Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Very Odd Table of Contents Placments

I have been trying to figure this out, TOC's are being moved into the WP:LEAD sections of airport articles, it looks very odd. Is this a new standard, we are using on airport articles?? Examples include General Mitchell International Airport andCincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Marcusmax (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 August 2008

I think User:Dhammerindy has decided he/she doesnt like the white space next to the TOC so he/she is working through American airports changing them. No it hasnt been agreed just a new user being bold. Dont think he/she realises he/she has a few thousand more to do if they want them all the same. Perhaps we should invite him/her to comment on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note inviting him/her to comment here.MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I had no idea such a group existed otherwise I would have brought up the TOC change idea here first. The madness behind the method was to create a more uniform looking page. Pages with more content often had huge white space areas. Wrapping the text around the TOC made for a cleaner look and less scrolling for the user. I might miss one but I think I've done ORD, MDW, MKE, STL, IND, CVG, CMH, CLE, and DTW. If the group would prefer this not be done let me know and I'll pull the changes. If the group likes the new look the change is easy to make. It is the very first line of each page that I had changed. You simply add the line that includes the TOC to go with the new look or just delete that one line to undo the change.

Dhammerindy (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that we stay with the default used on almost every page. No reason for these articles to look different then every other one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll redo those pages later on this evening. Nice to know this group exists. Next time I get a crazy idea like this I'll float it by everyone first. Dhammerindy (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The TOC placement should now be back to its original place. Dhammerindy (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up for me, I thought I missed some big new formatting thing. Oh and sorry for not signing my username on my original message. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews Going Nowhere

It seems as if our Peer Reviews, and A-Class Reviews are not moving at all. I figure if all our users make it it a priority to review just one then things can go forward. A-class reviews especially, as there are many that need to be passed or failed. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

US-airports

Please note the group of templates that add external links to articles about airports in the United States has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:US-airport. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Airport template contents

In looking at the external material in these templates, I'm thinking that SkyVector should be dropped. This is not something that the average reader would be helped by. This is pure pilot information and they already know where to find it. Any consensus behind a suggestion like this? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the US-airports TfD discussion, I suggested looking for a model for a possible solution at the tools that handle various web mapping sites based on a lat/lon coordinate. But instead the tool would be keyed off the airport code. The solution with the mapping links seems to have solved a very similar problem by inclusion, rather than arguing about what to exclude. But it also doesn't litter the page with links. Seems a good compromise. Ikluft (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Service end date and removal of destination from listing

I just reverted a large number of premature removals of destination listings. Today, Labor Day, Monday, September 1, 2008, is the last day of operation of many routes in the United States. The cutbacks begin tomorrow, Tuesday, September 2. It's now 3 am PDT and 6 am EDT, and the last day of flights has barely begun. Until the last flight to a certain destination departs, there is still that service and it shouldn't be removed. Conversely, removing a listing one or two days late is not wrong, as it plainly states "ends September 1". HkCaGu (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're getting a bit nit picky here. IMO, as long as it's at least the correct day GMT, I'd let it slide since we're only dealing with a difference of a few hours and in the end it won't be there anyway. I agree there's no problem with removing a day or two late since the end date is specified. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional issue that comes up is what exactly is meant by "ends September 2". Does this mean that the last flights are on the 2nd or the 1st? ExpressJet Airlines is a perfect example; their branded service had been listed as ending September 2 based on previously released information, however the last flights were actually on the 1st: [1]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, based on the information provided by sources like airline press releases, printed or web schedules, OAG and GDS listings, etc., "ends Sept. 1" means that Sept. 1 is the last day of service, and that's what we should use in Wikipedia. That said, I strongly agree with Hawaiian717 that a difference of a few hours or days is not really significant. The route listings are meant to be generally indicative of airline service, and Wikipedia is emphatically not a provider of precise schedule information. (See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL.) --MCB (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking of dates

Remember those old discussions? Well the MoS has apparently been changed. See this which I believe basically says don't link dates. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah when I found that out I made a point to remove that clause from the project guideline that was changed a few months before. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for 'External links' content

I added guidelines and suggestions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#External links on what to include or avoid in External links sections of airport articles. I had a strange circumstance which prompted me to do this. An editor whose self-proclaimed specialty is removal of linkspam went through my edit history and removed links to any kind of businesses and organizations at all the airport articles I've recently edited, including some links I added and any other external links that were already on these pages. I restored one page with an explanation on its talk page. Aviation-related businesses and organizations can be relevant parts of the description of an airport, whether looking at them from the ground or air, since the airport operator/owner usually doesn't perform all activities that occur there. These sites, when they say they're at the airport, can also contribute to the overall notability of the airport. Of course, WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS guidelines apply - so they have to be presented equally and in a neutral way. Before repairing the rest of the articles, I wanted to document guidelines on what is relevant at an airport, what isn't, and how to tell them apart. Comments? Suggestions? Ikluft (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If there no objections, I'll use this as the guideline behind restoration of aviation-related external links for on-field businesses and organizations that are part of the notability of these fields (airport information beyond government databases) but were removed from Watsonville Municipal Airport, Hollister Municipal Airport, Kingman Airport (Arizona) and Mountain Valley Airport on Aug 26. Ikluft (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I could still be convinced either way, but I'm leaning towards not including them on the basis of WP:NOTDIR. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reid-Hillview Airport is a good example of what not to include in an airport article - most of the links in that article should really be deleted as they are not really relevant as per WP:NOTDIR, need to be carefull that the rationale is just a licence to WP:SPAM. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#External links is reverted until a consensus is established I appreciate being WP:BOLD but if Reid-Hillview Airport is a good example then it needs to be discussed. One day is not really long enough to allow various editors from different time zones to consider the proposal. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taken aback by these responses. WikiProject Airports is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of airports", yet the responses I'm seeing here seem like editors who volunteered to help with that purpose are actively working to dismantle WP's coverage of airports. How can you improve coverage of an airport by eliminating information about what's on the field? It's getting hit from two directions (though I realize no one editor has done both)... On one hand, there was resistance in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Notability when I suggested having a basic level of notability for public airports at a stable and easy-to-define level from which a stub article can be established. We did agree that previous AfD discussions and results supported the principle that government airport lists provide only verifiability but not notability. Some wanted an exception for airports with airline service, which alone is unbalanced favoritism toward one kind of aviation business, but were adamant against inclusion of public airports even though those had support in recent AfD history. Now it's coming from another direction - now systematically removing content of airport articles. There's the deletion of links to relevant on-field sites and the proposed AfD of all the US-airports templates. WP:NOTDIR was not intended to dismantle whole categories of info on WP just because some editors are uninterested. I'm surprised that editors in WikiProject Airports are not getting that - airports are handled differently in different countries.If WikiProject Airports is to have any purpose at all, it must set limits to protect data that supports notability, verifiability and/or reliable sources for airports. Either that or call the project a sham and shut it down for failure to perform its purpose. For those of you in Europe (including the UK), efforts to exclude the way the US does things is just as unacceptable as if we tried to make a global standard based on the US only. I know you'd object to that - how can I convince you not to try to do the same to us? If you're serious about improving WP coverage of airports, then it needs to be inclusive of different ways that different countries use them! Ikluft (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment about notability but looking at the airport articles without previous involvement they appear to be just a link farm, loads of external links to almost everything that somebody can think of about the airport. External links in the body of the article (against WP:EL) mainly for non-notable, example a lists of taxi operators, lists of FBOs, even lists of charities and local orgainisations!. A link to current weather can not be deemed encyclopedic but I will not go over the arguments from the AfD. I suspect the some users have mixed up an encyclopedia with a flight planning/travel guide. But to move on I think we need a sensible discussion on the external link guidelines which should then sort out what should and should not be in the article.MilborneOne (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added some suggested words at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/page content for consideration and discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we're making some progress. MilborneOne's suggested words have been merged into the guideline. Ikluft (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I split up multiple sentences into sub-points and added some points that were suggested by User:Gladtohelp. These changes emphasize finding balance. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#External links now has the shortcut WP:AIRPORT-LINKS. What else does this need to reach the point of a balanced guideline? Ikluft (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the sentence "If free maps or images of the airport are not available for use in the article then links can be added to provide additional information." Adding links like that goes against Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, #1, #4,#10 and #11. As to the MfD of US-airports templates that has to do with the removal of external links and not removing information from an article. If the information in the external links is important to the article then it should be in the article and not available only through an off-Wiki link. Frankly I don't see this as some sort of anti-US effort but it looks that way because the US has better web coverage of airports than other countries but that doesn't mean they need to be included. I'm not sure why we need to provide links to businesses located at any airport if the company is not notable enough for it's own article. In articles about a city we don't have external link sections for the companies located in the city so why do that for airports?

MilborneOne, I agree that real-time weather links shouldn't be in the article. Of course I'm the one that added them to multiple Canadian airports, {{Can-arpt-wx}}. However, at the time there were spamming effort on to include links to private weather mashup sites. Given the choice I would rather see a link to the site of the organisation producing the weather rather than a redistribution site. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ICN destinations

Came across Incheon International Airport and discovered that the destination list is in another article, Airlines and destinations at Incheon International Airport. Shouldn't the destinations be in the airport article itself? pikdig (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that I recall says they have to be in the article. Having said that, the article layout does not seem to follow the projects layout guide. Those separate destination articles probably would not pass at AfD. The content is full of issues, starting with the flags and making this into a travel guide. Even the templates used in there are useless since you can't read the top bar! Don't even know where to begin on a cleanup approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose redirecting the page to Incheon International Airport and recreating the destination list in the standard format as described on Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content. As much as I like the idea of this format, it doesn't really work. There's too much redundant information, not just the flags as Vegaswikian pointed out, but also repeating the operating carrier's IATA and ICAO codes on every line. Shanghai Pudong International Airport has the same format integrated into the article, rather than on a separate destinations list, and I feel that it's just too big. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. They are simply hard to read with each destination occupying one line and airlines, cities, and airports repeated who knows how many times! HkCaGu (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think part of the objection is with the readability since there is a lot of comma seperated data in there. Maybe formating this in a different way might help, say like in this example:

• Southwest Airlines

Albany

Albuquerque

Amarillo

Austin

Baltimore/Washington

Birmingham (AL)

Boise

Buffalo

Burbank

Chicago-Midway

Cleveland

Columbus (OH)

Denver

El Paso

Fort Lauderdale [begins November 2]

Hartford

Houston-Hobby

Indianapolis

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Little Rock

Long Island/Islip

Los Angeles

Louisville

Lubbock

Manchester (NH)

Midland/Odessa

Nashville

New Orleans

Norfolk

Oakland

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Ontario

Orange County

Orlando

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Portland (OR)

Providence

Raleigh/Durham

Reno/Tahoe

Sacramento

St. Louis

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Jose (CA)

Seattle/Tacoma

Spokane

Tampa

Tucson

Tulsa

Washington-Dulles

Or a more compact form like:

• Southwest Airlines

Albany

Albuquerque

Amarillo

Austin

Baltimore/Washington

Birmingham (AL)

Boise

Buffalo

Burbank

Chicago-Midway

Cleveland

Columbus (OH)

Denver

El Paso

Fort Lauderdale [begins November 2]

Hartford

Houston-Hobby

Indianapolis

Jacksonville

Kansas City

Little Rock

Long Island/Islip

Los Angeles

Louisville

Lubbock

Manchester (NH)

Midland/Odessa

Nashville

New Orleans

Norfolk

Oakland

Oklahoma City

Omaha

Ontario

Orange County

Orlando

Philadelphia

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Portland (OR)

Providence

Raleigh/Durham

Reno/Tahoe

Sacramento

St. Louis

San Antonio

San Diego

San Francisco

San Jose (CA)

Seattle/Tacoma

Spokane

Tampa

Tucson

Tulsa

Washington-Dulles

Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work in Safari. Both appear as a single long list. I hesitate to use multiple columns to reduce space, since I doubt it works in IE either; I recall the documentation for {{reflist}} notes that multiple columns there don't work in IE; the reflist multiple columns do work in Safari. I thought we had some discussions towards a table format for this before, let me see what I can find. Maybe it was for the airline destination lists, though. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 8#Destination lists as a table?. Looks like the discussion just sort of ended without any consensus to do anything. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right or in IE, just checked both. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I looked at reflist and used their coding, seems to work on safari but not IE. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well these parameters are defined in this CSS3 draft. That probably explains why it does not work in IE. This draft appears to be about the only auto flowing of columns that I could see. So the table may be the only other option, at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review

I've put together an essay at Wikipedia:Pocket Consensus that I think your project members may like to review. The idea started to come together in my mind during recent AfD discussions on airports, so I thought that you might want to review and comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingfisher flights to SFO

Is Kingfisher Airlines beginning flights from Bangalore to San Francisco on November 1. Since this website[2] states they are indeed flying to SFO from BLR on Nov. 1 but I went to the airline's website and attempted to book a BLR-SFO-BLR flights and no where is SFO in the booking engine. I want to know if this is correct? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the FAA codes?

I found this http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/part91.html I saw: "Harbican Airpark Airport, Katy, TX....... 9XS9 1,200" - Which one is the airport's FAA code? Or are none of them FAA codes? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright - I found out the identity of Harbican Airport - But I am trying to see if these other Katy, Texas area airports listed here are still active, and/or what their airport codes are http://www.psl.nmsu.edu/uav/support/docs/FAR_Part_91.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

List of local identifiers is at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/LID/LIDHME.htm It has 56TE Cardiff Brothers Airport, 2TA0 Darmar Medical Emergency Heliport, TX28 Dewberry Airport, 59TE Hoffpauir Airport, 6XS0 Rwave Heliport and 9X9 Sack-O-Grande Acroport Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Copa Holdings

User:Luisfege has been putting Copa Airlines and AeroRepública under Copa Holdings in what seems to be almost every airport the airlines both fly to. I haven't reverted any of these even though I think it's a bit strange. Thoughts? NcSchu_(Talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of heliports

I started some articles about some privately-owned, private use heliports. (i.e. they are NOT for fixed wing aircraft) Then I realized how numerous they are. What are the notability of privately-owned, private use heliports? For some (of news stations, hospitals) I would simply redirect the heliport name and FAA code to the organization. But what should I do with private heliports that are not owned by notable people or groups? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem that I have noticed with including heliports in other articles occurs when you add an infobox. It can make the article formating look rather bad. Not saying this is a wrong decision just commenting on appearance. Also which talk page would the project banner go on? The redirected page or the target or both? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I placed the project page in the final destination article (I.E. University of Texas Medical Branch - that one has two heliports). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See the current proposal for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability and let us know on the talk page if you have anything to add to make it better. So far the advice is that heliports are usually part of another facility and rarely notable on their own, unless there are reliable sources excluding government databases specifically about the heliport. Ikluft (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Airport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of Melbourne Airport now open

The FAC for Melbourne Airport is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone could give Melbourne Airport a copyedit, it'd be very much appreciated. A copyedit would do wonders for this article. Mvjs (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Los Angeles International Airport

Due to the many recent edit wars that occurred on this article, Los Angeles International Airport has now been protected indefinitely. We are trying to resolve a major dispute in a fair and fashionable way without people calling each other names. Recently, Qantas, Mexicana, and Virgin America have been added to the introduction saying that LAX is a focus city/secondary hub for them. We are trying to determine whether this is true or not. If anyone is willing to help resolve this issue, please discuss your suggestions at the article's talk page so we can get this unprotected and get on with making useful edits to this article. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, nor am I planning to be, but I was thinking about dividing into a WikiProject specifically for Canadian airports or American airports or British airports, etc... I would have joined the Canadian one if there was one, because I am only interested in helping with Canadian airport articles.

Loghead1 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Logically, then, you'd need a subproject for every country, and that seems silly. Plus, I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about Canadian airports versus airports in the US, UK, or anywhere else, so it doesn't make sense to me to have separate projects for them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hawaiian 717 - no need for different projects - nothing stopping editors restricting contributions to only areas that interest them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Porter Airlines MDW service on Toronto City Centre Airport

On the Toronto City Centre Airport, Porter Airlines is scheduled to start service to Chicago-Midway on November 12 and it is announced by the airline itself. Other users have re-added it with the start date and reference. But other users keep removing it from the list say that we need to add it after the route begin NOT before. If the airline is scheduled to start a new route from a city, don't we add the new service to the list before it start and NOT after. Since when did this happen? I wanna know. Cashier freak (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The only concern that has come up with listing future service is that the general consensus is that it needs to be cited, since it can be an easy vandalism target (in the middle of the huge list of destinations Delta serves from Atlanta, say, someone might not notice if someone slipped in a reasonable but incorrect destination, say Lihue) and often times things get added based on discussions or rumors on forum sites (e.g. Airliners.net). As long as it is cited (and for this purpose I consider an airline press release acceptable, even though it is a primary source rather than Wikipedia's preferred secondary sources) it should be listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one removing it. I didn't mean to be a hassle. Previously, anon ips were adding things like teaser ad mentions, etc. With what was going on, I thought it best to wait. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America-Need help with a focus city dispute!

