Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:35, 29 September 2015

• WT:AIRPORT
• WT:AIRPORTS

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Aviation: Airports Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the airport project.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

Add regional airline guidance to page content guideline

In WT:Airports#Listing of Regional Carriers dba Mainline Carrier in March 2014, we agreed to remove the listing of operators from regional airline brands in the US and Canada. I note that this is not included in the guidelines except in an example. Should it be? Suggested text (to add to item three in the numbered list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Airports/page content): "For regional airline brands such as Delta Connection and Air Canada Express, do not list the operator(s) of the flights." —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If consensus was reached and it was agreed on the discussion, then by all means go for it! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was reached to not list the operators for regional airline brands in the USA and Canada, but consensus wasn't reached to do the same for airlines in the rest of the world. Additionally, it was decided that operators who operate under the brand of the main airline and not under a regional brand would continue to be listed as 'operated by'. Before changes are made to the page content guidelines, we should probably discuss/clarify:

• Whether or not the change should continue to only apply to airlines in the USA and Canada.
• Whether or not the change should continue to only apply if the operator falls under a regional brand.
• What the specific requirements are that determine when it is acceptable to use 'operated by' in a destination table.

By clarifying these points now we could hopefully save conflicts and issues further down the line. OakleighPark 12:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the actual operator is notable, the original intent for the destination list is to show the scale of the airports operation by showing the number of airlines and destinations. As we are not a travel guide in most cases the "operated by" is not actually needed, if a "regional brand" is being used then the actual operator is probably not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This dropped off my radar, so returning to it.

• @OakleighPark: I think the cleanest guideline would be to modify point 3 in page content to say "For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight is not sold using the operating airlines flight number, list the marketing brand only. For example, all Delta Connection destinations should be listed as Delta Connection."
• I could go either way on whether to include the operator if it's not branded separately. Two alternatives:

1. "If the marketing brand and the operator are different, list both the brand and the operator. For example, "Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air" and "Aer Lingus operated by Air Contractors".
2. "List the primary marketing brand only, not the operator. For example, Alaska Airlines flights operated by Horizon Air should be included in the Alaska Airlines list, and Aer Lingus flights operated by Air Contractors should be included in the Aer Lingus list."

Personally, I have a slight preference for option 2, but I don't feel strongly. It's a bit of an edge case, in that Alaska/Horizon flights are much more clearly marketed as "Alaska operated by Horizon" ("operated by Horizon" is in large paint on the side of the plane, and the Horizon flights still have their own in flight magazine and notably different on board service), whereas I think Aer Lingus doesn't brand the contractor-operated flights at all differently. That distinction would be awfully hard to source, though. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Destination Maps (July 2015)

Just tried to remove a destination map from Charles de Gaulle Airport but was reverted, just checking the current consensus is not to have a map when the information is presented as we normally do in a table, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest consensus as I understand was not to have destination maps in Airline/Airport articles, particularly the large scale versions pinpointing individual cities, as the information is already covered in the Airlines and Destinations section. SempreVolando (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Same happened to me on Addis Ababa Bole International Airport RMS52 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Charter flight frequency

How often would a charter flight have to run to be considered worth including in the airport destination table? Thanks, Vg31-irl (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As we are not a travel guide then it is unlikely that any non-scheduled charter flight is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a scheduled charter flight that runs only five times in December. Is that worth including? Vg31-irl (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say not. If it's charter it'd better run close to year round before it can be considered a "destination". HkCaGu (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Vg31-irl (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It would not have to be a 'one off' charter flight. RMS52 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced edits

There seems to be alot of unreferenced edits on airport articles going unoticed, I have removed 2 (Burgas Airport) and 5 (London Heathrow Airport). I am concerned that the majority of unreferenced edits are making it into the airport articles. Most are IP users edits' and are wrong. I think we need to get to a decision about how to stop these edits. RMS52 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove anything unreferenced that clearly looks like rubbish or fact tag anything as unreferenced that has an chance of being correct. If they keep doing it then raise it here and I or one of the other admins will have a look and have a polite word with the user. If it gets really bad then we can semi-protect the article from IP edits for a while. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats not the point, 25% of editors probably see a unreferenced edit and won't bother to remove it. There needs to be a system so we can stop this. RMS52 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And London Gatwick airport is really bad. RMS52 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

All you can do is tag or remove issues when you see it and ask others to do the same, nothing we can do to make people check these articles if they dont want to. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I know, but I don't think you are seeing that we need to encourage more Wiki Airport Editors to monitor these articles more carefully. RMS52 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft article for your consideration

