Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"Empty" comments in destination tables

I believe some of you ran into this today. A well-intentioned editor removed many of the empty comment lines some of us have been using to separate airline rows in the destination tables.

I've copied this from my & the other editor's talk pages:

Magioladitis, please stop removing empty comments from airport articles; they are deliberate, as they GREATLY ease editing of the destination tables. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm.... do you find it easier than just empty lines? Mclay1 has asked for this and in fact I also find the page cleaner. I 'll stop removing it from airports till we sort it out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop for now removing comments on airports but I wonder how did that started for airport pages. Editors have asked me in the past to remove empty comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed all pages with the word "airport" from my list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty lines also change the layout of the table. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, Magioladitis. I was just about to say what Slasher-fun did. I believe I started adding empty comments to airport articles and everyone else picked up on it. I was afraid of having a non-empty comment, since that would just add to the existing density of text in these tables. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

After reverting these changes, I made a change at Dayton International Airport by adding a hyphen to the comments. Would this make them "non-empty" enough to avoid a future editor or bot? Thoughts? Thanks.--Chaswmsday (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The empty comments do help in visually separating one airline from another. Since these tables are frequently updated it is important to make editing as simple as possible. There's nothing wrong with them. —Compdude¹²³ 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed extra hyphen to + sign w/o spaces. IMO, slightly easier to figure out w/o counting hyphens but still, I hope, non-empty. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinks by User:Lzdimitar

Lzdimitar has been repeatedly asked not to remove wikilinks from destination tables. However, s/he continues to do so: Astana International Airport, Minsk International Airport, Narimanovo Airport, Tashkent International Airport, Ulan-Ude Airport and Vitoria Airport. However, in this more recent edit to Barcelona-El Prat Airport, s/he correctly adds a wikilinked destination to the table. Is there hope this editor is now following project guidelines? --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A block will educate the user. I already warned him/her about the same issue not so long ago.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've come across this editor before: last time,, they were removing years from start/end dates, after we'd agreed they should be included. However, a block is not warranted: an editor can't be blocked simply for not following a WikiProject's editorial guideline, unless there's a violation of the three-revert rule, which doesn't appear to be the case here. --RFBailey (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nobody is required to follow guidelines of a WikiProject. The only firm rules on Wikipedia are the five pillars, as we all know. —Compdude¹²³ 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. If I wouldn't, I'd wonder why are we dropping tons of lines at WP:AIRLINES and here —sometimes involving heated discussions— if we will finally let everyone to do their own? Furthermore, I'd ask what are guidelines for? Last Tuesday, it took me three hours to turn the destinations table in Ethiopian Airlines destinations to the new proposed format. Are you suggesting that anyone can come and undo my edits just because s(he) doesn't like the new format? --Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, we want everyone to follow the guidelines, but they are not required to. The guidelines point out what the project consensus is, and most people will follow them if you just point it out to them. —Compdude¹²³ 22:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If people refuse to follow them, and violate the 3-revert-rule to make their point, then they could get blocked. —Compdude¹²³ 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that this user shouldn't be following the guidelines, or that the guidelines can't be used as a reason to revert this users edits, just that we can't go around demanding that the user be blocked for not following them. In any situation, the purpose of a block is not to "educate" a user. --RFBailey (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is after deliberately going against them, even after being warned many times.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At what point does editing against consensus become vandalism? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, what are guidelines for? Separately, can you please tell me as an admin the reason why another admin blocked the user this time? Disruptive editing was argued.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can not explain why another editor or admin does something. Guidelines are in place to help everyone build a better encyclopedia with more effort spent in doing actual work rather then arguing points over and over. Blocking an editor is a stern sanction. I have blocked quickly in some cases, and it others only after a full set of warnings. Why? Judgement about what the issue is and the extent of the problem. Where all of these right? I don't know. The guidelines help everyone make the a more correct judgements. Are we perfect? Probably not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, you would have to ask the admin concerned as to why they made that decision, although with it being several months ago they may not remember. The grounds given were disruptive editing. --RFBailey (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just re-wikilinked destinations in Sofia Airport. I would argue that Lzdimitar is engaged in disruptive editing. While the changes to WP:AVIMOS and WP:WikiProject Airports/page content were deliberately made optional by consensus, that does not give an editor license to disruptively revert edits made per that consensus, with no explanation given for the revert, as called for in Help:Edit summary. I invite Lzdimitar to reply here. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

By repeatedly removing links and not explaining why, one could say that he is disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and that would be a reason to block. —Compdude¹²³ 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user hasn't made any edits at all for the last five days, so no action is needed for now. If the disruptive behaviour resumes, then something may need to be done. --RFBailey (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Airports RM

Hello. There is currently an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on whether to use hyphens or dashes in airport names. You may be interested. Thanks, David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal Thai Air Force Bases

Some editors are questioning the naming policy after articles on RTAFB Don Muang, RTAFB Korat]], RTAFB Udorn and RTAFB Ubon were re-named to this style which is similar to other military airport articles (such as RAF stations) where the country is indicated in the title (unlike Eielson Air Force Base]]. Can an administrator make a decision. Previous discussion can be found at User talk:Petebutt#our renaming of Thai Air Force base articles Petebutt (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual format used is immaterial in truth as just about every iteration is covered by a re-direct and search engines will pick up the article whatever he title. No need to panic about loss of accessibility etc.Petebutt (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what #redirects are used for. The abbreviation is not the official name of the base, such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. There is a #redirect for Wright-Patterson AFB. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: A move request has been opened at Talk:RTAFB Don Muang#Requested move. --115.67.34.74 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the long version of the name looks wrong do we have a reliable reference to what the RTAF actually call these bases in English? MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is what they were before they were renamed. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to wonder, what is the regular name used for these locations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Petebutt, I am an administrator, but the proper process is underway at the Requested Move discussion. However, if you would like my personal opinion, we should be using the WP:COMMONNAME of the base. Did you check or research what these bases are actually called by the Thai man or woman-on-the-street before you moved them all to the acronym only title? Bwmoll3, do you have *any* evidence that they aren't just generally referred to as 'X air base'; do you have any Thai sources on the names of the bases? We should prioritise Thai sources over USAF sources here - these bases are in a foreign country. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually live in Korat and the base is known as RTAFB Korat (in english)Petebutt (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

FANTASTIC !! We've got a local talking. Thankyou for your edits and the moves, Petebutt. What you have done is *exactly* in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. However, this is Wikipedia, and we need WP:Verifiable sources. Can you link us to a local newspaper, or some other source, that refers to the base as 'RTAFB Korat'? This is because User:Bwmoll3 is an excellent editor of U.S. Air Force articles, and in his USAF sources, they may be all referred to as Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, or something like that. But first, what's the name in Thai? Have you added the name in Thai, in Thai script, to all the bases, immediately after the English name? It should have the Thai name added - that's another of Wikipedia's rules.

Again, thankyou for your edits and the moves - you have done exactly the right thing, but we will need verifiable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately I can't back up my assertion with verifiable sources but the shorter the title the better. If there is huge objection to using RTAFB then just Korat Air Base etc etc. would probably be best.Petebutt (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you give us a source, PeteButt? No local online newspaper? Thai national newspaper web version? Thai language version? Thai language website? Doesn't have to be English - we're Wikipedia, we've got translators on tap... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

AFHRA Records Search for "RTAFB" Here is a search in the Air Force Historical Records Agency archives. They are always are designated "Royal Thai Air Force Base", even when I submitted the abbreviation "RTAFB" in the search. That and being stationed at Korat many years ago was the designation I was always aware of, and the name I used when I originally wrote the articles several years ago. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Destination Maps

At General Mitchell International Airport there is the following map. Is this going to be an airport wide policy or should someone remove it? I personally think that this is a nice map but the latitude and longitude and just the whole code is difficult. Kairportflier (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Destinations map

Milwaukee Akron/Canton Atlanta Baltimore/Washington Boston Charlotte Chicago-O'Hare Cincinnati Cleveland Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Des Moines Detroit Ft. Lauderdale Ft. Meyers Houston Kansas City Las Vegas Los Angeles Memphis Minneapolis-St. Paul New Orleans JFK LaGuardia Newark Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Rhinelander San Francisco Seattle/Tacoma St. Louis Tampa Toronto Washington-National class=notpageimage| Domestic destinations from General Mitchell International Airport

Looks kinda cool to me, though I'd create a wrapper template (even if just to be used initially as a subst) to abbreviate things a little, like:

 {{Dest map
 | caption =		Domestic destinations from General Mitchell International Airport
 | title =		Destination Map
 | defpos =		right
 | deflabsize =		100
 | defmarksize =	7
 | lat0 = 42.95 | lon0 = -87.90 | lab0 = Milwaukee	| pos0 = left
 | lat1 = 33.64 | lon1 = -84.43 | lab1 = Atlanta
 | lat2 = 39.18 | lon2 = -76.67 | lab2 = Baltimore/Washington | pos2 = under
 ...
 }}

Note that, with a 1000pel-wide map, the res is about 5km/pel for the whole-US map. Lat/lon only need 2 decimal places (~1km precision), which helps abbreviate things further. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice but it probably doesn't need to be so big. Definitely would need to be a template for easier editing. Something like this could even be useful for airline articles, to show all the destinations they serve (but it'd probably get too crowded, especially for big airlines). Just a thought... —Compdude¹²³ 05:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually looks good, but I'm afraid we're relying upon visual aspects rather than content if we include it in every airport article. Where at any specific article will the sources supporting the destinations appear? Just another thought.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't replace the existing destination table (with footnotes to sources) – just add the map below it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure it really adds to the article, airports like JFK or LHR would be so complicated as to defeat any value. Most people can make a mental picture from the destinations lists. We would still need the lists to provide reliable references and it would have a maintenance cost. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, it doesn't work for larger airports, but I think it is of value in visualization for the typical regional or developing country with a dozen or two destinations. The references should already be in the table (for those that agree with that). The map should simply reflect what's in the table. Nothing wrong with a little window dressing around the substance :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Having something like this is better than having an image with all the destinations. It would be easier to update, to begin with. —Compdude¹²³ 18:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It would definitely be better than this:

Current map style
Cities with direct international passenger airlinks with Honolulu International Airport

—Compdude¹²³ 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Style guide

I have some issues with the style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content:

• Note 7 says List non-stop and direct flights only. Since non-stops, by definition, are direct flights, this seems unnecessarily confusing. Further, this issue is repeatedly violated by newbies, and should be moved up to position 2 to emphasize its importance.
• Note 10 says For future destinations, add: "[begins date service begins]". Why are square brackets used in this particular place? Parentheses are the more appropriate English punctuation anywhere else and don't present the same parsing issues (i.e. confusion with external weblinks).

Further, should we really be adding supposed future service dates? I suppose if they are in the reservation systems, there is some chance that service will occur, but I just saw someone add one supposedly starting in December, 2013 (15 months from now)! Maybe a clarification on verifiability (e.g. via a res system) or limit on how far in advance is appropriate?

• Note 13 says Do not separate flights into domestic (national) and international but my guess is that this is often incorrect, with the flights usually using different terminals for international security requirement reasons in all but the smallest airports.
• There is some "weak" language (like "may" instead of "must" or "do") that should be strengthened.

The last line on the page, in bold, is Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article. I contend that this bit of touchy-feely WP:IAR anarchy isn't really true, at least not as a literal reading of it implies, and that having it here can't possibly help. It's guaranteed that ignoring standards for airport articles in particular will, and should, get someone blocked, since these articles are really just a textual rendering of factual database elements, designed to make the data (supposedly) easier for human consumption. It's tough enough to maintain articles in this format – without the fairly minimal standards that have been documented, it would be a lost cause. There's really not a lot of room for editorial creativity in these articles, is there? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re non-stop/direct: I think it's better to mention both, as it reinforces that the two terms are not synonymous, which is a common misunderstanding. But perhaps it should be moved up the list.

Re square brackets: maybe parentheses would be better, but the amount of effort required to change them would likely not be worth it.

Re future dates: if there is a reliable source (e.g. airline press release, local news story) with an actual, confirmed start date (e.g. "20 September 2012" rather than a vague "late 2012") this shouldn't present a problem. However, flights existing in a reservation system should not be a prerequisite, if another reliable source exists---too often, certain editors have insisted on imposing this as a requirement, even though no such requirement exists, with stupid edit wars being the result.

Re domestic/international: I'm not sure what you mean here. (In Canadian airports, for instance, domestic and non-US international passengers are often mixed, and US passengers segregated as they've passed through border pre-clearance, rather than for security requirements.)

Re "weak language": this is often deliberate, as these guidelines have frequently been the subject of some excessively-heated debate, and using "stronger" language would only have ignited more arguments. Similarly, the "touchy-feely" reminder about WP:IAR is probably there for a reason: far too often have stupid arguments arisen on this page as a result of editors taking the guidelines too literally in situations where it was appropriate to ignore them. --RFBailey (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

We should remove direct flights from that as direct flights can stop in another city before going on and that would make it very difficult for SWA flights for example where almost all flights continue on somewhere else. I also think we should change the start and end date square brackets to parenthesis because it just makes more sense. Kairportflier (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't get what the reasoning is behind using brackets instead of parentheses. —Compdude¹²³ 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Brackets are from the old pre-table, text list days. I agree we can proceed to parentheses. Regarding directs, we do have a need because of their relevance as people actually stay on the plane (best example being Continentel/United's Island Hopper (HNL-MAJ-KWA-KSA-PNI-TKK-GUM). Listing just two destinations for the middle islands seems bad. We already exclude through-hubs, plane changes, timetable directs (this already excludes, in practice, all SWA continuations). HkCaGu (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

About the whole domestic/international thing, that was put in here because people were separating the domestic and international destinations for each airline, even though they were both in the same terminal. If that bit wasn't there, we'd be having destination tables that look like this. The change was mentioned in an archived discussion here. —Compdude¹²³ 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the discussion. I think separating the destinations by country (with flag) is informative (I don't recognize a lot of the small towns I'm dealing with lately). I started to leave the country names in the destination links yesterday, but realized that, because the city and country are comma-separated and then the destinations are comma-separated from each other, it just led to more confusion. I think grouping them by country resolves the need to name the country on each link, and just presents a more clear mental picture of where they are. Without that, if you're trying to determine where Ryan Air flies to in Great Britain, you'd have to read and evaluate dozens of alphabetically-ordered city names, remembering the ones you recognize as being in GB (assuming you have that knowledge). The example seems far more useful to me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to switching the start and end date brackets to parenthesis? Kairportflier (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think parenthesis are used too often, and brackets look better anyhow. N124BC (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the looks doesn't mater. There needs to be a valid reason to objecting. Overuse and bad looks is no valid reason. Kairportflier (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one? I will change it then. Kairportflier (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

On references/sources for a new service, where do the citations normally go? I have seen some article that have citations after the punctuation and some before. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After. I believe. No one has told me that when I corrected in that direction I was wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After, per WP:CITEFOOT. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Are we talking about a city name in the destination table, like "Paris, London, Madrid"? I would say this falls under the exception where the reference needs to be tied closely to just one clause of a sentence, and should appear before the comma (i.e. "Paris^[1], London^[2], Madrid^[3]"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEFOOT is clear about that. Why making an exception?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why it'd make any difference to have the ref after the comma. It just looks weird when it's put before any sort of punctuation mark. —Compdude¹²³ 05:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks particularly weird when there are multiple citations (perhaps not as applicable in this case, but still). --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since we got para/brackets on start/end dates and citations covered. If an airline operate from multiple terminals at an airport or for instance ExpressJet and SkyWest both operate for United Express and Delta Connection and there are listed twice. Is it really necessary to link every entry or just link the first entry is sufficient? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd link all the entries, not just the first one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Colgan Air

Colgan Air has ceased flying on September 5, 2012 per Colgan Air's and United's website. However, some UAX's Colgan Air are still listed at some airports (flying to/from Washington-Dulles which the last batch of flights have "ends October 1, 2012" or a day or two before that date). Need someone to confirm that Colgan has ended all flights and no longer operating. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

American Eagle operated by SkyWest flights

From November 15, 2012, SkyWest will operate some flights on behalf of American Eagle but sources did not specify which routes are going to operate by SkyWest. However, on LAX page, some Eagle destinations are listed as "ends November 14, 2012" with SkyWest flights beginning the next day. Can anyone confirm this? Snoozlepet (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're probably going to have to check the flight schedules via aa.com. I noticed on San Diego International Airport, the SkyWest flights were listed as starting on November 14, not 15, so watch for that, too. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RAF St Eval.jpg

file:RAF St Eval.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Russian IATA"

13 Kyrgystan airport articles (and no others) make reference to a "Russian IATA code", which is in Cyrillic characters. Presumably, this is a code that was issued by the Soviet-era airport-governing authority. What is it actually called, and is there an article for it? Tamchy Airport cites this apparently unofficial site (which calls it what Google translates to "internal code"), but it has at least one error (Tamchy is shown with ICAO code UAFR, not UAFL). List of airports in Kyrgyzstan also includes an IATA code column, in which these codes are listed in parens without any reference to their source. I'd like to correct these to the proper name for these country-local codes.

Shouldn't the {{Airport codes}} and {{Infobox airport}} templates (and probably airline equivalents) support a generic "country-local" code at least in addition to the US- and Canadian-specific params?

Additionally, what is the "GPS Code" referred to in those templates? The wikilinks are to the GPS article, which makes no mention of them, and I can't find any other reference to them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

GPS code could certainly be clarified. The example when it was added was KOWD[1] (Norwood Memorial Airport). Apteva (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that that is a mistake, and that the ICAO code (not GPS code) for the airport is KOWD, as in the Infobox. Unfortunately, the latest ICAO list I can find (2010-09-17) has lots of problems (about which I'm writing them), including omission of this airport. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree - theoretically there could be a GPS code, but as far as I can tell GPS uses the ICAO code. Apteva (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the issue, though. A given GPS device will show whatever map is installed in it, which may contain IATA, ICAO, local, etc., depending on the map publisher. AFAIK, there is no "GPS code". My Garmin 60csx, for example, has a custom map in it that I compiled from OSM. Before that, the Garmin basemap had no codes at all – just names. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bump. I've confirmed that OWD does have the ICAO code KOWD in the FAA NASR/NFDC and updated the article accordingly. Anyone else have any ideas about what the GPS code in the template is supposed to be for? I have the feeling that I'll find it to not be used (or used erroneously) if I download all pages that refer to the template.