Hello. I am posting in regards to a now long standing dispute over fully protected Virgin America. We have attempted consensus through discussion and polling but have not been able to agree still in discussion or come to a majority in the polling process. As a result of this protection was extended another week and we sought informal mediation 1 week ago but have not recieved a mediator. Therefore, I am again appealing to you for suggestions and or enough objective votes to guide us toward a consensus as we are on the verge of likely having to have protection extended again and still not reaching a solution to the dispute and everyone involved would really like to not have to have that happen if at all possible. Thank you for your time and we hope you will get involved and help us solve this in a friendly and expedited manner. 45Factoid44 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

United Airlines to Guangzhou

User:Deus Caritas Est removed Guangzhou from United Airlines stating that the airline has no definite plans to serve CAN. Correct me if im wrong but didn't UA received authority to serve Guangzhou from San Francisco? And didn't American, US Airways, and United delayed their flights due to high fuel costs? American and UA Airways both delayed their flights until 2010 and Beijing is still listed as a destination for them. I was just wondering if we should leave Guangzhou as a destination or should we remove it until the airline actually announces the flight? Thanks!!! Cashier freak (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that we need a firm start date to list a destination, as having an authority doesn't mean the route will ever operate. Hawaiian Airlines used to have authority for OGG-NRT but never operated the route and eventually lost it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Airports

Bacolod and Iloilo Airports

Bacolod-Silay City International Airport and Iloilo International Airport has been classified by contributors as an International Airport when in fact officially it is not. Not from the name of its facade, nor latest published aeronautical books and government publications. Although I must admit they have brand new facilities with International Standards, but having international standards airport is not the same as being an International Airport with support facilities, such as immigration, customs, and quarantine services, which the airport does not have. While I am not challenging the source, I am questioning the basis of its classification and the accuracy of its fact because currently it is not. Since its official data is not yet posted on the internet, any Wikipedia article based on it is considered as the dubious truth, which is plain misrepresentation and deception to the worldwide public. It is very apparent that the article does not conform to the WP:NPOV. I must also admit those airports are heading on that direction but until then they are not. We should not be an instrument of misinformation. We must strive to be factual and accurate as much as possible. Ariel c nunag (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The said airports are classified as domestic airport per List of airports in the Philippines. There are some airports especially in the United States that are called international but don't have international destinations. pikdig (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is OFFICIALLY IT IS NOT. Classic example of what is an international airport in the Philippines is the General Santos Airport which is an international gateway but don't have international destinations but it is officially classified as International airport by the government. Sadly, until now both Bacolod and Iloilo were nowhere near Kalibo which has been Officially re-classafied recently by the Government as an international airport with international flights. There was no funfare on its reclassification. Few news organization managed to published it. Was it because they don't have a brand new terminal? I would also disagree on the proposition that in the Philippines an international airport is classified as such if it serves international flights because it is not how things work. An airport cannot be made international merely because the people wanted to but because other States want to. It would be ridiculous to maintain that position which is contrary to the law of nations.

Classifications are based on either bilateral or multilateral Air Transport Agreement. Others may call it Air Service Agreement (ASA) with other States, while some call it Air Transport Treaty, such as BIMP-EAGA or Asian open skies. It was this agreement which facilitated the opening of both Puerto Princesa and General Santos Airport as a commitment by the Philippine Government. Zamboanga was an International gateway long before these airports were classified as one. Laoag is based on different ASA particularly PRC (Taiwan, and recently China and South Korea. The expanded ASA with the two countries included points to Kalibo because Airlines intends to fly there despite suggestion by the Philippine government to use Iloilo instead. As Philippine carrier need more rights to Korea and China than their carriers to the Philippines, the government had no choice but to agree to their proposal. Both Bacolod and Iloilo propelled to International fame because of inaccurate news reporting stemming from political statements which is part of WP:NOT. 82.35.32.146 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Airport Information Data (AID) of the Philippines published by CAAP and distributed to all airlines operating in the Philippines does not list both Bacolod and Iloilo as International airport. However, Kalibo Airport was listed as one. The latest AID was published in September 2008. Ariel c nunag (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite a mouthful... (basically, comments by Sky Harbor)

There is no proof that these articles do not conform to NPOV, as for one thing, NPOV relates not to the name of an article, but to the content of an article. The reason why these airports are currently classified as major domestic airports is because in the current system, an airport may only be called an international airport if it has or has had international service at any point in its history. The classification does not place any consideration on the airport actually having facilities for international flights (for example, Puerto Princesa Airport has no international flights and its airport has no immigration, customs or quarantine facilities, but it is an international airport). Both airports were previously classified as secondary international airports in the system used by the Air Transportation Office, which was deprecated in favor of the current system adopted by its successor body, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines.

But, addressing the supposed "issue" of NPOV on the articles' names, both airports have been referred to as international airports in major newspapers both in the cities that they are located in and even nationally. Let's take this situation airport by airport:

Iloilo International Airport

Iloilo International Airport has an on-site immigration office in the event that international flights commence. It likewise has customs facilities at the cargo terminal. Regarding the name of the facility, there is sufficient evidence in local media that this airport is referred to by people in their locality as an international airport by name. Take a look at the following:

“ THE Dr. Graciano Lopez Jaena Foundation Inc (DGLJFI) wanted to convince President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo that the Iloilo International Airport, located in the municipality of Cabatuan in Iloilo Province, be named after a local hero. ” — Sun.Star Iloilo, February 9, 2007

“ The new Iloilo International Airport built at a cost of about P9 billion will be opened for full commercial operation in the last week of April. ” — The Philippine Star, April 18, 2007

“ The government had already earmarked part of the sale proceeds for partial payment of a P6.2 billion loan from Japan Bank for International Cooperation, which bankrolled the construction of the new Iloilo International Airport in the Sta. Barbara – Cabatuan area. ” — ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, May 9, 2007

The fact that people as prominent as Franklin Drilon have called ILO an international airport (see this) and that even common Iloilo City residents refer to their new airport as such (see this) would suggest that there is a consensus to the name being kept. Information can't just be based solely on print alone; it is important to factor in the people who are part of the information at hand. While some of the press may toe the official line, if the residents of the City of Iloilo call their airport an international airport, let them. In fact, it is in consideration of the latter, and the fact that this airport is of standards mandated by the ICAO, has led the press to call it "Iloilo International Airport".

Bacolod-Silay City International Airport

Bacolod-Silay City International Airport is believed to have the same immigration and customs facilities as in ILO, although this is not established in the press. International flights to South Korea are expected to commence in November 2008. Since my involvement was mostly with ILO than with BCD, I cannot answer on behalf of those who wrote the content. However, the name was justified at the time as some press outfits called the airport "Bacolod-Silay International Airport". If I find them, I will post them.

So what does this mean?

Basically, what this means is that there is enough empirical evidence to prove that at least one of the airports deserves to keep its current name. Likewise, while it is agreeable that Wikipedia should toe the official line on the matter, there is a clear consensus among the people, the ones most affected by this, to deviate from standard procedure. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If we adopt this argument, then we might as well call all brand new Philippine airports international, especially if it is equipped with modern navigational facilities of international standards, which is required by world aviation regulators by the way, not because other countries and IATA recognize it to be but because their politicians want it to be called that way. Clearly the Article is WP:NPOV and needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards. Ariel c nunag (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

End run on adding new sources to templates

Take a look at this change log. Seems to be an end run to add a source that has been considered spam in the past and has been added by a single purpose account. Is there a consensus to shoot these adds on sight? Or are they valid? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's coincidental, I noticed that as well. I was about to remove it as being spam, but admittedly the link does contain quite an extensive list that might be able to be used as a source. I'm not sure how well it can stand against WP:RELIABLE, however. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a request for an account on Toolserver (at m:Toolserver/New accounts#en:User:Ikluft) where I'll make a tool which can display lists of links about an airport based on the airport code. Maybe country and state codes would be useful parameters for the tool too. That's analagous to the way that links to mapping web sites was resolved via GeoTemplate, and seems to be a good place to handle airport links as well. People are concerned about cluttering all the pages in the same way. But in the US the government just supplies raw airport info and leaves it to others to format it. The problem comes from some of those sites having been listed and now others wanting to be included. Hopefully that will help alleviate this problem. I've been waiting 2 weeks on the account request - I don't know how long it will take them to get around to it. Ikluft (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the same kind of thing his happening with Thiyagu114 (talk · contribs) adding links on airport articles to FlyingGetaway.com, which looks like yet another pilot info site. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is aircraft type encyclopedic?

Vancouver International Airport's airline and destination listing is being converted to the table format. However, unlike other airports, this one has a column to list the types of aircraft each airline uses. Is this listing encyclopedic and maintainable (especially for other airports)? HkCaGu (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove on sight. These aircraft can and do change, often with no notice. With very limited exceptions, the aircraft used between each destination is simply not encyclopedic. Information like that belongs in a travel guide. Didn't we run into this question before? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Vegaswikian not notable or encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Should not be included in airport articles. Cashier freak (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The aircraft type can change without notice, and is fairly impossible to keep reliably sourced. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft keep getting added to airline tables in many Latin+South American airports fyi. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but I have removed most of it. Cashier freak (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As have I, but I was just making other editors aware since its been re-added several times on the airports I watch. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct flights issue on Singapore Changi Airport

Recently, "Atlanta" and "Minneapolis/St. Paul" were added as destination from Singapore and I have remove them as destination. User:Planenut readded MSP again as a destination for NWA. I thought MSP has a aircraft change at NRT or am I dreaming. It changes from an Airbus 330-200 to a Boeing 747-400. Yes, it runs under the same flight number but the aircraft changes and since NRT is an NWA hub. MSP should not be listed as a destination for Singapore. If "Minneapolis/St. Paul" or "Atlanta" is added again as destinations from SIN, could somone please remove it cuase I am not gonna waste my time removing it over and over again. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should former airlines and destinations be included in airport articles?

I noticed recently that many non-US airport (especially European airports) have a former destinations and airlines section added. I thought that we do not include them but I may be wrong. I just wanted to make sure that it is okay to include them in airport articles. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it pretty useless unless the list is fairly complete, comprehensive and reliably sourced. So far I've yet to see such an example. Furthermore, I find that it grossly oversizes the article. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The list of "formers" may be easy to complete and be meaningful for remote places or small cities. But for major cities, it'd be meaningless. HkCaGu (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of airports that have former airlines listed: Frankfurt Airport, Charles de Gaulle International Airport, Narita International Airport, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, Brussels Airport, Athens International Airport, Mexico City International Airport. I think that they should be tagged as unreferenced until we can found a source. Cashier freak (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Former destinations and airlines are not encyclopedic and difficult to reference, in most cases in the past they have been removed when added to. On the CDG article it has 22 former airlines which is probably a few hundreds short. Many of the airports now have seventy or eighty years history and attempting to make a list never mind reference to routes would probably be a waste of time. Somewhere like Amsterdam-Schipol or London-Heathrow would have thousands of former airlines and routes. I would suspect they would both end up being a list of every international airline ever and then add all the routes, sorry dont see it as encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Former Airlines" section have been removed from the airports mentioned in my last comment. If you see anymore, please remove them. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Venice Marco Polo Airport continue to have former routes listed and I h8ave reverted them twice. Cashier freak (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of adding former routes perhaps effort should be made to change the article from Italish into English - most of it is doesnt make sense and it has no history of the airport at all! MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No related to former routes but I have had a tidy up at Venice Marco Polo Airport and removed what I considered to be some badly translated and not really notable stuff. The article really needs a history section if anybody can help it would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I have been referred to this discussion by Cashier Freak as he is against my edits (inserting airlines that previously serviced Hanoi Airport).

2. I am not sure if anything formal has been decided, although I would have expected more publicity about the issue and a greater canvassing of views.

3. Nevertheless I am satisfied that many of the comments here are prudent and reflect genuine concerns about scope management and notability.

4. Thus I will respect in principle the views of contributors here, and aim to provide complete and referenced material concerning former airlines where the number is manageable.

5. I think we can be in agreement that whereas listing the number of airlines that ever flew to Los Angeles or London (for example) would be unreasonable, for smaller airports like Nadi, Glascow or Hanoi this should not be a problem.

6. Likewise Wikipedia is a work in progress. I will endevour to find a reference to CSA's former flights to the Vietnamese capital. Give me time! Kransky (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

5. I have provided details of what I believe are all the airlines that ever flew to Hanoi

Former airbase at Dog Creek, BC

I am curious to find out more about the abandoned airfield near Dog Creek, BC. It's triangle shape is clearly visible on Google maps, was it part of the northwest staging route??? - Charbbert (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Homey Airport

Does anyone have an objection to splitting this out of Area 51? I'll admit that there are sourcing issues, but by virtue of having the longest runway it does have a high degree of notability. Also the name could be an issue since it will be difficult to source. However this site might be usable for the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave the airport infobox etc in Area 51 at least for now, even as loaded as that subject is. We don't know that "Homey Airport" is anything more than a code name that was attached to the inadvertent addition of the KXTA airport record in the FAA National Aviation Charting Office navigation data update distributed to commercial GPS & FMS vendors in 2007. The concealed nature of that air force base will probably leave the airport data as an inseparable subject from Area 51. Ikluft (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the possible source you provided also points to AOPA's article, "Don’t ask, don’t tell: Area 51 gets airport identifier", where they rightly point out that student pilots need to be informed that it's not a good waypoint to plan in any flight. Ikluft (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding start/end dates

I am having a little problem. Me and a editor are having trouble on Delta's new route from Raleigh/Durham to Paris. I have removed 2009 from June 2 saying that the flight will begin June 2, 2009. Next day, it was removed again. I removed it again. Aren't we not suppose to include the year unless start date is 13 or more months from now. June 2009 is eight months from the current month (November) isn't it? Should it include 2009 or it should remain removed. Cashier freak (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct there is no need for a year since the start date for the route is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Destinations in a table format

Recently, most airport articles have converted their airlines and destinations list into a table. I was wondering if this format is okay. Cashier freak (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we kind of just let it happen. I personally just look at it as being a more visual improvement. It seems to mostly be an IP user changing all of them and there are a few format problems as he/she makes the changes. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we discussed it a while back, seemed to think it was a good idea, but the discussion seemed to sort of die out without ever reaching a consensus on exactly how to do it. That said, I think it's fine the way it's going, and as more changes get made, we might see some ideas bubble up to the surface and once we get a feel for how it should work, fold it back into the project guidelines. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds right. However the implementation is lacking. These should be using a standard template so that if a change is needed, you can change in one place and have the change show up in all articles. Having to edit every article to make a format change is not the way to go. Will try to get this set up as {{Airport-dest-list}} and if anyone wants to play go right ahead. I think I'm too tired to see what I'm doing wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, the template is now mostly working. It is being used in McCarran International Airport for Concourse A and Terminal 2. The only problem I see is that it is not formatting the last airline name correctly, looks like extra spaces from somewhere. This is clearly shown in the Concourse A table. I also did not include a title since in most cases the article heading already does this. It should be easy to add if there is a need. If this table is OK, it can be used in articles with 14 or fewer airlines from a terminal. It is easy to expand the template to add more airlines. I did not change the table format yet, but this is something we need to consider in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see some color variations on the template. The dull blue/grey can be tiresome on the eyes, not saying to make it a rainbow or anything, but it seems kind of uninteresting and makes the letters all run together. Also, is there a way of making the express flights operated by subsidiary and affiliated carriers look sort of like the old system where they were more like a subbed portion of the main airline and destinations, at some airports it looks like one airline flies to tons of destinations due to how many slots the express carriers have underneath them and it overshadows the main carrier sometimes, for example, United at PIT looks like it flies tons of flights due to all the express carriers even if everything is just IAD, ORD, DEN... -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, colors can be added. I would like to fix the formatting bug first so that we can use the template. If you have suggestions feel free to modify the table, in is in limited use so that now is a good time to change this so everyone can see the results. With a template you can do something like this.

