Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists

Territories

I think territories should be listed under the region they're actually located in, rather than the country that owns them. So, Puerto Rico and USVI should be under the Caribbean, Canary Islands and Azores under North Africa, etc. Otherwise, where would the line be drawn as to what should be included under the country? If we have territories under their respective countries, then there would be some strange results such as New Caledonia and Réunion being listed in Western Europe. Rather than trying to decide what goes where, everything should be in its geographic location. Dbinder 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ive moved back the Canary Islands to Spain. Believe me nobody, residents or tourists, would say "I am in Africa". Not even 1 in a 100. Its not like Puerto Rico or British territories. They are completely integrated in Spain. I see ypu are puting Russian all under Europe (which I agree with). I would suggest the same logic for all of the "Kingdom of Spain" under Europe. Jameswilson 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than get in an edit war over this, let's see what others have to say. This is not a list of where these places are located politically, but geographically. Either way, if it's included in Europe, it should be in a separate section, not listed with all the other cities in Spain. Dbinder 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, Encarta lists them in Africa, they are not in Western European travel guides that I've seen, etc. There is no question as to where they are politically, but geographically, they're in North Africa. Dbinder 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• May I suggest that if we have cases where there are differences of opinions that we do a simple poll here and live by the consensus, or maybe even a simple majority to stop the reverts. I did not realize how many issues putting this list in place would create, but I guess it is better to resolve them in one place. Vegaswikian 01:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

COMPROMISE PROPOSAL - PUT THEM IN BOTH SECTIONS

1. As I see it, the problem is this. The boundaries of continents are not fixed (eg, between Asia/Oceania, is there one American continent or two?). There is no geographical rule for establishing where the boundary should be. Its entirely a matter of consensus and general use. And the line changes from time to time. The countries of the Caucasus have gone back and forth between Asia and Europe several times depending on the fashion of the time.
2. In this case (Canaries) I certainly dont accept that it is an undisputed "geographical fact" that the Canaries are in Africa. British/European use (travel books, atlases) puts them in with the rest of Spain in Europe (99% of us, apart from some pedantic old geologist maybe, who will probably want to put Iceland in North America at the same time). If we put them under North Africa, people on this side of the Atlantic simply wont find what they are looking for.
3. However, you say that American sources such as Encarta still put them under Africa (how archaic LOL) so Americans wont find them if they are listed under Europe.
4. So I propose we simply put them in both sections so as to be user-friendly. Everybody can find what they are looking for. This article is going to be extremely long anyway (how many airports are there in Russia alone?) so six or seven extra lines wont make any difference if it keeps the peace. Jameswilson 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds alright to me. Dbinder 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually - another idea to avoid double-listing. How about they stay in Western Europe, but have a seperate listing like the British Crown Dependencies? Dbinder 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of double listing. I'd rather see a single place in the list. I have been thinking about creating a classification for Bermuda and the Canary Islands, but I don't see how that makes sense. They both have similar problems. Bermuda is generally included with the Carribean since it is an isolated island. A similar issues is with listing Waahington, DC as a s detination. How many airports are located there as oppoesed to serving the city? One solution is to let the people on the westside of the Atlantic decide on the fate of Bermuda, USVI and others, and those on the east side decide the fate of the Canary Islands and Azores.

No matter how we decide, it might be wise to have a link, only in the master list, to the correct entry so that everyone knows where it is so they do not assume it is missing. And as I wrote that, I wondered if that could be the solution? Vegaswikian 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Another issue may be Saint-Martin and St. Maarten, the two sides of one island. The main airport is on the Dutch side, St. Maarten, so how should this be listed? Vegaswikian 23:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

St.Martin/St. Maarten shouldn't be an issue. It works fine as they are now. It's not that important to me if the Canaries and Azores are listed in North Africa or Western Europe, but they should be in separate subheadings than their respective countries, since they are territories and not "in" the country. I don't know anyone who's said they were going to Spain when they visited the Canary Islands; they just said they were going to the Canary Islands. Same goes with the Azores and Portugal. Dbinder 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I bet they didnt say they were going to North Africa either! Subheading OK if you must though the Canaries are provinces not territories (Think Hawaii - is Hawaii in Oceania?). Anyway enough of that. I have no problem with Bermuda being in either North America or the Caribbean as you wish. (British books seem to be divided on the point). In general I agree with the idea of letting Americans do the deciding over there and the British/Europeans decide cases over here - I think thats what happens for 'Wikipedia Naming Conventions' already. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now cos airports are not really my thing. For the record before I go here is a list of the "British" definitions (Whitakers Almanack) for your future reference.