Please assess Draft:Cabo Ruivo Seaplane Base for notability and any other issues that might affect its acceptance into mainspace. If you do not wish to or know how to do an AFC review please post your comments on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hub infobox section at airport articles

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

Me and a user are in a disagreement at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol regarding Delta hub operations there. There are airlines that have hubs at more than 1 airport around the world and the other user involved says that only airlines that have only one hub and it has to be at its headquarters are to be included in the infobox. Delta is not the only case here as other airlines such as Air China, Air India, British Airways, United, Lufthansa also have multiple hub airport operations and those airlines are listed in the infobox at the respective hub airport pages. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the hub section was mainly for airlines with headquarters at Amsterdam RMS52 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The hub section in the infobox is for any airline that runs a hub operation at that airport, headquarters is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Are sources being provided for such claims? This is the key point here.--Jetstreamer  12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

While sources supporting the claim that it is a Delta hub are indeed important, they were already included in the body text that RMS52 removed and I restored. Sourcing is not the problem. The key point here is that RMS52 is outright incorrect about the the purpose and scope of the hub parameter in the infobox. It is not just for airlines headquartered there. Indeed, nowhere on any airport infobox is that distinction made. He fails to understand the concept of an airline hub, and would be wise to not make edits where he lacks the comprehension to edit competently. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making a point without having to argue... RMS52 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source stating that AMS is Delta hub (http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts) and "Airline hub" gives a definition of what a hub is. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Qantas SYD-LAX-JFK

Both the articles for Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport have a note stating that the airline does not have local traffic rights to transport passengers solely from LAX to JFK.. However on the Sydney Airport article, JFK is listed as a destination, despite the fact that there is a plane change (A380 SYD-LAX, B747 LAX-JFK), the 747 is the same aircraft used to fly from BNE to LAX (note SYD-LAX-JFK does have a plane change, JFK-LAX-SYD is a B747 all the way, although sometimes the LAX-SYD sector is on a 380 (see ), some of the discussion at the articles for SYD, LAX, and JFK make claims that there is NO plane change, which is not true). so I'm wondering should JFK be removed from the SYD article because there is a plane change and/or should a note be added there as well (according to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Airports/page_content) ? - TheChampionMan1234 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This must be new as QF reshuffled flight numbers a while ago. If the A380-B744 change is the case year-round, then JFK should be removed from SYD. The note in LAX should suffice. SYD can remain on JFK since it is B744-B744, but if there's a week or more without any same-plane connection, it should be moved to "seasonal". HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

See also: - TheChampionMan1234 05:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Airlines and destination

Now the dust has settled, I like to discuss the split off of airlines and destinations.

To my opinion, that type of information is not directly relevant for an airport. It is not the airport that flies to who knows where but airlines and air planes. And off course, they are not part of the airport, although quite essential.

Further to my opinion, the list of destinations suffers from severe recentism. Former destinations are always removed while that can be interesting historical information.

A split does not destroy information, it just moves it to another article.

That is why I split off the destinations earlier but my arguments got lost in the fuzz, edit wars and sockpuppetry. The Banner talk 16:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The Banner. My opinion on this is that splitting of the list makes it the Misplaced Pages look like a travel guide. Former destinations are usually mentioned in the airports history section so they would still be known about. But I think if the list was split off, editors would cram the article with usless information, because there would be more space. Even though that this applies to Airline Articles there is no reason why it shouldn't be applied on Airport Articles. But there are arguments and pros and cons about the split off.

My opinion is that I don't think the list should be split off. But if we started adding all the formee destinations, even the useless ones. The seperate article would be as crammed as the airport article. RMS52 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And alot of users would not know about this decision, so in the first few days of making the change. It would be chaos. But this article, Belfast International Airport does a good job of listing former destinations. While Belfast City Airport, does not. RMS52 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What is a useless destination in your opinion? To me, even a referral to the former airport Waalhaven/nl:Vliegveld Waalhaven looks significant as it was once a major hub for air traffic to London and Paris. Unfortunately, the airport was never rebuild after it was bombed to pieces during the German invasion in 1940. The Banner talk 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A useless destination to me would be a one off charter flight. As adding these in the article makes it look like a travel guide. I removed some at Kangerlussuaq Airport and Belfast International Airport. Another usless destination would be a transfer destination. For example, if an airline moves operations from 1 airport to another. For the new airport it is a new destination but It wouldn't be notable. RMS52 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The one off charter flight is indeed not notable. Your second description I don't understand. The Banner talk 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For example, when Aer Lingus moved operations from Belfast International Airport to Belfast City Airport RMS52 (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To my opinion that means that Belfast International Airport has a series of former destinations and Belfast City Airport a series of present destinations. The Banner talk 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need more editors to debate here. RMS52 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of splitting the destinations table into a separate article because it contains important and notable information that is most useful to the reader if it is located within the main article. It allows the reader to tell, at a glance, whether they are reading about a minor regional airport or a major international hub and is, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of information in an airport's article. However, I agree with your point that there should be more inclusion of information about former destinations. Most articles have no information on former destinations while others use long lists of prose that contain so much detail that the information becomes confusing for the reader. This information is probably best displayed in a simplified list or in a table (although this could cause confusion if it is too similar to the table for current destinations), but there would need to be a careful balance between including relevant information and not flooding the article with non-notable facts. OakleighPark 08:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At this moment most airport-articles suffer from "recentism" as the information about former destinations is just destroyed. A split off creates room to preserve that information without making the article too heavy. Beside that, Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide. The Banner talk 09:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats what happened on Belfast International Airport most of it's 'proper' history was leftt out and the history secton was cleaned up as it was filled with former destinations, I believe they are not notable. RMS52 (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Dhaka airport vandalism