Airlines	Destinations

So this could be simple and clean way to handle this. Does that look OK (ignoring the extra lines)? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It would make things a lot easier. Can you take a look at the section below "Destinations by region" and see if the idea of having a region area in the box is a good idea or not. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the region detail is that I think we would have to put each destination on a separate line to allow it to be classified by region. This would have the effect of making the tables very long and, in my opinion, more difficult to read. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That wouldn't work. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it supposed to take up that much space per destination????? Also, what if we put the destinations by region under a sort of trigger, where if you click a link it changes the format to region so it's user decided to have the enourmous table? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No. As I said above this is from a coding problem that I have not been able to find. If anyone can find it please fix it. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make it similar to the one found on Ninoy Aquino International Airport? pikdig (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well because they are basically the same already. The difference is that the approach in Ninoy is to hard code the template in each article. This makes global changes extremely difficult. The only display difference is how we deal with terminals. The current standard is to list by terminal. Ninoy is to list by airline and note the terminal. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Destinations by region

I notice that several airports have two seperate destination sections. The regular one and a seperate "Destinations by region" section. The problem is that you get edits like this where the airline is taken out of (or put in) one section but not the other. From what I've seen it usually gets removed from the regular section and the "Destinations by region" does not get removed. Should the sections be removed, tagged as out of date (click the show link on the link above) or some other action? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the destinations by region is not really needed it duplicates information and as you have noted causes a data maintenance problem. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The duplicate section serves a purpose of counting the cities an airport serves. However, it is often hidden, and editors may not even notice the existence--and the need to update--this part. HkCaGu (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a numeric count of destinations served be best provided as a number in the airport's infobox? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or a map. The idea of a list of destinations by region showing an airport's global presence to me holds no merit. If that were the goal a visual, ie. a map, would serve that purpose much better. As it exists now it's just a pointless redundancy. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A map would look the prettiest on the page but unless it was with the relevent section and very easy to update then it would probably suffer from the same problem as Destinations by region and not get updated. The same for a total of destinations served in the infobox, people would miss it. If the purpose of the "Destinations by region" is to provide a count of cities served then it could be done by a line of text at the start of the destinations section saying something like "There are 75 cities reachable from this airport, 25 in Asia, 25 in Europe and 25 in North America." This would have the advantage of being easier for the editor to see and change. And would have the advantage of actually providing the reader with the number of destinations served, something that the current "Destinations by region" does not actually do. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The duplicate section has an additional purpose of telling the user the breakdown of destinations by regions, and just which cities these destinations actually are. A few users failing to update this section correctly as reason for its deletion sounds like an argument to delete all articles in wikipedia because some are not updated.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it fairly obvious that the "Destinations by region" section does indeed mean what it says and this was not started with the intention to get the section deleted. Also the cities is a duplication of the next section anyway. By the way using exaggeration is a good way to get people to ignore any valid comments you wish to make. Nobody has suggested that "article b" is deleted because "article a" is not updated. From what I've seen on the airports on my watchlists a editor opens the airlines and destination section, edits it and saves. For the most part they ignore/miss the "Destinations by region" section. Another way to solve this would be to expand Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Destinations in a table format to include a region box. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would need a regions section... Control F works fine for me :-D, heh, j/k. We should somehow place each destination by region next to the airline. Such as say:

American Airlines (NE United States: New York-LaGuardia, New York-JFK, Boston | SE United States: Miami | Midwestern United States: Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago, St. Louis)... etc. Not necessarily in that format or wording, but you get the idea. It would actually organize the destinations list some a airline hubs, for example, reading Delta's destinations out of ATL is tedious at the moment with such long paragraphs full of cities, alphabetical order only helps a little bit. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If we could clean that up a bit it might make a lot of sense (maybe there's a way to integrate with the new tables?). By Huaiwei's reasoning we would have to make a separate destination table for every organization possible even though we have no indication of what readers want most. It only makes sense to have a table with the most logical information, ie airlines and the destinations they fly to. Organization of those destinations, however, can be discussed. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Airport

User:70.125.108.39 continues to add useless info to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. I have reverted his edits 2 times today. He keeps on adding bicycle info and inserting phone numbers to the article. Here is the info he keeps adding [3]. Is that adding advertisement info to the article? Cashier freak (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

BWI

Should BWI Airport be listed listed as just "Baltimore" or "Baltimore/Washington"? Cashier freak (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Baltimore is sufficient. Baltimore is its own city, even though the airport serves and markets itself to DC as well. To give other examples, we don't use "Burbank/Los Angeles" or "Ontario/Los Angeles". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should we change all the "Baltimore/Washington"'s to just "Baltimore" on airport destinations lists since most airport articles has "Baltimore/Washington" listed and not Baltimore. Should we do the same for Seattle/Tacoma, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cinncinati/Northern Kentucky, Raleigh/Durham, and Dallas/Fort Worth?? Just curious. Cashier freak (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some of those airports are not in the city named, such as Cinncinati/Northern Kentucky airport is not even in Ohio and is not in any city in Kentucky. Dallas/Fort Worth serves both of cities and there are other airports that serve the two cities such as Love Field and Alliance. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So, just leave BWI as Baltimore cause I removed the Washington part on most airport articles but not all. I'm not sure but if that's the case, then feel free to edit. Cashier freak (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, this one is a little less clear, and I think I'd favor "Baltimore/Washington". The airport's own web sites notes "The Baltimore/Washington International Airport serves residents and travelers in the Baltimore/Washington Corridor". I think it's the same situation as "Seattle/Tacoma". --MCB (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other notable airports in Baltimore that would need to be distinguished from BWI? Seattle/Tacoma is probably needed to distinguish it from from Seattle/Boeing Field, which which has some passenger service. MSP and RDU I could go either way on, as they pretty equally serve both cities (whereas BWI primarily serves Baltimore). CVG I feel should be just Cincinnati, while DFW has to be Dallas/Ft. Worth to distinguish it from Dallas/Love Field. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I always figured it was due to its own designation and not due to the fact it serves two areas. DFW, MSP, SEA all use the double city name officially, though, I'm not sure we use Seattle/Tacoma, do we? If so, then it should remain Baltimore/Washington. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Destinations in table format (Update)

User:24.161.46.128 been putting the destinations lists of many airport pages back to its original format. Me and other editors continue to revert his edits back to the table format cause that how we decided format the lists. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reason why I reverted many airport pages back to its original format because I think it is easier to understand. 24.161.46.128 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you don't own Wikipedia. This is something you should discuss, not start doing on every airport page. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dublin Airport

Recently, i have removed destinations on certain US airlines that were added to Dublin Airport. IAH was added to Continental, FLL and MCO were added to Delta, ORD was added to US Airways. I removed them cause they make connections at their hub airports (and under the remark section, it was noted "via"). Can someone please watch carefully on this. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Incheon Airport destinations

Anybody here see the list of destinations of Incheon International Airport? I believe that it is to long and does not meet WP:AIRPORTS guidelines. pikdig (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested that the destinations lists should be merged back into the Incheon International Airport main article. I think there is a discussion there. Cashier freak (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Airports notability discussion

I posted some suggestions and then made some changes a few weeks ago on Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability. The main change was to address concerns about using a General Aviation airport's status as open to the public as the threshold for notability. An example was brought up of a farm strip which is officially listed as open to the public but has no services and serves no public use. So the new suggestion is to raise the threshold of notability for general aviation airports to those which are either owned by local/regional/national government or are marketed to the public for an aviation-related purpose. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Notability. Thanks! Ikluft (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lympne Airport

I've just created this article. The lead needs expanding (I'm hopeless at leads) and more is needed on closure and post-closure use. Other areas can be expanded, probably needs more coverage on WWI and WW2 but any expansion welcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made a few tweaks to help. That's a very respectable start you made for the article. Well done. Ikluft (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Structure page?

Where did the "Airport structure" content go? There is no obvious link, and Wikipedia:AIRPORTS#Airport article structure is now broken. Jpatokal (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I found in the page history that it was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content. Now that you've pointed it out, I fixed the link. Ikluft (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus some time ago to not have the coordinates in the title. I was lookng for the discussion but I can't find it. Anyone know where it is and if that is still the consensus? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion doesn't seem to be around to answer the question that comes to mind, may I ask... why? Readers expect to find coordinates in the title since WP offers it elsewhere. Ikluft (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by coordinates in the title. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Like at East Midlands Airport, called "title" because when you use {{coord}} with the display=title,inline. At one time there was a consensus not to have them there. Then for a few months it was necessary to have them in the title because Google Earth wouldn't pick them up otherwise. If consensus is now that they should be there then I don't want to waste my time changing them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I don't see the harm in having them. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Destinations Styling

Ok, I'm really AGAINST these tables, they're total eyesores in my opinion. I recently came across La Aurora International Airport and happen to like the way its destinations/airlines are arranged, very informative and easy to read, what do you guys think of switching to this, or a similar style? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It would only work for small airports. For larger ones, even ones slightly larger, it would drastically increase the size of the section. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems good for small airports as it keeps it simple and concise. But for large airports, it'll be even a bigger eyesore and would make those articles even larger than the current table format on the bigger airport articles. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to read with all that blue and would get worse as the list got larger. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It will not work. Has anyone had a chance to look at the template I put together to see if they could fix the format issue with a small number of destinations? This would allow the template to replace the inline coding that some users are adding so that a single change to the template could change the format in all articles? It is used here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to CambridgeBayWeather, {{Airport-dest-list}} can be used to format the destination lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; I've started converting articles. One request: Is it possible to add an optional third column for various details? Most articles don't seem to need it, but the current table at Honolulu International Airport has a third column to show which check-in lobby the carrier is located in. It would also be useful for articles like Albuquerque International Sunport which include gate assignments. Since the use of the third column is variable, the column title should be customizable and the column should be hidden if it's not used. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the third column. I suppose that this could be added as optional, but I'm not sure how to do that. As to how to use that, I believe that there was a project decision to not list gate numbers which becomes an issue with WP:TRAVEL. I think there would be the same concern about the check in lobby. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether or not gate numbers should be listed. The Honolulu check-in lobby is sort of like a sub-terminal -- even though they all feed into the same gate areas within the interisland and overseas terminals, the checkin areas are separated and an airline's movement from one lobby to another is rare. It's similar to Atlanta, where the North and South Terminals are really just separate checkin areas that feed into the same gates. Another use for the optional third column would be to denote terminal information itself, eventually allowing a single table to be used for a while airport rather than splitting it up into several tables. This seems like it would be best for medium sized airports like John Wayne Airport where a combined table wouldn't get too big. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

With a single table, you could sort the list by terminal (which is how it is currently presented by default) or by airline (across all terminals)—but not by destination (which is what would be most useful for most readers). However, I believe that destination lists do not only contradict WP:TRAVEL but also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Further, they are prone to become outdated every time an airline changes it schedule and I don't think anyone actually uses them. Of course, airlines notable for the history or current operation of the airport (e.g. BA at Heathrow's T5, TUIfly at Memmingen) can be mentioned in the text. -- 3247 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of destinations has been discussed several times, most often in the form of AfDs against the articles in Category:Airline destinations. I agree that sorting by destinations would be useful, but I don't know of a good way to do it with MediaWiki without having a separate row in the table for each airline/destination combination, which would get rather large. It would be pretty easy with a specialized database on an independent website, but that's not Wikipedia. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In Category:Airline destinations, they are separate articles that don't clutter up the airlines' main articles. Personally, I favour moving things where they don't do any harm instead of deleting them (which usually causes a lot of discussion).

While the fact that using a database would make things much easier shows that Wikipedia just is not the right place for these lists, the best idea is probably to throw a Bot at the problem of handling and maintainint the lists. -- 3247 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added documentation for the template. Please correct or improve as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was for a not about one or two airlines the {{Ref label}} could be used. The note could then be either in the general reference section, it's own notes section or just below the relevant table. An example is at Singapore Changi Airport that is linked from the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad example as it's using the older template. See Calgary International Airport#Concourse A. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Munich Airport is now an example for a separate destinations article. 3247 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I added support for an optional third column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Page content

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/page content

-- 3247 (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jersey Airport & Jersey Aviation Beauport

See Talk:Jersey Airport#Merge proposal. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Using Airliners.net as a reliable source?

Recently, I still keep seeing many editors using the forum airliners.net as a source to announce new routes for a specific airline. I was wondering if we can use them to back up our edits when adding new routes for an airline. Cashier freak (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:SPS: "For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge problem with latin american articles!!! I keep constantly removing Spirit from Armenia, Colombia, Manaus, Brazil, and Valencia, Venezuela, San Andres, Colombia and even Rio de Janeiro once because some thread was started on a.net with "rumors" on it. People come on and get into huge edit wars adding on services with "begins soon" and "begins summer 2009", which are totally off the bat and will continue adding them back until someone blocks editing from anons. If one checks Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia articles, their airport articles are filled with rumored and unannounced services as if it were already being flown. Is there any way we can prevent or inform users that adding routes that have simply been applied for or rumored shouldn't be done? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If they cant provide a reliable source (and airliners.net blogs and the like are not reliable sources) then the entries can be removed. from WP:V says The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.. So as soon as somebody challenges a new entry (or change) it is up to the editor who wants to add the material to provide evidence. Perhaps if you have any particularly problems with an article then bring it up here and one of us will come and have a look and help. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I highly agree that forums should not be used. One area that Airliners.net if handy is photographs of rare birds flying for rare airlines. A good example is the birds flying for New York Airways and other small helicopter airlines. But again, I agree that the forums are not good to use. --Trashbag (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

KUL airport

I recently came across Kuala Lumpur International Airport and in the destination table they included the aircraft each airline uses in the airport. Aircraft aren't needed, are they? pikdig (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. They are usually removed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that we decided to not include a/c types as seen here [[4]] as they are not encyclopedic and change without notice. Could someone please remove it from the column. Cashier freak (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Western Africa Airport stubs

Hi guys. Just to let you know I've created stubs for most of the western African airports today. Most are sub stubs. I've started them all with infoboxes but they need filling out with information. Can somebody make a note to work on them, countries such as Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Cote de Ivoire, Benin, Togo, Cameroon etc The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You've eliminated lots of red type! - Canglesea (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

If interested, you can comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Logan Airport runway incursion's AfD nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Destinations - lists vs tables - help appreciated for Bristol International Airport

There have been some changes today at Bristol International Airport by three different editors who replaced the existing list of destinations with an unsightly table. I reverted two of the changes and requested that discussion take place at Talk:Bristol_International_Airport#Destinations_-_lists_vs_tables. I can't make any more reversions as I don't want to fall foul of 3RR, but having read the discussion earlier on this page I don't think that consensus has been reached about whether tables are better than lists, or whether tables should be the default for all articles. Reaching consensus is obviously at the heart of Wikipedia so I hope that people won't get into an edit war in the Bristol article before consensus can be reached on any changes. Any help that members of this project can give would be appreciated. --TimTay (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just noticed this and then this, note the two edit summaries in the second link. So based on the "Destinations Styling" section based above and the fact that tables seem to be the preferred format in articles, is there a consensus to change Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content? While I am not a great admirer of the table format I do think that general consensus is to now use them and I have been making changes to update airport articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the new table format, but I don't see a need for a massive undertaking to convert articles ASAP. Regardless, if the table is used, {{Airport-dest-list}} should be used rather than manually formatting tables. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry not clear there. I haven't been on a mission to change over the format. Rather I have been slowly changing them over as I was doing other work to them. In this case because I was very slowly working on updating the source for UK airports I started changing them after I saw that the consensus had changed based on the above section. Not sure where I started using the table but Inverness Airport was the last UK one and I know I have changed a few others. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I was really just trying to say that I prefer the table format but I don't see the need for a "mission" as you put it. Though I've been slowly working on converting articles (started with Hawaii and have moved on to the western US). We certainly shouldn't be reverting between one and the other, and should be using the template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support changing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content to show {{Airport-dest-list}} as the preferred format for listing airline destinations. Johnwalton 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "/page content" should be updated to allow but not to mandate a change. Airports come in different sizes and destination networks. Whether to use list or table should still be up to consensus of each article's editors. HkCaGu (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a preference either way but allowing an either or situation will cause a debate on a lot of airport pages and cause problems in the future! we need to have a consensus at project level even if it means defining a break point between list and table or one or the other. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of articles that have tables and a small number of airlines. Branson Airport has one airline, Boeing Field has two and Calgary International Airport#Concourses has two or more depending on the concourse. They all look fine to me. Note too that {{Airport-dest-list}} no longer requires the use of airl1=, dest1= and 3rdcol1= CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They look OK to me CBW, any reason why we cant use the preset table for all airports ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On Branson and Boeing the tables look awful - it just looks like a table for the sake of a table. In these cases a list would be much better and WP:WTUT is clear that they shouldn't be used in this way for very small amounts of data. I don't much like the tables at Calgary either - tables really come into their own if you are presenting three or more columns of data. Lists for just two columns are more visually appealing and don't dominate the page in the same way. --TimTay (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of using tables even for just a couple of entries since it helps present a uniform appearance across the airport articles (or will, once the majority of the articles use them). Calgary could certainly be combined to use a single table; to handle cases like that was the reason I added the third column. Nashville International Airport shows an example of this. BTW, I like how the template was changed so that it doesn't require named parameters, as one of the issues I started to worry about as I was converting articles was the difficulty of maintaining the default order when new airlines are added (it would mean having to renumber all of the parameters after the new entry). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It appeared to work without renaming the airl1=, etc but I did notice that people were doing that. I got all of them earlier and changed them to the new version. Just waiting to get the template fixed so that airl1= is no longer usable. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the time being, I've just removed the old format from the documentation and changed the template to put articles using the old format into Category:WikiProject Aviation maintenance/airport-dest-list format change. A new (and optimised) version that does not accept named parameters is at User:3247/Template:Airport-dest-list. The idea is to give the servers a few days to update the template, then clean up the category and change the template for real. — 3247 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've just purged the cache for every page that uses {{airport-dest-list}}. The template will now emit an error message if the old format is used. — 3247 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to San Diego International Airport where the use of {{Airport-dest-list}} was replaced by a manually formatted table by an IP editor. I see that sometime between December 29 (when I converted the article) and now, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport was also changed back to having a manually formatted table. Before going back and trying to undo the damage, I want to make sure that the intention is to transclude and not substitute the template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the intention was to be able to change the look in all articles if a change was determined to be needed. Using subst would prevent that. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IATA code