1. Europe - Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, Faroe Islands
2. North America - Greenland, St Pierre/Miquelon
3. Central America and West Indies - Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat, Puerto Rico, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles
4. South America - Falkland Islands, South Georgia, French Guiana
5. Asia - none
6. Africa - St Helena (Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha), Mayotte, Reunion
7. Oceania - Pitcairn, American Samoa, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Guam, Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna Islands Jameswilson 00:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was always under the impression they were separate territories. In that case, they definitely should be listed under Spain. Dbinder 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Country Names

I've been using the official UN-recognized names for countries, since those will avoid any controversy as to which version of the name should be used. Dbinder 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

1. Fill in missing airports
2. Resolve listing issues
   • Azores
   • Canary Islands
3. Make sure we have all airports with commerical service listed (and only those airports; not general aviation-only ones)
4. Announce list is ready to use in WP:AIRLINES
5. Add red linked airports to the nedeed list in WP:AIRPORTS

Strike through if you think the item is completed. Add mising items to the end of the list

---

Please feel free to modify the above list of open isues as needed. I think we need to know what work we have left so that someone is working on those items. I'm sure I'm missing something. Vegaswikian 19:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

other information

I added a small section about how to list hubs, focus cities, seasonal service and begin and end of service dates. I think these are not going to be a problem, but if there are objections we can discussion/adjust. Vegaswikian 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some questions

Is everyone happy with the following entries:

• Ohio (For Cincinnati, see Kentucky)

Under Kentucky the entry is Cincinnati, Ohio (Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport)

• Virginia
  • Washington, D.C. suburbs
    • (Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport)
    • (Washington Dulles International Airport)

Vegaswikian 05:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Whistler Airport

The Canada Flight Supplement and the Water Supplement only list three aerodromes for Whistler and none of these are listed as "Whistler Airport". One is a water aerodrome and the other two are heliports. So I linked it to Whistler/Green Lake Water Aerodrome as I am pretty sure that is the correct one. However it may be Whistler (Municipal) Heliport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed territory

How should we handle airports in disputed areas? Should they be listed under the country that legally controls the land or separately as a disputed area? Since I've been going in order through the list, I'm at Morocco, which presents the problem of Western Sahara. Gaza airport was destroyed, so there aren't any airports in Palestine that I know of. There is an airport in Abkhazia, however (although it might not have service right now since all surrounding countries have blockaded them). Back to Western Sahara; this is more difficult, since there is no overwhelming sentiment in either direction. Some countries recognize Morocco's claim, whereas others recognize it as independent. Dbinder (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PRC SARs

How should Hong Kong and Macau be listed? Should they be under China or under separate headings? I lean towards the separate headings, since they are largely independent from the mainland government. Dbinder (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for China instead, actually. --Nehwyn 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Vancouver to become Vancouver/Richmond

Since almost nobody here in the Vancouver area considers the airport to be in Vancouver but rather in Richmond (as it falls within that city's borders), perhaps it might be a better idea to use "Vancouver/Richmond" instead. Another reason behind this is the fact that Vancouver being a huge Asian airlines hub (basically Canada's gateway to Asia), and Richmond is widely known as an "Asian city" -- it's a popular final destination for many flights originating from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's almost like Calgary/Banff at this point, I think, especially for passengers coming in from Asia. In fact, about half of Richmond's downtown core is due to the airport (Richmond's not small either). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: It's about economic impact more than location. Besides Vancouver itself, the economic impact for the airport is probably most obvious for Richmond, wayyyy more than any other surrounding municipality. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is common to list the airport as serving the city that gives name to the metropolitain area, in YVRs case, Vancouver, as the airport serves the entire metropolitain area in the Lower Mainland (Greater Vancouver). This is standard practise all over the world. It is almost the exception these days (due to transport planning policies) to find an international airport in the same administrative district as the city it serves. Note also that all airlines list flights to Vancouver, not to Richmond (simply because "no-one" outside Canada has ever heard of the suburb). If this list was to follow a practise of naming the city where the airport lays as well probably half the list would have to be re-written.