Someone has added as many airlines as they liked to the article. 42.201.209.232 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The vandal has finished, but I will patrol the article incase sock puppet accounts are created. RMS52 (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Already semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather. This was likely a series of IP sockpuppetry from Bangladesh adding bogus/imaginery services at the airport. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Destination Maps

After several attempts to revert destination maps on articles. I have decided to reach a clear consensus, and have it written in the page content section.

Apparently, destination maps are not to be included in the article when information is already listed in the Airlines and Destinations chart. However, past disscussions about destination maps had no clear consensus reached, so I decided to start a disscussion here.

I don't think we need destination maps, as they don't really help, a map that just highlights countries with no labels at all is not very useful along with a neat chart which clearly shows the information. RMS52 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The country's map really makes no sense. But in the map on which the cities are in there, in the sense that the first time you look at the lay of the city on the map where you want to go, then look at the diagram to see which airlines go in that city. Postscript: By making sure that you can go to the city. Csalinka (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The above comment assumes Misplaced Pages is a travel guide. It is not.--Jetstreamer  19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, do not add them. There is no point, I support RMS52 31.87.141.214 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include destination maps as we are not a travel guide and the table already shows the scale of destinations from the airport. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially full scale maps listing the location of each city, do we need more users or have we come to a consensus? RMS52 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I would include destination maps and remove destination tables. The idea of the destinations is to give an impression of the breadth of service from the airport; a map does that more effectively and in a less travel guide way than the tables. The tables have no place on Misplaced Pages but could be appropriate on Wikivoyage. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have NOTTRAVEL in mind, but I also have maintainability in mind. The big map with coordinated codes is definitely a no-no (anyone defending this?) but tables do have a purpose in showing the scale of service for each airline and each terminal that a map of merely destinations cannot. Also, if all we can do is a PNG/SVG map, maintainability and participation level will be greatly reduced. HkCaGu (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How would be know what airlines operated the routes if tables/charts were removed? It wouldn't make sense having a long list of airlines and terminals, and then a destination map showing indavidual airports? It would be too complicated, and a long list of airlines would mean that there would have to be some colour code to show which routes were flown by certain airlines. (I am not talking about a travel guide here) RMS52 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that destination maps are unnecessary because they duplicate information contained in the tables. Also, many of the styles currently used in articles convey information in a very poor and misleading manner, such as shading in entire countries instead of marking individual airports or having separate maps for different continents. The other main issues include that it is much harder to keep them up to date than tables and they often become very had to read when multiple airports in close proximity are shown. If there was a specific situation where a destination map could supplement a table by providing relevant, accurate and legible information that was not already contained in the table then I support its use there, but I'm currently unconvinced that a map is able to adequately display any information that is not already suitably conveyed by the table. OakleighPark 08:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, it would be chaos if they were allowed. Updating big airports would become a problem, some users don't even know how to. RMS52 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the map could be useful only in airline's pages, because for example it easily gives you an idea of which kind of fleet the airline has. But I agree with you that it's unnecessary for airport's pages, where the table shows also the airlines which fly in each destination and eventually the date of begin or end of the service. Wjkxy (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the requirement to cater to vision-impaired people would preclude the use of maps. At any rate, I far prefer the information being in table form. YSSYguy (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It precludes the use of maps in place of any text description, but including maps is certainly fine as long as there's some text that describes the image in an alt tag, caption, or the text. Doesn't require tables. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not agree with any airline articles, that just makes it look like a travel guide. It only would really represent where the airports are. When all you have to do is click on a link and find out where it is, simple! RMS52 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no point for destination maps, it seems like only 2 users disagree. It also looks like that we have come to a consensus, not to have them included. RMS52 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Add my opinion not to include destination maps as previously discussed on a couple of occasions and for the same reasons (WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:ACCESS, etc...). The same ought to apply to Airline articles too in my opinion. SempreVolando (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not clear at all to me how destination maps are more travel-guide-like than destination tables; in fact, my experience on talk pages the most common (though unjustified) argument by users (particularly readers and relatively new editors, though less so by experienced editors who are well-versed in WP policy) in favor of the tables is that they are useful for planning trips etc, which is a good indication that the tables are largely there for travel guide purposes. As for keeping maps updated, that seems irrelevant to me, again unless the purpose is to be a travel guide. If the purpose of any sort of indication of destinations served is to give a sense of the breadth of service from the airport, it shouldn't matter if the list is a few months out of date, so it doesn't need to be constantly updated.