I'm trying to update the list of articles by IATA code and I am finding it very hard to believe a reference that I find. Multiple Google searches for lists are moot since every list is different and inconsistent with other lists. I go through articles and I see IATA codes in the infoboxes, but reference lists differ with what Wikipedia articles say too. For example, I started cleaning up the articles with a uncommon letter, letter X. Some references list IATA code XAB with Abbeville - Buigny-Saint-Maclou Aerodrome, as does Wikipedia, but lists sometimes don't list it at all, stating it doesn't have a IATA code. Looking at the reference list on the front page, it says World Aero Data is a very reliable source. Only problem with this is that World Aero Data doesn't recognize an IATA code for Abbeville - Buigny-Saint-Maclou Aerodrome which its Wikipedia article states it is XAB. Compound this with issues like code XNA going to two different airports on some references and the inconsistancy between references to provide the correct information, if at all. Is there a way to fix this problem? — Moe ε 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The offical IATA code book is not available on the web (so that IATA can charge for copies), all the web references are just secondary sources and possible not allways reliable. Somebody in the industry should have access to the hard copy and the latest codes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ICAO codes in Indonesia

By way of introduction, I'm a broadcast call sign disambiguator. As I'm sure you're all aware, one of the most common overlapping entries for broadcast call signs in the U.S. is ICAO codes for airports.

I'm working on a bit of a side project right now to add hatnotes linking to airport articles on various radio and television station articles where the call sign is in common with an ICAO code, and to add disambiguation entries for airports to appropriate dab pages. Many of these hatnotes and dab entries existed already, but many others didn't, and I'm a big stickler for consistency and completeness.

I'm being very careful as I work through this, as I'm working off a list of ICAO codes that's probably a couple of years old. In doing this, one of the things that I noticed is that a number of airports in Indonesia for which we have articles have ICAO codes in our articles different from my list. There are similarities in these differences, in that the codes in the article generally are starting with WA, whereas the ones on my list are starting with WI or WR.

In one of the articles, I saw a note that the airport had actually changed codes within the last couple of years. So, I wanted to ask whether anyone was aware of a mass change of codes in Indonesia sometime within the last couple of years that might account for the discrepancy I'm seeing? Or is this just random weirdness? Mlaffs (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

International Civil Aviation Organization airport code gives WA, WI, WQ and WR as possible codes. It appears that the AIS site for Indonesia is not yet working as Eurocontrol indicated, http://www.ais-indonesia.or.id/. You might want to dig around on the Eurocontrol and see if they have anything. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was some kind of a mass change in Indonesia some time between 2000 and 2005. I don't know much more about it. HkCaGu (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

US-China flights

Should postponed flights from the United States to China nonstop flights be included in airport articles? Since many airlines have postponed their new nonstop routes including NWA's SEA-PEK, US's PHL-PEK, UA's SFO-CAN, CZ's DTW-PEK and EWR-PEK, CA's IAD-PEK, Hainan's EWR-PEK and ORD-PEK to 2009 or 2010 at the latest cause of either the economic crisis or could obatin the aircraft. But some of these route are still, listed on the airport pages but UA's SFO-CAN is not. Cashier freak (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cant see any point in listing if they have not started and the new start date is not known. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to not list flights until they have a firm start date, preferably from a media source/press release but possibly from being bookable as well. Just because an airline has a route authority doesn't mean it will operate a flight (I recall Hawaiian had OGG-NRT for a while but never started it as it couldn't get a decent slot at NRT). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean if a firm start date is announced? I mean most of these flights just have a month and a year start date (like [begins June 2009]) and some just have a year (like NW SEA-PEK have [begins 2010] or [route postponed] by the destination). Should we remove from the articles? Cashier freak (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if the airline has announced that service is to begin in a particular month but not a date, that is okay. Seasons get a bit iffier as that's a bit vague (plus the whole problem of swapped seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres). But either way, it still seems like if they're not announcing a specific date then the plans aren't completely finalized. The ones that really bug me are the services that are announced "pending government approval", as that doesn't always happen (see Philippine Airlines to San Diego). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I say we do not list anything on the airport article until it is bookable. It can be listed under the airline destinations article and the airline article, and perhaps in a "future services" section of the airport article, but not as part of the airline destinations within airport articles until one is able to see an attempt for the airline to sell the flights, if the airline cancels that later, it is different than having constant ambiguous unconfirmed start dates due to instability in the markets. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about bookable. A secondary reliable source stating at least a month would pass wikipedia's qualifications for inclusion. So I can't see why we should only revert to the airline's booking system, especially when flights can sometimes take a while to be added. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's gotten to the point where if an airline isn't taking your money who knows if it'll actually happen. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delta and Northwest

Should we put Northwest Airlines flights as "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines". Since Raleigh-Durham International Airport had the "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines" designation. Do NW operated flights be written as "Northwest Airlines" or "Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines". Cashier freak (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now it looks like all Northwest flights are still being operated still as Northwest Airlines...Online it looks like it is just codesharing where it says Delta flight ---- operated by Northwest Airlines....just like a normal codesharing flight you will find with any airline. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree that Delta/Northwest is more of a codesharing agreement similar to Air Canada/Canadian and USAir/America West previously. As per last time when this question was asked, as long as North West and Delta are still operating on separate certificates, they are still to be listed separately regardless. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NW MEM-YVR

Just wanted to be clear on whether or not NWA does indeed operate YVR-MEM flights during the summer months. Cause Memphis is listed as a destination for Northwest on Vancouver International Airport but Vancouver keps getting removed as a destination for NWA on Memphis International Airport. Cashier freak (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DL and NW flights

When I went through the booking engines of DL and NW to confirm some blog entries )[5] and [6]), I noticed that some flights to Europe and Asia are marketed as Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines and Northwest Airlines operated by Delta Air Lines. However I believe that these flights aren't code-share flights as the said flights only show one flight code. It only shows a NW flight code for (NW op by DL) and DL flight code for (DL op by NW). Are we going to list these flight changes in the airport articles? pikdig (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as they both still operate on seperate operating licenses, they still should be listed separately. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

DL and NW have not received single FAA certicate yet and they are still operating as two, seperate airlines. Cashier freak (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The case I'm trying to explain above is similar to the case of Continental Airlines flights operated by Continental Micronesia. pikdig (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Except Continental Micronesia is a wholly owned subsidiary sharing the same operating license. Similar to Japan Airlines and JALWays, same livery, different ICAO codes, yet CO/Micronesia and JL/JLWays operate under the same IATA code. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta. However they need to be listed seperately as they fly under their own aircraft, codes, etc. Cashier freak (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just handle this the way US/HP was handled. At already consolidated airports, the disappearing brand was put in as a subsidiary of the main brand until it vanished entirely, despite any separate operating certificates. This shows that not only are the airport operations consolidated, but removes any confusion over who operates which route. At airports where the airlines are still separate, we continue to list them as such until either they consolidate or the brand disappears entirely. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought DL and NWA are still seperated at most airports but I could be wrong. I think we should just keep them seperate until NW flights are marketed and sold as Delta flights. Cashier freak (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a list online that shows the consolidation of airport operations as it occurs. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a website? Cashier freak (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find it now, give me a bit. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It took me like two weeks, but, here it is http://www.koolaiders.com/stations.php. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America future service

I found consensus on Talk:Pittsburgh International Airport#Virgin America to remove a sentence about potential Virgin America service, since Virgin America has been rumored to start at many airports over the next five years, and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. I'm starting one thread here because I'm going to do the same to other airports, and I want to consolidate the conversation. --Matt (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The information about possible future destinations was removed from the Virgin America article for that same reason (speculation, even sourced speculation, still constitutes WP being a crystal ball), so it would seem logical to remove it from corresponding airport pages too. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disam or Not to Disam

I notice that there is no consistency in disambiguating cities served by more than one airport. For example, Jakarta is disambiguated to Soekarno-Hatta or Halim even though Halim hardly has scheduled flights. On the other hand, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Beijing are not disambiguated even though these cities have more than one airport serving international flights. If Jakarta is disambiguated, should we disambiguate Singapore to Singapore-Changi and Singapore-Seletar, Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Lumpur-International and Kuala Lumpur-Subang, as well as Beijing to Beijing-Capital and Beijing-Nanyuan. The dog2 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If the airport has passenger service, then it needs to be diambiguated. If it does not (If only has cargo, general aviation, etc.), then leave it. Cashier freak (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If one airport is the main airport of a city, it will usually be the primary topic for {‍{‍{city}‍}‍} Airport, even if the other airport has limited passenger service. — 3247 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This does not concern the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. What I'm refering to is when listing an airport as a destination from another, eg. listing Beijing as a destination from Los Angeles international airport. In the case of those 3 cities I mentioned, there are scheduled passenger flights operating from more than one airport. So should we disam or not? The dog2 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not clear to me that you were talking about destination lists. However, I think the basic idea is the same so that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC can be applied mutatis mutandis: If one airport is clearly the main airport, it can stand alone, even if there's limited service from another airport serving the same city. — 3247 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, what about we disambiguate Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Lumpur-Sepang and Kuala Lumpur-Subang, as Subang definitely has more commercial flights than Jakarta-Halim. In the case of Beijing, Nanyuan also has a significant number of commercial flights so we should probably also disambiguate to Beijing-Capital and Beijing-Nanyuan. Singapore probably can stay as is it as as commercial flights from Seletar only serve 2 minor airports in Malaysia. The dog2 (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we do this only for Singapore Changi Airport since you have them disam only for Singapore or for all of the airports? Cashier freak (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in going overboard with the disambigs. Seletar and Nanyuan serve several orders of magnitude less traffic than Changi and Capital respectively, and people can quite safely assume that Singapore=SIN and Beijing=PEK unless otherwise indicated. I can't seem to find any passenger figures for Subang, but Firefly seems to have flown about 500,000 pax, which is <4% of KLIA. Jpatokal (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If it makes no sense to disambiguate Beijing and Kuala Lumpur, then I'll say it makes even less sense to disambiguate Jakarta. I'm quite sure the traffic served by Halim is much less than that of Subang and Nanyuan. Likewise, in Taipei, the amount of traffic in Songshan is several orders of magnitude less than Taoyuan, and the same goes for Nagoya and Sapporo, where Komaki doesn't serve traffic anywhere near that of Chubu, and Okadama doesen't serve traffic anywhere near that of Chitose. Perhaps we should come to a consensus on when the amount of traffic at an alternative airport warrants disambiguation since from what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any consistency as of yet. The dog2 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK Halim currently serves no scheduled traffic at all, so Jakarta certainly does not warrant disambiguation. Jpatokal (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why only Kuala Lumpur and Beijing? AFAIK Frankfurt also has two airports. pikdig (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Ryanair's "Frankfurt"-Hahn, it's >100 km away from the city. Jpatokal (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The airport is not even in Frankfurt despite its name. Frankfurt Airport is the only airport in the city of Frankfurt. Don't we need to disam Orlando's airport, since Orlando has 2 airports also. Cashier freak (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Many airports are not in the city after which they are named. — 3247 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Private Party Links from US-Airport Template

For the past 5 months there has been a discussion to remove private party links from the US-Airport template. This was suggested in a discussion about the template when it was up for deletion. The change is to use the FAA as the only source of airport information rather than AirNav and FlightAware and to remove all other links except for Aviation Safety Network, which is a non-profit source. I am sure there is consensus for this change, but two editors seem to be preventing the change and one of the two is not willing to participate in the discussion. I would appreciate hearing your comments about the change on the template’s talkpage Template_talk:US-airport#Push_To_Remove_Private_Party_Sites_from_Template. Thank you for your time - Neilh89 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give me some more time to work on the replacement airport information tool on my new account on the Wikimedia Toolserver. It took them months to process the account request and I had other projects to do by the time they got it for me. Remember there is no deadline because we're all volunteers. Then we can use the method that solved a similar issue for mapping web sites. Ikluft (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am excited to see how your tool will work but do you know of a way to complete this change that was suggested by many editors when the template was up for deletion. - Neilh89 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NWA Asia flight number reshuffle

NWA is reshuffling some of its Asia flights again starting on March 29 that is causing some problems. People will just keep removing the destination saying that it is not a direct flight and of course the flight goes thru the NW's NRT hub. I just say we don't list them cause the listing will violate the WP:AIRPORT guideline of a flight going thru a hub. Cashier freak (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get the term "domestic hub" rephrased to just "hub" but couldn't get a consensus. Not only their flight numbers get shuffled every couple of years, their planes are also shuffled every day, as different flight numbers using the same aircraft type can be swapped and traceable only by gate number. However, there is also a huge "force" of editors insisting on listing one-stop destinations, and my effort of noting "not the same plane most of the days" didn't quite prevail. Is it time to establish a new policy? May I suggest removing the word "domestic" again? HkCaGu (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as direct flights are included. We are not going to be different then reality. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo and Treviso Airports

Are these airports necessary to disam? If so, should we disam as Venice-Treviso and Venice-Marco Polo? or leave CVE airport just as Venice. In the past, these airports were never disam (and they were disam today) and i was wondering if both of these airports are in the city of Venice. Cashier freak (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo is in Venice itself, but Treviso isn't. Both do serve the same general area. My view is that if we call CDG as Paris-Charles de Gaulle (even though it's in Roissy) and CVG as Cincinnati (even though its in a nothr state) and disam other airports, then we should do the same for these two as well. Or we could fix the links and redirects so that Venice Airport leads to Marco Polo only. Jasepl (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the list of destinations?

Whenever I look up an airport with commercial passenger flights, I see the list of airlines and destinations. However, almost all the lists doesn't even have a source/reference. Reading the article, I can't even determine whether the list is 100% true or not, or when I see that the list is edited, I can't tell whether it's a true edit or vandalism. So I suggest, how about making sure that the airlines and destinations are 100% true (if not, update the list), and then either tagging the list of airlines and destinations with {{unreferenced}} or {{fact}}, or citing the sources for such lists in articles about airports with commercial flights, if it hasn't been done yet? NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good point, the new tables format for destinations could probably be altered to have a references column, else references would probably be best put after the airline name, so as not to clutter the lists. I don't think we should start deleting unsourced destinations, but an {{refimprove}} template (or something similar) when no sources are provided, at the top of the destination section, sounds like a good idea to me. Johnwalton 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed before. One can not assume that all destinations for an airline are sourced from one place. So you really need to reference each destination or start and termination date. I did this for McCarran_International_Airport and general consensus was that it looked too messy. Adding a reference column is misleading if the source is not used to reference all of the destinations. In any case, including a general reference is a bad idea unless it gets updated every time the destinations are updated. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Former Destinations section

Several IPs continue to add "Former Airlines and Routes" to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and I have removed it many times. I thought we aren't supposed to include them in airport articles unless they are complete and well-referenced. Can someone please watch that page? Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought they weren't supposed to be in the airport article but in the airline article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai Pudong International Airport

The airlines and destinations section of the article needs to changed to follow the same format for the other airporta. The list here sloppy and messy (including IATA codes, flags, city/airport names, etc.) which makes it hard to read. Should we make it into a table format like the rest of the airports or keep it as it is. I am not sure if it is the correct format to begin with. Cashier freak (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is quite the mess and causes page bloat. I would replace it with {{Airport-dest-list}}. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how to do the new format. Cashier freak (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well that reduced the page by over half. Don't know how long it will last. A lot easier to read. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New York

By looking at all airport articles, one user has went around and change all New York-JFK' and New York-LaGuardia by adding "city" to New York. I am sure if we have decided to change this or if it is okay to include the word "city" in New York. Cashier freak (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like overkill. We use cities for airports and not states. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And another user has reverted calling the edits vandalism. Of course nobody explained to the original user what the problem was. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It was more like "personal attack". Please see that person's history of edit summaries. HkCaGu (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like people are just jumping to conclusions. I'm sure adding "city" would have minority support if it were to come down to community voting, perhaps talking to the users (there seems to be two, druid.raul is not the only one) would help out more than just reverting and moving on. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems this - and a hot of other issues - were explained. And I concur with HkCaGu (talk). User in question's history (both current and previous incarnation) speaks for itself.