Also, anyone know what the Russian IATA mentioned above is supposed to be? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing ICAO airport codes for article leads (and leaving them in the infobox)

Virtually every Wikipedia airport article has IATA/ICAO/FAA LID codes mentioned both in the opening sentence and in the infobox (see eg. [2]). Is there a good reason for this, or actually any reason at all for this? I posit that they belong in the infobox alone, and not in the opening sentence. Jpatokal (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping them in the text. The infobox is not as accessible as the text. Keeping them in the text is similar to articles on animals that use the common name and also the scientific name. Both also appear in the infobox. Apteva (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead is what appears in the popups in Google Earth (and, I imagine, other places), and is a valuable reference now that many of their airport sources are missing from GE and the layers that are there often have no codes. In fact, many articles don't have the codes in the lead, but I wish they would. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You many want to check the aviation related archives for a discussion. I seem to recall a discussion that favored the use in the infobox rather than the inline template. Having said that, there are still articles around that have this written out in a section. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the codes were not needed in the text as they were in the infobox but I cant find it at the moment. As far as I know we dont have a requirement to make google earth users happy! As a by the way Mobile users see the infobox first and have to scroll down to find the introduction. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That generally isn't true of Infoboxes, though. They generally duplicate information from the article, often from the lead. Also, the lead paragraph and especially sentence are supposed to contain the most notable aspects of the subject. I contend that the codes certainly qualify for that, and are sometimes more well-known than the name of the airport itself. If I'm editing an airport article for some other reason, and it has the codes elsewhere (or not at all) I put them into a {{Airport codes}} template immediately following the name of the airport in the lead sentence and confirm that they match the Infobox. I suggest that that be the recommended style. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I can buy IATA codes being important for some airports, but ICAO codes are very much obscure technical trivia that are of no interest to 99.99% of people reading the article (and the remaining 0.01% can find it in the infobox). Hell, I run an aviation site and have spent hours tweaking the airport databases, and the only ICAO code I remember off the bat is Singapore's (WSSS!). Jpatokal (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been under the impression for years that, except for the image, an infobox may not have any unique content - everything in an infobox must also exist somewhere else in the article. I can't remember how or where I first acquired the idea (I've been an active editor since 2007) but I thought I'd just mention it for what it's worth. Roger (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that's incorrect, as a casual glance at any city infobox (eg. Helsinki) will show: there are plenty of stats and figures not used elsewhere in the article. Jpatokal (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For many (perhaps most) other types of Infoboxes, though, it is correct – information is duplicated to/from the article, by design. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bump. So, are there objections to removing ICAO codes from airport leads? Jpatokal (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object. In addition to the notability issue cited above, I'll note that one of the WP tools that I have enabled renders the lead of an article when you mouse over the link, and it is helpful to have the codes visible there without having to actually click on the link and load the whole page. (At the moment, there is a bug preventing this from working with the template-wrapped codes, but that should be fixed at some point. ) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing that IATA (3-letter) codes are notable, I'm only suggesting that we remove the ICAO (4-letter) codes. So Charles de Gaulle Airport would still have "CDG" in the lead, it just won't have "LPFG". Jpatokal (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody's made a move mess at Melbourne Airport

Per [3], somebody's made a page move which goes against consensus and WP:COMMON. If there are any admins out there reading this, will it be possible to move the page back, since the person moving it made a mess by creating a quadruple redirect at the original Melbourne Airport title, thus disabling it from being moved back at its original title. Thanks. Sb617 (Talk) 05:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I should also note that this is not the only Australian airport article this editor has moved.Vegaswikian (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing Kingfisher Airlines from destination tables

The airline's operating license was suspended by India's government on 20 October 2012. But Kingfisher is still listing in the airlines destinations table where Kingfisher operates but says "Operations suspended definitely on 20 October 2012". However, the airline page is written in past tense as the airline as become defunct (but its website its still in operation with the booking engine, etc. still active). Snoozlepet (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your question, exactly? "Suspended" implies a temporary condition, as opposed to "cancelled", which would seem more permanent, justifying a change in tense and removal from destination tables. What is the word "definitely" supposed to mean? Or was it a typo of "indefinitely"? What did the suspending authority's or the airline's official press release say? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The airline's press release (http://www.flykingfisher.com/media-center/press-releases/statement-from-kfa--mumbai-october-20th-2012.aspx) says that it is just a temporarily suspension not a cancellation. I am asking is do we leave Kingfisher Airlines in the destinations table with destinations but with a note saying "Operations suspended until further notice". Just like airline temporarily suspending flights to Libya and Syria? Snoozlepet (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like they suspended operations because of the strike before the DGCA suspended their license. I would add the following to the destination list:

(Suspended {{As of|2012|10|lc=y}})

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

New RfC

After the RfC located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 11#Request for comment didn't come to a consensus on whether hyphens (-) or en dashes (–) should be used in airport titles, I filed an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport#Requested move. That hasn't produced a definite result either, so I'm going to try an request for comment again.

Here is the question: should airports use hyphens (like Raleigh-Durham International Airport) or dashes (like Seattle–Tacoma International Airport)?

David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens

• I googled both airports and the results both showed up with hyphens. I think we should continue to use hyphens. Thepoodlechef (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a meaningless statistic; it shows up more commonly with hyphens because people have hyphens on their keyboards and don't have en-dashes on them. That doesn't mean that hyphens are more typographically appropriate in a medium like Wikipedia, where the en-dash is available in the toolbox immediately below the editing window, nor that any airport authority has issued a statement that their official name contains a hyphen not an en-dash. Just because people without screwdrivers may attempt to beat screws into wood with a hammer as if they were nails doesn't mean that a hammer is the proper tool to use for screws. See also WP:GOOGLE: "Search engines cannot ... guarantee why something is mentioned a lot ... [or] that a particular result is the original instance of a piece of text." This en-dash vs. hyphen grammar matter has already been settled at WP:MOS, anyway. Re-re-re-raising it here is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

An exhaustive search of all 37 I think it was airports in the United States shows that all should be using hyphens, based on common usage and that is the same as Wilkes-Barre or Franco-British. I would suggest adding an airport as an example to the MOS, plus the name of a city and a bird (bird names all use hyphens). I have not looked at hyphenated airport names in other countries. The articles on Charles de Gaulle uses hyphen, Orly hypen, Le Bourget en dash, for the three Paris airports. Apteva (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a lovely edit summary for moving Le Bourget from hyphen to en dash: 22:30, 31 December 2009‎ DASHBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (moved Paris - Le Bourget Airport to Paris – Le Bourget Airport over redirect: Robot: Moving pages per WP:HYPHEN) Apteva (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The place where this will go in the MOS after this is resolved is in the section that says "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names, such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names, such as Trois-Rivières, and Wilkes-Barre." Clearly all airports are proper names. You can not separate Paris from Orly. It is not an airport that lets you fly from Paris to Orly, it is Paris-Orly airport, the name of the airport. It should be noted that hyphens are also used with a space before and after in some cases - the actual name of the Atlanta airport, according to the FAA, is "Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International", whereas the actual name of Seattle's airport is "Seattle-Tacoma International", both using a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. That's a completely distinct kind of case. "Black-backed" is a compound adjective: The bird has a black that in turn is black. "Seattle–Tacoma" is a single modifier (or a single, vague, entity, in phrases like "the Seattle–Tacoma area") composed of two juxtaposed entities. The sub-entity "back" of the entity "bird" is not being juxtaposed with an equal-level sub-entity "black"; black is a description of the back. "Seattle" is not a description of Tacoma. Anyway, this won't go in MOS, before or after anything, because it's not a valid exception. See WP:SSF for why. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hyphens sometimes, sure. But sometimes en dashes! You can't generalise a rule for all cases. It depends on the semantics: see WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH, both at WP:MOS. But above all, this is a style issue, not a matter of focusing directly on what appears to be the usage of sources. (Appears, because Google searching and such means are badly used in discussions of this sort. They are often wildly misleading.) Wikipedia's style guidelines in MOS depend on sources, as you would expect. But their rather special sources are other major style guides and manuals (yes, MOS is one itself), and the general practices of high-quality publications. This is the way style choices work. We don't go out hunting for precedents for every particular question that turns up! That would assume that the whole MOS effort is redundant; but it is not. By definition, styles vary out there in the world; the same words and phrases, for example, occur with different capitalisation, hyphenation, and text styling (italics, etc.). Different sources have different styles. We adopt their wording, but add to that the consensually derived style that the Wikipedia community has settled on. This RFC question is badly posed, in more than one way; so see also my responses in the sections below, also. Noetica^Tea? 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I found several newspaper articles saying explicitly that airport X has a hyphenated name, I put them in a list below. I can't find any source saying that airport names are dashed, not even suggesting it.

Anyways, our own Manual of Style recommends hyphen for these cases: "Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names such as Trois-Rivières and Wilkes-Barre." WP:HYPHEN.

There are some common sense exceptions, which should be examined case by case. For example, Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport is named after Minneapolis–Saint Paul, which we are spelling with a dash. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Enric, how does your contribution fit into the indentation scheme established for this subsection? Please take care to ensure that the discussion stays readable.
  Now look: when a newspaper claims that Airport X has "a hyphenated name", it is not making the sorts of distinctions that style specialists make. The author is most likely unaware that there are en dashes, even. Hence the wild diversity in styles that we see out there in the world, even in the styling on one web page, with the same word or phrase. Similarly, Google is almost completely oblivious to the distinction. But style guides are not. They give different guidelines for managing the distinction; but yes, they do give them, and the users of style guides and manuals do follow them, regardless of the ignorance and chaotic variability encountered on web pages, in advertisements, and wherever else. Wikipedia is no exception. It has a manual of style; and the idea is that we follow it, in the interests of clarity, accuracy, navigability, and professional appearance. Ultimately, for the benefit of the readers.
  Your campaign against such an arrangement is pretty well known. It would be more constructive for you to wage it centrally, and with accurate reporting of the relevant detail – rather than wherever the opportunity arises at more particular discussions, and with details that call for lengthy correction.
  Noetica^Tea? 23:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any example of a style guide saying that airport names should be dashed. And airports have proper names with legal status. And the consensus in wikipedia is quite clear in our manual of style: proper names should be hyphenated. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• I asked for sources in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources won't really be relevant. This is a style issue, not a facts issue. Airports and the companies that operate them are likely to use hyphens when they should use en-dashes, because hyphens are on keyboards and en-dashes aren't. WP doesn't care. We have a consistent convention to use en-dashes when two entities are juxtaposed ("Dallas–Fort Worth"), and there's no magical exception for airports. We don't write "macy*s", but use "Macy's", regardless of the fact that the corporate logo says "macy*s". Reliable sources on facts are not reliable sources on style in an online encyclopedia, even in articles about those facts. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction. Minneapolis–Saint Paul is spelled with an en dash because it is an article about a region that has not "attained proper-name status, including informal conventional names (Southern California; the Western Desert)". There is no city called "Minneapolis-Saint Paul", but there is an airport called "Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport", and just like any other proper name, is joined with a hyphen, not an en dash. When you create an article about "Minneapolis-Saint Paul something", that is not a proper name and uses an en dash. If you create an article about "Wilkes-Barre something", a hyphen is used, because Wilkes-Barre has "attained proper-name status". If Wilkes and Barre were two cities that shared an airport, the region would use an en dash, and the airport would use a hyphen. Another example is if two people are named Jones and Smith and they write a paper together, it is the Jones–Smith paper, with an en dash. If they marry and take each others names, each has the last name Jones-Smith with a hyphen (or any combination of thereof - one can take Jones-Smith, the other Smith-Jones, for example). Apteva (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See what I said to you above. You're misapprehending both the rules in play and their rationales. MOS calls for an en-dash here because "Minneapolis" and "Saint Paul" are equal-level entities being juxtaposed, not one modifying the other, as would be the case with, say, "Burton-on-Trent" ("on Trent" modifies "Burton"). It has nothing to do with some notion of official recognition. One would use an en-dash here regardless of whether one were writing of an airport named Minneapolis–Saint Paul Airport" (WP doesn't care about the exact orthography used by corporate entities, per WP:TRADEMARK, and we know that many such businesses and such use hyphen when they shouldn't, because hyphens are visible on keyboards), or in a phrase like "the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area" generically. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dashes

• WP:MOSDASH already has this covered, and there is no magically special exemption for airports. It's "Boston–Cambridge", not "Boston-Cambridge", unless and until Boston and Cambridge merge and officially change their collective name to "Boston-Cambridge"; asserting the existence of an entity called "Boston-Cambridge", even adjectivally, is a severe WP:NOR failure, as is asserting that incidental appearance of a what may be a hyphen in some publications equates to an official declaration that the name is and must always be (ungrammatically!) spelled with hyphen.

  There is nothing wrong with putting the article title at the hyphen version in, and only in, a case where the official name of the airport can be proven conclusively and consistently to use a hyphen. Good luck with that, since the characters are not even distinguishable in many typefaces. Show an authoritative source that says "The official name of this airport has a hyphen not an en-dash in it". Anywhere. Ever. Mistaking the use of what appears to someone to be a hyphen (which is not likely to be be provably and intentionally not an en-dash, anyway) in some sampling of official airport materials does not equate (correlation does not equal causation!) to an active, official, conscious intent and policy that the name of that airport defy grammar conventions and use a hyphen where it should use an en-dash. That would be an extraordinary claim, and therefore would require extraordinarily stringent sourcing, e.g. a public "we hate en-dashes" letter from the airport's board of directors.

  See also WP:TRADEMARK; Wikpiedia does not care about and will not honor the typographic weirdness demands of "official" names of anything, even those subject to trademark law. We use "Macy's", exactly like that, not with a lowercase 'm' and not with a star in place of the apostrophe, for a reason. That reason is the basis of MOS: We are here to make an encyclopedia the most people can read with a minimum of cognitive dissonance, and the editing of which causes a minimum of strife. One quick way to get rid of endless, pointless strife is for MoS (and WP:AT policy) to effectively forbid nonsensical typographic shenanigans, like using stars for apostrophes or hyphens for en-dashes. And yes, like many others, these concerns do override WP:COMMONNAME, by definition. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• En dashes sometimes, sure. But sometimes hyphens! Therefore see my response in the section above, also. A badly posed RFC question, sorry. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Either

• Neither should be prohibited. If sources show a strong preference for one form of a name over the other, we should follow that. What sources say about the outside world should trump wikipedia's internal style rules. (Right now we have a number of articles at made-up names because somebody has interpreted part of the MOS to mean that a subject's real name shouldn't be used). bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're misconstruing WP:V. Reliable sources on airports, airlines and their operations are not reliable sources on English language style and typography in an online encyclopedia. That's what we have WP:MOS for, and its one and only purpose is making the encyclopedia easier to read and edit; if a common usage impedes that, it is dispensed with, even if some sources use or recommend it. See WP:SSF for why mistaking subject-matter authorities for style and grammar authorities is illogical and leads to nothing but problems. Making the leap from "this source appears to be reliable about facts relating to X" to "this source must somehow be authoritative about English language usage, too, simply because X happens to be the topic" violates WP:NOR, as a blatant case of novel synthesis and then some. It's a Korzybskian fallacy of conflating the menu with meal, the map with the territory. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• En dashes when they are semantically correct, and hyphens when they are semantically correct. Therefore see my responses in the section above, also. A badly posed RFC question, sorry. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 12:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• STFU The goal of any RFC should be to improve the encyclopedia for the benefit of our readers. Our readers don't give a shit whether hyphens or dashes are users. Neither do 99% of Wikipedians. You can use them interchangeably, secure in the knowledge that nobody cares. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Typographic guidelines should apply to the text. Titles should not changed simply for a textual typographic guide. Titles should be based on the actual name as best represented in English, minus stylistic 'enhancements'. Do the readers prefer a title they can cut and past somewhere that is accurate or do they prefer a title that they can cut and paste somewhere that meets our style guide but is wrong? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you. And clearly a rhetorical question. Answer - one that is accurate. Apteva (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can not speak for any country other than the United States, but I did an exhaustive search of the 53 airport names at List of airports in the United States that include a hyphen or en dash, and found one that used a minus sign, (MSP), eight that used an en dash, and 28 that used a hyphen. The rest were in alternate or old names of airports and not in article titles. The only one in the list that uses an en dash is for an airport that appears to be misnamed, as the actual name of the airport appears to be Rock Springs Sweetwater County Airport. See the list at WP:MOS. I checked the official websites for all eight that used an en dash and found that all of them use a hyphen. I checked the FAA website and it uses a hyphen. I checked books on airports and found that most use a hyphen. I think I can safely say that it is common usage to use a hyphen for U.S. airports. I have no information about airports in other countries. Apteva (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Malformed question. The answer is not hyphen, or dashes, or either. The answer is to use whichever one is correct, in the sense that it conveys the correct meaning according the to usual rules of English grammar and typography, as WP style says we use. This is in no way a question about airport titling. For airports named after a pair of cities, the en dash conveys that. Many sources use a slash, as in Raleigh/Durhan and Reno/Tahoe, because they recognize that a hyphen isn't what they mean, but don't understand that the en dash is the correct alternative; that doesn't mean WP needs to consider the slash either. As for Paris-Orly, that's not a name normally used for Orly airport. In English books it's usually Paris Orly Airport; in French, when it's "Aéroport de Paris - Orly", the spaces around the hyphen strongly imply that a dash is intended (we'd use either an unspaced em dash or spaced en dash for that). There is no parallelism between Paris and Orly here, so the en dash would not normally be used as in "Paris–Orly Airport". Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Or "Orly Airport". The question is not "many sources" but what is the name of the airport? Clearly some people would recommend that an airport serving two cities should use an en dash. But how many of those people who recommend an en dash are actually in a position to ever name an airport? And on Wikipedia definitely does not count. Clearly there are some people who would recommend a hyphen, and some a /. There are airports named with a /, but evidently 100% of the airports that I have been able to study were named by people who recommend a hyphen instead of an en dash, such as Atlanta, which in 2003 considered two proposals, Jackson/Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, and Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and chose the latter, although the ordinance uses both Hartsfield - Jackson and Hartsfield-Jackson. It certainly could be because 0% of people who name airports have ever heard of an en dash, but that is irrelevant. If you name your child something because you never knew the correct spelling of the name you had in mind, that is still the name they have. To me, though, the distinction is does the concatenation constitute a proper name? If it does, than a hyphen is used. If not, then an en dash is used. Unless everyone spells it differently, whereby from wp:common (which is "above any policy", and wp:commonname, we would use the commonly used spelling. Apteva (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Before pushing the child's name analogy too far: My grandmother's name was Louisa. Or Luisa. Or even Louise, depending on which document you read. Punctuation in the name of an airport is likely to have a similar problem. That's why they use airport codes. Art LaPella (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  True, and pilots sometimes land at the wrong airport even using codes. And I can see DL's point that if you drive up to the terminal at Reno/Tahoe you can look at the sign and say gee they sure do not know English very well in Nevada. That looks to me like it should have been an endash. Or you could look at it and say gee that should have been a hyphen. And there are 270 books that use one spelling or another. The charts use a /, the FAA uses a /, the sign uses a /, yet oddly the airport website uses a hyphen, as do most books. And WP? An endash (as of August 2012), which almost no one uses. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• The rule proposed by Noetica is too subjective. Anyone could come and claim that Wilkes-Barre sounds to him like two semantically independent surnames, then edit war to insert a dash. Other editor has explained this better here. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Forumshopping