The only argument in favor of tables I largely agree with is accessibility. But a prose description of the destinations could achieve that goal (and is probably a good idea no matter what anyway) as a supplement to maps. eg for O'Hare: "O'Hare is a major hub for both American Airlines and United Airlines, each of which operate nonstop flights to a large number of destinations throughout North America as well as Europe and Asia. Most other US airlines serve O'Hare from all of their hubs, and XX airlines from Europe and Asia also serve O'Hare." eg for Madison, WI: "Dane County Regional Airport is served by most US airlines with regional jet, or mainline service to their nearby hubs."

But in the end, destination maps provide a very effective visual overview of the breadth of service from an airport, which I find very useful in evaluating how major an airport is; I in fact find it not useful at all as a travel guide-related function. So I pretty strongly oppose a site-wide decision to remove existing destination maps, regardless of whether the tables stay. This of course doesn't mean that maps need to be included, just that they shouldn't be prohibited. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I support your opinion Alex, but destination maps are usless. They do not really need to be there, a table/chart clearly shows the information in a no travel guide like way. Destination maps that just show countries that are served by airlines at the airport are usless, bigger ones that are at a larger scale and show indavidual cities would just take to long to update and they would keep getting removed. As I said for larger airports, (London Heathrow Airport etc) it would be chaos adding a map like that there. RMS52 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As is probably clear, I disagree (and useless or "usless" ;) is a pretty strong word that I think has no basis in fact). I do think that destination maps which show cities served are better than maps that show countries served, though in my experience, maps that show cities are far more common than maps that show countries. Reading a table requires considerably more mental effort to get a sense of the breadth of service from a given airport for my brain; maybe it's different for yours. As I noted above, I don't see updating as a significant problem: unless the purpose is to be a travel guide, it's perfectly fine if the maps or tables are a few months or even a few years out of date unless major routes have started or stopped. Just say in the caption "destinations served as of August 2015". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But a table can show that, for argument's sake, ten airlines fly from Subject Airport to Point A and that only two fly from Subject Airport to Point B; whereas the map will only show Subject Airport, Point A and Point B - it doesn't convey any sense of relative importance among destinations. My earlier concern still hasn't been addressed either - how does a map aid the vision-impaired? YSSYguy (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: I did address accessibility. I said that it's a legitimate concern but can be addressed with a prose description of the destinations served in the caption, alt tag, and/or text. (And such a prose description would be an improvement anyway; few articles ahve it.)

I don't think a table does a good job of conveying number of airlines that serve a destination either. Relative importance is better conveyed by "busiest routes" tables anyway (which most large airports have), I think, since even the number of airlines doesn't do a very good job of conveying volume since one airline can have a ton of flights. eg Portland International Airport: the busiest destination is Seattle, but that's only served by two carriers. ORD has 40% less traffic but is served by four carriers. Actual statistics are better than subjective impressions when they're available. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But the purpose of a table isn't just to show which routes are the busiest, it's to show all of the destinations which are served from the airport, and which airline(s) flies to each destination. For encyclopedic purposes, showing which airline(s) flies to each destination is just as important as showing the destination itself. So, although I don't necessarily oppose the use of destination maps in articles, I don't think they should be considered a replacement for destination tables. OakleighPark 10:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to introduce another long-standing concern of mine: neither maps nor destination lists have references supporting them. Are we going to address this?--Jetstreamer  15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer See the disscussion above (Unreferenced edits) and disscuss there, If you are talking about scheduled flights, the main reason they are removed is because they are not charter flights. RMS52 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