The reason i added New York City-JFK and New York City-LaGuardia is that John F. Kennedy International Airport , LaGuardia Airport are situated in New York City respectively. New York is the state and whose biggest city is New York City.

As for Vandalism i have done better job and reasonable edits (edits which have some meaning even if its going to be reverted) than just reverting other user's edits like this user (User_talk:Jasepl) This user has done more reverting than editing.

As for Vandalism i was the one who created Destinations by Region in Ataturk International Airport , George Bush Intercontinental Airport , Vancouver International Airport , Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport , Bengaluru International Airport , Rajiv Gandhi International Airport , Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport , Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport , Raja Sansi International Airport , Abu Dhabi International Airport , Doha International Airport

i put the logos of Etihad Airways,Flyington Freighters,Doha International Airport,Abu Dhabi International Airport. I am sure you can't call my work Vandalism.
thanks (Druid.raul (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't have a problem with the Destinations by Region you've created at the airports you've mentioned since almost every airport have a destinations by regions section added. But for New York, New York-JFK is the name used in destinations lists for most airports as this wasn't discussed before. Most people recognize New York as NYC and not the state. Cashier freak (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And the official name of New York City is the City of New York. "New York" is the name of both the city and the state. "New York City" is just an alternate name in common use. Therefore it's not necessarily wrong to say "New York" to refer to the city--and in an airport's destination listing, we're obviously talking about city, not state. In contrast, the government of Temple City, California is in a building labeled "City of Temple City City Hall". Such is not the case of New York. HkCaGu (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually both New York and New York City are correct and i agree with that but i felt New York City would be more correct as it specifically refers to the city. Its fine with me if we keep it as New York-JFK.
Thanks.(Druid.raul (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Airlines and destinations when in a table

What is the best way to do

• Air Canada
  • Air Canada Jazz (Vancouver)

when it's a table? Is Nanaimo Airport fine or Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport or is there a better (third) way? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Air Canada Jazz always flying for Air Canada? That does affect the layout. BTW, I reformatted Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport destinations and think the minor revisions to the formatting maybe getting us close to a final format for the d/b/a listings. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I tried this format for Vegas. It does not appear to work when there are airlines for the top level entry. Looks like the destinations are being centered in the open space of the table cell. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't seem to be working. I'd been putting each d/b/a in their own row as that seemed to work best. To answer the original question, the way it is on Nanaimo Airport is how I would have done it. For cases where the regional affiliate operates under their own identity and the major partner just handles most of the marketing and ticketing, like Air Canada Jazz and Horizon Air, I didn't mention the major partners at all in the tables. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Island name or city name

I've noticed something doing some regular maintenance on airport articles in North America recently: Why do some articles list Aruba as the destination, and others list Oranjestad? Same goes for Curacao and Willemstad, and in the case of MIA, Willemstad and Aruba are used... what is the consensus for listing these islands as destinations? Do we use the more commonly know island name, or the more proper city name for them? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been an islander myself, I've always argued for island name. Such an airport serve its respective island, and the "capital" city may not even be near the airport or be home to a significant amount of the island's population. If the island is big enough for two or more commercial airports, then the city name (such as San Juan, Puerto Rico) is relevant. The greatest determining factor is what the airlines call that destination from outside, not what the name or the location of the airport might be. HkCaGu (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I always figured that as well, I know when making announcements for boarding airlines say "Serivce to Aruba" etc, and boarding passes say From: Miami To: Aruba, etc, but i seem to remember some time ago when there was a movement to use Oranjestad and Willemstad instead, since they were the actual city names... over time, people have reverted some articles back and now we have this un-uniform system. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that the most recognised name should be used. Would most people know Oranjestad rather than Aruba? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go for the most recognised name. One airport here in the Philippines, Godofredo P. Ramos Airport, is located in the municipality of Malay. So in airport articles it is listed in Malay. However all airlines serving the airport label it as Caticlan or Boracay (because it is the nearest airport to Boracay) or both. pikdig (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for major airports to reside outside the limits of the city they are named for. The destination listed should be the major destination served, with additional disambiguation when necessary (Phoenix implies Sky Harbor International Airport, while Phoenix-Mesa indicates Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport which is really in Mesa, Arizona). SFO straddles the border between the cities of South San Francisco and Millbrae, both in San Mateo County and outside the limits of the City & County of San Francisco. I just noticed one possible solution for the island question on the article for Los Angeles International Airport, where one of Air New Zealand's destinations is listed as Nuku'alofa (Tonga), giving both the city and island names. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So what is it? Will we use the city name or the most recognized name? pikdig (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the most recognized name. I think we would alienate the majority of readers using proper names, as we can all safely assume the average person does not know the largest city in Aruba is Oranjestad, but everyone hears and sees Aruba and Curacao everywhere (even at airport), heck, even the airport codes AUA and CUR not ORJ and WLS, etc. Same goes for Boracay, being unfamiliar with the Philippines, I recognize Boracay from hear say but not Malay... in my mind, that sounds like a place in Malaysia... ignorance aside. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 09:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is an official policy and mandates the most common name. However, determining what the most common name actually is can be difficult with airports. — 3247 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ... but not for destination lists. — 3247 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for the Philippine airports:

• Manila-Clark be turned into Manila/Clark as most airlines refers to CRK as Clark, while only AirAsia, Tiger Airways, and Spirit of Manila Airlines refer to it as Manila (Clark) or Clark (Manila).
• Bongao be turned into Tawi-Tawi as the name Bongao is quite unfamiliar to me even though I live in the Philippines. An also because Zest Airways refer to Sanga-Sanga Airport as Tawi-Tawi.
• Gasan be turned into Marinduque as Zest Airways refers to Marinduque Airport as Marinduque and it's the most familiar name in the Philippines.
• Malay be turned into Boracay/Caticlan since all airlines serving MPH refer to the airport as Caticlan and tourists refer to it as Boracay.

Are they okay? The rest of the airports here in the Philippines are already okay. pikdig (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Name/Othername" is a proper way to handle this. This format is usually only used if an airport serves two cities (e.g. Cologne/Bonn - and "City-Airport" or "City (Airport)" is used for multiple airports, BTW). Therefore:

• Clark (calling it "Manila" seems to be over-aggressive marketing).
• Tawi-Tawi and Marinduque are ok.
• Caticlan is what I would prefer. Boracay being used by tourists is just too vague, IMO.

Further, as per WP:COMMONNAME, the articles should be moved to <XXX> Airport. - 3247 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, what do we do about Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali, Indonesia. The airport serves the entire island in practice but the main city it was built to serve is Denpasar. The airport code is also DPS which comes from the city name. The dog2 (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So, now that we've analyzed this to death, anyone have a consensus or direction for this issue? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with common name used. pikdig (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not island names are sufficient to replace city names. The problem here is this: because people can more commonly associate with the island rather than the city (or, in the case of Godofredo P. Ramos Airport, the village over the municipality), WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we use the island name. However, in a bid to remain accurate, in one way or another, we need to note what place is being served (in the case of Caticlan, you're not serving only one village, but rather an entire municipality). The issue also goes for Clark, where the airport serves Angeles City, but it's almost always called by the name associated with its location (Clark Special Economic Zone, formerly Clark Air Base), and Tawi-Tawi, a province with two airports, although there's only commercial service to one. In one way or another, we will need to choose: commonality or accuracy. I'd prefer a mix of both, but if such solution proves to be nonviable, then I would prefer the latter. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DL and NW rebranding/consolidation

On the website http://www.koolaiders.com/stations.php, it states specific dates for NW and DL to move to specific terminals at airports and also some airports also have the rebranded status for most airports. Should we be making these changes to the respective articles? Also, for airports with the rebranded status, does it mean that the airport's ops are completely Delta? Cashier freak (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see it at the moment as they have a PHP error, but is this a reliable source? In any case, I don't think the airport branding is what matters, but the airline branding. Once the flights themselves are branded as Delta (e.g. Delta flight xyz operated by Northwest) in booking, boarding announcements, in flight announcements, etc., that is when I would change the articles to list things as Delta operated by Northwest. In general, my opinion on all this Delta/Northwest merger stuff is that it should be handled exactly the same as we handled the US Airways/America West merger. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in some rebranded airports that have regional operations, the flights are announced as "Delta Air Lines operated by Mesaba/Compass" etc. with service to Minneapolis/Detroit, etc. Should we list these airports as Delta? I went ahead and changed a few (BJI, RST), but will revert myself if others oppose. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And what about the rebranded airports that have mainline operations? Are they DL flights? I went ahead an changed a couple more that were rebranded but you can revert them as well if we decided not to list them. Cashier freak (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone can go look at the counters and the planes and those are primary sources. We can also use airport websites and FAA flight plan filing/tracking data as secondary sources. But remember if the counters are consolidated, the flights may not be. HkCaGu (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Trudeau and Mirabel Airports

A couple of European, Canadian, and Mexican airport articles where Montreal is a destination have that city disam. I don't think it should be disambiguated since Trudeau is the only airport in Montreal that has passenger service. Mirabel only has cargo and general aviation services so Montreal doesn't need to be disambiguated. Any comments? I didn't reverted any of them since we are not sure if it qulifies disambiguation. Cashier freak (talk)

Trudeau is the main airport, but both Mirabel and Montréal/Saint-Hubert Airport do have some commercial/scheduled passenger services. I suspect that St. Hubert has more passenger traffic than . It has a lot more movements than than Mirabel. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that Pascan Aviation is the only scheduled airline to Saint-Hubert. I went through the various airports and updated the destination list, and where there were airlines other than Pascan, all in Quebec, flying to Montreal I disambiguated them. Other than that I wouldn't think it's too important. I don't think that most people will know that there is another Montreal airport with passenger flights. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential merge

While I was doing some broadcast call sign/ICAO code work today, I noticed that there appear to be two articles for the same facility — Cox Field Airport and Cox Field. Thought someone from this project might want to have a look to determine the better name of the two, merge content and redirect, etc. Mlaffs (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking both pages, it seems cox field has all the same information that cox field airport has but the latter is better formatted and contains a bit more information, i've redirected the smaller article to the larger one, thanks for pointing this out to us! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Airport notability proposal

(discussion moved - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Notability)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Who's the coordinator of this group, do we even have one? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Trevor MacInnis (talk · contribs) is the coordinator for Aviation. I've added myself to the list as a part-time coordinator for Airports. - Canglesea (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Coordinators - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh International Airport

DL and NWA have merged operations at PIT, should NWA be listed seperately at its own gates (it is now at Gates D82 & D84 per flight stats at NWA.com). However, all NWA and DL destinations have been put together making NWA non-existant at that airport. If it should be listed seperately, please correct my edit if necessary. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Though this is unsettled still, I believe we're currently sticking to US/HP format, added it on the way you would add on a regional subsidiary, IE, Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines under the subsidiary listing for Delta, if it is operated by northwest airlink, add those as you would add Comair to the list. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against "Delta operated by Northwest" at this time. The flights are still separate. What's merged are ground ops. If ground ops are merged, I'd think it's reasonable to take NW out of alpha order to being under DL (but not "A operated by B") on an airport-by-airport basis. HkCaGu (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the consolidation is still making it confusing for a lot of editors. They are just merging gates and ticket counters not flights, routes, etc. What it means that check in for NW flights are processed at the DL ticket counter and their flights uses DL gates or gates close to them and vice versa. I thought the "Delta operated by Northwest" matter was discussed a while back and the consensus was to list them seperate until their operating certificate are merged (the US/HP merger should've happened the same way). Cashier freak (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't wait that long; when the operating certificates are merged everything will be Delta and there won't be Northwest at all. When they get to the point where they stop marketing things as Northwest (e.g., nwa.com redirects to delta.com and the majority of NW flights are sold as NW-operated DL codeshare flights) is when I'd change things to be "Delta operated by Northwest". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I see the article as being a guide for persons not familiar with aviation (like an good encyclopedia). A user would look at the PIT article and see that DL and NW operate next to each other, he then drives to the airport and finds no NW counters or branding there, just signs redirecting him to Delta. He now feels misinformed, despite flights being still separate, the branding in that airport is now one brand, same ground staff and planes, but the basic person would not understand or take note of such details, he just wants information on the airport and flights. Hence the operated by. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just keep this in mind: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's fine then, I actually don't care either way, bureaucracy is pointless without guidance. This will most likely go undecided until it no longer matters cause no one cares enough to do anything about it, so unless there's some vote or mediation of some sort, this whole talk page is just more wasted server space. I withdraw all my comments. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

destinations list (table) in airport articles

A couple of the table lists includes terminal information, codeshares, gate numbers, and even an an "Remarks" column. I was wondering if we should remove them from the tables since it violates the WP:NOTTRAVEL guidelines. Cashier freak (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with terminal information; larger airports such as Los Angeles International Airport have separate sections for each terminal. I like the idea of collapsing everything into a single table and having a column for the terminal information, as on LA/Ontario International Airport. Gate numbers I think in the past we've leaned towards not having them but I haven't been actively removing them and when I've converted an article to use the table, if the gate info was already there I made a column for it. Codeshares ought to go, and Remarks it's hard to make a blanket statement about since it could be anything. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Done, and incorporated into the announcements banner/template. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, flags

Yesterday, I noticed User:Steve al 100 adding flags to the destinations section on several airport articles (mostly in Mexico but also a few Southern California airports). The way he's doing it is adding them just above each infobox, for each country listed in the box. I didn't see the point so I removed them, and now my removal is being reverted by an IP editor. Rather than getting into a revert war, I thought I'd bring the issue up here for discussion. See, for example, San Diego International Airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the flags from San Diego, I understand that the consensus is that we do not use flags. Just to make sure it is in the page contents guideline as Do not include flags for airlines as it is not always clear which country's flag should be used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've followed up and re-removed the flags from the other articles as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been well discussed in the past and we have decided not to add them in airport articles. Is flags okay in airline destination lists? Cashier freak (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Airline destination lists shouldn't have them, either: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 3#Flags_again. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some airline destinations have flags in them but i don't know which sirlines. Cashier freak (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the use of flags as in Cardiff Airport#Statistics? See also Talk:Cardiff Airport#Flags. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or do we need the statistics section? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Delta Air Lines destinations have flags next to each countries. I think someone needs to remove them as well. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed them but strictly speaking it is under WP:AIRLINES. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct vs Nonstop

(Since this has gone somewhat unnoticed on the other talk page I originally pasted it on, repasting this here)

I think the inclusion of Direct Flights in destinations lists is misleading. Due to the fact that it's not specified whether or not a flight is direct or nonstop in most articles' Destinations sections, people may assume the flight is nonstop when it isn't. I think it should either be specified whether a flight is direct or nonstop somehow (bold/italic/etc text) or direct flights be excluded from such lists. There have also been (at least one I know of anyone, having taken part in it inadvertantly) edit wars concerning the inclusion of direct vs. nonstop flights (See Portland International Airport) so I think this is something that needs to be further discussed. --Resplendent (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I already explained this on your talk page a couple of months ago, but here it is again:

A direct flight is when it's the same plane, same flight number taking you from point A to point C. It may stop along the way, but as long as the same plane and flight number conditions are met, it's direct. Eg: Delta's ATL-DKR-JNB flight, or BA's LHR-SIN-SYD flight.

A non-stop flight is when there are no stops along the way. Eg: One of NW's PDX-MSP flights. No stops and same plane (obviously).

Connecting flight examples include flying American from DFW to MIA, getting off the plane and then getting on another different plane (with a different flight number) to take you from MIA to MEX.

Finally, there also exist "false direct" flights, such as UA's SEA-ORD-LHR flight. It has the same flight number, but it's not direct from SEA to LHR because passengers need to disembark at ORD and get on another plane.

That said, it's not like Wikipedia is meant to be a travel guide ticket reservation facility or something. We list destinations that are served direct from an airport, that's it. What difference does it make, in an encyclopaedic sense, if there is a stop or not?