This isn't a proper Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports discussion, it's a Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style discussion, where the matter was already settled. See WP:FORUMSHOP: Re-re-re-raising this somewhere else where one hopes for a more sympathetic audience isn't going to magically change consensus to be suddenly against using en-dashes appropriately, which includes conjunctive punctuation between two distinct entities sharing a relationship. Wikiprojects are simply editors agreeing they share an editing interest; they do not get to make up their own rules trumping site-wide guidelines. If you feel MoS is faulty on this point, the appropriate thing to do is take it up at WT:MOS and work for consensus that the problem you feel you've pointed out is a real one, with a commonly agreed solution. This is actually one of the worst cases of forum shopping I've ever seen on Wikipedia: When one RfC and an RM (actually several RMs, but only one's been mentioned here this time) have already declined to arrive out of nowhere at a surprising though vaguely possible new consensus to override existing consensus we already have at WP:MOSDASH, the answer is to do what MoS says (use em-dashes) and go back to constructive editing, not launch yet another RfC on the matter. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 02:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He means en dashes, not em dashes. Art LaPella (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not care whether hyphens or dashes are used—I just want this to be settled. And others do not share your conclusion that the MoS is firm on this matter; I'd advise you to take a look at the last discussion. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been paying close attention to this, but just how does one type en dashes & em dashes to, e.g. search within an article? I've always found it very non-user friendly to have to open a special characters pop-up or enter some alt code seqeuence. How does this affect the non-Wikigeek general public? --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It won't affect them at all, because there will still be redirects from the title with hyphens. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to make dashes Art LaPella (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MOS:DASH says that WP used two types of dashes "Two forms of dash are used on Wikipedia", but actually I would say that there are four types of dashes. Can anyone tell these four apart? hypen: - en dash: – em dash: — and minus sign: − I only discovered the minus sign when I found that the Minneapolis Airport used one instead of en dash. There are examples in the MOS of right and wrong ways to use hyphen and en dash. After someone can tell if airports in other countries use hyphen or en dash I would suggest that an example of an airport be added to the MOS. And add Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania as an example of using a hyphen. And at least one bird name. I think that the previous discussions have been more about style and less about common use. For example, if you make up an article about Boston – Chicago airport flights, the correct punctuation is an en dash. If there is an airport called Boston-Chicago, I can assure you that it is going to use a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So in summary I do not see that this discussion is one of forum shopping but one of finding the correct punctuation to use. The MOS does not say anything about airport names, and there are two sections that indicate that a hyphen is appropriate. Apteva (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The correct punctuation is best described in the MOS and articles on the punctuation marks, and has little or nothing to do with airports. See Dash, Hyphen, MOS:DASH, and WP:HYPHEN. There are only 2 kinds of dash normally used, since the hyphen and minus are not dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The MOS is a work in progress. It clearly states that proper names use a hyphen. An airport, no matter how colorful or descriptive the name is, is clearly a proper name. This is not that complicated. If I make up a name using Reno and Tahoe, for something that is not a proper name, the correct punctuation is an endash, but if it has attained the status of being a proper name, the correct punctuation is a hyphen, or whatever punctuation whoever gave it a name used. We do not do original research. We do not look at names and say I think it should use a different punctuation because that would better indicate that this word or that is a noun or that these are two places. We consult reliable sources and use whatever they use. There are a few exceptions, like balking at using facebook instead of Facebook, (and I would guess plenty of RS's that use Facebook) but each article name needs to be considered individually. In the case of airport names I have looked at a great many that have a horizontal line as a separator between two words, and in every case I have looked at the correct horizontal line to use is a hyphen, backed up by a whole lot of reliable sources. Apteva (talk)

Sources

• Reno–Tahoe International Airport, in cosumeraffairs.com "Reno-Tahoe airport, located in Reno, adopted the hyphenated name in the 90s, (...)" Regional Plan Update Report - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Chapter 3 "Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Truckee-Tahoe Airport, and Minden-Tahoe Airport (...) Hyphenation in their titles to include “Tahoe” suggests that (...)"
• Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is hyphenated according to a AP news article "The hyphenated airport name was hailed (...) But Monday's council vote to hyphenate the name (...) Hartsfield's family opposed the hyphenation (...)" This was republished by the Albany Herald under the title "Atlanta Airport gets Hyphenated Name". Also in Atlanta Magazine "(...) her own proposal, a hyphenated Harstfield-Jackson airport (...)" [USA Today quotes two persons "'This hyphenation push has really gotten ridiculous' (...) 'But to hyphenate the name kind of waters it down'." Macon Telegraph "Although Atlanta leaders appear poised to hyphen the name of Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, (...)" Later in News-Daily.com "(...) Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin advanced the hyphenated name that has become reality."
• Fort Lauderdale – Hollywood International Airport. From CBS Miami "How many hyphens does an airport name need?" In Miami Herald (visible in google preview) "Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood share more than a border and a hyphen at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport."
• Politicians wanted to rename Vancouver International Airport to Vancouver-Richmond International Airport. In local newspaper Richmond Review 'There is precedence for a hyphenated airport name.'"
• St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport. In St. Petersburg "Today — big, bright and impressive as its hyphenated name~ stands the St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport"

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all misleading, Enric. For example, people commonly use "hyphenated" to mean "with a hyphen or something that looks like one". Most writers (and many editors ☺) are not style experts, and most are unaware that there are such things as en dashes. See my answer to you earlier, timestamped today at 23:33, (UTC)
Noetica^Tea? 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

True, except that in the case of airport names I have yet to find one that uses an en dash - while they could have meant "joined", without specifically meaning an actual hyphen, in no example of an airport is an en dash used, as far as I have been able to determine, either in the actual official name, or in common usage. I have a question to ask, is the purpose of choosing the punctuation one of defining a uniform style for the entire encyclopedia or one of using the punctuation that everyone else uses for each particular article title?

By the way, I wonder if there is a collaboratively edited website somewhere that anyone could go to if they wanted to know the name of something, like maybe an online encyclopedia, so that if someone was writing a book they could get the name right, with the correct punctuation. Maybe even one that anyone could edit. If there was one should it make up spellings that no one else uses so that future generations would get them right? Or should it have rules against making things up? Apteva (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then you are not paying attention. Usage is extremely variable out there, as you seem unwilling to acknowledge. See here how a serious technical publication uses both "Seattle-Tacoma" and "Seattle–Tacoma", a few words apart. You think there is an objective styling for each of these names out there, welded to the name? Nah. That's why publishers impose their own chosen styling: rationally or not, consistently or not. It took me about 45 seconds to find that example of a publisher being inconsistent with that name. Given such patently obvious uncertainty and chaos, Wikipedia applies its own consensually derived style guidelines for consistency and good order. In readers' interests, in the manner of a careful and enlightened publisher.
And to get even more balance in our survey, as opposed to what Enric evinces above, run through the wild variation here on "Hartsfield~Jackson Atlanta". Fun, yes? Well, this one is truly hilarious. See the two separate index entries, one with a hyphen and the other for the same name with an en dash! And here is one that consistently styles it with an en dash.
Noetica^Tea? 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No argument that usage is somewhat variable, but the humor of someone making a mistake eludes me. Maybe my sense of humor is different.

I am not talking about styling, as in font, but spelling, as in choice of characters, including space, en dash, slash, and hyphen. Those are very different characters. The suggestion is find out what others are doing and use those characters. Out of 200 books I checked 170 used hyphen, 17 used /, 6 used a space, and 6 used en dash for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. As to the "wild variation" example above, there are 44 places the Atlanta airport is used in that book, and about half use a hyphen and about half an en dash. They appear to be grouped though, as if one person was consistently using one character and someone else the other character, and no one spell checked the book. I thoroughly agree that WP needs to strive for professionalism, and not look as though it was written by 4th graders (even when it is). It is a matter of style for the FAA to use all caps and always abbreviate Intl, and never use the word airport, but they use hyphen, space, and /, presumably with the intention of being correct. The space hyphen space for Atlanta's airport,[4] and a slash for Reno,[5] I would say are deliberate and have nothing to do with "style", or rules of spelling. I can see why they are using the spaces for Atlanta (according to the city council it has spaces). As to Reno, maybe someone went there and saw the two foot tall letters saying "RENO/TAHOE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT". Apteva (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Above, I have asked Noetica to provide any style guide or style expert which says that airport names are not proper names, or that they are dashed names. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you? Where? I don't see it. And why ask me that anyway? Who claimed that airport names are not proper names? I didn't, that's for sure!
Noetica^Tea? 11:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You claimed that. N-HH quoted from WP:DASH "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash.", and you replied:

No, N-HH. Airports are not typical entities of that sort. The default is here overruled; and indeed practice "out there" is variable even for the same airport name. Unlike "Guinea-Bissau", say. Airport names are usually functional artificial constructions with semantic weight, more like definite descriptions than fully autonomous proper names. Contrast "McGraw-Hill", which is in a way fossilised. No one thinks of "McGraw" and "Hill" as meaningfully linked in that name. Not any more.[6]

Apparently, some airports names are proper names while others are just "definite descriptions" which need to be treated differently. You have provided no source, style guide or style expert that supports this distinction that you make. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Who says such a thing? Not me, that's for sure. Noetica^Tea? 17:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, your own exact words are quoted above. Two people now, myself included, have taken them to mean that you are saying airport names are not proper names/nouns, or at least not "proper" proper names/nouns. To me, that seems the only logical interpretation of the words. Instead of accusing people of claiming you are saying things you are not, you might be better off clarifying or retracting those words. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I amplified on the meaning in the parallel discussion at WT:MOS, N-HH, for anyone unable to follow my original statement. At how many forums do you want me to track all this? Decide on one, wrap things up everywhere else, and we might have some hope of making progress. (Mind you, the truly relevant issues have all been gone over before.)
Noetica^Tea? 19:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you commented here. You made two arguments.

First, you compared airport names with "the Roman–Syrian War", a comparison that I find uncompelling because it's not a proper name of a single place, it's not an official name, and it doesn't have to be registered with any central authority.

Second, you argued that St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport is just a descriptive name. This is, of course, totally wrong and based only on your personal opinion of what words should mean. The reality is that the airport was originally called "Pinellas International Airport" (coded PIE because PIA was already in use), and in 1957 it was changed to its current name [7] because, according to the airport manager, the passengers couldn't deduce the location of the airport from the name so they had to switch to more famous names [8]. So, the airport already had a proper name, and it had to be changed to a more descriptive proper name. And it had to be an official change because it's an official proper name. In 1970 someone tried to change the name to "Eisenhower International Airport", but failed[9]. Note that they weren't assigning a proper name to an unnamed airport that only had a descriptive name, they were trying to replace the current proper name with a different proper name.

--Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, Enric. You got it: I answered there. However, your report of my answer is not accurate. Nor is your take on my view of the matter. Ask what you want there, and I will answer there. On this proviso: this unruly and unproductive RFC and the ill-advised new RM at Talk:Mexican–American War be wound up first. I have personally spent the equivalent of full-time weeks of work on these issues, most of it in 2011. I am prepared to do more; but not in several forums simultaneously just because someone thinks that is a good idea. I don't. Wikipedia identifies it as WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as SMcCandlish points out above. Noetica^Tea? 21:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your answer was that some airport names are not "fully autonomous proper names", that they are "semantically associated with the placenames that are its components", that they have "current descriptive meaning" and that they are "not fossilised like 'Rhode Island'". But all airports have official proper names, and you haven't shown any style guide that makes a distinction between "fully autonomous" and "semantically associated" proper names, with different rules for styling them. For all I know, you have simply made this rule up in the spot because you think personally that it's more correct. Please prove me wrong by showing style guides that make this distinction.

Please address the flagrant flaws in your argument instead of trying to eject from the discussion with excuses. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In consensus building it is standard practice to address the group rather than to attack an individual. However I would like to point out that some editors may have a minority interpretation of WP:DASH. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion that you link predates the big powwow in which the current version of WP:DASH was hammered out by all interested parties in the summer of 2011. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing this entire discussion reminds me of is a book. Somehow a decision was made and accepted as correct, no matter how incorrect. Apteva (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

Formerly: This discussion doesn't belong here

The WikiProject Airports cannot make its own local consensus on this question. It is a style question and belongs at MoS. Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I call for it to be wound up now. See further criticisms of it, and see my remarks just posted, and see SMcCandlish's assessment of this ill-structured RFC as WP:FORUMSHOPPING: all above.
Noetica^Tea? 21:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with "winding it up" by agreeing that all airport names use hyphens, or even that no article titles may use endashes. I assume by "winding it up" you mean "agree that no airport titles use hyphens other than for cities that are hyphenated, such as Wilkes-Barre". If that is the case there can be no "winding up". Apteva (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a RfC, which means that it's asking for wider input from the community. And it has been announced in WT:MOS. Nothing is preventing MOS editors from coming here and commenting. How is this an attempt to create a local consensus? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is the right place though, because questions always start at the individual and move to the specific. One of the five pillars is that there are no firm rules. If something comes up it is always answered first at the specific level, then at the project level, then at the MOS level, all the while bearing mind of what the MOS says. In this case the MOS says clearly that all proper names use hyphens, and after all, almost every proper name other than peoples names are already notable and likely to have an article someday. I understand we are up to 4 million articles now. And for once and for all I would recommend kicking hyphens out of all article title names - and add that to WP:TITLE (change to: for dashes use hyphens). It is the right place because the MOS is a guideline. Guidelines are not policy, and policies are not principle. First we follow principles, then policies, then guidelines. Every decision is made on a case by case basis. We can certainly point to the MOS and say, if I was creating an article called "New York–Los Angeles flight" I might want to use endash, and point to the MOS showing that that was even one of the examples, but what if the article I was working on was not about any airplane flight but maybe a famous flight that ended tragically, or maybe an article about millions of people leaving NY for LA, and the term had achieved proper name status - then I would use New York-Los Angeles Flight with a hyphen, or, if a majority of reliable sources used an endash, I might want to use an endash, but for accessibility reasons if WP:TITLE said to use hyphens for dashes, I would probably use a hyphen, but not, if I had good reason to not, in that instance, follow that policy. Note the link to common sense from the words at the top "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". I would not bring up the deviation at WP:MOS unless it was likely to be a very common deviation. Even if it was only a project wide deviation that does not necessarily elevate it to the level of putting it into the MOS.

Using a hyphen for airport names is not just a project wide issue. They are proper names, and per the MOS get hyphens. Airport names are common enough, that putting an example of one into the MOS is entirely reasonable, even though the hyphen/dash section is probably already littered with way too many examples. Apteva (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion doesn't belong here, although it does raise issues which should be considered further. A number of different threads need to be separated, only one of which warrants discussion at present.

• General dissatisfaction with previous decisions re hyphens and dashes. Although I'm sure that this issue will be re-opened in the future, this isn't the time. People will just re-hash their 2011 positions. It's a pointless waste of time.
• Whether airport names are a special case. They aren't and I don't see that anyone has made even a vague case that they are.
• Whether the guidance at WP:ENDASH is clear and how it applies, for example, to the names of airports. It's obvious from the discussion here that the guidance is not clear to many of the participants; it's certainly not clear to me. The obvious interpretation of "By default, follow the dominant convention that a hyphen is used in compounded proper names of single entities, not an en dash" seems to me to be that hyphens should be used in airport names (except where these contain spaced dashes).