″Not using references″ has been used in the broader sense. Future and near-ending destinations require a source but current ones do not. That's my concern, already mentioned at the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol thread above.--Jetstreamer  17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer Ok, I will be happy to verify the flights (and charters) on Amsterdam. RMS52 (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: @Jetstreamer: The issue isn't whether they can be verified by looking into airline schedules and the like. The issue is whether airline schedules are suitable sources. Reliable sources are supposed to be published, but airline schedules typically aren't anymore (at least not in a form that is readily available, since the PDF schedules have gone the way of the dodo for many airlines). Schedules are also transient. The verifiability and no original research policies don't require that a source be explicitly cited, only that a source be available (the example being "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need to be cited, but there is no doubt that a source exists that says that). Therefore, in principle, destination lists are OK since the schedules do exist (at least for current destinations). But they're borderline: the sources aren't published, aren't third-party, and aren't even easy to explicitly cite (since there's typically no direct link to an actual schedule: finding the schedule for a given route typically requires entering a search query). Moreover, the source and in fact the meaning of destination tables is not well-described to a reader at all. For example, the airport guideline and consensus is that a destination must be served by a direct flight (with a sensible-but-unique-to-Misplaced Pages-and-unverifiable definition of "direct"), but no airport article that I'm aware of makes it clear what is listed in the table. (I think that I've added explanations of the contents of the tables to some airport articles but had that addition reverted.)

I also don't like the impermanence of listing the currently-served destinations but very little sense of historical destinations. In this sense, the tables are both way too much and way too little information. Individual cities served certainly aren't usually notable enough to merit a mention unless it's an extraordinary route (eg Sydney should get a mention on the DFW article since that's the longest nonstop commercial flight in the world), but using a list of current destinations only limits the historical perspective. As I suggested above, a prose summary of the types of destinations served from an airport would be more encyclopedic, possible to cite to a third-party reliable source, and allow a historical perspective in a way that isn't possible by listing every last current destination but no past destinations. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We're kind of talking off the subject here, you'd be better starting a new disscussion on that, former destinations don't really need a mention. It also seems like the consensus of having destination maps is not to once again. RMS52 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY reads ″All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. ″ An inline citation is mandatory.--Jetstreamer  17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

I am seeking input about the amount of blatant advertising permitted in airport articles. Today I reverted this advertisement added to Tampa International Airport. The ad was for a Southwest Airline flight beginning March 19, 2016 (that's seven months away!). The edit summary stated "bookable on southwest.com".

Looking at the guidelines in this aviation project, this type of advertising is encouraged. For example, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide states "for future destinations, add: "" - after the destination." In Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports), it states "for future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided."

This is contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING which states "those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Misplaced Pages to do so." As well, WP:FUTURE states: "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." It would also be worthwhile to read Misplaced Pages:Spam.

To avoid "seat sale" advertisements, I propose that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports) be amended so that scheduled flights CANNOT be included until they begin regular service. Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide or place for free advertising.

Two previous discussions include:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 11#New destinations
• Talk:Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport#Where is the consensus for which flights go into Airlines and destinations

Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not advertising. And the TPA edit was not meant to be an ad, nor was the reference an ad. Bookability is simply a solid type of "source" or "reference" compared to other types we have deemed unqualified or suspicious. Over the years at the project, we have discussed extensively about what we determine to be valid sources to support a future or a terminating route. I encourage you to dig into the long history of discussions in the archives. Destination listings are there to illustrate the scope of services at each airport. Future and soon-to-be-cut routes are allowed there to enhance the truthfulness of this scope and to preserve maintainability. If such a listing is not promotional, then future or terminating are not. And if terminating destinations are equally listed, we are not allowing advertising. (Terminating routes often lack publicity. "Un-bookability" is often the only "proof" we have.) HkCaGu (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

For routes that are terminating, Airlineroute.net always or sometimes announces a termination of a route for an airline and that source was deemed reliable now. For the future Southwest route from TPA to MSP, are the flights available for booking on March 16, 2016 for that route? Most airlines open their reservation systems for flights up to mid-June 2016. As long as there is a press release or a news article announcing the route, then it is not advertising. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If an editor went to an article about a major sports/concert venue, and added a list of all upcoming events for the next seven months, it would certainly be deleted. So would a section entitled "upcoming special offers" on Walmart's article. Once Misplaced Pages encourages the publication of airline routes seven months in advance, it is serving as a travel guide - and I am seeking consensus to stop this. Please consider Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Including future destinations is very long-standing and universal practice on Misplaced Pages airport articles and "required" by WP:Airports guidelines (scare quotes because guidelines are not requirements). I argue above that the entire destination lists should be removed per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but recognize that doing so would be a significant change to long-standing consensus. I do think this is perhaps another argument in favor of removing destination lists, though I'm not sure how it's more advertising to have a future destination list than a current destination list. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, list of current destinations fall into the scope of a travel guide. Future and terminating destinations also do.--Jetstreamer  17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I have said this before but please remember that the purpose of the destination lists is to show the scope and size of the destinations from the subject airport, it also means that past destinations are just as important to the history of the airport, nothing to do with being a travel guide or advertising. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Icelandair service to ORD: resumes or begins?