Jasepl (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not confused about the difference between the two. I'm saying it's possibly confusing to list direct flights with no differentiation from nonstops. Obviously as there have been many many back and forth edits, this is a subject of much confusion. Just because Wikipedia isn't a travel guide doesn't mean it has to be unintentionally ambiguous. --Resplendent (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Amtrak serve San Diego from Los Angeles? It would be silly to say it doesn't, just because it makes 9 stops on the way. The same applies to airlines, IMO, and I am fine with keeping the status quo as regards to what destinations get listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation is a bit different. Most people would probably expect there to be intermediate stops on a train, wheras these days nonstop flights are usually expected by most people. If you say you're going from PDX to Mumbai on Northwest to someone else, they probably would not assume they're going to be stopping in Amsterdam first, which as the crow flies in the complete opposite direction. If you say you're taking the train from San Francisco to San Diego, obviously the other person would assume there are stops along the way. --Resplendent (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the train is a good example. You get on the plane in one city and you get off in another. So the status quo seems to be fine unless you want to make this into wikitravel. We could also address Southwest Airlines where once you get on the plane you stay on, even if the flight number changes. How's that for more confusing? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. That's why I think only flights that go nonstop from City A to City B with no stops in between should be listed. It's much less confusing. --Resplendent (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually omitting those flights would be more confusing. If we did that, we would not be in sync with the airport sites and the airline advertising as to where they fly to. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere on the PDX website does it say there is NWA service to Mumbai. Feel free to correct me. --Resplendent (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Real experience: Setting any criteria for inclusion will not stop back-and-forth edits. There'll always be somebody thinking otherwise, and there'll be always "unconvinceables", like one editor who had to be blocked for refusal to understand the reason for not including codeshares.

The current criteria for "real direct" seem reasonable, although I still want to argue against all hubs, foreign and domestic--I really want to kill all those NW listings through NRT and AMS, as they swap planes (against flight numbers) most of the time. If it's big enough to be a hub, the swapping must be occurring. HkCaGu (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be agree. I don't think the distinction between foreign and domestic hubs is real; the arguments against including "direct" flights through domestic hubs seem like they would apply to foreign hubs as well. A hub is a hub, whether or not it is in the same country as the airline's headquarters. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, especially about the NW flights. --Resplendent (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the UA flights? Some flights to/from Asia that go thru NRT are not listed as direct flights eventhough they use the same plane. NRT is not a UA hub nor a focus city. Yeah, I said many times. For the NW flights, we should just kill all the direct flights that go thru NRT since that hub is big enough to change planes there. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with allowing the listing of destinations served 'direct'. Airlines have much more complex schedules than trains do and airline schedules change very frequently which will require constant monitoring and updating of airport pages to maintain accuracy. We will only be cluttering the airport pages more than is necessary by listing 'direct' destinations and will often lead to confusing and misleading information. I would encourage wiki users to exclude this useless information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.35.65 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say that your comment is very US-domestic-centric. In the wider world, one- (or more) stop direct destinations are critical, especially those without traffic rights. Imagine QF at JFK. LAX is not a valid destination, but without LAX there is no non-stops to list!

As to comparing UA and NW at NRT, we know NW has a hub and they swap all those NRT-Asia flight numbers every once-in-a-while, and this has a lot in common to why we say no to through-hub directs domestically. UA, meanwhile, has few onward flights and don't switch flight numbers. HkCaGu (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by Portland Airport's own website, they only list nonstop destinations, presumably for a reason. Why should destinations not listed on their own website be listed on Wikipedia? --Resplendent (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. Why keep going back to PDX as an example. We also have airports such as Heathrow [7], that go the other extreme and list all 'direct' services, even ones that involve a plane change (eg: UA's aupposed LHR-HNL flight). What currently exists on Wikipedia is a suitable medium, I think. Jasepl (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content

I just updated that page here. Basically saying that the preferred usage is the table format. I also added a line for the weather in a effort to help stop the spamming. Take a look at Chicago Midway International Airport#Concourse A, should there be a note about not including gate numbers beside each airline? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure weather is encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a travel guide or aviators flight planning resource so I would be probably say dont add it at all. I dont think gate numbers are encyclopedic as we are not a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't really but there was/is a certain amount of spamming being done with that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking last night that this needs to be done. While we're talking about this page, is there any objection to adding a notation that citations should be provided for new/ending service? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections either. Makes it easier to delete the uncited destinations. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 09:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NW SEA-PEK

One IP continues to remove Beijing as a destination for Northwest on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. NWA did not shelved the flight, it's just been delayed. The route is scheduled to begin on March 25, 2010 according to this source: ( http://www.professionaltravelguide.com/Travel-News/Transportation/Northwest-looks-to-postpone-Seattle-Beijing-service-p1883255) and it is referenced. Can someone watch this page for a couple of days. As long as there is a start date, it shall be listed. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another potential merge

While I was doing some more broadcast call sign/ICAO code work today, I came across another pair of articles for the same facility — Swisher Skyhaven Airport and Skyhaven Airport (Missouri). The former is the older of the two, but the latter appears to be in better shape. I leave it in your capable hands to decide how to merge content, redirect, etc. Mlaffs (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cameroon airports conflict

In attempting to correct the airport codes for Nkounja Airport and Koutaba Airport in Cameroon, I find that the Great Circle Mapper lists them as the same airport (same coords) with different codes?!? Foumban and Koutaba. Does anyone have better sources to clarify this situation? - Canglesea (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DAFIF via OpenFlights gives Foumban Nkounja/FKKM as 5.636919 E 10.750817 N, as does OurAirports (5.63692,10.7508). I can't find Koutaba in either. Jpatokal (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave things as they are. - Canglesea (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The airport with the IATA code CRK

User:PikDig has just gone around and changed all references to CRK from "Manila-Clark" to just plain "Clark", citing "WP:AIRPORTS discussion". I don't see any discussion where such a consensus was achieved, can somebody point me to it?

I'd also like to reiterate that it's way past high time we agreed on rules for something as basic as airport names and disambiguators... Jpatokal (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Island name or city name discussion. pikdig (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to a consensus there -- you yourself suggested "Manila/Clark" as the name? Jpatokal (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but another user agreed with Clark. pikdig (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Ben Gurion International Airport

A FA review has been started for Ben Gurion International Airport. You may wish to comment at this page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Destinations by Region

Should the Destinations by Region section be linking to cities or airports? See this diff: [8] -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of them link to airports rather than cities. I don't think the "destinations by regions" should exist. I see them as a way to get around the unlinked "airlines and destinations" list. Also I have noticed that the "airlines and destinations" will get updated but the "destinations by regions" does not. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really in favor of the Destinations by Region either, for pretty much the same reason you mention. It presents the same information as Destinations by Airline, just in a different order. It means having to update two different places at the same time. I suspect collapsing it by default is just to get around complaints about filling the articles with redundant information, but it also means editors don't see it and might miss it when updating the Destinations by Airline tables. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One more in favour of getting rid of it! It's usually inaccurate or incomplete anyway. Besides, different users have different penchants for either grouping countries in varying regions or they drill down and go Americas -> North America -> United States -> Contiguous States -> Florida -> Miami Airport... Aiy! Jasepl (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Support the idea it is not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also support removal of these lists which are appearing on several airport articles. It is duplication of the airlines and destinations section and often therefore requires 'double updating' when routes are commenced or ceased. As also mentioned, the lists are often inaccurate or incomplete in any event. SempreVolando (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Same position here--hard to maintain, arbitrary geo-grouping. However, just be devil's advocate here, "DbR" (1) shows the actual number of destinations (when airlines duplicate) and (2) gives an opportunity to wikilink the airports. One counter-argument on (2) is that airline destination articles already show where those cities are. HkCaGu (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also a LOT of instances where some destinations are wiki-linked to the actual airport, yet others to the city. Of course, some of those links lead nowhere. I think its best we do away with the whole thing soon; lots of changes coming up this week-end with the summer schedules, so now might be a good time to take care of it. Jasepl (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Many users continue to revert my edits on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol by restoring it. HELP! Charmedaddict (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've advised [9] Charmedaddict to take this on the discussion page at some of the major airport talk pages, so more users get an idea about this new consensus apparently reached here, and is able to voice their opinion. Nsaa (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was a bit early on things and the discussion should've at least gone a bit longer so other users could've been notified on this, but I personally agree about removing the duplicated information. Btw, welcome back Bucs2004/Audude08/Cashier freak/Charmedaddict =). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with discussing the issues here the idea of a project is so we dont have to discuss it on every airport talk page. One of the issues is some of the major airport talk pages we would have to decide which of the 10,952 airport articles are major! MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking

People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Airport codes template

We have a requirement in our airport article creation checklist to include the {{airport codes}} template. Since an infobox (containing the airport codes) is also required, it strikes me as a bit redundant to have the airport codes in two places in every article. To eliminate this redundancy (and extra work), I propose a change to the checklist to eliminate the {airport codes}} template requirement and, eventually, deprecate the template in favor of the infobox. Any thoughts, objections? - Canglesea (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree not really needed when we have the data in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. {{Airport codes}} should only be used if there is no infobox. Same for {{Airline codes}} on airline articles, btw. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the better option. The templates should be used if there is no infobox or if an editor wishes to include the information in the article text in addition to the infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree but with a further condition. If the {{airport codes}} is removed from the article then any instances of the airport being referred to by its ICAO/IATA code in the article should be changed to the actual name. Also the template should probably be tagged with "deprecated, please consider using {{Infobox Airport}} instead. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is deprecated, since there will be valid cases for it's use, especially in stubs. Strongly suggesting replacing it with {{Infobox Airport}} is fine. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should not deprecate it. There are many non-airport articles that use it, see Nice. Changing the airport article creation checklist to strongly recommend using {{Infobox Airport}} in place of {{airport codes}} in airport articles should suffice. - Canglesea (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

... so if I may summarize the above discussion: The {{airport codes}} template will not be deprecated; it has valid uses in non-airport articles. Our airport article creation checklist should be changed to strongly recommend the inclusion of a properly coded {{Infobox Airport}} template instead of the {{airport codes}} template, the latter containing redundant information. Hearing no objections, I will proceed with the changes this week ... - Canglesea (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. See updated airport article creation checklist and updated documentation for {{airport codes}}. Feel free to tweak wording as needed. - Canglesea (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New article

Cherry Springs Airport is a new article on a tiny general aviation airport in Pennsylvania that closed recently. I don't normally write airport articles and would appreciate it if someone could look it over and make sure things are up to standards. It was closed to provide more land for an adjacent state park (the article for that is on its way to FAC soon) so I had a lot of information and wondered if this might be up to GA standards (almost everything I could find on the airport is already in the article though). Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur disambiguation

There is a IP editor going around on the various airport pages removing the disambiguation for Kuala Lumpur, they rotate IPs and I believe he undos anyone who tries to revert his misc edits. I suggest some editors keep an eye on the various airport pages he's been going around (see my recent contributions page for a list). --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Hangzhou and Tianjin Airport pages, on IP continue to undo my edits and fails to discuss. Can someoone watch these 2 pages for a while. Cashier freak (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is causing a lot of problem with IP editors and KUL airport. IPs continue to revert edits. Needs a consensus so that we don't get into an edit war. Cashier freak (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In reality just look at the scheduled traffic SZB gets. There should be no need to dab every mention of Kuala Lumpur - KUL is the clear assumption except for a tiny number of airports with service to SZB. For those disambiguate if there is potential of confusion. /wangi (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While KUL is the main airport, Firefly has a hub in SZB and does fly to neighbouring countries from there. So while there is no potential for confusion with intercontinental destinations, we definitely do need to disambiguate it for neighbouring countries and domestic flights. As a side note, BKK and DMK are disambiguated even though DMK only serves domesic flights in Thailand. The dog2 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no disambiguation here. When an airline flies to Kuala Lumpur, it is clear that it flies to Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Airlines that fly to Subang will mention Subang as its destination Twy1 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates

Recently, I keep seeing many Southeast Asian airports have their dates wikilinked and the WP:MOS states not to wikilink them. I am not sure if any one unlinked them or not. Charmedaddict (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Airportpicreq

Template:Airportpicreq has been nominateed for deletion. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

destination table format

Should we format the destination tables like this?

Airlines	Destinations
Air Canada	Air Georgian (Toronto-Pearson)
AirTran Airways	Atlanta, Orlando, West Palm Beach
American Airlines	American Eagle (Chicago-O'Hare)
Delta Air Lines	Delta Connection operated by Atlantic Southeast Airlines (Atlanta, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky) Delta Connection operated by Shuttle America (Atlanta)
JetBlue Airways	Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Orlando, Tampa, West Palm Beach
Northwest Airlines	Northwest Airlink operated by Pinnacle Airlines (Detroit)
United Airlines	United Express operated by Colgan Air (Washington-Dulles) United Express operated by Shuttle America (Chicago-O'Hare) United Express operated by SkyWest Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare)
US Airways	US Airways Express operated by Air Wisconsin (Charlotte, Washington-Reagan) US Airways Express operated by Piedmont Airlines (Philadelphia) US Airways Express operated by PSA Airlines (Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington-Reagan)

I think this way is easier to read and it reduces the size of the table. 24.161.46.128 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. It would be inconsistent, with some airline names in one column and some in the other, with some destinations in parenthesis and some not. And I don't think it significantly reduces the size of the table, since the same information is still presented on different rows, we just have fewer deeper rows. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This format mentions the main airlines, even if its mainline carrier does not fly into a certain airport. The regional carriers of each airline is the destinations column to distinguish from their respective mainline carriers. For example, Horizon Air operates on behalf of Alaska Airlines.

If the destination tables is like this one shown below, some people will think the regional carrier is not related to the mainline carrier.

Airlines	Destinations
Regional Carrier	destinations

This format shown below is much easier to understand because the regional carrier is in the destinations column to distinguish the regional carrier from the mainline carrier.

Airlines	Destinations
Mainline Carrier	destinations of the mainline carrier Regional Carrier (destinations of the regional carrier)

24.161.46.128 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Horizon and Alaska are a relatively unusual case, where the regional affiliate operates under its own identity with a name not similar to that of the major (as is the case with American Eagle), thus the branding of the operation as well as the operator are the same, so we don't mention the major partner. If you go to a Horizon-only airport, you'll see the signs primarily mention "Horizon Air", not "Alaska Airlines", and even at the larger airports served by both, flight announcements are for "Horizon Air flight 2468", not "Alaska Airlines flight 2468 operated by Horizon Air". Aircraft are painted in Horizon Air livery with no mention of Alaska. In the Horizon case, readers can always follow the link to the article, where Horizon's status as a sister carrier of Alaska is explained in the second paragraph.

Compare this with, say, United Express operated by SkyWest Airlines. Airport signs primarily mention United Express, boarding announcements are for "United Express flight 6789 operated by SkyWest", and most of the aircraft are painted in United Express livery. However, since United Express isn't an airline, we mention both the branding and the operating carrier in the airlines column, "United Express operated by SkyWest Airlines". Again, readers can, if necessary, learn of the link between United Express and United Airlines from the United Express article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of the suggested layout. It seems too messy and definitely is inconsistent like others have pointed out. although, there is something to be said about grouping airlines and their subsidiaries/franchisees together... The original layout (without tables) worked best, in my opinion. Jasepl (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I contemplated suggesting adding an "operated by" column between the airline and destinations column, but this left the issue of what to do with mainline carriers. You either have the same thing twice, effectively stating "American Airlines operated by American Airlines", or you leave the operated by column blank which would then break sorting on this column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

24.161.46.128 made this change to a bunch of articles again today. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the layout is fine, but if you use it, you should convert all the articles to that format. If half the articles are in that format, and the other half are in another format, it would look weird. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs removing references

A bunch of IPs have been going around and removing references for new airline destinations. I would want to watch this for a couple of days since the WP:AIRPORTS requests citations for new servies. Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Kuala Lumpur airports

And another edit war brews at Singapore Changi Airport — is KUL "Kuala Lumpur-KLIA" or "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang", and is SZB "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" or just "Subang"? Comments welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is also happening in many of the Malaysian airports articles as well as Firefly Airlines. Almost all airlines that fly to Kuala Lumpur will land at KLIA. Firefly is the only major airline that flies to Subang. For airlines that fly to KLIA, I would leave it as Kuala Lumpur. Subang is a little bit tricky as it was previously the "Kuala Lumpur" before KLIA opened. Foreigners might not know where Subang is. (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Although KUL is the main international airport, SZB is actually closer to downtown Kuala Lumpur than KUL. Therefore, I think we should refer to KUL as Kuala Lumpur-Sepang/Kuala Lumpur-KLIA and SZB as Kuala Lumpur-Subang. I would base this on precedents since we disambiguate Bangkok as Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi and Bangkok-Don Mueang, Taipei as Taipei-Taoyuan and Taipei-Songshan and Sapporo as Sapporo-Chitose and Sapporo-Okadama. The dog2 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" is that the name "Sepang" is never, ever used in official contexts, while Suvarnabhumi, Don Mueang, Taoyuan, Songshan, Okadama and Chitose are all official names. So I think we can remove this option from consideration. Jpatokal (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who those for are not Malaysian, please be remind that Malaysia Government had announced only Turboprop planes are allowed to operate at Subang Airpot. There is only 1 airport which is KLIA for all airlines to Kuala Lumpur. Although from geography Subang Airport is nearer to Kuala Lumpur City but please remind that only Firefly is allowed to operate at there. Something that shouldn’t forget; u won’t see Kuala Lumpur-Sepang in Check-in Screen at any airport in the world. Therefore, I hope everyone can understand and stop for nonsense disam-ing Kuala Lumpur, Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maninter (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case why do we disambiguate Sapporo to Sapporo-Chitose and Sapporo-Okadama, even though Okadama only serves turboprop flights. I'm just saying there's no consistency on whether or not to disam, so we need to come to a general consensus on all other airports. The dog2 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, at the airports, flights to KLIA are listed as Kuala Lumpur, while flights to Subang are listed as Subang. It is only the airline i.e. Firefly that markets Subang as being "nearer to KL than KLIA". Twy1 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree the comment from Jpatokal, the word (Sepang) is never appear in any official contexts. Strongly agree to Twy1 as Firefly is 'confusing' everyone which markets them "nearer to KL than KLIA" I think it's clear enough for the situation at Subang Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maninter (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sepang and Subang can be a mess for a foreign mind. What about "Kuala Lumpur" and "Kuala Lumpur-Subang". Problem is one is imcomparably bigger than the other in terms of traffic. I'll even suggest "Beijing" and "Beijing-Nanyuan". HkCaGu (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Kuala Lumpur designated to the current airport while at the same time just add a Kuala Lumpur-Subang tag for the few Firefly fights, Subang could be mistaken for a City when in actual reality its more of a "town/suburb" of Kuala Lumpur. Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur-Subang for geographical reasons seems fair enough. After all the old Airport is closer to KL than the current KLIA. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 06:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Subang is in Selangor. Twy1 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Sepang isn't used officially, perhaps we can tag Kuala Lumpur International Airport as Kuala Lumpur-KLIA. I'm just saying this for consistency with other cities, such as Sapporo, even though Okadama also serves strictly turboprop flights while Chitose handles most domestic and international flights. The dog2 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw a screenshot of the flight information screen at Kuala Trengganu airport and they tagged the airports as Kuala Lumpur (Sepang) and Kuala Lumpur (Subang). Perhaps we can make it easier by just using Sepang to tag KLIA. Similarly, the Tokyo International Airport is tagged as Tokyo-Haneda even though Haneda isn't official.The dog2 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

from what I read from the wiki article on Tokyo-Haneda, it was known as Haneda Airfield previously, and still commonly referred to as Haneda Airport. Maybe in the beginning, some people referred KLIA as Sepang Airport, just to differentiate it from Subang Airport. But these days, I don't think many people refer to it as such anymore. I still prefer for KLIA to be listed as Kuala Lumpur, and Subang Aiport as only Subang. My second choice would be KLIA as just Kuala Lumpur, and Subang as Kuala Lumpur-Subang.Twy1 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely Subang should be tagged as Kuala Lumpur-Subang since it serves Kuala Lumpur and not a separate city called Subang. As for KLIA, though I think it should be tagged with some name just like other airports like Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi and Taipei-Taoyuan, if what everyone wants is for it to stay as just Kuala Lumpur, that's fine though. The dog2 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My first preference would be just Kuala Lumpur and Kuala Lumpur-Subang. I have to say that this is a similar issue to the Melbourne Airport situation, but in Melbourne's case, Avalon is more closer to Geelong than Melbourne (but Jetstar's promotional material promote it as "Melbourne-Avalon", whilst the locals/phone books/etc promote it just as "Avalon". --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Airline Destination Lists

I’m thinking of a bit of a clean-up of the airline destination lists – because there’s too much of repeated information.

'

Something like this:	Instead of:
France Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport Singapore Singapore Changi Airport Spain Barcelona Airport	France Paris – Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport Singapore Singapore – Singapore Changi Airport Spain Barcelona – Barcelona Airport

Basically, simply list the airport where the city’s name is clearly obvious; and only prefix the city name where it’s not.

Eg: Miami Airport (obvious to all that it serves Miami) but Milan – Malpensa Airport.

I think it’s much cleaner and does away with endless repetition. Let me know what people think. Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Airport" should be removed, too. E.g. "Miami" and "Milan-Malpensa" (or "Milan (Malpensa)"). It's obvious that airline destinations are airports. -- 3247 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Airport is a part of the name of the airport so it should stay when it is a part of the official name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vilnius International Airport

Please kindly watch Vilnius International Airport, as some editors seem to be intent on personalizing the page, using non-standard formats for the content of this page. Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Added to watchlist and I have had a tidy up, badly lacks some real history. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Category:A380 ready Airports has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1#Category:A380_ready_Airports, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, please. Didn't we already go through this before anyway (and decide we did not need such a category)? Jasepl (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wizzair

Can someone check on edits by user:Wizzair? The id seems to be making large edits to airport articles, removing pictures and adding huge numbers of cargo airlines and destinations. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Former Airlines/Routes

Users and IPs continue to add former routes/airlines to airport articles. I know that there are couple of discussions here on whether or not they are to be listed. I just wanted to make sure that this section should go or be added with references. Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure it was agreed that we remove them from airport articles. Former destination information can stay on the airline destination lists though. Jasepl (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thessaloniki International Airport, "Macedonia"

See this move discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User 86.12.114.15

User 86.12.114.15 has made a number of edits changing the numbers of runways at UK airports. I reverted one as unreferenced but I don't know enough about the subject to tell if this is vandalism or not. Could someone have a look, please? --Cavrdg (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You fixed the one that they got the wrong number for runway. The rest are fine. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur International Airport‎ or KL International Airport?

A certain user has been making massive edits on Kuala Lumpur International Airport regarding the naming of KLIA with strong intent on having it listed as KL International Airport. Any opinions? Planenut(Talk) 05:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced; for one thing, the official about page uses the name "Kuala Lumpur International Airport". I've asked him to hold off until consensus is achieved. Jpatokal (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Should remain as "Kuala Lumpur International Airport" because commonly everyone called it as KLIA or "Kuala Lumpur International Airport". "KL International Airport" is just a short form in communication.

CX KUL-PEN

Should this route be listed as a destination? I see it is listed as a destination on the KUL and PEN article. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charmedaddict. Typically, whilst international carriers may have cabotage in some countries, They do not have authorisation to transport domestic passengers on those legs. (Eg TG can't fly SYD-MEL in Australia) as an example. (Formerly Arnzy - now known as --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 04:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Airline destinations in airport articles

I was wondering when listing destinations for an airline, should we list it as the article style (for example Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Frankfurt am Main)? Also, there are some attempt to just list the city the airport's in like Incheon, O'hare, Narita instead of the city served eventhough the airport is like 10-15 miles away from the city served. Any comments? Charmedaddict (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Paul instead of St Paul is just being too nit-picky if you ask me. And writing Incheon without the Seoul prefix, or doesn’t make sense. Most large airports are now located in a separate community from the airport they serve anyway.

As for Frankfurt – the city’s name is Frankfurt am Main, so I’m for listing it by the full name.

While we’re on topic, I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Do away with the Northern Kentucky suffix after Cincinnati (it really irks me... haha)
2. EMA - The way we write it should include Nottingham, because that's the major city the airport serves. Nottingham-East Midlands, or something like that.
3. Standardise the way we write airport names (eg: City – Airport Name). That way it’s plain and obvious to all, it’s also correct and uniform. So New York – John F Kennedy Airport and Milan – Linate Airport. Unless the city is already officially included in the airport’s name, then there’s no need to prefix it. Eg: Amsterdam Airport Schiphol or Sydney Airport.

Jasepl (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Use {{Airport-dest-list}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While on the subject, some airports are not hypenated correctly. Raleigh-Durham is written with the hyphen, but I always see Raleigh/Durham. If you look at the airport website and the airport literature, it is written Raleigh-Durham. Same with Minneapolis-St Paul. One that does use the slash include Dallas/Ft Worth. Just a thought.. Kacey (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the slash means that the airport that is served by two cities (Raleigh and Durham, Minneapolis and St. Paul). We only use the dash for cities that is served by 2 airports like (Chicago-O'Hare, New York-JFK, Tokyo-Narita, etc). 74.183.173.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Just a thought, but why not list airports of multi-airport cities like the Wikipedia title suggests? Then we don't need the hyphen there, and have both slash and hyphen for designating certain airports! This would mean we write London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle or New York JFK. Maybe I'm not seeing the obvious, but what would be the disadvantage? By the way, I think it's completely pointless to write Frankfurt am Main, because we should always choose the most common name for a destination, and this should clearly be just Frankfurt (because we must not forget that we should at least to a certain extend use the destination names that airlines use, too -- and IIRC no airline let their flight be announced as Frankfurt am Main) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

External Link Question

Hello folks. So, another editor and I had a little conversation recently regarding linking video content from YouTube here in Wikipedia. The article in question is Toncontín International Airport, which is notorious for a dangerous approach. A YouTube external link was added a few days ago, which I deleted, citing WP:EL, in particular WP:ELNEVER and WP:YT. The other editor argued that I misunderstood the policy (see my talk page for details). Another thought that came up to me was that the video does not really say that it was shot from TGU, so verifiability is another issue. Any thoughts on this? Or did I really misunderstand this directive? Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to think that this would be a legitimate case for linking to a YouTube video. As the article discusses the approach, a link to a video to show it seems appropriate. WP:V does sound like it could be a problem (I haven't checked the video), but if the video poster can confirm that it is TGU (perhaps via a YouTube comment) and it's being on YouTube isn't a copyright violation, I don't see a problem with it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Destination Table Question again

I keep Raleigh-Durham International Airport on my watchlist and have seen the destination section change more than time itself. But the last change was by user:Wizzair into a table form that has the airline with the destination listed beside it. I have skimmed the discussions in the past about how to format the table, but the way it looks now just looks aweful. With each regional having it's own line, it becomes cluttered and does not show a level of control in appearance or content. It makes it looks like each subsidiary is flying the routes on it's own but under a mainline name. That just usually is not the case.

United Express operated by Mesa Airlines should not have it's own line from United because it is still flying for United and not at-risk. In my opinion, it should be listed as:

'

Airline	Destination
United	Paris-CDG United Express operated by Mesa Airline (Washington - Dulles) United Expressoperated by Shuttle America (Washington - Dulles) United Expressoperated by American Eagle (Los Angeles)

This is especially important for US carriers since they have a very large number of regionals flying for the main parent company and having 5-7 different regionals listed under the main parent company just gets too confusing. Using the example from above:

'

Airline	Destination
United	Paris - CDG
United Express operated by Mesa Airline	Washington - Dulles
United Express operated by Shuttle America	Washington - Dulles
United Express operated by American Eagle	Los Angeles

Picture that 5 times for each major airline and one will start to see why it can start getting wreckless on the eyes. From United's POV, they are all United flights. From the passenger POV, they are all United flights. So why is it on Wikipedia, they are independent of each other. If Mesa was flying under Mesa colors as a codeshare for United, I could understand having it's own line. But it's not. It's being paid for it's service to fly for United.

So, Can the first table be acceptable for use? Kacey (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of the first table - because there should be one column for airlines (parent, sub, or franchisee) and another column for destinations. I find the first table to be too cluttered! Jasepl (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the table format could be better, but the new proposal isn't the way to go for the reasons outlined by Jasepl. It's too inconsistent, with airlines being listed in the Destinations column, some lines beginning with bullets and others not, and some destinations in parenthesis and others not. Plus the {{Airport-dest-list}} template should be used, not having the full table code inline with the article. We discussed this proposed variation previously at [10]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. When we created the standard template, I tried to find a way that would work to include the regionals as a subset of the mainline. But nothing was working. So if anyone wants to give that a try, feel free. For an example of what I'm talking about see {{Protected Areas of Nevada}} for one format and {{People currently in space}} for a simple different layout. The latter may be worth exploring if we listed mainline for those flights. That would probably make the tables look better. What ever we do, this should be a second template or additional parameters on the existing template. This should not be inline code added to every template. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The People Currently in Space template does look interesting; it looks like a similar idea to a thought I had before for having a separate "operating carrier" column, but a bit cleaner since the major carrier is only listed once. When I have more time I'll have to play around with it and see what I come up with, assuming nobody else does first. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean we can use the template as People Currently in Space? It makes a lot more sense than the current format that is not easy to read at all. Kacey (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? I got it from Honolulu International Airport. pikdig (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Airlines	Destinations
United Airlines	Paris-CDG United Express operated by Mesa Airline (Washington - Dulles) United Expressoperated by Shuttle America (Washington - Dulles) United Expressoperated by American Eagle (Los Angeles)

Control tower rename proposal

It is proposed that control tower be renamed. Comment if interested. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in naming airports and destinations

Hi guys, I think there is something we should talk about. I think it is not clear how to name an airport in the airport dest-list when it lies on an island, as different versions are circulating, as can be seen from the following table:

Airports and destinations

Airport name (Wikipedia)	nearest town	dest-list name
Lanzarote Airport	Arrecife	Lanzarote
Madeira Airport	Funchal	Funchal
La Palma Airport	Santa Cruz de La Palma	Sta Cruz de La Palma
Gran Canaria Airport	Las Palmas de Gran Canaria	Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Sylt Airport	Westerland	Westerland/Sylt
Kos Island International Airport	?	Kos
Mytilene International Airport	Mytilene (island of Lesbos)	Mytilene
Minorca Airport	Mahon	Minorca

I just thought that there are more paople who know the island, instead of the nearest town to the airport. People who go their usually refer to the island (e.g. "I will spend my holidays on Madeira" (not in Funchal). Why not have all island airports named like Town/Island, i.e. Arrecife/Lanzarote, Funchal/Madeira, Westerland/Sylt and so on, or as Town (Island), i.e. Funchal (Madeira) and so on? I think it would be same when naming articles: take the name that is most widely understood and known. I appreciate your thoughts and comments Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been talked about, and often, and it's even harder than you think because a) islands come in many sizes (Greenland or Japan, anyone?) and b) airport have names in addition to the island and the city. For example, AMI Airport can (and is) also called Selaparang Airport (the airport), Ampenan Airport (the city), Mataram Airport (the nearest major city) and Lombok Airport (the island), but I hope you'll agree that "Selaparang/Ampenan/Mataram/Lombok International Airport" would not be a sensible description.

So the policy for island airports is the same as for any other airport: we use the name that's the best combination of "common", "short", and "unique". For most single-airport islands, this means the name of the island. Jpatokal (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to assume that that means that some of the abovementioned destinations names have to be changed?

• Funchal --> Madeira
• Sta Cruz de la Palma --> La Palma
• Las Palmas de Gran Canaria --> Gran Canaria
• Westerland/Sylt --> Sylt
• Mytilene --> Lesbos

In case of no objections, I would do these changes starting in something like 12 hours./ Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not agree with this. The project guidelines state that we should List city names. These are Island names. Where the airport serves a city (e.g. Bridgetown, not Barbados, Arrecife not Lanzarote, Funchal not Madeira) we should list the city name. A change or clarification in the project guidelines would need to be agreed before we went ahead with something like this as it would be in direct conflict. SempreVolando (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Malta? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC) @ SempreVolando: Sorry, I was definetly too quick to express a certain time when I will change something -- I just didn't thought about it. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are, however, situations where the island's airport is nowhere close to the major city or capital. Eg: Mauritius, Barbados, etc. The primary airport on Mauritius is in Plaisance and serves the entire island just as much as it serves Port Louis, the capital. The airport on Barbados isn't in Bridgetown either, and serves a similar purpose; Bridgetown just happens to be the capital city. I suggest we consider the airport code or what the airlines serving said destinations use - eg: all airlines use Mauritius (MRU), Funchal (FNC), Las Palmas (LPA). Of course, there's always exceptions so that's to be considered as well.

Oh, and we should also work out a distinction between airport names (in airline destination lists) and cities served (in airport destination tables). Eg, saying "Gran Canaria Airport" in the airline's list is correct, as is saying "Las Palmas de Gran Canaria" in the airport's table.