Note that it is common for the municipality hosting the airport to be effected greatly economically because of the airport. This had nothing to do with what the airport is to be listed as, since the list mentiones the city it serves, i.e. a way of saying the metropolitain area that it lays in, not the city it is located in. Arsenikk 14:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arsenikk. There was a similar discussion about listing Helsinki's airport as Vantaa, since the airport is actually located there. This would set a bad precedent and would lead to the question of where to draw the line. Many major international airports are not actually in the cities they serve, so the list would have to be significantly changed. Dbinder (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Arsenikk. I could begin listing multiple airports which are located in a municipality other than the one the city derives its name from, but which serve the greater city area, but where would I stop? There would be too many. -- Adz|talk 08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this list political, not geographical?

Greece is listed under Western Europe while Croatia -- which is situated west of Greece -- is listed under Eastern Europe. The only reason for this is politics. The West and East block don't exist anymore, why keep them alive here?

In my opinion, we should have Northern Europe, Western Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe as the region of Europe. 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to use the definition of sub-regions used by the United Nations (see on the right). This nicely follows both geographical and political criteria, and has the obvious advantage of being agreed upon by the organisation which agrees upon things, so to speak.  ;-) --Nehwyn 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it may be a prefered method, although I would suggest some regional names be reviewed. In Asia, for example, the terms East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Southwest Asia are more commonly-used then "Eastern Asia", Southeastern Asia", "Southern Asia" and "Western Asia" respectively. Ditto to "Northern America", "Mddle Africa" and so on...--Huaiwei 09:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, while most of the regional boundaries are pretty established, the one between "Southern Asia" and "Western Asia" seems rather strange, for it is not exactly common for Iran to be classified with India over the Middle Eastern countries. Afganistan do occasionally pop up in the South Asia region thou according to some publications.--Huaiwei 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, changing the names without affecting subregion borders is perfectly fine by me (I'd add Central Africa instead of "Middle Africa"). Moving a country from one region to another is less understandable... I'd vote against it. There are various possible subcategorisation, based on different criteria, but if we choose to stick to the UN classification, we should take it as it is, otherwise further disputes may arise, and we'd be back at square one. --Nehwyn 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point there. Fair enough. I noticed something strange about the Americas in the source [1] thou. Notice the Americas is subdivided into

• Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Caribbean
  • Central America
  • South America
• Northern America

Yet the footnote for Norhern America says "The continent of North America comprises Northern America, Caribbean, and Central America." So where does the Caribbean and Central America belong to if they appear in two continents?--Huaiwei 09:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd use the state-by-state list below, and divide the Americas directly in four (North, Central, Caribbean, South). --Nehwyn 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So would you clasify "Americas" as a continent, or you are having four seperate continents? This dosent seem to tally with what the UN is saying about what constitutes "North America".--Huaiwei 10:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is how I would organise the article (hope I don't forget anything):

1. Africa
  1.1 North Africa
  1.2 West Africa
  1.3 Central Africa
  1.4 East Africa
  1.5 South Africa
2. Americas
  2.1. North America
  2.2. Central America
  2.3. Caribbean
  2.4. South America
3. Asia
  3.1 West Asia
  3.2 Central Asia
  3.3 South Asia
  3.4 East Asia
  3.5 South-East Asia
4. Europe
  4.1 Northern Europe
  4.2 Western Europe
  4.3 Southern Europe
  4.4 Eastern Europe (including all of Russia)
5. Oceania
  5.1 Australia
  5.2 New Zealand
  5.3 Micronesia
  5.4 Melanesia
  5.5 Polynesia

I've ordered the five basic items alphabetically, but of course any numbering may be chosen. --Nehwyn 11:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with the way the Americas are handled, because Americas is not considered a continent, while North America and South America are. The same UN source already specifies the definition of North America, so yours dosent quite tally. I would also rename "West Asia" as "Southwest Asia". See Southwest Asia for the reasoning. Finally, the US designated Australia and NZ in one region, not two.--Huaiwei 11:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Oceania:

5. Oceania
  5.1 Australia & New Zealand
  5.2 Micronesia
  5.3 Melanesia
  5.4 Polynesia

As far as the Americas are concerned, I still prefer the "divide by four" solution, which would also nicely preserve the symmetry of single nations being listed as third-order items. --Nehwyn 11:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My classification and region names would go like this:

1. Africa
  1.1 Central Africa
  1.2 East Africa
  1.3 North Africa
  1.4 Southern Africa
  1.5 West Africa
2. Antarctica
3. Asia
  3.1 Central Asia
  3.2 East Asia
  3.3 South Asia
  3.4 Southeast Asia
  3.5 Southwest Asia
4. Europe
  4.1 Eastern Europe
  4.2 Northern Europe
  4.3 Southern Europe
  4.4 Western Europe
5. North America
  2.1. Caribbean
  2.2. Central America
  2.3. Northern America (still undecided about this one)
6. Oceania
  5.1 Australia and New Zealand
  5.2 Melanesia
  5.3 Micronesia
  5.4 Polynesia
7. South America

If there is an "Americas" which isnt strictly considered a continent, then we have to add "Eurasia" too.--Huaiwei 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the americas, I think it should be listed as

4. America's
  - Caribbean to include the Bahamas and Bermuda not sure how to list this
  - Central America
  - North America
  - South America

Vegaswikian 01:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This presentation dosent quite make sense. While North America and South America are well established as continents, it is less so for Central America, and hardly ever for the Caribbean. To present it as such suggest they are all equal as far as the continental hierachy system is concerned.--Huaiwei 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, places like Polynesia are not continents either. While continents are a nice place to start. Logical grouping of these should not be ruled out. For the record, all of these ignore Antarctica which I believe has at least three airports: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station Airstrip, Ice Runway, and Williams Field. Vegaswikian 19:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you may read the presentation correctly, Polynesia is not being treated as a continent since it is a second-level entry, on the same level as all other regions. The only exception in the above hierachy would be Australia, but treating it as a continent would mean excluding the other pacific island countries, hence this special treatment as has been alluded elsewhere. You are also free to include Antarctica to the listing.--Huaiwei 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What about

1. Africa
  1.1 Central Africa
  1.2 East Africa
  1.3 North Africa
  1.4 Southern Africa
  1.5 West Africa
2. Antarctica
3. Asia
  3.1 Central Asia
  3.2 East Asia
  3.3 South Asia
  3.4 Southeast Asia
  3.5 Southwest Asia
4. Europe
  4.1 Eastern Europe
  4.2 Northern Europe
  4.3 Southern Europe
  4.4 Western Europe
5. North America
  5.1. Caribbean
  5.2. Central America
  5.3. Northern America (for Bermuda, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Greenland too)
6. Oceania
  6.1 Australia, Norfolk Island and Indian Ocean Islands
  6.2 Melanesia
  6.3 Micronesia
  6.4 Polynesia
7. South America

? — Instantnood 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I don't think there's any disagreement about Africa, so that probably doesn't need to change. Antarctica doesn't have airports, so it's not an issue. As for Europe, I'd say include Central. Southern is not commonly used, and its definition is somewhat vague anyway. Also, look at any travel forum and you'll see that people can get quite offended when Slovenia or the Czech Republic are grouped with Eastern Europe as opposed to Central. Since this is divided by continents, North America should have its own section. I'd say keep the division as it is (Northern, Carribean, Central). South America doesn't need to be divided, and there doesn't seem to be any argument about that. I'm still trying to come up with a good way to handle Oceania. DB (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Template to split artilce