There has been a disagreement at O'Hare International Airport on whether or not FI service to ORD is a resumption or a new service. Airline Route states that Chicago is a resumption and that the airline served Chicago from KEF in October 1988. A user continues to change it to "begins" as the airline's press release states that it is not resumption (however, the end of the second paragraph and the beginning of the third paragraph states that Chicago was a destination for Icelandair previously). The question is did KEF and ORD existed in October 1988? Maybe the airline flew from RKV (Reykjavik Airport) to MDW (Chicago Midway International Airport) and transferred operations to KEF (Keflavik International Airport) and ORD (O'Hare International Airport). Any suggestions! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

First, we can eliminate any possible chances of Icelandair previously operating the Chicago service from RKV. The airport has not got the requirements to equip an Icelandair B757. And other planes, would never have had enough range. So at the moment, 'resumes' is the best option. It even states that it is a resumption in the reference. RMS52 (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Now how about the Chicago service. O'Hare and Midway both existed in October 1988 (when the airline last operated service) but when did Icelandair first launched service to Chicago? Actually, Airline Route states that the Chicago service was previously served with DC8. The new service will use 757s obviously. I am thinking that the airline started Chicago service at Midway Airport first and then transferred operations to O'Hare after the latter became operational and operated there until October 1988 (I believe that is called a resumption) but I could be wrong. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, as that could handle it. There may have been a fuel stop, the route likely closed because it was not popular. RMS52 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines on creation of a new airport article

I see this: "Add links from the article for the main city that it serves and the city or cities the airport is actually located in or nearest to, so as not to create an orphan." Should that be "add links to the article from the main city that it serves ...", since to avoid an article's being an orphan one makes sure there are incoming links? I was about to make that change then figured I should ask first in case I am somehow misinterpreting. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-entry of "Operated by" for regional carriers.

On airports pages, I think that is should read "Delta Connection operated by Sky West Airlines" like it used to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose They were removed for good reason. They change too often, are difficult to verify, and frankly, the actual contract operator of those flights really are not important enough to care about. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep The regional carriers are the actual operating airline in this instance, so I think they should be re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose To confusing and they are difficult to verify 31.53.247.138 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Airport articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Santa Paula Airport (SZP)

I have added an "Accidents and incidents" section to this page, see here. Just wanted to check if this is within, or up to, the standards and normal practices used by this WikiProject.
• If it's of any interest, I came there by way of Kirk Douglas, when I noted that there wasn't a particularly good reference for his survival (with some injuries) of a February 1991 collision at SZP between the Bell helicopter he was on, with a fixed wing 'Aerobatic aircraft' (whose 2 occupants both died).
• Voice actor Noel Blanc, son of Mel Blanc, was also on the chopper and seriously injured, though his BLP makes no mention of it, yet. Source above says he owned the chopper and may have been the pilot.
• I found another source detailing multiple crashes at SZP after sourcing Douglas's page, though it only covers 1984 to 1995 and only fatalities. It appears that there were more incidents, and that the airport had a bit of a bad reputation, so section expansion is possible. Comments? 220 of 12:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Belfast International Airport

I have started a discussion re the inclusion of a non-aviation incident in the Belfast International airport article. Comments welcome at talk:Belfast International Airport#The bomb. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a disscussion below since an editor has made changes to more articles than just this one without reason. RMS52 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASSING which says 'Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief'. Saying an editor didn't have reason isn't anywhere near neutral....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of an airport article's "incidents" section?

Before an edit war starts... I understand that bomb attacks, terroist action etc are allowed to be included in the 'Accidents and Incidents' section on airport articles, however. Certain users (and me) are reverting, removing and relocating incidents that are not aviation related. The main user involved is referring to a 'disscussion' made 3 years ago, where 2 users agreed that non aviation incidents are not allowed in this section. It was not a proper disscussion, 2 users just said 'yes' and that was that...