The proper place to discuss the last point is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#En-dash_usage where I await Noetica's explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the general topic of "previous decisions", Wikipedia is a dynamic product. It is not the design of the 2012 Corvette, which once a decision is made, thousands of copies are made and revisiting old decisions can be very costly once tooling has been made. It is quite common for readers to leave comments on talk pages questioning articles. In some cases they are right - whatever decision was made in the past that led to the question has either become incorrect because of changing situations (pointing out that Wal-mart is now Walmart), or in this case by whatever bizarre sort of circumstances, which can certainly be reviewed by reading past discussions, may have led to a less than optimal decision. For example, we used to capitalize all animal species, or at least put that into the guidelines in 2003, where it remained for a little over a year.[10] In 2004 someone questioned that (see also "Why capitalized?"), and it was removed. It is my general practice to review all previous decisions rather than simply quote them. 99.99% they are very well thought out and make a lot of sense, as they were actually arrived at using the best work of thousands of contributors, but there are always those 0.01%... Apteva (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

At least the Mexican–American War is indeed a Corvette, where "revisiting old decisions can be very costly". It took many people many months to decide, and it would take a comparable effort to change it, which would almost certainly fail. The wording of WP:DASH is also a Corvette, and dash rules (not as many) existed for many years before. The airport issue is somewhat more debatable, short of trying to change the guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP is like the United States Congress (totally polarized and totally incapable of moving forward on anything)? I will have to have a look at that discussion, but it does seem pretty simple, use hyphens in proper names, use endash where "to, versus, and, or between" could be used. In the case of choosing article titles there are additional constraints. It is really not appropriate to come up with a style choice that is used by absolutely no one else. The current wording of WP:DASH really has way too many examples, in my opinion. I notice the comment of one editor "WT:MOS [Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style] is not for the faint-hearted, at the best of times." If that is in fact the case, it is clear that a subject block is in order for any editors who are making it so difficult. I see that is the case for some editors, perhaps that needs to be expanded. Does "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." sound familiar? My personal view of Wikipedia is that it is a helpful addition to the online references, but has a very long way to go to become very well respected. Here is a quote from six years ago "when it comes to the things that responsible scholars everywhere 'derisively chuckle about' in WikiPedia, capitalization will have to take a number and sit down." June 2006, and from September 2012: "Read any Wikipedia article on a topic you are expert in, and roll your eyes (and forget about trying to correct it, by the way)." If that is really true, something is really wrong. Apteva (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about right, except for the part where you somehow assume that everyone secretly agrees with you about hyphens and dashes, which makes you sound just like the others. I like to think at least the personal attacks have settled down since I showed up. Well a little, anyway. If we simply block everybody, I assume they will be replaced by others who enjoy giving orders. Art LaPella (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have more confidence than you in the net result, except for the political articles. Wikipedia describes my career pretty well, for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Airport names

The following airports are affected:

• Abbeville – Buigny-Saint-Maclou Aerodrome
• Agen – La Garenne Aerodrome
• Ajaccio – Napoléon Bonaparte Airport
• Arcachon – La Teste-de-Buch Airport
• Aspen–Pitkin County Airport
• Barcelonnette – Saint-Pons Airport
• Bastia – Poretta Airport
• Besançon – La Vèze Aerodrome
• Blue Canyon – Nyack Airport
• Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport
• Bourg – Ceyzériat Airport
• Brive – Souillac Airport
• Caen – Carpiquet Airport
• Calais – Dunkerque Airport
• Cannes – Mandelieu Airport
• Castres–Mazamet Airport
• Cayenne – Félix Eboué Airport
• Chartres – Champhol Aerodrome

• Château-Thierry – Belleau Aerodrome
• Cherbourg – Maupertus Airport
• Cognac – Châteaubernard Air Base
• Deauville – Saint-Gatien Airport
• Dinard – Pleurtuit – Saint-Malo Airport
• Dole–Jura Airport
• Dunkerque – Les Moëres Airport
• Épinal – Mirecourt Airport
• Fort Lauderdale – Hollywood International Airport
• Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport
• Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport
• Noumérat – Moufdi Zakaria Airport
• Olbia – Costa Smeralda Airport
• Perpignan – Rivesaltes Airport
• Rock Springs – Sweetwater County Airport
• Seattle–Tacoma International Airport
• Soekarno–Hatta International Airport
• Wiley Post–Will Rogers Memorial Airport

This is not a complete list. Apteva (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For some of these, in which the connection is between parallel city name or person names, the en dash is obviously correct: Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, Perpignan–Rivesaltes Airport, Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, Wiley Post–Will Rogers Memorial Airport. For others, it's less clear; sometimes the spaced en dash (serving like an em dash) may be right as more of a strong break between a place name and an airport name. For some, like Blue Canyon – Nyack Airport, you find sources with hyphen spaced and unspaced on the same page, a clear indication that what they're trying to convey is not hyphenation; we just have to figure out what kind of dash conveys the right relationship. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is my impression that what they are trying to convey is the name of the airport, and not everyone knows the correct spelling. The Reno airport is owned by the city of Reno. They paid someone a whole lot to make a huge sign that says "RENO/TAHOE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT". The FAA uses that for the name. Is the name Reno.Tahoe.International.Airport? Is it Reno-Tahoe-International-Airport? Is it Reno-Tahoe International Airport (the name used by most writers)? Should we use the name of the airport with (Reno-Tahoe International Airport) in parentheses, or use Reno-Tahoe International Airport, with (Reno/Tahoe International Airport) in parentheses, or, what we are currently doing, make up a name that no one uses? I thoroughly agree that if the article was on "Reno–Tahoe rainfall" an endash would be correct. But endashes are not used for proper names. If Reno-Tahoe Rainfall became legendary and achieved proper name status, it would both be capitalized and spelled with a hyphen. This is really pretty simple. Wikipedia is really ignoring the obvious by thinking that no one else knows how to use English dashes correctly and it is necessary for us to correct them. That would totally be original research, and is completely forbidden. Apteva (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there are actually people who use Wikipedia, from third graders writing school papers (most schools prohibit using WP for a reference, though), to professionals. And yes some of those are going to cut and paste whatever we use into their writing. Fortunately only a small number of the airport names with hyphens use endashes. Apteva (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the name of the airport is "Blue Canyon - Nyack Airport". That is what the FAA uses. Ditto for "Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Airport", although the ordinance that changed the name to that uses two spellings. At the top it says the purpose of the ordinance is to change the name to "Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Airport" {using space hyphen space), and at the bottom it says "Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport", with Jackson bold. No one thinks the name includes making Jackson bold, but if you ask the city council they will tell you there are spaces around the hyphen. If you ask the airport they will say "what?" Some airports use a /, some use a hyphen, some use space hyphen space. None use endash. Apteva (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A year later a second ordinance directed the city to change the city code from Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, but technically it did not change the name of the airport, just what the city code uses. Apteva (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no context that I've ever heard of where a spaced hyphen is proper punctuation or typography in English. That doesn't keep a city council or others from using it as a stand-in for a dash, as you see all over the place. I have no idea what's proper in French; if the spaced hyphen is proper, fine; but I doubt it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of the places we use "space hyphen (or dash) space" are actually just a / or a hyphen. I have not tried to keep track of how many use spaces, as that is not the topic of this RfC. I do have a list of 9,000 airports, and on that list, only 18 use space hyphen space. One of them is Minneapolis, for which the FAA does not use spaces, and it does not include either Atlanta or Nyack, both of which the FAA has listed with spaces. None are in France. And yes all 9,000 use hyphens or slashes - not even one uses an endash. If you look at this source,[11] in English the airport in the map is simply "Poretta Airport". In French it is "Aéroport international de Bastia - Poretta". It is possible that someone familiar with French has been editing a lot of the French airports and putting in those space hyphen spaces. After this RfC is closed they can be fixed. Apteva (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two quite different issues here. (1) Is the proper style for a particular name with or without spaces? I'm happy to accept the use of sources to decide between "Hartsfield – Jackson" and "Hartsfield~Jackson". (2) What character should we use in the two cases? For "Hartsfield – Jackson" the MOS is absolutely clear; use an en-dash regardless of what the sources do. For "Hartsfield~Jackson" I (and obviously others) don't find the MOS clear and this needs to be fixed. The simplest "fix" (and hence the one I prefer) is to say that in proper names the unspaced mark should always be a hyphen. Noetica (and others) appear to disagree. Please can we discuss clarifying the MOS over at WT:MOS, not here. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. The MOS has two errors, which are noted. Fix those and this entire question goes away. Uganda–Tanzania war is not a proper name and war is not capitalized, and Roman-Syrian War is a proper name and needs a hyphen. But you seem to be elevating a guideline to a higher use than intended. First we follow common sense, then we follow the five pillars, then we follow policy, and last of all we follow guidelines. The guidelines do not tell us how to spell things that have established spellings, they tell us how to spell things that we make up, and they also say that proper names use hyphens. The MOS definitely does not contain the words "use an en-dash regardless of what the sources do". That just flies in the face of common sense. We do not make things up, or change them to match our notions of correct punctuation. It is not necessary to make any changes other than to use consistency - we already say proper names use hyphens. The unspaced mark is not always a hyphen, I would not be surprised to see a tilda, and I know it is sometimes a /. But we do not say "proper names use hyphens", because we think they look pretty that way, we say that, because in reliable sources, and that is confirmed in the ones I can find, proper names really do use hyphens, and WP would look funny to everyone if we said anything else. Why make airport names look funny when we do not make Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and John Lennard-Jones look funny? We do not use asterisks or tildas, we use what everyone else uses. The guidelines help us maintain consistency, and help us when we do not know what is correct. But they certainly should not help us look like we failed the third grade. Apteva (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat that this discussion does not belong here; it has not specific to airport names. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a MOS issue. The MOS says to use a hyphen for proper names. Apteva (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages moved by User:DASHBot

Some of the airport names listed above with spaced en dashes were moved by User:DASHBot, which looks like it had approval, back in 2009–2010, from names that had spaced hyphens. At the time, the MOS was not so clear on when spaced en dashes might be OK. Now, they are OK as standins for em dashes, but not for making compounds of parallel names. Many of the subject airport names are foreign, typically French, as in Calais – Dunkerque Airport, which comes from Aéroport de Calais - Dunkerque, sometime written with comma or just a space instead of the spaced hyphen; same with Épinal – Mirecourt Airport, which is often found just as Aéroport Épinal Mirecourt. The spaced hyphen, in English, usually stands in for a dash of some sort; in French, I don't know. In English, could it be that an em dash is what's intended in some such cases; that is, rather than a compound, it's really an airport name separated by a dash from a location? That putting "Airport" near "Dunkerque" and "Mirecourt" is just backwards, since it should be associated more with "Calais" and "Épinal"? It would be good know, on a case-by-case basis. The only airports I've moved have been cases where the unspaced en dash was correct, to connect two parallel person or place names. Some of the others are less clear, so I haven't tried to fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the page moves are contested. There are no known airport names with an endash - I am not saying there are none, but no one has been able to point one out. Yes some use a spaced hyphen, what I have found so far is that many of the French airports use a hyphen in French but in English would use a space. All of these should be considered on a case by case basis, and unless someone has a particular knowledge of the correct name, it would likely be best to use an RM for each proposed move. I am certain that someone has expert knowledge of airport names for French airports. In general few editors know the difference between a hyphen, an endash, and an emdash, and in a paragraph of text, not involving proper names, it is fine to correct them, as long as it does not lead to an edit war - although consistency on a page is much more important than just fixing one and leaving it the only one on the page that is fixed. When it comes to proper names though, while in theory a proper name might use an endash or an emdash, so far no one has been able to identify even one that does use either - either as the official name or in common usage (most common use in published books, for example). Airport names clearly are often spelled with a hyphen. All of the above that were moved to an endash need to be moved back to a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What about airports with two parallel name parts, like Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport? Just like Spanish–American War, Carter–Finley Stadium, the Malaysia–Singapore Second Link, Kingston–Rhinecliff Bridge, etc. there are good book sources that corroborate that the interpretation that the en dash signals is the intended relationship in these. Your phobia of combining en dashes with proper names can perhaps be dealt with by some specialized medication; or meditation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What about them? None of those names use an endash. The first four I have already checked and have conclusively shown that they use a hyphen. Of the last three, Carter-Finley uses a hyphen 9/10 times and a space 1/10 times. Malaysia 9/10 use a hyphen and 1/10 used an endash. Kingston 10/10 used a hyphen. I am looking at google books and only at the first ten with a preview available, as that is sufficient. Apteva (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

All of those use en dash in WP style, and in the styles of some reliable sources (which I verified for each before including it). Nobody is claiming such style is in a majority, just that proper names do use it sometimes, with these as examples. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification - if I was making up a name, I could use any punctuation I wanted, and if I followed the MOS I could use an endash, but am not required to use an endash. On the other hand if I am not making up a name, but using a real name, WP policy requires me to choose the majority, or best name. There are five criteria or goals to be met in choosing the best name, and none lean toward using an endash. On the other hand if there are only two editors who care or disagree on this point, mediation might be a better method of resolution than an RfC. Apteva (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand the difference between content and style. The punctuation is not the name, as you can demonstrate with the many airport websites which can't make up their mind which punctuation to use. If the airport itself switches between one punctuation and another, say differing between headers and text in the last case I noticed, then they obviously do not see the punctuation as being integral to the name but just, well, punctuation. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming that Seattle–Tacoma International Airport is not the same name as Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It's not. Same name, different styling. This ground is well trod, so continuing to push this way is not really that helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Which to me means, why is anyone objecting to using a hyphen? Apteva (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we have decided on styling, and that includes dashes in such cases. One of your airport move requests I'm not sure about, though not for the reason you gave. But this is a clear case of en dash. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:US airport data

I made a template Template:US airport data to transclude into all the US state airport lists such as List of airports in Wyoming, and put it into the W states already. I'd like to have some independent review of whether this is a good thing. The main problem it fixes in the need to separately maintain (e.g. fix the styling of) a big block of text that's repeated in (presumably) about 50 articles; the styling (case and dashes mostly) was quite in need of work. The problem with it is that it contains dates, like 2009–2013 and 2008, such that it would be required to update all 50 states at once if we want to update the data tables that it refers to. This could be fixed (by someone that knows how to templates) to take a couple or year args so that states could be updated individually. Airport-type table headings in these article also could use a style update, since they use title case where WP style is to use sentence case. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done It now has params 1, 2, and 3, which are substituted for the dates. If the params are missing, it uses 2009, 2013, and 2008, respectively, as per the doc that I added, too. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed it up a bit, as most states didn't have that first odd 2008 mention. I've been templating, from the back end of the alphabet, and at Texas found that the parameter 2008 needed to 2010, as the enplanement data was already more current there. So, good move. I might stop and see if anyone else wants to help. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I originally used separate params for the start and end year of the range to avoid the editor having to know and implement the correct separator (an endash), since it's done wrong so often. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Garuda Indonesia - Dubai

If anyone gets a chance, we need some additional verification to indicate that the airline is terminating service to Dubai but sources are just saying shifting operations. On 2 December 2012, the AMS-CGK routing will switch its stopover from DXB to AUH as part of a codeshareswww agreement with Etihad Airways. If anyone can find a source saying Dubai is terminating then feel free to jump right in and add any references. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul Atatürk Airport

The page has been recently moved from Atatürk International Airport, thus affecting lots of airline and airport articles, given the importance of this destination, and given that the airport is a hub for Turkish Airlines. Is it correct to move before discussing in the article's talk page or elsewhere?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If a move is not controversial, then no discussion is needed. Since I'm not familiar with this one, I have no idea if it should have been discussed or not first. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

the airport's official website (http://www.ataturkairport.com/en-EN/Pages/Main.aspx) calls it "Istanbul Ataturk Airport". Snoozlepet (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Then it's time to start bypassing the redirect...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Then we need one more page move to change the 'ü' to a 'u'. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. In my opinion, the change is not needed, as the airport is named after Atatürk. Nevertheless, I'll stop changing links until we reach consensus.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International Airport

Does anyone know what happened to the rest of the JFK airport page? Only the airines and destinations table now appear on that page, the rest of the article (infobox, introduction, history, etc.) have suddenly disappeared. I don't know if an IP "accidently" removed it or is it just my computer. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An IP accidently removed it, I just restored it. Slasher-fun (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

La Tontouta International Airport

Hi there guys! Can you please take a look at this article? Why is this particular page not sticking to the standard {{airport-dest-list}} template to show the airlines flying in and out of the airport? Has there been any change in standards that I'm not aware of? You may also want to take a look at Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport, where the same template has been vanished and was replaced by a map. Regards--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In principle, a map could sometimes be more informative to readers (who then see where destinations are, rather than just a dry list of placenames), but in practice most maps are likely to have serious usability/accessibility problems. I think that map on Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport is a bad idea; it should be replaced by a good old-fashioned table. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a map on the La Tontouta article, but the table there is an interesting approach. We've generally justified listing destinations as a way to show scope of service to an airport, and I could argue that grouping destinations by destination rather than airline does a better job of this, since it brings out the actual destinations better. We'd lose the ability to easily show terminal information, but that information could possibly be accommodated elsewhere; for example, Los Angeles International Airport already has a subsection for each terminal that includes the airlines residing in that terminal. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean listing each destination just once, and mentioning all the airlines serving it? I don't like the destination maps in particular, but this other option is worth discussing. In the first place, that would be an approach to the current version for airline destination tables; in the second place, it would avoid unnecessary repetitions. What do you think about this, community?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, having a row for each destination with a column that lists the airlines serving it, rather than a row for each airline with a column listing the destinations served by that airline. I'm not opposed to the idea of destination maps, but they're hard to maintain. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like your proposal actually. Let's just wait for other people to drop some thoughts.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly a better approach, we have always said that the destination list is to show the range and scale of services from and to an airport and not a travel guide. Worth a bit more thought in this direction I think. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Destination tables

If we are going to make any changes, we need to fix more of the problems. In the example above, there is a little table above the main one for the color codes. This should be the bottom line of the table. The easiest way to do this, that I can think of, is to use templates for the top and bottom of any tables. Probably best to also use a template for each line. All to often, editors need to go in and fix the formatting after an editor adds extra columns in a row entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Crashes and airports

I recall reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_11#Accidents.2FIncidents which stated that only crashes close to and on airport property should be listed. I do recall that some major air crashes involve families camping out at airports, etc. and having an effect on operations. I.E. a Ramada Hotel at or near JFK (I'll have to check the street address) was a big staging ground for TWA_Flight_800#Tensions_in_the_investigation which crashed off of Long Island WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• The TWA 800 hotel was on the airport property and I added info to John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Other_facilities - In general after a crash happens relatives gather at airports, especially ones with arriving flights (but departing airports are also affected) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for pointing out that previous discusion. I concur with it. A crash should only be in a airport article if it took place at the airport or while departing or on approach. Olympic Airways Flight 954 which crashed I think about 20 miles short of Athens while on approach, yes. Aeroperu Flight 603 which originally took off from Miami but crashed into the Pacific Ocean off Peru and being put in the Miami Airport article- No. Which reminds me, the Miami Airport article needs more cleaning up....William 21:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think an exception should be made to mention planes in the 9-11 attacks in the LAX or SFO article. HkCaGu (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict

This User Abhishek191288, remove some materials 2 times from this article Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam International Airport insisting that they did not comply with the guidelines provided here. The edit that was reverted is here, however the guidelines does not state that the native name and the image of the airport is not allowed, nor is a destination map prohibited, other articles also contain destination map (EX:Dublin_Airport#Destinations Map), the external links which i added is the official carrier website and the other one the Civil Aviation Department from the Government website. I must point out that i previously remove the Airlines and destinations table as it was outdated and the only official reference available [12] does not specify which arlines served these destination but provide them on a seperate list. Therefore to avoid contradiction with the map which is uptodate, i remove the table and instead added a list of airlines without specifying the destinations, info about destinations was available on the map. I want to have the opinion of some of you here to know who is wrong. Kingroyos (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On hyphens for airport disambiguation in destination listings

I've started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Another use for hyphens? about the airport project guideline to use a hyphen in destination listings like London-Heathrow. Please comment there if you have background info or opinions about that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would there be a discussion about names at the MOS, instead of at WP:TITLE, and what is the sudden aversion to hyphens? ("I've been taking out a lot of hyphens in listings") London-Heathrow is a redirect, and can be left as is, or the actual article name can be added, [[London Heathrow Airport|London-Heathrow]]. Apteva (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This question is not about article titles, but about how cities with multiple airports are disambiguated in destination tables, using a hyphenated construct that does not appear to me to be a standard use of hyphen. If it is a standard use, we might want to identify what standard pattern this is, and mention it as a hyphen use in the MOS section on how hyphens are used, no? Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Berlin and other future airport moves

I want to get a consensus whether an airport and/or service move is encyclopedic in another airport's destination listing, and let me propose that it is not.

