion and see their opinions. Citydude1017 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't see any conflict with something like that. Actually, at Ministro Pistarini International Airport is mentioned that Air New Zealand has a planned future service, but this is done outside the destinations table.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- How about a section specifically for prospective airlines as at Brisbane_Airport#Prospective_flights? It's not in the table and all these entries are properly sourced. Citydude1017 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sources take precedent. If somebody says that an internal project guideline requires us to remove reliably-sourced, neutral content about a new destination from a table of destinations, either they have misinterpreted the guideline, or the guideline is fundamentally compatible with core wikipedia principles, or a bit of both. I have improved the wording of the guideline, which will hopefully reduce the risk of confusion in future. I trust that future edits will focus on providing accurate, sourced articles for readers, rather than mindlessly enforcing some misinterpreted phrase in an obscure internal wikipedia guideline. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a defender of sourced content. But including anything that is supported by sources anywhere is not the spirit of an encyclopedia. That's the reason for guidelines. Adding any possible future destination to the destinations table of any given airport will turn the encyclopedia into a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. I'd like to recall that the project is built by consensus. Let's wait for other's opinions to go on with this matter and see how far consensus takes us to.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add that I'm against bobrayner's modification of the guidelines. It was done without gaining consensus first, which is the spirit of this discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- The fact remains that there is no consensus for what Jetstreamer argues. There was never an agreement which says that new flights can only be added to the table if the exact start date is known. IJA (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- What I want to know is, why is it so important to have the exact start date confirmed before we can add it to the table? I agree that if the exact start date is known we should include it, but why should we exclude future flights when the exact start date is known?
- And another I want to know, why does it make it a 'travel guide' if we don't know the exact start date? And how does knowing the exact start date of a flight not make it a travel guide? This is some pretty fucking stupid logic here haha. IJA (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your judgement of the guidelines is not the core of the discussion. They are here and we may change it with consensus. But it seems to me that you're trying to push your preferred version of the situation rather than following the majority's opinion in exactly the same way you did with this [9] edit. It's up to you to search for the discussion in the archives.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Besides the diff above, here [10] you have another example that shows IJA's unwillingness to follow
the guidelinesconsensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)- Without an exact start date, the date can creep in and you have no clue whether it will start or when it's not starting anymore. We have had many of these obscured cases. Also, sources don't mean they are reliable, and many editors won't know how to judge, and even the same one source's reliability can change with time with barely any editors know how to determine. This will leave the benefit of doubt for inexperienced or IP editors with too much authority. And also, verifiability is not the absolute reason to require something be included. For the table, afters years of consensus to maintain the general nature of WP:NOTTTRAVEL, we have also included manageability. The exact date requirement is one element of this, and combining US regional carriers disregarding licensed carriers is another. HkCaGu (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Besides the diff above, here [10] you have another example that shows IJA's unwillingness to follow
- The fact remains that there is no consensus for what Jetstreamer argues. There was never an agreement which says that new flights can only be added to the table if the exact start date is known. IJA (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let me add that I'm against bobrayner's modification of the guidelines. It was done without gaining consensus first, which is the spirit of this discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a defender of sourced content. But including anything that is supported by sources anywhere is not the spirit of an encyclopedia. That's the reason for guidelines. Adding any possible future destination to the destinations table of any given airport will turn the encyclopedia into a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not. I'd like to recall that the project is built by consensus. Let's wait for other's opinions to go on with this matter and see how far consensus takes us to.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add wording along the lines of "announced" or "planned" &c; this is how the rest of the encyclopædia keeps sourced content about future events away from the brink of WP:CRYSTALBALL. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just what I would suggest earlier, like at Brisbane Airport and some New Zealand airport articles, create a "Prospective Airlines" section either below the table or above it. Another suggestion is like some airport pages have mentioned airlines eyeing or planning new routes in the near future, they would mention it in a paragraph sometimes in the history section. As long as it is properly referenced, those options would be better. Also, without an exact date, some articles will become outdated and editors will not keep it updated as much. However, if one insists on mentioning the service, then one can make a statement below the table saying something like "Air Serbia is expected to launch service to Pristina sometime in 2015." just like with the China Southern situation at Christchurch International Airport where as CZ is currently operating charter flights there but expected to start regular flights there soon. One can add that as long as the statement is sourced. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Citydude1017 on this. It should not be added to a table until and exact date is announced. If you want to put it somewhere else on the page with a clear and trustworthy reference, than that is fine, but the table should be for service that has a confirmed date. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- To remain in the spirit of NOTTRAVEL, we really should just have current destinations there, but we all know how hard it is to maintain with hidden notes and all that. So it is for this reason we allow end dates and future destinations' start dates. "Begins 2017" or "begins March 2015" does not conform to the purpose of the table, simply. HkCaGu (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is odd; I thought the purpose of the table was to list destinations. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's out of the discussion, they do list destinations. Please focus on the addition of future services with or without the provision of full dates in the tables. It seems we're having consensus on the first option, though.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is odd; I thought the purpose of the table was to list destinations. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- To remain in the spirit of NOTTRAVEL, we really should just have current destinations there, but we all know how hard it is to maintain with hidden notes and all that. So it is for this reason we allow end dates and future destinations' start dates. "Begins 2017" or "begins March 2015" does not conform to the purpose of the table, simply. HkCaGu (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you still believe that the airport's most notable destination "can be included anywhere in the article, but not in the destinations table"? That's astonishing. If you do believe it, could you provide any evidence at all that this approach would benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus speaks for itself. My position is shared by others here.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's astonishing. If you do believe it, could you provide any evidence at all that this approach would benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need to provide such evidence, I already explained my position. Again (and as I said before) this is not a travel guide. If readers plans to use Wikipedia for any kind of travel then they're in the wrong place. Ley me add that the encyclopedias you and I have at home or the ones you can find in a library do not include future events, only the facts known at the time of press. Many users believe airport articles need to be up-to-date regarding operations. This is against what Wikipedia is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps there has been some confusion; you're citing a policy which makes no distinction between future events with/without a precise date. Doesn't mention them all, in fact. I recognise that you can't & won't provide evidence that hiding things from readers will benefit them, but if you believe there's a policy which supports your stance, please link to that policy. bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOT is a policy. There you can read ″The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere″. Tend to agree on not including future events but, again, this is not the core of the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is still, alas, some confusion. I had hoped that you would cite a policy which actually supports your stance in some way. Just citing tangential phrases of any old policy at random doesn't work. The information about destinations that you want keep out of the destinations table is wholly compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please let me know when you find a policy that says sourced content about future events must be deleted if we have the year but not the precise date; I have tried to find such a policy and failed. Until that time, there's not much point in me replying further; you can have the last word, if you want. Or you could find some evidence that actually supports your argument, which may well change my mind. Either is fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, my last word is consensus. What is not a policy is approached by it. This is the case here, and the comments above show that new destinations shall be excluded from destinations tables if no full dates are given, and that they can be added elsewhere in the article provided that they are supported by reliable sources. You won't change my mind either. And seeing that this discussion started a week ago, it seems appropriate to be closed with a consensus for the position I already mentioned many times. However, I won't do it because I'm deeply involved in it.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is still, alas, some confusion. I had hoped that you would cite a policy which actually supports your stance in some way. Just citing tangential phrases of any old policy at random doesn't work. The information about destinations that you want keep out of the destinations table is wholly compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please let me know when you find a policy that says sourced content about future events must be deleted if we have the year but not the precise date; I have tried to find such a policy and failed. Until that time, there's not much point in me replying further; you can have the last word, if you want. Or you could find some evidence that actually supports your argument, which may well change my mind. Either is fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOT is a policy. There you can read ″The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere″. Tend to agree on not including future events but, again, this is not the core of the discussion.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps there has been some confusion; you're citing a policy which makes no distinction between future events with/without a precise date. Doesn't mention them all, in fact. I recognise that you can't & won't provide evidence that hiding things from readers will benefit them, but if you believe there's a policy which supports your stance, please link to that policy. bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need to provide such evidence, I already explained my position. Again (and as I said before) this is not a travel guide. If readers plans to use Wikipedia for any kind of travel then they're in the wrong place. Ley me add that the encyclopedias you and I have at home or the ones you can find in a library do not include future events, only the facts known at the time of press. Many users believe airport articles need to be up-to-date regarding operations. This is against what Wikipedia is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's astonishing. If you do believe it, could you provide any evidence at all that this approach would benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus on providing an exact date for the start of services in destination tables. If no exact date is provided, the commencement of new services can be mentioned elsewhere in the article. In both cases citations to reliable sources are mandatory. Can someone please close this discussion?--Jetstreamer Talk 12:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
US destinations end Oct 16, AA begin Oct 17?
In light of AA's announcement of system integration on October 17, people are changing destination listings in some airports to add "(ends October 16, 2015)" to all US destinations and "XXX Airport (begins October 17, 2015)" to AA's entry or to create new rows for AA. I've expressed my view at Talk:US Airways, and want to get a consensus here. Basically I don't think that is appropriate, since there are no services being terminated or added. The same planes with same crew and ground staffing are operating from the same gates and the same certificates, just with new signage and computer systems. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, the most we should do is adding a note to "US Airways" and "US Airways Express" about the rebranding date. Anything more such as duplicating city/airport entries is excessive. HkCaGu (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- (I suggest that any replies be made at Talk:US Airways to avoid fragmenting discussion. I've replied there.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 09:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Add regional airline guidance to page content guideline
In WT:Airports#Listing of Regional Carriers dba Mainline Carrier in March 2014, we agreed to remove the listing of operators from regional airline brands in the US and Canada. I note that this is not included in the guidelines except in an example. Should it be? Suggested text (to add to item three in the numbered list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content): "For regional airline brands such as Delta Connection and Air Canada Express, do not list the operator(s) of the flights." —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- If consensus was reached and it was agreed on the discussion, then by all means go for it! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached to not list the operators for regional airline brands in the USA and Canada, but consensus wasn't reached to do the same for airlines in the rest of the world. Additionally, it was decided that operators who operate under the brand of the main airline and not under a regional brand would continue to be listed as 'operated by'. Before changes are made to the page content guidelines, we should probably discuss/clarify:
- Whether or not the change should continue to only apply to airlines in the USA and Canada.
- Whether or not the change should continue to only apply if the operator falls under a regional brand.
- What the specific requirements are that determine when it is acceptable to use 'operated by' in a destination table.
- By clarifying these points now we could hopefully save conflicts and issues further down the line. OakleighPark 12:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached to not list the operators for regional airline brands in the USA and Canada, but consensus wasn't reached to do the same for airlines in the rest of the world. Additionally, it was decided that operators who operate under the brand of the main airline and not under a regional brand would continue to be listed as 'operated by'. Before changes are made to the page content guidelines, we should probably discuss/clarify:
- I am not sure that the actual operator is notable, the original intent for the destination list is to show the scale of the airports operation by showing the number of airlines and destinations. As we are not a travel guide in most cases the "operated by" is not actually needed, if a "regional brand" is being used then the actual operator is probably not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Smolensk North UUBS vs XUBS
this source [11] claims the ICAO designation is UUBS. the source is linked from Smolensk North Airport. the article claims the ICAO designation is XUBS. which is it? --79.240.203.78 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- UUBS is the ICAO code supported by the source provided in the infobox, although there is no ″South″ or ″North″ distinction there. Separately, I've tagged the only sourced statement at Smolensk South Airport with {{FV}}, as the reference mentions the ″South″ word nowhere.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
A new controversy is arising from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and its list of airlines and destinations. Please take a look at this nomination. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting part in this discussion is that the split off originally was reverted by a sockpuppet (IP)... The Banner talk 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- There are many issues with the new article. My main concern is that it is virtually unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is possible, as I have only split it off. If it was nearly unsourced, it was already nearly unsourced in the old article. The Banner talk 15:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're dusting off an old discussion: the provision of inline citations for airline destinations at airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly, but don't blame me for the lack of sources. The Banner talk 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're dusting off an old discussion: the provision of inline citations for airline destinations at airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is possible, as I have only split it off. If it was nearly unsourced, it was already nearly unsourced in the old article. The Banner talk 15:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- There are many issues with the new article. My main concern is that it is virtually unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Charter flight frequency
How often would a charter flight have to run to be considered worth including in the airport destination table? Thanks, Vg31-irl (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- As we are not a travel guide then it is unlikely that any non-scheduled charter flight is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is a scheduled charter flight that runs only five times in December. Is that worth including? Vg31-irl (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say not. If it's charter it'd better run close to year round before it can be considered a "destination". HkCaGu (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Vg31-irl (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say not. If it's charter it'd better run close to year round before it can be considered a "destination". HkCaGu (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is a scheduled charter flight that runs only five times in December. Is that worth including? Vg31-irl (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It would not have to be a 'one off' charter flight. RMS52 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft article for your consideration
Please assess Draft:Cabo Ruivo Seaplane Base for notability and any other issues that might affect its acceptance into mainspace. If you do not wish to or know how to do an AFC review please post your comments on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Unreferenced edits
There seems to be alot of unreferenced edits on airport articles going unoticed, I have removed 2 (Burgas Airport) and 5 (London Heathrow Airport). I am concerned that the majority of unreferenced edits are making it into the airport articles. Most are IP users edits' and are wrong. I think we need to get to a decision about how to stop these edits. RMS52 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Remove anything unreferenced that clearly looks like rubbish or fact tag anything as unreferenced that has an chance of being correct. If they keep doing it then raise it here and I or one of the other admins will have a look and have a polite word with the user. If it gets really bad then we can semi-protect the article from IP edits for a while. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thats not the point, 25% of editors probably see a unreferenced edit and won't bother to remove it. There needs to be a system so we can stop this. RMS52 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And London Gatwick airport is really bad. RMS52 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- All you can do is tag or remove issues when you see it and ask others to do the same, nothing we can do to make people check these articles if they dont want to. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I know, but I don't think you are seeing that we need to encourage more Wiki Airport Editors to monitor these articles more carefully. RMS52 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Qantas SYD-LAX-JFK
Both the articles for Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport have a note stating that the airline does not have local traffic rights to transport passengers solely from LAX to JFK.. However on the Sydney Airport article, JFK is listed as a destination, despite the fact that there is a plane change (A380 SYD-LAX, B747 LAX-JFK), the 747 is the same aircraft used to fly from BNE to LAX (note SYD-LAX-JFK does have a plane change, JFK-LAX-SYD is a B747 all the way, although sometimes the LAX-SYD sector is on a 380 (see [12]), some of the discussion at the articles for SYD, LAX, and JFK make claims that there is NO plane change, which is not true). so I'm wondering should JFK be removed from the SYD article because there is a plane change and/or should a note be added there as well (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content) ? - TheChampionMan1234 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- This must be new as QF reshuffled flight numbers a while ago. If the A380-B744 change is the case year-round, then JFK should be removed from SYD. The note in LAX should suffice. SYD can remain on JFK since it is B744-B744, but if there's a week or more without any same-plane connection, it should be moved to "seasonal". HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- See also: [13] - TheChampionMan1234 05:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Destination Maps (July 2015)
Just tried to remove a destination map from Charles de Gaulle Airport but was reverted, just checking the current consensus is not to have a map when the information is presented as we normally do in a table, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The latest consensus as I understand was not to have destination maps in Airline/Airport articles, particularly the large scale versions pinpointing individual cities, as the information is already covered in the Airlines and Destinations section. SempreVolando (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Same happened to me on Addis Ababa Bole International Airport RMS52 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Dhaka airport vandalism
Someone has added as many airlines as they liked to the article. 42.201.209.232 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandal has finished, but I will patrol the article incase sock puppet accounts are created. RMS52 (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Already semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather. This was likely a series of IP sockpuppetry from Bangladesh adding bogus/imaginery services at the airport. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hub infobox section at airport articles
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.
