Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

How to deal with charter flights in destination lists?

Hi guys, is there any consensus on how to deal with charter flights? There are some airports with long list of charter destinations, but are they encyclopedic? I would suggest only to list flights that operate according to a schedule.

I appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this further up on this page. In essence, if a flight is a regularly scheduled public charter service, such as Omni Air International's flights betweeen Honolulu and Las Vegas, then it should be listed along with the regular flights. If it's seasonal, then it should be noted as such. If it's an occasional or one-off service or something that happens on an irregular schedule (such as the casino charters Allegiant Air operates from Laughlin), then it should not be listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Destination naming

I recently was involved in a mild dispute over the name of a destination which I know well. The airline gives the destination as one spelling but the relevant Wikipedia article gives another. If an airline publishes that they operate routes to say XX, and the name is spelt XY on Wikipedia, what are we to do? --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your knowledge of a destination has little to do with anything, especially when you're simply claiming what name Monarch for said destination. The basic concept of uniformity is important here: regardless of what name an airline chooses to use, the fact remains that all airlines fly to the same place. Let Monarch say they fly to Mahon and Iberia say they fly to Menorca and Korean Air say they fly to Minorca - they all still fly to Minorca (which is what the place is called in English). Also, your dispute is with what is listed in the airport tables. Again: we list destinations in airport tables, not airports. Airport names are only suffixed to disambiguate when more than one airport serves the place in question. Thanks.
Oh, and this has been discussed several times and many attempts have been made to explain the rationale to you. Simply blanking your talk page every time someone explained, doesn't alter that fact.
Jasepl (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
but why do we list then Las Palmas de Gran Canaria instead of just Gran Canaria? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you call Mallorca pronounced Ma-yor-ka as Majorca? That went out with the 60's my friend!! Could it be that you are trying to input an Americanised slant on this?? --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
and btw, I will expunge any rubbish I wish on my Talk Page. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
@Jasepl: At first, may I kindly remind you not to tell off other Wikipedians for editing their user pages? They can be edited freely. And please don't behave like a know-it-all. Reaching a consensus only works when not too much insist on one's own opinion, even it might sound reasonable for oneself. Now, you wrote that dest-lists provide destinations and not airports. I agree with you. But how to determine what the most common term for the destination is? I reckon that there are more people out there who would say that their flight leaves for Madeira, Gran Canaria or Mallorca instead of Funchal, Las Palmas or Palma. This might have been much discussed, but in my humble opinion their is no consensus in sight, so you will have to go on with explaining your point of view, and I appreciate it!Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Because that is the city's name: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (or, purely transliterated, Las Palmas of Gran Canaria). Plain Las Palmas could mean the province where this city is located, or a city in Argentina, or a city in America, etc.
It is a common enough occurence for a city's actual name to include the "de something" in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries. Simply because so many places share the same first bit of the name. It's the basis for city names such as (and this isn't even a complete list):
  1. San Felipe y Santiago de Montevideo (in Uruguay)
  2. Santiago de Cali (in Colombia)
  3. Santiago de Chile (in Chile)
  4. Santiago de Compostela (in Spain)
  5. Santiago de Cuba (in Cuba)
  6. Santiago de Guayaquil (in Ecuador)
  7. Santiago de la Vega (in Jamaica)
  8. Santiago de León de Caracas (in Venezuela)
  9. Santiago de los Caballeros (in the Dominican Republic)
  10. Santiago de los Caballeros de León (in Nicaragua)
  11. Santiago de Querétaro (in Mexico)
  12. Santiago do Cacém (in Portugal)
As for what term to use in airport destination tables - I'm totally open to discussing that. There are certainly a lot of existing exceptions to the city-not-airport norm. Eg: Mauritius is listed simply as Mauritius. The only city on that island anyone has remotely heard of is Port Louis, but the airport is nowhere close to Port Louis. The airport is in Plaisance or Mahebourg. But if we list either of them, 99% of people will wonder what the hell that is. In any event, it's not listed as Sewoosagur (the airport's name).
Oh, and no one's questioning CyberFox's right to edit his user page. But he chooses to - repeatedly - ignore attempts by several users at explaining, by simply blanking the page and ignoring said explanation. And then continuing to make changes, claiming "I'll do what I want" (or something to that effect). And Americanisation? From me? Really? Ha!
In any case, since when did what one airline called its destination make that term the gold standard?
Jasepl (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, there's no point in getting hot under the collar mate. And wow wee, we got an answer after all the fluff!--Cyber Fox (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's "wowee" (one word)! :o) Jasepl (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And whoever heard of Santa Cruz de Tenerife Airport ?? --Cyber Fox (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No one's heard of it. Because it doesn't exist! But no where has anyone listed Santa Cruz de Tenerife Airport, anywhere. What is listed, is Santa Cruz the Tenerife, as a city, in the destination tables. Because that's what the table is for: a list of destinations, not airports. Jasepl (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But there should be according to your logic, you just stated that we use Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Airport in another article. Make up your mind laddie.--Cyber Fox (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. If at all I said anything, it would have been that we say Las Palmas the Gran Canaria in the destination table (because we're listing the destination, not the airport). I have a feeling that you're not clear on the difference between a destination (eg: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) and the airport that serves said destination (eg: Gran Canaria Airport).
Another analogy: Hannover Airport (airport name) serves Hanover (English language spelling).
Its quite simple, really - if indeed one is listening. Jasepl (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I also don't get it: why then we list the destination as Malta, instead of Luqa? Once again, I reckon most people would say the destination of their flight is just Gran Canaria. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, places like Madeira (you dont say Funchal), Ibiza, Hong Kong etc... there has to be a policy for such small terrirories. --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cargo flights

Hi guys, is there anyone here who would be interested in improving the dest-lists for cargo flights? They are often of poor quality. In many cases, just the airline is placed in the article, but not any destinations served. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cargo routes are hard to track, define and keep up to date. Cargo is not passengers. They don't care how many stops, how they're routed, and they don't complain of being delayed or "falsely imprisoned". You can be sure that CX cargo goes to HKG and SQC goes to SIN, but if those are the only sure destinations, then why even list them? I think a carrier listing is enough. HkCaGu (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Cargo flight schedules can change like the weather, impossible to predict sometimes. Advise you give them a wide berth. --Cyber Fox (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Charter flights of Finnair, Austrian Airlines, bmi, SAS and Czech Airlines

Hi guys, there are many airports that list charter flights by the abovementioned airlines. Is here anyone who has a clue whether they are all "scheduled charter" or if some destinations are even outdated? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

edit: The same goes for BH Air and Onur Air (though these are classic charter airlines) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done bmi and Austrian/Lauda, is here anyone who can do the remaining airlines? Per aspera ad Astra (talk)

charter flights in airport destinations

Should we list charter flights in airport destinations? pikdig (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any consensus was ever reached on this. In general, 'ad-hoc' charter flights (like one-off cruise charters or a short series of lapland / christmas shopping charters, etc...) should not be listed. However regular charter flights (like those operated by charter airlines, or airlines operating predominanly charter flights like Thomson Airways, Monarch Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines, etc...) should be listed. The Gatwick routes section is a good example here, if a blanket rule on 'no charter flights listed' were imposed around 100 routes would have to be removed from this section alone. SempreVolando (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that regular charter flights should be maintained within the airport articles and this includes summer-only flights. --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Occasional charters - no way. But "scheduled charters" - why not. So long as they're listed separately or they're clearly identified as being charters. However, it's going to be a task to keep things accurate and in order! Jasepl (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How to define scheduled charter flights? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Another idea occured to me: Why not just write a line like The airport is also served by charter airlines like X, Y, Z? Thus we would not get the problem that list of charter flights tend to be poorly maintained and outdated (I just saw at written at Oslo Airport that a charter airline which is defunct since 2003 would have any flights there...)Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
and yet another idea: What do we need the special section "charter services" for, actually? If the flight operates according to a schedule, it could be merged into the normal dest-list, couldn't it? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with airlines that use several terminals?

Hi guys, there is something I'm not sure about how to implement on Wikipedia: At some airports, airlines use different terminals/concourses for flights to different destinations, in a manner that from the destination one can tell where the flight leaves (which is not the case for LH at FRA/MUC or KL at AMS). I'm thinking about something like Air Berlin at Berlin Tegel Airport, British Airways Heathrow or United Airlines at SFO. Should we add something like see also Terminal X in the dest-list in order to indicate that there are more destinations served by the respective airline? Otherwise some guys just might not spot all destinations served with an airline. I appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If a destination is served from only one terminal and we have that cited, then it should not be listed at other terminals. The problem occurs when you may have a mix in the various terminals. If you are saying something like domestic is served by one terminal and international by another, then using two different lists should work. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking about using different lists. Of course they should be used (unfortunately not at Munich International Airport). But is this sufficient, or should we make an additional comment that one airlines serves not only those destinations listed at Terminal X, but also operates from Terminal Y? Otherwise one might miss something when just skimming over a certain section of the Wikipedia article. Best regards Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
More than sufficient. See WP:NOTTRAVEL. If they need more information, they should be looking at the airlines' or airport's website. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Section at Piedmont Airport

Hi guys, does anyone understand what this wants to tell us? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it means One of these days one of these charter airlines might pop in and do a service, not sure where to or when but what the heck we will list them anyway. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea....i think these are just irregular charter flights that do not come to the airport every day. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the section can be removed wikipedia is not a charter travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just invoked WP:BOLD and removed it. My guess it's a list of airlines that have served the airport at least once as a charter. I have no idea. That seems useless as pretty much any airline can charter a plane to any airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hidden note needed for faux-direct flights?

I am quite noticing that few editors are still adding "direct" destinations that require a change of aircraft at an airline's hub. I am suggesting that we put some sort of footnote or hidden note to the airline list saying that this airline's flight number XX runs XXX-XXX-XXX (this route) but the flight is not direct as it changes planes. That way, when people are editing, they notice the footnote/hidden note and not add it. Any comments? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. But there so many of these faux direct flights, that it might be best to just start with the ones that are vandalised the most (eg: UA's BRU-ORD, DL's ATL-SYD, NW's BOM-DTW, AI's HYD-ORD, etc). Jasepl (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
However DL's ATL-SYD now runs under the same flight number. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Good idea if the inappropriate destination repeatedly added. I don't think pre-emptive adding of hidden notes is needed. HkCaGu (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Objective Third Party Opinions and/or Expert Needed at the Virgin America article

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to get enough opinions on this topic to even fill a whole hand while there is numerous participation with everything else? I mean, seriously. And don't get cranky like you're doing some big grandiose out of your way thing by sending one or two people over there because its really not that much, this is what this page is for, and its been two weeks for goodness sake so its not like anyone's rushed or harrassed you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Airport naming issue

I'm seeking recommendations for the name of an article I'm writing on Jaffrey Airport, Jaffrey, New Hampshire. On their web site, the airport owner refers to it as Silver Ranch Airpark Inc Jaffrey Airport: [1]. The FAA calls it Jaffrey Airport-Silver Ranch: [2]. I'm thinking of naming the article: Jaffrey Airport Silver Ranch Airpark with redirects from Jaffrey Airport and Silver Ranch Airpark. Anyone have a better idea? - Canglesea (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Having both Airport and Airpark in the title seems redundant. I'd pick either of the names, or maybe the FAA name, and have redirects from the other names. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

British Airways - Destinations section (not the destinations article itself, the section on the main article).

Seems a few editors have put a table of "flight changes" into the article. I'm not sure how to proceed from here, but I'm thinking its bordering on unencylopedic as Wikipedia is not a place to post timetable changes. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone pointed out in the discussion on the BA talk page, there is something similar on Delta Air Lines as well. I propose removing both, along with similar lists or tables on other articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be unconsistent, as we list start/ending dates in airport dest-lists? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why would it be inconsistent? The dest lists and the destination articles have the details. There's no need for a third iteration of the same information in the main airline article. Certainly not in the way it's currently displayed in the BA and DL articles (for example). I think it's more than enough to say "BA will start new services to blah blah in the autumn." And that's it. Jasepl (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Regional Airport

I've put a lot of work into this article since it was rated a number of years ago. Although not a member of WP:Airports, I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to re-rate this article. I've gone out and taken pictures and added all sorts of content to what it was when it was last rated. Anything bettter than "start" class would be appreciated! Cheers- Brennan @ MHK WaltBren (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing it with the requirements for C, it looks like no problem so I assessed an upgrade to C. From there reviewers can take steps up toward B with the provided checklist. Hmmm... but the template still displays Start. Can someone check if I'm not seeing a simple typo, or if something's wrong with the template? Ikluft (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you need to include the b-class check list. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on "B" status now. WaltBren (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Airport coordinates

For Kobelt Airport, the airport coordinates listed by the FAA: (41|37|40.336|N|074|08|01.5210|W) (lat=41.6278711|lon=-74.1337558) are significantly off target, by about .5 mi. I have used my own approximate coordinates (41|37|26.4|N|074|08|30.48|W) (lat=41.624|lon=-74.1418). If anyone knows how to inform the FAA to correct the issue, let me know. -Canglesea (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The FAA http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=N45 do say it is an estimated co-ord. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Baboo or Flybaboo?

Hi guys, the airlinec Flybaboo has to different spellings in airport dest-lists. Which one is to be preferred? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ihave changed it to Baboo and moved the page to Baboo (airline). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Air Berlin takes over TUIfly routes

Hi guys,

see [3], [4]. I need help to change dest-lists. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: done Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template idea

I was wondering if a template should be made to denote airports with Essential Air Service in the United States. I can make it, I just wonder if it should be done. My idea would that airports which that it applied too could carry the template at the top of the "Airlines and Destinations" sections. WaltBren (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The template sound like a good idea but navigation templates like that usually go at the bottom of the page rather than in the middle. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Direct vs. Nonstop flights issue at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

A lot of users continue to remove direct flights from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and insisting to list nonstop flights only. Like United's direct flight to Singapore from SEA beginning October 25, the flight runs under the same flight number UA875/876 and the flight stop in NRT; a Boeing 777-200 is used on both legs, and last NRT is a hub/focus city for United; therefore it can be listed as a direct from SEA. But however, they are really against the guidelines set up here and wanting to list nonstop flights ONLY. There is a lot of discussing at the article's talk page but there has been nothing but arguing and disagreeing. HELP!!!! Any editors can please join in on the discussion at the SEA talk page, i'd really appreciated. B'ham35242 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Charmedaddict/Bucs/Cashier Freak/etc, I thought you retired. If you're not really going to retire, at least take a break, without making a new account/username the day after you "retire".
Getting back onto the topic, it's the same plane/equipment/flight number. So technically that is a "direct flight". --Sb617 (talk · contribs) (formerly Arnzy before renaming this account to Sb617, btw) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That's why im "trying" to take a wikibreak. B'ham35242 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite simply it is a direct flight by any definition. You get on the airplane at SEA at get off the same plane flying under the same flight number at the final destination. The fact that some editors have a problem with the term is not a reason to change. One purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Here are my suggestions to end this "direct flight" madness:

  • 1. For the Northwest "direct" flights that stop at its hub in NRT, they need to removed.....period. Very likely, the flights have to change gates at NRT and Northwest lists NRT as their hub on its website.
  • 2. For the United "direct" flights that stop in NRT, I would remove them as well since NRT is sort of "hub-like" for United but UA does not list NRT as one of its hubs. The flights under the same flight number also have to change gates at NRT in order to get from its origin to its final destination.

Comments Appreciated. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And if you think about it.....you de-plane at the connecting airport (Narita Airport) at one gate but however, the "direct" flights under the same flight number departs from a different gate. I don't think its direct....I have been making suggestions to remove the flights via NRT for quite some time but have gotten nowhere. What I think is that the flight needs to stay at the same gate in order for the flight to be "truly direct". Also, NW and UA's website for these direct flights sometimes show same gate numbers and some days they show different gate numbers. So the question is: Should we include "same gate" to the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines in order for the flight to be truly direct? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it needs to be the same aircraft. If you need to clear customs, it is normal for the plane to be moved. Passengers commonly use special gates to deplane into customs. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks but I was actually talking about the flights that originate from the US, goes thru NRT, and continue to their final destination in Asia. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a reasonable suggestion and I support it wholeheartedly. In the case of NWA, while the flights may use the same type of airplane, there may be gate changes involved, not to mention the fact that there is no way to determine whether or not the plane used for the second part of the flight is the same one, without someone seeing it firsthand. Even so, there's no guarantee that the same plane will be used on a daily basis. On the basis of uncertainty, I believe that the above proposition is an excellent solution. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Other editors in previous discussions have came up with this suggestion but it seems to have failed. For example, you are flying NW Flight 27 (SFO-NRT-PVG), you take off from SFO and arrive at NRT at Gate 15 but the leg to PVG depart from Gate 22. This flight would not be truly direct....since the plane you are on from SFO will not "follow" passengers whose destination is PVG to Gate 22 after passengers deplane at Gate 15 (im using these gates as examples). UA flights to Asia via NRT are the same way. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note to both SEA and SIN pages that the route is currently in discussion and should not be readded until we have resolved this. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttal and a Plea For Understanding and Conversation

Dear WP:Airport Contributors -

I am one of the Seattle/local editors who has expressed my disagreement with the inclusion of "direct" destinations on the SeaTac Airport Wikipedia page. I want to set a few things straight and get myself on the record here - I don't dispute the fact that NWA and UA fly direct flights to Beijing (soon to be Hong Kong) and Singapore in the near future. I also fully understand the definition of a "direct" flight - a flight that stops, but continues with the same flight number and the same equipment - and I don't have an issue with the terminology itself. I also appreciate the efforts of the many contributors to this Wikiproject and I'm not some lunatic anarchist who wants to see these guidelines thrown out the window.

There's no denying the fact that this has been a hot and sometimes incendiary topic on the SEA talk page. The fact that direct destinations are being included is only a small piece of the problem. I joined this discussion, because I wanted to know the rationale behind the inclusion of "direct" flights on the various airport pages. I wanted to know why the average Wikipedia user, who doesn't know (or probably care, no offense) about WP:AIRPORTS would need to know and get excited about the fact that United will fly SEA-SIN, only to find out that it's a connecting flight with a different name, same flight number, and same plane. Since there's no indication or caveat as to the inclusion of these "direct" destinations among the nonstop ones, I wanted to know, how will the average Wikipedia user, who wants quick information, know that some of the destinations listed are not "nonstop"? Who's to stop such a user from thinking solely about nonstop flights when looking at the page? Why does this particular rule exist? If your content page states in bold - "Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article." - then why do some editors regard this Wikiproject as absolute and immutable? These are just some of the questions that I and a number of local and other editors want answered.

Yet the editor above who started this particular conversation and who has "retired" and come back with multiple usernames, among other users, has CONSISTENTLY refused to engage in a serious conversation, repeatedly providing the rationale something along the lines and bureaucratic vibe of "WP:AIRPORTS said to list it, so you have to. Your thoughts, input, and sentiments don't matter, WP:AIRPORTS, so don't even THINK about questioning authority." In addition, when another user tried confronted one of the editor's usernames above about the subject, the editor promptly crossed out all of his previous commentary and subsequently "retired", but not without declaring "You all godoy two-shoes Wikipedians can go rot in hell!!! Good Riddance!" I don't believe that running away from the issue is any way to engage in conversation, and I'm frankly disappointed in actions that I deem to be, no offense, somewhat childish and not at all representative of the hard work that you all have put in to this Wikiproject, to be honest with you all and I've made that known on the SEA talk page.

I want to see some real conversation on the issue, not some roundabout, political, safe responses. I'm a college student and I appreciate and strongly believe in the value of education, learning, and the importance of inquiry and questioning to try to foster a solid sense of understanding. However, I'm incredibly disappointed in a) the lack of insightful responses on this issue on the SEA page and b) an unwillingness to provide real, comprehensive answers, which I believe is an insult to the intelligence of editors everywhere. I disagree with the editor who started this particular discussion above, when he states that "...there is a lot of discussing at the article's talk page but there has been nothing but arguing and disagreeing." Certainly there has been a lot of arguing and disagreeing and technically, there has been a lot of discussion, but only in the literal sense of the word. I interpret discussion to be a more meaningful, serious conversation, and merely defending your point of view using the "authority card" and skirting around questions by directing editors to this talk page, does not count as a true, meaningful "discussion".

I don't see the issue with questioning authority to get answers and foster some sort of understanding. All I want are some real answers, not something that comes across as bureaucratic red tape. We're not children, and we don't appreciate being given the "because Mommy/Daddy said so, so don't you dare disobey" treatment... engage us in substantive, serious conversation... If you're up for some solid discussion, please reply here or go to the appropriate discussion on the SEA page. Thanks for your consideration, and I eagerly await your insightful responses on this matter. Cheers! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bucs "has retired again" it seems. But I have no doubts he'll be back sooner or later under yet another username. I would suggest waiting a few days before he is back editing (with a new account) to continue discussing this issue. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to show what happens when you try to go book SEA - SIN:

This is for departing on OCT 27th:

2:26 PM SEA – 12:20 AM SIN United 875 WLXR View seats Arrives 2nd day 1 stop Details ==> clicking on that leads to:

Tue, Oct 27, 2009 - Seattle, WA (SEA) to Singapore, Singapore (SIN)

From To Equipment Seattle, WA (SEA) Tokyo, Japan (NRT) Boeing 777 Tokyo, Japan (NRT) Singapore, Singapore (SIN) Boeing 777 This flight involves one or more plane changes, even though your ticket may show only one flight number.

So even when you book the flight, it shows that you are not just flying SEA - SIN. You have to change planes, meaning you have to disembark! How can SIN be viewed as a destination in anyones eyes? I may be talking about one issue here with direct flights, but it should have some kind of impact. When someone just simply wants to see where they can fly from SEA, they are going to be thinking about what direct vs. non-stop means. They simply want to get from point A to point B as cheaply and quickly as possible. Listing Singapore as a destination can [and will] confuse people when they find that not only do they have to stop in NRT, they may no longer view Wikipedia as a reliable resource and encyclopedia, which is the ultimate goal of this site. I know what I'm saying sort of sounds a bit farfetched, but the article should really not list Singapore, Hong Kong, and Beijing as destinations, not only to prevent confusion and possible negative image to wiki, but because the destinations should reflect what is actually served from that airport, not some red tape. If this problem continues, I suggest that someone either contact Port of Seattle/Airport of Seattle, to see if they consider SEA-SIN/HKG/PEK destinations on NW/Delta/UA. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: everybody seems to be thinking that we have to equate them to non-stop flights, or remove them entirely. But there's a third option: why not list them with a note? Eg. "Singapore-Changi (via NRT)", or just "Singapore-Changi*" with a shared "*" footnote that says "These flights, while marketed as direct, stop in Tokyo-Narita and may require a plane change." Jpatokal (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest the footnote say "Whilst flights to destination1, destination2, etc are marketed as direct, stops in Tokyo-Narita and may require a GATE change. As basically, it's still the same aircraft type to whichever destination, despite aircraft swapping at the hubs. Even on some days, the gate number may NOT change and passengers reboard the same aircraft to their onwards destination --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Sb617: I'm afraid that's not the case in NRT. Planes don't move gate, they just swap flight number. On some days one plane may stick with the same flight number. Technically, if this happens even once a week, i.e. even if the other six days a week are fake direct, it qualifies as a listing, but I don't think the case is strong. HkCaGu (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm for the 3rd option. I prefer (Singapore via Tokyo-Narita). Alternatively a footnote like this - United flights to Singapore will make a stop at Tokyo-Narita on the way, which may involve an aircraft change. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We've decided a long way back (maybe even before I got involved in Wikipedia) that "via" is no good, that either it is a destination or it isn't. Now that we've migrated to tables, why don't we start using italics? On the top row we just say "Destinations (nonstop and direct)" and annotate accordingly. HkCaGu (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that a footnote should be added. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment but it should be remembered that wikipedia is not a travel guide and the purpose of the list of airlines and destinations is to give and indication of the range and scope of flights from that paticular airport. Listing non-direct destinations or even flight numbers has no relevance to the Airport (and we are talking about airport articles). MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MilborneOne has a good point. Im for either completely eliminating those NRT connections or having some kind of footnote that distinguishes the these three (soon to be two) flights on NW&UA.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

@HkCaGu - I'm not certain that editing the top row to say "Destinations (nonstop and direct) will really solve the problem. As it is now, there is no immediate way to discern nonstop destinations from direct ones, and adding the "nonstop and direct" piece to the top row doesn't really do much to alleviate any confusion, however, I will say that it may or may not do some good in helping people understand the difference between nonstop and direct flights. A footnote, like the one Planenut suggested above, would be the most helpful option, as it provides the user with some sort of visual indication. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the best way to do it. Put Singapore as a destination and put a footnote next to it stating that the Singapore is served direct from Seattle but a plane change may be required at Tokyo-Narita. That way, we don't make it confusing for other people. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The real issue: NW/UA NRT operations

I want to argue against any "footnotes", because SEA is not the issue here. The situation is the same at many major US gateway airports. The real issue is the nature of Northwest's and United's NRT operations. NW and UA's predecessor, Pan Am, were given those routes not long after World War II when nonstop Asia-US was not possible. The post-war situation also gave U.S. carriers the freedom to carry Asia-Japan traffic. But the main reason for the US flights, as NW and UA/PA practiced, was carrying passengers between Japan/Asia and the U.S.

In the old model, at least for NW, planes stop in Japan, exchanged passengers, and fly onward. However, nowadays NW uses planes that can't cross the ocean (e.g. B757), and both UA and NW practice plane-swapping. Now, as UA uses B747s and B777s, and NW uses B747s and A330s. Do some tracking of gate use at NRT (on NRT's website or FlightStat) and you'll see how NW's planes mostly don't follow the flight number. Some even turn around to/from Hawaii. UA has decreased their onward ops, but planes swap the same way.

Unless Japan legislates a ban (I don't know if it can), NW and UA will continue to do that. In the ticketing world, a plane-change direct is still a direct flight. In terms of Wikipedia inclusion, we've included routes that use the same type of planes. One can argue that since some small other market flights are only once a week, even if a certain NW "direct" route swaps plane six days a week but once a week it doesn't, it still qualifies for listing.

While the Japan-US flight numbers remain pretty stable, the Japan-Asia flight numbers get reshuffled every few years. But recently, especially since the DL-NW merger began, the reshuffling is happening very often. Just HKG-NRT alone got changed several times. While this might be due to repainting, the economy and market demand, it is becoming what WP:AIRPORT guidelines called "timetable directs" which are meaningless enough to be excluded. I think most Southwest's "directs" are excluded for similar reason.

NW's shuffling has caused a lot of updating at those airport pages that I now think are quite meaningless. At SEA, we had to substitute PEK with HKG, and I had to explain that HKG-NRT-HNL (6 hour layover) isn't same-plane. All the while, the NRT page remains quite static.

So there are two things we can do: (1) Form a consensus here that UA and NW operations through NRT are timetable directs and therefore excluded, or (2) Amend the criteria of exclusion from "thru-domestic hub" to simply "thru-hub".

I'd suggest we do all two, because (2) doesn't cover UA, and (1) doesn't cover NW at AMS. Unlike NRT where all NRT-CONUS flights depart before CONUS-NRT arrive (only possible turn-arounds are Hawaii or mechanical delays/relief), in AMS those planes can really turn around. (You can't track gates at AMS.) HkCaGu (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the NW has done a lot of shuffling, so whether we should list the final American destination on Asian airport pages is questionable. However, I would say that UA flight numbers are much more stable, only changing once every 5-6 years, so we could leave in the final American destinations for UA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.157.85 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this issue has kind of been put on the backburner, I think it's time that we come to some sort of consensus and put this issue behind us. NW's shuffling habits warrant exclusion and I agree with HkCaGu on his suggestions above. 121.45.157.85 mentioned something about UA's flight numbers being more stable than NW, is this necessarily the case? Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How can the rules/guidelines be ammended? Both options one and two are needed and Wickedlyperfect, UA's flight numbers are much more stable than NW/DL's, but..... They still do change, SEA-NRT-SIN being one of them.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think another discussion is needed on whether or not to change the "direct" flight rule or just reword it a little bit. I think the word "hub" in the guidelines is maybe confusing a lot of people. We need to figure if the "hub" needs to refer to both domestic/international for an airline or just domestic. However, i would suggest that we use the 2 suggestion points that i have pointed out in the beginning by removing the thru NRT ops. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else is opposing the thru-NRT ops, then i have removed all the UA/NW flights that go thru NRT to be on the safer side and not get into any edit warring. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do we need a seperate section for charter services for, actually?

Hi guys, please discuss and comment on the following idea: As mentioned in another thread, I think that - as Wikipedia is not a travel guide - there is no need to list charter services for which no tickets can be acquired by contacting the airline, but which have to be booked at a travel agency (another criterion could be the existence of a timetable providing flights with a certain regularity). This leads me to the idea that there is just no need to have a charter services section a airport articles, because scheduled charter services might well be merged into the main dest-list. Besides, this is exactly what is done at many airports like Luxor Airport or Gregorio Luperón International Airport, which have many charter services, but nevertheless no seperate section for them. Also, the definition of "charter airline" is not clear, e.g. Monarch Airlines is at some articles listed as charter, at others in the main dest-list. I therefore propose to check all charter airlines listed at airport articles whether some sort of timetable / booking engine exists. If so, let's just merge them in the main dest-list. If not, I think we should delete them. As a compromise, it might be worth to list just the airline, but not the destination, e.g. as additionally, there are irregular charter services by the airlines X, Y, and Z. Even if you do not like my idea, you do have to admit that something must change, as otherwise and inconsistency arises, because some airports have charter sections, other lack them. Once again, please comment, don't let this topic die! Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Monarch does both charter and scheduled flights! We have to remember that the airport articles are not as you have said a travel guide. The list of destinations are included to give the reader an idea of the size and scope of the operation at each airport. I think we do need a mention about charter flights but not the same as a destination list. In some airports charter flights outnumber scheduled services. What I think we need is just a summary NOT a list. A bit like "The airport has been used since 1976 by British airlines Monarch and Thomsonfly during the summer for charter flights to and from the United Kingdom." or "Foo Airlines operates ad hoc charters all year from the airport for the cruise liner market". No need to mention actual charters or destinations. Make you wonder why this should not apply to all destinations! MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Postponed/delayed Routes remain or removed??

I am suggesting if the following routes to stay in airport articles or removed (any comments welcome):

These flights have not been loaded into schedules and they are not bookable for that date (AA's route map does show PEK service to start April 2010). 74.183.173.237 (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that if a route has been announced with a start date, we list it and include the source. If an announcement is made of postponing the service, update the listing and the source to the delay announcement. I'm hesitant, though, to include anything with a start date less specific than a given month. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines route expansion

Recently, AA announced a major route expansion at its hubs as seen in the official press release: http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2729 as AA is planning to add nonstop routes listed. Editors have added these routes with start dates....however, none of these flights have been loaded into their reservation system as the date indicated in the airport articles. Should we wait until the route is actually bookable for that date then add it or leave as AA will load it into their system. Thanks a bunch! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's not loaded into the reservation system, then a source should be provided that provides the exact date. If none is provided and a search for a news article doesn't turn up anything, I'd at a minimum tag it with {{citation needed}}. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Terminal C at Berlin Tegel Airport

Here a quotation from the abovementioned article:

Currently, 5 additional aircraft stands are constructed and the building itself is expanded by approximately 50 percent of its original size, in order to handle another 1.5 million passengers per year. The extended terminal will house a transit zone for connecting passengers (which does not exist at any other terminal). Construction work is planned to be completed in August 2009, when Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines and Hainan Airlines will move there.

Are there any news? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Initiative for the removal of unscheduled charter flights from airport destination lists

Hi guys, this is about the problem that many airports (especially in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean) list a huge amount of charter destinations that are apparently not served on a regular base, as no schedules exist. IMO Wikipedia polica sees these entries to be removed. Additionally, some former destinations were never removed from the dest-lists at airport articles. A good way how to find them would be searching the What links here list of airlines for airports that are not included in the destination list/article of the respective airline. I have already done this with SAS, Finnair, and Czech Airlines. I would invite you to help me. Maybe you just could list the airlines that you have reviewed here. Best regards. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

edit: I also included this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, I've also done LOT Polish Airlines and Malév. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I did comment at What do we need a seperate section for charter services for, actually? above and suggested that a summary should be left but not a list. My suggestion above was to use "The airport has been used since 1976 by British airlines Monarch and Thomsonfly during the summer for charter flights to and from the United Kingdom." or "Foo Airlines operates ad hoc charters all year from the airport for the cruise liner market" or similar. Whatever is included it should still mention that the airport is used for charter flights. MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Charter flights must be referenced. Otherwise each flight operating once a year could be included. If there is no schedule, just name the airline. But what I'm doing (and maybe you want to follow me doing so) is to remove these flights from dest-lists. IMO a dest-list should only include destinations that are also listed at the sirline's destination list/page. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Per aspera ad Astra, I'm all for your proposal. In fact, I'd suggest going a step further and removing charter destinations altogether. We should just say something like "some of the charter operators at this airport include blah, blah and blah." And that should be all. Because by definition, any plane owned by anyone could (and does) fly from anywhere to anywhere at any time. Jasepl (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled services at Düsseldorf-Mönchengladbach Airport?

Hi guys, an IP user added some airlines and destination at the airport article. Can anyone verify them? I have just removed all unscheduled charter flights, but what about the Air France flights? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking in airport articles

The few I've looked at (Heathrow among them) show egregious cases of overlinking, including the bluing of many common geographical names, and repeat links (e.g. "UK" eight or 10 times in the main text).

I wonder whether editors could watch out for this in the light of WP:LINKING. Tony (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean up a bit as I come across these, and people are indeed overzealous with the linking, including random, irrelevant things (for airport articles) like "toilet" and "road"! Worst of al though is the linking of dates: May 21, 2007! Jasepl (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased to hear that view. At last, some of the popular culture articles are moving to more effective wikilinking practices, and it would be a great improvement for airport articles to do the same (gradually, of course, since link-auditing the whole lot is going to take a while). Tony (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

I've noticed tiny thumbnail images in a few articles (as opposed to more generously sized thumbnail images in the same articles). The Manual of Style image section was revamped in August, and the "normally use default size" clause was removed as part of this update. Consistency alone within an article requires forced sizing, and here we are thinking of our millions of readers, not just the few WPians who choose to preference a larger default size. The 180px size is widely regarded as a misjudgement. At London Heathrow Airport, for example, the maps are so tiny they're worthless except by clicking the original, even though white space is to burn around them. Some of the pics of aircraft are too small to perceive even the large distinguishing features (what is the point?). The aircraft stands at T5 are just a little clutter—not worth showing. Yet the hideous purple thing is almost too large, yet is still "thumbnail". This is not good image management. BTW, there's text sandwiching towards the top.

Please see changes at the MoS made by User:Eubulides on 9 and 10 August after discussion starting here ("Tiny tiny images" right down to "Humungously long alt text"). Tony (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport to Larry Craig International Airport???

A user made this weird change by renaming MSP Airport to Larry Craig International Airport. I moved it back to the correct name. Since when did they rename MSP? Are we missing something? Larry Craig is NOT from Minnesota nor the Minneapolis area and on their website, the airport is still named "Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport". I am not sure if this was vandalism but I put a notice to that user. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering that MSP was where the Larry Craig scandal happened, I think an assumption of vandalism is reasonable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Plane spotting section

I noticed at the JFK and LGA articles, a user readded the plane spotting section....stating that "it is a hobby enjoyed by millions and worth of entry". Should those be included in airport articles? Snoozlepet (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit at JFK was not but it could be fixed. If an editor provides sources and trims it down it should be fine. It seems as noteworthy as "In popular culture" and with some work might actually be a summary in a tidy paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagree Wikipedia is not a plane spotters guide and is not really needed in Airport articles. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how you can make that judgment without reviewing sources first. If JFK is well known or noteworthy for some other reason there is no reason to not add a couple lines. Keep the sources and weight in mind and there should be no worries unless we have some reason not to expand the prose with relevant information. I personally haven;t looked for them but ruling it out completely seems short sighted.Cptnono (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont really need sources to make a comment that this is not a plane spotters guide. All airports are noteworthy to plane spotters , in fact all airfields, landing strips heliports are noteworthy to plane spotters. JFK is not any more notable than any others. Do you suggest a plane spotters guide to each airport/airfield/heliport/museum etc. As wikipedia is not a travel guide it is not a guide for plane spotters either. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The same logic can argue against inclusion of most of the article. This isn't a bus information kiosk but there is plenty of info in the article about bus service. This isn't Entertainment or TV Guide but there is a list (even though it is frowned upon) of the airport in movies. A quick search shows the New Yorker and some other decent sources. I haven't read through them completely yet but I tend to think that expanding and improving Wikipedia (within reason and the set guidelines) is one of the primary goals of the project. If there is something that makes JFK special for plane spotting then it deserves a mention. I doubt there will be information on every little landing strip or even every international airport from reputable sources. I also doubt there will be enough to add as much fluff as the editor originally attempted. If it is a worry of bloat it comes across unduly cautious.Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd strongly disagree about JFK not being any more notable. Seeing as it's arguably the most important airport in the country and often used by carriers that don't serve any other airports in the US. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not the most important airport on this side of the atlantic! to European plane spotters any airport in the US is notable for aircraft that dont cross the pond. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Good thing we are limited by sources. If the editor wants to try to find some sources saying why and how JFK is good and work on something that wouldn't be bettter in an independent article I say go for it.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Newark Airport renaming of Terminal A

A couple of IPs continue to refer to Terminal A of Newark Liberty International Airport as "The Conan O'Brien Terminal". I have started a discussion at the EWR page and one response is that "It was a joke on the Tonight Show. The Mayor of Elizabeth, NJ renamed Terminal A after him." However, no documentation of some sort refers to this and the EWR website does not mention Terminal A as being the "Conan O'Brien Terminal". Is this official or not? Snoozlepet (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the correct statement is that the Mayor of Elizabeth said that since Terminal A is in Elizabeth he would rename it for Conan's arrival at the terminal. No indication that this was meant to be anything more then an honorary action and not a name change. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. I would put a note beneath Terminal A that it is referred to as "The Conan O'Brien Terminal" by the major of Elizabeth but I would not put it as "Terminal A - The Conan O'Brien Terminal". Snoozlepet (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would not even mention it...I hope everyone can see that this was just a joke and is not really real. This is the type of stuff that gets Wikipedia is trouble because while there is a little truth to it, it really is not factual. Spikydan1 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up. I think that Newark Airport page should be watched for a couple of days. People are going to continue to put "Terminal A - The Conan O'Brien Terminal". Snoozlepet (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking airline destinations.

Recently I was checking out alternatives/exotic ways of getting from Brisbane to Cebu, and I encountered a practical difficulty when using the current airport pages. Let me demonstrate by example.

Any one of the following are feasible route to Mactan-Cebu International Airport:

Now if you examine the following extract from Brisbane Airport's wikipedia page you will see that none of the destinations are currently linked. The basically means that I need to cut and paste the destination into google, then find the matching international airport, then from google go back to wikipedia to find an onward airport.

This process of googling is a tad problematic, as it means I am left guessing which airport in the destination the airline actually services. (And if I do find the right way I cannot record this correct airport wikipedia.)

AirlinesDestinationsTerminal
Air New ZealandAuckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Queenstown [seasonal], WellingtonInternational
Air NiuginiPort MoresbyInternational
Air PacificNadiInternational
Air VanuatuEspiritu Santo[1], Port VilaInternational
AircalinNouméaInternational

Ideally I would like to simply click on the destination to get there.

I imagine that this has been discussed before, so I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but...

Would anyone object to me changing the text "destination city" to (where obvious) to a link to the [[destination airport|destination city]]? Maybe the machinery/bot is in place for doing this already? What is the status?

NevilleDNZ (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and it was decided that the links you want to add would be over linking. I'll add that the guideline recommends against linking every occurrence, so unless we violated that guidance you would still not always be able to click on the destination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the discussion saying "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". As is stands there are no links to any of the destinations, so it would seems that the pages are in fact "under-linked". My thought is that if all of the airlines travel to the same airport in the destination city, then only one link is necessary. In the case where the destination has two airports, then they should have unambiguous links.

NevilleDNZ (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It will be a mess to avoid overlinking. In major airports, you'll have many airlines from many terminals in many tables serving the same city/airport. There will be frequent changes to the table, and editors will have to be very careful in linking or unlinking cities/airports. I'd rather see "(City name) (if needed, dash Airport name) Airport" created as a redirect in every case, then you just type that into the search box and "voila" you're there. HkCaGu (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:NOTTRAVEL#NOTTRAVEL, it reads:

  1. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. 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. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, instead.

IMHO linking the destination city to actual destination airports is not the same as "the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the current price of a café au lait", esp when one considers that the principal reason for the airports existence it to travel to these destinations.

Currently details the destination city is maintained. Certainly maintaining which terminal the aircraft disembarks to would be a chore. So the question as to where to draw the line. My gut feeling is that the vast majority of airline don't switch airports lightly and would be changed very infrequently.

BTW: I found the previous discussion about this in the archives, the topic seems to come up annually:

My recommendation would be to have a template

  • {{dest |airport=IATA code |location=cityname |airport_name=wikilink |nolink}}}.

Maybe could be styled to produce something like "Paris(CDG)" to avoid a "sea of blue links" and avoid having to maintain "nolink".

In a perfect world only the IATA code (and a nolink flag) would be necessary, as the rest of the information would be pulled from a airport table. eg.

  • {{dest |airport=IATA code |nolink}}}<n/owiki>. But I don't think that mediawiki is up to table lookups without coding some php. :-/ And having read the comments from previous destination discussion there could be additional '''optional''' fields for appropriate information. * <nowiki>{{dest | ... |ref_url=http://airline.url |service=seasonal/daily/weekly/etc |terminal=### etc}}}

To address the problem of services becoming historic, then optional begin and end date would be useful.

  • {{dest | ... |begin=##/##/## |end=##/##/##}}}

For smaller city and smaller airport (99% of airports in the world) the above would work fine. As for the 1% mega airports, ... they have their own special needs anyhow.

NevilleDNZ (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


  • Firstly, I took the liberty of editing the initial post in this section a bit, so as to make it concise, whilst still conveying the point. Basically, that means restricting the cited table to just a few entries. If anyone feels it should be restored to its entirety, just let me know. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And, it's not quite as complicated or cumbersome as a "need to cut and paste the destination into google, then find the matching international airport, then from google go back to wikipedia to find an onward airport" . You can simply type "Cebu Airport" in the little search box on the centre-left of the screen... Et voilà! Jasepl (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I took you lead and typed in Paris Airport and got a list of 4 Airports. For London I got 13, including military airfields. Admittedly these are Mega-Citys. But the superscript on "LondonLHR" is more useful to users then content like "On 3 March 1948, Sabena Douglas DC3 Dakota OO-AWH crashed in fog. Three crew and 19 of the 22 passengers died."
AirlinesDestinationsTerminal
Air New ZealandAuckland(AKL), Christchurch(CHC), Dunedin(DUD) Queenstown(ZQN) [seasonal], WellingtonInternational
Air NiuginiPort Moresby(POM)International
Air PacificNadi(NAN)International
Air VanuatuEspiritu Santo(SON)[2], Port Vila(AKL)International
AircalinNouméa(NOU)International

The special suffixes like -Taoyuan and /Bali could also be removed. Also the destinations principal airport need only be linked once, esp. where that destination only has one airport, eg Auckland(AKL)

The template {{dest |airport=IATA code |location=cityname |airport_name=wikilink |nolink}}} would it easy to roll out the initial style, and subsequently evolve the style to suit. (Eg standardizing the service begin/end dates and cites etc)

NevilleDNZ (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss understand when we say this is not a travel guide, so I will just explain again this is an encyclopedia the airport articles are to describe the airport its history, location, notable events, notable buildings. The destination section is not their to provide a current listing of destinations but is used to show the extent of travel available from that airport in the context of describing the airport and its history. The actual destinations are not important to the the airport article and dont need to be linked. We dont have to keep the destinations list up to date it just so happens that they are. The articles could if we wanted just have snapshots of destination list at different periods of the airports history. It just so happens that the contributers try to keep the list up to date with reliable sources. This doesnt imply that the lists are either complete or accurate and certainly wikipedia is the last place to come to plan travel. So just to repeat within the context of the airport articles we have no need to link the destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Here is the table as it would appear with links to destination airports:

AirlinesDestinationsTerminal
Air New ZealandAuckland(AKL), Christchurch(CHC), Dunedin(DUD) Queenstown(ZQN) [seasonal], Wellington(WLG)International
Air NiuginiPort Moresby(POM)International
Air PacificNadi(NAN)International
Air VanuatuEspiritu Santo(SON)[3], Port Vila(VLI)International
AircalinNouméa(NOU)International
Cathay PacificHong Kong1(HKG)International
China AirlinesTaipei-Taoyuan(TPE)International
Emirates AirlineAuckland, Dubai(DXB), Singapore(SIN)International
Etihad AirwaysAbu Dhabi(AUH), SingaporeInternational
EVA AirTaipei-TaoyuanInternational
Japan Airlines operated by JALwaysTokyo-Narita(NRT)International
Jetstar AirwaysChristchurch, Denpasar/Bali(DPS)[4]International
Korean AirSeoul-Incheon(ICN)International
Malaysia AirlinesKuala Lumpur1(KUL)International
Norfolk Air operated by Our AirlineNorfolk Island(NLK), Sydney(SYD) [begins 21 October][5]International
Our AirlineHoniara(ABC), Nauru(ETC) [begins 7 November][6]International

The IATA code are all contained in List of airports by IATA code. Should you both change your minds about inserting destination wikilinks, then let me know and I'll create a bot to insert the template. I estimate it would take a weekend to complete.

BTW: according to wikipedia Port Moresby Airport Terminal contains "a restaurant, snack shop, souvenir/duty free stores, and currency exchanges". Least now I know where to get a coffee. c.f. Wikipedia:NOTTRAVEL#NOTTRAVEL :-/

I seriously urge you to reconsider linking the IATA codes above to the Airport concerned. Let me know if you need a hand.

Blue skies, NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Narita a UA focus city???

A user added Narita as a focus city for United Airlines. I was wondering if this is true or not. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is not a source for verification it should be removed.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus City parameter needed in infobox

Since a hub paramter was created in airport infoboxes, many IPs have been adding airline that have focus city operations at that airport in the hub parameter. To resolve this, i think a parameter for focus city should be created to avoid confusion and edit wars (ex: Southwest Airlines constantly added as a hub to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport...the Southwest infobox has PHX listed as a focus city). Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this still as per previous discussion. It'll cause more problems with edit wars in Airport articles all over the place, and also the infobox would grow too large with unnecessary clutter for those airports that have many "focus city" airlines. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't even know what conversation to jump in but I saw Southwest above so I thought I would focus on that here. Southwest does not use hubs. Is there a way to address this in infoboxes? We can just ignore it and say" focus on the prose" but the issue doesn't seem to be going away. Any solutions? Also, the primary concern with not using "focus city" in the infobox is the battleground concerns. It seems a shame to potentially not improve the information provided since some editors are jerks. I don't know what would happen with some of the biggest airports so I understand that concern, though.Cptnono (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Southwest

I know there has been discussion. I disagree with its conclusion that adding focus city as a parameter would be a concern and it really looks like editors are too worried about having to discuss it when hard questions come up at large airports. Adding the parameter and note that it is only to be when sourced for airlines that do not use a hub system seems like an easy fix and is inline with general practice and the manual of style of dynamic infoboxes that are not always 100% consistent. My primary concern is Southwest at Phoenix. People are edit warring over something trivial and easy to fix. Although I would prefer the infobox be ammended and editors to stop worrying about consequences that I don't think will come to fruition, I would love to hear other ideas. Is creating an infobox as a table instead of the template acceptable?Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Same thing also applies to JetBlue. Though the site and themselves may say that JFK Airport is the hub. A number of editors may disagree. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What is a focus city? How do we meet this and follow WP:V and WP:RS? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If sources says it is a focus city then there shouldn't be a verifiability concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added a comment in the infobox at PHX pointing to the discussion here. Let's see what happens. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been a comment and it has been ignored repeatedly. Hopefully this wording will get people's attention. I also mentioned on the talk page that adding more info in the prose would be nice but everyone reads an article differently. In previous discussions, the primary concern was people adding in information without sources and bickering about what airline where. I did a quick google news hit and found a handful of focus cities for a few different airlines. It is an alternative business model for the low budget guys like Southwest who have gobbled up some decent market share. Having mention of a spoke and wheel system but not another is as outdated as getting a free little bag peanuts on every carrier.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, JetBlue is another one that a search shows reliable primary (press releases) and secondary (google news it) sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. I was not able to find one reliale source that said Phoenix was a focus city so that debate should be closed. In the process of looking I did find sources specifically mentioning Chicago Midway and Denver for Southwest along with a few others discussing Jetblue and US Airways in couple cities. So it looks like we have three airlines that require the "focus city" paremeter in less than a dozen airports. 5 minutes of work and reminding editors not to add unsourced info or use OR/SYNTH makes this easy. As soon as we start limiting inclusions out of the worry of editors having to deal with other editors not following the guidleines we are hindering the project instead of improving it.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, notes don't work! Even though the casino template clearly lists notable restaurant, editors simply ignore that and list every restaurant in the place. There are other examples. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation issues

I notice that there is no consistency on when and how we need to disambiguate the airports in a city. For instance, Bangkok is disambiguated as Bangkok-Don Mueang and Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi, Jakarta is disambiguated as Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta and Jakarta-Halim, Sapporo is disambiguated as Sapporo-Chitose and Sapporo-Okadama and Nagaya is disambiguated as Nagoya-Centrair and Nagoya-Komaki. On the other hand, KLIA does not have disambiguation even though Kuala Lumpur is served by two airports, and there are significant number of flights into Subang, including international flights to Batam, Pekanbaru, Medan, Koh Samui and Singapore. On the other hand, Don Mueang, Halim Perdanakusuma, Okadama and Komaki do not serve international flights, and only serve a very limited number of domestic flights. In fact, Subang definitely serves more destinations than Don Mueang, Okadama and Komaki, and is probably busier than Komaki at the very least. Therefore, I think we should come to some sort of a consensus on the issue of how we should we disambiguate. So should it be just Jakarta or Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta? Should it be just Bangkok or Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi? Should it be just Nagoya or Nagoya-Centrair? Should it be just Sapporo or Sapporo-Chitose? And last but not least, should it be just Kuala Lumpur or Kuala Lumpur-KLIA/Kuala Lumpur-Sepang? The dog2 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a naming conventions issue. The Aviation project has a style guide with naming conventions for airports. I feel the airport operators name is the most accurate, which can usually be found on their official web page. My second choice is the name used by an official government aviation agency (i.e. FAA). Some of the ones you mention are problematic; there is a lack of consensus in naming, even within the local aviation or business community. Wikipedia reflects that ambiguity and lack of standardization. -Canglesea (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was actually refering to destination lists. I've actually highlighted this a few times but more often than not, people make separate consensuses for different cities and hence, the lack of consistency as I mentioned above. As I mentioned, Suvarnabhumi Airport is listed as Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi instead of just Bangkok even though Don Mueang only serves a very limited number of domestic flights; most domestic flights go to Suvarnabhumi. Likewise, Chubu Centrair International Airport is listed as Nagoya-Centrair instead of just Nagoya even though the vast majority of flights, including domestic flights, go to Centrair with Komaki only serving a limited number of domestic flights. On the other hand, while I agree that Kuala Lumpur International Airport is the main airport for Kuala Lumpur and the vast majority of flights go to KLIA, Subang serves some international destinations as well in Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand, and Subang definitely serves more destinations than Don Mueang, Halim, Komaki or Okadama. Therefore, what I'll say is that if KLIA is just listed as Kuala Lumpur, then Suvarnabhumi should just be listed as Bangkok, Soekarno-Hatta as just Jakarta and Centrair as just Nagoya. If we want to have the disambiguation tags for these airports, then I'll say KLIA should follow suit and be listed as Kuala Lumpur-KLIA or Kuala Lumpur-Sepang. The dog2 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding lists of nearby airports

I think that we should add lists of nearby airports to all American airports. I've started with some in Western New York but I think we need more coverage with that. It would probably be useful. If you want to know what I mean, go to an airport in Western New York (not all of them have it), such as Buffalo Niagara International Airport, or look at AirNav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywhohatestwitter (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you define "nearby"? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Not much point you can just look at List of airports in New York or Category:Airports in New York. MilborneOne (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
@Milborne, Maybe, but looking at one of those two doesn't tell nearby airports, I think. @Hawaiian, The nearest five airports (or six in Buffalo Niagara International Airport's case). If you want to see it for any other airport in America that isn't covered, just go to it's AirNav page and go to near the bottom. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
OK but this is an encyclopedia and nearby airports are not really relevant unless they have some effect on each other (the only one I can think of is if one has replaced the other in the past). Remember this is not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no guarantee that even the closest airport would have any relevance to a particular airport. Take a look at Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport and explain how Ugnu-Kuparuk Airport, as one of the five closest is relevant and Fairbanks International Airport, to which it has sked flights is not? Looking at the Buffalo Niagara example I see you had Buffalo Airfield listed. That appears to be a GA airport with no relevance to Buffalo Niagara at all. What I could see is including that X Airport is used as a reliever and Y Airport is used as an alternate for Z Airport but a list of the closest airports is for the most part meaningless. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't see any relevance (encyclopaedic or otherwise) of nearby airports. The most we need is a mention of other airports serving the same city (eg: LHR, LCY, LGW, LTN, STN etc) - and that's already covered. Jasepl (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Airports without coordinates

User:The Anome/Airports missing coordinates is a partial listing of airport-related articles which probably do not have geographic coordinates. It is based on old data, and can't be relied on to be either complete or completely accurate, but I hope it's useful. -- The Anome (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by number of airports

A discussion has been started at Talk:List_of_countries_by_number_of_airports#Developing_inclusion_criteria_for_the_list which relates to a list article. Editors are invited to participate. 91.187.64.100 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be more useful to discuss if it is a viable article and that it probably should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added a proposed deletion notice. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Article has been de-proded, comments now welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of airports, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

TUIfly timetable -- help needed!

Hi guys,

just implemented the latest schedule changes to all dest-lists of German airports being served by TUIfly. Alas, I don't have time to do the same with the foreigh airport dest-lists. Who can help? Thanks in advance! off-topic: there are still some scheduled destinations listed at Mönchengladbach Airport. Who can confirm? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

edit: Same goes with Siegerland Airport. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Destinations in airport tables

Our longstanding guidance and consensus about the airport dest tables (ie: where we use the dest-list template to show which airlines serve a particular airport and the places they fly from said airport), clearly established that:

  1. It is a list of destinations, not of airports
  2. We, therefore, list the city served and not the region (though there have been historical inconsistencies for minor islands and the like)

Keeping that in mind, there are a few glaring inconsistencies (and annoyances!) that I have been coming across, and wanted to get people's thoughts on establishing names for a handful of destinations. Below is a short list of the inconsistencies I have encountered, and the proposed change (or correction, if I may):

  • Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky → Cincinnati
  • City of Derry → Londonderry or Derry
  • Doncaster or Sheffield → Sheffield
  • Durham Tees Valley or Teesside → Durham
  • East Midlands → Nottingham
  • Humberside → Hull or Kingston upon Hull
  • Ireland West Knock → Knock

Elaborating on the first example in the above list, Cincinnati is the destination served, Northern Kentucky the region where the airport is located, and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky the airport's name. Seeing how we're meant to be listing destinations, Cincinnati is all we should be listing. For the last example, I think it was always listed (correctly) as Knock. But then the airport's name changed to something elaborate, and now I find a lot of destination entries have been changed to Ireland West Knock - which is not correct, because the airport's name changed, not the city's.


What does everyone think? Thanks, Jason Jasepl (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think where just now but there is a consensus that if it refers to the city then the term used in "Derry". Hull look better than the full formal name. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sheffield hasnt got an airport anymore but I presume you mean Finningley which is next to Doncaster. And Durham Tees Valley doesnt actually serve Durham, Durham is just one of many nearby towns and not really the nearest. East Midlands doesnt really serve Nottingham. So you said list the city served and not the region but it doesnt always work with regional airports! MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, many airports serve more than just one city - but we don't usually list the entire region or county or state or whatever, do we? DUS doesn't just serve Dusseldorf, but the entire Rhein-Ruhr area, as well as large parts of the Netherlands. The destination is still Dusseldorf, isn't it? Jasepl (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Afd for Combs Field Airport

I'd appreciate your review and discussion of the Afd for Combs Field Airport. -Canglesea (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency for table format in airport articles

I noticed that a couple of airport destinations tables have an inconsistency format. Some airports have the tables merged together with an terminal/concourse column added and some airports that have airlines using different terminals have them seperately. Should we need to come up with a consistent way on the format of these. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Having separate sections for each terminal/concourse is leftover from the old list-based format for destinations. Consolidation to a single table using the third column is my preference, as it allows readers the option to sort by airline or by terminal/concourse. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Hawaiian717 - a single table is the way to go. Besides being easily sortable by airline or terminal, it also focuses on the airlines serving the airport, which is the main point of the list anyway.
I tried to merge the CDG table into one earlier today, but it seems the dest-list template is designed to handle only a certain number of rows. So I tried to change the template. Made a monumental mess of it, so quickly reverted! Would anyone be able to fix that? I did leave some comments on the template talk page. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
But I have to say I don't like one big table for huge airports like LAX and SFO. The terminal description is now often down to one line, and important, encyclopedic information such as what airlines serve there are now far away to the bottom. And the notes about "certain flights/arrivals/customs are handled somewhere else" are now orphaned from the destination listing. I hate to see NRT changing that way. One thing for sure, I'm going to change the SFO UA and NW listing to separate international and domestic destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m not quite sure I understand your concerns.
  • "The terminal description is now often down to one line"
    • Doesn’t have to be. When we have a section titled “Terminals, airlines and destinations”, we can list the description (however long it is) under a Terminals subsection, and the dest list under an Airlines and Destinations subsection. See the Heathrow Airport article for an example.
  • "encyclopedic information such as what airlines serve there are now far away to the bottom"
    • That’s a simple remedy: move that section upwards. After all, the point of an airport is to be able to get on a plane and go somewhere. Shops, train access, music videos shot in the terminal etc are all far less important, and can easily be moved down in the hierarchy.
  • "And the notes about "certain flights/arrivals/customs are handled somewhere else" are now orphaned from the destination listing"
    • That’s just one line (at least in the case of SFO) and can easily be added at the top of the table. See the dest table in the Miami Airport article; there’s a similar note for Cuba flights. Works pretty well I think.
  • "One thing for sure, I'm going to change the SFO UA and NW listing to separate international and domestic destinations"
    • Just to understand, what’s the rationale behind that?
Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, to add to the above, I think it will also be good to agree on a general hierarchy (all airport articles vary in this regard). For example:
  • intro, structure etc
  • terminals, airlines, destinations etc
  • operations, statistics etc
  • access
  • history
  • accidents and incidents
  • future plans
Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an outline for airport articles that has been in place for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that. But it's too basic now, considering the kinds of things that get stuffed into airport articles these days! Jasepl (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The outline can be adjusted or expanded as needed. Most of what you listed is already in there. Vegaswikian (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree it can be expanded. But currently, only the following are addressed: name, intro/infobox, history, airlines/dests and accidents. There's so many more topics that are covered in airport articles these days though. Granted some of them may fall into one of the established categories, but it will be good if we can all work towards updating that guidance, that's all. Jasepl (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

El Paso International Airport

Hi guys, a (in my opinion rather confusing) list of former airlines and destinations was included in this article. Who can clean it up? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done (in 20 seconds!) Jasepl (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Enfidha - Zine El Abidine Ben Ali International Airport

Hi guys,

who can provide sources (or otherwise verify) all these services given in the destination list of this new airport? And who can expand the airport article itself? Up to now, its nearly an orphan. Best regards Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC) edit: Is it really true that Tunisair will have a second hub there? Most of these flights are not included in the dest-lists of any other airports Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If those flights are not announced by the airlines itself or the flights do not appear to be bookable to the new airport then it needs to be removed or I would add a "references needed" tag to the destinations list. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I just realised that I did indeed make a lot of edits to the article, but all were mostly cosmetic - restricted to dates etc only. Agree that unsourced and non existent entries must go. I'll take a stab at identifying them. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I could only find references for the Jetairfly service (from next April), changed article accordingly. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

YUM charters (probably military)

Please watch Yuma International Airport. A user kept adding one-off, probably military, charter activity (not routes, not services) which might not even serve the civilian side of the airfield. I'm maxed out on 3RR for the next 23.5 hours. HkCaGu (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the "Former Service" section since longstanding editor consensus is that former routes do not belong in airport articles. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SEA "timetable direct" mis-adds, and other cities too

I think this issue does need to be figured out. I won't rehash the same arguments over and over, but to see that other cities are having this problem made me want to say a few things. We need to be as restrictive as possible and remember that for airlines, this is advertising. It also serves to obfuscate the meaning of a direct flight if we go purely by flight number without a footnote. Because thats what we are doing here, making the SOLE identifying characteristic fltnum. And again it is going purely by what the airlines say, not by a 3rd party source (ie airlines publish the timetables)... when else on WP do we go purely by what one group of interested parties (who are large corporations) publish, with little or no RS or any kind of backup? That being said, I can't "prove" these flight don't just stop at a hub for six hours and only get gas and don't open the doors, because I'm not an RS either...

another issue, i think this gives some airlines "undue weight" compared to other airlines. This was noticeable when in the SEA case Hainan began an actual direct to China and then the NWA "timetable direct" began getting swithed to Beijing instead of Hong Kong. So basically that is either unfair to Hanian, by diminishing the value of their true direct, or it is overly-fair to NWA by inflating the value of their product. The two services are very different and we should not be using the same term interchangeably; that is making a value judgement however subtle and I don't think WP should do that, especially when it also involves acquiesnce to marketing etc.

But it does look like people support the idea or removing these add-on destinations. If we do just footnote them instead, the idea of writing "plane change may be required" strikes me as overly klanky. I suggest tagging them as "one-stop" which seems to be from reading above, the actual terminology for the airlines. I am going to strating changing over to this format, until for people weigh in on removing them entirely. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already thread on this matter...see "Direct flights/nonstop issue at SEA" thread. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

duh my point is that its happening at other airports too and its been reported here, so people need to actually make a decision for all the airports and not just SEA. Also the tags are ugly and have been up for six months on SEA so I really like to see a verdict. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No consensus has been rached for this matter so HKG on NWA on the Seattle Airport page will stay until it does. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a consensus on changing the guidelines. For NWA flights (more precisely, numbers) through NRT, what happened this past year had been nothing but "timetable directs" that change every few months, probably as a result of painting and maintenance of A330s and B747s. If things get stable again after DL takes over, we can discuss again. We don't need to change the current wording for the NWA issue. HkCaGu (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah...I think what throws people off the most is NW's constant reshuffle of its flight numbers from the US-NRT-Asia flights. And guess what?? NW is changing flight numbers on all of its flights. I guess we can wait about 4 months after DL/NW complete their merger to see if there flight number becomes stable. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
so we have been successful at SEA with excluding timetable-directs... people seem to be accepting the compromise which is a change from normal. Thanks to everyone's help and from reading the comments here and SEA, I feel like the compromise might be strong enough to be exported to other airports which are having the same problem. Thanks again... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

UA also does a reshuffle of flight numbers every couple of years through NRT. In my opinion, the final US destinations should be listed as it does not make sense for a US airline to fly to another country without originating in the US. Therefore, I think the UA flight on SEA-NRT-SIN should be listed in both SEA and SIN. In any case, UA's flight numbers do not change as often as NW's so I think it should be safe to include the final US destinations. 118.210.128.146 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

you should check out Freedoms of the air and you will see all the US airlines that fly places without a final destination in the US. Also I will restate my opinion that this type of editing acts as viral advertising for various airlines. Unwary users are likely to get the wrong info by using the destination table in this manner. For example this would give a person who was getting their flight info from wikipedia, a higher than normal chance of buying a UAL ticket to singapore, especially considering the competetion includes another airline with the destination as its name. It makes people more likely to buy NWA tickets on the HKG route when someone does that edit, also again notable when there is a strong locally based airline in competition. So its things like that which make me think again and again this is part of some attempt to generate buzz for one of the airlines or airports involved. If anyone has done any viral marketing before, they will know this is exactly how its done. Start with a grassroots/web2.0 style site like WP, it is the best avenue to push wrong or slanted info if you are looking to "create opinion." Like right now, some people are being tireless in their attempts to create the opinion that flight number is the best way to define a flight, regardless of how many times you stop or go through customs or sit in the terminal. Not only does that definition of a "flight" violate the newtonian physics perspective on the term, it also hopelessly conflates two entire seperate areas of international airtravel law. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
People use travel website to search for flights, not Wikipedia. And plenty of travel websites will mislead some people trying to book SEA-HKG or SFO-SIN when only one flight number appear and the "1 stop" is barely visible. HkCaGu (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget airline websites. I think the "Change Planes" designation is throwing people off. Snoozlepet (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just listing more reasons why wp shouldn't do it too. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking of airline names

Whenever there are multiple entries for the same carrier, for example, the US regional carriers (e.g. Delta Connection, United Express, US Airways Express, or an airline operating on behalf of another airline, etc.), should those be only linked once. I don't think this wasn't brought up in the beginning so I am bringing it up now. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think linking once is enough. Especially when the entries are one below the other. In any event, I believe that overarching Wikipedia guidelines state that only the first instance of anything in an article should be Wiki-linked. In this case, its once per table. And, on a personal note, I'm all for anything that keeps us from drowning in a sea of blue. Jasepl (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that people have read Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links. However, in this case once per table is enough. So if there is two terminals and the same airline flies from both then link it twice. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. However, if there is a single table (with a third column for terminal) then only the first instance should be listed. Jasepl (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, i agree. If there is a single table and the airline is listed twice but operating from different terminals, then only 1 link is needed. But if the table is broken up into different terminals/concourse, then I would link them both. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
However, if you click the sort button, then the first appearance may not be the first! Then what do we do? I can agree it's unnecessary if the regional/subsidiary listing is together with mainline. HkCaGu (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "the first appearance may not be the first". In any event, the table is always alphabetised by airline, so why would one need to sort by airline? Jasepl (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If you use the third column, normally to provide terminal/concourse information, you can also sort by that column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Leshukonskoye Airport

Hi guys, I have just created this article. Who can expand? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

...and Lensk Airport

Another article on a Russian airpor: Again ,who can expand? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

...yet some more Russian airports

The following airports are also to be expanded. Who can help?

Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegiant PSA

All Allegiant Airlines service to Orlando- Sanford will need to be changed to Orlando-International (or just Orlando) as the announcement came out earlier today that the change would occur. Airliners.net. WaltBren (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, only 10 cities are initially switching. All cities will eventually be served: 1. Knoxville, Tenn. — flights begin Feb. 1, 2010 with fares as low as $49.99* each way

2. Lexington, Ky. — flights begin Feb. 1, 2010 with fares as low as $57.99* each way 3. Allentown, Penn. — flights begin Feb. 8, 2010 with fares as low as $59.99* each way 4. Greenville/Spartanburg, S.C. — flights begin Feb. 8, 2010 with fares as low as $45.99* each way 5. Grand Rapids, Mich. — flights begin Feb. 12, 2010 with fares as low as $79.99* each way 6. Springfield, Mo. — flights begin Feb. 15, 2010 with fares as low as $79.99* each way 7. Tri-Cities, Tenn. — flights begin Feb. 15, 2010 with fares as low as $47.99* each way 8. Huntington, W.V. — flights begin Feb. 16, 2010 with fares as low as $59.99* each way 9. Youngstown, Ohio — flights begin March 4, 2010 with fares as low as $59.99* each way 10. Des Moines, Iowa — flights begin March 5, 2010 with fares as low as $79.99* each way WaltBren (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Airliners.net forums are not a reliable source and cannot be used as the basis of editing WIkipedia. Fortunately, the airline's press release can. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of countries by number of heliports

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of countries by number of heliports, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of heliports. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Service Start/End Dates: Objection to Guideline 10 for the Body section

I disagree with one element of the guidelines for indicating service start/end dates. According to the guidelines, changes occurring in the next 13 months do not require a year. But in practice, it seems like many of the articles, even with active maintainers, are not noticing when one of these dates passes. If they miss it for more than a month, then it usually sticks around, and now people think the service change is in the coming year, not the prior year. Yes, figuring out the appropriate year is possible if you scour the edit history, but on any reasonably active article you're stuck with manual binary search through the article history to figure out when the edit was made. I'd argue that the standard should be changed, to one of:

1. Provide the full date
2. Provide the year as a hidden comment immediately after the date

Either way, there will be better, easier to find information so editors can clearly see what year was intended without the unreliable heuristics or exhaustive search currently in place. The former option is preferable in my opinion; if the standard is visible to all, people are less likely to forget it (many of the edits for Phoenix's airport are by IP, probably by PR guys from the airlines, so the Wiki skills may be less than perfect), but any standard that provides a year is better than me sitting around wondering what "ends October 3" really means. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, why is the guideline 13 months? If I edit a page today to say "ends November 30", the edit is inherently confusing. Do I mean 2009 or 2010? --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest "13 months" be changed to "6 months". When NWA announced cancellation of CAN services 9 months ahead of time, I had to fight a battle there that it hadn't ended. Half a year is a reasonable cut-off point. HkCaGu (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of airlines announced new routes to begin in 2010 and it is still 2009. I would say to go ahead and put the year regardless of what month it starts. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My primary objection to HkCaGu's suggestion is the anonymous editors that frequently provide this information (and are generally invaluable; most editors don't have the time to check every airline's full schedule for every start and end point for this stuff). I doubt they are aware of the 13 month standard, and wouldn't notice if the standard changed to 6. They're just copying the format everyone else is using. If we make a blanket change to add years, I would hope they would copy that style. If the standard is inconsistent, no one but the meticulous and pedantic will follow it correctly. 6 months is still better than the status quo, but it doesn't solve the problem. Is adding six characters (comma, space, four digit year) per begin/end tag enough of a cost to justify a complicated standard? --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

HkCaGu, anyone else, do you have any other thoughts on the matter? I don't want to try and claim a "consensus" off myself and one person who agrees with me out of three total people in the discussion. --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the year it is not a big deal, if this is really a encyclopedia and not a travel guide the start and stop dates should stay in the article and not be removed so we end up with some history. MilborneOne (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag Icons in airport infoboxes

I noticed that some airports (i.e. O'Hare International Airport, Hyderabad International Airport, and others) have flag icons in the airport infobox. I thought flags are not allowed. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed them both. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hub parameter airline listing

For the hub parameter of the infobox, should we include regional carriers, carriers that call the airport a "secondary hub", or called "bases"? There seems to be a problem listing them. Also, is cargo carriers okay? Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: Regional carriers: Not if the operation is only in support of a major carrier's hub (for example, when ExpressJet had their independent operation, they'd be listed in the hub parameter on ONT, but not on IAH since that hub exists to support Continental's operation). Secondary hub: No, this sounds like a focus city to me, which we currently don't use. Base: It depends on what they mean. If they're using "base" as a synonym for "hub" and the airline's operation there meets our typical definition of a hub, then yes. If they just mean a crew base for pilots and/or flight attendants, then no as these may not necessarily be hubs (for example, I've been on flights operated by SkyWest where the crew identified themselves as based at Palm Springs or Monterey). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
These parameters should be added to the template and it is a shame they are not.Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Very poor image management

I've just nominated London Heathrow Airport as a particularly bad example of WP's image management, discussed here. Tony (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect listing of Toronto Billy Bishop Airport

I think there has been some confusion on how to list Billy Bishop Airport. Since Toronto City Centre Airport has been renamed after Billy Bishop, should we list it as "Toronto-City Centre" or "Toronto-Billy Bishop"? Snoozlepet (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The new name is not "fully" effective yet due to the aeronautical publication update cycle. Either way, for such a relatively unknown airport, the new name may not mean much or may not catch on for a long while. Since the word "city" remains in the new official name, I propose "Toronto-City" (especially since Pearson is not even in the new, bigger "city"). HkCaGu (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that retaining City Centre is the way to go. In the dest list table, we have always used the most common or abbreviated form of the airport's name (eg: Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, New York-JFK, Houston-Intercontinental). This makes airports easily recognisable and the airport's own article has the full name anyway. Jasepl (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How to handle the DL/NW route swaps?

DL/NW have swapped more routes to/from Europe. Some of the flights are coded "DL" but are flown on NWA aircraft per airline schedules. Since we do not know when operating certificates will be merged, should we continue to list these flights as "Northwest Airlines" or should we go ahead and start listing them as "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" now. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I go for listing them as "Northwest Airlines operated by Delta Air Lines" (JFK-NRT, PDX-NRT, etc.) and "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" (JFK-FCO, ATL-HNL, etc.). pikdig (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to remember how we handled this for the America West/US Airways merger, as it ought to be basically the same. I think "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" is good, but are they really marketing any flights as "Northwest operated by Delta"? I checked delta.com for today's JFK-NRT and PDX-NRT flights and they both show up as "Delta operated by Delta Partner Delta Air Lines", which to me is the same as saying it's just Delta, and the aircraft types are 777 and 767, neither of which are in the Northwest fleet. Basically, my opinion is that if the flight is operated by an aircraft that was with Northwest pre-merger, list it as "Delta operated by Northwest" and if the the flight is being operated by an aircraft that was with Delta pre-merger, list it as "Delta". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. But I think the only time i would list flights as "Delta operated by Northwest" is the route swap to/from Europe and Asia that has the DL code that is flown using an NWA plane but I am not sure if you mean all of the per-merger NWA flights or just the one with route swaps. But all of the regular NW flights coded "NW" with its own aircraft should be listed as "Northwest Airlines" since those flights are not listed as Delta Flight XXX operated by Northwest Airlines. For JFK-NRT, PDX-NRT, EWR-AMS, SEA-PEK, DTW-PVG, etc; I would just list them as "Delta" since they use Delta planes and it is technically a Delta flight. I would go for listing "Delta operated by Northwest" since by February, the operating certificates will be merged by then. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should start trying to list the routes that switch from DL to NW as "Delta operated by Northwest" at airports with a DL flight number operated by an NW plane. If anyone disagrees, then we can always change it back. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This merger is a special case that I think we shouldn't just say "[ends Mmmm dd]" or "[begins Mmmm dd]" if they're just switching the operator. I suggest something like "[operated by XX beginning Mmmm dd]". HkCaGu (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On the Athens International Airport page, I had tried "New York–JFK [Operated by Northwest Airlines starting 1 June]", but was reverted...I believe this type of labeling would be appropriate though. Greekboy (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That is making it sound like a codeshare flight. DL and NW do have codesharing agreements on their flight those. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What about "transferred to" instead of "operated by"? HkCaGu (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but i think that "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" is more appropriate for this. By putting "Delta Air Lines {New York-JFK [transfers to Northwest Airlines from June 2]), makes the table look all messy and hard for the reader to read. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
All of the current suggestions - though perfect valid - seem needlessly convoluted. There must be a simpler way out that all of us can agree on. Another thought is to leave things as they are; in all likelihood the OC will be combined in a couple of weeks anyway, and that will solve all the problems. Jasepl (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Leaving things as they are and waiting to see what will happen with the OC is just misleading. As mentioned before, these are essentially the same as route swaps between express carriers and mainline. Greekboy (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
DL is not equivalent to "mainline" and NW is not equivalent to "express". These are two major airlines in the process of merging. BTW, are flight numbers completely reformed (ready for merger, no overlap)? HkCaGu (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. We should probably change it to DL operated by NW by now, and they expect to merge operating certificates by the end of the year.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DL/NW at Athens International Airport

I was just actually going to start this same discussion here. Starting June 1, 2010, Delta is swapping to a NW A330 on JFK-ATH. The flight (on both Northwest and Delta's site) is listed and sold as a DL flight number (DL 832 and Dl 833) and as "Operated by Northwest Airlines". I am inclined to list it as "Delta Air Lines Operated by Northwest Airlines", but am being stopped by some users citing a consensus that doesn't really cover this exact situation. To me, this seems to be in the same boat as other listing like "Swiss International Air Lines operated by PrivatAir" or "Continental Connection operated by Colgan Air", etc. It is essentially an airline flying the route for another airline like example given. It should make no difference if they are merging or not. (A reason I have been told in an discussion on the Athens International Airport talk page, not to list them as a Delta flight.) The flight is being sold as such. Labeling it as a Northwest only flight (while saying that the Delta flight is ending) is misguiding people in my opinion. Greekboy (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion started does not only involve the JFK-ATH flights @ Athens Airport but for all of the routes that PikDig listed above. However, the routes are all listed under the airline operating the flight (Northwest Airlines or Delta Air Lines). Snoozlepet (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, but my discussion is related to DL/NW route swaps too. I never implied I was talking about the same routes as PikDig listed. If you want I will make this into a sub topic. As per the specific route (JFK-ATH), if you are implying that we should list the DL flight as NW after June 1 even though it still remains as a DL flight number (operated by NW), then you should not be selective only to DL/NW. It should be the same Wikipedia wide. For example, it should be "PrivatAir" instead of "Swiss operated by PrivatAir". Or "Colgan Air" instead of "Continental Connection operated by Colgan Air". It cant go both ways in my opinion. Greekboy (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a special case; I expect to see a lot of this over the coming months. In fact, I don't think this anything new; it's essentially the same if a route/destination switches between express carriers or between express and mainline. For this case, I would say "Delta [ends May 31]" and "Delta operated by Northwest [begins June 1]". In the event that the two certificates are merged before June 1, then just go back and change it to simply "Delta" since, at that point, all the A330s will legally be Delta aircraft. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I also agree in listing it this way. Greekboy (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Those flights that switch from DL to NW should've been listed like that to begin with. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose listing this under Delta Air Lines as "New York-JFK (Operated by Northwest Airlines starting 1 June 2010)" per the above discussion.Greekboy (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh please no! That's far too convoluted! Jasepl (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC
How so? To me "Delta ending May 31" and "Northwest starting June 1" is more complicated, especially considering the fact that it has a DL flight number, only DL has the route authority for Greece, and only DL/Comair has the codeshare agreement with Olympic Air for ATH. Greekboy (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Frankfurt"/"Frankfurt-Hahn" issue at Hong Kong International Airport

A IP continues to list HHN as "Frankfurt-Hahn"; however, Frankfurt Hahn Airport is no where near the city of Frankfurt and the airport is actually located 75 miles from the city center. How should we handle on listing this. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It was decided a long time ago that, regardless of the airport's name, we will list the city where the airport is located. This is because the airports in question changed their names as a marketing ploy; they didn't move. Barcelona-Girona, London-Oxford, Frankfurt-Hahn, Manila-Clark etc are all such examples. Jasepl (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Melbourne-Avalon is another example, though that Airport is really nearby Geelong. Sb617 (contribs) 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP wants an actual link instead of WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AIRLINES. I will not bother to remove it since the IP will continue to undo everyone edits. Thank you and Good night. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You might want to stick to one username or your current IP instead of retiring (after one hint of anyone disagreeing with you) on the many various usernames Bucs aka Snoozlepet. Going onto (what is it, your 13th?) new username and going back to editing/warring too soon is close to bordering on inappropriate use of the Wikipedia:SOCK policy. Sb617 (contribs) 14:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gate Assignments for each airline

I noticed that some small/medium sized airports have gates assignments listed beside the airline operating out of. Should this be necessary to include? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When the current table was being developed, the decision then was that they should not, as it's getting into WP:NOTTRAVEL. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. No please. They should be done away with, wherever they have crept back in. Jasepl (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
They have been allowed only when they're fixed. And most bigger airports things are too random for that to happen. For smaller airports, like BUR, the fact that Alaska/Horizon only has one gate and can't handle two planes at the same time should very well be encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to support what had been said in the past, no need to mention gates this is not a travel guide.. MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Most airlines may not use the same gates every time and those gates can change. I know for the huge airports like JFK, ORD, LAX, SFO, etc....gates are barely include as some airlines occupy a whole terminal alone. But for small/medium sized airports, are gate numbers needed for those; and some airport websites have airlines assigned to certain gates at those airports. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No. WP:NOTTRAVEL still applies. All you need to mention is that the particular airline/s fly from the small/medium sized airport as per standard list. 124.148.118.13 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we needing to have vote! Airport, small airport which they do not use 'common use facility', should be include gate number. HkCG make good point about BUR which they own one gate. --B767-500 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect you will just get a repeat of the above when five out of six editors dont support the idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Broken record perhaps: but no gates please! Such bits of trivia have zero encyclopaedic value. Jasepl (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Lets be honest. Including concourses and destinations served by individual airlines isn't really encyclopedic either. A real encyclopedia would perhaps list the number of concourses and gates an airport had along with the airlines serving the airport at the time the encyclopedia was published and perhaps the number of destinations along with maybe some of the top destinations. Anything beyond that is non encyclopedic fluff. Anything beyond that is honestly travel guide material. If you want to clean up the airport pages to make them more encyclopedic then those changes should be made as well. Dhammerindy (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
As much as many here would hate to admit, I'd have to agree. Alternatively a table of top destinations (provided that is sourced, of course) followed by the airlines serving the airport (excluding code-shares) would be more encyclopedic and maintanable than the current Airlines and destinations table listing the destinations, since destinations can change almost frequently, especially with changes between mainline carriers and their affiliates/regional subsidiaries. Considering regional/affiliates do regularly change destinations and/or timetables, its probably close to WP:NOT a Timetable. Sb617 (contribs) 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If an airport has only one gate then why would you need the gate number or even notable. We have only one gate, it doesn't have a number and I can't see how that is notable enough to include in the airports article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree....if the airport has only one gate and only one airline flies there, then the gate is not needed...just list the airline would be good enough. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:NWS-current

I have started a discussion about the {{NWS-current}} template and whether or not it is appropriate. Please share your thoughts at WP:ELN#Template:NWS-current. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Airport infoboxes

What do people think about adding tower/approach control or unicom frequencies to the airport infoboxes?

This is as important as runway information, which is already part of the template rhyre (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need it at all. This is an encyclopaedic article on the airport after all, not an ATC guide! Jasepl (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Airport Infobox - Hub/Bases

Hi all, I've started a request to modify the infobox by simply requesting that Hub for be changed to Hub/Base for as there are quite a number of airlines, such as Ryanair, Spirit Airlines, JetBlue Airways, V Australia and Regional Express Airlines, just to mention a few that doesnt use the "hub" term, but refer to them as bases for either their main airport and/or a few airports. The discussion can be found here. Sb617 (contribs) 00:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Shop and restaurant listing

Hi guys, there are some airport article that feature an explicit list of facilities and amenities, included lists of restaurants and shops, for example Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, Dubai International Airport (there even numbers of baggage claim belts etc.) or Portland International Airport. I thought that such listing would clearly be against WP:NOTTRAVEL (and maybe even advertizing) and therefore removed it, but some of my edits were reverted back. Therefore, I'm posting the issue here, awaiting your thoughts and opinions. Merry Christmas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a listing of names is encyclopedic. The number of restaurants or number of shops in each terminal may be. In BUF's case, I don't see either how the airport courting some chain is notable. HkCaGu (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this discussion here, does this WikiPrject own airport articles? Seeing as how most fall under several WikiProjects, that would create problems. Further, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content was cited on my talk page as not approving, I must point out that unless that is a guideline passed by the Wikipedia community, it means as much as me writing "rules" on my talk page, which is to say it carries no weight. As to NOTTRAVEL and the rest of What Wikipedia is Not, please do read the examples. For the travel part the guideline is "An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." As in, what we don't want concerning say airport restaurants is something such as:
  • McDonalds, Concourse A (5am-10pm; 555-FOR-MCDS) $
  • Cheesecake Factory, Lobby (10am-11pm; 555-YUM-YUMM) $$$
  • Wendy's, Concourse C (24hr; 555-4FROSTY) $
  • Morton's Steakhouse, Lobby (5pm-11pm; 555-OVRPRIC) $$$$$
  • Applebees, Concourse A (10am-1:00am; 555-NEIGHBR) $$
Now, as my edit summary from one of the edits that set this in motion said, the items removed may need trimming. But complete removal is not proper. Trim, don't ax.
As to a contention that it might be advertising, I don't think a list of stores is anymore of advertising than a list of airlines with both destinations and concourse location, which most airport articles include. Listing shops in an article is not advertising. Listing something like: Wedny's, located at 5th & Main Street has 10 combo meals for under $5. That's advertising, where on Wikipedia we are being used to make a sale. Providing neutral information is not advertising. That is, we have an article on O'Hare, that's not advertising. If we start listing hotel deals with free shuttle rides to O'Hare and special flight rates, then that is advertising. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Did someone just equate McDo to the Louvre?! Jasepl (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Also remember that this is an encyclopedia, a list of shops is not encyclopedic, nothing to do with advertising just not that important in encyclopedia terms. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
First, no, no one compared the Louvre to McDonalds. Second, thank you for telling us this is an encyclopedia, which is a bit off, despite the name of the website. See our Wikipedia:Five pillars, specifically pillar #1 where it says: "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Or more to the point, what is un-encyclopedic? As in, we are a combination of encyclopedias and other encyclopedic-like knowledge sources, so what is un-encyclopedic to you, may not be to others, which is why we stick to existing guidelines and policies. Otherwise it becomes WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, instead we have WP:NOT and WP:NOTE as our general content guidleines, and as I have said, a paragraph on the services at an airport does not fail these guidelines. And if it does, as I said, then the airline/destination tablized lists would certainly fall into the same category. In fact I'm surprised there are not gate listings and flight numbers too. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There are no gate numbers and flight number listings because this would be useful only to travellers. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, there is Wikitravel for these sort of information. Destinations are listed to show the significance and importance of an airport. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aeroméxico vs AeroMéxico

An IP editor (Special:Contributions/189.135.85.26) is being very disruptive in insisting on the incorrect spelling of "AeroMéxico" in airport articles but not really bothering to bring up the issue in the airline article itself. Please help as I have maxed out on 3RR in at least one airport article. HkCaGu (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-stops & Direct routes

This rule of including non-stop and direct flights seems to be practiced differently for each airline on the different airport pages. For example when listing the routes of WestJet, only the non-stop routes are listed, because technically it has direct flights, that have five stops (for example WestJet operates Grande Prairie - Edmonton - Calgary - Kamloops - Vancouver) but listing all that on the Grande Prairie Airport article is unrealistic. That being said, airlines like Air Canada list all its direct flights (example: Toronto - Sydney or Montreal - Iqaluit) when there are stops in Vancouver and Ottawa, respectively. Why don't we just list non-stop flights only? This would also shorten the massive airlines and destinations boxes, particularly for the hubs. Readers are smart enough to look at the Sydney Airport page, see they can fly non-stop to Vancouver, then look at the Vancouver Airport page and see they can fly non-stop to Toronto. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Direct" Flights are defined when it's the same aircraft through to the final destination, even if it makes a stop or two. this link defines what is a "direct" flight, and what are not. For example, AC33/AC34 for the most part has the same aircraft from YYZ to SYD (via YVR), thus it is listed as a 'direct' destination'.
Another example, "Faux-direct" flights, which are flights sold under the same number, but requires a aircraft change (for Example, QF25 LAX-AKL-MEL), the LAX-AKL segment is operated by a Boeing 747-400, then the next segment, AKL-MEL is operated by a Boeing 737-800, isn't listed as a 'direct' flight since it requires a aircraft change enroute (in this case at AKL). Sb617 (contribs)
That still doesn't answer why some direct flights are listed and not others. The WestJet example I gave uses the same flight number and aircraft, does this mean all four destinations should be listed? Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, yes it does. The exception (where it is not listed) is if it changes aircraft enroute at a Focus City/Hub (example, arrives at Gate 24 at stop C, change to gate 21 at Stop C for the continuing flight). Sb617 (contribs) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jasepl insists that UA flights through NRT are not direct flights despite the fact that the industry definition lists them as direct flights. I know he will block me after this since he's an administrator but I think I deserve a chance to voice my views here as well. The flights in concern are UA 898 (PEK-NRT-IAD), UA 890 (ICN-NRT-LAX), UA 838 (BKK-NRT-ORD) and UA 896 (SIN-NRT-SEA). If you check the schedules, the same aircraft type is used throughout the flight. All flights continue on as "timetable directs" from their first US stop, and that involves a plane change, so I don't think we should list them, but as far as I can see, UA's numbers are quite stable. QF flights through SIN also have a similar situation, and SIN is listed as a hub for QF, but we still list FRA as a destination from SYD and BOM as a destination from BNE even though these QF flights have to go through their hub at SIN. And IMHO, we should follow the industry definition and not one person's definition on the term "direct flight", unless everyone else begs to differ. Therefore, based on industry definition, these UA flights are considered to be direct and should be listed from their Asian/American points of origin. 218.186.9.226 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I insist nothing of the sort. It has been the consensus after much discussion amongst many contributors - a discussion I had no part in. I am simply ensuring that edits - especially those by anon IPs - adhere to said consensus and common standards. Jasepl (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NW/DL certificate merger

So the certificates are combined, but flights are still coded as NW in reservation and flight info systems and NWA in ATC systems. I think it is premature to just combine destination lists. In some aspects, NW flights are still more different from DL flights than flights like United Express or Continental Connection to the mainlines. How should we list them now? HkCaGu (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwes Airlines" is good. Since DL and NW is now one carrier but pre-merger NW flights still have the "NW" code and then we can list the pre merger-NW destinations under "Delta" until their res systems are merged (which is late-January/early-February 2010). Snoozlepet (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I say, one certificate == one airline. Separate coding is now an historical relic. Xrlq (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Toussaint L'Ouverture International Airport

Hi guys, can anyone of you confirm that this is the correct spelling of the airport in Port-au-Prince, Haiti? It was recently moved from Toussaint Louverture Airport. There obviously exist differing spellings of Toussaint L'ouverture, who the airport was named after. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should get out what the official name of the airport is. Still, Toussaint Louverture might be the valid name. On this image, there seems to be no apostrophe. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The airport is named after Toussaint Louverture (english wikipedia article title was also wrong), and has nothing to do with the French word ouverture (even if the name of Toussaint Louverture obviously comes from that word). I've renamed the article accordingly. Dancing is Forbidden, please check twice before making such a big edit next time ;-) Slasher-fun (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico Airlines destinations from Albuquerque International Sunport

Please help me as I'm running out of words to explain what I thought was a simple concept. See Talk:Albuquerque International Sunport. HkCaGu (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the flights do not require a change of aircraft nor they do not stop at a hub airport, then it is a destination (with no via). "Via" means the same thing as a direct, non-plane changing flight. If it doesn't, then it is not. Can't put it as simple as that. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with that editor anymore. He doesn't even believe you guys (as I described) exist. Please chime in at Talk:Albuquerque International Sunport. HkCaGu (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this gets lost to automatic archiving, let me try to keep it alive. The discussion has greatly lengthened, and I'm getting very tired. Your assistance and participation will be greatly appreciated. Please see Talk:Albuquerque International Sunport. HkCaGu (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency

There are inconsistency in the article Santa Cruz Air Force Base: “The 1th GAvCa also operates one AT-27” 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again: Which flights deserve an entry in an airport destination list?

Hi guys, this is me once again fighting against the inclusion of irregular, unscheduled, non-bookable charter flights in airport-dest-lists. As I understand the matter, information given here at Wikipedia has to be referenced. In general, destinations at airport articles are not, but the corresponding dest-lists at airlines are. Thus, a destination is to be included when it is included in the official airline timetable. The problem with most charter airlines is that they do not have any regular schedule. Nevertheless, there are (mostly British) airport articles that have huge extra-sections listing all irregular charter destinations, which usually lack any reliable sources: London Luton Airport, London Stansted Airport, Birmingham International Airport, West Midlands, Bournemouth Airport, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield, Durham Tees Valley Airport, Leeds Bradford International Airport, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Newcastle Airport, Aberdeen Airport, Edinburgh Airport, Glasgow International Airport, Cardiff Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport. On the other side, concerning Mediterranean airport articles, these flights are either not included at all, or included in the normal dest-list. I think here we should become aware that there are some scheduled charter airlines like Thomson Airways, Thomas Cook Airlines or Monarch Airlines with properly referenced timetables. IMO these flights should be included into the regular dest-list (like at London Gatwick Airport or Manchester Airport), whilst any other irregular unscheduled and non-bookable charter flights are to be deleted. (Maybe the airlines should be mentioned?) Please keep in mind that per WP:NOTTRAVEL, we are writing no travel guide here. Airport articles shall deal with the airport itself, showing its importance and significance. This is the sole reason why dest-lists are included at all. Charter flights do not contribute anything to the importance of an airport. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

URGENT, ADVICE NEEDED! I was accused of vandalizing by User:Kavs8 when removing charter flights destinations of Thomson Airways. Isn't it the case that destinations must be bookable and scheduled to deserve being mentioned in an airport dest-list? Please discuss here an enlighten me if there is any consensus on how to treat charter flights. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I am 100% with what you have been doing: No unscheduled or occasional charters!
In the current dispute, the point to remember is the nature of the charter: whether or not it is scheduled.
Thompson Airways may fly a lot of flights from Irish airports. However, a quick examination of their services will show that one is not able to simply purchase a ticket on any of Thompson’s Dublin – Faro flights (or wherever); one must purchase the whole thing (the holiday, package etc). In that way, this is similar to a Hajj charter, where one cannot simply buy a ticket to fly to Medinah and back; one must get the whole Hajj package.
This is different from Thompson’s flights out of UK airports, where one can simply purchase a seat on a flight.
Besides, anyone can operate a charter flight from anywhere to anywhere at any time. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi (talk) I have thought about this and even though Thomson are a charter airline they do offer regular services from most UK airports, I have therefore moved them back into the correct section. Regards Rob

And while we're at it

I have another point to bring up with the above: one-off flights. There are several instances of people listing some flights which only operate once, or for 2-3 days. Yes, they are scheduled, but only ply for an occasion. Eg: UA doing MIA-ORD on two Saturdays in December, or Aer Arann doing Gloucester for all of two days, or some airlines flying occasional services on account of football games. We really should work out a minimum duration that a schedules flight is set to operate to be considered noteworthy for listing. Thoughts? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been said before this is not a travel guide and the destinations are only to support giving a view of the status of the airport so with that regard ad-hoc and one-off/occassional charters are not normally notable to the airport. Nothing wrong with adding a statement that the airport occasional has for example charters to Canada on behalf of a tour operators, or charters to North America on behalf of fly/cruise operators etc. no need to identify them. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
On the scheduled question again this is not a travel guide and it should be a measure of the notability to an airport. It may well be worth a mention for example that Aer Arann going to Gloucester as it doesnt get hardly any scheduled services. But if a carrier is doing just one service a week on a destination already served by the airport then that may not be notable to the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! One of my examples (Dublin - Gloucestershire on Aer Arann) is a scheduled route. However, flights will operate on 16 and 18 March, and that's all. It's not even weekly - it's only two flights in all. I hardly think that warrants an entry in either the DUB or the GLO articles, nor in the RE article. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Two flights are not a scheduled flight! MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Please not that there is currently an ongoing edit-war on the question whether to list Thomson Airways flights out of Dublin Airport, which seem to be not directly bookable. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability aside, surely if the flights are operated on a regular basis then they should be listed. So you have to buy a package holiday (through a 3rd party) to get a seat on some of those Thomson flights, so what? I don't see any difference in the notability of a weekly Thomson charter/package flight and a weekly easyJet (or any other scheduled airline) flight operating on the same route. Cargo flights are listed, yet you couldn't directly book a parcel onto a particular cargo flight - you'd have to go through a 3rd party agent who would then book your package on the most suitable flight. As far as I see it, this is the same as the Thomson chartered flights. Johnwalton 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
But such unscheduled, non-bookable flights are not easily to be maintained. They can change without notice, and often lack reliable sources (e.g. timetables). I would suggest to list only destinations that show off at the official airline timetables. And regarding charter flights, this is also a huge problem because most of the airlines and destinations given in airport articles are not properly referenced. My suggestion here is to just list airlines, not destinations (which might also be applied on charter airlines). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Most airports have charter timetables on their websites though, in addition to a scheduled flight timetable, and these could easily be referenced. Whether to list airlines and destinations, or just airlines, really comes down to whether destination information is notable. I personally think it is, as a destination list gives the reader some context about the size of the airport and how it compares to other airports. Johnwalton 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe something could be mentioned about charted flights as to where they fly and who operates them, but to put charter flights in with the regular scheduled flights is just plain nonsense. However if they are regular flights occurring all the time they should be mentioned regardless on whether they are open to the general public or not. Here is an exmaple:
  • First Choice Airways flew two charted flights in/out of Hobart Airport in 2009. I believe this deserves a mention on the article but is not worthy of putting it in the airlines and destinations sections (by doing so, you'd have to mention every single plane that goes in and out of the airport - air force, private etc)
  • Skytraders is a government subsidized chartered flight service which flys to Antarctica in the summer months and uses Hobart Airport as its Hub. While these are non public charted flights only operating 6 months of the year i believe this is worthy of the destinations list as it not an irregular flight, it happens half the year every year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.


Wiki ian 21:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Flights from XCH to KUL and SIN

Refer to the official web-site of the Christmas Island Tourism Association [5], which is the official tourism association for Christmas Island. It shows that the flights to KUL and SIN are scheduled every week, same day, same time and same flight number. If you go to flightstats.com on the respective days (Thu for SIN, Sat for KUL), you will see that the flights DO operate as per the schedule. Since there is a clear timetable for these flights, I would say that they should be listed as destinations. Please comment if you think otherwise. At least according to the web-site, the flights are bookable by e-mail to the relavent address. 218.186.9.226 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that these types of flights (operated on a charter basis, but on a fixed schedule and publicly bookable) should be listed. That a flight operates daily can't be a requirement, otherwise we'd have almost nothing listed for Allegiant Air; which operates flights on most routes 2-3 times per week. Honolulu International Airport lists the Te Mauri Travel/Maritime Air Charters flights to Kiritimati (the other Christmas Island). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hobart Airport

Could someone please re-rate this article's quality level in the talk page? and maybe give me some tips on my talk page as to how i can improve it further? Cheers Wiki ian 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He also asked me on my talk page, since I had done some minor edits to the page after he brought it to our attention here. I performed the requested review. After a round of feedback and corrections, the article was assessed as having met the criteria for Class B. He's now asking for advice for his next goal of getting the article to GA. While I can read the guidelines as well as anyone else, that's beyond my experience of what I've built articles up to. So if anyone else can provide useful assistance or advice for him, he's looking for it. Ikluft (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Delta thru NRT "timetable direct" flights

Since Delta and Northwest merged their flight numbers, users have been adding "direct" flights. For example Delta Flight 281 is routed ATL-NRT-MNL and they use the same 747 on both legs but the flight stops at a Delta hub (which is NRT); i thought that we have decided that we should not list flights that stop at a hub. However, I am still against in listing these types of flights since Delta will most likely reshuffle its flight numbers just like NW. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And they've already promised a reshuffling on June 1, 2010. Can I propose a definition that as long as we see a change in flight numbers in the whole published schedule (10-12 months or whatever into the future), we'll consider these "timetable directs that often change" and not list those through flights? HkCaGu (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What actually lead me to list these kinds of flights is that the crew even announced that this flight will even continue on to a certain kind of destination. Also, a Wikipedia article states that a flight is considered direct if there is no change in flight number (it also has the backing of appropriate sources). Once we reach a final decision on this, it will only be appropriate that we make adjustments to the article entitled direct flight to reflect this new caveat in order to avoid inconsistencies and confusion. --112.201.32.153 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The definition of a direct flight does not mean inclusion in destination listing--that is a long-time practice here in Wikipedia. Industry definition is industry definition. We've established our own additional criteria for listing, and that has nothing to do with amending the "direct flight" article. HkCaGu (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does not but I think you're missing the point. We are trying to bat for consistency. Readers will wonder how we established this criteria or where we based this criteria on. Of course, some of them might naturally want to look at the direct flight article. --112.201.32.153 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
A number of through-hub flights retain the same a/c, although it may pass through a hub. In Australia, Qantas for example, QF31/32 SYD-SIN-LHR and v.v passes through a "hub", though for the most part it retains the same aircraft throughout. Same for QF19/20 SYD-BNE-MNL and v.v, and AC33/34's YYZ-YVR-SYD. But the examples I've outlined, the flight numbers are at "stable", unlike Delta or United's operations at NRT.
I think the definition should be at least clarified to ensure that the flight numbers remain "STABLE" if a route passes through a hub, and if it retains the same aircraft type. Sb617 (contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, especially in the direct flight article because we want to work with in a consistent framework. That article as well as OAG says that they can be under a single flight number yet does not clarify whether a reshuffling and re-matching of flight numbers with certain legs will qualify or disqualify it as a direct flight.--112.201.32.153 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You're still missing the point. The listing is about destinations, not about the industry definitions of "direct flights". Destination listings are there to tell you what each airport is like, not about flight numbers and equipment. Defining what gets listed has nothing to do with industry definitions. HkCaGu (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Delta's flight numbers are not stable, but United's are. They do change but only once every couple of years. So I would say direct distinations should not be listed for Delta, but should be for United. If we see Delta's flight numbers stabilising, we can add them sometime later. 218.186.9.226 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal listings

We list flights as seasonal. In many cases, when the end of the service is observed by someone seasonal is replaced by the end date, this removes the information about this being a seasonal service. I'd like to suggest that when it is seasonal service that the begin or end dates be added after seasonal so that we don't lose the seasonal aspect of the service. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chicago Midway International Airport

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION creator/Airport/content

FYI, {{WPAVIATION creator/Airport/content}} has been nominated for deletion. This appears to be the preload substitution template for Template:WPAVIATION creator, your article creation wizard.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems we got a persistent IP editor from Boston.

This discussion is starting to heat up, with this IP editor insisting on "not listing" one-stop direct flights and only list flights that are non-stop. If that were the case, we'd be removing London from Air New Zealand, London from Qantas, Las Vegas from Philippine Airlines, etc since those types of flights are "one-stop" same plane, direct flights. A few editors have pointed him to the guidelines, but I was accused of "not speaking English as a first language" and he kept on insisting to do things "his way". I would like to hear other's thoughts on this. Sb617 (contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, realised he's used a account - Special:Contributions/Bradnewengland and had been going around causing trouble at other articles with IPs. Tagging his IPs appropriately. Sb617 (contribs) 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
He's still at it? When he first brought it up at the Logan Airport talk page, I left an explanation and thought that was that. A quick look just now showed it's turned into quite an affair, and said user/his IP have been on a reverting spree at the ATL and BOM articles. Sb617, good call on the tagging. As it is, he's about to violate 3RR Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with footnote in airport articles

It seems that the footnote doesn't seem to work anymore on a couple of airport articles. Can someone find out why?? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In which articles do you see this not working? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Try NRT which I had to fix. Look at the version(s) before I touched it. HkCaGu (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
{{Fn}} was tagged for deletion. That's why it doesn't work any more. I'm in the process of updating all of them to use {{Ref label}}. something lame from CBW 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Outlying Landing Field

Well, I clicked on Random Article this morning, and lo and behold, I came up with this. Right off the bat I spotted two issues, one, the artcle probably needs updating, and, two, "Outlying Landing Field" is a type of military airfield, not just the one proposed location in North Carolina, and therefore the artcle probably needs expansion/rewriting to reflect this...thoughts? - The Bushranger (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is just a working name for an airstrip to be built in the future. So yes, a better name might be available, but the article should remain focused on this selection process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
My point was that "Outlying Landing Field" applies to other locations than just this one. For instance, Naval Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Whitehouse in Jacksonville, Florida. An "Outlying Landing Field" is a type of military airport, so my concern is that by having an article about a specific place titled "Outlying Landing Field", it could cause confusion. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The article in question is now Proposed Outlying Landing Field. I'm going to create a stub article for Outlying Landing Field. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: CDG is a spoke pretending to be a DL hub

We have important discussion on Delta's talk page which may impacts articles for any airlines which they using a hub and spoke model. So, I make posting here to ask for resolutions or inputs. Basic problem is DL claiming to have CDG as hub which offering nothing connections on own equipments. Maybe airline boasting for marketing purpose to have a second European hubs (this is my opinions). We have long discussion about fake hub here. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags in stats sections

Per my initial message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)#Nasty_flag_cruft, I am interested in seeing if consensus can be reached about the proliferation of flags in some airport articles. My argument is a simple one. I loathe flags in tables. I find them distracting. This project has already established by consensus that flags should not be used in the destination section so I believe, by extension, that flags should not be used in the statistics sections. See Liverpool John Lennon Airport for an example of what I dislike and Newcastle Airport for an unspoilt example. So what do others think, should the no-flags agreement be extended to all sections with tables and destinations? --Simple Bob (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. To me, the table with flags in Liverpool John Lennon Airport looks much better than the no-flags table at Newcastle Airport. Of course, YMMV, but to my eye the former is to be much preferred to the latter. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree The flags are only eye candy, they don't add any factual information. And factual information is what encyclopediae are about. Still, the flags don't stick in my eyes, either, there's many things worse around these pages, so I don't think it worth the argument. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Help With a New Template

Could someone with template creation please help me? I've been trying to make a new template for 2 days, but to no avail. If you'd like to help me please let me know on my talk page because I will forget to check here. Thanks, --Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 23:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

United and Continental

Just a heads up, I just reverted several edits by an IP editor on a handful of airport articles who had removed rows in the destination tables for Continental Airlines and added those destinations under United Airlines. It's way too early for that, the merger still needs various approvals. I'm assuming that we'll then have a phase were all the flights are marketed as United but there will still be separate certificates, where we'll be listing flights as "United Airlines operated by Continental Airlines" until the two actually merge onto a single certificate. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that during the Delta/Northwest merger, both carriers were listed seperately until the certificates merged and it was not written as "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines". Press releases and new articles covering the merger states that the airlines will continue to operate under seperate brands until merger is approved by regulators and the US DOJ. I agree that it should be left alone until things are finalized. Remember, the merger was only "announced" not completed, approved, etc. So, therefore, Continental and United are to be listed seperately. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Air Freight Terminal at CfD

Category:Air Freight Terminal is up for merging at CfD. If you wish to comment, please do so. This was relisted since no comments were received after 7 days. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mangalore International Airport

Mangalore International Airport is up for renaming, the discussion is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Unusual runways

FYI, Category:Unusual runways has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Avalon Airport

A bunch of IPs has insisted on disambiguating Melbourne Airport (in the suburb of Tullamarine) and Avalon Airport, which is closer to Geelong than in Melbourne itself. In spite of fancy Airline marketing alternative airports (such as Clark (Manila) and Newark (New York)), which in reality there are not near their marketed destination, should Melbourne be disambiguated again to Melbourne-Tullamarine and Melbourne-Avalon?
Despite Tiger Airways joining the likes of other airlines using "fancy" marketing for alternative airports, I personally disagree with the disambiguation, but would like to hear your thoughts. Sb617 (Talk) 07:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo International Airport → Haneda Airport

This proposed move could use some additional input. The discussion is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: International airports

I'd like to propose creation of a Category:International airports, to which would belong for example Category:International Airports in India and any articles on international airports not included in any subcategory of International airports. Andrewa (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be more inclined just to get rid of Category:International Airports in India and move them into Category:Airports in India. I dont think international airport cats are used anywhere else probably becaue they hard to define. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Airlines and Destinations

The Bradley International Airport entry has been extremely dynamic in the past several months. Some minor edit wars have been cooled by pointing to WP:AIRPORTS, but the Bradley page does seem to suffer from edit skirmishes and lack of local consensus on a few points for which there seems to be no project-level consensus.

So, I offer three items for your consideration and discussion:

First, are there circumstances under which destinations should be described as [seasonal], or should use [suspends ...] / [resumes ...] tags rather than [begins ...] / [ends ...] tags to describe the suspension/resumption of service?

Second, in the case where minor/regional airlines provide feeder service for major airlines, adopting branding of the major airline, should these minor airlines be listed individually when describing destinations. For example:

AirlinesDestinations
Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Detroit [begins September 7], New York-JFK [begins September 7]
Delta Connection operated by Comair Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
Delta Connection operated by Compass Airlines Minneapolis/St.Paul [begins September 7]
Delta Connection operated by Freedom Airlines Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
Delta Connection operated by Mesaba Airlines Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul
Delta Connection operated by Pinnacle Airlines Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Detroit, New York-JFK [ends September 6]

versus:

AirlinesDestinations
Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines, Comair, Compass Airlines, Freedom Airlines, Mesaba Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York-JFK

Third, I have noticed that there is a lack of consistency among airport pages regarding whether the destination lists are silent about terminal/concourse/gate assignments for airlines, whether only terminal/concourse assignments are shown, or (in Bradley's case) whether gate assignments are provided. Are there any best practices here?

Without going into further gory detail -- the increased volatility in airline scheduling (at least in the U.S.) is on my mind when considering the first two points. The third item is one of aesthetics, and trying to balance WP:NOTTRAVEL with an interest in providing appropriate color/information, and trying not to succumb to my own aviation enthusiast biases.

MikeTheActuary (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's been contemplated before, but I think I like the idea of using suspends/resumes instead of begins/ends for seasonal destinations. New (as in never before flown) seasonal destinations would still be listed as [seasonal; begins...]. The current [[WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT|page content guidelines] state not to use any dates at all for seasonal destinations, but perhaps this should be reconsidered. On every article I can recall looking at, each affiliated airline is listed individually. Sometimes this results in seemingly redundant listings when multiple affiliated carriers serve the same route (as in CVG in the example above), but I don't see that as a problem. Terminal/concourse information is often provided in the third column. Specific gate information was discussed around the same time that the table format for destinations was adopted, and the consensus was that this was too specific and should not be included. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Daytona Beach International Airport

Please keep an eye on this article as former routes have been continuously added per previous discussions. Also, new services has been added to that page without any sources. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Operating airports with closed runways

A discussion at Talk:CFB Edmonton#Closed runways as to whether airports that are still in operation should have the runways removed from the infobox or struck out. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this item here. As I expressed there I think that listed closed runways with crossed out text is confusing for casual readers. In general, on the internet, strikeouts are used when erroneous information has been corrected or updated and this is what readers will be expecting this to mean. To me it makes far more sense for the info box to list current runways and for the article text to describe any previous or closed runways, as they are really only of historical interest. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ahunt. The info box should be as close as possible to official - i.e. AIP - information. Info about disused runways may have an interest for some, but can go in the article body. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
With more than a week passed I think we have a consensus on this issue. Can it be added to a guideline somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Canefield airport (Dominica)

Hi All,

Canefield airport info says that "Dominica Air Taxi" lands there, but their website looks like it's gone. I've no up to date information, hence nothing to add. If no one has a better idea I can visit the airport in the next few weeks and find out what airline companies us it - let me know if you want me to do that -> tom ---= at ==--- smudge d.o.t com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.118.89 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New destinations/services

When an airline announces a new route or service to an airport, does it need to have an actual starting date (e.g. "Begins May 15, 2011) or is just the month and year okay? If a month and year is just listed, then it can start at anytime or the airlines may cancel the service. I don't know if this has not been discussed or not but this is becoming a MAJOR issue that needs to be discussed. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure our previous consensus was that an exact start date was needed. So are sources, as we occasionally have issues with vandals making stuff up. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks...IP users continue to add JetBlue's service between BOS and EWR but they have not yet announced a start date. Can you point me to the discussion where consensus was gained. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The consensus/discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#Start Dates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Regarding start/end dates, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 10#Service Start/End Dates: Objection to Guideline 10 for the Body section, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Article layouts (items 7, 8 & 9) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)#Body (items 8, 9 & 10) indicates that the year is not required. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of seasonal destinations

An IP editor has started changing the destinations lists to separate year-round and seasonal destinations. It's different than we do it now, where individual destinations that are seasonal are marked with a [seasonal] tag, but this new way doesn't look half bad, so I thought I'd bring it up here for others to take a look at and consider if we want to change to this format. Here's an example, taken from Denver International Airport:

AirlinesDestinationsConcourse
Frontier Airlines All Year: Akron/Canton, Atlanta, Austin, Cancún, Chicago-Midway, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dayton, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Houston-Hobby [begins November 18], Houston-Intercontinental [ends November 17], Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Louisville, Madison [ends September 6], Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, New Orleans, New York-LaGuardia, Newport News/Williamsburg, Orange County, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (OR), Puerto Vallarta, Sacramento, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San José del Cabo, Seattle/Tacoma, Spokane, Tampa, Tucson, Washington-Reagan
Seasonal: Anchorage, Boise, Cozumel, Fairbanks, Jackson Hole, Mazatlán, San José de Costa Rica 		A

-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. What I don't like is the All Year:. First it does not read right for me and second since this is the norm, why list it in every table and multiple times? If we decide that we want to split out the seasonal destinations, then fine. List those with the note. I would love to get sourcing on these seasonal destinations. I know for a fact that Paris is now a seasonal destination for Vegas, however I also know that there is nothing in reliable sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the problem with "All Year". I think "year round" is better, but to avoid bordering WP:TRAVEL, we should simply not note year-round destinations (as there is nothing "special" about them) and only note seasonal destinations. And seasonal destinations should not be bulleted "Seasonal:" unless you have two or more. HkCaGu (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no strong views either way regarding the format, though I have been reverting changes to the above format on the basis it is not currently the project guide layout. Agree that All Year: is simply not needed (it goes without saying). It is also slightly false as routes which are ending or haven't yet started are not all year (they have been up to now, or will be in future, but it's a bit of a misnomer). How about simply:
AirlinesDestinationsConcourse
Frontier Airlines Akron/Canton, Atlanta, Austin, Cancún, Chicago-Midway, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dayton, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Houston-Hobby [begins November 18], Houston-Intercontinental [ends November 17], Indianapolis, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Louisville, Madison [ends September 6], Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, New Orleans, New York-LaGuardia, Newport News/Williamsburg, Orange County, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (OR), Puerto Vallarta, Sacramento, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San José del Cabo, Seattle/Tacoma, Spokane, Tampa, Tucson, Washington-Reagan
Seasonal: Anchorage, Boise, Cozumel, Fairbanks, Jackson Hole, Mazatlán, San José de Costa Rica 		A

SempreVolando (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some other issues with listing season flights that way. Are they seasonal for inbound or outbound service? What time frames are they going to operate in? Where do they get listed when the flights are active or when a specific start/end date of service is provided? Yes, we have these problems today, but if we are going to emphasize seasonal flights in this way its time to understand what we are including. Again this is going to probably wind up with sourcing being required. I'll add that not all seasonal service is announced as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving off the "All Year" tag; I'd probably have made it "Year round" if we were to have one, but I agree it's not needed. Seasonal destinations have been an issue; what season do they operate (some like Colorado ski destinations are probably obvious that they operate in the winter, but others aren't). Plus, it's not always clear when people notice a service ending whether or not it's a seasonal service that will be back later. I also concur that getting sources may be difficult, but at least in some cases an airline may announce a route as seasonal to begin with. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've done some changes at SFO, except I didn't "implement" my idea of "no break/bold/separate unless two or more". I think we have enough consensus to start getting rid of the "all year" label. HkCaGu (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no cargo airlines dest-list at Los Angeles International Airport?

Hi guys, I've just worked a bit on the AeroUnion article, when I noticed that at LAX, there is no cargo section, as is quite standard with other airport articles. Is there any reason for this? As the AeroUnion service to LAX is scheduled and regular, I have included it nevertheless. But I quite think there are other scheduled cargo operators? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

update: I added some scheduled cargo operators to the LAX article, hope you like it. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I just don't have the time to look at all the destinations airports weather the LAX cargo services are included there, so maybe one of you guys might want to help? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Cargo destinations are extremely difficult to keep track of. Routes change too often without "people" (passengers) noticing them. And nonstop/direct definitions/criteria are very cloudy. Passenger destination listings are there to show you where you can go from there, which is not really apparent for cargo. (Usually for a U.S. airport, domestic carriers would fly everywhere and foreign carriers would fly to the home countries.) Having cargo operators is enough. HkCaGu (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, but then there are three sorts of articles: Those that feature cargo airlines and destination, those that have only cargo airlines listed, and those that have neither cargo airlines nor destinations. And I'm only speaking including cargo airlines and destinations which operate under a regular timetable. This is a much better reference than any charter operator has (and there are many European airports with a long charter section). IMO, cargo airlines add much more to the notability of an airport than charter operators (keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so your "Passenger destination listings are there to show you where you can go from there" is simply wrong). I've quite often pointed out the problem of charter/cargo airlines and destinations listings, but I guess currently there is just no consensus on that matter, so I quite guess that once the information is verifiable, it should stay. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Verifiable is indeed the problem. I have no problem with the idea of including cargo airlines and destinations, the issue has been keeping track of them. While the passenger airline destination lists tend to be poorly sourced, at least they tend to be relatively easy to verify via the airline's web site. Cargo airlines tend to be tougher. It could probably be done by digging through tracking sites like FlightAware, but the jump from the data there to concluding that a particular route is a "regularly scheduled" route seems like it might be getting rather close to original research. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all mayor cargo airlines have online timetables, which should be sufficient as a source. This is what I tried to point out: Once there is a timetable reference, a scheduled service should be included. Thus, no original research is needed. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Codeshare flight

Should I list KLM airline is operating in Jinnah International Airport as KLM is operating flight from Amsterdam to Bahrain itself and then Bahrain to Karachi with codeshare agreement with Gulf Air but under its own flight number?--Saki talk 17:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A flight is always to be listed under the airline that operates it. Therefore, a Gulf Air flight with a KLM flight number is still a Gulf Air flight, nothing else.Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. codeshares exist on a large number of flights, and to exhaustively list them... oh my... --HXL 何献龙 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So, should I remove this listening of KLM? --Saki talk 21:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of Future and to-be-Terminated Destinations

Like seasonal destinations, I think that in some circumstances, especially with fortress hubs, the few "new" routes and dropped ones should be separated in order to give a stronger indication that they are unique, especially the new routes since they are not existent yet. What do you think? --HXL 何献龙 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Future, maybe, but soon-to-end, no way! They are current destinations and should definitely not be separated and grouped together. HkCaGu (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
ok I erred about including to-be-Terminated destinations. But we need more input than this. Two users for something like this, not enough. --HXL 何献龙 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue with the idea of moving seasonal future destinations to a separate list similar to what has been proposed above for seasonal destinations. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
you certainly mean future? --HXL 何献龙 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Fixed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

now that the issue over opposition to this idea seems to be closed... how shall we go about naming the separate sections? For now, I will separate a few "new" destinations and temporarily label them collectively as "new routes". --HXL 何献龙 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "new routes", I'd suggest "future". "New" can mean future or recent past. HkCaGu (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
excellent. and "new" may be inaccurate as some routes are re-introduced. I'll non-retroactively change the way I do labelling. --HXL 何献龙 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue 2: whether future destinations that will also be seasonal are unique enough from other seasonal destinations to warrant separation. Please say no... this is going to be a mess... --HXL 何献龙 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tentatively, for a few airports, separated future seasonal destinations from the seasonal and reverted back to using the "[seasonal]" labels under the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HXL49 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to have future seasonal destinations listed in the "Future" section with a [seasonal] tag. Once the service starts, move them to the "Seasonal" section. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


I think the separating the seasonals from the all years is fine. We are going over the top now trying to separate everything, I mean, it was fine with the seasonals and all years put together. I think we can keep future routes with the all years/seasonals depending on where they belong. We are just making the pages look even more confusing. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 12:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

if you believe more separation is confusing, that is fine. but what is confusing about two, rather than one, categorical separation? BTW, you are somewhat late to this discussion and furthermore there aren't enough participants here... what a shame --HXL 何献龙 12:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I know. There needs to be more support before we can go making changes like this. We cannot have a few airports that seperate seasonal and future and some that don't separate any. Separating seasonal from all year is okay, but we should not clutter up the airlines/dest chart. It is clear what is happening when we put [begins June 10]. Lets leave well enough alone until we get more support on this. I think just separating seasonal from all year does just fine...Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
well did you not notice that under each "future destinations" section I have added so far, I indicated the start-up date in brackets, without the "begins"? maybe that could be the issue? I saw some IP apparently confused over that... --HXL 何献龙 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I did, but adding the extra section just makes the article longer, and the table bigger. I saw the ip get confused over it. Right now there is nothing majorly wrong with our timetables. For now, just the seasonal separation is good. Once more people join this chat, maybe, maybe will we further pursue this.Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction at LAX article

The Introduction of the LAX article says that only LHR, NRT, and TPE have 1 million+ ridership, but under the table listing busiest routes, TPE is not there. the LHR page says the LHR-LAX route has 1 million+, but it is not even #4 on the list. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by HXL49 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving destination lists into separate pages?

Looking at the Airline Destination lists project, I was wondering wether it would make sense to also move the airport destination lists into separate pages? While it seems that it doesnt make sense to create that many list-only-pages, the List of Dragonair destinations-Article gives a good example of what you can make of this. COM Lampe (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense at all. Perhaps, more depth is needed for an airport like Heathrow, but where I'm from, that idea would be absurd. Manhattan Regional Airport, Kansas City International Airport. WaltBren (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
it would be a better idea at airport articles where there are many cases involving upper level (5-8) freedoms of air and it would thus be too cumbersome to note them all just below the destination tables. --HXL 何献龙 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would just make it much to confusing for the general public not wikipedians like us. There is nothing wrong with the system we have know, why do we so badly want to change this? Don't fix it unless it's brokenTofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No talk about "so badly" wanting this - it was just a proposal, following what I noticed on how this was solved on other pages with a comparable subject. I understand the concern about this not making any sense for smaller Airports - but have troubles following the argument that it would be too complicated for the general public to click on a Hyperlink. However, message understood - let's skip this. COM Lampe (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It would make the most sense if we left it in the article as that is what many people go to the airport article for. The Airline/Destinations cover more than 50% of the edits to airport pages, they are very important. Lets keep them there :-)Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hampi Airport at AfD

The Hampi Airport article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

United thru-NRT "direct flights"

Since Narita is now a United hub, should we treat this the same as for Delta by deeming those destinations as "timetable direct" also. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft changes may happen at NRT for UA flights in the same manner that DL operates their flights. Passengers arrive at NRT, then may board the same aircraft type (777) for their onward flight, but the aircraft may be a different registered a/c from the one they arrive at NRT with (for example SIN-NRT is operated by N771UA, then NRT-IAD is operated by N774UA). So I would say UA's NRTs hub operations would qualify as "timetable-direct". It may be the same a/c through NRT on selected flights on a few occasions, but on the most part, a a/c change would be required. Sb617 (Talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember I couldn't convince enough people to remove the word "domestic" before "hub", so UA and NW (now DL) would've been listable. The reason NW/DL flights were called timetable-direct was that the NRT-Asia flight numbers and US-NRT-Asia equipment type kept changing and changing and changing. This doesn't seem to be true for UA. We don't know what will happen when CO's and UA's B777s get thrown into the same pot, but for now we need to watch for flight number stability. HkCaGu (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We really need a consensus on what flights to add into airport destination lists!

Hi guys, I bring up a subject which was quite often discussed here already, but to my knowledge there is no consensus on the question if and how to list charter and cargo flights. There are all kinds of different approaches, of which I list random examples:

In my opinion, the problem with cargo and charter flights is that they are often poorly referenced, thus close to original research. I tend to rely on official airline timetables, only.

  • My thoughts: Concerning passenger flights, I propose that per WP:NOTTRAVEL, we should only add flights that are important for the significance of an airport (regular, scheduled services). Therefore, I am inclined to concider all flights that cannot be booked directly with the airline as not notable. IMO a sentence like "During summer, the airport sees a wide range of charter and holiday flights, many of them from countries/regions X and Y. Dominant airlines are A and B" after a list of scheduled flights comes much closer to the goal that, after all, the airport is to be described. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many regional airports rely heavily on charter flights, thus they are economically significant. To exclude these and remove them, even when referenced is not a good idea. In many regional airports, more passengers fly on charter flights than on scheduled. Does this make them not notable? Is an official airline timetable such as this not evidence of notability? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: One issue we're going to run into is that there are a couple of different types of charter flights. Ad-hoc charters that operate an an irregular schedule shouldn't be mentioned. Operations like Sun Country's casino flights in Laughlin should be mentioned in general, but not with detailed destinations since the destinations change weekly. On the other hand, scheduled charters, where the airline operates as a charter airline but on a regular schedule, as was the case with WinAir Airlines should be listed. I don't know as much about European vacation charters, but my impression is that they do operate on a regular, seasonal schedule, and should be listed as well. Cargo service harder to track down and find reliable sources for, but if a regular scheduled service can be sourced, it can be listed as well; cargo services should be listed separately from passenger services, in their own table. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Many of the European charter flights to holiday destinations are scheduled and often flight only packages can be purchased from the charterer, rather than the airline, so I feel that they should be listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How to list Continental flights to Newark??

A user continues to distinguish Newark Liberty International Airport as a New York airport on many UK airport pages (e.g. New York-Newark). The airport may serve the New York area but it is located entirely in "Newark, New Jersey". However, the misleading thing is that Continental and now Delta markets their Newark flights as "New York". So, what are your suggestions??? What is it going to be?? HELP!! Snoozlepet (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You really need to check the IATA codes. EWR is listed under NYC along with LGA and JFK the last time I looked. So a listing with New York, while not desired, may be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that "New York-Newark" should be the preferred format, at least for airports outside North America. For international travel, an average person is more likely to say that they are headed to someplace near New York, rather than saying that they're headed to Newark in particular, and flights are marketed as being to "New York". "New York-Liberty" might be technically more correct, since the airport did officially change names, but I think "New York-Newark" should be preferred for clarity. For North American flights, I think "Newark" is the more common usage...but I would suggest that "New York-Newark" be used anyway for consistency. And, of course, "Newark-Liberty" should be avoided all costs, since Newark only has one notable airport, negating the need for the secondary identification, if you're going to invoke Newark. MikeTheActuary (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Newark is certainly its own city, with its own central business district, city government, infrastructure, taxes, ports, subway system - it only happens to be nearby New York, giving EWR access to a large market. But, while they may sound similar, Newark is definitely not (by every measure other than MSA) New York City. Keep it at "Newark." WaltBren (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I voice entirely the same opinion that MikeTheActuary made. --HXL 何献龙 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I support New York-Newark. I once flew with Scandinavian Airlines to EWR, and the ticket was clearly marked "New York". Being aware of this issue, I have been constantly checking various marketing outlets, and all refer to EWR as "New York", either it is display screens at airports or online booking systems. Similarly, Delta refers to the airport as serving New York. Today Scandinavian announced they would open a route from Oslo to EWR, and all Norwegian newspapers and SAS themselves wrote "New York". This is because airports are named for the metropolitan area they serve, not necessarily the municipality in which they are located. Very few large airports are actually located within the city proper. Why there has been a "special case" with EWR on Wikipedia has always puzzled me, since the Newark-only naming is a clear breach with normal naming. Arsenikk (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
as a further example. NRT is located in Narita Prefecture, not in Tokyo proper, but still serves the Greater Tokyo Area. Hence "Tokyo-Narita" and not Narita alone. --HXL 何献龙 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been up before. Some have believed that flights to Newark shall not be marked as New York since it is not located in the New York State, which has the same name as the New York City, which is what the destination "New York" actually refer to. In my opinion the state name is not relevant. Many airports are outside the border of major city it serves. One example is Paris. Another are Stockholm and Oslo. A further example is Kansas City airport, which is not located in Kansas City nor in Kansas state, still flights are marked as Kansas. Newark is not an important city, and therefore the article Newark is not about the city. --BIL (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Kansas City in Missouri is larger and more influential than the one in Kansas, so actually it is more common to see "Kansas City, MO" listed as a destination. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Newark, NJ has it's own "city", business district, etc. It is unfair to mark it as New York-Liberty/Newark etc.. as it is saying that everyone traveling to/from EWR were simply using it as an alternative to New York's airport, which is certainly not the case. Many people are connecting, and many are simply visiting Newark, NJ or the surrounding suburbs in NJ. Marking Newark as New York-Newark or New York-Liberty would be degrading to Newark itself. We are taking Newark out of NJ, and placing it in NY. Sorry, but no. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Please be aware that EWR is located in Newark and Elizabeth. Not that this affects the discussion any, but it emphasizes how the location is less important then the area or major cities it serves. In the case of EWR, it is the major New Jersey airport and in that state it serves the city of Newark. However do to it's convient location, it also serves New York. I believe that by any measure, it is closer to New York city then DIA is to Denver. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for deciding that Newark is not an important city. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Three factors to consider: (1) EWR is operated by the NY-NJ Port Authority. (2) Airlines consider all NYC airports "co-terminal" for pricing/ticketing, including EWR. (3) How many international carriers fly to both EWR and JFK. If they don't, then EWR is NYC, especially when many international carriers serve EWR. HkCaGu (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Newark is its own city. Why are we putting Newark in NY?? There are probably people that fly into JFK/LGA to go to Newark. Leave well enough alone. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No one is trying to move it. The simple issue is that it is one of the three airports that service NYC. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
How about we do it as New York/Newark? It is both in NY and in Newark, NJ. And actually it serves the whole NY metro area (just like Newburgh's Stewart Airport, Teterboro). Another issue is also Long Island (which is also in NY) but WN list it as "Long Island/Islip" and not "New York-Long Island/Islip. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha...funny, i just went to United's, Delta's, and AA's booking engine to book flights from Newark and here's what they come up

  • United: Newark, NJ
  • Delta: Newark, NJ, US (LGA - New York-LaGuardia, NY, US; JFK - New York-Kennedy, NY, US)
  • American: Newark, NJ - Newark Liberty International Airport
Only Continental markets their flights as "New York/Newark, NJ (EWR-Liberty)" - with a slash and not a hypen. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As Snoozlepet mentioned above, Newark is usually advertised as Newark, NJ. Here are a few more:
  • Jetblue: Newark, NJ
  • US Airways: Newark, NJ
  • Air Canada: New York, Newark, NY, US
  • Westjet: New York [Newark], NJ
It seems the International Airlines refer to it as New York/Newark and the domestic (to the US) do not. I still think we Keep Newark. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Like I said before, Continental is the only US carrier to market EWR as "New York/Newark". Also, if you check the flight status of a Continental flight that is currently enroute to a destination from EWR on its website. They will show a map and the map shows EWR as "Newark" (as many other flight tracking websites with a route map); departures from LaGuardia/JFK will show as "New York" on the map. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Airports lacking sources

Hi guys, just want to inform you that Abaiang Atoll Airport, Adazi Airfield and Afutara Airport are fully unreferenced. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"New Routes" to split out???

I know that the consensus was to seperate out seasonal routes from year-round. I don't think the new routes should be seperated, if a airline announces a new route, we can just put it in the appropriate section if its year-round or seasonal. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

They are not, if you notice everytime I see it, I revert it. You should do the same. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

British Airways service from LGW to San Juan and Cancun

I know that British Airways operated to SJU in the past but was it from Gatwick or Heathrow? And when did BA operate LGW-CUN-LGW in the past? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

About ten years ago, but there was an edit war on SJU and Gatwick, both of which I took care of, we gotta watch those IP's...Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
So should it be "begins" or "resumes"?? Snoozlepet (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
See the conversation on our talk pages, I put the pages back up for protection as the wars are back...Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New York/Newark

In the UK Continental are marketing Newark as a New York Destination. Likewise so are Virgin Atantic and British Airways. The Heathrow BAA timtable site are also listing Newark as New York.

I would have thought that either New York/Newark or New York-Newark would be the best designation for Newark flights from the UK and Europe.

Incidently, I have three different New York Guide Books: they all refer to Newark, JFK and La Guardia as New York three airports.

Regards to all

David

David J Johnson (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking of airlines in airport articles

Whenever an airline operates from 2 different terminals at an airport, should both lines be linked or just the first line be linked cause this is causing some problems on airports in India. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, as per WP:REPEATLINK, where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own. Repeating links is fine in that circumstance. never stop flying (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't we have longstanding editor consensus within the project to not multi-link the same airline? This is specifically to avoid a sea of blue. Jasepl (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BA to CUN from Gatwick (LGW)

When did British Airways last fly to Cancun from Gatwick. I noticed Cancun was listed as a resumption also. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the dates, but:
  • British Caledonian flew Gatwick-San Juan and BA flew Heathrow-Antigua
  • Then, when the two merged, BA inherited all of BCal's routes and initially continued flying them the same way.
  • BA then moved all of their Caribbean/South America/Leisure operations to Gatwick, and had LGW-SAN, LGW-ANU and they started LGW-CUN.
  • They then combined several of the Caribbean flights, so there was LGW-ANU-SAN and LGW-CUN.
  • Both CUN and SJU were subsequently dropped, though Antigua continued to be the first stop on BA's many 1-stop Caribbean flights (and that's the case today too) Jasepl (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BA to SJU from Gatwick (LGW)

There has been much argument over whether SJU-Gatwick should be begins or resumes. Heres to put it simply. Most routes out of airports have happened in the past, even just 2-3 years in the past, but we still tag them as begins. For example, BDL-MKE was canceled in 2008, and when they resumed it in 2010, we used the begins tag. WP:AIRPORTS does not say anything about resumes, except the example table uses it twice, but we don't know in what circumstances. I'm not here to argue. It was operated over ten years ago. Resumes should only be used if:

  • The airline operating it has not left either airport since it dropped the route.

That should be simple criteria for using resumes. BA left SJU ten years ago when it dropped a route. We cannot be fighting untill March. Thanks. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit as it is buried in the discussion archives and agreed on at one point. Regardless of the time inbetween the suspension and the resumption of service, a resumption is a resumption. For example, PR resumed service to BNE last year (untill it was suspended again last month) and it was 10 years in between services, "Resumption" was used then. As for the suggestion We can either drop "resumes xx/xx/xx" completely, which means editing every airport article accordingly, or put a 10 year limit on resumption guidelines. Sb617 (Talk) 13:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we drop resumes completely as it is just causing war. Thanks. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it rather simple: they flew there in the past. Then they stopped. Now they're starting again. That means it is a resumption. The number of years in between is hardly material. And even if we use 10 years as an arbitrary criteria, there will be more strife in future because some will claim it's been only 9 years and 11 months since the last flight was flown, and some will claim it was 10 years and 3 days. And that will lead to the need for even more exhaustive and exhausting evidence gathering. Do we really want to go down that path? Jasepl (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and in that BDL example above, saying "begins" might have been an oversight. Because nowhere has one deliberately been using any discretionary statute of limitations to determine whether to say resumes or begins. Jasepl (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It was just an example, no one questioned it. BA left SJU T-E-N years ago. Every airport has had one destination at one time or another, they come and go. Resumes should be outlawed period. It is [begins] or [ends]. Simple as that. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ohh, and nothing was agreed on. Nothing happened here Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)'
In my opinion, "resumes" should only be used for seasonal destinations. If a destination was terminated with no apparent intention to restart at sometime in the past and is now slated to start again (as BA LGW-SJU appears to be), then just use "begins" as normal. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou. It would be much simpler if we stoped using resumed period, as there is no mention of it in WP:AIRORTS with the exception of the example table.Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the only time we use "resumes" is when a destination has been seasonal and it becomes year-round when it resumes service. Also note that an airline may serve a destination in the past but it may to a different city/airport. We should come up with consensus on how long should a route be suspended by an airline for it to qualify as an "resumption. BA's LHR-SAN is resumes cause the airline stopped service their in 2003. Unless the source specifically states "resumes service" then it should be "begins". Snoozlepet (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps for one suggestion; only use "resumes" when a seasonal service is becoming a full time service. Alternatively, as for what Snoozlepet said, unless the source says "resumes service" for a airline returning to a destination, "begins" should be used by default. What do others think? Sb617 (Talk) 08:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested to change the level of protection to the SJU page from semi to full protection until this is fully discussed in a fair matter. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is safe to say we always use begins. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? How? On what basis can you claim that? Jasepl (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Jaspel; it seems you are the only one that really wants to use "resumes" on BA's service to SJU. Here is a reasonable conclusion:
Resumes may only be used if at least one of the following are present:
  • The airline has maintained scheduled service to both airports since it last operated the route
  • The press release uses the word resumes.
  • It is seasonal service becoming all year service
Seems fair enough. Objections? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My thinking with the seasonal service bit was not necessarily that it's becoming all year, but that it is beginning for the season. For example, a summer seasonal flight might be tagged with [resumes May 15, ends September 15]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Seasonal service should always be marked as seasonal. You should not over mark the seasonal, it just clogs up the charts. Seasonal flights should always be marked as seasonal. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and recently have seen the seasonal flights moved to the year-round list. In the past the guidance has been to not include start/end dates (but they have been added anyway in some cases), but I'm not sure that's helpful enough since it doesn't indicate what season. Maybe instead of adding start/end dates every year, we could indicate the season or time period the flights operate and leave it at that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That would defeat the purpose of listing them as seasonal. Leaving them as seasonal does not specify season, which should be fine. I haven't heard any complaints. :-) lol. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
.
.

I love how Tofuwitch seems to be talking with all this (fake) authority! And my problem is with the disingenuousness: How on earth anyone can claim things like "It is safe to say we always use begins." is baffling to me, in context of the few opinions that have been provided by others so far.

More importantly, using one incident (SJU clearly struck a nerve for someone, who didn't seem to consider that SAN and CUN were in the same boat and didn't kick up a fuss about the latter two) as the basis to determine the course of action for everything else without considering broader implications is not the right way to go about.

No one seems to have any issue with other resumptions, such as LH to Bogotá, AF to Phnom Penh and Lima, Finnair to Singapore, and countless others, where the gap between the last flown flight and the next one ranges from a week to 30 years.

Here’s my thoughts:

  • The airline has maintained scheduled service to both airports since it last operated the route
    • I'm not sure what this means.
  • The press release uses the word resumes.
    • There isn't always a press release. Nor a newspaper/trade article. Often, flights are simply added or removed from timetables, and that's the only indication that they're being started, stopped or resumed. If Delta decides to return to Kuwait, and doesn't use a particular word in its announcement does that mean it isn't a resumption? And if Air Canada decide to fly to Delhi again, and use a specific word, that would mean it is a resumption? That doesn't make much sense at all, when everyone knows the answer.
  • It is seasonal service becoming all year service.
    • That's neither here nor there.

As for the 10 year suggestion, like I said before, do we really want to go down that path? Especially considering the additional research that would entail and the

As for seasonal flights, I agree things are fine as they are. If Aeroflot flew to Denpasar in winter 2009, but not in 2010, and decided to fly there again in 2011, what would that be called?

My take is if an airline ever flew a route and is going to start it again, then it is a resumption, regardless of the interstitial time lag. Isn’t that in line with the textbook definition of the word resumes?

And seasonal flights, that typically operate season after season, year after year, should continue to say simply "seasonal" - without dates. Unless there was an interim season where the flight did not operate, as in the SU example above, in which case it would be [resumes 21 December; seasonal].

Again, my bottom line is that we should consider overall implications as well as practicality (not to mention common sense) before attempting to implement a new set of norms. Basing any such decision on one or even a handful of instances will only lead to needless strife and complications real soon. Jasepl (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Add: There is no consensus on the way forward yet. Please do not make selective changes based on personal preferences (Eg LGW and SJU) until the discussion is concluded. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well Well. Jaspel, I have no authority over you, or anyone here, nor do you have authority over me. Why should we list the flight as "resumes" unless a consensus is reached? It was orginally listed as begins, and I provided a source (untill you, Jaspel removed it which used begins. Ref can be seen >> [[6]] Note: It uses Begins).
It may seem to you that I am acting like authority, but I am not, and have no intent to. I have no authority. I am trying to reach a consensus to this discussion, provide a reasonable solution. All you are doing is throwing away all my ideas and insisting that you are right, which is obviously not the case as we are arguing whether resumes should even be used at all. I have placed solutions out there, you have done nothing besides revert my edits and say that the way it is now is fine, but if it was would we really be here discussing this? No. If this is how you want to be, fine. I am here to improve the encyclopedia, not fight with people refusing to use an open mind in discussions like these. No one else had any large objections to anything I said, even SB617 who originally reverted the edits to resumed has came to this discussion with an open mind, and has not insisted we use resumes.
I'm willing to listen to what you say, but you have said nothing besides They have happened before, so they are resumes. Here are my problems with that.
  • Most flights have been operated in the past, even 25 to 30 years ago....many flights have been canceled and brought back years in the future. If we wanted to use resumes, it would have to be used on 90% of flights....which would be up-surd.
  • There would be constant controversy, some would say the flight operated in the past, and some would say it didn't. Without a source there would be edit war galore.
This consensus will be a general rule for when to use resumes, if at all.
Jaspel, Do you have any other reasons to use resumes? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Add: We need participation from other editors or a consensus cannot be reached. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, like I said before, unless the source states "resumes, restarts, or relaunches service". Then it is begins. Can't put it much more simpler than that. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Now we need everyone else to agree on that. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

So we list them as they appear in the sources? That makes sense. Tofutwitch11-Chat -

How'd I do? 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No we don't. I love how you keep jumping to very convenient conclusions. If someone lists instead a source that does use the word "resume" can they change the listing to say "resume"? Will that change the fact? Is that the logic you're applying? Because it sure seems very revisionist to me, as if the fact that BA did fly to San Juan in the past is somehow excised from history.
The fact is, that said fact cannot be excised from history. BA did fly to SJU in the past. Their plan to fly the route again makes it a resumption - there is no altering that fact either. Just like San Diego and Cancun will also be resumptions. As will Phnom Penh for Air France, Bombay for Austrian Airlines and Bogota for Lufthansa.
Interesting to see that you still have nothing to say on SAN, CUN, PNH, BOM or BOG, but seem to have some mystefying preference for SJU.
And no one agreed that the word used in the source is what is law, so I find it odd that you went and changed the entries in the SJU and LGW articles (but not, incidentally, in the BA article).
And what's your take on flights that have no accompanying press release or news article? There are times when flights are quitely withdrawn and then re-introduced without any fanfare and are simply added back into the GDS. What of those? Do they qualify as resumptions? Or are they new flights? Or do we not list those flights at all, because there's no word about it from justtheflight.com?
I am honestly trying to understand your rationale, because there seems to be no logic to it at all, except perhaps personal preference, to be applied to a selective instance.
And "up-surd" is not a word. jasepl (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to solve this problem, and you continue to insist that there is nothing wrong with the way we have it, which is certainly not true. If there is no source, there will be constant edit wars. There will be people like you that will insist the route was operated before, whether it was or not, and there will be those, that with no proof or source, will not believe that. I am not just focusing on SJU to Gatwick. Whatever conclusion we get here will cover all use of season throughout anything part of WP:AIRPORTS.
If the flight has no press release, and no SOURCE can be found that it was operated previously, then it is begins. Just because you are 100% sure it was operated in the past does not mean it was. I am not saying any of the above listed routes are not, I don't know. I don't spend my time watching every little move made by the airlines. None the less, if there is no source to confirm/state resumes, it should be listed as begins.
As I am trying to understand your rationale. You still have not given another reason to list as resumes beside it happened before, so it is a resumption. Like I said, before the US airlines deregulation many routes that were operated were ceased for the more popular hub and spoke system. As time went on many of these were brought back, but we list them as begins. If we list them all as resumes that would look so stupid.
I doubt the people that read this care if it is new service or a resumption. All they care about is whether there will be a plane to fly that route.
Ohh, and by the way, that link you provided does not work. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 13:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so now you've changed your tune, from "only go with the word used in the source" to "use begins if no proof that it was flown before". So which is it? If someone has a source that says "begins" and someone else has a source that says "resumes" which one takes precedence? In any event, I wasn't the one saying it's been T-E-N years since BA last flew to SJU, you were. How did you know that? The fact that you did, means it is a resumption, right?
In short, the point I am trying to make, is that the overall picture needs to be considered, as well as the impact of a change on other articles too (and not just a favoured one). It doesn't seem like you're looking at that. jasepl (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I have said Ten years is what was what other have told me. I don't know -- thats what I was told. If two sources say different things, the press release from the Airports involved or the airline will take over. If none are there, a decision on the airports talk page should be made. I am looking at how this will affect WP:AIRPORTS in general. It's hard to see because it is so Vast. THanks. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 16:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Airport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Airport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tech stops as destinations

So apparently the Lufthansa/PrivatAir flight between Frankfurt and Poona (no giggling!) makes a technical stop in Tbilisi. No traffic rights between PNQ and TBS and no seats sold between these two. Does TBS qualify as a PrivatAir destination? Does PrivatAir get listed in the Tbilisi Airport destination table? jasepl (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No. If there is no deplaning or enplaning it does not count as a destination, because you can't actually go there. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as long as the entry makes it clear that this is a technical stop. Stepopen (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If a tech stop is worth mentioning, it does not belong to the table. Add a note or a prose somewhere else. Just not in the table. HkCaGu (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that wikipedia is not a travel guide. Destinations are added to airport articles to give a view of the scale and range of operations at an airport. So origin and destination of aircraft on technical stops is not really encyclopedic. If the airport is used by a large number of aircraft for technical stops (like some airports in Ireland) then it may be worth a mention in the article but has nothing to do with destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, if Wikipedia would be a travel guide we would not include tech stops because they are not of interest to travellers. If we want to give a full view of the scale of operations of an airport tech stops should be included. They are relatively rare with the long range of modern airliners, and as such as notable as any other flights originating and departing from Tbilisi airport. Btw, the airport webpage shows this flight in their arrival and departure information, indicating that this flight is as important as any other flight to Tbilisi. Stepopen (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont disagree with you just that it should not be included in the destination table. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If passengers cannot go online or book in any other way that flight, than it should not be listed. It is pointless, and the passengers really don't care. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to repeat we dont really care about what passengers need as wikipedia is not a travel guide it is an encyclopedia, so my suggestion is that technical stops should not be in the destination section but if it is notable to the airport as Stepopen suggested then it can be mentioned in another part of the airport article perhaps under services, as a technical stop is a service provided by the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur. They are not stops for the passengers to leave or arrive. So by definition it is not a stop and they should not be included. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Tech stops should not be included in destinations lists. If notable, include it in the prose, but not in the lists. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest creating a footnote of some kind in the table that this service is a tech and refuel stop only. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If there's no destination, a footnote would have to be off the table. HkCaGu (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur with those above that prefer not including tech stops in destination lists. If it's notable, include it in the prose somewhere in the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the principle that if it can't be booked, it should not be listed in the destination list. However, I think it is acceptable to note technical stops or routings that are non-bookable due to cabotage regulations (e.g. China Air PANC-KJFK) in prose or even as a footnote to a destination list, provided that it is done so in a non-confusing manner. MikeTheActuary (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all I think there is no need for destinations in airport articles, just airlines should listed there, as in cargo sections where normally destinations are not included, its a chore going through airline schedules, to constantly update routes, and If wikipedia is not a travel guide why are you people so particular about not listing destinations with no traffic rights even though they are linked to the particular airport, same for tech stops that may be referenced and added with a side note as mentioned above, if referenced material provides non-traffic routes and tech stops then those should also be allowed in.116.71.13.105 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

I protected the above page because of a slow burn edit war over this issue. I would ask that additional uninvolved editors help us reach some consensus here or preferably on the article talk page . Thanks for all of your work on the various airport articles and on this issue especially. JodyB talk 12:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussions at WP:AIRLINES

User:116.71.13.105 moved several discussions from the WP:AIRLINES talk page to this page. While they probably would have been more appropriate to have here, the fact is that the discussion was there, so I've removed them from this page and restored them on the Airlines project talk page. For reference, here are the relevant discussions:

-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Will anyone dare to ask why? commonsense would dictate the move from there to here.116.71.13.105 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

City state and Island airports listing?

How does one list such airports where an area serves as the name sake capital or city e.g, IATA and ICAO say airlines are flying to the City state/Island nation of Bahrain with code BAH not MNA not MHQ, where the capital is actually just an area called Manama its not a city, while the airport is located on a tiny Island called Muharraq which again is not a city, so does one list:

Or

Or

Also resolve issue for Indian state Goa, on same basis as IATA and ICAO refer to Dabolim Airport serving the state and not a particular city or area where the airport is located or near such as the city of Vasco Da Gama, which some people insist on adding in destination lists of Indian carriers if not others. Areas are also being added to airports in several Caribbean and Pacific Island nations in similar fashion as name sake cities, which needs to be adressed as well.116.71.13.105 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?119.155.51.49 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

'Hub for' - misuse?

The standard airport infobox contains a 'hub' field, which suggests that "If the airport serves as an hub list the airlines here".

The definition of a 'hub' on Wikipedia is clear - "an airport that an airline uses as a transfer point to get passengers to their intended destination".

The definition is based on a hub largely as an American term, while in the UK and Europe 'hubs' are rare and I believe 'base' is being confused with 'hub' in several airport articles. Dublin Airport for example lists 7 airlines whose 'hub' is at Dublin. In fact, only one airline (Aer Lingus) can claim to have a 'hub' at Dublin. One airline listed is not even an airline! (Aer Lingus Regional, which is a brand only).

Similarly, Manchester Airport lists 8 airlines with a 'hub' there; in reality none meet the definition of a 'hub' in my opinion.

A recent discussion at the Bristol Airport talk page gathered some consensus on not including the likes of Ryanair, Easyjet and charter airlines as airlines operating 'hubs'. Can we get some consensus and notation on the project page reinforcing the intention of this infobox category? It appears to be being misused and frequently reverted by some users. SempreVolando (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't object to listing bases, instead of hubs. A base is easy enough to define: does the airline have aircraft permanently stationed there? Jpatokal (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support changing it to base/hub for to be honest. Apart from confusion over "maintenance" base, Various airlines such as Spirit (Detroit and FLL ops) or Jetblue (for their JFK operations) markets 'base' instead of 'hub' or 'focus city', which makes it pretty clear that it's one of their primary 'change points'. Sb617 (Talk) 01:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Base is a poor choice since it is ambiguous. Most commonly this is used by the public, you know those who read this, as a crew base. The announcement when you land even tells where your crew is based. They never tell you where the aircraft is based. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point to this news item that clearly states that there are 29 hub airports in the US. Don't know where the complete list is, but for the US, we could say if the airport is not in that list, an airline can not possibly have a hub there. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, "hub" has more than one definition. The US DOT classifies airports into various sized-hubs (or non-hubs) on the basis of passenger volume. It's possible in this scheme for an airport to be classified as a medium or small hub (on the basis of passenger volume) without being the hub (on the basis of number of destinations or transfer potential) for any airline. I suspect that the article may be using the former, rather than the latter, meaning of "hub". MikeTheActuary (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed that some airlines are also listed in the hub field (e.g. - AirTran Airways (MCO and BWI), Qantas (SIN), and Alaska Airlines (LAX)) but those airlines refers to those airports as "secondary hubs" instead of a main or promary hub. Also, is cargo carriers acceptable for listing. If you can transfer from one flight to another on the same airline at the hub, then it is a hub. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly respond

I have posted many topics here and in airlines project talk related to airport issues but none have recieved clarification, can an mannered person respond, I am not posting here just for the heck of it, its a tlak page so talk, if the queries have been answered or discussed please guide me to that page.116.71.29.64 (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we are approaching a major US holiday, response from Americans (I don't know what the geographic disbursement of the WikiProject members is) may be slower than usual. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia Airlines at AfD

Just letting y'all know that Bosnia Airlines has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Camdem airstrip

FYI, Camdem airstrip has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it could have notability as a drag racing facility if not as an airport; I've removed the prod. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, I've moved it to Camden Airstrip with a capitol A. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanming airport

There is a new article: Sanming airport, which needs to be looked at. 1) Is there an airport there? I couldn't find a code. 2) Title needs to be moved to uppercase, if there's an airport there. Thanks for your help! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Airport distance to city (unit)

Why should the distance of an airport to the city be expressed in nautical miles? I think km and mile are more relevant. People travel between the city and the airport on the ground. The only exceptions that I think can justify NM are helicopter shuttle and building height restriction. HkCaGu (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most official data (i.e. FAA 5010 airport master record) contains distance from the airport reference point to the city center in NM, so by using that data in Wikipedia it is standardized to the way it's presented elsewhere, and upholds the idea that data in Wikipedia be verifiable in third-party sources. Beyond that, trying to state road miles/kilometers to the city (as a passenger would travel on the ground) is a difficult proposition given the variables in location of terminal(s), routing, and defining a street location of the center of a city. Shiner1718 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankfurt-Hahn Airport

Does this airport serve Frankfurt like Luton and Stansted serve London? if it dosent why is it referred to as Frankfurt-Hahn Airport and considered an alternative to FRA, so how to list it in destinations lists if its the only airport served for Frankfurt, should it be Frankfurt - Frankfurt-Hahn Airport or Hahn - Frankfurt-Hahan Airport?119.155.51.49 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The conclusions from discussion above European low-cost airlines and the way they advertise airports: how to list? should apply to Hahn as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I should point out that I don't think consensus was reached on the discussion you are referring to. Mlm42 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Destination lists (City disambiguations)

When we disambiguate cities that have more than 1 airport, do we use the more common name of the airport or should we use the airport's official name?

  • Here are a couple:
    • OTP: Bucharest-Otopeni/Bucharest-Henri Coanda
    • DCA: Washington-Reagan/Washington-National
    • YTZ: Toronto-City/Toronto-Billy Bishop
    • IAH: Houston-Intercontinental/Houston-Bush (However, airport articles list IAH as "Houston-Intercontinental")

Any comments are welcome. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The common one, IMO. jasepl (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Common name. Official would've brought you "Tokyo-New Tokyo". Common would bring you "Taipei-Taoyuan".HkCaGu (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing terminated destination airports by former names and codes?

Can terminated destination airports be listed using their former names such as Taiwan Taoyuan Airport being added in as Chiang Kai-Shek Airport? because when the airline stopped flying there it was known as such, the article redirects to Taoyuan Airport so whats the problem? if redirects are to be avoided, then linked the older name to the new name article (Taiwan Taoyuan Airport|Chiang Kai-shek Airport) and it goes there, but one user is not accepting this, as for codes Baghdad Airport was not only called Saddam Airport when airlines stopped flying there its code too was SDA, so why cant the old code be used as well when listing it as a former destination, all this is related to the new table layout lists.

Another issue that I want addressed is can airport names be shortened when listing rather than use the whole article title, such as Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport could be:

1. Rafic Hariri International Airport
2. Rafic Hariri International
3. Rafic Hariri Airport

No need for Beirut to be added, no need to add Airport either as current table layout header already mentions Airport column/section, so number 2 works best for that. 119.155.44.186 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Old place names?

What's everyone's take on the place names we use in the terminated section of the destination lists? Current or historical?
The reason I'm asking is that some articles list, for example, old names of countries, cities and airports, because, presumably, that's what they were called when X Air last flew there.
I feel using current commonly-used names is the way to go, because that's what these countries, cities and airports are known as (how many people knew that Ethiopia was called Abyssinia, Armenia used to go by Hayastan and Pressburg became Bratislava?).
"When AF last flew to ADD, the country was called Abyssinia" so ADD is listed under Abyssinia. Or "when IR last flew to New York, the airport was called Idlewind", so they go on and call the airport Idlewind, instead of JFK.
The whole thing gets rather convoluted, and extremely difficult to prove, should the need arise. When did the place name change? When did the airline stop flying there? I'm not sure that's a slope we want to head down.
In any event, it's meant to be a list of destinations, not a history lesson, so current names should be perfectly adequate and appropriate.
Just wanted to gather everyone's thoughts. Thanks. jasepl (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems logical, and yet also the same kind of 'retroactive application' that kicked up a firestorm over at WP:SHIPS with regard to the application of ship prefixes. Not sure how I feel about this one. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
For the benefit of the uninformed (ie: me!) what was the firestorm at Ships? jasepl (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not "HMS", "USS" and "CSS" prefixes could be applied to article titles for ships that served before the prefixes were adopted (or in the case of CSS, at all, since it was never officially adopted), per WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
O dear God! In this case though, the countries, cities, airports exist today, except that their names have changed. Let's see what consensus we get when others weigh in. Thanks! jasepl (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont know what this user has against history lessons, articles exist on the former countries, unlike renamed or respelled cities, what can be done is small text reference/note can be added alongside new country name stating ( served as former Yugoslavia) .... former Soviet Union etc.119.155.46.15 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous pettiness over Dhaka airport name

Wikipedia is becoming too petty just read talk page of Shahjalal International Airport especially the archived bit with green background, looks like there is no common sense with the editors any more, one airport named Shah Amanat, the other named Shah Jalal, common sense would tell them that Shah and Jalal are two seprate words, take clue from Shah Amanat Airport, yet they are looking at stupid sources including international media to reach the correct decision, THIS IS AN ENCYLOPEDIA, how any company or organistaion or establishment markets itself in any language should not matter, how media deals with it shouldnt matter, at wikipedia the online Encylopedia an article should be titled using simple common sense, British Midland International Airways/Airlines not BMI (airline), Air Baltic not airBaltic, Shah Jalal International Airport not Shahjalal ......, King Abdul Aziz International Airport not King Abdulaziz ......., this stupid policy of using common name or how its written officially or how media or marketing are writing it should end.116.71.24.120 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the purview of this project. The Wikipedia-wide policy at WP:COMMONNAME states Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe this is an issue regarding Dhaka Airport only. Any issues/matters should be discussed on the Dhaka Airport talk page. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Madrid airports disambiguate issue

Why is Madrid disambiguated? There is only 1 airport in Madrid with commercial service and that is Barajas Airport. All the other airports in Madrid are either military/general aviation only airports that have no commerical service. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no dissambiguation, Madrid City has three civil airports, on the one hand the mainline airport Madrid-Barajas, in the other, Madrid-Cuatro Vientos and Madrid-Torrejón Airports are Air Bases shared with fully operational Airports with the characteristics as other in Spain as Murcia-San Javier, Zaragoza, Leon, Salamanca or Badajoz. The are fully open to commercial scheduled passanger service but have none currently, only occasional charter services due to the excess of capacity available at Madrid-Barajas. Hence the dissambiguation, moreover is the correct name of the airport and destination. The is also the Getafe Air Base (that was Madrid Main Airport before the opening of Madrid-Barajas) that only handle cargo flights. Felipealvarez (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Then if there is NO disambiguation then don't disambiguate....if the other airports in Madrid receive commercial passenger service then Madrid can be written as "Madrid-Barajas" (as stated on your talk page by another editor). We only disambiguate cities with multiple airports that have commercial passenger service. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadians and US airports

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)

The airport page contents guideline has been recently tagged as a draft with the explanation that it does not reflect consensus. As far as I am aware it has reflected consensus for quite a while although always subject to improvement and change through discussion. Bit concerned that the accepted guideline is being demoted and changed without discussion at the project. Appreciate any views at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports). MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham Airport

The usage of Birmingham Airport is up for discussion, see Talk:Birmingham Airport, West Midlands . 65.94.44.124 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Airports in Republic of Ireland

Template:Airports in Republic of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yanbu Domestic Airport

This airport gets international flights now, why is it still called domestic.119.155.30.157 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Yanbu Airport which appears to be the common name in English. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Style guide template

I was wondering if the new template {{WikiProject style advice}} would be appropriate for the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)? This was one of the pages considered when the template was created, so I think it is appropriate. Mlm42 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no objections yes, so I'll add the template. If you remove it, please provide an explanation why. This template was created following the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Mlm42 (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly non-existent: Beloyarsk Airport and Nazran Airport

Whilst creating the destinations list for RusLine, I tried to figure out which airport is meant by Beloyarsky (which is included in the timetable). I found Beloyarsk Airport, only to find out that it was me who created this article roughly one year ago, obviously without any proper sources (the airport does not seem to be included in google maps). No idea why I did this. So, is there anyone who can find of if this airport exists at all, and what airport RusLine flies to? Also, as a side note, Nazran Airport is unreferenced, and I couldn't find any references that this one exists. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Airport Beloyarskiy (USHI/EYK). It's placed at Beloyarsky, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Felipealvarez (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

United Express flights from CO hubs

I noticed that United Express is now operating flights from Continental hubs now and in the future (operated by Shuttle America and SkyWest Airlines). Are these should be listed as United Express or Continental Express. However, those flights are departing from Continental gates instead of UA gates and if they flying for United Express, shouldn't they depart from United gates? Snoozlepet (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shuttle America and SkyWest operate United Express flights; they don't have a Continental Express contract (sister carriers Chautauqua and ExpressJet do, but that's not the same). Plus, due to a recent ruling [7], these flights will not carry the CO code since Continental's contract with its pilots prohibits Continental Express from operating aircraft with more than 50 seats; the flights in question are 70 seat jets. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
How come are they using CO gates at some airports (i.e. ATL). If they are United Express flights then how come they are not departing from CO gates? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Since both Continental and United are now owned by the same company, they have access to each others resources. And at some point, they'll all be United/United Express flights. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Airport Naming - Use of Word "Aerodrome" vs. "Airport"

Many aerodromes are incorrectly named airports. While "airport" is the more common (albeit strictly incorrect) term, if the word "aerodrome" is going to be used in article titles at all, it should be used in all to which the term applies (i.e. any that are not registered as airports - for Canada, see AIM AGA 2.3 - Aerodromes and Airports). The articles that got me thinking about this are:

  • Trenton Aerodrome (renamed from Trenton Airport 14 Apr 2010 - possibly as a means of disambiguation?)
  • Port Hawkesbury Airport (which is not a certified airport, and should be renamed Port Hawkesbury Aerodrome if this naming convention is to be used)

In a brief scan through some of the aerodromes of the Maritimes, I found many others that are incorrectly named if the aerodrome naming convention is to be applied:

While I am not sold on the use of the word aerodrome in article titles, since their common name generally includes the word "airport", I do think that if "aerodrome" it is to be used in some, it should be used in all (repeating myself, I know, but I abhor inconsistency). I personally am leaning towards eliminating the word aerodrome entirely, if for no other reason than its infrequent use. So far I have only noticed its use for Sable Island Aerodrome, Riviere Bell Aerodrome, and Trenton Aerodrome.

In the case of Canadian aerodromes, the CFS indicates whether an aerodrome is an airport in its OPR section - if it is listed as registered (Reg), it is not an airport, if listed as certified (Cert), then it is. I do not know if similarly easily accessible information is available for other countries, or indeed, if other countries even make the distinction.

Comments?
HiFlyChick (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason that several Canadian aerodromes are using airport in the title is my fault. When I created those I really didn't think about the difference between them. Since then I have used whatever the CFS uses. I have also moved some from "airport" to "aerodrome" but I haven't done all of them or even really pursued it. The ones I did move tended to be based on needing disambiguation, Trenton Airport (Nova Scotia) to Trenton Aerodrome, but then there is Faro Airport (Yukon) which should be Faro Aerodrome. For the others I would suggest that where the operating body calls it an airport and there is no need for disambiguating it be left at airport with something noting that it is a registered aerodrome. The others should probably be moved. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We have also an issue with engvar in that the term airport is generally used in the US for any aircraft landing ground, this causes lists of airports to sometimes cover what others outside of the US consider to be aerodromes. It also means that sometimes grass airfields with one hangar and two aircraft are created as airports in good faith. Although in the end as others have said we should use the correct or common name Airport/Aerodrome/Airfield etc. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Using the common name sounds good - having said that, I can't recall seeing aerodrome used in a common name of any airports I've been to (including Trenton and others mentioned). The CFS does not use either "airport" or "aerodrome" in its name, just the basic name itself - the technical designation of airport/aerodrome is only found as a note under the OPR section. I would therefore like to revert those articles using "aerodrome" to "airport" if common usage dictates (i.e. the tourism site for the town of Trenton refers to the Trenton Airport so it should be reverted).HiFlyChick (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's where you run into needing a disambiguation as Trenton Airport already exists. I felt it was better to get rid of the disambiguation even if the operating authority calls it an airport. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am misunderstanding how the disambiguation feature works - when I type in Trenton Airport, I get a list of 5 different options, of which Trenton Aerodrome is one. If that were to be renamed Trenton Airport, would I still get the list of 5, or would it take precedence and not show the others? What about calling it Trenton Airport (NS) or Trenton Airport (CYTN)? It just seems somewhat strange to use something other than the common name just because there is a duplicate somewhere else in the world - rather akin to saying "There is already a rock band called Mashed Potatoes, so I will call this article on the common menu item Crushed Potatoes instead..."HiFlyChick (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't explain that well. You would need to move Trenton Aerodrome back to Trenton Airport (Nova Scotia). The use of (Place) seems to be the standard for airports, as it is for geographical features, Victoria Island (Canada). Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox now has Canadian airports separated into three sets. The first are aerodromes that should probably be moved. The ones with external links have sites that use the word airport so they wouldn't need moving. The second are aerodromes that were either created as such or moved there. The last are the certified airports. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm confused - based on the list in CambridgeBayWeather's sandbox (and the above ref to it), it would appear that he is proposing that aerodromes be named based on their technical classification, rather than their common name. I must re-iterate, the CFS does not list aerodrome or airport as part of the name - I would think that whatever town the airport services woud be the authority on the common name (should be able to get info from a town's web site). What about WP:COMMONNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess I didn't explain it well enough. The airports at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox#Aerodromes listed as airports are ones that are technically aerodromes and should be moved if the common name as give at the aerodromes website does not use the word airport. If the website calls it an airport then that should be taken as the common name, left where it is, and the article should note that it a "registered aerodrome". There are several like that already but I can't think which. The aerodromes that don't have sites next to them are ones that I couldn't find at the time I checked. They may have sites now and would need checking again. In the absence of something showing that the common name is "airport" I think they should be moved to "aerodrome". Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check your lists and put notes by the ones that I have found web sites for that indicate a common name(the ones in the Maritimes and Quebec are the ones I'm most familiar with)HiFlyChick (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New location map parameters

{{Infobox airport}} has been updated to include a location map. There are some examples at User:Htonl/sandbox and it's being used at Heathrow and Arcola Airport. Currently the documentation has not been updated. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Airport move in St. George, Utah

St. George Municipal Airport (KSGU) will shut down tonight at midnight MST and the new airport (KDXZ) will open. A new article needs to be created. HkCaGu (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Should have something there shortly. There may be a name issue since it looks like they are keeping the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have marked the routes as ending today, when the new page is up, they will appear there, as they begin there on 1/13/11.Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have also moved the airport to St. George Municipal Airport (1972-2010), so St. George municipal airport is still open. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done Page updated, all set to go. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did some cleanup, including dabbing the incoming links and I think everything is OK now. It would be good for someone to double check, especially the inbound links to both articles. I'll leave it to someone to add appropriate hat notes to both articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Tomorrow (13th) is FAA's chart/database update day. All the usual websites will have all the info updated soon, but there are NOTAMs and other info already around by googling "DXZ" and "St. George". HkCaGu (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it safe to change the former airport's article to past tense or wait until the airport has officially shut down? I went ahead and changed it to past tense but if the airport hasn't shut down yet, you can revert them. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the write ups say the owners have 60 days to remove their aircraft, so that kind of says the airport will be used for operations for at least 60 days. In doing my quick research for the new article, I did not find anything definitive on where the air ambulance service will be based. I suspect the new airport at some point, but we need a source to update the affected articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, good job team! Another successful mission by the few who actually work Wikipedia Aviation :P. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Airline & destination list.

Hello. Is there any way i could add a fourth column to an Airport-dest-list?

--MKY661 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be in the fourth colum?Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you think it would improve the article, go for it - improvements are always welcome! Nobody owns the airport articles, including members of this WikiProject. :) Mlm42 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I understand the question now. MKY wasn't asking permission; the problem is because the destination list tables are in fact formatted as a template, which makes it very difficult to change. The template is {{Airport-dest-list}}. At the moment, it would seem, changing this template would be very complicated, unfortunately. Mlm42 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, the easiest way to make changes would be to not use the template at all. It appears that all the template does is ensure that all the destination lists are consistently formatted. The wikitable heading that the template uses is like this:
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 95%" |- bgcolor=lightgrey
The template also controls the widths of the columns; but if you're adding a new column, then you'd want different values than the template anyway. See Help:Table for the basics of table-making. Mlm42 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The template was adopted by consensus to improve the cohesive appearance of this information across articles. So making a change should be discussed before being implemented. Just because a few editors decide that they want the change does not mean the the change is appropriate or that the is consensus for the change. Note that the added information would apparently be fourth would be the pier the airline uses. To me this crosses the line in to WP:TRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if the word "consensus" weren't thrown around so freely at this WikiProject.. it would seem that "consensus", as it is used in this WikiProject, is determined by as few as two editors. It would also be nice if the regulars would be a little more welcoming to new ideas and new editors to the project. Both are valuable.
And can someone explain what exactly this template does, other than fix the first line or two of the wikitable? Frankly, the template seems a bit unnecessary.. its existence makes it very diffcult to make improvements to the table - such as adding a fourth column, when desired. This strikes me as a reason not to use the template. To ensure consistency, it seems sufficient to add the relevant wikitable code at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airports). Mlm42 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Felipealvarez's very disruptive behavior

Despite numerous warnings and reverts by pretty much everyone of us who watch those pages, User:Felipealvarez continues to apply his own standard to airport destination listings and disregard anyone's good faith counsel. The latest is happening at Lanzarote Airport. I don't have any time to write him up, so please, if there are any administrator watching here, the least that has to be done is to revoke his Twinkle, and if not block him or even permanently ban him. He is way, way beyond final warning. HkCaGu (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented on his talk page, any more behavior like this and I will report him. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The Barajas crap happened again. Last time I reported him, outsider-administrators only saw content dispute and refused to act. Do we have any admin in THIS Wikiproject? HkCaGu (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not just Lanzarote Airport but Tenerife South Airport, Fuerteventura Airport and Gran Canaria Airport. User:Felipealvarez also needs to understand that references are not required after the route has commenced. If anybody removes them he will add (Citation Needed) when it is clearly not. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but Felipealvarez is demanding inline citations as per WP:V (which states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Notice the word "must").. why not supply an inline citation? For example, this link doesn't indicate Small Planet Airlines fly to Cork nor to Lanzarote.. but maybe I'm missing something? I've readded the citation needed tag in the mean time.

Regarding the Madrid-Barajas changes, the disagreement appears to be between what airports are officially called and what the airlines call them.. is that correct? As I've been saying above, if there is a difference between what editors at this WikiProject "think" they should be called, and what the airlines themselves call them, then it would violate NPOV to ignore the airlines. This is why I think both names should be present. In short, I think Felipealvarez appears to have a point; and furthermore, I think editors at this WikiProject should make more of an effort to assume good faith. Mlm42 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Barajas has nothing to do with that issue. Nobody disagree the city is Madrid in this case. It is his unwillingness discuss and to abide by project standards, which require listing the city (not the airport) and disambiguate with airport name if needed. You can see in his edit history that he insisted Barajas needed disambiaguation or that that was the airport's name (which we don't care, if there is no need to disambiguate) and how he changed Milan-XXX to Bergamo-XXX when Bergamo only has one possible airport. HkCaGu (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So the disagreement is that members of this WikiProject want the name of the destination to be simply "Madrid", instead of the name of the airport, which is "Madrid-Barajas", the reason being that Madrid only has one airport so there's no need to disambiguate? Well, I see two reasons to disambiguate. 1) Not everybody knows Madrid has only one airport, and 2) According to the article Madrid, two new airports are planned in the next 5 years. On the other hand, the concern is that including the airport names as well as the destination cities will take up too much room in the destination lists.. is that right?
A reasonable solution might be to have a link Madrid, linking to the airport, but appearing only as the city. Would there be objection to that? Mlm42 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
We had gone over this issue (city, linking to airport) but decided not to, as it would be overly WP:TRAVEL and result in multiple linking or difficulty to manage (between linked and not linked). HkCaGu (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the justification here. Are you claiming to have overruled the official Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), because of some previous WikiProject discussion? Mlm42 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No not about overruling MOS. If we link we are supposed to link once. Locating and tracking where the first occasion is could be a mess. HkCaGu (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not true. Please re-read WP:REPEATLINK. As an exception to the repeated links rule it says: "where the links are in a table, as each row should stand on its own." Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now i understand you need to reference things But you do NOT NEED TO REFERENCE EVERY FLIGHT ROUTE AT AN AIRPORT!!! Lets find a way to get this prob solved! --MKY661 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouting something doesn't make it true. Obviously if an airport has a list of destinations on its website (and many do), then a reference to that is sufficient. But it seems not all airports have this.. so there should be some other way of verifying whether or not an airline flies from point A to point B, as per WP:V - especially if someone has challenged it. Mlm42 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
For example; you recently removed the citation needed tag for the claim that Arkefly flies from Lanzarote to Amsterdam, correct? This is not backed up by this list of airlines that fly from Aena airports to Amsterdam, which doesn't list ArkeFly (hence maybe the reason the citation needed tag was added). But a quick check of ArkeFly's website gives this page about flights from Amsterdam to Lanzarote. I can't read Dutch, but I imagine this is enough. (On the other hand, maybe the only way to book this flight is a round trip starting in Amsterdam...) Mlm42 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Er...WP:SHOUT. And, actually, yes you do. Otherwise how is supposed to be verifiable? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

French Valley Airport

I am a new user, so I have come for help. The article for my local airport (F70) is a stub and I would like to improve it. I have sources for greatly expanding and improving the article, but have no idea where to begin. I can also provide as many pictures as needed. I could really use some pointers here. I have no idea how to add pictures, cite sites that have the history of the airport, etc. If you'd like to help, please contact me on my talk page or on the French Valley Airport discussion page. Thanks! Wingtipvortex (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cochin International Airport

Is it relevant to include info on financial status in an airport article? The following sentence In the finacial year 2009-10, the airport recorded a gross income of 211.63 crore (US$45.92 million), a growth of 22.3% over the previous year. The profit after tax was 77.51 crore (US$16.82 million), which was a growth of 30.7% over the previous year is present in the article. User:DileepKS69 insists that financial status of an airport is relevant. —Abhishek191288 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • My quick two cents is that if the airport is turning a profit or a loss is worth mentioning, however the exact details of that (i.e. growth by how much and amount of profit after tax) isn't really notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bushranger. Unless an airport is in severe financial trouble, or is remarkably profitable, I don't consider the actual values notable. In any case, the values will vary from year to year, or quarter to quarter. This makes it harder to keep it updated on Wikipedia. The airport's financial statement can be linked in the "See Also" section if anyone is curious.Shiner1718 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, see also is for internal links. So that would need to be in external links and only if there is no link to the company. Anyhow, The question here is how encyclopedic is this information? While occasional data may be interesting, this is more information that needs updating. I suspect that with the information in the text, it will not receive regular updates. So other then significant records, I would leave this type of information out. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems that airports are businesses, and as such, their financial status is relevant.. if there are reliable sources to back up this information, then I see no problem with adding it. We shouldn't be excluding information based on the worry that maybe it will be out of date in a few years. Information is information, if it's encyclopedic (which it appears to be in this case) and has a reliable source, then I think we should include it. Mlm42 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feeback. What about safety and security? Is it of any relevance to an airport article because it's quite obvious that all airports across the world have security systems and personnel for passenger safety and it's nothing new about Cochin Airport? Infact I did notice some factual errors in the section. Why so serious? Talk to me 06:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, I think this is relevant information, and the details about safety and security will vary from airport to airport (i.e. which security companies they use, etc).. so if it's well-sourced, I don't see why one wouldn't include it. Of course if you notice some factual errors then you should fix them! :) Mlm42 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. One security company is as bad as another. It may be reasonable to include the businesses that they provide services for as a list within that article. Does it matter in the end what security company they are using? Then you have the issue of all of the government owned and operated airports. I'm not sure what level of details are released, but clearly not your normal P&L statement. What would be more encyclopedic in my mind is a better discussion of the various ways that they generate income. That shows something about what types of markets or companies the airport is trying to reach. So information on landing fees, gate fees, counter space, retail space, liquor stores, slot income and the like would be informative to have. However WP:RS and WP:V could present a big hurdle. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same section here? There are quite a few interesting references in that section that specifically talk about security things at Cochin airport.. like it being the only airport in India with its own dog squad. Yes, this section is encyclopedic, and should be included in the article. I don't see the purpose of opposing a "safety and security" section flat out.. this specific section could be improved, but that doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. Mlm42 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well things like this: Since Mumbai attacks the airport security has been heightened is not unique at all about Kochi airport. Infact in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, it was the 6 metropolitan city airports (Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Kolkata) that were provided with very tight security. Passengers visiting these airports had to go through very procedures. Domestic passengers had to report 3 hours prior to the depature of their flight. Next, there is a factual error here: The airport area is under direct protection of Kochi Airport Police having a police station outside the terminal. If you notice in the article there is no such thing as Kochi Airport Police and this has been linked to Kochi City Police article. I do not see the relevance of financial status of an airport. We are talking about the airport and not the company operating it. I have gone through well written airport articles like London Heathrow Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport, and these airports do not have anything mentioned about financial status. The single sentence on the same now in the article is quite sufficient. Beijing Capital International Airport does have a section on security, but it is very well written unlike in Kochi airport with some factual errors and false claim. Infact, the entire article looked too advert-y. I did quite a cleanup of the article. What needs to be addressed is how the security section has to be written. And coming to this which is cited for Kochi being the first airport in India with dog squads, can it be considered WP:RS and WP:V? Why so serious? Talk to me 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Which One?

Hi there. When people are displaying accidents at airports, the title seems to vary, but which one should we use

  • Accidents & Incidents OR
  • Incidents & Accidents

Which one do you think will be better? --MKY661 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen both, however, I see Incidents & Accidents used more often. Anyone Else? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The project guideline (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports) says it should be Accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone agree? (Includes Airlines as well as airports) --MKY661 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your right -- that works. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 13:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

External links?

I just noticed how poorly written the "External links" section of the Airports advice page is. It appears that it was written almost entirely by User:Ikluft in August 2008. The associated discussion is here, and I fail to see how this discussion resembles anything like consensus. I don't see what's wrong with Wikipedia:External links.. is there a need for WikiProject Airports to add more to the normal Wikipedia guideline? Unless there's a good reason to keep it, I think we should remove that entire section - in the interest of avoiding instruction creep, of course. Mlm42 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agee Mlm42 it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction at the time but looking back it is not really clear. Users add whole lot of external links that break allsorts of guidelines and rules, and are mostly none encyclopedic (never understood why links to current weather has encyclopedic value!) despite advice on the layout page. Dont have a problem with removing the ext links and references sections. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Airports

Hi, could some people give me a hand on adding history & Terminal(s) information along with statistics. All should be avalible on Aena.es --MKY661 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Guideline vs. Advice page

One of this project's goals is "Create guidelines for articles about airports." I tried to change the word "guideline" to "advice page", but was reverted by Vegaswikian, claiming I didn't have "consensus" (there's that word being thrown around again!). The reason I tried to make the change is because the word guideline in Wikipedia jargon is different from what is meant here, I believe. The more appropriate term is "advice page". Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages, for how they differ from "guidelines" (which are excepted by the entire Wikipedia community). Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone help me do the following?

Hi can anyone help me do the following for the following airports:

Malaga Airport

  • Pictures of planes and new terminal 3 entrance
  • New Routes
  • Start date for Air Bucharest to Bucharest (website bookings are down)
  • Are Turkish Airlines starting flights to Malaga?
  • Aena statistics for 2010
  • A spain location map with Malaga airport on

Alicante Airport

  • Pictures of planes & Inside the terminal
  • New Routes
  • Lots of more information on the history and the terminals
  • Aena statistics for 2010
  • A spain location map with Alicante airport on

Palma de Mallorca Airport

  • Pictures of planes & Inside the Modules
  • New Routes
  • Info on Modules
  • Aena statistics for 2010
  • A spain location map with Palma de Mallorca airport on

Thank you!

--MKY661 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Turkish Airlines service to Malaga, they are planning to start flights in 2011. For new services, an exact full date must be provided. Since "2011" is not sufficient enough (and we are already in 2011), it cannot be added. TK will announce a firm date later on in the future and when they do, we can then put that in the article. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Date has been announced --MKY661 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:79.183.207.43

This IP continues to make edits to Ben Gurion International Airport by adding codeshare destinations. Air China and Thai Airways do not fly to Tel Aviv under its own metal. All flights are operated by El Al. However, he continues to list it as "Air China operated by El Al" and "Thai Airways International operated by El Al". I don't know if Air China even flies to Tel Aviv from Beijing with its own metal. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Years for start dates

I think the WP:AIRPORTS page content on about the 13 months standard for adding the year for new services needs to be changed. I think that couple of people are disagreeing with the 13 months standard. And I think that the year needs to be include in the date to avoid confusion. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll remove this from the guideline. Mlm42 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to remove it from the guideline, but I was reverted. More comments would be welcome, please. Mlm42 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the need to add the year. Few announcements are made that far out, and since service changes are supposed to be cited, readers can always check the source if they're in doubt about the exact start dated. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Most service changes are announced a few month ahead. So, no reason to change. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. But I'd like to point out that the official manual of style (see WP:DATESNO) says "Yearless dates are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context." And although regular editors at this WikiProject seem to think the year is obvious, I claim that to the casual reader the year is not obvious. How are they to know the page is actually kept up to date? And anyway, why not have the year? Because it takes up too much space? What harm could it do??
I think this is an important point, because it appears this WikiProject's guidelines are not in-line with the more broadly accepted Manual of Style. Mlm42 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That is your opinion. I don't see this as a big problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't think it's a big problem to contradict the Manual of Style? And you haven't answered the question: What harm could adding the year do? Mlm42 (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It is your opinion that the year is not clear in this context. There is no contradiction since this form is allowed by the MoS. The issue is simply, is the year clear from the context? Your position is no. Others agree that it is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is my opinion that the year is not obvious for context, in particular for readers who are not familiar with the workings of this WikiProject (so, most readers). A reason for removing the year has still not been provided. The only reason I can see is for consistency; while in many cases consistency across a large class of articles is good, I don't think this is one of those cases. By removing the year, we are removing information from Wikipedia. And no one has explained how this improves the encyclopedia. Mlm42 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont have a strong opinion about the year being mentioned but I dont think it does any harm to mention it. Probably more important to make sure it is reliably referenced. It starts to get a bit crystal ball ish when it gets more than a year so I support a time cap on entries, I would even say that any more then the next season is bound to be a bit iffy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so how about we change (in the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)) the line "Starting dates must be provided with full date (without the year if the begin date is less than 12 months)," to "Starting dates must be provided with full date (if the begin date is less than 12 months then the year isn't necessary, but it doesn't hurt to include it)". From what people have said, this sounds like it may be a good compromise? Mlm42 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We cannot leave it as an option because then there will always be controversy as to how it will be, on personal pref. I think we should leave they year out unless it is more than 12 months until the start date. I don't see the problem with the current policy. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Years being used in Start Dates (less than 12 mo's in future)

Support

  • Would help to disambiguate between a forgotten "begins XX" for the current year and a "legitimate" one for the next year, especially on less-popular airport/airline destinations pages. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Adding the years does no harm, and not all readers would be confident the pages are up to date. For this reason I think it is important to add the year - or at least not prevent other users from adding the year. Still nobody has provided a reason why it is better to not include the year. Mlm42 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see the problem here. Including the year does no harm, and can be a help. So...count me as somebody believing adding the year is a good thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  • Comment. This vote doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and probably shouldn't be used in place of discussion. I'm still waiting for someone to provide a reason why it is better to not include the year. It seems the year isn't necessary, but it also seems silly to have a policy which prohibits the year from appearing. If it is necessary to set a policy to either include or not include the start dates, as Tofutwitch11 suggests, then why not insist the year is included? What harm could that do? The problem with the current policy is that some readers could conceivably view it as ambiguous.. I think an encyclopedia should strive to be as unambiguous as possible. Mlm42 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding the year does no harm

Still nobody has provided a reason for why it's better to not include the year; furthermore, there seems to be general agreement that the year does no harm. Some editors (myself included) think it is, in fact, better to include the year, for reasons stated above. There also seems to be a desire to give explicit instructions, one way or the other, in the advice page. So, if noone objects, I'd like to change the advice page accordingly, to "We prefer starting dates to include the year". Mlm42 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We have not had enough participation in this discussion (unfortunately) for consensus to be changed, I just think [begins June 21, 2011] looks stupid if it is March 2011, and [begins June 21] will be fine, and less confusing. No need to add more text to the article. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I was too busy to comment weeks earlier, but let me tell you my experience. When a date label is close to one year in the future (e.g. 10 months), too often it is mistaken as in the recent past (2 months ago) and gets "corrected" or "updated"--in error. An example is ZGGG if you want to see the mess I was involved with regarding NW's termination of services. If only I could add a year label, then people would know it was "not yet" and leave it alone. I think we can have a consensus that we can move 12 months to 9 months. HkCaGu (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can agree to that, more than nine months in the future should include a year, and then we can remove the year as it gets closer. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It would appear that the only argument put forward to justify the year not being added, is now the argument put forward by Tofutwitch: "It looks stupid". Tofutwitch also claims that removing the year is less confusing in some cases.. I fail to see the rationale here - how could someone be confused by adding the year? What could they possibly misinterpret "[begins June 21, 2011]" to mean? Even if it's May 2011, and you see it written "[begins June 21]", some readers (myself, for example) would have a lingering doubt.. "How old is that notice? Do they really mean this June?". I'll repeat, it is not obvious to readers and editors who don't frequently edit Wikipedia's airport articles, that these are kept up to date. It may be obvious to anyone reading this, but it's not obvious to everyone. Sigh.
In any case, isn't it better to have consistent advice which doesn't depend on what day it is? 9 months seems completely arbitrary.. so does 12. Mlm42 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't really disagree with your argument. The year "feels" unnecessary and redundant in most cases, but there is no way that adding the year makes things more confusing or less clear. I have no objection to stating that we should always include the year. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well it's been over a month since this discussion started.. there seems to be at least mild agreement that, if one weighs the pros and cons for adding the year to start dates, then the pros (at least slightly) win. Main "pro": Unambiguous. Main "cons": Seems unnecessary, and looks odd. Can we add the statement "We prefer starting dates to include the year" to the advice page now? Mlm42 (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as you point out, there is no consensus for a change. So the proposal should result in no change. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Vegaswikian, you are opposed to the change I've suggested? Mlm42 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, since there is no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think instead of changing the "exclude the year if less than 12 months in the future" advice on the page content guidelines to state that we prefer the year to be included, we simply remove the comment altogether. The guideline would then read: For future destinations, add: "[begins date service begins]" - after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date, and references should be provided. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't really agree with this whole year adding process. I can agree on nine months though, but really don't think anything needs to be changed. That said, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hawaiian717, that sounds good to me.
Tofutwitch, the problem at the moment is that the advice page insists on removing the year; and some users, who don't know the advice page exists, will always add the year, to conform to the MOS (because they think the year isn't 100% clear from context - they are entitled to their own opinion, after all). The reason I was alerted to this issue was because some users were edit-warring - removing the year and adding it again, over and over. If some users (like me) believe the advice page contradicts the MOS, this could cause disputes; this is why I'm pushing for the change. Mlm42 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this issue isn't a big one anyway, since the advice page isn't policy.. it's just an essay; which means it doesn't overrule the MOS in case there is a dispute. I just hope members of this WikiProject don't edit-war over the issue and continue to remove the year.. after all, the MOS holds more weight. Mlm42 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent Airfields template

What is the opinion of members of this WP on the desirability of a template for airfields grouped by county (or equivalent status area)? I've been working on a template for Kent, United Kingdom which I present here for comment. I do not propose to create templates for all other UK counties, but the proposed template, if adopted, may be used as a basis for the others.

I will inform MILHIST of this discussion to allow their members to comment too. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not against the idea but it may be better to just list the airfields as either operational or closed at the moment it has civil open and closed but all the military grouped together, a lot are dual use. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There are no Military airfields in Kent that are operational. Something like this?
Gravesend Airport and RAF Gravesend are currently two separate articles. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, in my opinion that looks better. Although I note it has about forty airfield or flying sites missing! MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've seen something similar but can't think where. Would "[[Lashenden (Headcorn) Airfield|Headcorn]] <small>(RAF Lashenden)</small>" giving "Headcorn (RAF Lashenden)" work? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I note it has about forty airfield or flying sites missing! The intention is not to include every minor microlight, private and unlicenced landing strip and helipad. Military fields are included due to inherent notability. Licenced civil airfields also. Unlicenced airfields may be included if it can be shown that they are notable - I think Bekesbourne would come under this, it was a private field but had considerable GA activity between the wars. If the airfield wouldn't be notable enough to sustain an article, there is no need to include it. These airfields could be included in a List of airfields in Kent if such was ever created, but it is not my intention to create the list.
In reply to CBW, display of wikilinks is something that can be addressed at a later date. If the revised template gains consensus, a more pressing issue is the settlement of the merger proposal for Gravesend Airport / RAF Gravesend. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen something similar it was {{Airports in Ontario}}. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So, we have a precedent for this type of navbox. All the "minor" airports on that navbox have scheduled flights, so would appear to be notable. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed it, or why it hasn't got an article, but I've added Challock to the navbox. Tweaked a couple of link displays too. Mjroots (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Re the "missed" airfields. If anyone knows of any that should be added, please mention them here for now. I've come across several references to airship sheds at Capel(-le-Ferne). Anyone know anything about these, was there an airship station there, similar to Pulham and Cardington? Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
List of Kent airfields
  1. Abbey Wood (Flying Ground)
  2. Allhallows (RFC/ELG)
  3. Ashford-Great Chart (ALG/RAF/USAAF)
  4. Baldwyns Park (Flying Ground)
  5. Bekesbourne (RFC/RAF Aerodrome)
  6. Biggin Hill (RFC/RAF Aerodrome)
  7. Brenzett (ALG/RAF)
  8. Broadsalts (RFC/ELG)
  9. Bromley (Flying Ground)
  10. Broomfield (ELG/RFC/Civil)
  11. Canterbury (Flying Ground)
  12. Capel le Ferne (RNAS Airship Station)
  13. Chatham (Balloon Station)
  14. Crayford (Aircraft Factory)
  15. Detling (RNAS/RAF Aerodrome )
  16. Dover (RNAS Seaplane Station)
  17. Dymchurch (RFC/RAF)
  18. Eastchurch (Short Bros/RNAS/RAF)
  19. Erith Marshes ( Aircraft Factory)
  20. Eynsford (Flying Ground)
  21. Farningham (ELG/RFC)
  22. Frinstead (ELG/RFC)
  23. Gillingham (Flying Ground)
  24. Godmersham Park (Balloon Station)
  25. Grain (RNAS/RFC)
  26. Gravesend (Civil/RAF Aerodrome)
  27. Grove Park (ELG/RFC)
  28. Guilton (ELG/RFC)
  29. Guston Road (RFC)
  30. Harrietsham (RFC/HQ)
  31. Harty (ELG/RFC)
  32. Hawkinge (RFC/RAF Aerodrome )
  33. Headcorn/Lashenden (ALG/RCAF /USAAF /Civil)
  34. Headcorn/Egerton (ALG/RCAF /USAAF /Civil)
  35. Hildenborough - The Old Barn (Civil)
  36. High Halden (ALG/USAAF)
  37. Horton Kirby (Civil)
  38. Hunton (ELG/RFC)
  39. Hythe (RFC)
  40. Joyce Green (RFC)
  41. Kingsnorth-Hoo (RNAS Airship Station)
  42. Kingsnorth-Ashford (ALG/RAF/USAAF)
  43. Leigh Green (ELG/RFC)
  44. Lenham (Gliding/RAF}
  45. Leysdown (Flying Ground)
  46. Lidsing (Balloon Station)
  47. Lydd (Balloon Station)
  48. Lydd - Midley (RAF/ALG)
  49. Lydd (Civil)
  50. Lympne (RFC/RAF/Civil)
  51. Manston (RFC/RAF/Civil)
  52. Marden (ELG/RFC)
  53. New Romney (RAF/ALG)
  54. New Romney/Littlestone (RFC/Civil)
  55. Newchurch (ALG/RAF)
  56. Orpington (Flying Ground)
  57. Penshurst (RFC/RAF Civil/ELG)
  58. Port Victoria (RNAS)
  59. Pluckley (ELG/RFC)
  60. Plumstead Marshes (Flying Ground)
  61. Ramsgate (Civil Aerodrome)
  62. Rochester (Short Brothers/Civil)
  63. Rochester-Medway (Short Brothers/Civil)
  64. Sheerness (ELG/RFC/Balloon Station)
  65. Shellbeach (Flying Ground)
  66. Staplehurst (ALG/RCAF/USAAF)
  67. Sole Street/Petham (ELG/RFC)
  68. South Ash (ELG/RFC)
  69. Swalecliffe (Civil Flying Ground)
  70. Swingfield (ELG/RFC/ ALG/RAF)
  71. Swingate (RFC/RAF)
  72. Throwley Wood (RFC)
  73. Walmer (RFC)
  74. Westenhangar (Civil/RAF}
  75. Westgate (RNAS)
  76. West Malling - Kings Hill (ELG/RFC/RAF/ Civil)
  77. Whitfield (Flying Ground)
  78. Wittersham (Balloon Station)
  79. Woodchurch(ALG/RAF /USAAF /Civil)
  80. Wye (RFC/RAF)

Long list added for information. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable - Hildenborough (a private strip, not public), Rochester-Medway (it's a river)
Unsure of notability - Abbey Wood, Baldwyns Park, Bromley, Chatham, Crayford, Erith Marshes, Eynsford, Gillingham, Godmersham, Lidsing, Lydd (Balloon station), Orpington, Plumstead Marshes, Shellbeach, Swalecliffe, Whitfield, Wittersham
Unsure if it was an airport - Dover (suspect sea was used for take-off/landing)
Possible duplication - Ashford/Great Chart = RAF Ashford; Canterbury = Bekesbourne; Headcorn/Egerton = RAF Ashford??; Lydd/Midley = RAF Lydd; New Romney/Littlestone = Littlestone Airfield; Westenhanger = Lympne
It may be better to create the navbox sans redlinks and to create the list of airfields in Kent, where all sites known can be included subject to verifiablilty by reliable sources. It seems that there are no objections to the creation of this navbox. I'll drop the RAF Gravesend link, pending merge of that article into the airfield article. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
OK I should have said I didnt expect the whole list to be in the template! and I didnt expect that all the airfields in the list would be notable enough for an article. It would suggest that the not-notable for an article ones may be suitable for a list of airfields in Kent. Certainly some names to research! MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

European low-cost airlines and the way they advertise airports: how to list?

Hi,

There's a sort of dispute regarding how to list low-cost served airports. I didn't find any discussion about this here, so I'm starting this topic. Let's take a few examples:

  • BVA : official name is "Beauvais-Tillé", according to WP page it serves Beauvais, it is operated by the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de l'Oise. But advertised as "Paris-Beauvais" by low-cost airlines when it should be "Beauvais".
  • XCR : official name "Châlons-Vatry", serves Châlons-en-Champagne, operated by the Conseil Général de la Marne through the SEVE. But advertised as "Paris-Vatry" when it should be "Châlons-Vatry" or "Vatry".
  • RYG : official name "Moss Airport, Rygge", serves Rygge, operated by Rygge Sivile Lufthavn AS. But advertised as "Oslo-Rygge" when it should be "Rygge" or "Rygge-Moss" since there is also a military base with IATA and ICAO codes.

We could extend this list to (Frankfurt)-Hahn, (Venice-)Treviso, (Milano-)Bergamo-Orio al Serio, etc.

I would personally support the idea of "call them with their real names". There has already been a discussion where two airlines used different names for the same airport, everyone agreed that the same name should be used everywhere.

Slasher-fun (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As this is not a travel guide then if airline x goes to airport y then list as such if the airline calls it different name then it is not really relevant to a list of destinations. If the airline makes a habit of it then it can be mentioned in the article prose as in the Ryanair article. The guide for the airport name normally should be whatever the airport article is named. MilborneOne (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, a new-ish editor (Felipealavarez) is bent on changing the existing listing of several airports, applying his own logic. I tried to explain that we list destination cities and not destination airports, but that doesn't seem to have helped.
I am also working on putting together a list of all such problem airports and then we can collectively work towards agreeing on how they are to be listed. Should be done in a couple of days and that should help with the Beauvais, Hahn situation too. jasepl (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you publish this list on a draft page on your discussion page or profile so that everyone can easily add airports that are concerned with this discussion? Slasher-fun (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I just saw your list... Good start! I should have mine done shortly and will try to follow your example! jasepl (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how Malaga list FR departures

RR2535 12:35 BRATISLAVA/M.R. STEFANIK AIRPORT (BTS)

RYR6566 14:15 GLASGOW /PRESTWICK (PIK)

RYR2511 16:55 PARIS /BEAUVAIS-TILLE (BVA)

RYR1929 17:50 BRUSELAS /CHARLEROI (CRL)

RYR8613 18:30 DUSSELDORF /WEEZE (NRN)

RYR4613 19:40 FRANKFURT /HAHN (HHN)

RYR8163 20:45 LONDRES /STANSTED (STN)

RYR6653 20:55 EDIMBURGO (EDI)


This is how Dublin list FR departures

London-STN - Ryanair FR205

Paris-BVA - Ryanair FR025

London-LGW - Ryanair FR113

Milan-BGY - Ryanair FR942

Rygge - Ryanair FR859

Brussels South - Ryanair FR043

Berlin - Ryanair FR8559

Frankfurt - Ryanair FR1949

Memmingen - Ryanair FR2413

Stockholm - Ryanair FR963

All airports are different but most of them list Paris-BVA, Oslo-Rygge, Frankfurt-Hahn etc. Even though they are miles away from the city. Jamie2k9 (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK but we're here to report facts, not to report the names that some low-cost airlines would like to use. So here is a preliminary incomplete list, feel free to fill it with appropriate airports. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Each airport and airline may have a different way of representing the same thing, and its just not feasible to go by what they're doing. It's best to come up with our own method. jasepl (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this is similar on how to list the flights (especially Continental Airlines) to Newark, New Jersey.....it has been insisted that it should be listed as "New York-Newark". However, the marjority of the US carriers advertise EWR as "Newark, NJ" while Continental and most foreign carriers advertise the flights as "New York". Snoozlepet (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind of, but EWR is operated by Port Authority NY/NJ as well are JFK and LGA, and EWR is not further from Manhattan than JFK. But I agree this is a "complicated" case too. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
But EWR is actually called "Newark Liberty International Airport" with no "New York" in its name. Also, one user insists on disam Madrid but Madrid's wiki page states that the city is served by Barajas Airport...it also mentions another airport but it as no commercial service. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
JFK and LGA has no "New York" either in their names, but I agree that EWR should be called Newark. Anyway that's not the point here, it's already pretty complicated ^^ Regarding Madrid, the -Barajas is useless as you said, same as I mistakently used "Beauvais-Tillé" instead of simply using "Beauvais". Slasher-fun (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"we're here to report facts,"

Paris BVA - Over 2.5million passengers in 2009. At leats 80-90% of them would of went to Paris. With around 60,000 living in Beauvais they would only be a small % of them using BVA.

Milan BGY - Over 7.1million passengers in 2009. Around 120,000 people living in area. Just because an airport is located outside a city that dosn't mean that it only serves the area where it's located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.103.152 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mix up the area an airport serves with where people actually go. I sometimes fly out of Brussels instead of Paris for example, since it's only an 80 min trip from Paris (like going to Beauvais...), and that's not a reason to say that Brussels airport serves Paris area. To keep Beauvais as an example (the one I know the most), Paris is as far from Beauvais than are Rouen (600,000), Compiègne (200,000), Amiens (300,000), and basically all the Picardie region (2 million). Beauvais airport initially serves Beauvais, otherwise it wouldn't have been called Beauvais. Or you're gonna say as well that for example Carcassonne airport serves Toulouse since there are only 50,000 inhabitants in Carcassonne maybe?... Slasher-fun (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Oxford Airport changed its name to London-Oxford Airport. Does that mean the airport physically moved? Does it mean it stopped serving Oxford overnight? jasepl (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant, but yes London-Oxford still serves Oxford, and London-Oxford is the official name of the airport, not how some airlines like to designate it. Anyway, does anyone else who has not yet contributed here have an opinion? Slasher-fun (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

So we have :

So as of now, we'll be using the "serves" column for the disputed airports reported in this table instead of the "disputed alternate name" for both the destination list in airport pages and the airline destinations pages. Feel free to add any airport that would be missing from the table. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No problems with keeping the status quo. I hope to have my list done shortly - sorry it's taking longer than I anticipated! jasepl (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Both view points should be presented

Let me quote a fundamental policy of wikipedia: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The airline itself is a reliable source, and should be treated as such. Of course airlines sometimes choose destination names to suit their needs, while other reliable sources will argue that there is a more accurate destination name. In this case, both viewpoints should be represented. For this reason, I think we should revisit the above discussion, to ensure Wikipedia's policies are being followed. Mlm42 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that while the airline might be an RS, it's also a primary source. So they must be "trusted, but verified". - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that many articles use the airline's webpage as the only source.. so while I agree we must be careful using primary sources, we also must be careful that we aren't doing original research - for example, renaming the destinations of airlines to names preferred by a (small?) group of editors. Such a move has to be backed up by reliable secondary sources.. and it's not clear to me this has been done. Mlm42 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not about "names preferred by a (small?) group of editors", this is about using the real name of the city served by that airport. Imagine that one airline designates CDG as "Paris-Roissy" and another one as "Paris-Charles de Gaulle": well, for both we're going to use "Paris-Charles de Gaulle", because CDG serves Paris, and since there are more than one airport serving Paris we're adding the official name of the airport "Charles de Gaulle" ; well it has to be the same for every airport: it's not because an airline wants to say that an airport serves another city than the one it actually serves that we have to follow that, we just need to use the actual city served, plus the airport name if there is more than one active airport. Slasher-fun (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with what you've said. Let's say an airline designated one of its destinations (CDG) as "Paris-Roissy", and we try to list the destinations of the airline. Then we should not ignore the airline's point of view. Somewhere we should say that the airline called this destination "Paris-Roissy". It's not up to us at Wikipedia to tell airlines they are wrong. We simply report the facts, and the fact is, some airlines use destination names not consistent with other sources. This is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia, and I'm a little concerned that NPOV is not being followed here. Mlm42 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine what airport destinations lists would look like then... To keep it simple, we could just add this information in the destination list of each airline. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Slasher-fun, exactly; that's all I'm saying. For consistency we can take from our own list of destinations, but the destination names which the airline itself uses should also be somewhere in the list; maybe in brackets, or maybe in another column. Mlm42 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, so that we can have both consistency and the airline "point of view". Would that be a problem for someone here? o/ Slasher-fun (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Since nobody else was against it, then we'll list the IATA served city in the dest-list in the airport articles, and add the "advertised" city next to the IATA city in each airline destination list. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider, for example, this edit, where AirBerlin's destination of "Lanzarote" was changed to "Arrecife". This is a problem, because AirBerlin states the destination as "Lanzarote". If someone compares AirBerlin's website to this article, they might think there is a mistake - Lanzarote isn't on the destination list! I would suggest that in this case we write "Lanzarote (Arrecife)", or even "Lanzarote (Arrecife)", with a link to the airport. Similarly, for the RyanAir destination, Milan (Bergamo). Or maybe there are other options, but whatever the convention, the Airline's name for the destination should be mentioned somewhere nearby. Mlm42 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, one user continues to change "Madrid" to "Madrid-Barajas" for Ryanair. There is only 1 airport in Madrid that has commercial service and that is Barajas Airport...all the other airports in Madrid are either military or general aviation only. Since the project guideline state that whenever there are multiple airports that serve a city, it should be disambiguated and yes Madrid are served by other airports. However, I suggest changing the guidelines to say disambiguate cities with multiple airports that have commercial passsenger service. Snoozlepet (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Slasher-fun (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I plase ask why does all the Spanish airports say Nottingham-East Midlands instaead of East-Midlands on their departure lists and announcements? --MKY661 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mountain Airport, Nepal - an enigma in need of a solution

The reported airport (in Lists of Airports - Nepal) at 28°00′N 085°20′E in Nepal is in the middle of no where with no roads leading to it.

Open Source publically available satellite photographs (Google Earth and Google Maps are one example) only show a steep mountain hill side with No Airport.

A search for the IATA Code "MWP" can result in Airport symbol on Google Earth or a place mark on Google Maps at the above location.

The location is 8.87km NNE of the Napelise village of Kharanitar and 12.04km east of Kalikasthan Village.

A careful examination of the surrounding 10km show no sign of any dirt airstrips or airports.

A further search in "airportguide dot com" did NOT show MWP as a valid IATA code.

So I conducted a careful examination of the Nepal area.

I found many of the placemarks in Google Maps and Earth of airports in Nepal can be between 2 to 10 km out of place when compared to actual airport locations from reliable government and other pilot information sources.

... so the enigma we have is, could this another case of gross misplacement?

In that exhaustive examination via Google Earth of the Nepal area, I did find an Unidentified Mountain Top Airport.

I found it in Eastern Napel. It is unidentified, nore listed in any official or reliable source document that I could dig through.

It is at 27°24′38″N 086°38′49″E, ...at an rough Elevation of 6,855ft AMSL ... with a dirt Runway - dirction 11 - 29 ... that is 1,755 feet long, ... with a prepared parking area

Could this be "Mountain Airport"?

It is 13.5km south east of Salleri AD and 15.25km north east of Rumjatar AD.

I invite other pilots, particularly our collegues in Napel, to help solve this mystery.

Respectfully submitted! Cumulusgranitis (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your response MilbourneOne. I just looked at the image listed above and recognised it immediately as Lukla taken prior to the sealing of the runway with asphalt. I verified my positive ID of Lukla by comparing the background on the upper right quadrant to the upper right quadrant of a video of Lukla operations [9], that was posted to You Tube by "loiuyau" . At the 18 second mark of the video, I paused the video and did a side by side comparsion. The shape of the forest and the patterns of white rocks on the distant hillside in the upper right quadrant of both makes it clear that the photo labeled "Mountain Airport" is actually a photo of Lukal.
  • As for the world-airport-codes data entry you mention, I checked it out and it is very lacking in any other verifyable factual information. I also found another non official site with the same style of entry for "MWP". It too had a total lack of information other then it linked it's maps to the same Google Earth and Google Maps placemark in the middle of no where.
  • I can only conclude that someone is having a good laugh somewhere, at having spoofed these unofficial sites into put up an airport and IATA airport designator that does not exist. I send an inquery to the Napel Civil Aviation Authority asking if they have a landing strip at that lat and long and could they please get us a name of the village or name of the airport for that new unnamed airport I found in Eastern Napel. More when I get further results. Thank you for your time and trouble. Cheers! Cumulusgranitis (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Erbil International Airport

The wiki article has been incorrectly respelled Arbil Int'l Airport, but its IATA code is EBL ICAO code is ORER and airport logo alsdo shows acronym EIA which means correct official spelling is Erbil and was all along, Arbil and Irbil are the other ways the city is spelled, but obviously the IATA codes makes it clear which is the actual OFFICIAL correct spelling, kindly revert.119.155.45.212 (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Need input from non-Canadian pilots

I rewrote bits of the Pilot Controlled Lighting article, using the ARCAL acronym most prominently. In searching the U.S. AIM, however, I see that, unlike the Canadian AIM and CFS, ARCAL is not a term used at all (in Canada it is used almost exclusively). Also, I did not see the PCL (Pilot Controlled Lighting) or PAL (Pilot Aerodrome Lighting) acronyms used either - they seem to be mostly just generic descriptive terms, not accepted acronyms. Before I revert the article and change all info on ARCAL into statements of "In Canada, ...", could I have a few pilots from other countries weigh in (preferably in the article's talk page), please? HiFlyChick (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey which concerns Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest

and proposals being discussed there for a potential merged or more general additional article on US civilian aiport security regulation issues and public reactions, perspectives on and by foreign travelers, sociology, law, cultural phenomenology, and international context. The later detection of Fukushima radiation at US airports, which is not yet mentioned in this article, is also being discussed as a subtopic to be added into a general article. Separately from the 'criiticms' subsection on the US Transportation Security Administration alone.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't touch my junk is a second related AfD regarding another article which also presents a US airport bodily search protest.

A potential general article not only on protest but on efficacy, social context, and events which are of national and international note in these regards would also include breaking 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents news such as Japan radiation sets off O'Hare airport alarms -- CBS News Chicago station reports trace amounts of radiation clinging to flights from country ravaged by earthquake, tsunami:

"Trace amounts of radiation from Japan have been detected in Chicago, CBS News station WBBM-TV reports.

Travelers coming in from Japan on Wednesday triggered radiation detectors at O'Hare International Airport as they passed through customs. Only very small amounts of radiation were detected.

...Feds move more radiation monitors to West Coast...

"We are aware of the radiation," said Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride. "We are adding screenings and precautionary measures."

...Radiation was also found in luggage and on passengers on flights from Japan.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and other city officials wouldn't provide any additional details, saying federal authorities were handling the situation.

"Of course the protection of the person coming off the plane is important in regards to any radiation and especially within their families," Daley said at an unrelated event." [more at] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey [and in the original CBS article March 17, 2011]. - Pandelver (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of aerodromes of Ireland

List of aerodromes of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

The Lympne Airport article is currently a GA. It's had attention from a copyeditor as part of the GAR. I'd really like to take it to FA status, so I'd appreciate some feedback on the talk page of the article as to any outstanding issues, suggestions for improvements etc. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian Fleming International Airport website

A new user is disputing the addition of a website, http://www.ianflemingintlairport.aero/ to the external links section of the Ian Fleming International Airport. I;ve given a detailed response at Talk:Ian Fleming International Airport#IFIA website, but I'm asking if the project has some guidelines on airport websites. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We do. And frankly, I don't really see the problem of adding ianflemingintlairport.aero to this airport website. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

List of hub airports

There is one editor insisting on adding the Southwest Airlines focus city to LAS in this article. I have added a hidden note and fired off a warning after he's appeared again despite many of us telling him that focus cities are not hubs. Can you all keep an eye on the article. Sb617 (Talk) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Slight edit, he's also started putting US Airways to LAS as well. Looks like that account is a vandal account. Sb617 (Talk) 23:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects in categories

I was looking for articles on airports in Italy and didn't find Category:Airports in Italy very useful because names like Galileo Galilei Airport or Peretola Airport don't tell you which major city is served. Including Pisa Airport and Florence Airport in the category would be useful even if you have to go through a dab page to arrive at the required article. Is there any problem with adding the redirects? Cavrdg (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

airport destinations. Why are inbound only flights not allowed to be listed?

I've come upon several users who argue that inbound only flights to a certain airport should not be listed as a destination (as there is no outbound flight).

I cannot find a single shred of article in WP:AIRPORTS CONTENTS that supports this. Can we please take a definitive stance on this matter once and for all. I believe inbound only flights should be listed. At worst, we could add a comment mentioning the one-way nature of the route.

Thank you.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the airline flies from airport 1 to airport 2 and it is a scheduled flight why not? It is after all a destination. What the airline does with the aircraft when it arrives does not make it not a destination from some place. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
To me, "Destinations" implies that these are places you can fly to from a particular airport. So if there is a flight from Airport 1 to Airport 2, Airport 2 would be listed as in the destination on the Airport 1 article, but Airport 1 would not be listed as a destination on the Airport 2 article. However, this seems like it would be relatively rare I think I'd be ok with a (footnote?) with the listing of Airport 1 on the Airport 2 article might be acceptable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It is very rare, and i believe a footnote would be a nice way to inform the reader of the one-way nature of that route. Not listing it at all seems pretty uninformative to me. Thenoflyzone (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Because this is a not a travel guide but an encyclopedia then inbound flights are not really notable the inclusion of outbound flights or destinations is to give the reader an idea of the size and scope of flights from the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The best way to give the size and scope of flights from/to the airport is to be as specific as possible, and the most specific way would be to include inbound flights with a footnote. Otherwise, we are not informing the reader of the full scope of the airport's capabilities. Thenoflyzone (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta European route cuts

Delta recently announced suspension of several European routes out of Atlanta and New York-JFK. However, some flights are bookable in April 2012 onwards (such as MAN-JFK) but i don't know if the others are seasonal or not. Can anyone check delta.com to see if any of these routes are bookable next summer. If they do appear to be bookable next summer, then I would change those flights to being seasonal. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Second Beijing Airport

Should we need to create a new article about the proposed second airport for Beijing? If so, does anyone know what will the airport be called and its codes will be or if this is WP:CRYSTALBALLish at the moment. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of content in Airport articles

G'day, below is a discussion pasted from the Talk page of Greater Rochester International Airport, regarding a section within the article titled "Plane Sizes":

Please discuss the "Plane Sizes" section of the article here, not whilst warring on the page it self. Thank You. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Plane sizes do not belong in a Wikipedia article on an airport. Just the fact that ROC is a small airport doesn't make the fact that it is served by A321s or has ever seen a B747 worth reading. It means the article gets to be shorter. On the date when articles on major airports (JFK or LHR, to name two examples) include any reference to plane sizes, the ROC airport page should have them too. Until then, these are trivia. Yellow797 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As the person that started the so-called "war" of five edits by four different people, I (obviously) agree with Yellow797. That sort of info belongs on a fanboy spotter site, not in an encyclopaedia article. I have yet to see a single WP article about any other airport anywhere in the world that has such a section, so no-one can claim that there is any consensus to include such information. Besides that, where are the references? That alone means that the information can be removed without any contention per WP policy. If someone tells me that the info comes from hanging around the airport, then that is OR and again is against WP policy. If the info comes from a fanboy spotter site, that is not a RS and is again contrary to WP policy. For those in favour of including the info, you have to come up with something better than "I want it in the article". YSSYguy (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Plane sizes certainly belong in a Wikipedia article about an airport, as they are part of an airport's history, especially at a medium or smaller-size airport where larger a/c are more unusual. With respect, consensus begins with someone including a relevant category of information and a discussion occurring, so saying "there's no consensus" is circular and is no basis to remove the information. What airport the discussion starts with is not relevant either. It is not up to some readers to determine what is of interest to other readers of an article, or whether an article should be "shortened." It is fair enough to get citations and that can be done from published sources such as OAG, timetables, and newspapers. The section is also properly limited. One could make a case for not including every airline /every plane size over an airport's whole history, which would indeed be excessive for WP and more suited to a topic-specific history site. A limited section identifying largest aircraft, which are typically of most interest to readers about airport history, is not excessive and thus not trivial. Current aircraft are also suitable for a limited section, and that information is also verifiable, via official sources such as airline websites and flight-navigation sites. JKruggel (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"A limited section...is not excessive and thus not trivial" is a non sequiter; the information itself is trivial, the amount of such information is irrelevant. "It is not up to some readers to determine what is of interest to other readers of an article" is contradicted by this discussion, as that is exactly what we are doing. The statement "largest aircraft, which are typically of most interest to readers" is probably a falsehood, but is nevertheless unprovable either way; all you and I can definitively say is that your opinion and my opinion are opposite. I am an aviation enthusiast and make a point of taking photos of aircraft at every airport I visit, but I couldn't give two hoots about the actual size of the aircraft at a given airport, and I have never met anyone that does; given the fact that people who go to airports specifically to look at the aircraft are a miniscule percentage of overall airport visitors and I often find myself to be alone while I am looking at aircraft, I doubt that I ever will meet such a person. As for your comments about lack of consensus, please take some time to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content, which would have been developed by consensus. If you still think that this section should exist within the article, then you should initiate a more general discussion on the Airport Project's talk page rather than continuing it here, as this discussion certainly has wider ramifications than this article. YSSYguy (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no further input at the Talk page in question, I have pasted the above discussion here to seek consensus one way or another, as I feel that it is potentially relevant to more than this one article. YSSYguy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of showing what size planes fly into a given airport? In the article in question, is it just the images that are a problem or is it something else? Personally that article has too many images. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Good question, and one which I am trying to get answered. In my edit I moved the images to a different part of the article and deleted the text in its entirety, as I could see no value in the information either and it was completely unreferenced to boot. I suspect that WP:OWN is a factor, as the articles edited by JKruggel are exclusively that about the airport itself, or articles about airlines that have operated to the airport. YSSYguy (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Swift Air at O'Hare Airport

An IP continues to list Swift Air in the scheduled airlines and destinations. Is the airline an charter airline or a regularly scheduled one? Snoozlepet (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a charter airline that had plans to offer scheduled flights Chicago to three destinations in Eastern Europe; the plans were derailed after the FAA terminated their Part 121 certificate for some safety violations. According to their website, they recovered the Part 121 certificate a few weeks ago, but no schedule has been published. Shiner1718 (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Heathrow Airport

I recently reverted large scale changes to the London Heathrow Airport history section, it has been changed from a prose style to a list by dates. As the article has recently been copy edited and is at B-class the edits degrade the article and it is not really fit for B-class, also note some of the new content was copied from another article without attribution so I have changed it back again, not wanting to edit war on the issue other opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Status of IATA & ICAO codes for disused airports

Some editor (sorry I haven't tracked back through the history) has struck through the IATA & ICAO codes for Lympne Airport in both the lead and the infobox. After discussion with one of the main editors of that page we can only assume that this is in some way connected with the fact that the airport no longer exists. I know nothing about IATA & ICAO codes but I would be surprised if they are recycled, therefore whether obsolete or not, the codes are still valid (?) and can remain in the article as historical fact. NtheP (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange never seen that before - no reason why the codes should be struck out if they are accurate. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
They are recycled, but usually for another airport serving the same city (closure of an airport and opening of a new one the next day). Never seen a case of an airport code being reused for something completely different (I'm saying "never seen", not "it doesn't exist"). Slasher-fun (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I did it to indicate that the airport is closed. Sometime back I saw someone do it and thought it a good idea. It seems like a good idea to me. If the codes are not used then they aren't valid and crossing out indicates that. If the codes have been used for another airport, not common but does happen, then they aren't valid for that particular airport and crossing out shows that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to cross them out. The entire surrounding article should make clear that the airport has been closed. If you think it's necessary, somewhere could be a textual note that the codes were transferred to another airport. Three immediate examples come to mind of recently re-used codes, all for airports replacing another in the same city: DEN, AUS, and HKG. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to strikeout closed airports which have codes transferred to a new place. Otherwise when you back search a code for an airport, confusion will arise. HkCaGu (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide I think striking through is a bit harsh all it needs is a note to say re allocated to x. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What if they aren't reallocated? I don't think many do get reused. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
They do get recycled, more often in countries with many aerodromes who are short on ICAO codes. See the article on Brive-Souillac airport for one example, and with absolutely no relation between the former aerodrome and the new assignee. I am sure I could find more. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Airport Infobox

Would it be appropriate to add a list of instrument approaches for each runway into the airport infobox or is that getting too technical for the general public? This information is available in the CFS for Canadian airports, and is significant in that it indicates weather restrictions to general operations. For instance, an airport with no instrument approaches will not have traffic in bad weather (IMC), whereas an airport with a CAT III ILS allows airliners with autoland capabilities to land in extremely low visibility. But I'm a pilot, so to me this is natural info to include - it may be of no interest to non-pilots. CAT III ILS capability is pretty rare (at least in Canada), so it should possibly be mentioned in any case. (BTW, I don't know how to change an infobox, so it would have to be up to someone else to make the initial change and I would help with edits after that.) HiFlyChick (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too technical for the infobox. A discussion in the article body itself, at a not-too-technical level, of the affects weather can have on airport operations is appropriate. San Diego International Airport#Reverse operations is probably a good example. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help to cleanup the Bangladesh Airport Vandal

There is a roaming IP vandal from Bangladesh vandalizing airport destination listings on various airport pages. Take a look at the revision history of Shah Amanat International Airport and you'll see all those IPs in the 119.30 range. I don't know what administrative ways to deal with this. HkCaGu (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Routes Suspensions vs. Seasonal routes

If an airline have only temporary suspended a route (mostly for the winter/summer), how do we designate these flights?

  • Some examples are:
    • Delta: ATL-TLV, PHL-CDG, PIT-CDG, JFK-TXL, DTW-HND, JFK-ARN, JFK-CPH, ATL-SVO, JFK-SNN, JFK-MAN, ORD-CDG (new service replacing AF), NRT-KOR
    • American: JFK-HND
    • KLM: DFW-AMS
    • Air France: ORD-CDG (replaced by DL from 29 October to 24 March)
    • Alitalia: LAX-FCO, ORD-FCO

These routes are only being suspended for the winter and will resume in the spring/summer. Should we consider these as "seasonal" flights or are they still year-round routes only being suspended for a season? Are these routes guarantee to operate winter 2012? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Seasonal, until the temporary suspension is over, and you see that it will be operating for that season the following year. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Years for Start Dates (Oh my Lord! Here we go again!)

I noticed that some airlines are starting services in March, April, May, and June of 2012 and that the year is still included. The cutoff has now been changed to "12 months" instead of the original "13 months". I think that we should change it to half a year that we can remove the year so that it would be less confusing. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "3 months, if it extends to the next year". You may not need to support my idea, but by default I support your 6-month proposal. We've laid the first bricks AGAIN, so please, we need to build some consensus. HkCaGu (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the consensus, I am rather angry at seeing my little addition reverted without PREVIOUS discussion. And anyway there should be no HARD cut-off: even if we agree years need not be mentioned in certain cases/situations, I can't see any reason for NOT mentioning them. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I am slightly curious to see the previous discussion(s) of this matter. Any pointers? Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
For start dates, if the airline announces a route that will start in a year after the next (such as Continental announced their service to LOS in October 2010 to begin in November 2011), then put the full date with the year. For start dates that begin within 1 to 3 months from now, then leave it as [begins Month/Day] since it is close to that date and it is assumed that it begins now (just check the airline's schedules and if it does appear to operate on that date then there you go). For start dates that begin within the months of March thru June of the next said year (which is 2012), then leave the year in for now and wait until January, about that time it will be 2012 and it will avoid the confusion for everybody. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
If in doubt, include the year - we should bear in mind that there are all too many "as of month X..." comments in articles which have gone stale for months or years, so that the claim is no longer useful and might actually mislead readers. I think that a strict cutoff would be unhelpful. If we can be confident that a particular article gets regular careful updates then perhaps there would be less harm in aggressive trimming of years if for some reason they are a problem (for instance: a very crowded table). Giving readers more useful sourced information, and making it clear whether a claim is forward-facing or outdated, is usually a Good Thing.
For example, look at the table in this airport article - are readers supposed to guess that the dates are in the future or in the past? It's totally unclear because somebody deliberately omitted the year. bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)—bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
But as long as the service is source and cited (the source will most definitely include the year), then it is assumed that it will be a future route. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The person who sees the source and edits the article might assume that; the far greater majority - those who just read the article - should not. There's absolutely nothing in the article content which guarantees that all the dates are in the future (ie. that the article isn't out of date or that the article isn't pointing out routes which started a few months ago). We have plenty of other out-of-date articles, after all, and plenty of articles pointing out things which happened in the last few months. Make it clear to readers; show them the year. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
But most of these sources are not out-dated and will be directed to the airline's press release anyways (also, airlines archive their press releases and reader will have access to them anytime). Also, once service has begun, the date and the source is removed anyways. Another suggestion might be is to put the year after the date but in parenthesis as a hidden note (e.g. [begins November 16 (2011)]) that way when people edit, the year is there but hidden.Snoozlepet (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
But whence your apparent hatred of showing which year? Why should it NOT be visible?Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am much puzzled by your seeming preference for vagueness (most of these sources are not out-dated) , (then it is assumed [by whom?]) &C &C. Do you realise we are creating an encyclopedia?Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Its not vagueness, but it is the wikiproject aviation consensus among editors of how things are formatted. I am just trying to reach a new consensus on this matter but if that's the way your going to behave on this then i am not discussing on this any further. Thank you. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Walking away when people disagree might not be a good way to reach consensus; I hope you'll stick around. Do you have a link to the previous " wikiproject aviation consensus" on omitting years from dates? bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked for further inputs from others, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We seem to spend a lot of time and effort debating these dates, depite any previous consensus the fact that not putting the year gets raised regularly means that other readers/editors of the articles think it is strange or non-standard. We can stop this circus by just adding the year, it is not that important but will save a lot of energy on discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We have but the debate just seemed to stop, we have also made suggestions to change the "12/13 month" guideline but people keep disagreeing and those debates have just stop and people didn't seem to care. If we do include the year, the edit wars and debate will just continue (and yes, other people will see it as strange and non-standard; and they will start to remove the year) but if it will please everybody then go for it. I think we should get more people to put their opinion on this matter and reach a firm consensus (its the "do not include the year if start date is 12 months or less from the current date" at WP:AIRPORTS page content is stirring this debate up; we must somehow get rid of it, reword it, or whatever) just to make it so everyone is satisfied. I agree and that if will satisfy everyone else on Wikipedia, is that we should just put the year, move on, and forget about this. If they still have a fit, then they will just have to deal with it. Just a reminder, if an airline do announce a route, a firm date (not [begins 2012], [begins November 2011], [begins Winter 2011], etc.) is still needed and the route needs (if possible) to be source also.Snoozlepet (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait, im confused, are we talking about start dates in general or just ones that i brought up in this discussion (March, April, May, and June of 2012)? Snoozlepet (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment?? Snoozlepet (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Count me in. The only solution to contain this waste of time and effort is to add years for all cases. HkCaGu (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I say add the year. Doing so provides clarity and shows whether or not the article needs to be updated. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding the year. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No objections either. Don't mind either way. Sb617 (Talk) 03:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
(Just passing through!) The year should be added in all cases. A reader coming across a date that is simply a month has no idea whether it was written yesterday or five years ago. 86.160.212.182 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Busiest airports

This is about nomenclature and title used to describe articles relating to busiest airports. According to the article World's busiest airports, there are generally three methods of measuring the busy-ness of airports: (1) passenger traffic; (2) cargo traffic; and (3) traffic movements. My concern is mainly with (3) traffic movements. There is also specific article dedicated to this: World's busiest airports by traffic movements. More specific articles have followed this naming convention: Busiest airports of the People's Republic of China by traffic movements. And I suspect many more would follow suit soon. But is "traffic movements" the best way to describe the stats? It seems ambiguous and vague. "Traffic" could also mean passenger or cargo traffic. Why not use "aircraft movements"? The main source to the article World's busiest airports by traffic movements by Airports Council International uses the phrase "aircraft movements" in their website. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 08:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd consider "traffic movements" to be industry jargon; I'd agree with "aircraft movements" being a better term for general use on Wikipedia. If you listen to air traffic control frequencies, you'll hear other aircraft being referred to as "traffic": "Traffic at 10 o'clock, Boeing 737, 1000 feet below" or "Cleared to land, runway 27, traffic is a Boeing 737 on 3-mile final". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i will post another message in the discussion page of that article and if there is no objection i will rename the article. thanks. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 04:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Can anyone fix the destinations for this article? Someone linked the airline destinations here and I am trying to do a partial revert to thaat. Help! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the edits are no longer undoable. So manual edits will be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Format of destination list

Any idea why {{Airport destination list}} forces column widths? This currently produces poor looking tables like the one at St. George Municipal Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No idea. But you're the one who did it that way. ;) Originally when it was a two column table you made it 20% and 40%, then a month later made it 20% and 80% (to force it to fill the full width of the page). When I added the third column it became 20%/70%/10% if the third column was present. If making the columns variable width makes it look better, I have no objection to doing that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I just copied the inline code that was in use as I recall. OK, I'll change it since there are no objections.Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

United/Continental: They have aligned their codes and flight number. How to list them?

I know that United and Continental are operating under one parent company but they are operating as 2 seperate airlines. However, both carriers have aligned their flights number and codes a couple of weeks ago meaning that both UA and CO share 1 flight number and vice versa but the flight is operating as the other carrier (e.g. CO89/UA89 operates EWR-PEK but it is operated by Continental; CO50/UA50 operates CLE-EWR-FRA (operated by Continental; UA851/CO851 operates ORD-PEK (flight is operated by United), etc.). My question is that do we still list them as they were 2 seperate carriers as if they had never merged or do we go ahead and now list them as "United operated by Continental"/"Continental operated by United" and so on? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep them listed as two separate carriers until they're operating on a single certificate. They should be listed under the operating carrier, e.g. "Continental Airlines" or "United Airlines". I don't expect we'll ever use "Continental operated by United", but we might change "Continental" to "United operated by Continental" if United starts marketing all flights as United only (essentially, stops selling with the CO code). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, got it! Thanks a bunch! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Airports

Berlin Brandenburg Airport is scheduled to open 3 June 2012 and Tegel Airport will close on that date too. Since Templehof closed a while ago and Tegel will close once the new airport is operational, Berlin Schonefeld will be renamed to Berlin Brandenburg Airport (leaving Berlin with only 1 airport serving the city). Will Berlin still need to be disambiguated as Berlin-Brandenburg or we just list it as Berlin in airport destinations? Snoozlepet (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If there's a wikilink to the airport (not the city), I think there's no need to disambiguate. However, where there's no wikilink, it might be appropriate sometimes... especially in the period up to mid-2012. bobrayner (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
If they all move in one day, we wouldn't even need any [begins xxx] or [ends xxx] clutter. HkCaGu (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of what I meant:
AirlinesDestinations
Lufthansa Berlin, Frankurt, Dusseldorf, Munich
Aer Lingus Amsterdam, Berlin'

OR

AirlinesDestinations
Lufthansa Berlin-Brandenburg, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich
KLM Amsterdam, Berlin-Brandenburg

Please note: This example is when Berlin Tegel Airport closes and Schonefeld Airport will be renamed Brandenburg Airport on 3 June 2012. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Format listing for regional carriers

I noticed on the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol page that the format listing for regional carriers operating for the mainline airline (i.e. KLM operated by KLM CityHopper) have been subscripted. Also, for destinations that are served by 2 cities, there are spaces between the city and the slash. This is only airport I know that I have spotted this. Was this format change discussed and was there any consensus to change it? Snoozlepet (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit confused about your "destinations served by 2 cities"... but the subscripting thing seems rather nice to me. Never saw it discussed, though. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Like for instance, Basel/Mulhouse, Seattle/Tacoma, etc.....meaning an airport is served by 2 cities. Also, the subscription thing needs to be discussed before it can be changed. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I would call that an airport serving two cities... hence my confusion. Thanks for clarification. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No need for a formal acceptance of the use of the subscription notation, for me. But if there must be then my vote is FOR. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I am okay with the subscription being there. I think its looks better just as long that people can be able to read it. Now anyone else care to comment on this. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

should charter destinations be listed?

I'd like to propose adding the following to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT:

12. Only scheduled flights should be included, charters or other flights available only through special arrangements should not be included.

--RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe most airports have scheduled, charter, or other flights in seperate sections. They can be listed in their seperate section if those services are referenced. Snoozlepet (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Charter flights that operate on a regular schedule should be listed. Ad hoc charters probably shouldn't. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of availability. If a charter flight isn't publicly available, I dont think it should be listed, even if it is regularly available. As an extreme example, the Janet flights out of McCarran International Airport are very regular, are chartered but they are not publicly available so they shouldn't be (and aren't) in the list of destinations. There are a number of seasonal charters that it isn't clear whether or not they belong on Ben Gurion International Airport.--RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think if the regularly scheduled charter flights are available through a readily accessible third party source (May it be a travel group, a third party website on behalf of the carrier, etc), then it's accessible to the public and therefore should be listed imo. On the other hand Ad-hoc or irregular charters (once every 2 years or so) shouldn't really be listed. Sb617 (Talk) 02:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. How about this, it's a bit wordy though:

12. Regularly scheduled charter flights, including seasonal ones, may be listed but only if they publicly and readily available through travel agents, a web site or some other means that any passenger can book through. Destinations served by private contracted charters should not be listed.

--RadioFan (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bit wordy and makes it sound a bit travel guide-ish, isnt a regular scheduled charter flight included by default anyhow? how about:

12. Do not include ad-hoc, irregular or private charter services. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport moved to Dum Dum Airport

Avenue X at Cicero has moved the article Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport to Dum Dum Airport citing the WP:UCN policy as they mention it here. I have requested a speedy on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport as it is a more appropriate title of the airport, because, firstly, it is the official name of the airport as per Airports Authority of India and secondly Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport is the name of the airport per IATA and ICAO. — Abhishek  Talk 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicago-Midway or simply "Midway"

On Wikipedia, we title this page Chicago Midway International Airport; however, the airport calls itself Midway International Airport (see here.). I propose changing the name to simply Midway International Airport. Objections? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to nominate at WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur. "Chicago Midway" is WP:COMMONNAME, and (unlike the subject above) the name is otherwise much the same. I'd say keep as-is, but RM wouldn't hurt. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought that we title the page using official names of airports (if their website lists MDW as Midway International Airport, then that is the name the page should be). Unless a new consensus was reached that I did not know about, the article name should be the official the name of the airport. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And the official name of the airport IS Midway International Airport. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Then that is what we should title the article. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually we prefer WP:COMMONNAME over WP:OFFICIAL. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
hmm, for O'Hare, the title of that page is O'Hare International Airport (is what the airport calls itself according to its website). Isn't ORD commonly referred to as "Chicago-O'Hare" also? Snoozlepet (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing of destinations for airports serving a metropolitan area (A final consensus)

Okay. No consensus was reached on how to list destinations serving a metropolitan area of a city (especially flights to Newark, NJ). However, on the Amsterdam Airport page Oakland for Arkefly was written as San Francisco-Oakland but I had changed them all back to the correct listing per previous discussions on this matter. So, I am gaining a new consensus on how to list destinations with airports that serve metropolitan areas (i.e. New York: Newark, JFK, and LGA; San Francisco: SFO, Oakland, and San Jose...etc). Do we list them as the actual city that the airport is physically located in or do we go ahead and list them for the metro area they serve? Snoozlepet (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My position is still the same: we should use the city used in the official airport name. For example, BGY airport name is "Bergamo/Orio al Serio", therefore it should be listed as serving Bergamo. RYG airport name is "Moss / Rygge", and should be listed as serving Moss. Regarding Frankfurt, I don't think there is a need to disambiguate the "am Main" one. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think Moss Airport, Rygge is clearly serving mainly Oslo, so it should better be listed as Oslo-Rygge. Our own introduction says "an international airport serving Oslo and Eastern Norway". Greetings, Gertjan R 07:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Not all airports include a city name. Even if they do, they may or may not be located, or solely located, in that city. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem: "I think that", because Ryanair and Norwegian said so, altough the airport is 70 km away from the city it's supposed to serve. Even worse examples with "Paris-Vatry" (160 km) or "Frankfurt-Hahn" (130 km). That's why we should stick to something official in the airport destination list and airline destination list, although we can also mention in the airline destination list under what name an airport is designated by the airline if it differs from the official designation. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Another major airport with this problem is McCarran International Airport. It is not in any city and serves a resort destination more then a specific city. Who decides when one city is the target destination over another or no specific city? Two other examples are Stewart International Airport and Westchester County Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget about Long Island MacArthur Airport, Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, Orlando (MCO and SFB), Kuala Lumpur (SZB and KUL). Like I said in previous discussions about Newark, all US-domestic carriers (except for Continental) use "Newark" on their departure boards, where as CO and other foreign carriers use the designation "New York-Newark" or "New York/Newark". I am sticking to my original plan, if we want to designate EWR as "New York", then we seperate with a slash and not a hyphen. But my main question is that how do we list these as destinations in airport articles (that's what we're trying to accomplish). For McCarran International Airport, airport pages list it as simply "Las Vegas" whereas North Las Vegas Airport is listed as "North Las Vegas" for Vision Airlines. Do we simply list it as the airline advertised it? The problem with the issue at the beginning is that Newark is one of the three airports serving NYC and Oakland is one of the three major airports serving the San Francisco Bay Area (the other being SFO and SJC). Snoozlepet (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
McCarren should be listed as Las Vegas; that's the city is serves. As for Newark; it doesn't really matter to me. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
But what about Berlin?? By June 3 of next year, the city will only be served by one airport (which is Berlin-Bradenburg Airport)...Templehof already closed and Tegel will close that day. Shouldn't we leave it as "Berlin"? Snoozlepet (talk)

Just wanted to point out -- we should start labeling Bradley International Airport as Hartford/Springfield and not just Hartford. Many airlines use the Hartford/Springfield name, and most airports use that on their departure boards. BDL also refers to itself as Hartford/Springfield within the terminal. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Newark Liberty International Airport either needs to be labeled as New York/Newark for foreign carriers and Newark for domestic (US) carriers. "New York-Newark", "New York-Liberty", or "Newark-Liberty" should never be used. Also, most airlines refer OAK as "Oakland, CA" not San Francisco. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, and anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites related to airports to the NRHP county lists." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding hub sizes

Some or maybe majority of the airports have a sentence saying that "the airport is a hub for such-and-such airline" most US airports introduce a sentence regarding a hub for an airline as largest-hub, second-largest hub, etc. for an airline. Is it really necessary to mention hub sizes? I think that it is okay to say that the airport is the largest, 2nd largest, 3rd largstr, small hub and so on for such and such airline unless the airline states that the largest hub is at that airport. Some airlines rank the size of their hubs in many different aspects. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Early airport establishments

Were any airports established in 1904? Also, were any airports established before 1903? I know the second seems like a funny question with the first airplane flight in 1903, but airships were flying in the 1800s, and any notable bases probably should be classified under airports. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Big Airport Hubs & Listing

Why is it, at some, but not all, hubs for airlines we separate the airlines domestic destinations, and their international destinations? (See Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (Delta) and Philadelphia International Airport (Us Airways)), for example. Is there any reason for this? I don't see anywhere in WP:AIRPORTS that says we should do that. I believe we should list all destinations in the same box. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it has to do with international flights sometimes using a separate concourse from domestic flights. If you notice on the ATL example, for the international flights, T and A are listed as departure only; IIRC all international flights at ATL arrive at E. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The only time when domestic and international destinations is seperated because certain flights use a seperate concourse/terminal at the airport. Another example is SFO for UA adn DL. Some United domestic flights depart from both Terminal 3 F and the international terminal G. United international flights depart exclusively from the international terminal. Delta domestic flight depart from Terminal 1 and Delta's flight to NRT departs from the international terminal A. The only time when it is together is that both dom and int'l destination depart from 1 terminal/concourse regardless. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Berlin Airports (Update)

I started on how to list Berlin in airport destination lists when Berlin Brandenburg Airport opens on June 3, 2012 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_10#Berlin_Airports. I went and suggested if we list should have Berlin disambiguated or not but no discussion was further. I also noticed that many users/IPs went ahead and put end date for service to TXL and added the started date for BER. For on how to list Berlin, I would leave it disambiguated for until Tegel Airport officially closes and BER opens, then just leave it as "Berlin" instead of "Berlin-Brandenburg" since BER will be the only airport serving Berlin at that time. I need some other comments or suggestions for this. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Airlines that are completely ending service: where should the end date go?

If an airline is currently flying to multiple cities but is completely dropping its services to an airport on the same day, Where should we put the ending date in the table?

AirlinesDestinations
AirTran Airways [ends December 14]Atlanta, Houston-Hobby, Detroit, Chicago-O'Hare, Philadelphia

or

AirlinesDestinations
AirTran AirwaysAtlanta, Houston-Hobby, Detroit, Chicago-O'Hare, Philadelphia [All services end December 14]

or

AirlinesDestinations
AirTran AirwaysAtlanta [ends December 14], Houston-Hobby [ends December 14], Detroit [ends December 14], Chicago-O'Hare [ends December 14], Philadelphia [ends December 14]

Snoozlepet (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The last one since that follows the established pattern. The fact that an airline is completely shutting down is not material in the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that an airline is ending all services as an airport. All three forms convey this, though the first seems cleanest to me. The last feels rather less elegant since it repeats the same information over and over. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The established pattern looks ugly in this case. Either the first or the second would be preferable if we want to present informative, readable content to readers - I'd vote for the second one. I'm slightly baffled by the notion that an airline shutting down all services would be irrelevant, if we're trying to list services offered by airlines... bobrayner (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What about the "seasonal" format: All services ending dd Mmmm: HkCaGu (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. However, I think we're best off treating this as a guideline rather than an iron rule which must be rigorously applied in all cases; there will be plenty of quirky cases in future involving moveable dates, other airlines buying part or all of a failing airline at the last minute, political wrangling, and so on. As long as we concentrate on presenting accurate, sourced information to readers (and making it easy to read), rather than fitting everything to a procrustean bed of previous convention, I'm happy. bobrayner (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
May I make a note that the discussion here is about the airline pulling out of a specific airport all together not shutting down. For example AirTran is pulling service to numerous airports due to their merger with Southwest, the first and second first format seems acceptable, however, for the second one i would reworded like "All destinations terminate December 14" but the first one is more clearier stating that the airline is terminating its services to an airport. If an airline one fly to one destination at an airport is ending completely, then the second one is more suitable. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

KLM/Manila

There are unofficial sources going around that the Manila-Hong Kong sector on KLM can be booked by local passengers of the 2 cities. However, I can't find the flights in the schedules. I would recommend waiting until those flights appear on the schedules of various reliable sources such as their official websites or booking engines, before listing Hong Kong from Manila and Manila from Hong Kong. If the proposed HKG-MNL sector on KLM is not bookable when it starts, a note will need to be added instead. Sb617 (Talk) 12:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The source here http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNation.htm?f=2011/november/11/nation2.isx&d=2011/november/11 states the airline is planning to end nonstop flights from Manila to Amsterdam but this has not been confirmed by KLM yet. The last paragraph clearly states that KLM will not have traffic rights on the Hong Kong-Manila sector by April 2012. Please note that the nonstop Amsterdam-Manila nonstop flights still appear in schedules April 2012 and beyond. So, a hidden and/or footnote is therefore needed regarding the Hong-Manila sector for KLM when the flights do appear. Snoozlepet (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

BNA Good Article Nomination

Hey all, just nominated Nashville International Airport for GA status, however it appears as though no one has submitted a review yet. Would anyone mind taking a look at the article and making any copy edits/improvements/suggestions that will improve its odds of getting GA status? Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Airports with discontinued commercial airline service

We have discussion regarding to:

Other editor wants to delete category Airports with discontinued commercial airline service. Can you add the discussion? --B767-500 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tegel vs. Brandenburg

May I draw your attention regarding this section? Isn't it crystal balling? Why assuming all the airlines will continue serving Berlin once operations were taken over by Brandenburg?--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be speculation that all airlines will continue after the opening in June, it should just list the SXF ones at first but needs a reliable source for the others. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I suggest tagging that section with a "citation needed" template since most of those airlines will pull completely out of Berlin. Also, BER is disam to "Berlin-Brandenburg" on the destinations list. I understand cause Berlin still has 2 airports but after June 3, 2012 the city will only be serve by only 1 airport. So it should be listed just simply "Berlin" once BER begins operations and TXL is closed. Snoozlepet (talk)
Will do that. Let me point out that the matter I raise also applies to Schönefeld.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by airlines will completely pull out of Berlin? does the destination become unviable to serve due to a new airport.119.155.42.61 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

CO/UA SOC 2011-11-30

Flight trackers online now indicate the COA code will be discontinued starting with departures after about 9:20 am EST on November 30. However, ground ops are far from completely merged, and of course the CO website isn't going away yet, neither is reservation system or FFP. There will be a lot of edit-warring on the WP:AIRLINE side, but things may be more simple here at WP:AIRPORT.

May I suggest that we now list destinations as United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines? Continental is no longer "legal" but it remains a "branding" just like "United Express" is not a "legal operator". "Operated by" doesn't sound appropriate. (CO operated by UA?) "Operated as" allow us to now move CO destinations down to a position under "United" which will aid the next step of merger in the next few months.

We can't quite compare UA/CO with DL/NW. In DL/NW's case, flight numbers were not merged until the last day, and NW call signs were used for a month after SOC and ceased the same day as the reservation and website change. This time, COA will disappear in less than 24 hours, but CO will remain for a while. (HKG's website flight number listing changes from CO also UA to UA also CO.)

Any other ideas? HkCaGu (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

News articles say 6am CST. I would agree with the suggestion of United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines', as not all of the UA/CO branding is completed yet, despite the combined entity getting a single AOC as of your coming morning over in the USA. Also despite 85% of CO's planes now having United titles, staff integration hasn't exactly begun yet either (eg still PMCO crews on CO planes and PMUA crews on UA planes) Sb617 (Talk) 09:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A reasoning for my suggestion of "operated as" is the term "doing business as". HkCaGu (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Doing business as" sounds reasonable to me. It happens all the time with express carriers (Expressjet dba Continental Express) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
How should we handle the CO Express flights? CO Express has not rebranded to UA Express and both airline's website still has all Express flights still as "Continental Express". Snoozlepet (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would wait to change it until the brand CO Express goes away WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So let me summarize our options:

  • Solution One: Relabel "Continental Airlines" to "Continental Airlines operated by United Airlines", and keep "Continental Express/Connection operated by XXX" just below Continental.
  • Solution Two: Relabel "Continental Airlines" to "United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines" and put this below United (and United Express if present). Then put "Continental Express/Connection operated by XXX" below Continental mainline. If there's no Continental mainline but only Express/Connection, put it below United (and United Express if present).

I'd prefer Solution 2 because it will prevent IP merging/edit-warring and paves the way for easier work next year. Although COEX has nothing to do with UA certificate, it is after all marketed by the same company UCH nowadays. HkCaGu (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I go for Solution 2. The FAA and airport control towers now refers Continental flights as United but Continental's ground operations are still seperated. If Solution 2 is the preferred one, be careful on the terminals and/or concourses because at some airports (such as ATL, EWR, LHR), CO and UA are still at seperate terminals/concourses.

Here's what Solution 2 would look like if we can get a consensus:

AirlinesDestinations
United Airlines
United Express operated by ExpressJet Airlines
United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines
Continental Connection operated by Colgan Air
Continental Express operated by ExpressJet Airlines

Snoozlepet (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes the most sense to go with United operated by Continental. I am interested to know why we can't just add Continental's flights to United so if someone could update me on that it would be appreciated but if we are putting Continental definitely go with UA operated by CO. Cali4529 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
ICAO and call signs for CO are now "United" but the IATA code, reservation systems, etc are still Continental. So United operated as Continental is appropriate and then we can change it to just United when everything else goes away. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
So can we start changing it now? Cali4529 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
There is currently not enough consensus to change it now. But when there is a consensus, we should change Continental to "United operated as Continental" for now and then to just simply "United" (that's when the reservation systems, the "CO" IATA code will cease to exist). Snoozlepet (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I would think some common sense has to come into play here. I'd have to go with UA operated as CO in regards to the listings, the IATA code is still there, but overall in a operational sense they're now UA. Sb617 (Talk) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! And will be all UA in about 2 months. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with "UA operated by CO" is that CO is now not legally operating anything. We've always implied "operated by (cert holder)". HkCaGu (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
How about '"operated under Continental Airlines"? Will probably address the legality issue. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines" may be the best since UA and CO now operate under one certificate and UA owns CO and is in the process of digesting the acquisition. Other options are "United Airlines operating as Continental Airlines" or ""United Airlines dba as Continental Airlines". That last one works since they are still selling tickets under the CO code. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to list them as "CO operated by UA" because that's how flights are listed on the CO booking engine. pikdig (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The solution 2 proposed by HkCaGu seems the most reasonable here. Or at least it is until things get clearer.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
However at UA's booking engine, it still says "operated by Continental" or simply "Continental". HkCaGu (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... I crosschecked an entry on Airline Route and the UA/CO booking engine and it shows that only selected flights carry the "CO op UA" banner. The other flights still carry the CO code or "UA op CO". pikdig (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
@PikDig, only CO's booking engine shows the flights with "Operated by United Airlines" banner. United's booking engine still shows the selected CO flights as "Operated by Continental". Snoozlepet (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
As this is an encyclopedia not a travel guide why not just change everything to United we dont have to follow every legal change exactly, the destination lists are just to give an overview of services operated by the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed Continental to United at Stockholm - Arlanda since all operations here indicate United as of 1st dec. Departure and arrivals boards indicate United and airplane callsigns United. Brorsson (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Last ever CO flight was operated yesterday to EWR. Someone deleted the change without any factual backing.

As it stands now it is factually wrong to ignore mentioning United Airlines at least at Stockholm - Arlanda since everything here indicates United and there is no Continental left as of 1st dec. I suggest you let changes at Stockholm - Arlandas page indicating United be left as they should be now. United in as of 1st dec!! Brorsson (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

They should simply be listed as United Airlines, and completely remove the entire CO bit. The flights are LEGALLY operated by UAL, under the UAL callsign, so, we should list them as UAL. WP is NOT a travel guide, as mentioned above, and we shouldn't spend so much time here fighting over it. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's reach a conclusion right now and get this over with: All who agree we should change ALL CO to UAL, add your name below. All who oppose say why. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving out United Airlines at Stockholm Arlanda page is not only stupid now, it is factually completely wrong. The Arlanda webpage shows United, the dep and arr boards show United, signs at the airport show United, it says United on the planes and the callsign airplanes use is United as of 1st dec. Leaving out United is stupid!! Brorsson (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I do not know what you guys are doing, who is pretending Continental United merger never happened? Please put United at Arlandas page. I have done it twice explaining why, but someone takes it away. Strange!!

I agree with HkCaGu. UA operated as CO sounds more reasonable to me until the CO code is completely dropped. The same was the situation when AI and IC were brought under one company NACIL, but weren't merged completely until February 27, 2011. Since the formation of NACIL, IC began to be branded as AI. There were no exclusive IC counters in airports, only AI counters were present. But the airline was always referred to as Air India, not just in the media, but even by the airline itself. All IC destinations were merged into AI destinations only on 27 February. So I feel it is either better to leave CO destinations as it is or go as per HkCaGu's suggestion of including them as UA operated as CO.
Well I disagree with Milborne's opnion that having it as UA operated as CO is unencyclopedic. I agree that wikipedia is not a travel guide, but we also need to note that most other encyclopedia's do not have articles on individual airports or airlines. — Abhishek  Talk 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued Discussion

I think we have a consensus of moving CO destinations down to "U", but have plenty of ideas of what to say in that first column. The quickest way I think we can finish this is some sort of instant-runoff voting. Let me list the options:

1. United Airlines (and combined with other UA destinations, unless terminals differ)
2. United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines
3. United Airlines operated under Continental Airlines
4. United Airlines dba Continental Airlines

Please rank your choices (from one up to four). HkCaGu (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys are you totally off line? It should be United now. Continental is gone in the operations of airplanes, and that is what airlines do. The planes are operated by United legally since 1st dec Brorsson (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Continental operations have discontinued as of 1 december and are now legally operated as United. Planes on mainline and international routes operate as United with United Air Traffic Control Callsigns. Air Operators Certificate is United. The Continental AOC is not used now and will discontinue completely on the 11 dec.

Today the are no Continental planes operating!! Period.

So please put in United now. At Stockholm Arlandas page nothing indicates United even if I tried several times now. Who is rejecting facts here!!?? Brorsson (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The option "United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines" you had in your proposed voting is factually wrong since there is no Continental Air Operators Certificate being used now!! "United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines" is not an option 3. And "United Airlines operated under Continental Airlines" is also totally wrong Brorsson(talk) 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The facts are that Continental passenger system is still very separate, and in too many places the two airlines are separate. Your airport is just one of many between the two airlines. The real world is more complicated than that (and I've explained in details), and that's why we had to discuss. (For example, there's no "United Express" certificate, so why aren't those regional carriers listed all over alphabetically?) I'll count you as voting for 1 only unless you indicate your second or additional preferences. HkCaGu (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And as I mentioned in Talk:Continental Airlines, SOC isn't everything. Delta operated Northwest flights with NW codes for a month. HkCaGu (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My airport (Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport), United and Continental are still seperated (where Continental name is still on signs). Other thing is, has all former CO aircraft been repainted to new livery? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, not all of the hubs airports were rebranded only ORD, SFO, and IAH is completely rebranded. All the other hubs are currently still being rebranded in phases, which the rebranding will be complete once they use a single reservation system. See: http://www.continental.com/CMS/en-US/travel/Pages/airportupdates.aspx. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some airports and passenger systems are not renamed yet but I am trying to get across that the operator is United as of 1st dec. There is no operation in Continentals name anymore. Why not mention it??? Brorsson (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

All Co planes are repainted United Brorsson (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And the real world is not as complicated as you think. The airline Continental has ceased to exist. All operations are now in the name of United Airlines. But not all systems and signs have been altered. Travelagencies sometimes stick to CO before adapting to realities. Not strange at all... But please mention United because thats the airline operating from now on where CO was before. Difficult, maybe? But why ignore facts?

Signs take time to change. Maybe you will find ramp vehicles in years from know saying Continental... Brorsson (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Continental doesn't exist as an operator but the name and branding still exist. That's what we need to discuss. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is the lack of people available to say their word. It will be MUCH easier on the four or five of us here to just make one BIG change over from COA to UAL, then to have to make two changes -- one from COA to "UAL operated by COA" and then to "UAL". WP is NOT a travel guide; we don't know how long it'll take for everything to be combined. My word still stands at merge everything completely, and start to phase CO out completely. Keep in mind, we'll have to do the same thing with AirTran/SWA soon -- lets not give ourselves too much work. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Have to go with a number of people that put up WP:NOT#TRAVEL up, and WP:COMMONSENSE does have to come in play here. At this point I'd just say merge them all under United, as in just over a month they will eventually be all UA once reservation systems + other ground stuff is merged. Sb617 (Talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We should certainly go with United not operated by or anything in that area. Continental branding is there but OPERATIONS is UNITED. If they operate in different terminals just put under the terminal tab, (ie. A/B or 1/3 etc...) thats it.

Here is an example of what it should be at LaGuardia...

Testing UA/CO Airlines and destinations

AirlinesDestinationsTerminal
United Airlines Chicago-O'Hare, Cleveland, Denver, Houston-Intercontinental
Seasonal: Aruba 		Central-A, C
United Express operated by
Atlantic Southeast Airlines 		Washington-Dulles Central-C
United Express operated by
Chautauqua Airlines 		Cleveland Central-A
United Express operated by
ExpressJet Airlines 		Cleveland, Washington-Dulles Central-A, C
United Express operated by
Mesa Airlines 		Washington-Dulles Central-C
United Express operated by
Shuttle America 		Chicago-O'Hare, Washington-Dulles Central-C
United Express operated by
SkyWest Airlines 		Washington-Dulles Central-C

For SWA/AirTran it will look like this in LGA...

Testing SWA/FL Airlines and destinations

AirlinesDestinationsTerminal
Southwest Airlines Akron/Canton, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago-Midway, Denver, Milwaukee Central-B

Cali4529 (talk)

I like it. But we don't have to worry about WN and FL for now, just United and CO. Let's do it. Does everyone agree? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I know we don't have to do SWA/FL yet but I was just giving an example. I don't think there is a vote. Anything other then this is not true. Cali4529 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC).
We still need unified agreement. Everyone? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Let's end this madness by just changing everything to just United. In just a couple of months, the reservation systems and ground operations will combined soon. But what about 'Continental Express"? Do we change that to "United Express" as well. When DL and NW's certificates were merged, everything was changed to Delta. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
UA Express. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It's just as factually wrong to say United Express for CO Express or CO　Connection. It is purely a brand and not an operator and it simply hasn't been rebranded. Take Cape Air (Guam-based routes) for example. It is absolutely still CO Exp/Con and not United Express. (UA and CO sites will both tell you that). So the word Continental will still be around for up to three months. Maybe this will make someone reconsider his/her vote. HkCaGu (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Their certs were merged 2009-12-31. Flights continued to be NW/NWA/Northwest for another month, until 2010-01-30, when the website also disappeared. So for a whole month, one cert and two sets of everything. HkCaGu (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
What are they putting on the side of the CO Express/Connection planes HkCaGu? They are putting United Express, aka they are rebranding it to UA Express therefore it is factually correct to change that as well. Cali4529 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So were Continental planes painted. Did that make those flights back in August "United"? Livery was a long process. Certification came later. Branding, for CO/UA, came/will come last. HkCaGu (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And my point is that they are rebranding it to UA Express and so it is UA Express. And while voting is not over I think we can tell which option will be chosen. Cali4529 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Final Voting

Ok, voting starts now and ends December 2, 2011 5pm Eastern Time. I think that gives a fair time for everyone to vote.

The Options:

1. United Airlines (and combined with other UA destinations)1
2. United Airlines operated as Continental Airlines
3. United Airlines operated under Continental Airlines
4. United Airlines dba Continental Airlines
Notes
  • ^1 With option 1, Continental Express would also be changed to United Express.


Simply write the number, no more debate. Voting ends December 2, 2011 5pm Eastern, if you vote after, the vote will not count. Its that simple and again please do not write a long debate. The debate is over and voting has begun. Cali4529 (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Vote:

Looks like option one to me. Most airports have already been changed (which in the future, do not do that until a conclusion has been reached). Here we go! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Option 1 we go. Whichever the way it turns out, there'll be IPs and unfamiliar editors battling the other way--I've been around long enough to know. Please kindly refer anyone to this discussion using this link. "[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#CO/UA SOC 2011-11-30]]" HkCaGu (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, please note some flights need to be seperated because the combined flights have check-in and departures from different concourses/terminals at the airport (i.e. SFO and IAH) where the domestic flights depart from either domestic/international terminal but the international flights depart from the international terminal/concourse. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information:

"UNITED on 30NOV11 received single operating certificate from the US Federal Aviation Administration, which allows it to operate flights as one entity, instead of operating separately as UNITED and Continental.

At the meantime, passengers won’t notice any major changes, at least until first quarter of 2012. However, as per 01DEC11 GDS timetable and inventory display, following Continental International service with “CO” code, is being remarked as “OPERATED BY UNITED AIRLINES”. Again, passengers won’t notice any significant changes with the addition of such remark, as majority of Continental operating service carries UNITED’s “UA” code as well.

For reference, following Continental International service is being remarked as “OPERATED BY UNITED AIRLINES” in the GDS, as well as passenger itineraries." Brorsson (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting problem with only 24 hours

Can we re-do with voting due to editor gives only 24 hours? I think this is tiny amount of hours and many editors was leaft out. --B767-500 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? When did we start voting here? That is not supported by guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Why you allowed other editors to do voting? (click to jumped to link Can you fix? --B767-500 (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Straw_poll_guidelines and Points 1-4. Sb617 (Talk) 07:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD notification

I've nominated the article Ballyboughal Aerodrome for deletion; the discussion can be found here. Any comments by folks with more knowledge of airports than I will be appreciated. Deor (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Statistics section

Since Continental and United combined operating certificates on November 30, 2011 and the previous discussion regarding changing all operation where UA and CO operated to all UA, i noticed that under the statistics a lot of IPs changed the carrier for the cities formerly served by Continental to United (where as the date range for the statistics are way before both airlines got the single certificate). Do we go ahead and change them to UA since CO is defunct or do we leave them until new passenger numbers have been released and then change to United? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that since the two airlines were separeted at that time, then the figures should be shown separately for each. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

EZE-SCL-JFK

Can anyone please persuade this user that LAN Airlines operates the Buenos Aires-Ezeiza–New York-JFK route via Santiago? S(he) keeps reverting, erroneously arguing the flight doesn't exist. I'm already over my 3RR. Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

London Southend Airport

How do we list this airport as a destination? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

London-Southend? Gertjan R 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
We already have London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, and London-Stansted. Hence, London-Southend.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am gaining a consensus on this matter at the last thread below on how to list it. Apparently many people disagree with "London-Southend". Please put additional thoughts on the last thread of this discussion. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers

FYI, a discussion on aircraft carriers is currently occurring at WT:AVIATION. You may be interested.

76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Start dates (Need new Consensus)

I know it has been a while since this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_10#Years_for_Start_Dates_.28Oh_my_Lord.21_Here_we_go_again.21.29 but some registered users and IPs are now removing the year for new services that is to commence between March 2012 to even as late as October 2012. Since the year is now 2012, we need a new consensus: here's 2 options: 1. Just include the year as we have suggested in the past to avoid confusion and end this foolishness or include the year for services that are to begin the following year (i.e. it is 2012 and XXX Airlines will begin service to Y in 2013) and remove the year once that year begins. I know that since that discussion has ended, the consensus was to always include the year no matter what. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Always include the year. It wasn't that long ago (August 2011) that we made the decision to move to always including the years. I'd assume good faith, and gently point the editors to the discussion as they may not be aware that consensus changed and that the year should be included. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, given that this very discussion at WP:AIRLINES did not succeed, I'm using the same criteria adopted here for airline destinations articles. Regarding the proposal above, I suggest sticking to the first choice, i.e. including the year no matter how close is the date of beginning/closure of services.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. HkCaGu (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
However, a whole bunch of people will say no consensus was reached in that discussion and will' continue to not include the year just as a user did with my edit here at the Malpensa Airport article:[10]. 15:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect anyone who disagrees with whatever decision was reached will always claim that consensus was never reached, since they don't agree. However, there are two definitions of consensus, one clearly based on a majority, while the other suggests total agreement. WP:CON uses the first. If people can't accept that, remember WP:3RR. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but I believe we have to state somewhere within the project that the whole date will be implemented, once and for all, just in case this discussion arises again in the future. The matter is the way we implement this, since voting is not permitted.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
At WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT we have examples that don't match the text instructions. I'll go fix that. HkCaGu (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I am the dreaded user who always disagrees with everyone and in this case removed the year dates. As far as I could see in the discussion I was linked to at MXP airport, there was no consensus reached. Then apart from that I don't see the point of including the date because:
  • It is unnecessary - only if the destination starts in a year and a day or more is the year unclear.
  • It is usually not included, so for consistency we should keep it that way.
Regards, Speed74 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not want to repeat our arguments again, but looks like you haven't even read them. HkCaGu (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The argument I read was that years might be confusing because pages may not have been updated, however this would only apply to destinations starting in a few days less than a year from now, not for destinations starting in March or October 2012, and in those cases editors should see in the history that it was a recent edit (otherwise the year would have been added). Speed74 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong because that is not my four years of experience. We did not want to argue more than once every year whether the cut-off should be 3 months or 6 months or 9 months or 12 months. Last August, everyone who participated in the discussion agreed, eventually. HkCaGu (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Why am I "wrong" exactly? The consensus used to be 13 months and remained as such for a long time. Now that years are sometimes included there is inconsistency, even within articles. Speed74 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Simply put, the MoS as I recall does not require years if the year is clear from the context. Adding the year when it is not required is unnecessary and it can upset some editors and add no value. I did not comment on the last discussion. But this discussion points out the problems with changing from the recommendation in the MoS. If you don't need the year, don't add it! If someone decides to remove the year, let them and don't revert. End of problem and no confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not including a year is that it is not easy to tell if, say, "19 June" is in the past or the future. Anyone who reads Wikipedia regularly knows not to trust absolutely that a particular page has been properly updated recently---but they shouldn't need to go trudging through the page history to find this out. Also, we should not expect a casual reader to be familiar with the ins and outs of a WikiProject's policies (say, about some arbitrary cut-off date).

In the case of larger airports (e.g. Heathrow, LAX, JFK, Pearson), which are watched by a lot of people and updated frequently, this shouldn't be a problem. The problem is with smaller, out-of-the-way places or in relatively obscure locations (such as countries far, far away from where most WP editors reside)--one can't always know when the page was last updated.

Speed74's argument "It is unnecessary - only if the destination starts in a year and a day or more is the year unclear" only works if pages are always kept up-to-date. We all know that this is not always the case.

Regarding what the MoS says: perhaps Vegaswikian could indicate which section of the MoS contains this recommendation. However, how is it "clear from the context" which year is being referred to if all that is written is an isolated "[starts 19 June]"? --RFBailey (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DATESNO. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
...which states: "Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context." My earlier point stands. --RFBailey (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly since if there is no year specified the context of starting and stopping says it is within 12 months hence the context is clear. As I said above there is a simple solution. Of course one can choose the lets go around in circles approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You're missing my point: if the article is clearly up-to-date, then "19 June" most likely means the forthcoming one. But, as I have already stated, when reading an article (particularly if it's about a relatively obscure airport), the reader can't be certain that didn't actually mean "19 June 2009" and that the article (or at least the destinations list) hasn't been updated for three years. By including years as a matter of course, it avoids this potential ambiguity.
WikiProject members and regular editors should never lose sight of the fact that we're writing for the general public, not ourselves: what might be clear to us is not necessarily clear to the reader. --RFBailey (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • We should always include the year. A yearless date will not always be clear to readers, even if the person who added it is thoroughly familiar with their preferred interpretation of wikipedia's date conventions. Content can often go out of date, too. If an editor says "1 June" in an edit today, is a reader supposed to interpret that as June 2011 or June 2012? What about when the text is still standing a year from now? Two years? Are readers supposed to now believe that the date (in reality long since past) is actually in 2013 or 2014? The year is not clear from the context. If you were writing about the 2012 Olympics or the Hundred Days, then dates in the body of the article are clear from the context; if you were writing some prose in chronological order and you say "In March 1980..." then later "In June..." it's reasonable for readers to infer that it's June 1980. However, that's certainly not the case for the ebb and flow of airline services - various services have been starting and stopping each year for many decades and will continue to do so in future, and the setting does not give enough background information for readers to reliably fill in the gaps, so we should tell readers which year. bobrayner (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a complicated matter. For now we have created a mix of year-including and yearless dates, with no clear rule. It may have been best to leave the 13-month limit originally. However it does seem that most editors don't mind including the year. It will be difficult to make a rule for all articles, so we may simply have to leave it as an "include if you want to", with no one allowed to change from year to no-year or vice-versa once the date has been written, unless the date is effectively a year and a day or more away. It does create unevenness, but I don't see another solution. Speed74 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No there is nothing complicated about it. WP:DATESNO does state that yearless dates are basically inappropriate. Life CAN be simple, you just have to let it be. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything complicated either. The reason we have a mix is that not all old listings have been updated to the new consensus, and some editors aren't aware of the change. Thus, all new edits should include the year. Feel free to add the year to existing entries. If you see an editor adding new entries without the year, add the year and post a note on their talk page pointing to the updated guideline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly---if years are included, then there is no ambiguity. All I can conclude from Speed74's comment is that some editors want to make things complicated! --RFBailey (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
But the problem is that some editors who want to make things complicated will state in the edit summary "No consensus reached" or "Year unnecessary unless start date is one year or less from the current date per WP:AIRPORTS guidelines". Some airport pages have sections or sentences mentioning important new routes, airlines, and services at the airport in prose, those must include the year because those service may happen years ago. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) It does not help that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Airports_2 and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airports) give conflicting advice on what to do. The former says not to include the year (and has the bizarre 13-month rule), while the latter specifically states that the year should be included.

Given that the majority view here (as well as in the August 2011 discussion), and the one which is backed up by credible arguments, is that years should be included in dates given in destination lists, it seems that the former guideline should be modified. It's unfortunate that after the last debate that these conflicting guidelines arose. --RFBailey (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I updated the former guideline, to reflect consensus here. Guidelines aren't set in stone; they're a product of discussions between editors... bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does WikiProject Aviation have two different style guide pages with so much overlap? bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea--having net been involved in this project up until recently--but I suspect it's probably best described as "historical reasons". That said, it shouldn't be a problem provided the two sets of guidelines don't give conflicting instructions--although that's exactly what happened here. --RFBailey (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cikgu Jasmin Airways

Just FYI, an IP editor has added this alleged airline to 18 airports; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Cikgu+Jasmin+Airways. Goggle suggests NO such airline exists. [11] 39 Ghits! Regards, 220 of Borg 13:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say remove it as this pretty clearly fails WP:V. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As I was going through trying to clean up the mess, I noticed a claim that Cikgu Jasmin Airways was formerly Miwon Airways, and Cikgu Besar Airways was formerly Kencana Airways. However, neither of the previous names have Wikipedia articles either, so that doesn't help their credibility. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Hawaiian717, and others who reverted. I rechecked and reverted a few that got missed. I rolled-back to September 2011 at Rafha Domestic Airport where the editor changed the infobox to read "Dabur Honitus Arabia International Airport", which had exactly one hit on Google, from WP. And if you Google "Dabur Honitus", you get a cough syrup! Don't know what to make of it. - 220 of Borg 14:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
At Abha Regional Airport they changed the infobox title to Al-Manas International Airport. A change made after they were warned to give sources and asked to give edit summaries, which they have again not done. I have again reverted.
Nota bene* I just checked again and they have again added "Cikgu Jasmin Airways" [12], 9 instances today from 4 yesterday, (in about 8 hours) - 220 of Borg 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I have reverted all instances now. This edit here on 11 January to Irkut MS-21 (a proposed series of twin-engine Russian jet airliners) is particularly revealing. The source at flightglobal.com used as a 'reference' for Cikgu Jasmin Airways ordering this aircraft.makes no mention of that alleged airline at all. And here changing AlMasria Universal Airlines to Mei Mei Airlines, which I am unable to verify as existing, except where it appears on Wikipedia! (7 instances here). This certainly calls into question all edits by this editor, not just the unverifiable airlines. Has this editor made any useful contributions? Should we revert on sight? - 220 of Borg 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left a final note on 78.101.101.192 (talk · contribs)s talk page here to try and get their attention. Unfortunately I didn't get a single comment at WP:AN/I, before it was archived! I will likely un-archive my post there if this situation continues. FYI the same editor appears to have been 78.101.67.111 (talk · contribs) , and 78.100.184.174 (talk · contribs) previously. All IPs 'Geolocate' to the same place and ISP. :-/ 220 of Borg 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing edits following the same pattern coming from 89.211.240.233 (talk · contribs). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the Cikgu Jasmin Airways and Cikgu Besar Airways from Gurayat Domestic Airport along with all the other somewhat fantastical notions of current and future operations. Also removed the |United Airlines|Al Arabiya Cargo services to Doha, Jakarta, Damascus. Same process at Qassim Regional Airport, also full of fantasy airlines and destinations, also undid the vandal work on the infobox. Same again at Rafha Domestic Airport. -- Felix (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that too, that the editor is linking "Al Arabiya Airlines" to United Airlines, the United States-based carrier. I'm taking a revert on sight approach. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Multiple IPs being used and it goes back a fair way into the histories in some articles. -- Felix (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Felix, you removed (correctly) where the editor changed General Authority of Civil Aviation to Tadika Mesra Aviation on Qassim Regional Airport. I Googled 'Tadika Mesra Aviation' [13] and found it on the French Wikipedia. I though we had an inter-wiki vandal, but the fr:Qassim Regional Airport, fr:Tabuk Regional Airport and other pages on fr:WP are new pages. Unfortunately the creator has apparently based theirs on the vandalised version of the en:WP pages. I will attempt to advise them of the problem. - 220 of Borg 03:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as some of the much earlier edits have been sitting in the system for a while they have also trickled down into the content of the many aviation sites that mirror WP info. I am not surprised if some of them have been inadvertently mirrored in WP alt language versions as well. It appears this person started doing this a while ago and has been placing erroneous content into articles for an extended time. In the earlier edits it has sometimes been combined, or associated with some quite normal appearing corrective edits. Some of those earlier contributions were queried or corrected by other editors, many apparently got through and several IPs have been used with similar characteristic pattern and content editing in the same time frame. -- Felix (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Not so much a 'mirror' site, they just seem to have picked some text off our pages as they are writing theirs from scratch. I have left a note at 'Utilisateur:Noel.guillet' on the French Wikipedia, telling them the the false names being added.
• We can also add 89.211.197.136 (talk · contribs) to the 'list', who appears to be the same editor (edits/ ISP & location match) and has been blocked previously in September 2011 [14] --220 of Borg 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I had a reply on my talk from our French colleague who says "I will correct this mad things". - 220 of Borg 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Since all of these IPs are doing the same pattern of edits, I suspect sockpuppetry is the case here. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not mere sockpuppetry Snoozlepet, more like an entire elaborate multi casted puppet show. -- Felix (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Borg, I have also seen the bogus material mirrored on many sites now when I have done google searches on some of the more obscure bogus airlines and destinations. Of course as you are no doubt aware, a couple of the so-called airlines do not even exist. I have since gone back to Sanya Phoenix International Airport and dug out more apparently bogus airline/destination listings. I saw other suspicious listings doing earlier clean ups but did not have the time to painstakingly research each airline and destination. A 'tell' is an unlikely Indonesian or Singapore based operator flying into an improbable destination. I have been spotting some of them due to a familiarity with the ops of some of these airlines and my suspicions have been immediate. Other airlines I am less certain of. Any edit in the last few months by anon IPs editing in a range of middle eastern, north african and asian regions should be viewed with a very enquiring and questioning eye. I suspect there are many more as this person has been using several IPs. Some are obvious like Qantas commencing services into a regional Saudi Arabian airport, or United Airlines starting up services to a small Saudi Airlines whistle stop, however others, especially those attributed to vague 'charter' and 'seasonal' ops should also be viewed with considerable skepticism. In some cases <ref> links have been provided but lead to bogus pages, or the attributed info is not there. This idiot seems to have a fondness for routing regional Indonesian and Singapore airlines into un-scheduled Saudi and Chinese airports but they are not shy of sending some mainline international services into small regional airports as well, and using multiple IPs in an edit series to confuse the provenance of the added content. -- Felix (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur, but I would suggest that any edit by any IP to an Airport (or related page) geolocating from "QATAR, AD DAWHAH, DOHA" through "QATAR TELECOM (QTEL) Q.S.C" be checked, or even just reverted on sight. These are IPs the 'Cikgu Jasmin Airways' vandal has been using, in order of use:
• I suggest that as soon as they start editing again, if possible we lodge a report at WP:AI/V (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). Maybe a preventative block will get their attention. If they change IP then WP:SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations)
• I have also posted a note at the Wikipedia talk:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce, but it seems dormant at this time. - 220 of Borg 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had a reply from Shadowjams (talk · contribs) of the Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce (WP:SVT) - 220 of Borg 23:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi 220, when I did those corrective edits I overlooked checking the 'watch this article' box on most if not all of them. I only came across the silliness when patrolling the Lombok International Airport article. If there is a further outbreak of this nonsense give me a heads up and I will lend a hand if I can. Good work on the cleanups. Tiresome but necessary. I think the French editor summed it up the best. cheers -- Felix (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

After the Philippines, Qatar, Bangladesh and Iberia destination vandals, now a Canada vandal!

See User talk:Markg208. Are we under attack? HkCaGu (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already reported that user to WP:AIV and he was blocked indefinitely for a vandalism-only account. He may come back as a different IP or as a different name....keep an eye out for him. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Listing of London Southend Airport as a destination: Consensus Needed!!!!!

I am now gaining a consensus on how to list Southend Airport as a destination in airport articles since it is causing many disputes and edit warrings on various airport articles. Please write down either "London-Southend" or "Southend-on-Sea" and don't forget to sign your name after your choices. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "London-Southend", definitely, to parallel "London-Gatwick", "London-Heathrow", etc. The phrase "Southend-on-Sea" is not even used in the London Southend Airport article except in a category name. Using Southend-on-Sea in the airport destination lists would be no more useful than listing Grapevine or Paradise or Hebron instead of Dallas/Fort Worth, Las Vegas, or Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wanting to repeat the "London Manston" farce? It was always Southend, and that has always worked. I can't see the need to add "-on-Sea" either. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • London-Southend: airport is called London Southend Airport and serves London. Gertjan R 09:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "London Southend", because that's what sources prefer. This is an encyclopædia; our first duty is to reflect real-world usage rather than changing names to fit our own internal conventions. (For example [15] [16] [17] - I would be happy to change to a different name if it can be shown that good sources prefer a different name.) bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Southend should suffice, and London Southend if the "London" qualification is absolutely necessary (this may vary from list to list). As factually incorrect the "London" bit of London Southend may be, the airport's operators do use "London Southend" as their official name, as do airlines flying into it. Deryck C. 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • London-Southend.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The airport was Southend Municipal from 1947, and only rebranded London Southend in 1993. The NATS AIP listing still has "Southend". HkCaGu (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • London-Southend: airport is called London Southend Airport and serves London. It has been operating as London Southend Airport since 1993 and has good industry recognition as that. Airlines use 'London Southend', for passengers it describes the expected main market, and it has direct rail service linking with London. The CAA itself (industry regulator) have it listed as a London Airport for economic reporting, and have done since the 1950's - this is because they recognise it's market is inextricably linked with London itself.Thames Gateway (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with London-Southend: it's certainly much more plausible as a "London" airport than Oxford or Manston--it's around the same distance from Central London as Stansted is, and has a direct rail connection. Also, "London Southend" is how Easyjet are referring to it, and as they will shortly become the dominant carrier at Southend, this will likely become the WP:COMMONNAME. --RFBailey (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, it should be London Southend, just as London Stansted and London Luton. Oxford and Manston are incomparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFGEGMC (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines destinations

Can anyone provide a source specifically stating that LOT is beginning or resuming flights to Beijing on May 30, 2012? I have tagged a "citation needed" until someone can provide a reference stating it will begin flights to PEK on 30 May 2012. Also, on the Warsaw Airport page, a user is adding "planned" destinations that are to begin in 2013. Can someone please take a look at that page? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Massive vandalism from the Bangladesh Airport Vandal

I've just cleaned up many airports vandalized by a roaming IP vandal from Bangladesh, mostly in the 58.97 range. Please everybody watch out for these suddenly massively added destinations, like the many many that the quiet capital of Bhutan—Paro Airport—suddenly serves. HkCaGu (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Noticed a lot of this going on lately, IP 69.245.39.156 was blocked for this. They had hit Nashville International Airport a lot, adding flights all over the place. It's a busy airport, but they were sticking in flights to Paris, etc., that were completely nonexistent. nf utvol (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That IP was also adding mainline operations which some of those carriers do not (only AA, DL, and US have both express and mainline flights out of BNA). Snoozlepet (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This IP user is at it again, and is adding a bunch of "new" destinations to Shahjalal International Airport, which I happen to have on my watchlist. The IP address is 58.97.184.226, which is the infamous "Bangladesh Airport Vandal." He made a series of edits adding a bunch of passenger destinations here and here, and added a bunch of cargo destinations here, and he even went so far as to change the lead from saying the airport's major airline, Biman Bangladesh Airlines, serves "13 cities in Europe and Asia" to saying the airline serves "60 cities in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America and Oceania," which can't possibly be true. Of course I posted a message on his talk page (like that will help) saying not to add unreferenced stuff to WP, but am going to revert his edits and keep a close eye on this page. There needs to be an IP range-block for 58.97.xxx.xxx so this will stop. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverted his thirteen edits to the page (all in one session) and posted a "last warning" on his talk page. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Air Vanuatu - International Flight Information
  2. ^ Air Vanuatu - International Flight Information
  3. ^ Air Vanuatu - International Flight Information
  4. ^ http://www.jetstar.com/~/media/files/pdf/news/2008/sep/20080910.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.norfolkair.com/schedules.aspxhttp://www.norfolkair.com/schedules.aspx
  6. ^ http://www.ourairline.com.au/MediaRelease001.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_10&oldid=1145685243"