Also, didn't everyone agree that it's Hahn, and not Frankfurt-Hahn? Or maybe I just hallucinated!

I trust I've confused everyone appropriately :o) Jasepl (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what about Frankfurt Airport and Frankfurt-Hahn Airport? Yes, Frankfurt-Hahn is the official name of the airport but the airport is in the city of Hahn, which is about 50 miles from Frankfurt itself. And another thing many people have been putting CO Newark flights as New York-Newark implying that the airline flies to New York City but goes to Newark Airport (and Newark Liberty International Airport is in the city of Newark, NJ but it serves the NY metro area. However, this has been done for only European airports. Although the majority of the carriers market EWR as "New York", the airport itself is in "Newark, New Jersery" and the official name of EWR is "Newark Liberty International Airport". Charmedaddict (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good thought. I think we should use the destination in the airport dest-list table, which is most common for the passengers on the flight. In general, this would be how the airline markets the flight, as long as it does not diverge from the official airport name because of marketing reasons (as e.g. Ryanair does). Such, I would agree to call EWR New York Newark (btw, do we really need the hyphen there? e.g. the wiki article name is London Heathrow Airport, but we write London-Heathrow when is comes to the destination), FRA would be Frankfurt, HHN would be Frankfurt-Hahn, and LBC would be Lübeck (not Hamburg-Lübeck as Ryanair calls it, because in this case I think it is more important how the airport is officially called). Again, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the hyphen at airport serving multi airport cities (let's just call the destination London Heathrow, New York JFK, Chicago O'Hare, Berlin Tegel -- like the respective articles). Thus, we would get more freedom to name airports that serve multiple cities (Cologne-Bonn, Dallas/Fort Worth -- let's take the officiaö airport name in these cases). And now to the original point: How to name airports on small islands? IMO, in general, the island name is more recognizable than the town name, so we should just take Madeira, Gran Canaria, or Sylt, as we already do with Malta and Lanzarote. But there must be made exceptions, like Palma de Mallorca (this would be an example where the town's name is also quite commonly used). An alternative could be setting the island name in brackets.Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Newark has more to do with how some airlines actually list the place. If you are from Jersey, there is nothing about New York in the name. It is a Jersey airport that serves Jersey and is easily accessible from NYC. The fact that it is also one of the 3 airports that comes up with the IATA code of NYC makes handling this one more of a problem. Also we need to remember that airports are not always located in the community that we consider them being in. Thus the Vegas airport is not in Las Vegas. SF's airport is not in San Francisco. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to remove the hyphen, we need something to separate the name for the city from the name of the airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

.I think the discussion carried us a bit too far off. I would suggest to return to the original matter: What to do with airports on small islands: Should we name the island or the town as destination? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How about going by the official name on the airport's English website. That way it's fairly easy for editors to look up and know whether to use the island name or city name, or which version of either to use. For the list above, that would give us:-

Airports and destinations

Airport name	Nearest town	Island	Proposed dest-list name
Lanzarote Airport	Arrecife	Lanzarote	Lanzarote
Madeira Airport	Funchal	Madeira	Madeira
La Palma Airport	Santa Cruz de La Palma	La Palma	La Palma
Gran Canaria Airport	Las Palmas de Gran Canaria	Gran Canaria	Gran Canaria
Sylt Airport	Westerland	Sylt	Sylt
Kos Island International Airport	Kos	Kos	Kos
Mytilene International Airport	Mytilene	Lesbos	Mytilene
Menorca Airport	Mahón	Minorca	Menorca

The rule would be fairly easy to extend to other airports:-

Airports and destinations

Airport name	Nearest town	Island	Proposed dest-list name
Malta Airport	Valletta	Malta	Malta
Ibiza Airport	Ibiza	Ibiza	Ibiza
Palma de Mallorca Airport	Palma	Majorca	Palma de Mallorca
Keflavík International Airport	Reykjavík	Iceland	Keflavík
Tenerife Norte	Santa Cruz de Tenerife	Tenerife	Tenerife Norte
Tenerife South Airport	Santa Cruz de Tenerife	Tenerife	Tenerife Sur
Sumburgh Airport	Lerwick	Shetland	Sumburgh
Kirkwall Airport	Kirkwall	Orkney	Kirkwall
Isle of Man Airport	Douglas	Isle of Man	Isle of Man

The drawback is that it would lead to some inconsistency in the naming of islands or cities within Wikipedia:-

Wikipedia name discrepancies

Airport name on Wikipedia	Town name on Wikipedia	Island name on Wikipedia	Proposed dest-list name
Minorca Airport	Mahón	Minorca	Menorca
Palma de Mallorca Airport	Palma	Majorca	Palma de Mallorca

In the first of these, it is perhaps about time Wikipedia caught up with the contemporary spelling of Menorca. In the second, there seems little we can do about it as the airport's owners have chosen a name, Palma de Mallorca, which matches neither the city name, Palma, nor the island name, Mallorca. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How to handle Lufthansa Italia?

Hi guys, I can't see why we don't want to treat Lufthansa Italia as an airline of its own at airport dest-lists. They have different aircraft, liveries, interior and staff, and meals on board, so I think they can be treted as a different product. Now defunct Ted had also destinations listed independently, though they were a wholly owned subsidiary of United Airlines. We even give LH flight operated with bmi aircraft (LHR to MXP and TXL) an entry of its ownm, though there obviously no new airline is involved. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was about to say that one criterion we can use is whether the subsidiary uses a different callsign or IATA code. So Tyrolean Airways has a different code than Austrian, and Lufthansa CityLine has a different code than Lufthansa mainline. But you brought up Ted, which has the same code. On the other hand, official timetables such as oag.com or amadeus.net differentiate between Tyrolean and Austrian mainline flights, but not with Lufthansa and Lufthansa Italia. As far as the timetables go, it is still a mainline Lufthansa flight. So in that sense, Lufthansa Italia is more similar to Lufthansa mainline than the Lufthansa subsidiaries. Elektrik Blue (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• • My understanding is that 'subsidiaries' operating under their own IATA code/certificate would be listed separately as they are technically separate airlines despite being owned by the respective parent airline/s. There are however different situations of subsdiaries with their own certificate but operate for their parent under a "contract" or "franchise" agreement. Example would be Comair in South Africa which operates for British Airways as a franchise using their own metal painted in BA livery, and regional airlines which may be independant/own certificate, but operate contracts for a larger airline by flying aircrafted painted in the larger airline's livery (eg US regional "express" carrier contracts) --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Exactly as Elektrik Blue said. As I already explained a number of times Lufthansa Italia has the same IATA code, same callsign, same operating certificate, same everything as Deutsche Lufthansa - with the exception of the equivalent of a sticker pasted on some aircraft. It isn't even a distinct entity. It's like saying IB's Puente Aero is a different airline from Iberia.
    And, no, Zaps93, it is not a subsidiary. And, Per aspera ad Astra, the compare with bmi is not correct, because bmi is a separate airline, with a different IATA code, different callsign, different operating certificate, different everything. Thanks Jasepl (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LH operates bmi aircraft as a wet-lease, which means that they use LH callsigns (and amadeus does not make any difference compared to a LH aminline service). So it is basically the same: Just a different painted product. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC) edit: sorry about amadeus, I was wrong. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LH do not operate bmi aircraft; bmi operate the flights for Lufthansa. There is a big difference between the two.
In any event, bmi is a separate airline from Lufthansa; Italia is not. It isn't even a distinct entity of its own. Jasepl (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New template for airport lists

I have created {{Airport table top}} & {{Airport table row}} for use on Lists of airports by country and would be grateful for comments and suggestions for refinement, before it is rolled out to those articles. The template emits an hCard microformat and adds a coordinates column to the existing tables. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple of comments. Why do it with 2 tmeplates? Could they not be rolled into one? Also you need another column called LID. Not all airports have an ICAO/IATA code, Hope Bay Aerodrome, or have all three (and all different), Emmonak Airport. Other than that it looks fine. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see a problem. Look at List of airports in Alaska, List of airports in France, List of airports in Spain, List of airports in Australia, List of airports in India, List of airports in the People's Republic of China and List of heliports in Canada. Not one of those is the same and they are all different from the proposed templates and I suspect that some users are going to be unhappy about losing the information. Some such as the China one are easy enough to convert over, but size might be an issue in some of them. For example the China page (172 airports) goes from 18,000 bytes to 44,977 bytes and other lists have more airports than that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's just the sort fo feedback I need. I'll start to catalogue the differences, and see whether some column can be made optional, or given configurable titles. It's certainly not my intetnion that any information be lost. I don't know how we would combine a use-once table top and a use-many table row template into one, but am open to suggestions. Do you think the size issue is significant, given the advantages? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which is the better example for the number of airports, China (172) or Alaska (494) but adding coordinates to the Alaska page takes it from 85 to 132 kilobytes and that can be an issue for people. Not just for the reader trying to open the page but for an editor trying to see the differences between revisions. However, the advantages may outweigh the size issue. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport GAR notice

San Francisco International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Former Routes in Airport Articles (Update)

I still keep seeing a former destinations section listed in certain airport articles by IPs. I am not sure if the consensus of the previous discussion was to remove them from airport articles but list them in airline destinations OR former routes can remain in airport articles unless they are sourced? Charmedaddict (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Verification Request on Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport

Hello folks. I need other people to check the edits that a certain editor has been making on Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. I have twice removed them, since it failed to be verified, both using official sources like official timetables and other Internet-based flight trackers. I am afraid I will be violating 3RR if I reverted it again. If you guys can take a look, that would be appreciated. Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Project participation

There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (bump) Hello? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobart Airport

I'm currently working on the Hobart airport article, they currently have no Aerobridges but have expressed an interest in installing them from ground level[11], they have stated this is possible from use in other airports. I was just wondering if anyone knew of any airports that currently use ground level aerobridges, if so i can use them as an example in the hobart airport article.....a wikipedia picture of such an aerobridge would be even better.... Who ever replys to this please let me know on my talk page. Cheers Wiki ian 02:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• San Jose International Airport (SJC) in California's Silicon Valley has an eclectic collection of terminals. What is now called Terminal C started as the original San Jose Municipal Airport terminal in 1965. It has airstairs (go outside and walk up stairs to the plane) for most of the gates, and ground-level-entry jet bridges (I've heard them called "turboway ramps") at some gates. So that's an example you're looking for. Terminal A (opened 1992) has jet bridges at all gates. Terminal B is brand new and opening in phases with jet bridges at all gates. Terminal B will make room to move airlines away from the old Terminal C so it can be demolished and replaced with a modern terminal to meet future demand. So SJC is an example - but those gates will be phased out within the next year. Ikluft (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Airport notability

A discussion is being held regarding this topic on the WikiProject Aviation talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As a result of that discussion, I upgraded Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability from {{brainstorming}} to {{draft proposal}}. Please see its talk page. Ikluft (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Airport Infobox

Hi, I have drafted a version of this which adds a parameter to list what airlines the airport is a hub or focus city for. Personally, I think this would be a useful addition. The draft is located at User:Ishwasafish/Sndbx 4 Infobox Airport. There is a discussion here Thanks,

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

00:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Approve Looks good to me. The new fields are optional so they won't interfere where they aren't used. It is relevant and important info for the airports where it would be used. Ikluft (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Approve I did make one change; the hub and focus-city fields weren't actually using the correct parameter. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Approve I like it. Very sensible addon parameter. Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure - Not sure why it is needed in the infobox it would be a constant battle ground for the my airlines better than yours editors. Like to see how it would handle Heathrow or Paris CDG I suspect completley overwhelmed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• semi-OK for hub only. Focus city could end up with too many airlines in the infobox. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think focus city might add too much. Additionally, to address MilborneOne's issue, focus city would create a battleground, it has been disputed about for nearly a year whether LAX is a focus city for VX. Hubs would be pretty well defined in that enough to not create debate. Approve without focus city parameter? I'll remove it off of my draft if I get more approvals for hub only. Thanks,

    Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

    13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to leaving the focus city out. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd tend toward keeping the focus city, regardless of some cases where it isn't clearly defined. But it'll work either way. Including this in the infobox helps a reader with an overview of an airport - and better answers the question of whose flights they can get there. Leave the refining of the definition of focus city for a separate discussion. Ikluft (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • While I will not argue against not including focus cities for now, I'll note that only including the hub produces some interesting results since large airports like McCarran International Airport, the 15th busiest, does not serve as a hub for any airline. At the same time it is Southwest's largest focus city. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Good point. For the low cost airlines, Southwest and most that followed their business model, they don't officially have hubs. Some cities just have a lot more flights than others. Better to include the focus city in the infobox. Find the potential problem cases and make instructions for its use in the infobox if necessary. Ikluft (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • A similar point can be made for San Jose (SJC). It used to be a hub for American. When American announced they were shutting down their hub at SJC, the pundits had less than a day to proclaim gloom and doom before Southwest snapped up all the gates. So also officially no hub here. But what was once a hub for American is a focus city for Southwest. Southwest also snapped up ATA's hub at Chicago Midway (MDW) and made it a focus city. So it's another data point where the terms can be nebulous. Better to include both. Ikluft (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Semi-OK for hub per CambridgeBayWeather. Some Airports have more than 1 focus city airline, which may lead to unnecessary spamming of the infobox. Perhaps make it neccessary to REFERENCE those airlines that actually use the Airport/s in question as a hub. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 05:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• comment Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is an example of why to omit the focus city. It already has 5 airlines listed in the box and adding those that use the airport as a focus will make it over long. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Editors are needed to fill in the new hub parameter. I've done American Airports, AMS, NRT, and HND.

  Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

  15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• question are we including cargo airlines as well? or just passenger carriers? Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure, I know that at the MIA and MEM article they have included cargo airlines.

    Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

    11:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

how to handle PAL Express

I am a bit confused on how to handle PAL Express. PAL Express is the regional airline of Philippine Airlines. Although PAL Express uses the callsign and codes of Philippine Airlines. Their fleet is even owned by Philippine Airlines. However, on Philippine Airlines timetables they list PAL Express as Philippine Airlines operated by PAL Express PAL Express are even marketed as PAL Express. Is this case similar to that of Lufthansa Italia? pikdig (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no different to QantasLink (regional airline of Qantas and is listed under Qantas as such) or United Express (and it's affiliated regional contract airlines), they use the parent's IATA codes and should be listed under the parent as such. The only exceptions for subsidiaries is if they have their own IATA code (eg Jetstar). --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear any other's thoughts on this, after a week or two, assuming no objections, I will start on listing PAL Express as Philippine Airlines operated by PAL Express. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did some research on Lufthansa Italia and it's the exactly the same case as this. And on airport pages, Lufthansa Italia is listed as Lufthansa. pikdig (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It may not be exactly the same as LH Italia, for aircraft type reasons. IIRC, the only difference between LH and LH Italia is that there is a sticker affixed on the LH Italia planes, and they are based in MXP. However, remove the sticker and the plane can be brought back to LH mainline. And they do have the same callsigns and IATA codes. With respect to PR and PR Express, it is indeed the case that both use the same callsigns and IATA codes, but they do not share the same aircraft types. PR Express regional jets are always PR Express, and vice versa. It is true that PR Express is not a separate corporation, unlike the regional airlines found in the USA (i.e., Mesaba, Skywest, etc) so they do not have their own callsign and codes. On the other hand, PR distinguishes them over the mainline aircraft. So I can see it going either way. One can think of it as the following: 1) PR the airline has three aircraft types, medium/long-haul widebodies, short-haul narrowbodies, and ultra-short-haul regional jets. In this view, the listing will not differentiate between PR and PR Express, along the lines of LH and LH Italia. 2) PR the airline has a quasi-subsidiary brand, PR Express, operating regional routes within the country. In this view, the listing will differentiate between the two entities. At this point, I can argue for both stances, unless there are other points to consider that I am not aware of. Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that is the case, I will be going through the articles and changing it as "Philippine Airlines operated by PAL Express", as basically in the end, PAL Express is simply PAL marketed as "PAL Express" in regional areas outside of Manila or Cebu. It's the same way QantasLink (a bunch of former subsidiaries now consolidated in the QF fleet and operating under the QF code, the only exception being National Jet which operates their fleet for QantasLink) is marketed in regional Australia. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Destination_list - Since PAL Express is not a separate identity and is using the parent's IATA code and callsigns, despite being marketed separately (like QantasLink or the USA regional partners for example), I have gone through the articles and have changed it accordingly to be listed under Philippine Airlines, at the airports where it is served by mainline, or listed as Philippine Airlines operated by PAL Express at the Airports that dont have mainline service. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the terminology backwards. If it's operating under the Philippine Airlines certificate but marketed as PAL Express, I would suggest that it should be listed as "PAL Express operated by Philippine Airlines". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)