Me and a user are in a disagreement at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol regarding Delta hub operations there. There are airlines that have hubs at more than 1 airport around the world and the other user involved says that only airlines that have only one hub and it has to be at its headquarters are to be included in the infobox. Delta is not the only case here as other airlines such as Air China, Air India, British Airways, United, Lufthansa also have multiple hub airport operations and those airlines are listed in the infobox at the respective hub airport pages. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the hub section was mainly for airlines with headquarters at Amsterdam RMS52 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- The hub section in the infobox is for any airline that runs a hub operation at that airport, headquarters is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are sources being provided for such claims? This is the key point here.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- While sources supporting the claim that it is a Delta hub are indeed important, they were already included in the body text that RMS52 removed and I restored. Sourcing is not the problem. The key point here is that RMS52 is outright incorrect about the the purpose and scope of the hub parameter in the infobox. It is not just for airlines headquartered there. Indeed, nowhere on any airport infobox is that distinction made. He fails to understand the concept of an airline hub, and would be wise to not make edits where he lacks the comprehension to edit competently. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are sources being provided for such claims? This is the key point here.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for making a point without having to argue... RMS52 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is the source stating that AMS is Delta hub (http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts) and "Airline hub" gives a definition of what a hub is. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Icelandair service to ORD: resumes or begins?
There has been a disagreement at O'Hare International Airport on whether or not FI service to ORD is a resumption or a new service. Airline Route states that Chicago is a resumption and that the airline served Chicago from KEF in October 1988. A user continues to change it to "begins" as the airline's press release states that it is not resumption (however, the end of the second paragraph and the beginning of the third paragraph states that Chicago was a destination for Icelandair previously). The question is did KEF and ORD existed in October 1988? Maybe the airline flew from RKV (Reykjavik Airport) to MDW (Chicago Midway International Airport) and transferred operations to KEF (Keflavik International Airport) and ORD (O'Hare International Airport). Any suggestions! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
First, we can eliminate any possible chances of Icelandair previously operating the Chicago service from RKV. The airport has not got the requirements to equip an Icelandair B757. And other planes, would never have had enough range. So at the moment, 'resumes' is the best option. It even states that it is a resumption in the reference. RMS52 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Now how about the Chicago service. O'Hare and Midway both existed in October 1988 (when the airline last operated service) but when did Icelandair first launched service to Chicago? Actually, Airline Route states that the Chicago service was previously served with DC8. The new service will use 757s obviously. I am thinking that the airline started Chicago service at Midway Airport first and then transferred operations to O'Hare after the latter became operational and operated there until October 1988 (I believe that is called a resumption) but I could be wrong. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right, as that could handle it. There may have been a fuel stop, the route likely closed because it was not popular. RMS52 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Airlines and destination
Now the dust has settled, I like to discuss the split off of airlines and destinations.
To my opinion, that type of information is not directly relevant for an airport. It is not the airport that flies to who knows where but airlines and air planes. And off course, they are not part of the airport, although quite essential.
Further to my opinion, the list of destinations suffers from severe recentism. Former destinations are always removed while that can be interesting historical information.
A split does not destroy information, it just moves it to another article.
That is why I split off the destinations earlier but my arguments got lost in the fuzz, edit wars and sockpuppetry. The Banner talk 16:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, The Banner. My opinion on this is that splitting of the list makes it the Wikipedia look like a travel guide. Former destinations are usually mentioned in the airports history section so they would still be known about. But I think if the list was split off, editors would cram the article with usless information, because there would be more space. Even though that this applies to Airline Articles there is no reason why it shouldn't be applied on Airport Articles. But there are arguments and pros and cons about the split off.
- My opinion is that I don't think the list should be split off. But if we started adding all the formee destinations, even the useless ones. The seperate article would be as crammed as the airport article. RMS52 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- And alot of users would not know about this decision, so in the first few days of making the change. It would be chaos. But this article, Belfast International Airport does a good job of listing former destinations. While Belfast City Airport, does not. RMS52 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is a useless destination in your opinion? To me, even a referral to the former airport Waalhaven/nl:Vliegveld Waalhaven looks significant as it was once a major hub for air traffic to London and Paris. Unfortunately, the airport was never rebuild after it was bombed to pieces during the German invasion in 1940. The Banner talk 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- A useless destination to me would be a one off charter flight. As adding these in the article makes it look like a travel guide. I removed some at Kangerlussuaq Airport and Belfast International Airport. Another usless destination would be a transfer destination. For example, if an airline moves operations from 1 airport to another. For the new airport it is a new destination but It wouldn't be notable. RMS52 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- The one off charter flight is indeed not notable. Your second description I don't understand. The Banner talk 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
For example, when Aer Lingus moved operations from Belfast International Airport to Belfast City Airport RMS52 (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- To my opinion that means that Belfast International Airport has a series of former destinations and Belfast City Airport a series of present destinations. The Banner talk 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need more editors to debate here. RMS52 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the idea of splitting the destinations table into a separate article because it contains important and notable information that is most useful to the reader if it is located within the main article. It allows the reader to tell, at a glance, whether they are reading about a minor regional airport or a major international hub and is, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of information in an airport's article. However, I agree with your point that there should be more inclusion of information about former destinations. Most articles have no information on former destinations while others use long lists of prose that contain so much detail that the information becomes confusing for the reader. This information is probably best displayed in a simplified list or in a table (although this could cause confusion if it is too similar to the table for current destinations), but there would need to be a careful balance between including relevant information and not flooding the article with non-notable facts. OakleighPark 08:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this moment most airport-articles suffer from "recentism" as the information about former destinations is just destroyed. A split off creates room to preserve that information without making the article too heavy. Beside that, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The Banner talk 09:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thats what happened on Belfast International Airport most of it's 'proper' history was leftt out and the history secton was cleaned up as it was filled with former destinations, I believe they are not notable. RMS52 (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines on creation of a new airport article
I see this: "Add links from the article for the main city that it serves and the city or cities the airport is actually located in or nearest to, so as not to create an orphan." Should that be "add links to the article from the main city that it serves ...", since to avoid an article's being an orphan one makes sure there are incoming links? I was about to make that change then figured I should ask first in case I am somehow misinterpreting. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Advertising
I am seeking input about the amount of blatant advertising permitted in airport articles. Today I reverted this advertisement added to Tampa International Airport. The ad was for a Southwest Airline flight beginning March 19, 2016 (that's seven months away!). The edit summary stated "bookable on southwest.com".
Looking at the guidelines in this aviation project, this type of advertising is encouraged. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide states "for future destinations, add: "[begins date service begins]" - after the destination." In Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports), it states "for future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided."
This is contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING which states "those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." As well, WP:FUTURE states: "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." It would also be worthwhile to read Wikipedia:Spam.
To avoid "seat sale" advertisements, I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports) be amended so that scheduled flights CANNOT be included until they begin regular service. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or place for free advertising.
Two previous discussions include:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 11#New destinations
- Talk:Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport#Where is the consensus for which flights go into Airlines and destinations
Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is definitely not advertising. And the TPA edit was not meant to be an ad, nor was the reference an ad. Bookability is simply a solid type of "source" or "reference" compared to other types we have deemed unqualified or suspicious. Over the years at the project, we have discussed extensively about what we determine to be valid sources to support a future or a terminating route. I encourage you to dig into the long history of discussions in the archives. Destination listings are there to illustrate the scope of services at each airport. Future and soon-to-be-cut routes are allowed there to enhance the truthfulness of this scope and to preserve maintainability. If such a listing is not promotional, then future or terminating are not. And if terminating destinations are equally listed, we are not allowing advertising. (Terminating routes often lack publicity. "Un-bookability" is often the only "proof" we have.) HkCaGu (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- For routes that are terminating, Airlineroute.net always or sometimes announces a termination of a route for an airline and that source was deemed reliable now. For the future Southwest route from TPA to MSP, are the flights available for booking on March 16, 2016 for that route? Most airlines open their reservation systems for flights up to mid-June 2016. As long as there is a press release or a news article announcing the route, then it is not advertising. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- If an editor went to an article about a major sports/concert venue, and added a list of all upcoming events for the next seven months, it would certainly be deleted. So would a section entitled "upcoming special offers" on Walmart's article. Once Wikipedia encourages the publication of airline routes seven months in advance, it is serving as a travel guide - and I am seeking consensus to stop this. Please consider Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Including future destinations is very long-standing and universal practice on Wikipedia airport articles and "required" by WP:Airports guidelines (scare quotes because guidelines are not requirements). I argue above that the entire destination lists should be removed per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but recognize that doing so would be a significant change to long-standing consensus. I do think this is perhaps another argument in favor of removing destination lists, though I'm not sure how it's more advertising to have a future destination list than a current destination list. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- To me, list of current destinations fall into the scope of a travel guide. Future and terminating destinations also do.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Including future destinations is very long-standing and universal practice on Wikipedia airport articles and "required" by WP:Airports guidelines (scare quotes because guidelines are not requirements). I argue above that the entire destination lists should be removed per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but recognize that doing so would be a significant change to long-standing consensus. I do think this is perhaps another argument in favor of removing destination lists, though I'm not sure how it's more advertising to have a future destination list than a current destination list. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- If an editor went to an article about a major sports/concert venue, and added a list of all upcoming events for the next seven months, it would certainly be deleted. So would a section entitled "upcoming special offers" on Walmart's article. Once Wikipedia encourages the publication of airline routes seven months in advance, it is serving as a travel guide - and I am seeking consensus to stop this. Please consider Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- For routes that are terminating, Airlineroute.net always or sometimes announces a termination of a route for an airline and that source was deemed reliable now. For the future Southwest route from TPA to MSP, are the flights available for booking on March 16, 2016 for that route? Most airlines open their reservation systems for flights up to mid-June 2016. As long as there is a press release or a news article announcing the route, then it is not advertising. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know I have said this before but please remember that the purpose of the destination lists is to show the scope and size of the destinations from the subject airport, it also means that past destinations are just as important to the history of the airport, nothing to do with being a travel guide or advertising. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Destination Maps
After several attempts to revert destination maps on articles. I have decided to reach a clear consensus, and have it written in the page content section.
Apparently, destination maps are not to be included in the article when information is already listed in the Airlines and Destinations chart. However, past disscussions about destination maps had no clear consensus reached, so I decided to start a disscussion here.
I don't think we need destination maps, as they don't really help, a map that just highlights countries with no labels at all is not very useful along with a neat chart which clearly shows the information. RMS52 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- The country's map really makes no sense. But in the map on which the cities are in there, in the sense that the first time you look at the lay of the city on the map where you want to go, then look at the diagram to see which airlines go in that city. Postscript: By making sure that you can go to the city. Csalinka (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- The above comment assumes Wikipedia is a travel guide. It is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
No, do not add them. There is no point, I support RMS52 31.87.141.214 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do not include destination maps as we are not a travel guide and the table already shows the scale of destinations from the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, especially full scale maps listing the location of each city, do we need more users or have we come to a consensus? RMS52 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would include destination maps and remove destination tables. The idea of the destinations is to give an impression of the breadth of service from the airport; a map does that more effectively and in a less travel guide way than the tables. The tables have no place on Wikipedia but could be appropriate on Wikivoyage. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have NOTTRAVEL in mind, but I also have maintainability in mind. The big map with coordinated codes is definitely a no-no (anyone defending this?) but tables do have a purpose in showing the scale of service for each airline and each terminal that a map of merely destinations cannot. Also, if all we can do is a PNG/SVG map, maintainability and participation level will be greatly reduced. HkCaGu (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- How would be know what airlines operated the routes if tables/charts were removed? It wouldn't make sense having a long list of airlines and terminals, and then a destination map showing indavidual airports? It would be too complicated, and a long list of airlines would mean that there would have to be some colour code to show which routes were flown by certain airlines. (I am not talking about a travel guide here) RMS52 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that destination maps are unnecessary because they duplicate information contained in the tables. Also, many of the styles currently used in articles convey information in a very poor and misleading manner, such as shading in entire countries instead of marking individual airports or having separate maps for different continents. The other main issues include that it is much harder to keep them up to date than tables and they often become very had to read when multiple airports in close proximity are shown. If there was a specific situation where a destination map could supplement a table by providing relevant, accurate and legible information that was not already contained in the table then I support its use there, but I'm currently unconvinced that a map is able to adequately display any information that is not already suitably conveyed by the table. OakleighPark 08:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, it would be chaos if they were allowed. Updating big airports would become a problem, some users don't even know how to. RMS52 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the map could be useful only in airline's pages, because for example it easily gives you an idea of which kind of fleet the airline has. But I agree with you that it's unnecessary for airport's pages, where the table shows also the airlines which fly in each destination and eventually the date of begin or end of the service. Wjkxy (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd have thought that the requirement to cater to vision-impaired people would preclude the use of maps. At any rate, I far prefer the information being in table form. YSSYguy (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- It precludes the use of maps in place of any text description, but including maps is certainly fine as long as there's some text that describes the image in an alt tag, caption, or the text. Doesn't require tables. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I would not agree with any airline articles, that just makes it look like a travel guide. It only would really represent where the airports are. When all you have to do is click on a link and find out where it is, simple! RMS52 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no point for destination maps, it seems like only 2 users disagree. It also looks like that we have come to a consensus, not to have them included. RMS52 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Add my opinion not to include destination maps as previously discussed on a couple of occasions and for the same reasons (WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:ACCESS, etc...). The same ought to apply to Airline articles too in my opinion. SempreVolando (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, it's not clear at all to me how destination maps are more travel-guide-like than destination tables; in fact, my experience on talk pages the most common (though unjustified) argument by users (particularly readers and relatively new editors, though less so by experienced editors who are well-versed in WP policy) in favor of the tables is that they are useful for planning trips etc, which is a good indication that the tables are largely there for travel guide purposes. As for keeping maps updated, that seems irrelevant to me, again unless the purpose is to be a travel guide. If the purpose of any sort of indication of destinations served is to give a sense of the breadth of service from the airport, it shouldn't matter if the list is a few months out of date, so it doesn't need to be constantly updated.
- The only argument in favor of tables I largely agree with is accessibility. But a prose description of the destinations could achieve that goal (and is probably a good idea no matter what anyway) as a supplement to maps. eg for O'Hare: "O'Hare is a major hub for both American Airlines and United Airlines, each of which operate nonstop flights to a large number of destinations throughout North America as well as Europe and Asia. Most other US airlines serve O'Hare from all of their hubs, and XX airlines from Europe and Asia also serve O'Hare." eg for Madison, WI: "Dane County Regional Airport is served by most US airlines with regional jet, or mainline service to their nearby hubs."
- But in the end, destination maps provide a very effective visual overview of the breadth of service from an airport, which I find very useful in evaluating how major an airport is; I in fact find it not useful at all as a travel guide-related function. So I pretty strongly oppose a site-wide decision to remove existing destination maps, regardless of whether the tables stay. This of course doesn't mean that maps need to be included, just that they shouldn't be prohibited. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I support your opinion Alex, but destination maps are usless. They do not really need to be there, a table/chart clearly shows the information in a no travel guide like way. Destination maps that just show countries that are served by airlines at the airport are usless, bigger ones that are at a larger scale and show indavidual cities would just take to long to update and they would keep getting removed. As I said for larger airports, (London Heathrow Airport etc) it would be chaos adding a map like that there. RMS52 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- As is probably clear, I disagree (and useless or "usless" ;) is a pretty strong word that I think has no basis in fact). I do think that destination maps which show cities served are better than maps that show countries served, though in my experience, maps that show cities are far more common than maps that show countries. Reading a table requires considerably more mental effort to get a sense of the breadth of service from a given airport for my brain; maybe it's different for yours. As I noted above, I don't see updating as a significant problem: unless the purpose is to be a travel guide, it's perfectly fine if the maps or tables are a few months or even a few years out of date unless major routes have started or stopped. Just say in the caption "destinations served as of August 2015". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- But a table can show that, for argument's sake, ten airlines fly from Subject Airport to Point A and that only two fly from Subject Airport to Point B; whereas the map will only show Subject Airport, Point A and Point B - it doesn't convey any sense of relative importance among destinations. My earlier concern still hasn't been addressed either - how does a map aid the vision-impaired? YSSYguy (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @YSSYguy: I did address accessibility. I said that it's a legitimate concern but can be addressed with a prose description of the destinations served in the caption, alt tag, and/or text. (And such a prose description would be an improvement anyway; few articles ahve it.)
- I don't think a table does a good job of conveying number of airlines that serve a destination either. Relative importance is better conveyed by "busiest routes" tables anyway (which most large airports have), I think, since even the number of airlines doesn't do a very good job of conveying volume since one airline can have a ton of flights. eg Portland International Airport: the busiest destination is Seattle, but that's only served by two carriers. ORD has 40% less traffic but is served by four carriers. Actual statistics are better than subjective impressions when they're available. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- But the purpose of a table isn't just to show which routes are the busiest, it's to show all of the destinations which are served from the airport, and which airline(s) flies to each destination. For encyclopedic purposes, showing which airline(s) flies to each destination is just as important as showing the destination itself. So, although I don't necessarily oppose the use of destination maps in articles, I don't think they should be considered a replacement for destination tables. OakleighPark 10:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to introduce another long-standing concern of mine: neither maps nor destination lists have references supporting them. Are we going to address this?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- But a table can show that, for argument's sake, ten airlines fly from Subject Airport to Point A and that only two fly from Subject Airport to Point B; whereas the map will only show Subject Airport, Point A and Point B - it doesn't convey any sense of relative importance among destinations. My earlier concern still hasn't been addressed either - how does a map aid the vision-impaired? YSSYguy (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer See the disscussion above (Unreferenced edits) and disscuss there, If you are talking about scheduled flights, the main reason they are removed is because they are not charter flights. RMS52 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- ″Not using references″ has been used in the broader sense. Future and near-ending destinations require a source but current ones do not. That's my concern, already mentioned at the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol thread above.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer Ok, I will be happy to verify the flights (and charters) on Amsterdam. RMS52 (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @RMS52: @Jetstreamer: The issue isn't whether they can be verified by looking into airline schedules and the like. The issue is whether airline schedules are suitable sources. Reliable sources are supposed to be published, but airline schedules typically aren't anymore (at least not in a form that is readily available, since the PDF schedules have gone the way of the dodo for many airlines). Schedules are also transient. The verifiability and no original research policies don't require that a source be explicitly cited, only that a source be available (the example being "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need to be cited, but there is no doubt that a source exists that says that). Therefore, in principle, destination lists are OK since the schedules do exist (at least for current destinations). But they're borderline: the sources aren't published, aren't third-party, and aren't even easy to explicitly cite (since there's typically no direct link to an actual schedule: finding the schedule for a given route typically requires entering a search query). Moreover, the source and in fact the meaning of destination tables is not well-described to a reader at all. For example, the airport guideline and consensus is that a destination must be served by a direct flight (with a sensible-but-unique-to-Wikipedia-and-unverifiable definition of "direct"), but no airport article that I'm aware of makes it clear what is listed in the table. (I think that I've added explanations of the contents of the tables to some airport articles but had that addition reverted.)
- I also don't like the impermanence of listing the currently-served destinations but very little sense of historical destinations. In this sense, the tables are both way too much and way too little information. Individual cities served certainly aren't usually notable enough to merit a mention unless it's an extraordinary route (eg Sydney should get a mention on the DFW article since that's the longest nonstop commercial flight in the world), but using a list of current destinations only limits the historical perspective. As I suggested above, a prose summary of the types of destinations served from an airport would be more encyclopedic, possible to cite to a third-party reliable source, and allow a historical perspective in a way that isn't possible by listing every last current destination but no past destinations. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We're kind of talking off the subject here, you'd be better starting a new disscussion on that, former destinations don't really need a mention. It also seems like the consensus of having destination maps is not to once again. RMS52 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY reads ″All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. 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. ″ An inline citation is mandatory.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Airport articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Santa Paula Airport (SZP)
I have added an "Accidents and incidents" section to this page, see here. Just wanted to check if this is within, or up to, the standards and normal practices used by this WikiProject.
• If it's of any interest, I came there by way of Kirk Douglas, when I noted that there wasn't a particularly good reference for his survival (with some injuries) of a February 1991 collision at SZP between the Bell helicopter he was on, with a fixed wing 'Aerobatic aircraft' (whose 2 occupants both died).[14]
• Voice actor Noel Blanc, son of Mel Blanc, was also on the chopper and seriously injured, though his BLP makes no mention of it, yet. Source above says he owned the chopper and may have been the pilot.
• I found another source [15] detailing multiple crashes at SZP after sourcing Douglas's page, though it only covers 1984 to 1995 and only fatalities. It appears that there were more incidents, and that the airport had a bit of a bad reputation, so section expansion is possible. Comments? 220 of Borg 12:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Re-entry of "Operated by" for regional carriers.
On airports pages, I think that is should read "Delta Connection operated by Sky West Airlines" like it used to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose They were removed for good reason. They change too often, are difficult to verify, and frankly, the actual contract operator of those flights really are not important enough to care about. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The regional carriers are the actual operating airline in this instance, so I think they should be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose To confusing and they are difficult to verify 31.53.247.138 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Belfast International Airport
I have started a discussion re the inclusion of a non-aviation incident in the Belfast International airport article. Comments welcome at talk:Belfast International Airport#The bomb. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a disscussion below since an editor has made changes to more articles than just this one without reason. RMS52 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Read WP:CANVASSING which says 'Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief'. Saying an editor didn't have reason isn't anywhere near neutral....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Scope of an airport article's "incidents" section?
Before an edit war starts... I understand that bomb attacks, terroist action etc are allowed to be included in the 'Accidents and Incidents' section on airport articles, however. Certain users (and me) are reverting, removing and relocating incidents that are not aviation related. The main user involved is referring to a 'disscussion' made 3 years ago, where 2 users agreed that non aviation incidents are not allowed in this section. It was not a proper disscussion, 2 users just said 'yes' and that was that...
The point here is that are non-aviation (but notable) incidents allowed in the 'Accidents and Incidents' section? Or the 'History' section? RMS52 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Arrived here to start this discussion, and lo - it's open already. How fortuitous. In any event, as RMS52 notes, an editor has started blanking content from the incident sections of certain airport articles - with the rationale that "they are not aircraft related". Examples here and here. Not only does the argument itself make little sense to me (the incidents are relevant to the airport, which is the article subject, so why would they have to be aircraft related), but there would seem to be no project consensus that "airport incidents" are irrelvant to an "airport incidents" section (unless somehow an aircraft was involved). As per the comment I made on one of the airport articles (which disappointingly the relevant editor ignored), there is significant precedent in airport articles for non-aircraft incidents to be included. If they are notable. For example, the FCO and VIE gun attack incidents are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section, the 2002 and 2013 LAX shooting incidents are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section, a number of similar events are listed in the MSY article "incidents and accidents" section, there's an entire "terrorism and security incidents" sub-section in the LHR article's "incidents and accidents" section, etc. As such, I'm not really seeing a concensus/precedent for dealing with these types of incidents in a "history" style section. Not exclusively anyway. Given that there seems to be an implication that a concensus was established at some time on this, it really would be interesting to hear other thoughts. Muchos. Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, he stopped now. Pretty suprised that an editor like that would start an edit war. I have restored the content he removed, don't think we'll get a consensus here since it's pretty obvious but may as well give it a shot. RMS52 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Add regional airline guidance to page content guideline
In WT:Airports#Listing of Regional Carriers dba Mainline Carrier in March 2014, we agreed to remove the listing of operators from regional airline brands in the US and Canada. I note that this is not included in the guidelines except in an example. Should it be? Suggested text (to add to item three in the numbered list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content): "For regional airline brands such as Delta Connection and Air Canada Express, do not list the operator(s) of the flights." —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- If consensus was reached and it was agreed on the discussion, then by all means go for it! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached to not list the operators for regional airline brands in the USA and Canada, but consensus wasn't reached to do the same for airlines in the rest of the world. Additionally, it was decided that operators who operate under the brand of the main airline and not under a regional brand would continue to be listed as 'operated by'. Before changes are made to the page content guidelines, we should probably discuss/clarify:
- Whether or not the change should continue to only apply to airlines in the USA and Canada.
- Whether or not the change should continue to only apply if the operator falls under a regional brand.
- What the specific requirements are that determine when it is acceptable to use 'operated by' in a destination table.
- By clarifying these points now we could hopefully save conflicts and issues further down the line. OakleighPark 12:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached to not list the operators for regional airline brands in the USA and Canada, but consensus wasn't reached to do the same for airlines in the rest of the world. Additionally, it was decided that operators who operate under the brand of the main airline and not under a regional brand would continue to be listed as 'operated by'. Before changes are made to the page content guidelines, we should probably discuss/clarify:
- I am not sure that the actual operator is notable, the original intent for the destination list is to show the scale of the airports operation by showing the number of airlines and destinations. As we are not a travel guide in most cases the "operated by" is not actually needed, if a "regional brand" is being used then the actual operator is probably not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- This dropped off my radar, so returning to it.
- @OakleighPark: I think the cleanest guideline would be to modify point 3 in page content to say "For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight is not sold using the operating airlines flight number, list the marketing brand only. For example, all Delta Connection destinations should be listed as Delta Connection."
- I could go either way on whether to include the operator if it's not branded separately. Two alternatives:
- "If the marketing brand and the operator are different, list both the brand and the operator. For example, "Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air" and "Aer Lingus operated by Air Contractors".
- "List the primary marketing brand only, not the operator. For example, Alaska Airlines flights operated by Horizon Air should be included in the Alaska Airlines list, and Aer Lingus flights operated by Air Contractors should be included in the Aer Lingus list."
- Personally, I have a slight preference for option 2, but I don't feel strongly. It's a bit of an edge case, in that Alaska/Horizon flights are much more clearly marketed as "Alaska operated by Horizon" ("operated by Horizon" is in large paint on the side of the plane, and the Horizon flights still have their own in flight magazine and notably different on board service), whereas I think Aer Lingus doesn't brand the contractor-operated flights at all differently. That distinction would be awfully hard to source, though. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- This dropped off my radar, so returning to it.
Use of "operated by"
I just found out about the discussion to remove "operated by" for regional carriers in the US. This needs to be reflected in the Style guide. Furthermore, consistency is valued on Wikipedia and I don't understand why this should only be applied to US airlines...it should be applied consistently worldwide. AHeneen (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was starting to do this, but got sidetracked. #Add regional airline guidance to page content guideline. I'll resume discussion there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the discussion was to remove the "operated by" for regional carriers in the US and Canada first, then if it played out well then we can go worldwide, but I think it should be consistent worldwide. 97.85.113.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Chinese carriers operating "direct" flights from China to Europe via another Chinese city
There has been some disputes on certain Chinese that operate flights from China to Europe that contain a stop at a Chinese city. For example, Hainan Airlines operates flight from Hangzhou to Paris with a stop at Xi'an but the airline operates out of 2 different terminals at Xi'an despite using the same flight number and aircraft. Should these flights be included? 97.85.113.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, it does say on WP:AIRPORTS only to list direct and non-stop flights only, but since airport articles do not follow these rules. I think we should get a consensus on this. RMS52 Talk to me 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The debate is that Chinese airports have separate terminals/concourses for domestic and international flights but the "direct" flight uses the same plane and flight number. That's what we need to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.113.113 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know really, we could always put (via airport/city here) but I don't know if that would be allowed. RMS52 Talk to me 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we do not use "via" for direct flights as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, it was just a suggestion. RMS52 Talk to me 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The main rule to apply here is "through-hub doesn't count". Hub is a major "exclude" factor. Then you have to have justification for exceptions, e.g. AC SYD-YVR-YYZ where all other YVR-YYZ flights are small/medium and the SYD plane is the only large one, actual continuation most of the days, same (swing) gates, and free meal for SYD passengers on YVR-YYZ. In the past many years, we had a consensus that UA NRT continuations are OK as planes don't move but passengers go through security. PEK are not OK because planes had to move and passengers too. Then we had PVG continuations which seemed legit (planes don't move) but there were multiple widebodies in and out the same time. Going by that spirit (both PEK and PVG continuations excluded), XIY terminal changes should make them excluded. HkCaGu (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Zürich Airport Circle section
Hello! Would you mind taking part in this disscussion (talk:Zürich Airport) about a new section for the Circle at Zürich Airport in Zürich Airport.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Air Tahiti Nui's LAX-PPT-AKL genuinely direct or not?
Air Tahiti Nui (TN) is using a pair of same flight numbers for Los Angeles-Papeete (Tahiti)-Auckland in both directions with a two-hour stop at its Papeete hub.
FYI, TN only has five A340s and only flies to L.A., Paris (through L.A.), Tokyo and Auckland. PPT-LAX-CDG uses flight numbers 7/8 and LAX-PPT-AKL uses 101/102. LAX-PPT can be twice on the same day using all these numbers.
WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT says "However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." TN's LAX-PPT-AKL seems to satisfy this primary reason to be excluded. However, several other editors are arguing on the remaining points: "Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two."
So how does everyone feel about this? HkCaGu (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- As there is sometimes an aircraft change in PPT (for example today, the AKL-PPT segment is operated by F-OJGF, and the PPT-LAX segment by F-OLOV), I would not mark this flight as direct. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Air Tahiti Nui sells AKL - LAX as one flight and bags are tagged with the one flight number (TN101), it is the only airline that I have seen that does this using the one flight number for two flight sectors with their home port in the middle of the routing. So should it be included in this as an exceptional case. These TN flights have not changed in years so wont fit in with: "may change as often as every week or two" category.CHCBOY (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- AKL and LAX are the only reasonable connection TN can sell route-wise and schedule-wise through PPT. Normally occasional plane change, occasional same plane (e.g. UA @ HKG, previously NRT) connections are still included, but those are outports. But for TN, it's their home port we're talking about, so the primary reason "just another spoke" is still valid, as valid as AA XXX-DFW-YYY or UA XXX-ORD-YYY. TN can have a spare A340 waiting at home, or in the case of AKL-PPT, there are two PPT-LAX flights departing within 20 minutes, without guarantee which one is which. The fact that some "furthermore..." secondary conditions are not met does not invalidate the primary reasoning. That's why I'm inclined toward excluding these. HkCaGu (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Coordinates for airports
User:Dthomsen8 has been doing some excellent work on geolocating articles on airports/airfields that are currently missing coordinates. I've generated a list at User:The Anome/Airports missing coordinates to help them in this process: if any other editors want to help geocode more articles on that list, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Length of "List of airports in X" articles
I came acrossList of airports in Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, which has just one airport presently and one opening in February 2016. So, for the foreseeable future, this list will have just two items (airports). I was about to be bold and merge the content into Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha#Transport, but then realized the table might be part a standardized format. Is there any guidelines for such articles and, if so, is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged and redirected into Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha#Transport? If this were a sovereign nation, I would feel that a two-item list could possibly be kept as a stand-alone list, but since this is a dependency, I don't see how a two-item list is feasible/reasonable as a stand-alone list. AHeneen (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Australia/NZ regional carrier listings.
An editor has reverted me on a few of the major Australian airport after changing the listing of Virgin Australia Regional Airlines to Virgin Australia operated by Virgin Australia Regional. In Asia, where some of the regional carriers may be wholly owned, they are listed separately.
I've read through the guidelines and noticed that the US/Canada regional affiliates are listed under the one regional brand. In Australia/NZ, with the exception of Virgin Australia which uses a wholly owned regional subidiary with their own AOC, most of the major airlines uses a regional brand such as QantasLink or Air NZ Link. At the moment, the Australian/NZ airport articles are listed as the separate regional affiliates. Should the Australian/NZ articles be brought into line (or all world wide articles) for that matter be brought into the 1 guideline? 124.170.169.182 (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Petrella-Mogadiscio aeroporto : worthy of its own article?
No blame on the author, at the contrary: this is very nice work, an example to many. Yet I feel the subject too limited for a separate article, IMHO the information would better be merged into the basic Mogadishu Airport article. Indeed I would have started the formal "request for merger" procedure if I knew how. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should definitely be merged. It's the same airport, period. And the title fails WP:USEENGLISH (plus the grammar is very poor), which makes me think the creator is an Italian speaker natively. We don't have a separate article for Orchard Field or Idlewild Airport; this one shouldn't have two articles either. oknazevad (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for support; but I think you are over-harsh on the author, who obviously worked hard and brought some really relevant information. Mainly, though: what do we do next? What is the formal procedure to propose a merger? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Considerimg the article was deleted as the creation of a banned user (which I suspected) not too harsh at all. As for proposing a merger (if a legitimate one comes up in the future) see WP:MERGE for all the correct procedures for tagging a pair of articles and opening the discussion. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for support; but I think you are over-harsh on the author, who obviously worked hard and brought some really relevant information. Mainly, though: what do we do next? What is the formal procedure to propose a merger? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Porto Alegre Airport
Is there any evidence this airport exists? I have been in the area a few weeks ago, there nothing like an airport, not even an airfield or a runway. You can check also on google satellite view, there is nothing there. Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto_Alegre_Airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.66.149 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very interesting. I searched for the Sao Tomé Aeronautical Information Package (AIP), which is a standardized information packet for every nation's air services. On page 143 of the AIP, there is an index to aerodromes (airports/heliports) and there are only two. I can't find any official publications by the ICAO or IATA for airports...such publications probably exist, but require paid access. There is a lot on the internet for the PGP airport code, but I cannot find anything that indicates this airport exists. There is nothing on Skyvector. The US FAA, which is a reliable source, has an entry for "FPPA PORTO ALEGRE,SAO TOME ISLANDS"
- I don't see anything on Google Maps satellite image showing that this airport exists. However, I do see an area west of Porto Alegre (Google Maps) that is partially cleared. The west side is long, straight and somewhat resembles the shape of a runway. This clearing could have been an airport a long time ago, but not anytime recent...there are a lot of trees and the land doesn't look like it was recently cleared.
- I think a little more research is needed before nominating the article for deletion. AHeneen (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I found a map with air information that was current as of September 1984 and shows a minor aerodrome west of Porto Alegre around the area which I said above looks like an old airport. A similar map from October 1995 does not indicate the airport. So maybe the article is for an old airport that does not currently exist. AHeneen (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Impressive find, thank you! I also found this in the Bradt travel guide to Sao Tome & Principe, 2014 edition, referring to a hotel close to Porto Alegre: "A short walk up Morro Chapa hill at the back reveals fine views and an interesting historic surprise: a huge rusty Soviet-era radar station, picturesquely entangled in the forest." Maybe this is related to the Angolan civil war, and I guess Sao Tome would have been a convenient staging ground for Cuban troops and Soviet military advisors. But this is just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I found a map with air information that was current as of September 1984 and shows a minor aerodrome west of Porto Alegre around the area which I said above looks like an old airport. A similar map from October 1995 does not indicate the airport. So maybe the article is for an old airport that does not currently exist. AHeneen (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: I decided to redirect the article to the airport serving the Brazilian city Porto Alegre, since that is a much more likely target article for this title. The airport in STP appears to be minor and closed for a long time. I have fixed all of the "What links here" links and added a redirect hatnote on the Brazilian airport's page. AHeneen (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this just me, or do all canadian airports with an IATA code start with Y? YHM, YYZ for example, (It doesn't help that I am on a QWERTZ. My baggage had an interesting tour of Canada, more than I did, of being misdirected through several Y airports, I think it wandered into Newfoundland before making its way home to Houston (IAH). I claimed both of of Continental Airlines and US Airways and they both paid me out, but my baggage was a mess when I eventually got it back. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone continue to make footnotes for valid direct flights but the footnotes doesn't even make sense. United Airlines has a direct flight from ORD to SIN with a stopover at HKG (same plane and flight number UA895) and Air India has a direct flight from Chicago to Hyderabad via DEL (AI126 both segments with a 777). Are these footnotes really necessary? Citydude1017 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- No. If this is done, the whole project would be laden with these needless notes. HkCaGu (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The only way to deal with this drive-by IP editor is to semi-protect ORD. Any admin here? HkCaGu (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding statistics post US/AA merger
Since US Airways no longer exists, some IPs are changing the carrier for the stats from US Airways to American Airlines as since the dates for the statistics period are in 2014 till June 2015 (US Airways still existed as an airline and as a brand name at the time). Please do not change US Airways to American Airlines until the stats are updated to reflect the cessation of US Airways. Thanks! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, historical data should accurately represent the actual carriers of the time. That said, maybe a note that US Air has since merged with AA to dispel potential confusion would a) help readers, and b) stave off well-intentioned but erroneous edits from editors not paying attention to the dates (which is what these likely are at their root.) oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather suggest hidden notes: "Do not change to American until statistics no longer cover October 2015." But this will be a huge pile of work. Table title already mentions the months covered and it will be ugly to have this fine print which eventually can be added to all airports. HkCaGu (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone help me on Logan International Airport? I've touched the article three times in the last 24 hours and cannot edit it again for the next few hours. An IP reverted my route statistics airline name edit. HkCaGu (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted. However, it would have been helpful if you had provided a different edit summary that better explained the change. Perhaps the IP user did not clearly understand your actions. AHeneen (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe next round I'll think of a better one. But I don't think IPs read edit summaries or history. HkCaGu (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Authority or PR of Ratmalana Airport messing up the page
User:ColomboAirportRatmalana, apparently the authority or PR of Ratmalana Airport, is messing up the page's layout big time and keeps reverting or not understanding a lot of things. Probably a case of wiki-incompetency. I've already reported to WP:UAA, but even if that account is banned, I cannot clean up or restore the page due to 3RR. Please help. HkCaGu (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Last clean version reinstated and full protection of the article requested [16].--Jetstreamer Talk 10:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
IPs adding useless footnotes for direct flights
I came across a couple of articles that again useless footnotes have been added stating direct service. An example is Air China will start service from Beijing to Havana with a stop-over in Montreal (and vice versa) beginning December 27, 2015 but footnotes are continue to be added to Jose Marti International Airport and HAV being removed as a destination for Air China (or footnote added) at Beijing Capital International Airport. Can someone keep an eye on these pages? This was happening at O'Hare International Airport page regarding UA SIN and AI HYD service but those edits have stopped recently. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing, will keep an eye out. I've encountered these IP users before as well. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOT futurism in statistics outside of destination tables
I've been battling at Los Angeles International Airport regarding destination counts. Someone insisting to add not-yet-started destinations into "who flies the most destinations" count, with or without "(as of a-future-date)". To me this is ridiculous in prose. Without the remarks it's simply inaccurate. With the remarks it's disruptive to prose readability. Should we just have a policy in preventing all this WP:CRYSTAL stuff? (Who knows whether AA will cut a destination before that planned new one begins? New flights to XXX begins on MMDDYYYY is not CRYSTAL, but that AA will serve XX destinations as of next spring is.) Or should we simply justify removal by WP:NOT as in classifying these instances of futurism as indiscriminate depository of info (WP:NOT)?
Other annoying aspects of futurism often include:
- Infobox's hub listing having "ends" or "begins".
- Destination tables indicating move of terminals--long text in cell, not footnotes.
HkCaGu (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, Los Angeles International Airport needs to be watched because I have removed AKL as a destination from AA because there was no firm date given (AA announced that LAX-AKL flights will begin June 2016). 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually think that "new flights to XXX begin on MMDDYYY" and "AA will serve XX destinations next spring" are equally inappropriate, even if they're sourced or in prose vs. destination table. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements." I can't think of many other places on Wikipedia where editors systematically place so much emphasis on future dates. In airport articles, listing all this stuff feels too much like a press release or airline nerd trivia. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding China Eastern service to Chicago
According to http://airlineroute.net/2015/11/11/mu-ord-mar16/, China Eastern is starting service to O'Hare on March 18, 2016 (the source states that the airline has "opened reservations" for this route but it keeps getting removed from the destinations table and listed as a prospective flight (if the airline opened reservations, then it is not a prospective flight) and saying that the flight still needs approval from the US and Chinese government. Can someone take a look? I am on the borderline on 3RR. Thanks! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- As of now, the MU (CES) flight to Chicago is listed on the destinations table. I presume that it'll stay like this permanently.... (unless of course, when the flight starts...) EnRouteAviation (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding fourth column to {{Airport destination list}}
I think that {{Airport destination list}} should have an option for a fourth column for airports whose airlines have separate locations for terminals and concourses/gates. I proposed this at Template talk:Airport destination list over two months ago with zero responses, and I saw another user proposed the same exact thing over 4 years ago, also without a single response. Current airport articles, such as La Guardia, O'Hare, Fort Lauderdale (just to name a few) could greatly benefit from this, as the current use of the templates are very confusing and difficult to read. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not really needed as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I understand WP:NOTTRAVEL. The reason for this proposal is to improve readability. Right now some of the tables are very confusing because all the info is shoved into one column. This isn't about adding more information, it's about taking information that already exists, and making it in a much easier to read format. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the terminal column should be removed. Airlines at each terminal could be listed in the section of the article discussing terminals. At many larger airports, many airlines have two horizontal listings because they operate at two terminals (in the US, this is often because one handles international flights). This also reinforces that these lists are not intended to be a travel guide, especially given the recent troubles this WikiProject has had with editors opposed to these tables. AHeneen (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- From what I understand here, you're saying that there should be one separate column for terminals and one separate column for concourses? (Within the airports that contain concourses within terminals) I can understand why an addition such as this could be useful, but this may end up adding more clutter to what is already there. A separate column for something so small, in my opinion, is not very necessary at this time as. Could you explain why you think the current template for the destinations table would need this addition and why it'll be helpful to editors/viewers? EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Some of these are included in articles. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
List of airports in Canada
I tried to add this project's banner to Talk:List of airports in Canada but I get a red link. Can anyone help? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
- There isn't a separate banner for this (sub)project. It's a part of the aviation project, and shares a common banner, which is already present. thanks for trying, though. oknazevad (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding, Oknazevad. Actually I am curious to find out how this arrangement between wp:WikiProject Aviation and this project works. I see that this w-project has its own article assessment table but I don't see a corresponding wp:Article alerts section. If an article belonging to this w-project is nominated for deletion do you know about it? I see that List of airline and airport lounges has been deleted after being prodded and Afded and was just wondering why it wasn't discussed here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
As I read it, "in the Arctic" means lying above the Arctic Circle, which is why I presume {{The Arctic}} was created. This particular category has been constructed/populated to include all "Airports in..." subcategories for jurisdictions which have portions lying above the Arctic Circle. As a result, the category tree contains a jumble of articles on airports which are both above and below the Arctic Circle. I don't think anyone would consider Ketchikan International Airport to be "in the Arctic", except perhaps in a colloquial/pop culture kind of way. After sorting this out for Alaska airports, I realized that this has been repeated for airports elsewhere; for example, Category:Airports in Arkhangelsk Oblast and Category:Airports in Yukon contain airports which are far closer to the 60th parallel than to the Arctic Circle. There is nothing on either the category page or its talk page which attempts to explain or offer inclusion criteria for this category. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there is the Arctic Ocean to deal with, which does extend south of the circle at some points, including at Arkhangelsk, so I would say that including it in an arctic category isn't inaccurate. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep References for ALL flights
This is to keep refs for all running routes so they can easily be verified.
Layout:
Passenger Flights
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| EasyJet | Seasonal: London Luton Airport[1] |
| Jet2 | Charter Salzburg[2] |
Cargo Flights
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| Titan Airways | Glasgow Airport[3] |
As you can see, we do is keep references for ALL flights. So they can be easily verified. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- You make a valid argument. Although only keeping some references on running routes and not others seems a bit odd to me... Going back through to find sources for EVERY flight within a page (or at least the majority of them per article) would take a considerable amount of effort and time. Because of this, the consistency of keeping the articles similar due to the set standardization rules is very important for the entirety of the project. Though refs on cargo routes should be heavily enforced, since [most likely], the majority of them are not even verified to begin with, but because of the fact that the passenger routes are clearly verified to start out with, we have removed the sources, generally in order to clear up as much "clutter" and out-dated/not-necessary sources as possible... EnRouteAviation (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a bad proposal. Actually, one of the weaknesses of airport articles is that current flights do not have supporting sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Jetstreamer. Frankly, the removal of sources does great harm to the verifiability of the articles, and is a clear case of local consensus conflicting with general policy. It's a backwards move and should be reversed. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It definitely is an idea. The fact is that the references are only there to state when the flight is beginning, ending, or resuming. Therefore, when the flight has begun, ended, or resumed, then that reference is of no use anymore. However, if there are references that state other important information on that particular route, then I believe there should be a source. I think these types of sources, though, are more useful for Cargo and Top Destination Lists sections, not Passenger routes. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Jetstreamer. Frankly, the removal of sources does great harm to the verifiability of the articles, and is a clear case of local consensus conflicting with general policy. It's a backwards move and should be reversed. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a bad proposal. Actually, one of the weaknesses of airport articles is that current flights do not have supporting sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
We could have a thing like this - Belfast International Airport. Note that the former destinations section has a 'source' part at the top of the table. We could do this. Note that I am the Ip editor, I made an account yesterday. DragTails - 17:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that placing all the references at the top is a good idea. At larger airports, there would be many references and it would be difficult to determine what reference supports each flight. That said, the websites of many airports (especially so in developed countries) have a page with current flights. Such a page could be used at the top of the article to support which flights are currently operating. AHeneen (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, airport timetables could be used to verify all scheduled routes, leaving the charters and cargo flights with other sources. 91.125.211.68 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- And airline timetables can also be used.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
References tend to go dead after a couple of months when a flight is commenced. My suggestion is that references for newly launched flights are to be kept for the first couple of weeks (just to let the service really kick in) since airlines tend to cancel the new service before the launch date. When the link becomes dead or not available, then it can be removed. I agree that if references are to be kept for all flights, then airline timetables are the best way to verify a route. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Air China service to Havana
There has been some dispute on this service at Jose Marti International Airport. Air China will start service to Havana from Beijing via Montreal (it will operate as an extension of the existing PEK-YUL service). However, various editors continue to remove Montreal and continues to make footnotes that this flight stops in Montreal. The Beijing-Montreal-Havana is under 1 flight number (CA879/880) and use the same aircraft. Please note that direct flights are included in destination tables as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (bullet #7). 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- The footnotes for these types of routes solely depend on whether or not the carrier [in this case Air China] has traffic rights on at least one of the routes. If Air China has traffic rights, then there is no need for these footnotes. However, if Air China does not have traffic rights, then Montreal should be removed with the addition of these footnotes. Similar routes include: Narita International Airport of Aeroméxico's route: (MEX-MTY-NRT & NRT-MEX-MTY) as well as Sydney International Airport of Qantas' route: (SYD-LAX-JFK & JFK-LAX-SYD). Due to consistency/standardization rules per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, footnotes may or may not be needed depending on if the carrier has traffic rights on at least one of the routes. EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Air China has secured traffic rights between Montreal & Havana. According to this forum thread, they are already selling tickets on that leg (at a good price). Therefore, it is appropriate to include Montreal as an Air China destination from Havana. AHeneen (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like the situation has cleared up on the three articles. EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen, thank you! (it is bookable on airchina.com). Beijing to Havana could not be booked then but it is now bookable. However, putting both destinations on the Havana page has caused trouble some people (they think that it is 2 separate aircraft flying from Havana to Beijing and Montreal). However, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (bullet #7), states that direct destinations with no plane changes and same flight number are listed (hence CA 879/880 is a direct service). 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Orlando airports
There has been been disputes at many airport pages on how to list airports in Orlando, Florida. It has 2 airports that serve the city: Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB). SFB is actually located in Sanford, Florida and MCO is located in Orlando proper (6 miles southeast of downtown Orlando). How should we differentiate them? MCO as Orlando-International and SFB as Orlando-Sanford. Citydude1017 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It was my understanding, reading from WP:AIRPORTS, that if there is more than 1 airport in the city, you list the full name with a hyphon, for example.
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| Icelandair | Orlando-International |
or...
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| Thomson Airways | Orlando/Sanford |
Simply, you just hyphenate the word. RMS52 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the airport should be hyphenated as either Orlando-International or Orlando-Sanford. AHeneen (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also. This disscussion did not need to be started as it states the guidlines of how to do this on WP:AIRPORTS. RMS52 Talk to me 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe that MCO should just be referred to as "Orlando" as it has been on mostly every page. As you stated Citydude1017, Orlando International Airport is located in Orlando and Orlando/Sanford is located in Sanford, FL. Therefore, SFB needs to have Orlando with it because no one knows where Sanford, FL is located. For example, Pittsburgh International Airport is the main airport for Pittsburgh. Latrobe, PA has Arnold Palmer Airport and is called Pittsburgh-Latrobe here on wiki because no one knows where Latrobe, PA is exactly. Same goes for Orlando (MCO) and Orlando/Sanford (SFB). It is different for airports such as John F. Kennedy International Airport and La Guardia Airport because "New York" is not in the name itself. Hope this helps. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's a long-standing project standard that we list cities and not airports. If a city has one airport then we add a dash and disambiguate. Therefore, the city name is always needed and an airport name is required when needed. So you can't have "Orlando" and "Orlando-Sanford". HkCaGu (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above comment makes no sense. I don't know why everyone is arguing so much over making MCO "Orlando-International". It doesn't make any sense. There are so many cities in this country that have multiple airports and the main airport is just listed by that city's name. Why Orlando International Airport is different? I have no idea. MCO should be listed as "Orlando" and SFB as "Orlando/Sanford" as they have been. Instead of arguing over this, we should all be working together to make each page better. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is how (MCO) Orlando International Airport should be listed as: (for example)
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| Southwest Airlines | Orlando |
and (SFB) Orlando Sanford International Airport: (for example)
| Airlines | Destinations |
|---|---|
| Allegiant Air | Orlando/Sanford |
Why? Reasons listed above. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. So far, counting RMS52 or not, it is still you against everyone. You seem to be bullying your way across Wikipedia, and very inexperienced about this Wikiproject specifically about the history of listing destinations. We list cities, not airports. When a city has more than one airports, we use a dash and add a name. We use slashes only when there are two cities equally served by one airport. Therefore if one is Orlando-Sanford, the other is Orlando-International. International is a valid part of a name. See Belfast-International and Belfast-City. HkCaGu (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The appropriate guideline is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports):
- 4. Use city names for destinations (not the airport names), and only disambiguate using airport names when there are multiple airports serving the same city. Wikilinks may be made to destination airports; for instance, one should link to Calgary International Airport rather than Calgary. Each occurrence of a destination airport should be linked: as the destination tables are re-sortable, there is no fixed "first occurrence" of a destination in the list. Note that the overlinking guidelines do not apply to tables.
- 5. Differentiate between multiple airports in one city using "–" (en dash) or "-" (hyphen) (e.g., "London–Heathrow", not "London Heathrow").
- 6. Use the actual cities served (or city/airport combinations, where appropriate), not the ones that some airlines choose to use instead (e.g., "Beauvais", not "Paris–Beauvais"; "Rygge", not "Oslo–Rygge").
- Although Orlando-Sanford is not located within the city of Orlando, it is clearly a part of the metro area in the same way that Gatwick Airport is listed as "London-Gatwick" not "Crawley". Therefore, I think that MCO should be listed as "Orlando-International", not just "Orlando". On the other hand, the executive director of Melbourne International Airport (MEL) made a proposal to rename that airport as "Orlando Melbourne International Airport" to, among other reasons, attract more business from people looking for flights to Orlando. (IMO, it's ridiculous. I've already updated the MEL article) MEL is 47 miles (75km) east of MCO and if it is renamed, the airport should remain as Melbourne (Florida) per criteria #6 above. I do agree with AirportUpdater in that I think it is extraneous to add "-International" for MCO, but the style guide has good reasons for formatting lists in this way. AHeneen (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- The appropriate guideline is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports):
Despite whatever is up with RMS52. Contributions from August and July are fairly constructive, @HkCaGu: I started a disscussion about the user at WP:ANI. And @*AirportUpdater*: A user with a username like that should be helping airport articles, not ruining them. You can not take a hyphon away from Orlando MCO and leave one on SFB. That does not make sense, you seem to be entitled to your own opinion and cannot accept the fact that there is a consensus from talk archives and project pages. Please stop, or further admin action may need to be taken.
I think hyphons should be included in the airport titles by the way. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. I am not a user that ruins articles. As a user stated above, Orlando International Airport does not have a hyphon. For SFB, there should be a slash between Orlando and Sanford (Orlando/Sanford). The reason I believe that Orlando should stand by itself is because it's the only airport in the Orlando area. Sanford Airport is located in Sanford, FL. Yes, Sanford Airport is named as Orlando Sanford, but this is only to make the airport known that its in the vicinity of Orlando. There are many examples of cities around the country that have two airports as well (one serving the city, the other farther away). Some examples: Pittsburgh/Pittsburgh-Latrobe, Columbus (OH)/Columbus-Rickenbacker, or New Orleans/New Orleans-Lakefront. MCO is just like these cities with these airports. I know some people will still not agree with my opinion, but there will always be differences. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I encourage this discussion to keep going. This is how I view this topic. Thanks. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
What about Orlando Executive Airport, or does total – "[Orlando] has 2 airports that serve the city" (OP) – only include those with regularly scheduled passenger service for the purpose of this exercise? – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. The answer is that Orlando Executive Airport doesn't have any scheduled passenger flights, therefore this airport is not on any airlines/destinations list (and is not in the discussion). Orlando Executive is for private planes. Yes, Orlando has two airports that serve the city with schedule service, Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport. There is also Melbourne International Airport which has sometimes been referred to as Orlando Melbourne International Airport, but that is a different story. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ahhh, makes sense! My initial confusion (perhaps worsened by being sleepy), when skimming over this page, was in reading comment(s) of Orlando having two airports serving the city (so far so good), thinking about the two airports within the city limits but then seeing Sanford listed as one of the two (Huh? Where is Herndon Airport?). A more careful reading along with your reply, *AirportUpdater*, helped to realize what is being discussed pertains only to relevance of the named airports having commercial flights, i.e. thus inclusion of Sanford Airport (SFB) as it serves the Orlando area while excluding the original (first) Orlando airport (ORL) with prior scheduled air service, now mainly general aviation. I had thought ORL still offers scheduled flights, but no, this was not recent and instead has readily available charters (albeit not commercially scheduled service, unless including "on demand scheduling" e.g. as provided by Atlantic Airlines[17] which, despite having an air operator's certificate[18], is viewed as being a charter or air taxi than scheduled carrier insofar as this discussion is concerned). Thanks for the clarification! – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem! *AirportUpdater* (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ahhh, makes sense! My initial confusion (perhaps worsened by being sleepy), when skimming over this page, was in reading comment(s) of Orlando having two airports serving the city (so far so good), thinking about the two airports within the city limits but then seeing Sanford listed as one of the two (Huh? Where is Herndon Airport?). A more careful reading along with your reply, *AirportUpdater*, helped to realize what is being discussed pertains only to relevance of the named airports having commercial flights, i.e. thus inclusion of Sanford Airport (SFB) as it serves the Orlando area while excluding the original (first) Orlando airport (ORL) with prior scheduled air service, now mainly general aviation. I had thought ORL still offers scheduled flights, but no, this was not recent and instead has readily available charters (albeit not commercially scheduled service, unless including "on demand scheduling" e.g. as provided by Atlantic Airlines[17] which, despite having an air operator's certificate[18], is viewed as being a charter or air taxi than scheduled carrier insofar as this discussion is concerned). Thanks for the clarification! – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we not have a consensus already? It seems to be all against one to me, and we should be able to re-implement "Orlando-International" and "Orlando-Sanford". HkCaGu (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re-implement? MCO has always been called "Orlando". Look at the history of every airport page dating back years and years ago. Since the beginning of every airport page, it has been listed as "Orlando". Never has MCO been listed as "Orlando-International". Why is this such a huge issue now? Just let MCO be "Orlando" and SFB be "Orlando/Sanford" like its always been. When people view these airline/destination lists, they get a perfect sense of what "Orlando" means, they don't have to see "international" with it. It is the main airport for the city. Secondary airports need extra descriptions which is why "Orlando/Sanford" is how it is. Please stop trying to change things that are unnecessary. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with *AirportUpdater*. If the two airports have always been listed as Orlando and Orlando/Sanford and there's been no conflict, then why change it now? 2601:543:4306:43F0:2960:5C9A:4E41:5890 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we are all in agreement but one, then we should re-implement "Orlando-International" and "Orlando-Sanford". Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- As of now, the majority of the articles only state "Orlando". Also, *AirportUpdater* has still been reverting edits from "Orlando-International" back to "Orlando"... here in particular: Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport. I'm not sure if we need to continue discussing this issue, or begin re-implementing "Orlando" as "International" / "Sanford". It would be logical to see if we can all come to some sort of agreement/consensus, but at this point it doesn't seem very realistic... EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The key is standardization. If we use the hyphen to differentiate airports serving the same city, then that standard needs to be followed. It doesn't matter how long just "Orlando" has been used. The hyphenated version needs to be used due to consistency. AHeneen (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest here, I am completely fine with keeping MCO labeled as just "Orlando", but the fact of the matter is that there are two [main] airports in Orlando. Yes, people can easily tell that "Orlando" is MCO and "Orlando/Sanford" is SFB, but the two need to both be differentiated regardless of this, due to standardization, which is what AHeneen has already stated. For example, both Dubai airports are clearly differentiated with the usage of hyphens. Specifically, DXB is labeled as "Dubai-International" versus "Dubai-Al Maktoum". Because of this type standardization, (with[in] all the other cities with 2+ major airports) MCO and SFB should not be an exempted from this standard, as we need to keep all of the airport articles consistent with one another in order to be successful. EnRouteAviation (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen and @EnRouteAviation: Exactly. Having "Orlando" alongside "Orlando/Sanford" is against the consensus from the beginning of the WikiProject. @AirportUpdater: You can't say MCO has "always" been "Orlando" when SFB has not been always what it is now, i.e. with increasing commercial passenger flights. Plenty of cities have multiple airports but do not need disambiguation because of the lack of commercial service. MCO/SFB was like that. HkCaGu (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why? It's the truth and it's a fact. I've looked up many airports and they are all in agreement that MCO has always been listed as "Orlando". True SFB has expanded, but it is still a secondary airport with one airline having the majority of the flights (a leisure airline). MCO is still the main and is why it's always been named "Orlando". *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Even if MCO has always been labeled as "Orlando", that doesn't justify that using hyphens to label MCO is incorrect. Also, the fact that SFB has significantly expanded only gratifies the importance of using the hyphens because SFB is becoming more accessible to the general public. As SFB continues to grow, (keep in mind that airport growth projections generally involve the overall increase of enplaned/deplaned passengers) more and more people will need to understand and/or be able to differentiate the two airports from one another. And as was previously stated before, constancy is key. I'm pretty sure that there are no other airport wiki-articles (within cities that have 2+ major airports) that have the same predicament. I could understand keeping MCO labeled as "Orlando" if SFB was merely a general/private aviation airport, but since both of them are widely used for commercial air-travel, then they should both be differentiated in some sort of way, regardless if MCO has always been labeled as "Orlando" or "Orlando-International". Also, the labeling guidelines are clearly stated within WP:Airports, and if MCO and SFB were to be exempted from these guidelines, this would create confusion amongst editors, and it would be going against the project-page guidelines as well as breaking consistency/standardization rules... EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why? It's the truth and it's a fact. I've looked up many airports and they are all in agreement that MCO has always been listed as "Orlando". True SFB has expanded, but it is still a secondary airport with one airline having the majority of the flights (a leisure airline). MCO is still the main and is why it's always been named "Orlando". *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @AHeneen and @EnRouteAviation: Exactly. Having "Orlando" alongside "Orlando/Sanford" is against the consensus from the beginning of the WikiProject. @AirportUpdater: You can't say MCO has "always" been "Orlando" when SFB has not been always what it is now, i.e. with increasing commercial passenger flights. Plenty of cities have multiple airports but do not need disambiguation because of the lack of commercial service. MCO/SFB was like that. HkCaGu (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- As of now, the majority of the articles only state "Orlando". Also, *AirportUpdater* has still been reverting edits from "Orlando-International" back to "Orlando"... here in particular: Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport. I'm not sure if we need to continue discussing this issue, or begin re-implementing "Orlando" as "International" / "Sanford". It would be logical to see if we can all come to some sort of agreement/consensus, but at this point it doesn't seem very realistic... EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Re-implement? MCO has always been called "Orlando". Look at the history of every airport page dating back years and years ago. Since the beginning of every airport page, it has been listed as "Orlando". Never has MCO been listed as "Orlando-International". Why is this such a huge issue now? Just let MCO be "Orlando" and SFB be "Orlando/Sanford" like its always been. When people view these airline/destination lists, they get a perfect sense of what "Orlando" means, they don't have to see "international" with it. It is the main airport for the city. Secondary airports need extra descriptions which is why "Orlando/Sanford" is how it is. Please stop trying to change things that are unnecessary. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What actually happened was that AirportUpdater changed the Orlando listings. If the editor continues to argue their way across Wikipedia it will not end with "Orlando". 84.92.163.184 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is absolutely false. I only changed the Orlando listings back to what they were. Do not make false accusations. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- So it sounds to me like one user is trying to fight his way through this. So if the rest of us are in agreement, let's get started. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a perfect example of why everything should just be left alone. This is how the general public views Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport: http://www.richmond.com/business/article_fe57400c-e650-59b3-85e4-aa70da2898e1.html
Notice how SFB is viewed as a secondary airport and MCO is viewed as a main airport. That is why MCO must be kept as Orlando and SFB be kept as Orlando/Sanford. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- No it mustn't. It's pretty clear there is consensus to go with "Orlando-Imternational". Arguments about "that's the way it's always been" are insufficient. Consensus has changed, because consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Looking at this conversation, it's obvious that this achieved consensus weeks if not months ago and the change should be implemented. oknazevad (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- That argument is irrelevant. The policy is not affected by the way things have always been. There are many cities which have a secondary airport, yet we use the hyphenated version, eg. Toronto-Pearson/Toronto-Billy Bishop.
- On a related note, I was going to use Montreal as an example because I've always seen "Montreal-Trudeau". However, I now see that Montreal-Trudeau is the only airport serving passengers in the Montreal metro area. Passenger service at Montréal–Mirabel International Airport ended in 2004. Now that's really a case that needs to be changed! AHeneen (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@*AirportUpdater*: Are you sure about that? [19]. [20]. [21]. Even though this was in October, you never changed them back. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I changed them back to the way it's always been. (Listed as Orlando) This "Orlando-International" concept is a new idea. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- One that clearly has had consensus for weeks. Please stop filibustering. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @*AirportUpdater*: We don't want another ANI do we? Please use consensus and stop arguing your way across Wikipedia. We should all know how to avoid conflict. 84.92.163.184 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- In comparison to "Orlando-International" and "Orlando/Sanford", why don't we label Sky Harbor International Airport as "Phoenix" instead of "Phoenix-Sky Harbor" while continuing to label Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport as "Phoenix/Mesa"? I'm just throwing this out there because according to WP:Airports, the labeling needs to be consistent with the airports labeled as cities instead of airports. "Orlando-International" seems like labeling an airport rater than a city... EnRouteAviation (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- This really needs to be uniformed across all articles, and there is a lot of mixture between airports. Same deal in Cincinnati, where Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport is labeled as Cincinnati and Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Airport is labeled as Cincinnati–Lunken. I think this makes the most sense when there is a dominant airport with 190-200 commercial departures versus 10-20 commercial departures a day. The above discussion so far has made this more confusing rather than solving anything. I think we need to look at all the other airports on wikipedia to make this consistent rather than just focusing on MCO/SFB. Stinger20 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Labeling CVG as "Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky" makes the least sense to me... yet "Cincinnati-Lunken" does seem appropriate because of the difference between the amount of passengers (enplaned + deplaned) at both airports is pretty wide-spread. We should definitely be using this same style of reasoning for the two Orlando airports... (which in this case would allow for MCO to stay as "Orlando" as and SFB to stay as "Orlando/Sanford")... EnRouteAviation (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with the above three paragraphs. I do believe that Sky Harbor International Airport has always been listed as "Phoenix" and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport as "Phoenix/Mesa". This is very similar to the Orlando situation. It is exactly the same. There are many cities that have multiple airports around the country. Always, the main airport is listed with that city's name and the secondary airports are named by the closest city's name and additional info. The ONLY time we label both airports by their name and their city is when BOTH airports have a specific name and are major international airports. A good example is John F. Kennedy International Airport and La Guardia Airport. I have viewed numerous airport pages where MCO is listed as "Orlando" and SFB as "Orlando/Sanford". Listing here on Wikipedia is no different. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, this gets me thinking...
But first, the Cincinnati issue. We have a lot of "irregular" passenger flights, the best examples being the water airports around Seattle, Victoria, and Vancouver. If you go to those table listings, you'll find "Victoria Harbour", "Vancouver Harbour", "Seattle", etc. And I think these are fine. And their existence should not make us disambiguate into "Vancouver-International"/"Vancouver-Harbour" or "Victoria-International"/"Victoria-Harbour" projectwide. Water planes are a whole different animal. Let that problem be contained in that sphere, i.e. their table displays are more airport-oriented instead of city-oriented.
So let me argue that Lunken is akin to that. It has just Ultimate Air Shuttle whose planes aren't even big enough to warrant TSA inspection. Until one day Allegiant flies there, Cincinnati and Cincinnati-Lunken are fine.
Also, we can have an issue in Seattle even without the water airports: BFI and SEA. But BFI only has the aforementioned "other animal", and SEA is considered a two-city airport, so tables projectwide display "Seattle/Tacoma" despite the airport's name being "Seattle-Tacoma".
However, Phoenix/Mesa is in the same situation as Orlando/Sanford. The smaller airports had no "regular" services but they have now. So if we change everything from Orlando to Orlando-International, Phoenix should become Phoenix-Sky Harbor. Unlike Seattle, which doesn't have a "real" airport beside SEA, there's nothing to clash with "Seattle/Tacoma", but "Phoenix" would clash with "Phoenix/Mesa" and "Orlando" would clash with "Orlando/Sanford". Can we accept (option A) the clash? Can we accept (option B) universal disambiguation of PHX and MCO? Or can we (option C) simply strip the big city out of SFB/AZA and leave everything as Sanford and Mesa (and Orlando and Phoenix)?
Or can anyone suggest options D, E, ...?HkCaGu (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example:
Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport Listed as: Belfast-International & Belfast-City
Even though Belfast International is located in Aldergrove and Belfast City in Belfast. They are still listed that way.
This also applies to all London and Glasgow airports. Even though London-Luton is about an hour away from London-Gatwick. - DragTails - 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The appropriate guideline can be found at WP:AIRPORTS PAGE CONTENT:
5. Differentiate between multiple airports in one city using "–" (en dash) or "-" (hyphen) (e.g., "London–Heathrow", not "London Heathrow").
This should clear up the situation - DragTails - 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Can someone please check the latest edits made by this user? They keep adding and re-adding unsourced information into aiport articles. Their behaviour is clearly against both WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and WP:VERIFY. I explained this at their talk but they insists on warring. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, as I told several times Jetstreamer, airlines don't always publish press relases about new and (especially) canceled routes, but all of my edits are easily verifiable (except this one, obviously a copy/pasting mistake), as those routes appear/disappear on/from the airlines booking system. Best thing is probably to follow-up the Keep References for ALL flights discussion above: how exactly do we reference future route changes and current routes, since there's no easy way to hard link to most airlines' booking system? Slasher-fun (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do not add or change content if you do not provide sources. It's not that difficult to understand. Stick to the policies of the project, this is not your private webpage or a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some diffs: [22], [23], [24]. More can be found at here.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- So if I follow your logic, we should first delete every "airlines and destinations" sections in articles, and then discuss how to find a way to source with hard-links currently unsourced routes? Also here, you stated "reinstate source that was removed without explanation": do you consider a link to the homepage of an airline website to be a source for a specific route? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Jetstreamer pointed to WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY in my talk page, but we should probably also keep WP:PRESERVE in mind: we haven't found a way yet to source most of routes with hard-links references, but since most of them are easily verfiable by doing a quick search in airlines booking systems, we shouldn't probably mass delete these additions. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY states that an inline citation to a reliable source should be provided, not that the readers should manage themselves to check the content of Wikipedia. As I already told you, you don't understand the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then again, if I follow your logic, we should first delete every "airlines and destinations" sections in articles, and then discuss how to find a way to source with hard-links currently unsourced routes? Or even every unsourced sentence on WP? Does WP:VERIFY also states that if your source has a typo, you should keep the typo? If so, maybe we should rewrite WP:VERIFY to make it clear that every single sentence should be supported by a reference otherwise it will be deleted, and that references are always 100% reliable and you can't question them? Slasher-fun (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, it's not my logic, I'm following a basic policy. Regarding unsourced content already there, mark them as unsourced with {{cn}} tags and if nobody adds a source within a reasonable amount of time that content can be deleted. If I detect anyone is adding unsourced content I promptly revert it and warn the user. You're trying to justify your behaviour, which is clearly against the basic policies. If you didn't know it, now you do. You cannot add or change content that is challenged or likely to be challenged without a reference supporting your changes. And please avoid WP:BLUE-related bullshit arguments.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then again, if I follow your logic, we should first delete every "airlines and destinations" sections in articles, and then discuss how to find a way to source with hard-links currently unsourced routes? Or even every unsourced sentence on WP? Does WP:VERIFY also states that if your source has a typo, you should keep the typo? If so, maybe we should rewrite WP:VERIFY to make it clear that every single sentence should be supported by a reference otherwise it will be deleted, and that references are always 100% reliable and you can't question them? Slasher-fun (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY states that an inline citation to a reliable source should be provided, not that the readers should manage themselves to check the content of Wikipedia. As I already told you, you don't understand the verifiability policy.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some diffs: [22], [23], [24]. More can be found at here.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do not add or change content if you do not provide sources. It's not that difficult to understand. Stick to the policies of the project, this is not your private webpage or a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no rule stating "check if there is a source before reverting". It's up to the user to make that decision themselves. - DragTails - 16:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, WP:PRESERVE maybe? Would also help improving WP: if someone added a relevant piece of information, but didn't know how to source it, someone who knows could just add the source. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, see WP:BURDEN.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, see all my other points you haven't responded to yet. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have nothing to respond to except that, at flag carrier, I try to reference every unsourced piece of information that was already here when I joined Wikipedia because I'm particularly interested in maintaining the article. You acted against a basic policy and now you're well aware of it. Period.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, see all my other points you haven't responded to yet. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, see WP:BURDEN.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is more like an argument than a disscussion: Please act in good faith. - DragTails - 21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This IP user has been persistently performing edits at Pittsburgh International Airport that are clearly against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The user has claimed to have been "researching" a lot about the airport, yet they are still giving false arguments regrading their edits that are clearly opposed to the Wikipedia editing guidelines. They have also been very rude on other editors' talk pages about these edits/reverts, and they seem to not want to be working towards any sort of consensus at all. If such edits continue, they may be reported and/or blocked/penalized at WP:AVI. Any suggestions editors? Admins? EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- HkCaGu has issued a warning to 170.140.105.10 on their talk page. If the IP doesn't respond to the warning and continues to make disruptive edits on Pittsburgh International Airport, the IP should be reported on WP:RVAN for vandalism. This IP needs to discuss this matter on a talk page rather than keep reverting other editors' edits. Although some information this user has added is true, most of it is false and inaccurate/unnecessary. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE: 170.140.105.10 has apparently been blocked for six (6) months by Materialscientist. EnRouteAviation (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to the comment left in the edit summary of the restoration of this section, I'll note that it's considered extremely poor form to remove somebody else's comment from a discussion page, even if it was in reply to a comment you're removing. (As a note if you need to "remove" a comment then
strikethroughis the accepted fashion.) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)- Um... the situation has already been solved, so what do you have to whine about? Besides, I started this thread... EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please be aware that threads exist on forums - this is not a forum. Besides, whether you or anyone else started this paragraph is little relevant, if at all. Greetings, Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether you started the discussion or not; you are only allowed to refactor or remove other peoples' comments under very specific circumstances, and "the situation has been solved" is not one of them. I'm not "whining", I'm pointing out where you violated a Wikipedia behaviorial guideline you may not have been aware of so that you can follow it in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Um... the situation has already been solved, so what do you have to whine about? Besides, I started this thread... EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to the comment left in the edit summary of the restoration of this section, I'll note that it's considered extremely poor form to remove somebody else's comment from a discussion page, even if it was in reply to a comment you're removing. (As a note if you need to "remove" a comment then
- UPDATE: 170.140.105.10 has apparently been blocked for six (6) months by Materialscientist. EnRouteAviation (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Do Montreal airports need disambiguation
This issue got lost in the section about Orlando airports, so I'll bring it up again as a separate section...
"Montreal-Trudeau" is used in the airlines & destinations sections of airport articles. However, the only other airport in the Montreal area with scheduled passenger service is one small airline operating turboprops to other Quebec cities/towns from Montreal Saint-Hubert Longueuil Airport. According to its Wikipedia article, Montréal–Mirabel International Airport hasn't had passenger service since 2004 and demolition of the passenger terminal began in November 2014, so it obviously won't have passenger service anytime soon. I think we should change Montreal-Trudeau to simply Montreal. AHeneen (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, only Montreal-Trudeau needs disambiguation because Montreal-Trudeau has much more passenger traffic than Montreal Saint-Hubert Longueuil Airport. - unsigned by User:EnRouteAviation
- Pascan Aviation use nine ATRs (42 passengers) at St. Hubert. I'd say it's quite an airline unlike Ultimate Air Shuttle at Lunken Airport. I'd say keep the disambiguation. HkCaGu (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the airports that Pascan Aviation flies to from St. Hubert lists the destination as Saint Hubert and a couple as Montreal-Saint Hubert. Eventhough the airport is actually located in Saint Hubert (I believe it is a suburb of Montreal), the airport still serves the Greater Montreal Metro area. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, Cargo carriers still use Mirabel, so they need to stay different with naming in case they end up on the same article.
Other language WP as a reference
Please see my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sälen#Local_airport_info . TIA, Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
LAX to MNL (Philippine Air Lines) layovers/stopovers?
I'm pretty sure that this is not a reliable source (flightaware.com), but I'm seeing that PR flight 113 flies from LAX to Honolulu and/or Guam before arriving in Manila. Can anyone confirm/negate this? Thanks! EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the best source is the airline's timetable but PR doesn't seem to have one. However, if that flight exists I don't think the airline has traffic rights on that sector.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- From personal experience, PAL (Aka plane or passenger always late) flies via Honolulu but that would fall under WP:OR. I flew PAL so much in the 1980s and not surprisingly have a ton of stories from it. Swarms of bees in the airport terminal to a woman offering me her services, to what was a sure wire way to get some airport security guards to close and return your luggage quickly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- According to http://airlineroute.net/2014/04/30/pr-lax-may14/ and http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/20/pr-lax-nov14/, PR flight 113 operates LAX to MNL nonstop. It may be that PR113 has a technical or fuel stop at either GUM or HNL before continuing on to MNL. But if this is the case, PR doesn't have traffic rights from LAX to GUM/HNL. One of PR's flights from SFO to MNL was treated the same way in the past but all of those flights are nonstop now. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the weirdest part about this is that there isn't any mentioning about any sort of fuel/mechanical stop when going to book this flight. Neither PR's website or Google flights indicates this, and treats it as a non-stop flight, rather than a direct flight. It wouldn't surprise me if flightaware.com was just bugged, it usually is anyways... EnRouteAviation (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- P.A.L. = Plane/Passenger Always Late: This acronym and your comment just made my day... XD EnRouteAviation (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- According to http://airlineroute.net/2014/04/30/pr-lax-may14/ and http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/20/pr-lax-nov14/, PR flight 113 operates LAX to MNL nonstop. It may be that PR113 has a technical or fuel stop at either GUM or HNL before continuing on to MNL. But if this is the case, PR doesn't have traffic rights from LAX to GUM/HNL. One of PR's flights from SFO to MNL was treated the same way in the past but all of those flights are nonstop now. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- From personal experience, PAL (Aka plane or passenger always late) flies via Honolulu but that would fall under WP:OR. I flew PAL so much in the 1980s and not surprisingly have a ton of stories from it. Swarms of bees in the airport terminal to a woman offering me her services, to what was a sure wire way to get some airport security guards to close and return your luggage quickly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this article needs some attention. Recently some charter routes have been tagged "citation needed" but continue to get removed for no reason. Can someone take a look and help! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say report the user(s) to WP:AIV and let them deal with it... the (persistent) vandalism seems severe enough to me... EnRouteAviation (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- IP was reported and blocked for 24 hrs. However, the IP is apparently editing under a registered account (as Wappy2008) after the block and continuing making the same edits to page. I suspect sockpuppetry. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Are these OK for removing a route?
Lately, I've noticed editors removing airline routes, with the following edit summaries:
It's not on their airline timetable
Flights are not on sale anymore
It's not bookable on their website
Are these ok edit summaries for removing routes? Or should they include a source? - DragTails - 16:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- IN MY OPINION, if we are talking about a charter flight, these summaries are totally wrong. However, if we're talking about a scheduled flight opereted by a major airline, we can remove it if it's not bookable anymore on internet. Of course who removes these flights must provide a source (also just airline's website), to show that he's right. Wjkxy (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Man this project is weird. Nowhere else on WP does anyone demand a source to remove something. WP:BURDEN and all that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Neither an edit summary of your liking is required.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, edit summaries are a good courtesy. Maybe what was meant was to at least explain why to remove it, but there should be no need to present an actual reliable source proving the lack of route. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Neither an edit summary of your liking is required.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Airlines do not always publish sources for adding/removing routes. (especially for subsidiary carriers such as American Eagle, United Express, SkyWest Airlines, Horizon Air, Delta Connection, Air Canada Express/Jazz, etc.) Normally, most of these editors rely on good faith. If the route that is added/removed is clearly seen as vandalism, then it can be removed from the wiki-article without having to add a source confirming this. In other words, it would be practically impossible to find a source that validates any flight that is not published within the media. EnRouteAviation (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- If it is not possible to validate via reliable sources then do not add. If someone added without a proper source, you can mark the edit as needing a citation with {{cn}} tags. Wikipedia requires sources for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Man this project is weird. Nowhere else on WP does anyone demand a source to remove something. WP:BURDEN and all that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. - DragTails - 22:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Trickery by Delta at LAX
Delta seems to be using smoke and mirrors to "de-hub" LAX to give the appearance of capacity discipline. Perhaps they want the public to perceive that SeaTac is the one and only Pacific Coast hub? Delta is upgauging at LAX, not cutting back; this includes conversion of half of Delta Shuttle's equipment to 717s and several regional routes being replaced with mainline service. Their cancellation of LAX-LHR service isn't a true cut because their joint-venture partner (VS) picked up the slack with additional capacity and Delta sells seats as if it were their own. This is another example of the silly smoke and mirrors.
As an encyclopedia, Delta should be kept honest, when conflicting info is presented:
- 12/2015: LAX is clearly a hub due to bold lettering in this December 2015 map: http://www.delta.com/content/dam/delta-www/pdfs/route-maps/us-route-map.pdf
- 12/2015: http://msp.imirus.com/Mpowered/book/vds2015/i13/p194 (note that for domestic airports, terminals maps are only included for "hubs"!)
- 10/2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20151017193216/http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts
This next link is informational only, since it shows the number of flights at certain hubs (back then, Delta was more forthcoming with hub passenger numbers and aircraft movements):
Delta's press releases are tweaked to appeal to particular narrow audience (er, let's say perhaps those that tune into that Peacock-logo station that doesn't start with "MS"). I think Delta's information for the general public, such as their route map (above) or Sky Magazine are accurate; even Ben Mutzabaugh's analysis of a given market might be more spot on than Delta's nuanced press releases.
--DLDL flyer (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have also noticed these actions by Delta, and have personally found it weird that they want to use SEA as their transpacific hub rather than LAX. Personally, if I were the CEO of a major airline, I would use LAX (at least over SEA) as the airline's [main] transpacific hub due to the significant amount of passengers that already travel though LAX (as a well-known/popular destination and also with connecting flights). I don't know if it really causes a major problem for the editors/members of WP:Airports though... Although Delta recently announced that LAX is no longer a hub for the airline... Taokaka (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Gallery in fleet list
Discussion moved to Airlines project
|
|---|
|
I recently removed a large gallery of images in American Airlines fleet as normal practice is to provide a link to commons for images. User:TheJack15 has questioned the removal as he understood that a decision had been made previously to include such galleries. Although I believe that we should follow the Wikipedia:Image use policy which discourages galleries. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Terminated airlines and routes
Rather than remove this fro, airlines and destinations table, shouldnt they be reatained with references? maybe add a dark grey colour band to show them as terminated as was done in airline destination lists previous format.139.190.208.216 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- If it is probably referenced we dont have to remove terminated destinations - wikipedia is not a travel guide and should reflect the history of the airport. Making them a different colour would do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Several articles on airlines (and airforces) have a chapter "fleet" and another chapter "previous fleet", and that seems to work well. Why should an article on an airport not have separate chapters on "routes and destinations" and "Former routes and destinations" ? If we go for such a scheme, it would best have a standard layout, possible fields include "city/airport" , "operator", "aircraft type" , "date started" , "date ended". Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- That information is already included in some airline destination lists. In my opinion, we should focus on improving these articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Several articles on airlines (and airforces) have a chapter "fleet" and another chapter "previous fleet", and that seems to work well. Why should an article on an airport not have separate chapters on "routes and destinations" and "Former routes and destinations" ? If we go for such a scheme, it would best have a standard layout, possible fields include "city/airport" , "operator", "aircraft type" , "date started" , "date ended". Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Including Aircraft type and frequency starts to border on WP:NOTDIR, which would be of no interest to most folks (especially the casual reader) except for the Airplane gunzels. Personally I wouldn't agree with this as this starts to overbloat the Airport article with a directory that's only useful to the airplane gunzels and not the average reader 106.69.109.238 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that airport articles should contain more information about past destinations, but adding former destinations to the destination tables definitely isn't the best way to do this. Mixing current and former destinations would cause a lot of confusion and would mean that the destination tables could no longer provide, at a glance, a key to how well-served the airport is at the present time. Another issues is that information about former destinations is not readily available for a lot of airports, so attempting to list all former destinations of an airport would almost always result in some destinations being missed. By incorporating it into the existing destination table (or, to a lesser extent, any table) a perception is created that it is an exhaustive list of all former destinations, when this usually won't be the case.
- It also needs to be considered whether all former destinations are notable, especially for major airports which have been operating for half a century or more. I think a written summary of the destinations served over time would be sufficient, focusing on the most significant routes (ie: international, long distance, high frequency, historical significance...) while avoiding listing every single destination served. However, if a table is used to display former destinations, it should be separate from the main table and should contain information such as start and end dates to provide more context and useful information than just a list of former destinations. OakleighPark 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comment. Notable terminated services may be noted, but listing all is excessive for major airports. Just think about how many airlines no longer exist. A listing of all terminated routes for most major US airports would be massive. AHeneen (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- It also needs to be considered whether all former destinations are notable, especially for major airports which have been operating for half a century or more. I think a written summary of the destinations served over time would be sufficient, focusing on the most significant routes (ie: international, long distance, high frequency, historical significance...) while avoiding listing every single destination served. However, if a table is used to display former destinations, it should be separate from the main table and should contain information such as start and end dates to provide more context and useful information than just a list of former destinations. OakleighPark 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have been working on testing this on CVG, which most know is a massively reduced Delta hub (like 700 to 100 daily flights). I currently have not transferred the list to the actual page, but plan to do so soon in order to see how it works. I have made it into an "Ultimate airlines and destinations" list, separated from the regular list. In an effort to keep the size down, I have listed the flights under the airline's Mainline (i.e. Delta Airlines, American Airlines, while including any regional carriers under the connection carrier (i.e. Delta Connection and American Eagle. I have also included the most recent terminal/concourse for the airlines, instead of listing every single place the airline operated from the airport. I have chosen to left out ending dates, because it gets quite impractical for large and current operating airlines. I am considering adding a ending dated to airlines which have ceased operations to the airport instead of specific destinations. Overall, I have found this to a very interesting idea, especially for reduced-hub and de-hubbed airports, such as CVG, PIT, MEM, CLE, STL, ect. Please leave me any comments, and when I actually upload it to the CVG article, please feel free to add to the talk page for suggestions. Stinger20 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have posted the former destinations list on CVG, and it seems to have worked well. It is long, but I do not feel its is too long, and there have been a lot of routes cut at CVG, so it would most likely be smaller for other airports. There is a great source for this, if anyone is interested in doing this for other airports, http://www.departedflights.com.Stinger20 (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have a few comments and suggestions about the implementation of the table; hopefully it doesn't come across as too negative because I think it's great that former destinations are getting the coverage they deserve in airport articles:
- It's potentially confusing that the format of the former destination table is identical to the format of the current destinations table; I think the former destinations table needs to be visually distinguished from the current destinations table.
- It's unnecessary to list current destinations in the former destinations table, as it increases the length of the table without adding any new information.
- Listing the most recent terminal/concourse former flights operated from is confusing, as the flights in the table will have ended in different years, when different terminals/concourses were open/closed and potentially had different names.
- Start and/or finish dates for the flights (or possibly just the airlines themselves) would add a lot of context to the destinations in the table and make the information a lot more meaningful for the reader.
- My feelings are mixed as to whether it is notable to list all former destinations, or whether including a summary of the information in prose is more appropriate; in this article it seems as though the former destinations table is disproportionately long, but this may be an exceptional case, due to the fact that the article is about a downsized hub.
- OakleighPark 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have a few comments and suggestions about the implementation of the table; hopefully it doesn't come across as too negative because I think it's great that former destinations are getting the coverage they deserve in airport articles:
- I have decided to remove current destinations from the former list, which for sure makes the list much shorter, but I also feel that it was nice to see the whole extent of service in one table. Here is the list on CVG, but I wanted to know how people feel about this. The topic of destination lists was brought up below, in the bottom talk page and former destinations were made. I am not sure at this point if making one unified table of present and past routes, or making them separate is the best approach. If they were one, we could star or change the color of current destinations. Let me know what everyone is thinking.Stinger20 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, after reading some comments on the discussion below, to make clear about this specific approach, this former destination list idea is not intended for all, if not most airports. The main purpose is to effectively show how major airports such as CVG, PIT, CLE, MEM, ect. have been dramatically reduced, which has a huge impact on that particular region, and key information to its history. This project is for a very select few airports, which have gone from 500-700 daily flights to less than 200. Also, to solve problems discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 8#Former Airlines and Destinations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Should former airlines and destinations be included in airport articles? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#History, former flight routes and defunct airlines, these routes are all cited and proven from historical flight guides. I am excluding many small regional airlines that did not have an impact and only talking about large airlines that made a meaningful presence to making CVG a very large airport. I am even suggesting that airports such as STL and BNA would not even get a table like this, because although they were dehubbed, still have a significant presence by other airlines. Stinger20 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stinger20: Thought you might be interested in this. I made a former table at Belfast International Airport. What do you think? 81.174.186.5 (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nice! I think that lists like this could work for small airports too, especially looking at this example, as it is not a long list, but is useful to such an airport because previous destinations are more important. For instance, adding this table at Atlanta would be a mess, with it being ridiculously long. Thanks for making the table, and INCLUDING SOURCES, which I think will be the thing most users question whom are in opposition to adding these lists. Stinger20 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stinger20: Thank you. I need to find sources for the terminated Jet2 route and Aer Lingus routes. It is also possible that I may have missed out on a few airlines, so will improve on that. 46.208.99.33 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey all. Late chime in here. This issue has been discussed years ago. Former destinations and incredibly difficult to source in their entirety, and can be confusing. They serve no true purpose. Better ways to illustrate the level of service an airport once had are using numbers of passengers, etc. What I suggest is putting the former destinations list on the article's talk page, like it is for Bradley International Airport. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)