I have created a nav template {{Airline destinations}} outline for splitting the list. Feel free to jump in and fix the colors and the layout. For now, just use the country names as they appear in the TOC. When it comes time to split the article, I'll do the split and update the links to point to the correct place. Again, this is a rough draft to work towards a final version. Vegaswikian 05:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be useful to keep all of them in one list, e.g. monitoring recent changes. What about requesting a WikiProject or a Portal to adopt this list and moving it out of the main namespace? — Instantnood 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The AfD discussion supported splitting since the article. As it stands is over the desired limit for one article. I think it is around 200K now. As far a I know we generally follow the recomendations from AfD discussions. Vegaswikian 06:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be split, but I also think it should either be renamed to List of airports with commercial service or moved to project space. DB (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can look into splitting the article by continent or region, maybe hemisphere... no, wait, that's not a good idea, continent works fine... North America + Caribbean (including Central America) South America (unless someone wants Central included here), Africa, Europe, Middle East, Asia, Australia and Oceania or South Pacific, the technicalities can be worked out later, but we can split them up by continent and have this list just be a link to each of those articles and have this article contain a summary or encyclopedic notation about commercial airports and how the commercial airline industry works, this will avoid it becoming AFDed again, and it'll look more than just a bunch of little lists. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Airline destinations}} is being updated as you write. I just finished Oceania while you were writing your reply. Once the template is complete we can then split the article. Vegaswikian 08:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SmthManly made an important point. While we do need a split for obvious reasons, do note that splitting by continents can also run into issues with disagreements over continental dividing lines. The above split looks fine, except for "Middle East", which is never a continent, and is not advisable for its fluid boundaries which easily traverse three geographical continents.--Huaiwei 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for Egypt, the Middle East is basically Southwest Asia, so I think those countries should stay there, with Egypt in Africa. DB (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stay in Middle East or Southwest Asia?--Huaiwei 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off using the major cultural areas rather than the geographical ones, a person looking for airports in Saudi Arabia will be more includined to look in Middle East than Asia, and some people might not consider the Middle East as Asia, but everyone knows it as the Middle East, just a thought. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At the country level, all of the countries will be listed in the nav template. That should help readers find what they are looking for. Today you can enter the country in your browsers search finction to find it. That will not change at the country level with the nav template. Take a look at what is there today to see how it should look. More countries for the other continents need to be added, but it is getting closer. Vegaswikian 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is little justification to keep just one "cultural continent", when all others follow geographical classifications. It is purely subjective to say that users will look for Saudi Arabia under Middle East but not Asia. You probably wont find a user attempting to look for it under Europe or Africa if they are presented with a list of continents minus the Middle East, so I would say the division is quite clear cut. Please also note the way most other topics are being classified by region, the vast majority of which follow strictly geographical definitions, most likely due to its "more NPOV" nature.--Huaiwei 15:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Resetting indent... I meant the Middle Eastern countries except Egypt should go under Southwest Asia. Maybe the heading should be "Southwest Asia (Middle East)", so people looking for either can find it. If we divide by continent, then I don't think Middle East should be separate. It's a region, but it's definitely not a continent. DB (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that once we do the initial split, we can always create articles at the country level. If that is done, then other logical groups of countries can also be created and either added to the template or included on a second template. We have options at that point. Vegaswikian 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been similar discussions before over Middle East/Southeast Asia elsewhere, and it has been pointed out that we cannot write "Southwest Asia (Middle East)" or "Southwest Asia/Middle East" or anything similar, because they are not the same. An encylopedia should not be committing the same factual error as ill-informed laymen.--Huaiwei 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then just keep it as Southwest Asia. That's what it is now. DB (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Can you guys stop the edit warring? (this means both of you). It's getting really annoying. DB (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The current afd nomination is calling this a restatement of list of airports. While it isn't really, I can kind of see where they're coming from. Since this is intended mainly as a guideline for destinations lists in airline articles, I think it should be moved to project space. DB (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support with a split to reduce the size. Vegaswikian 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Requested split

I say we split the page by continent. The subdivisions of each continent (it seems that Europe and Oceania produce the biggest arguments) can be decided as we go. DB (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau, West Asia, Russia, destination list format, Airports

Why cant the two be listed with their full titles "Special Administrative Region" because they are not mainland cities under full mainland rule, continue listing them in China rather than separatley but they should be allowed to carry the full title in the list, giving their true status full respect.

Why is West Asia being addressed as Southwest Asia? should Russia and some of the former republics of USSR lying in West Asia be listed under Northwest Asia, makes more sense, or just collectively let them all be called West Asia including Middle East region.

All of Russia is not European, central and eastern parts of the country should be listed in Asia, under Central Asia, or North Asia.

Destination list format should be modified to enable less use of space, which may also help in saving bandwidth. This is especially better for airline articles which list the destinations in the airline article main page rather than separately, but it could also be adopted for the seperate destination pages too. It looks compact and neater as well.

In the suggested format airports for every destination needent be added, it would be like shown below.

United Kingdom - Birmingham, London (Heathrow), Manchester, Newcastle.

In Case of morethan one airport being served it would be as.

United Kingdom - Birmingham, London (City, Heathrow, Stansted), Manchester, Newcastle.

Do consider these suggestions.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.70.148.58 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Past destinations

Some of the past/former destinations lists created, are so lengthy they are clashing with the main article of that airline destinations such as in Aeroflot destinations a ruling needs to brought about regarding this.

I suggest past destinations be listed in this format Lufthansa destinations. Its concise and will do away with unecessary use of bandwidth and not spoil the main article either. (202.38.58.8 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Moving to new design?

I wonder if it would make sense to create a standard template for the airline destination lists, in order to get moving towards a generic new design? I would propose something around the Dragonair destinations template.COM Lampe (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking

Please note that linking to headers is not encouraged by our style guidelines. I have changed the set list accordingly. Please refer to Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links. Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)