The prime example we have is Berlin: in a lot of airport articles' destination listing there is now the cumbersome "Berlin-Current (ends date X), Berlin-Future (begins date X+1)". While this is true, I don't think it is needed, encyclopedic, or maintainable. We already had one "false alarm". The new opening date is still a year away. Things can definitely change again, maybe more than once. Are we going to go in and edit hundreds of pages every time it happens? Will we be able to handle edit wars and differing opinions over hundreds of places?

If we don't let new services that are certain but dates unclear be listed, and if we don't let continuation of flight numbers that are not stable (throughout the period of published schedules) be listed, then why should we let this Berlin ends/begins saga (or other future moves elsewhere in the world) be part of other airports' article? HkCaGu (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, mostly considering WP:NOTRAVEL. The problem is how to avoid the edit wars your proposal will lead to...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think our listings currently have an overwelming bias towards the current day, which is the bigger WP:NOTRAVEL problem - you can find out lots of detail about flights between A and B tomorrow, but if you seek information about those routes in the past, out of historical rather than touristic curiosity, bad news - somebody will already have deleted that information even if it had an inline cite &c. So, I would rather we put more effort into covering past and future aviation, not just today's flights.

Giving definite dates for future events poses a WP:CRYSTAL problem but it doesn't bother me much as long as the date is sourced (and we should resist the temptation to give exact dates - often a month or a year is fine). Aviation articles have a lot of active editors so there's less chance of such information being outdated for long. Probably a good idea to use {{as of}} and similar tools to mitigate the risk of outdated content. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that it's not particularly notable to note the two Berlin airports as new ending and new beginning service. The purpose of the destination lists is to provide the scope of service available at the airport. Moving from one airport in Berlin to another isn't changing the scope of service at all. If some airlines were staying at the old airport, others were moving to the new airport, and some were planning to maintain operations at both airports, then it would be different. The uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the projected opening date doesn't help matters, but I'm not sure that we can use this as the basis to exclude it, as the dates are what has been reported in reliable sources, and our judgment that this particular information may be unreliable could be viewed as editorializing on our part. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove the suppose service to the new Berlin Airport which sources say they are scheduled to open on October 27, 2013 but that date is not definite and also the opening of the airport has been pushed back more than once already and we may never know that they may decide to postpone the opening again. Once they have firmly decided a opening date for the new airport, then we can add BER as a destination. However, when we fist started the discussion on the Berlin airport issue, i am still asking if when the new airport opens and Tegel closes, there will only be 1 airport serving Berlin. Do we leave the destination as simply "Berlin" or does it still need to be disambiguated until Tegel closes operations? Snoozlepet (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be foolish to assume that all readers are aware of the latest developments on Berlin's airports, so we should disambiguate. Also, if we're not confident of the date but we are confident that there will be a handover at some point, couldn't we say that instead? bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Some issues regarding listing of future services

A lot of people are not including firm dates eventhough it is sourced (i.e. "March 2013", "coming soon", "planned", "begins Spring 2013"). Also, airlines are launching new routes but they don't give a press release of some kind but people are relying the airline's booking engine and online schedules to list it. For those services, should we provide a viewable source? One last thing is if anyone can give a list of sources we can and can not use to cite future services, that would help a lot. Also, for airlines terminating a route or to a city, i know it needs to be sourced but airlines normally don't give press releases announcing such terminations but some carriers do. I need imput on some of these issues when everyone gets a chance. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Answering one question, airline online schedules should be fine and linkable. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention a case, a conflict arose between me and another user regarding the new Britsh Airways service to Lanzarote Airport, scheduled to start next April. The escalate ended with the other user blocked. The matter raised here should be solved as soon as possible.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Airlines' online timetables and booking engines are effectively primary sources; I'm happy to use them to fill in details like this, most of the time, but we have to bear in mind the potential problems of relying too hard on primary sources. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Airport Code Discrepancy

I've just visited the Barrow Island Airport page and noticed a small mistake there which has then led me through a few other pages as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_Island_Airport

• For some reason at the top of the page Barrow airport is listed as (ICAO: YLLE) but on the right side it's listed as (ICAO: YBMX)
• Also there is no IATA code listed on the airport page but there is one mentioned on the Barrow Island page (IATA BWB) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_Island_%28Western_Australia%29
• Finally Barrow Island airport isn't listed on the page "List of airports by ICAO code Y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_by_ICAO_code:_Y#Y_-_Australia

• It is however listed on the "List of airports by IATA code B" page. Along with the ICAO code YMBX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_by_IATA_code:_B

I didn't want to just go and edit the pages myself so I hope I've done the right thing by posting this here. --Nathaniel73 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel73 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 

The IATA code is also missing from the "List of airports in Western Australia" page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Western_Australia ----NathanielOffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel73 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The ICAO code error was my fault and I can't even try and blame anyone else. I was creating airports by copying from one article to another and when getting this from Ballera Airport I must of forgot to change the code. If you see any more please change them or let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries mate it's easy to do when your doing repetitive tasks like that. Thanks for sorting it out. I went in and added the IATA code to the infobox as well. --Nathaniel73 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yellowknife Airport and Buffalo Air

Would like some more opinions at Talk:Buffalo Airways#Accident and incidents. It affects both articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Airport-des-list: city and airport

Hello everyone, I wanted to propose to change some city-airport's name on destinations list destinations shown airports page.

Current name	Proposed name	Notes
Houston-Intercontinental	Houston-George Bush	"Houston George Bush", in my opinion, it is more clear than "Houston Intercontinental" because it shows what is the airport, not the pattern. Some might with "Houston", believing that it is what the Intercontinental.
Johannesburg	Johannesburg-OR Tambo	A lot of times OR Tambo International Airport is simply called "Johannesburg". Many people do not know that the South African city has two airports and put only "Johannesburg" IMHO is very ambiguous.
Tel Aviv-Ben Gurion	Tel Aviv	Tel Aviv has only one airport, why it indicate with the name too? We show only the city, as we doing with other cities. ("Ben Gurion International Airport" is incorrect, because the airport name is "Ben Gurion Airport". It shown on its website)
Bucharest-Henri Coandă	Bucharest	After the closure of Aurel Vlaicu International Airport, Henri Coandă remained the only Bucharest's airport. Why continue to show as Bucharest has got two airports?
Jakarta-Soekarno-Hatta	Jakarta	Jakarta has got one airport: Soekarno–Hatta

What do you think? --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jakarta's Halim Airport has passenger service as well. 166.205.55.44 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I will create a note in Soekarno-Hatta page, because if you searh "Jakarta Airport" on Wikipedia the system redirect to Soekarno-Hatta page.--Wind of freedom (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, Tel Aviv's Sde Dov Airport has domestic passenger service as well. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! What do you think for other proposed name? --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Another user has commented on Houston and Johannesburg at the discussion you have started at WP:AIRLINES. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to (or shouldn't we) use the actual name of the airport after the hyphen? Can someone cite the relevant standard (if there is one)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Some airports use the actual name after but most of them uses their commonly known name (i.e. Houston-Intercontinental for George Bush Intercontinental, New York-JFK for John F. Kennedy International Airport). See WP:COMMONNAME. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree to JFK, which is shorter, but "Intercontinental" for George Bush, it is wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must respect the official names IMHO. --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

However, all agreed to change in lists "Johannesburg" to "Johannesburg-OR Tambo", right? --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

as another editor mentioned at the discussion at wp:airlines regarding iah, if you go to the Houston Airport Systems official website, iah is referred to it as intercontinental. 166.205.55.32 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding bullet point number 13 in the project guideline body section

I think the statement in point 13 in the body section Do not seperate domestic (national) and international destinations should be rephrased as Do not seperate domestic (national) and international destinations unless they operate out of seperate terminals (or if anyone can find a better word to say "seperate terminals". A lot of articles have an airline's domestic and international destinations seperated because they operate from different terminals (hence most airports have its own "international" terminal/concourse that it is exclusively for international flights. Any suggestions? Snoozlepet (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If we understand that terminals are a separation, then I don't see an issue. Locally we use to have a terminal that for the most part was only international, but that was replaced. Maybe 'international destinations should be listed by departure terminal and not separated in any other way'? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Strike the word "international". In San Diego, United Airlines departs from both Terminal 1 (pre-merger UA destinations) and Terminal 2 (pre-merger CO destinations). Then there's United Express, with Los Angeles flights departing from the Commuter Terminal and all other destinations from Terminal 1. These are all domestic flights. So something like 'destinations should be listed by departure terminal and not separated in any other way'. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What about point 10?

And what about point 10? Few editors are following the golden rule relying upon the verifiability policy. This is alarming. Just an example here. Please take a look at WP:PROVEIT a well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please! You are being detrimental to the project. Many many many many new routes and terminations go without (so-called) "sources" (you deem valid). Best examples are US mainlines changing feeder routes from one regional carrier to another carrier--you are never going to see a press release unless there's some massive changes of routes. Please don't lead us to WP:IAR. With Matrix Airfare Search nowadays, it doesn't take a minute to proof most flights' existence. HkCaGu (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at rule 10 again. There's a difference between "must" (date) and "should" (source). It's there to differentiate between IP vandals and good faith editors and mature edits versus crystal ball/premature additions. These IP vandals don't even leave an edit summary making verification and maintenance overwhelmingly difficult. HkCaGu (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if there's no source available the info does not warrant inclusion. I'm precisely against WP:IAR, not with it. I've seen nowhere that the addition of unsourced stuff is encouraged.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is stuff being added into articles if no source supports it? bobrayner (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So do we have a "source" to support all current destinations not subject to Point 10 (future or terminating destinations)? Yes. Schedules and booking engines are de facto "sources". We do not "ref" everything for obvious reasons of practicality. We leave notes in edit histories. Lots of discussions over the years explain why things are requested or not required. And yet we're not fighting vandal IPs as much as burdening long-time project members. HkCaGu (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Being or not a long-time project member doesn't enable anyone to ignore one of the core policies. It's ok if you want to fight vandals, nobody is stopping you from that task. Just remember that editing Wikipedia is a voluntary process, but there are (a few) rules to follow, and WP:VERIFY is one of them. As per above, I'm not the only one that is interested in avoiding the continuous addition of unsourced stuff into airport and airline articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed: move pages

All these proposals are from airport's official website. IMHO its should be changed:

From (Actual)	To (Proposed)	Ref
Linate Airport	Milan Linate Airport	http://www.milanolinate.eu/en
Malpensa Airport	Milan Malpensa Airport	http://www.milanomalpensa1.eu/en
Turin Caselle Airport	Turin Airport	http://aeroportoditorino.it/en/hp_en.html
Genoa Cristoforo Colombo Airport	Genoa Airport	http://www.aeroportodigenova.it/
Florence Airport, Peretola	Florence Airport	http://www.aeroporto.firenze.it/en/
Fertilia Airport	Alghero Airport	http://www.aeroportodialghero.it/home_en.asp
Cagliari Elmas Airport	Cagliari Airport	http://www.sogaer.it/index.php/en/

I have a doubt about these, instead:

From (Actual)	To (Proposed)	Ref
Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport	Fiumicino – Leonardo da Vinci International Airport	http://www.adr.it/web/aeroporti-di-roma-en-/pax-fco-fiumicino
Rome Ciampino Airport	Ciampino – G. B. Pastine International Airport	http://www.adr.it/web/aeroporti-di-roma-en-/pax-cia-ciampino

What do you think about this? --Wind of freedom (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Colspan and sortable tables

Currently many lists of airports got several rows (with colspan) to separate airports either by type, by class, or by province/state (see the grey rows in List of airports in New Zealand, List of airports in Germany, List of airports in Japan, List of airports in France, e.g.). Should these rows be converted into a column, so that the lists are fully sortable with the information provided by the colspan rows available right next to each entry even after any of the sort buttons is pressed on? Examples of this include List of metro systems and List of airports in China. Both were recently converted. 116.48.86.50 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted the change on the List of airports in China that you made without discussion. Adding the province/state column adds massive bloat without providing much benefit (the lists are already sorted by province/state by default). On large lists like List of airports in the United States, the state names would be repeated hundreds of times. -Zanhe (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By doing so there's no way to find out which province do a city belong to immediately from the table, when the names of the cities or airports are sorted alphabetically. Repeating names of provinces and states may not be a good option. But that's the best/least worst option for the time being. 116.48.86.50 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There are at least two other options for large lists. One is at List of airports in Australia where each sub-division is in its own section. The second is List of airports in Canada which is nothing more than a template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

It isn't possible to sort the entire list according to names of cities, airports or ICAO/IATA codes, since they aren't in the same wikitable. 116.48.86.50 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you need the table to be sortable, the find functions work well enough to find anything on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case do we need sortable tables? 116.48.86.50 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion - no MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

List of the destinations of Mariscal Sucre International Airport

I have AfDed the article as unsourced, among other concerns. The discussion page can be found here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles Moved

Can please someone have a look at these "moves of articles"? done by an user that has already caused enough disruption on the "Italian Wiki". The same user has been warned (several times) and blocked on the Wiki.it and now has moved over to the Wiki.en. Before the mess goes out of hands can someone intervene? Many Thanks--Sal73x (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think some of those new names clearly fail WP:COMMONNAME. They should be moved back. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just a single example. The official name for Milan Bergamo that appears in the front page of their website is Orio al Serio International Airport (see the bottom of the frontpage) and not the current name. Someone please stop this. I've already warned the user regarding other issues with both airline and airport articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved the pages as indicated on the official site. I think for Milan-Bergamo it's correct "Orio al Serio International Airport" too, but on the airport terminal is shown "Il Caravaggio International Airport" (see photo). --Wind of freedom (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom, "Caravaggio Airport" does not meet the criteria because is not the commonly used name for Bergamo Orio al Serio airport. Same goes for the other moves.--Sal73x (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IP tearing regionals out of mainline listings

Please see Special:Contributions/203.160.61.186. This IP has been tearing regionals/subsidiary destination listings out of mainline carriers for quite a few airports across the world. I've fixed the American and Australian ones but I'm not familiar with European airlines. Please help to fix them if necessary. HkCaGu (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible interference problem with Berlin Schönefeld Airport and Berlin Brandenburg Airport might be ahead

The sole operational runway of SXF (07R/25L) is in need of renovation. Due to the delay of BER, there are plans to use the new parallel (07L/25LR)-runway as a temporary replacement. If so, I see a problem with keeping the two articles separate of each other, because technically (as here in Wikipedia, an airport is defined by its runways in the infobox) this would mean that SXF flights would be handled at BER (even though the terminal building remains closed). Also, the fact that the air traffic control for SXF is based at the BER tower makes it hard to define where one airport ends and the other one begins.

So, how are we to address that problem? Or, don't you think that there is a problem at all? --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the ICAO are concerned, SXF and BER are the same airport, EDDB, as they share an airfield---so in that sense, it could be said that we already have two articles about it. I don't see a problem if SXF flights start using the new runway, as long as the situation is clearly explained in the article text. --RFBailey (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ORDER

For everyone's information, the references section always comes before external links. I just had to reorder all the Tunisian airport articles due to one user's past edits. From time to time I've seen other articles with this problem. If you're unsure when working on an article, check WP:ORDER....William 14:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Airlineroute.net/Routesonline.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We need a final decision on whether or not we should use cite airlineroute.net or routesonline.com (since all the information from that website is identical to airlineroute.net) as reliable sources for new services/destinations before people get into edit wars and content disputes over this. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Informations are 100% extracted from GDS, so I would assume they are reliable (unless airlines put wrong informations in the GDS). Slasher-fun (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been argued that airlineroute.net is part of UBM Aviation, a profit company, with “commercial concern” which from my point of view is also true for most media companies. UBM is also the organiser of the World Routes Development Forum (Routes), the biggest global meeting between airline network managers and airports to discuss new services including most major airports and airlines (see listing). Routes is widely acknowledged as an independent broker between the two parties. Part of the service is the most up to date news about route development via routesonline.com and airlinesroutes.net. Being an airport manager myself I always found that the information given are highly accurate and are followed by most airline network managers and airport route development managers I know. In my daily work it is more accurate than flight schedules filed by airlines with us or civil aviation authorities. In a nutshell, I think it is a reliable source. Looking forward to reading your comments.JochenvW (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an archived discussion at WT:AIRLINE. Airlineroute.net is not a reliable source, despite it's mass use on airline/airport articles. The following disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the website frontpage:

All material is copyright of UBM Aviation Routes. Although the best efforts have been taken in collecting and checking the material we can not and do not warrant that the information contained in this product is complete or accurate and does not assume and hereby disclaims liability to any person for any loss of damage caused by errors or omissions.

Are there any doubts?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So most newspapers would also be unreliable as they have disclaimers on their sites as well? E.g. the Guardian:

We give no warranties of any kind concerning the Guardian Site or the Guardian Content.

or Washington Post

We do not warrant that this Service will be uninterrupted or error-free. There may be delays, omissions, interruptions and inaccuracies in the news, information or other materials available through this Service.

JochenvW (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the above comments. Airline Route is a blog that is part of Routesonline and shares an editorial platform with The HUB which provides analysis and added value to the latest network development news. All information run by Airline Route is from the GDS so is a credible source. The site prides itself on only posting information which is in the GDS and is quick to make any corrections should airline inventories change. Richard Maslen, Editor -Routesonline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.193.25 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, your opinion is biased, as you're related to the site. WP:NPOV fails here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, blogs are not reliable sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. You're confusing it with WP:COI, which deals with conflicts of interest. However, this user isn't creating an article on how great his website is, but presenting an explanation as to how his site operates, which seems useful for us to know.--RFBailey (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You do have to distinguish though between personal blogs and professional / reliable news sources that use a blogging format or platform for portions of their content. Airlineroute.net seems to be a professional service that's researching and extracting information from the GDS and publishing it using a blog platform (looks like WordPress). That doesn't automatically mean that it's an unreliable self-published source. While the site editor's comments above does present a potential conflict of interest, his explanation of how the site works and how they get their information can help us make a determination as to whether we should consider the site a reliable source. The information that airlineroute.net publishes is something that a WP editor could find themselves, but doing so does have the potential to run into WP:OR issues. Though it also means that looking in a GDS, airline web site, etc., directly, can also be used by WP editors to verify the information published by airlineroute. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GDS? MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Global Distribution Systems or a Computer reservations system is a computerized system used to store and retrieve information and conduct transactions related to air travel. JochenvW (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it really a blog or forum, i mean that it is a most definitely a blog created by a person but is it a considered a "forum"? I mean looking there, you can't really make comments there. In my opinion, sometimes it seems reliable to me but sometimes it doesn't not. For example, on there, Ethiopian Airlines announced that it will launch service to GRU or MAD, etc. However, none of those destinations are not bookable on Ethiopian Airlines nor they have not announced a press release for that service (it may take them a couple of weeks for them to officially announce it). However, airlineoute.net said in a post on 16 August 2012 (http://airlineroute.net/2012/08/16/et-kul-w12/) said that Ethiopian is to start KUL service on 31 October 2012 during which that time the airline never released any press releases nor the flight was bookable on their website. It took them 11 days to officially announce it on 27 August 2012 (http://www.ethiopianairlines.com/en/news/prarchive.aspx?id=336). Same for Turkish Airlines as well. I would use WP:WAIT in most cases if the flights aren't bookable. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As wikipedia is not a travel guide and the articles dont have to be updated all the time I would suggest that we just wait for a reliable source to mention the route. Not sure that Airlineroute or Routesonline are particularly reliable, it was a fan website that was taken over by UBM when the advertising revenue potential was seen. As long as the information in the articles is dated and refernced I dont think we need that sort of daily updates as Snoozlepet says we can just wait and see. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a news site either, as airlineroute.net is meant to be. The example of Ethiopian Airlines is pertinent: while airlineroute.net managed to announce the new service a couple of weeks before an official press release, there's no need for us to pre-empt the press release in the same way, as we're not a news site. However, if a route has been announced officially with a confirmed start date, I don't see the need to wait until reservations are open before adding it (as we're not a travel guide). --RFBailey (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But how do we know a press release will be forth-coming? There will be new/canceled routes revealed by Airlineroute but not "announced" officially, especially cancellations. Having a ref from Airlineroute is better than not having one, unless new data have superseded the posting. HkCaGu (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HkCaGu, especially for canceled routes. Airlines usually tend to do that more quitely as it is not really good PR. From an airport point of view it is more or less the same. We make it a big thing when airlines start a route (with cake and water fountains by the fire department etc.) but I'm fairly happy when it goes unnoticed if an airline drops us as a destination. I still want our wikipedia entry to be correct. JochenvW (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, for route cancellations airlines/airports tend to keep it quiet--the only time I can remember finding a press release about a cancelled route, the airline was blaming the authorities for the loss of a slot or something, rather than the usual reason (not enough profit....). However, there is sometimes press coverage (for instance, Lufthansa's withdrawal from Calgary last year made the local CBC News [13]). However, new routes do typically appear in press releases. --RFBailey (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly but what about new small routes (like US new routes) which are not announced two? However, I think that online airline timetables are the best source for a cancellation if possible. If there is nothing about a cancellation, we can cite airlineroute.net for now but if there is another source (like a press coverage, etc) then we can replace it. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If we alow the inclusion in some cases, nothing will prevent anyone from using it everywhere. This is not a primary source, apart from the fact that its reliability is questionable. Why insisting with this? It's interesting to see how this Airlineroute.net stuff is getting out of control. In this edit, the user added an apparent third-party source, but the source cites Airlineroute...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So, did we find any conclusion? From my view I only see Jetstreamer totaly against it, some contributors indifferent and some in favour... JochenvW (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's important to reach consensus here, particularly considering this. The user has been using The African Aviation Tribune, a site that mirrors information from Airlineroute.net, as a reference in many African airport articles ([14] is an example).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll chime in as opposing their use as the only reliable sources in an article. I don't see any convincing arguments here that we should change the long standing position on that website and hence anyone that uses it as its sole source. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• I also oppose. Sources must come from official press releases or reliable third-party sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Having been dragged into this discussion, allow me to throw my two cents into the discussion. I agree with HkCaGu that airlineroute.net is reliable, in particular with respect to airlines canceling service, which is not normally announced unless necessary. In addition, if I may add, if reservations are now open (as is the case with Ethiopian Airlines' future service to Manila, which is now available on GDS according to the site in question), I don't see why we cannot add that in. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sky Harbor, MNL not bookable on ET's website nor an official press release has been released. Look before you say it's bookable. 166.205.55.35 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I did, thanks. I know it's not bookable on ET's website. However, it has been loaded onto GDS, according to OAG. Just because we can't book them directly with ET on their website does not mean that it's not already there. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with HkCaGu and Sky Harbor. To me Routes and airline routes are reliable sources. JochenvW (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have put the discussion in request at WP:ANRFC so we can bring this discussion to a closure since apparently we are not coming to an agreement. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maintenance

Lots of stubs and Airport articles needing attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance--Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cargo destinations

Does anyone know a good source for cargo destinations? For instance, the Heathrow article was recently updated by an IP adding Atlanta as a BA World Cargo destination. I have no idea where to look to verify this information. BA World Cargo's own website wasn't much help: (i) Atlanta is available as a cargo destination, but that may well just be cargo that's shipped on passenger flights; (ii) there were PDFs with lists of long and short-haul cargo destinations, but that dated from 2011, so I don't know how accurate or up-to-date that is. Does anyone know of good third-party sources for this sort of information? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about new routes, I believe http://www.aircargoworld.com is a good third-party website since this is a industry citation or you can google the airline and see if any announcements. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pago Pago International Airport

This article is now including parking fees, car rental companies, vacation companies, nearest hotels, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and more. Is this really how an article on an airport is supposed to look? This looks like a tourist or destination guide rather than an encyclopedia article. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, remove. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, directory, etc. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As Snoozlepet, not a travel guide - Bit of a mess of an article, very hard to follow with all those tables inserted between the text probably needs somebody with some time to look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Tons of unsourced content as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm hopeful that one of you who is more knowledgeable about how airport articles are typically laid out could go through this one. I look at it and think "Wow. Where to begin?" --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It just happens that Wikimedia has recently launched a new project for just the sort of information that would be useful for a tourist destination. Move this info to a page on this airport on that project and add a link there from this project. bd2412 T 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have initiated a Wikivoyage page on this airport. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been additional discussion with the editor who is trying to push this information onto the article. He represents a company there, and has a conflict of interest. That said, he seems interested in working towards a workable solution. See User talk:Jmon323#Pritchard_Airport_Services. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I've left a comment at the user's talk page, and also requested page protection for the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously, WP:RPP was declined.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Help needed: Air traffic management

Greetings! Air traffic management is currently a disambiguation page with a large number of incoming links. However, it does not appear to be a truly ambiguous topic. Rather, it seems like a topic for an umbrella article covering the relationship between the four areas of air traffic management listed on the page. If this assessment is correct, please help convert this page into an article properly addressing these topics. If this assessment is incorrect, please help fix the incoming links so that they are directed to the correct aviation-related topics. Cheers! bd2412 T bd2412 T 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mariscal Sucre International Airport

Hi everyone! I'm a little bit confused regarding the difference between Mariscal Sucre International Airport (New) and Mariscal Sucre International Airport? If, as it's stated in the hatnote, the former is under construction, how is that there are airlines operating at it. Why having two separate articles? One more thing, at least one of the airlines disclosed in the table of destinations (Aerolíneas Argentinas) does not operate in and out of Ecuador. More confusion is added considering that an official website is provided for each article, the two urls are different, but takes the reader to the same website. Can someone please shed some light into this mess?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Industrial airfield/airport as a separate type; what are "public" and "private"?

Ladies and gentlemen, we may have missing some common types of airports/airfileds. Particularly, at the Category:Airports by type‎ First of all, the category should be in line with the "public/private/military" parameter of the Template:Infobox airport (or the other way around). Then, there is a substantial number of industrial airfileds (some of them featuring long runways) that are neither airports nor airbases. This is particularly true for Ukraine: the Sviatoshyn Airfield is certainly neither of those, and the Hostomel Airport is too, I suspect. As I found out from Ukrainian Wikipedia, several major airbases here became de-facto industrial airstrips as only the civilian aviation maintenance companies once serving the Air Force survive there. Finally, the Mojave Spaceport and some Airbus facilities are essentially industrial airfields and not public airports. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dont get to worried about the term airport it is used in wikipedia to cover all types of airports/airfields/aerodromes/airbases/landing strips some of which would never be considered an airport by anybody. This makes the airport categories like Category:Airports by type‎ a bit of a nonsense but it is just the way wikipedia has developed. An industrial airfield is just a private airfield or aerodrome or even airport. I cant think of any Airbus airfields that are not airports and the term industrial airfield appears to be a unique Ukrainian concept by the look of it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A heads up on the incorporation of airport information on Template:Infobox military installation

Hey everyone! Per a recent discussion, the military installation (formerly military structure) infobox will now be incorporating airport information in it, to remove the need for two separate templates on airfield articles. Currently, work is going on here to incorporate the parameters that have been on Template:Infobox airport, but if people could help out and make sure that it is a seamless transition, that would be great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Airport title discussion

I've started an RM on the appropriate title of an airport, please take look and review the arguments. Thanks in advance for your input[15].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

KLM services to Boston

Hello. ConnorLax101 (talk · contribs) keeps insisting KLM serves Boston with its own metal. Can anyone please make him/her understand those services are codeshared? I can see at their talk page that not long ago there has been an argument among various editors with him/her regarding this very same matter. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained to him/her that KLM to Boston is a codeshare flight (which the airline that is actually operating the flight is Delta Air Lines). However, he blanked all of the arguments from his talk page unfortunately. Also, KLM's online timetables shows no KLM-operated flights between Boston and Amsterdam (the only nonstop flight listed is Delta Flight 230/231) and all other flights listed there are not direct and requires connections. Also, Logan Airport's page, does show KLM as an airline operating (as well as other codeshare airlines) but all of flights are operated by Delta. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Has he been warned? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. By many editors, actually. S(he) removed all the comments at their talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If it happens again just bring it to WP:AIV. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Foreign airlines flying between Colombo and Malé

Quite a few airlines combine their Colombo (CMB) and Malé (MLE) routes together on one flight with a short CMB-MLE hop. A while ago, the short hop could not be purchased, but recently, it became bookable on major online travel agents and also Korean's. (Turkish remains unbookable.) China Eastern's websites have been historically and remain full of bugs. (I haven't had time to check Emirates or Malaysia.) Due to momentum from before (when foreign airlines had no rights to sell), my recent discovery was marred with reversions from IPs, and after one seems to have understood, another pops up. I have run out of 3RR at this point. HkCaGu (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh, regarding Korean Air, their press release said that they don't sell tickets from CMB-MLE. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Emirates flight from CMB-MLE is bookable but MH's cannot both of these came from both airline's official websites. I didn't know MH had traffic rights or not. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

When and where was this press release? Apparently things changed. HkCaGu (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What the press release says is really irrelevant, if you can book the flight it should be listed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cargo "Destinations"

Hi guys. What do all of you consider a "cargo destination" to be? Does it need to have less than x number of stopovers, or is it just Point A to Point B with no cargo unloading? Please help airport pages with cargo. Thanks. -Connor (ConnorLax101 | talk) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

149 (dangerous) airports that will have unmanned control towers

I have updated some of these airports' articles. Please help update the others or I propose we create a category for them. Cheers

• Albert Whitted Airport - FL
• Anoka County-Blaine Airport (Janes Field) - MN
• Arnold Palmer Regional Airport - PA
• Athens-Ben Epps Airport - GA
• Barkley Regional Airport - KY
• Beverly Municipal Airport - MA
• Boca Raton Airport - FL
• Boire Field - NH
• Bolton Field - OH
• Brown Field Municipal Airport - CA
• Branson Airport - MO
• Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport - TX
• Castle Airport - CA
• Capital City Airport - PA
• Central Illinois Regional Airport - IL
• Central Wisconsin Airport - WI
• Chippewa Valley Regional Airport - WI
• Cobb County Airport (McCollum Field) - GA
• Coleman A. Young International Airport - MI
• Collin County Regional Airport at McKinney - TX
• Columbia Regional Airport - MO
• Columbus Municipal Airport - IN
• Concord Regional Airport - NC
• Coastal Carolina Regional Airport - NC
• Cuyahoga County Airport - OH
• Dallas Executive Airport - TX
• Danbury Municipal Airport - CT
• Decatur Airport - IL
• Donaldson Center Airport - SC
• Dothan Regional Airport - AL
• Double Eagle II Airport - NM
• Drake Field - AR
• Dubuque Regional Airport - IA
• Eastern Oregon Regional Airport - OR
• Easterwood Airport (Easterwood Field) - TX
• Easton Airport (Newnam Field) - MD
• Felts Field - WA
• Frederick Municipal Airport - MD
• Friedman Memorial Airport - ID
• Fullerton Municipal Airport - CA
• Gary/Chicago International Airport - IN
• General William J. Fox Airfield - CA
• Georgetown Municipal Airport - TX
• Glendale Municipal Airport - AZ
• Grand Strand Airport - SC
• Greenbrier Valley Airport - WV
• Griffiss International Airport - NY
• Groton-New London Airport - CT
• Glacier Park International Airport - MT
• Gwinnett County Airport (Briscoe Field) - GA
• Hagerstown Regional Airport (Richard A. Henson Field) - MD
• Hartford-Brainard Airport - CT
• Hawkins Field - MS
• Hickory Regional Airport - NC
• Hilton Head Airport - SC
• Hutchinson Municipal Airport - KS
• Idaho Falls Regional Airport - ID
• Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Airport - CT
• Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport - NY
• Johnson County Executive Airport - KS
• Kenosha Regional Airport - WI
• Kinston Regional Jetport at Stallings Field - NC
• La Crosse Municipal Airport - WI
• Lakeland Linder Regional Airport - FL
• Lancaster Airport - PA
• Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport - AZ
• Lawrence J. Timmerman Airport - WI
• Lawrence Municipal Airport - MA
• Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Airport - OK
• Leesburg International Airport - FL
• Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport - ID
• Lone Star Executive Airport - TX
• Lynchburg Regional Airport (Preston Glenn Field) - VA
• Manhattan Regional Airport - KS
• Martin State Airport - MD
• McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport - TN
• McNary Field - OR
• Ryan Field - AZ
• Mid-Delta Regional Airport - MS
• Middle Georgia Regional Airport - GA
• Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Airport - WV
• Millington Regional Jetport - TN
• Naples Municipal Airport - FL
• New Bedford Regional Airport - MA
• New Braunfels Municipal Airport - TX
• New Century AirCenter - KS
• New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport - FL
• Southwest Oregon Regional Airport - OR
• North Perry Airport - FL
• Norwood Memorial Airport - MA
• Ocala International Airport (Jim Taylor Field) - FL
• Ogden-Hinckley Airport - UT
• Ohio State University Airport - OH
• Olive Branch Airport - MS
• Olympia Regional Airport - WA
• Ormond Beach Municipal Airport - FL
• Owensboro-Daviess County Airport - KY
• Oxnard Airport - CA
• Page Field - FL
• Philip Billard Municipal Airport - KS
• Phoenix Goodyear Airport - AZ
• Pocatello Regional Airport - ID
• Portland-Troutdale Airport - OR
• Provo Municipal Airport - UT
• Punta Gorda Airport (formerly Charlotte County Airport) - FL
• Ramona Airport - CA
• Renton Municipal Airport - WA
• Riverside Municipal Airport - CA
• Sacramento Executive Airport - CA
• Salinas Municipal Airport - CA
• Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport - MD
• San Marcos Municipal Airport - TX
• Santa Fe Municipal Airport - NM
• Sawyer International Airport - MI
• Shreveport Downtown Airport - LA
• Smith Reynolds Airport - NC
• Southern California Logistics Airport - CA
• Southern Illinois Airport - IL
• Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport - WI
• Southwest Georgia Regional Airport - GA
• Space Coast Regional Airport - FL
• Northeast Florida Regional Airport - FL
• St. Cloud Regional Airport - MN
• St. Louis Regional Airport - IL
• Stennis International Airport - MS
• Stillwater Regional Airport - OK
• Stinson Municipal Airport - TX
• Sugar Land Regional Airport - TX
• Tacoma Narrows Airport - WA
• Texarkana Regional Airport (Webb Field) - AR
• Trenton-Mercer Airport - NJ
• TSTC Waco Airport - TX
• Tupelo Regional Airport - MS
• Tuscaloosa Regional Airport - AL
• Tweed-New Haven Airport - CT
• Tyler Pounds Regional Airport - TX
• University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport - OK
• Victoria Regional Airport - TX
• W. K. Kellogg Airport - MI
• Waterbury-Oxford Airport - CT
• Waukegan Regional Airport - IL
• Waukesha County Airport - WI
• Wheeling Ohio County Airport - WV
• Whiteman Airport - CA
• Wiley Post Airport - OK
• Witham Field - FL
• Wittman Regional Airport - WI
• Worcester Regional Airport - MA
• Yakima Air Terminal (McAllister Field) - WA

--Rangeblock victim (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Plenty more airports simply don't have control towers. We're not even mentioning in articles that these airports have contract towers, so why is the shutdown suddenly relevant? Also, without towers, these airports use common traffic frequency and TRACONs. TRACONs are not at other airports. In fact, they may not even be anywhere near an airport! HkCaGu (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really notable a lot of airfields dont have manned control towers so hardly dangerous, perhaps you should consider reverting any edits you have made as the comment you have added The 2013 Federal sequester will result in the closure of the airport's control tower and will require pilots to rely on air traffic controllers from other area airports. is clearly wrong. aircraft are able to operate without using a control tower under VFR conditions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I only updated airports articles with commercial airline service from the likes of American Eagle, US Airways Express, United Express and Allegiant. I think it's significant that airports with commercial turboprops and MD-80s have absolutely no limited guidance from ATC (eyes from above). Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many airports with commercial services have had limited tower hours for years, and these airports' ATC get turned over to TRACONs or even ARTCCs at night. It's wrong to say "absolutely no guidance" as the ATC system is more than just the tower on the ground. HkCaGu (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there is precisely zero need to declare "danger! danger!" here - because there is none. Airlines have operated into uncontrolled fields for years, and control towers have closed at night at airports for years. There is nothing significant here in the least, nothing worth mentioning in the articles, absolutley nothing defining for categorisation (note there is no Category:Controlled airports for instance). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many of your points are well taken. I wasn't trying to cry wolf, so, sorry if my words were written in such a way that you interpreted them that way. I will come up with better wording. If you have any ideas of how to change my wording, please discuss. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yea, much ado about nothing. These should be treated the same as any airport without an active tower. If the article previously did not mention the tower, there is no need to add anything about the tower no longer being maned. If the presence of an active tower was mentioned, then a simple statement without POV overtones that says, the tower lost funding as a result of the 2013 budget and the field now operates under VFR procedures. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you should also learn what dangerous means. LGA, MDW and SBH are dangerous airports and probably none of the ones you mentioned despite the title. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed text

Dear WP:Airport Friends,

Proposed text:

The 2013 Federal sequester will result in the closure of the airport's contract control tower and will require pilots to deploy visual flight rules or rely on TRACONs or ARTCCs.<ref>http://www.aaae.org/?e=showFile&l=TDDZKA</ref><ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2013/03/22/faa-tower-closures/2009371/</ref>

Proposed wiki-text:

The [[Sequester (2013)|2013 Federal sequester]] will result in the closure of the airport's contract [[control tower]] and will require pilots to deploy [[visual flight rules]] or rely on [[Terminal_Control_Center#Approach_and_terminal_control|TRACONs]] or [[Area Control Center|ARTCCs]].<ref>http://www.aaae.org/?e=showFile&l=TDDZKA</ref><ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2013/03/22/faa-tower-closures/2009371/</ref>

Cheers! --Rangeblock victim (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you're using future tense wording, are you prepared to go back and change to past tense once the towers close (April 7 per the USA Today article)? Also, I'd recommend using a citation template, such as {{Cite news}}, rather than bare URLs for the references as your proposal does. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Still dont think it is that notable to mention in the airport articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Milborne. This alone is still not notable. HkCaGu (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

uncited seasonal and charter services

Several airport articles contain lots of unsourced information related to such services, shouldn't they be removed, probably fake stuff in there too, to dress up local airport by patriots/enthusiasts, has happened many times before. 175.110.219.37 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless they have a RELIABLE SOURCE, it should be removed or tag {{cn}} to the page. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, airport articles are plagued of unsourced claims.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please write an article for Samoa Air (established 2012)

Please read these articles:

• LA Times
• USA Today
• www.samoaair.ws

We need a new article for Samoa Air. I moved existing article for Samoa Air to Samoa Air (1987–2003). Thanks. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubai/Dubai World Central

In mid-October 2013 opening Dubai World Central - Al Maktoum International Airport. Some airlines have already planned their flights from/to this airport. What name to use to distinguish the two airports in template "airlines-des-list"? In my opinion:

• DXB: Dubai-Al Garhoud or simply Dubai (like now)
• DWC: Dubai-Al Maktoum or Dubai World Central (without dash)

--Wind of freedom (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews that are long overdue

Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and Bengaluru International Airport, these two articles are there in the A-class review queue for more than two years. Clearly the articles do not meet A-class criteria. So, these should be failed, and A-class reviews closed. Now, who does that? The members of this project or wikiproject aviation?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, anyone can close the discussion. But I'm requesting assistance so that any other editor can shed light into this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 07:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since both the articles and the reviews were stale and the reviews hadn't gathered a single support !vote, I've boldly archived them both despite not being a WikiProject member. Huon (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new article about KLM Asia

I am formally requesting and getting consensus to make KLM's subsidary, KLM Asia an article. This is because it has a major presence on most Asian KLM routes, such as Taipei, Manila, and Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi. Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how much of a "formal" subsidiary is KLM Asia. KLM Asia, as far as I know, only exists to register planes in Taiwan so it can fly there, skirting Chinese government regulations, yet its planes are operated with Dutch crews from mainline KLM. KLM Asia planes are also shuffled all around the KLM network, and are not solely limited to Asia. Manila, for example, gets a mix of both KLM and KLM Asia aircraft. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. On second thought, it doesn't seem like a good article to create. Thanks. ^Oops?WorldTraveller101^{Follow my work?} 13:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination to delist File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg

Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg. --auburnpilot talk 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass changes to Romanian airport articles

Laurentiu Popa (talk · contribs) has been changing many of the Romanian airport articles by duplicating the information of airlines and destinations (Example here). Me and Eurocopter (talk · contribs) have reverted him/her, but I'd like to draw your attention to the matter. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting check of Talk:San Francisco International Airport for B class

I noticed that it is yet to be checked as a B-class article and I'm wondering if someone can check it against the criterion? Thanks. World Traveller101 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines re cargo airlines and destinations

The guidelines make no mention of cargo airlines and destinations (that I see), though many airport articles list them. This has become an issue over the last month or two at Logan Airport, with differing views of what constitutes a reliable source and what (if any) information about cargo airlines should be included.

My feeling is that including a list of cargo destination is not generally useful and should be advised against for a few reasons:

1. Cargo destinations are difficult to source, as schedules aren't always published, at least not nearly as clearly as passenger schedules.
2. I can't think of any encyclopedic value of listing cargo destinations. Presumably, cargo can be transported from any airport served by a given cargo carrier to any other airport served by that carrier, so how does it matter to an encyclopedia where a given flight flies?
3. Listing all cargo destinations allegedly served from an airport (including direct, multi-stop cargo flights) can get awfully cumbersome awfully quickly without communicating useful information.

Listing cargo carriers has some (although limited) value. However, I think the guideline should suggest that only cargo carriers that regularly fly dedicated cargo planes to an airport should be included; airlines that only sell cargo space on passenger planes should not be included.

Of course, the WP:AIRPORT guideline is just a guideline, and I'm not proposing that we go through and summarily delete all cargo lists; that's an editorial decision to be made at each article.

Any thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I suggest we have a "requirement" of reliable sources for flights and destinations. Here are some principles I can think of:

1. Cargo tables/listings are not must-haves, and unlike passenger destinations, a reliable source must be identified to justify existence.

2. List of carriers: Only carriers operating cargo flights can be listed.

3. List of destinations: Only nonstop destinations from cargo flights can be listed.

A "reliable source" means proof of cargo flights' existence, especially for carriers that also operate passenger services. A passenger airline having a cargo office means nothing. HkCaGu (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am agreeing with both ASHill and HkCaGu. I honestly believe that there are two main problems.

1. I agree with point #1 of HkCaGu, except for the fact that they are not must-have. Per WP:Airport, it needs to be a table, not a list and a reliable source must be provided. However, I find that finding one common reliable source is much more difficult than finding individual reliable sources.

2. I do apologize for any mistakes. I definitley added some passenger airlines with cargo space. I will gradually add more individual sources and remove the unreliable one.

I would also like to point out that unlike passenger destinations, cargo flights don't really have official flight numbers and a bunch of code-shares either, so a non-stop destination could mean having a few flights a day that might add or remove cargo and another U.S Airport. (For example, an EVA Air Cargo flight might leave JFK bound for Taipei, but might have some servicing and cargo additions and removals at a West Coast airport like San Francisco and then continue on to the hub, Taipei).

I am glad we brought up a discussion, since we're actually talking for all Wikipedia airport pages with long cargo lists now. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put up a draft guideline at User:Ashill/Cargo. Comments or edits welcome. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is indeed important, for me especially as my country is a global player in cargo sector. I hope to be back here with concrete suggestions. Thank you all, Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I like these guideline. However, HkCaGu, be careful that when you add the timetable/PDF, that it is current. Timetables from 2005 or even 2011 (any past year or timeframe) do no good and would get an tag, since it is not current. Sometimes, we just assume that the PDF timeframes are useful, without necessarily looking at the timeframe, since airlines (and cargo airlines, too), discontinue/suspend and commence services. I believe that any airport article with a cargo carrier list and not an Airline & Destination should be kept as a list and any with an A & D list that has not been reverted or disputed should be left alone, for now.
• May be flight numbers are included in a hidden note: No need for this note to be visible, but it lets editors know not to edit it or why it isn't edited.
• I would like to know better what significance having a cargo office at an airport has.

ASHill, thank you for making these guidelines. Thank you. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(Moving discussion which requires a reply here to keep it consolidated.)

Verifiability isn't just for other editors; it's for readers too. Hiding the supporting evidence is not acceptable. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No! I deleted the cargo list at the airport because it is too disputed and you consider for it to not be required. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

These have been up for a few days now with no objections expressed, so I'll put them in place in 24-48 hours unless there's further comment. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now tried following these guidelines in cleaning up JFK Airport. This immediately exposed one problem: Qantas doesn't fly nonstop to SYD or MEL from JFK, EVA doesn't fly to TPE, etc. It seems silly not to list the final destination of a cargo flight. Should the guideline be changed to include the final destination of cargo flights in addition to (or in place of) nonstop destinations? It seems obvious to include the final destination of cargo flights from outstations (as JFK is for QF and EVA), but it's not so clear on flights from the hub. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite what you've said to me, I still think that a simple airline list with individual sources/current schedules will actually serve a better purpose than disputed destination lists. Just sayin'. World Traveller101 13:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Has anything been decided on this??? After a spot check of a few major US airports, I find some with destination tables, some without, and with various headings. For example, Atlanta has no destinations, and includes the very non-MOS sub-heading "List of Cargo Carriers serving Atlanta", which seems incorrect on several counts. --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I made the proposed guideline live, as suggested above. The guideline doesn't explicitly recommend a header style (for either passenger or cargo flights), since the MOS of course applies. I just fixed the MOS issue at ATL.

We made the decision to leave three options: no cargo carriers, list cargo carriers only, or cargo carriers with destinations, understanding that different choices might make sense for different airports. The main focus was getting reasonable referencing standards appropriate for cargo airlines; very few airports meet this standard. I believe that WorldTraveller101 has started changing destinations to cargo airline lists only, but he's deliberately going slowly to ensure there's consensus. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sydney to London

I am having something of an edit war over Sydney airport. Is there any point having a flight from sydney to london listed as it goes through Hong Kong?

Point 7 needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.231.169 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To me, point 7 is very clear. QF1 is a direct flight from SYD-LHR not via a domestic QF hub, so London should be included as a Qantas destination from Sydney. What needs to be clarified? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the specific point is about VS, not QF. Same point applies. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Point 7 states the same flight number and aircraft. How do you know it's the same aircraft? For example: QF from SYD, MEL, PER and ADL will all fly to DXB to arrive around the same time, then they gather all the people going to LHR on one aircraft. By definition of point 7 there will be 4 flights to LHR when there is really only one and that is from DXB. The flight from DXB to LHR has a lot of different flight numbers. QF is not the only airline that does this. QF does it to make people who don't fly often feel more secure.

Point 7 may need some revision, in it's current form it is being used as a marketing arm for certain airlines. The mere application of a flight number is confusing and detracts from the accuracy of the data. By differentiating on plane type is in no way accurate or useful.

The list is supposed to be of flights and destinations NOT a study of flight numbers. This needs to be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.231.169 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2013‎

Your vision is good for a travel guide, i.e. Wikitravel. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Nobody is expected to get flight informations from this encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. So what exactly is the list of airlines and destinations meant to be? IF nobody is expected to get flight information then perhaps a deletion of the lists from each airport would be the way to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.231.169 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. But why deleting? For airport articles, I find useful to have the destinations served, as well as the airlines that fly to them. You don't?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if they were accurate. The way some airlines distribute flight numbers and destinations you could end up listing all the destinations that some airlines flies to. I have fallen foul to a six hour stop over on what was a "direct" flight. Perhaps a distinction could be made for flights that aren't non-stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.231.169 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, QF doesn't fly from PER or ADL to DXB. QF flies two flights a day from Australia to DXB: QF1 from SYD and QF9 from MEL. Both continue on to LHR, so they really are true direct services. (The rest of the "QF" flights to DXB are operated by Emirates and therefore don't get listed in the destination tables.) Your point about direct flights being used for marketing purposes by airlines is precisely why point 7 excludes "timetable direct" flights, mostly those through hubs.

Now, there is a (compelling, I think) argument to be made that the airline destination lists violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, even though they are useful. However, I suspect it would be hard to find consensus to delete them all; their existence on every airport page is a pretty clear indication of consensus. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I certainly think that airline destination tables should be more explicit to our readers about what they're supposed to contain. The guideline is helpful for editors but not readers. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning we've had in the past that justified the destination lists on airport articles was that they help to establish the scope of service at the airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments. My example wasn't entirely accurate but is sort of accurate in how some airlines treat flight numbers. I don't see any reason for deleting the lists, I find them quite helpful for an overall picture. Extending the list to include flight numbers and flight times would be something that would be not be maintainable. Maintaining the current list in its current form is enough at this time. The problem I see in the future is if (for example) Qantas starts direct flights to Paris (they have had these in the past) and starts a flight number change should the list represent this? Or maybe the way jetstar does these "direct" flights to all over Asia (They have done this in the past.) The list will be less of a representation of destinations and more of a list of airlines entire route marketing.

Showing direct flights is useful for some of the smaller airports that are on something of a milk run service but as to having to maintain the list every time an airline wishes to market a new "direct" route may be a pain. The decision not to include timetable direct connections is quite clear but why is a distinction made when a flight number has been attached? Seems like a double standard. Flight numbers change more often than routes. Maintaining a watch over if flights are in fact direct or marketing fluff isn't something that wikipedia should be overly concerned with.

At the moment point 7 isn't the clearest and could be changed. I would like to change it but I am not going to change it to reflect ambiguous rules that cannot properly checked. There is no real way to check if a direct flight continues on the same plane unless someone physically checks or it is obvious as in a milk run at a small airport.

I would like to see direct flights, code shares, timetable directs, flight numbers and schedules but unless the information is accurate and easy to keep accurate I don't how include any of it. There is enough argument on some of the pages about direct flights perhaps there can be a better way to include them? 68.174.231.169 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice, it's not very difficult to tell true direct flights from fake ones. In fact, for QF to LHR, there are ample news sources which discuss these flights in particular (in the context of the new EK/QF joint venture); adding a citation to a third party reference to the LHR, MEL, and SYD airport articles would be entirely appropriate to remove any ambiguity. It's fairly unusual to have third party sources for direct flights like this, though. Yes, QF could in principle shift a plane from flying SYD-DXB-LHR to SYD-DXB-CDG; we'd adjust the relevant articles if and when they do, just as for nonstop flights.

I see a hypothetical problem, not a real one in practice here. If you have suggested text that would improve the guideline, that would be great.

I do think that, as long as we're including a table of destinations, true direct flights like this are useful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have practices of treating "unstable" flight numbers/aircraft types/routes as "timetable directs". Example one is any continuation flight on Southwest Airlines. We don't list anything not nonstop. Example two is Delta through Narita. Every since before the Northwest merger, DL/NW kept changing flight numbers or aircraft types every few months and still doesn't seem to stabilize. HkCaGu (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding AS as a focus city at SAN

Two single-purpose registered accounts insisted on adding AS to the FC list on SAN's article, despite AS article's silence on FCs. I've run out of 3RR. Help needed! HkCaGu (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. An admin will likely take care of the two-account disruptive editor.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What may be causing some confusion is that AS did recently open a crew (flight attendants for sure, I had a F/A on a recent flight that I overhead say she was based at SAN, not sure about pilots) base in San Diego, and the've added flights from SAN to several non-hub destinations (Hawaii, Boston, Orlando, Mexico, plus Horizon to Fresno, Santa Rosa, and Monterey). So San Diego may be starting to look like a focus city, but there doesn't seem to be much published in a reliable source that makes the claim that it is. One thing I did find was from FlightGlobal, which in [16] stated San Diego International airport...and began to look like a new focus city for Alaska Airlines, and then the next day in [17] referred to another article with the text Alaska Airlines' growing focus city at the airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The two sources mentioned above come from a blog, so their reliability is at least questionable. In the meantinme the article has been protected for a week by Gamaliel (talk · contribs).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they fall under WP:NEWSBLOG; a reliable source (Flightglobal) that publishes in a format they call a "blog". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Maps

Recently 24.236.176.199 (talk · contribs) has been adding multiple maps to airport articles. They are adding multiple maps and usually outside the infobox. In the case of Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield they removed the map from the infobox added a second showing the location in England and a third showing the location in the UK (I guess they forgot to add the other two showing the location in Europe and the location in the world). Because the map is no longer in the box the article now has no coordinates in the box or at the top. I don't really feel that they add anything to the article and we should just stick with the one map in the infobox. What do others think? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

One map is usually enough. A second would need to be justified. A third has to be unencyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one map to be included. The text in the lead provides the location of any airport, and anyone interested in further details is meant to follow the wikilinks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Two are useful, for those who are geographically challenged, but three are too many... --Stonecutter9 05:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Airport Codes

When creating/editing airport maps, should we be using the IATA or ICAO code? Different maps have different codes, so maybe there should be a standard? Personally, I prefer an IATA code, because usually they reflect the airport/city name, but either is OK with me. What do you guys think? --Stonecutter9 05:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are not the only two codes. {{Infobox airport}} which is the preferred option or {{airport codes}} for simple inline use should be used for correct linking and a standard format, are the two templates provided for this purpose. It is best to use all of the current codes. Past codes can be discussed in the text using {{airport codes}} as needed. The template documentation shows the codes supported. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of the question. They are asking should the ident on the map in the box use the IATA 3 letter code or a 4 letter location identifier, be it an ICAO or a specific country code, such as the IATA one here or the 4 letter one here. I prefer the 4 letter code as there seems to be more of those than IATA codes. However, there are also airports that seem to have only the IATA code available. Also there are occasions where the IATA code does not match with the location, see the second example above. Currently, I think most UK, Australian and Canadian airports are using 4 letter codes. I really don't care for the bold though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Separation of domestic/international flights at Chinese airports

I have noticed that a couple of China's airport articles have domestic/international separated with the exception of PEK and SHA (PVG has dom/intl flights separated but they operate out of the same terminal) with the table having no extra column for terminal. Can anyone take a look and see if it needs to be fixed or not. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "private charter"

The guidelines say that airport articles are not supposed to list "private charters". But what are those? Some articles list many charter flights, like Djerba–Zarzis International Airport. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A private charter is the hiring of an aircraft such as a Cessna Caravan or a Gulfstream corporate jet - or even an airliner - by a person or company, without reselling any seats on board. Charter flights listed in airport articles are those operated to regular schedules on behalf of package-holiday companies such as Thomas Cook Group. YSSYguy (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought

So recently, I've been looking at some of the ratings on the project and I've been seeing so many outdated ratings. John F. Kennedy International Airport was ranked C-class because it lacked citations. But clearly, 130 good sources met the B-class criteria, so it was a B-class. Here are a few flaws to the rating system I see:

• The criteria is way too broad. There needs to be a certain ratio for criterion such as citations, such as quantity VS quality. Perhaps, an article with only 100 [but extremely helpful and very good] citations meets the B-class criterion, while an article with 110 sources [but 20 are either dead or unreliable] should not meet it, but I just don't see that.

• The ideas of good coverage and well-written are extremely broad, "stretchy" and debatable. There is no solid definition. Does it mean it shows gate numbers for terminals, latitude and longitude, like what does it mean? Well-written? Does that mean it wasn't written by socks, thought out...all of these seem to lack meaning and definition.

To sum up my big point, the criterion just isn't as in-depth and defined as well as it should be. There's a lot more than the number of inline citations or how much in each and every section there is. There just needs some work done on the specifics.

Thanks, fellow aviators Your pal, WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 00:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark

Hi all, longtime admirer of your Wikiproject. Wanted to let you know that Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark has been nominated for deletion. If any editor has constructive history, data, events, or other material to add to the article I'd appreciate it! Thanks again. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

American Eagle operated by American Eagle

I don't think we should have "American Eagle operated by American Eagle", even though that nowadays American Eagle can be operated by SkyWest, etc. Do we say United Airlines operated by United Airlines? No! American Eagle is a brand of multiple operators but is also itself a certificated operator. "American Eagle Airlines|American Eagle" should be sufficient. Any thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HkCaGu (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2013 July 21 (UTC)

I'd be OK with either "American Eagle operated by American Eagle Airlines" or just "American Eagle Airlines", now that "American Eagle" is a brand like "United Express" or the old "AmericanConnection". I have a slight preference for the former, as it's more consistent with what we do for other airlines. It's slightly awkward (presumably partly because AMR is trying to confuse things), but only slightly. I do think that "American Eagle operated by American Eagle Airlines", as is currently done at O'Hare International Airport, at least, is better than "American Eagle operated by American Eagle".

It might be time to have a separate American Eagle (airline brand) article (or section in American Airlines), as is implicitly suggested at American Eagle (disambiguation), since United Express and Delta Connection both have such an article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say American Eagle operated by American Eagle Airlines. Perhaps time to split the American Eagle article into the brand and the airline itself as per the above comment. It seems this regional airline thus far is the only one in this situation, sharing the name with the regional brand of the parent. Sb617 (Talk) 13:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, aa.com lists flights as "operated by American Eagle Airlines" or "operated by SkyWest Airlines as American Eagle". If you want to see for yourself, do a search for SAN-LAX. There's been quite a bit of talk that American Eagle Airlines will eventually be changing names, at which point this will become a moot discussion. I'm fine either way, though I'd lean towards simply "American Eagle" as sufficient. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism continues on Shahjalal International Airport after protection expires

A year ago we were having lots of problems with IP users adding a bunch of non-existent destinations to airport articles en masse. For the most part, we were able to stop it by blocking some of the IPs and semi-protecting articles, but the problems have arose again. For example, Shahjalal International Airport had a one-year semiprotection on it, but it recently ended and now the page is being vandalized again, by the same 58.97 range of IP addresses. I don't know if this has been happening on other airport articles; HkCaGu (talk · contribs) would probably know more than me. Could we have an admin like CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) or Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) take care of this by blocking the user and/or protecting the page again? Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 00:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. That notification system works. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the Bangladesh Airport Vandal, in the 180.149 and 58.97 IP ranges. The protection probably worked, as this is the airport for Dhaka the capital and there's no "fun" vandalizing other articles without being able to access this one. This vandal has not been on my radar for a while. The currently most active IP vandal is the India Statistics Vandal, in the 121.246 and 61.17 ranges: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 121.246.65.103, who simply changes statistics/numbers resulting in near-zero net byte changes. HkCaGu (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action! This vandal hadn't been on my radar either lately, until another user informed me that the vandalism started again after semi-protection ended. —Compdude¹²³ 00:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User of airlineroute.net in the Addis Ababa Bole International Airport article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:AfricaTanz keeps insisting on using airlineroute.net as a source for Ethiopian Airlines to Munich and ending Brussels. As per the last discussion, there was no consensus to use that source for starting routes on Airport pages. A few airport pages may be using those sources, but not all pages are using them (and are regularly reverted by other editors in the project apart from myself). I would like to hear others thoughts on this, or hopefully start another discussion on whether to use those sources project wide before approving. Sb617 (Talk) 23:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the previous discussion regarding the matter. Therefore, airlineroute shouldn't be considered as reliable. I've requested full protection of the article above.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me add that AfricaTanz (talk · contribs) created their account in November last year, so we may not expect him/her to be familiar with the guidelines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus one way or the other was reached there. Let me quote the conclusion:

"No consensus on the question of whether these sources are reliable for verifying airline routes. There's a range of opinions here, and a couple of the arguments (not just on one side) don't feel particularly strong in addressing the question at hand. If a reboot of this RfC is desired in the future, it may be useful to consider WP:RSN as a venue, with a notice here, to attract broader participation."

Since then, airlineroute.net has been broadly used all over Wikipedia. Editor practice has created consensus to use this source. Sb617 altered the status quo (instigated by an IP user) on the Addis Ababa airport article and then edit warred to death to reach the final result that he or she wanted: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). This user also intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented what the consensus was about this subject, to bully his point of view. His first edit summary was "airlineroute.net, a personal insider blog is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS and per WP:Airports past discussion". That was an outright lie. His second edit summary was "refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_12#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com, which lead to no consensus to use". Another lie. His third edit summary was "replace insider blog reference". Another lie because that website is not a blog. His fourth edit summary was "I know many in the Airports wiki project doesn't like people using insider sources". Another lie and, more importantly, irrelevant because what a few at the project want doesn't decide anything. He or she also embedded the following false and threatening note in the article: "Please do not use airlineroute.net per WP:Airports discussion, there was no consensus that this source met Wikipedia's RS requirements. Please take this to WP:Airports before using. Adding without discussion will be considered vandalism". He then canvassed 3 other users to come to his rescue: (1), (2), (3). His or her conduct has been truly shocking. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In the previous discussion on this subject, only 2 persons claimed that airlneroute.net was not a reliable source. Everyone else (about 10) said that it was reliable. Notably, one of the 2 objectors was Jetstreamer, who requested full protection of the article in question, thereby preserving Sb617's sixth revert and then in this section misrepresented the result of the last discussion. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I frankly think that AfricaTanz's arguments (on this talk page only, without looking into edits elsewhere) are reasonable: canvassing doesn't look good, and there isn't a consensus not to use airlineroute.net as a source. (AfricaTanz's tone could be better.) airlineroute.net is a factually accurate source for its limited purview (changes to airline schedules and destinations), and the source of their information (GDS systems) is clear, which meets my reading of WP:RS. On the other hand, I don't think there's a rush to add destinations to airport and airline articles as soon as they're announced, so I'm also unclear why we can't wait for airlines' published schedules to reflect the destination. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While I may not be the perfect angel out there when it comes to disputes in Wikipedia editing, last I've checked 2 of the users I've 'canvassed' were neutral on the subject (one even said he wouldn't mind if it was used), although both have reverted edits using the source in the past, whilst the other have argued against it. If I was that vindictive, I would've only chased after registered users and IP users that were dead straight against the disputed sources. However, while I do admit I haven't kept my cool in the past in editing disputes, I agree with the above user about the tone, which doesn't do anyone involved any favors. However, AfricaTanz got a point that a no consensus to use or against at the time could change. (and the default action in discussions, for example a deletion discussion which defaults to keep, can also be disputed as well. The same said for disputed sources, which in many cases defaults to replace with a source that is reliable, or remove the disputed content alltogether.

But now this discussion has started, it is time to begin the arguments for or against a source not generally accessed by the general public but insider sources sharing information out there on the web. While I don't mind if the dispute sources from airlineroute (and associated companies) do eventually get accepted by the project consensus for passing as reliable sources, the problem is that they are not always reliable, for example the recent announcement by [[Philippine Airlines] that they weren't cancelling MNL-YYZ for now and that they were selling tickets again past September, despite the source stated above showing a cancellation around that date by accessing the booking systems internally (ie parts of the booking system not accessible to the general public) which they have since updated. Another example is the ongoing Air India to Australia, which they keep putting on and off and on and off.

Overall, I personally think waiting for a confirmation from a official or primary source before adding instead of rushing and insisting to add/remove stuff when insider sources announce things. Things are subject to change at any minute and are not set in stone. Sb617 (Talk) 07:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My arguments are still the same: airlineroute only reports factual changes from GDS. I don't see why GDS should not be considered as reliable, as they are the basis of booking system used by airlines. There are even sometimes mistakes in airlines PR (for example easyJet claiming that their new London-Amman route was their longest route at this time, which was wrong). Slasher-fun (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Slasher-fun said, mainstream media sources get things wrong all the time, particularly about aviation. I don't see why having some things wrong occasionally (because GDS is wrong) is a significant strike against airlineroute.net; I don't think they have a general pattern of being wrong. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both users above. — Lfdder (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto JochenvW (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that mainstream sources do get things wrong regularly, parts of the GDS isn't accessible to the general public and can only be accessed by staff involved in the industry or 'people in the know'. Provided that registered users and IP users can back up the insider sources can back that up with the primary source (eg the airline's website, or associated travel sites eg Zuji) loading it into their booking systems, I'd have no problem with the primary website or primary booking sites being used as the source (a mention in the edit summary to refer users to look up the primary source's schedules/bookings is enough as they are not saved to a static link).

Things being loaded in the GDS and being reported by insiders without the primary sources behind backing it up isn't always a confirmation that a flight will go ahead or end up being cancelled, regardless if it ends up being true or not. Having said that, it leads to another WP:WAIT situation, at least until the changes is officially loaded into the major travel site(s) and/or the airline(s) booking engine(s), which then cancels out the previous sources used (whether it may be official or insider). But if this discussion leans towards a consensus for people to list changes in a hurry whether if it may came from insider site(s) or a breaking media release with little details (in which either source can be wrong at times), then I won't mind. Sb617 (Talk) 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a name for the logical fallacy you present in your last sentence. — Lfdder (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

People can make their own conclusions on whether my last sentence forms a formal fallacy because of news sources and insider sources are both known to being wrong at times. Perhaps it could be argued that BOTH type of sources (news articles or insider sources) to not be used instead (or used with precaution), considering the difficulty in verifying schedules from both types of sources, in a few cases may be bordering on crystal ball predictions if minimal details are listed and it can't be backed up with more reliable sources, and restrict sources to either the primary sources (such as airline websites or major travel booking sites or reliable sources with a clearly stated start or finish date). Perhaps news articles and insider sources should be used with caution provided it can be backed up with other sources such as the booking engines? But at this point, I'm happy to at least start this discussion again and hopefully get a more clearer consensus. Sb617 (Talk) 12:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to point out that the warring two of the editors above ran into is not productive (that's why the article has been fully-protected), and I believe this discussion should have arisen first, here or at the article's talk page. IMHO, having no consensus for not using a source automatically puts that source in question. I think this is the proper time for this matter to be settled once and for all. To this purpose, more editors voicing their opinions will be more than welcome.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and I'm saying that as one of the two editors involved in the earlier edit war. Just because a number of editors are using it, followed by a few others not agreeing with it elsewhere in the project, regardless if the registered users or IPs participated in the past discussion or not doesn't automatically mean that there is a consensus to use the disputed sources in question. Now is a good time to settle this. Sb617 (Talk) 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but for what it's worth, I see only one editor (Sb617) who has expressed doubts about airlineroute.net as a reliable source in this discussion (plus one who has said there is no consensus but not explicitly commented on the merits), and 5 who have said or agreed that it is reliable.

Re comment above: reputable news sources are clearly reliable sources (even though they do get things wrong sometimes), and they of course have sources the general public doesn't have access to, including both personal interviews with people the public couldn't get an answer from and and paid services the media use for data. airlineroute.net uses the latter; the fact that their underlying data is not publicly available (without a fee) does not make airlineroute.net unreliable. Remember that secondary sources are generally better than primary sources, not worse. airlineroute.net and news media are both closer to secondary sources than primary sources, while GDS itself and airlines' published schedules are clearly primary sources. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Making it simple, if an airline releases a press release for that route/service, then use it. Airlines may or may not release official press releases the same day airlineroute.net make the announcement (the airline may officially announce a route a week or two after airlineroute.net says they will start it). If not, then secondary sources can be used. I feel much better if the sources come from GDS or the airline's published schedules. But if not secondary sources are fine. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Airlines tend to not publicly announce the closing of routes. Other airlines don't do press releases at all. If we rely on press releases we'll miss changes that are not announced by airlines or are subject to corporate communication strategies. But then again, two weeks won't kill us, would it? How would that work in practice? airlineroutes.net would be OK if there is at least two weeks between the release and the access date? Would work for me. JochenvW (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

While some airlines may not publicly announce the closure of routes, however accessible and reliable secondary sources such as the booking engines, or the airlines website showing the 'zeroing' out of those flights would be a reliable backup for the insider (or media) sources. However, as said previously, changes are not always set in stone, like the recent PAL and Air India reversals on flight changes in recent years shortly after insider sources said otherwise. In regards to closures, perhaps check the airlines or the GDS of the many travel booking sites to confirm what the media sites/insider sources said before using those sources to confirm a route closure, otherwise don't use? until it starts showing otherwise by either the primary sources or reliable secondary accessible sources (GDS) Sb617 (Talk) 08:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To me - as an industry insider - airlineroutes.net is the single most important and reliable source of route changes by airlines operating at my airport. Occasional errors are usually corrected very quickly as it is monitored by a lot of industry insiders. I am happy with airlineroutes.net to be the source of airlines serving my airport in our Wikipedia article. JochenvW (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. The clear consensus is that airlineroute.net is reliable and should be used on English Wikipedia. AfricaTanz (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is very likely that a clear consensus is forming this time around. Glad to see people applying the three P's, the use of procedures from second/third party sources and applying IAR in this case to improve the project overall. If a uninvolved party can close this discussion within the 24 to 48hrs (let's allow more opinions first before closing) it would be good. Sb617 (Talk) 10:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.