The point here is that are non-aviation (but notable) incidents allowed in the 'Accidents and Incidents' section? Or the 'History' section? RMS52 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Arrived here to start this discussion, and lo - it's open already. How fortuitous. In any event, as RMS52 notes, an editor has started blanking content from the incident sections of certain airport articles - with the rationale that "they are not aircraft related". Examples here and here. Not only does the argument itself make little sense to me (the incidents are relevant to the airport, which is the article subject, so why would they have to be aircraft related), but there would seem to be no project consensus that "airport incidents" are irrelvant to an "airport incidents" section (unless somehow an aircraft was involved). As per the comment I made on one of the airport articles (which disappointingly the relevant editor ignored), there is significant precedent in airport articles for non-aircraft incidents to be included. If they are notable. For example, the FCO and VIE gun attack incidents are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section, the 2002 and 2013 LAX shooting incidents are listed in the article's "incidents and accidents" section, a number of similar events are listed in the MSY article "incidents and accidents" section, there's an entire "terrorism and security incidents" sub-section in the LHR article's "incidents and accidents" section, etc. As such, I'm not really seeing a concensus/precedent for dealing with these types of incidents in a "history" style section. Not exclusively anyway. Given that there seems to be an implication that a concensus was established at some time on this, it really would be interesting to hear other thoughts. Muchos. Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, he stopped now. Pretty suprised that an editor like that would start an edit war. I have restored the content he removed, don't think we'll get a consensus here since it's pretty obvious but may as well give it a shot. RMS52 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Orlando airports

There has been been disputes at many airport pages on how to list airports in Orlando, Florida. It has 2 airports that serve the city: Orlando International Airport (MCO) and Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB). SFB is actually located in Sanford, Florida and MCO is located in Orlando proper (6 miles southeast of downtown Orlando). How should we differentiate them? MCO as Orlando-International and SFB as Orlando-Sanford. Citydude1017 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It was my understanding, reading from WP:AIRPORTS, that if there is more than 1 airport in the city, you list the full name with a hyphon, for example.

or...

Simply, you just hyphenate the word. RMS52 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the airport should be hyphenated as either Orlando-International or Orlando-Sanford. AHeneen (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also. This disscussion did not need to be started as it states the guidlines of how to do this on WP:AIRPORTS. RMS52 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of "operated by"

I just found out about the discussion to remove "operated by" for regional carriers in the US. This needs to be reflected in the Style guide. Furthermore, consistency is valued on Misplaced Pages and I don't understand why this should only be applied to US airlines...it should be applied consistently worldwide. AHeneen (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was starting to do this, but got sidetracked. #Add regional airline guidance to page content guideline. I'll resume discussion there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion was to remove the "operated by" for regional carriers in the US and Canada first, then if it played out well then we can go worldwide, but I think it should be consistent worldwide. 97.85.113.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinese carriers operating "direct" flights from China to Europe via another Chinese city

There has been some disputes on certain Chinese that operate flights from China to Europe that contain a stop at a Chinese city. For example, Hainan Airlines operates flight from Hangzhou to Paris with a stop at Xi'an but the airline operates out of 2 different terminals at Xi'an despite using the same flight number and aircraft. Should these flights be included? 97.85.113.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it does say on WP:AIRPORTS only to list direct and non-stop flights only, but since airport articles do not follow these rules. I think we should get a consensus on this. RMS52 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The debate is that Chinese airports have separate terminals/concourses for domestic and international flights but the "direct" flight uses the same plane and flight number. That's what we need to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.113.113 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know really, we could always put (via airport/city here) but I don't know if that would be allowed. RMS52 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we do not use "via" for direct flights as per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I know, it was just a suggestion. RMS52 18:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The main rule to apply here is "through-hub doesn't count". Hub is a major "exclude" factor. Then you have to have justification for exceptions, e.g. AC SYD-YVR-YYZ where all other YVR-YYZ flights are small/medium and the SYD plane is the only large one, actual continuation most of the days, same (swing) gates, and free meal for SYD passengers on YVR-YYZ. In the past many years, we had a consensus that UA NRT continuations are OK as planes don't move but passengers go through security. PEK are not OK because planes had to move and passengers too. Then we had PVG continuations which seemed legit (planes don't move) but there were multiple widebodies in and out the same time. Going by that spirit (both PEK and PVG continuations excluded), XIY terminal changes should make them excluded. HkCaGu (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Zürich Airport Circle section

Hello! Would you mind taking part in this disscussion (talk:Zürich Airport) about a new section for the Circle at Zürich Airport in Zürich Airport.
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Air Tahiti Nui's LAX-PPT-AKL genuinely direct or not?

Air Tahiti Nui (TN) is using a pair of same flight numbers for Los Angeles-Papeete (Tahiti)-Auckland in both directions with a two-hour stop at its Papeete hub.

FYI, TN only has five A340s and only flies to L.A., Paris (through L.A.), Tokyo and Auckland. PPT-LAX-CDG uses flight numbers 7/8 and LAX-PPT-AKL uses 101/102. LAX-PPT can be twice on the same day using all these numbers.

WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT says "However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." TN's LAX-PPT-AKL seems to satisfy this primary reason to be excluded. However, several other editors are arguing on the remaining points: "Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two."

So how does everyone feel about this? HkCaGu (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As there is sometimes an aircraft change in PPT (for example today, the AKL-PPT segment is operated by F-OJGF, and the PPT-LAX segment by F-OLOV), I would not mark this flight as direct. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Air Tahiti Nui sells AKL - LAX as one flight and bags are tagged with the one flight number (TN101), it is the only airline that I have seen that does this using the one flight number for two flight sectors with their home port in the middle of the routing. So should it be included in this as an exceptional case. These TN flights have not changed in years so wont fit in with: "may change as often as every week or two" category.CHCBOY (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

AKL and LAX are the only reasonable connection TN can sell route-wise and schedule-wise through PPT. Normally occasional plane change, occasional same plane (e.g. UA @ HKG, previously NRT) connections are still included, but those are outports. But for TN, it's their home port we're talking about, so the primary reason "just another spoke" is still valid, as valid as AA XXX-DFW-YYY or UA XXX-ORD-YYY. TN can have a spare A340 waiting at home, or in the case of AKL-PPT, there are two PPT-LAX flights departing within 20 minutes, without guarantee which one is which. The fact that some "furthermore..." secondary conditions are not met does not invalidate the primary reasoning. That's why I'm inclined toward excluding these. HkCaGu (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Petrella-Mogadiscio aeroporto : worthy of its own article?

No blame on the author, at the contrary: this is very nice work, an example to many. Yet I feel the subject too limited for a separate article, IMHO the information would better be merged into the basic Mogadishu Airport article. Indeed I would have started the formal "request for merger" procedure if I knew how. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Should definitely be merged. It's the same airport, period. And the title fails WP:USEENGLISH (plus the grammar is very poor), which makes me think the creator is an Italian speaker natively. We don't have a separate article for Orchard Field or Idlewild Airport; this one shouldn't have two articles either. oknazevad (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for support; but I think you are over-harsh on the author, who obviously worked hard and brought some really relevant information. Mainly, though: what do we do next? What is the formal procedure to propose a merger? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates for airports

User:Dthomsen8 has been doing some excellent work on geolocating articles on airports/airfields that are currently missing coordinates. I've generated a list at User:The Anome/Airports missing coordinates to help them in this process: if any other editors want to help geocode more articles on that list, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Length of "List of airports in X" articles

I came acrossList of airports in Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, which has just one airport presently and one opening in February 2016. So, for the foreseeable future, this list will have just two items (airports). I was about to be bold and merge the content into Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha#Transport, but then realized the table might be part a standardized format. Is there any guidelines for such articles and, if so, is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged and redirected into Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha#Transport? If this were a sovereign nation, I would feel that a two-item list could possibly be kept as a stand-alone list, but since this is a dependency, I don't see how a two-item list is feasible/reasonable as a stand-alone list. AHeneen (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Australia/NZ regional carrier listings.

An editor has reverted me on a few of the major Australian airport after changing the listing of Virgin Australia Regional Airlines to Virgin Australia operated by Virgin Australia Regional. In Asia, where some of the regional carriers may be wholly owned, they are listed separately.

I've read through the guidelines and noticed that the US/Canada regional affiliates are listed under the one regional brand. In Australia/NZ, with the exception of Virgin Australia which uses a wholly owned regional subidiary with their own AOC, most of the major airlines uses a regional brand such as QantasLink or Air NZ Link. At the moment, the Australian/NZ airport articles are listed as the separate regional affiliates. Should the Australian/NZ articles be brought into line (or all world wide articles) for that matter be brought into the 1 guideline? 124.170.169.182 (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Porto Alegre Airport

Is there any evidence this airport exists? I have been in the area a few weeks ago, there nothing like an airport, not even an airfield or a runway. You can check also on google satellite view, there is nothing there. Link https://en.wikipedia.org/Porto_Alegre_Airport

Aircraft of the week

THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER OF THE AIRCRAFT OF THE WEEK THET WE CAN FOUND IN MY USER PAGE IS CLOSING, NOW WE HAVE TO DECIDE THE AIRCRAFT THAT WE PREFER, THE VOTATION WILL BE OPEN FROM 28 SEPTEMBER 2015 TO 1 OCTOBER 2015, AND WE CAN VOTE IN MY TALK
The aviation user. Zurich00swiss (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class aviation pages
• Project-Class airport pages
• WikiProject Airports articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles