Some guy is going around changing the carriers name to airblue because its branded that way, he is mostly doing this in Pakistani airport articles, and reverting his edits just dosent work as in summary he gives this illogical reason for the change, I have explained to him before that the article title is Airblue, and given examples that Turkish Airlines in not TURKISH AIRLINES in an airport article, same for Cathay Pacific, British Airways and so on, can anyone stop this annoying practice or will it be better to change article title to airblue, like flydubai. 139.190.138.27 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For technical reasons article titles have to start with a capital but a template (Template:lowercase title) can be used to force it to display differently which I have added to the article. No reason to change the incoming links we dont need to pamper to branding on other pages in my opinion.MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I really like the way there is a list of destinations for each airport and have managed to create something so they can be viewed on a map. www.emuair.com will show you a map, you will need to start by clicking on Bangkok, then continue by clicking on other airports/routes. It is slow and buggy but it mostly works for displaying the data from wikipedia. If anyone would like it changed or extended to help with wikipedia please let me know here. It is not commercial software, it is just a hobby site so please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbluemonkey (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Airline Route Mapper already does that. AfricaTanz (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Airline route mapper uses a different set of data. Emuair.com gets the data from the wikipedia pages.Mrbluemonkey (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Which data set is more accurate? Hint: it isn't Wikipedia. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia data is more accurate for most airports and airlines, it is more up to date. I have been quite surprised. However there are some glaring errors that exist in the Wikipedia data, that could do with some work. The Wikipedia data is slightly more accurate. Mrbluemonkey (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid Wikipedia is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia data is clearly not more accurate than the GDS data that forms the basis for Airline Route Mapper. I understand your wanting to promote your project here, but let's be real. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is longer than I was expecting but yes I found some pretty crap data.

Comparing a few places. These have been chosen sort of at random, if I looked at an airport I have put it here. I have not tried to skew the results with careful selection.

From Myitkyina in Northern Myanmar; Wikipedia has Mandalay and Putao as destinations. Google has Bhamo, Mandalay and Putao Airline Route Mapper has Tachilek, Mandalay and Putao (Putao is in the wrong spot on the map) I can't see way to check which is right, I will give it to Google.

From Perth; Wikipedia has a flight listed from Per to Coco islands, looks like it goes through Christmas island. Google and Airline route mapper don't have it. Annoying and misleading from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has Manila, Christchurch. Google and Flight mapper miss them both. The manila flight is via Darwin.

Flight mapper and Google have Gold Coast, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has Per to Laverton, missed by Google and airline route mapper. There are also a lot of small places that are only listed on wikipedia but don't come up elsewhere even tho they seem to fully exists on the airlines pages. wiki also has a lot of mining town destinations from PER.

From LBJ in Indonesia, ARM shows DPS and ENE. Google shows DPS, ENE and Maumare. wiki shows DPS, ENE, Kupang, Maumare and many others.

from BTJ indonesia; Google and ARM show PEN, KUL, MES and CGK. Wiki shows the above plus jeddah and 7 other local destinations.

From SCL wiki shows a flight to LAX, MPN on lima, FRA, MCO on Lan : flights don't exist. wikipedia loses here.

From JFK wiki shows ROB(Monrovia), SIN, SYD. - These don't exist Again wikipedia not so good.

From KTM wiki has a few extra destinations such as Lukla and jomsom that are handled by smaller airlines From PKR (Pokhara) Google and ARM have Kathmandu while Wiki has a few extra destinations, some of which are questionable.

OK I concede. Wikipedia airports and destinations data is ok for an overall picture but quite useful for smaller destinations in developing countries. It shouldn't be relied on as there is a fair amount of crap data. The data on Wikipedia can only get better (I hope). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbluemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your objective in posting here is what, exactly? To spam us? Perhaps you should read the [FlyerTalk thread about Airline Route Mapper] to learn what it is about. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought being able to see the routes and destination data that Wikipedia has in a map format might be of use to improve the data and Wikipedia. I am sorry that it is of no use to anyone. Perhaps a course in diplomacy might be useful for some users here. I will go away and stop "spamming". Mrbluemonkey (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, if this is a way of efficiently and dynamically producing maps with a license suited for Wikipedia that could be included on airport articles, that is certainly potentially useful. The data in the Wikipedia article tables would be appropriate for that use. It wasn't at all clear from your long comments that this was your aim. (Am I understanding you correctly?) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may write anything you want, anytime you want to, at every talk page. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. I apologise if you felt uncomfortable with some comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I know that this matter was discussed before, but during my update of the article for Kuwait International Airport, I added airport names to some multi-airport cities. However, HkCaGu undid some of my edits by claiming that Abu Dhabi, Frankfurt and Kuala Lumpur are not multi-airport cities. I responded to such action by presenting evidence supporting my stand (see my talk with HkCaGu on User_talk:HkCaGu#Multi-airport_Cities). However, I agree that the case of an airport such as Hahn Airport is controversial, but who says that distance is the determinant factor in linking airports to cities? If distance matters, then Sharjah Airport is more a Dubai airport than Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted being London airports.

On a professional level, most of common practices related to the airline business is determined through IATA, which is an association of the world's leading airlines. Among such practices are ones related to tariffs which are reflected in airline-specific and global airline distribution systems. In tariff rules, IATA determined that some cities are multi-airport cities and that standard fares to different airports of such cities should not be different. Such practice by IATA (and as such by most airlines in the world) is reflected in all air transport systems such as scheduling and reservation systems. So do we need any consensus from Wikipedia contributors in this matter after releazing that there's an industry-wide consensus in the form of IATA practices? In this regard, Hahn is a Frankfurt airport, not because some low-cost airlines decided to promote it as such, but rather because IATA determined it as such. I understand that in the case of some multi-airport cities, there's no need to mention the airport name because only one airport has scheduled operation, but this is not the case with Abu Dhabi, Frankfurt and Kuala Lumpur.

On a personal level, as an air transport researcher, I think the IATA city thing is not good enough for practical purposes. For example, if I'm travelling to Dubai, then I should check flights to Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah in addition to Dubai's two airports (DXB and DWC). The airports one should consider are ones that are within 100km of one's destination. For example, if I'm going to Jebel Ali (about 37km southwest of Dubai), then Ras al-Khaimah would be too far for me, but Al Ain and Abu Dhabi's two airports (International and Bateen) would be reasonable options in addition to Sharjah and Dubai's two airports. If I'm going to some place like Koblenz in Germany, then I should consider Cologne/Bonn in addition to Frankfurt's two airports (Main and Hahn). This turns to be a totally geographical problem, and not just a naming matter. Having said that, it remains a fact that IATA is the entity that determines multi-airport cities.Imdashti (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

By nobody responding, do I sense that there's agreement with my stand on multi-airport cities? The stand being that such cities are determined by IATA, and should be reflected as so in destination tables. Imdashti (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No. You've just written too long for anyone to care to pay attention. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So decisions here are taken by writing short sentences? Or, is it by giving a complete argument? I hope that serious attention is given to my argument so we can move forward in this matter. Otherwise, I will not pay any consideration to previous invalid decisions taken here in regard to multi-airport cities, and will change the Kuwait International Airport article the way I see it appropriate.168.187.251.5 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Conciseness helps hold people's attention, here as everywhere else in life. And writing a long post often takes less effort than effectively communicating your point concisely.

In cities such as the ones you mention, there is one airport which is by far the largest and most likely to be associated with the city, and the large airports don't commonly go by a different name (unlike, say, London-Heathrow or Washington-National). So I think staying with the common name used to describe the airport (Dubai, Abu Dhabi) is the best practice for cities for which there's unlikely to be a real (as opposed to imagined) ambiguity. Another guidepost is how reliable sources refer to the airport. Also remember WP:NOTTRAVEL: airport destination lists explicitly do not exist to aid readers in deciding which airport best serves their destination. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Flightmapper has been used at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport as a reference for almost all the entries in the destinations list (AfricaTanz (talk · contribs) insists on adding them even though WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT does not require sources for current destinations). I'd like to start a discussion on whether Flightmapper should be considered reliable. Thoughts?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about using Flightmapper but the data source is from http://www.innovata-llc.com/ which according to the website Innovata's flagship database is its airline schedules database - marketed and distributed in association with IATA - following a landmark strategic agreement signed in 2003 to provide the aviation industry with a neutral, secure, and high quality source of airline data. I suspect it is the same data used by lots of these type of sites. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So, there are no objections in using it?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with it if it is linked to IATA it appears to be a reliable source. Not sure how we get away with current destinations not being referenced? MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable with having everything referenced.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have more trouble seeing Flightmapper as a reliable source than airlineroute.net (in the discussion above). With Flightmapper, there is no article with an author, title, and date to cite. Instead, Flightmapper (as I understand it) requires interaction by the user to get useful information out. Thus, it's not clear to me that it meets the "published" requirement of WP:RS, even if it is reliable.

(Incidentally, this same objection applies to airline schedules, the default "source" if no source is explicitly listed. For this reason, I actually think that eliminating airline and airport destination tables as unsourced altogether may be appropriate, though that's a much larger discussion that isn't directly relevant here.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

FlightMapper requires no more "interaction by the user" than any other website that has multiple pages. Have you tried using it? AfricaTanz (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern with FlightMapper is that it doesn't appear to support a direct link to a specific detail (e.g. is there a direct United Airlines flight from Toronto to San Francisco, or not?). If one has to conduct an search internal search within FlightMapper to verify a particular fact, then that makes it less suitable as a reference, which is a separate concern to whether it contains accurate or reliable data. --RFBailey (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One does not have to do that. It functions as any ordinary Internet page would. Take your Toronto to San Francisco on United example. From the homepage, one would click on "Countries", then "Canada", then "Pearson, Toronto", then "San Francisco". The resulting page provides the information. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have used it. As I said, there's no article with an author, title, and date to cite, which doesn't meet the "published" requirement of WP:RS. The links you point out help, but those are still questionable at best per WP:RS. An "ordinary Internet page" is not normally a reliable source.

In fact, I also have reason to question it's reliability. A route I fly often, Narrabri (NAA) to Sydney (SYD), is out of date. Flightmapper lists flights operated by Aeropelican, OT5202, OT5204, OT5206, and OT5210. In fact, Aeropelican Air Services no longer exists, as it merged with Brindabella Airlines, and the OT code was retired in favour of FQ on 24 June 2013. Looking at an engine that is actually tied to GDS, like ExpertFlyer, finds that the flights for tomorrow (Monday) are actually FQ201 and FQ209. Now, this is obviously a (very) obscure situation, but it makes the reliability of the source questionable. The fact that it's not "published" makes it impossible to cite precisely, so we can't really tell what it's telling us. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 10:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What's disturbing about this discussion and others like it is the assumption that this project has the power to dictate what is included in airport articles. That assumption needs to be buried once and for all. Also disturbing is the assumption that a project can decide that Wikipedia's sourcing policy can be ignored and that frequent contributors to this project can then go around trying to enforce the ignoring of policy. This project has a lot of soul searching to do. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Power to dictate - we certainly cant dictate but the project can provide a consensus for what is included. And also we cant ignore wikipedia policy on sourcing all we can do is give guidance. What is disturbing is you appear to be disturbed by what is normal project activity - do you have a particularly issue ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A consensus of the project is not necessarily a consensus of Wikipedia. I've already described the behavior that disturbs me. As an example, take a look at Jetstreamer's editing history. Your characterization of the project's intentional disregard of Wikipedia's sourcing policy as "guidance" is truly shocking. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem with my editing history?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see Jetstreamer, you did the right thing about Flightmapper in that you looked for further opinions about it being used as a source, not sure what AfricaTanz's problem is, although emotive words like disturb and shocking are being used it is not clear what the issue they have. Perhaps AfricaTanz you could give us some better clues, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For example: (1) Stating that the project decides when references are included in an article and attempting to enforce that decision. (2) Flatly stating that no references are required for current destinations. (3) Flatly stating in an article discussion page that FlightMapper is "not a reliable source". Didn't say it was merely his/her opinion. (4) Warning an editor that his or her edits must get the approval of the airlines project. (5) Again flatly stating that no references are required for current destinations. (6) Canvassing an administrator to support Jetstreamer's attempt to enforce the "no sourcing required" concept. (7) Again flatly stating in an article discussion page that FlightMapper is not a reliable source. Didn't say it was merely his/her opinion. (8) Stating that two administrators in the airports project have approved the "no sourcing of current destinations" concept; therefore, there couldn't possibly be a violation of Wikipedia policy. (9) Claiming the strange rule that policies are followed 100 percent or not at all. (10) Again claiming that FlightMapper is not a reliable source. Didn't say it was merely his/her opinion. (11) Berating an editor for not following Jetstreamer's interpretation of the project's opinion. (12) Trying to recruit others to enforce the airport project's supposed opinion. (13) Reverted a constructive edit and warned the user to get the airport project's approval before reinstating it. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport page, why is the table listing nonstop flights only and flights that have traffic rights (especially Kenya Airways where the airline operates direct flights (to Hong Kong and Guangzhou which were removed) with the same flight number and plane via other cities) cause flightmapper lists all destinations served from the airport (and the destinations are noted as "direct" but NBO is page is listing nonstop flights only? The project guideline states that direct flights are listed in addition to nonstop flights as long as the flight number and plane stays the same. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The project does not dictate the content of airport articles. Editors do, regardless of whether they are part of the project. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

::Well, editors have always added direct flights to airport articles for years whether they are part of it or not. Any disagreement should directed to the talk page and gain consensus. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are wanting to change the status quo of the article . I suggest you take up the issue at the article talk page and try to gain consensus for your desired changes. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen many editors like you being indefinitely blocked. WP:BATTLEGROUND won't take you anywhere. Trust me, you'll end up blocked soon. Just do nothing if that's what you want.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz, the project talk pages are a useful mechanism for discussion and consensus amongst editors. Editors don't have to be "part of the project" to participate, and project members' opinions count no more or less than anyone else's in establishing consensus. Discussions on the project talk pages are more likely to be seen by a variety of experienced editors than discussions on individual articles, which facilitates more useful feedback on issues which pertain to many articles. As for a "consensus of Wikipedia", nothing would be tractable if all of Wikipedia editors had to agree on every detail. For some questions, like the one at hand, project talk pages are the right mix of wide visibility and topic-specific experience in how to apply Wikipedia policies. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The project talk page is OK for limited discussion but some participants in this project (like Jetstreamer) take the standards reached here (by an undetermined few) and try very hard to force it on articles. An article-specific consensus overrides whatever is decided by the project. Aside from that, many airport articles are part of other projects, like Africa and Kenya. This project shows little respect for the other projects, acting as if the others do not exist. There is no basis whatsoever for the argument that an article-specific discussion is better to happen here than in the article talk page. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether Flightmapper is a reliable source is not article-specific. This strikes me as the correct place to discuss this question. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does seem to be a tendency among some of the contributors (not all, but enough to be noticed) to this project to regard the project guidelines as hard-and-fast rules that can never be broken, to display entrenched points of view and a refusal to accept those of others as valid, or to display a mild hostility towards newcomers. This has led to some insanely long debates--over issues such as linking destinations, whether certain sites (e.g. airlineroute.net) are reliable sources, or how to list direct flights in tables--on this page, and often accompanied by much ill feeling. All I can say to AfricaTanz is don't worry, it's nothing personal---it's happened before, and will probably happen again. --RFBailey (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya'll can discuss, destroy, or damage Wikipedia all you want but I am never touching any airport articles ever again......Goodbye and Sayonara!!!! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see what I had to do with O'Hare International Airport (see edit history and each version's view). Visual Editor is wreaking havoc, making destination lists unmaintainable! I don't know the beta progress and the coding problem, but can someone knowledgeable find a way to shut this mess off? HkCaGu (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to raise this at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. It seems there are many, many problems with the Visual Editor.... --RFBailey (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

For details on this problem, please refer to HkCaGu and my prior conversation at Talk:Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport#Number= in Airlines & Destinations table. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

For articles with the problem, insert {{subst:disable VE top}} as the first line and {{disable VE bottom}} as the last line. That will prevent editors from using Visual Editor on the article. Give me a list when you are done, and I will insert appropriate edit notices.—Kww(talk) 17:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've disabled visual editor for the destinations section of Logan International Airport. The number= tags made it so many of the destinations (alphabetically from Delta Connection operated by Endeavour Air through Nantucket Airlines) were not visible. See revision with the bad glitch.

I recommend that we disable the visual editor for all destination tables on airport articles until we are fairly certain that this serious bug is fixed. Is it possible to do this in the Airport destination list template, or does it have to be done article-by-article?

A bot will likely be needed to fix the damage; it was only vaguely possible at Logan using grep for me. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This problem should be fixed, please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#VE_breaks_tables. Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is; see my comment in that thread. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you agree on it now. Can I remove airport articles from the list of those including Template:Disable VE bottom or do you want to do this? :) Thanks! Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me. Whoever gets to it first is fine by me. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I reenabled VE on O'Hare, Hartsfield-Jackson, and LA airport pages. Ssastry (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New template Template:Defunct airports in the United Kingdom not sure if it serves much of a navigation purpose, it may be small at the moment but after a few hundred former RAF airfields it would be pretty useless, thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It has some potential. What about merging it with the one including current airports?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are too many RAF sites, split them off into "Defunct RAF airports in England", "Defunct RAF airports in Scotland", etc, or by county. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is better handled by a lists and categories than a navigation template a bit like List of former Royal Air Force stations. )The categories already use counties like Category:Royal Air Force stations in Northumberland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should list all of the Avianca destinations (including TACA, Lasca, etc.) as just simply Avianca since all of those airlines have merged into just simply Avianca? I have seen most of the former TACA, Lasca destinations listed as "Avianca El Salvador, Avianca Peru, etc." but they are still using the former carrier's codes, aircraft, and crew. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I note that the 'List of Busiest Airports' Wikipedia page does not include Avalon Airport data and it should. This data is available from the Bureau of Infrastructure, and Regional Economics, and I can also assist you in providing this data.

If you would like to update this page with newer data I am able to help.

Let me know

Amelie100 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion was started at Talk:Dubai_World_Central_-_Al_Maktoum_International_Airport#Differentiating_Between_DBX_and_DWC on how should we handle on listing Dubai on airport articles. A user already has jump the gun and disambiguated Dubai (since Al Maktoum will have passenger service from 27 October 2013, I think that is when the first flight is launched from there but I could be wrong). Any comments should be on that page. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I added the 2011 Medical Transport crash that happened to the article's accidents section. The plane ran out of fuel and the pilot had traces of marijuana in his system.(All of this with proper citations, of course) He had two past DUIs also. A senseless crash and tragedy. My wife knew the couple who died in it and had spoken to the wife the day of the accident. They were parishioners of the same church we attend....William 18:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming (Airports)#Disambiguation of airports by location, where I have opened a discussion regarding another editor making the following addition to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming (Airports) earlier this year:

4. If using a disambiguation title, follow Wikipedia:Article titles policy and use WP:NATURAL disambiguation where possible - if not, use comma-separated disambiguation over parentheses, using a higher-level administrative division such as Jackson County Airport, North Carolina.

Based on my reading of Wikipedia:Article titles, I believe that "Airport Name (Location)" is the correct method, except for the rare cases where "Airport Name, Location" is a commonly used name (for example, see airports in Norway). I would welcome comments there from interested editors. Also see Talk:Enterprise Municipal Airport (Oregon)#Requested move 14 October 2013) which proposes moving Enterprise Municipal Airport (Oregon) to Enterprise Municipal Airport, Oregon. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The above assumption would seem to always hold true: an airline hub always has a crewbase. Please confirm. I understand that the opposite is not necessarily a given: a crewbase is not always an airline hub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.135.16 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Dubai's Al Maktoum Airport now has passenger flights operating, should we now differentiate Dubai's 2 major airports now. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they should be listed as Dubai-International and Dubai-Al Maktoum. inspector (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this move request? The suggestion is to remove the word "International" from Chiang Mai, Phuket and Hat Yai Airports. I thought the rationale wasn't very clear, but I'm not familiar with how airport articles are named in general. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What does the airport(s)'s official webpage say? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They use the full name, including the word. (But it's of course possible that the official names may not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME.) The discussion's now closed, but thanks for the reply. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You could try to request the move(s) again so more editors can respond/reply to it. Therefore, there would be a clear consensus on to whether or not the article needs to be renamed. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted most (if not all) the unsourced edits Theo1994 (talk · contribs) made today to a number of airport articles. During this week, I had another discussion with an IP at my talk page regarding the unreferenced additions of new services, as well as routes that will be terminated. It is clear from the guidelines, i.e. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, that sources are required for such additions. The behaviuor I mention above is increasing even among registered editors.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that they mix wikipedia up with a travel guide or enthusiast website and not an encyclopedia, we dont have to be up to date we can wait for reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am having a problem on the Dakar Airport page. SAA's flight from Johannesburg to JFK makes a stop in Dakar but SAA operates flights from JFK to Johannesburg nonstop. However, JFK keeps getting deleted from that page as an editor stated that the airline only makes a stop in one direction but not the other so SAA does not have traffic rights from DKR to JFK (as the airline does sell tickets from DKR-JFK). Should airlines that makes a stop at a airport in one direction but not the other direction be listed? Any comments! Snoozlepet (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One way is listable especially if it's outbound. That's what destination means. If not, there'd be a flight clearly bookable that's listed nowhere. Regardless, you can add a note to a one way listing saying that there's no return. HkCaGu (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

New article List of most runways at an airport not sure if this is actually of any help or just made up stuff? MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If kept, probably should be renamed to List of airports with the most runways. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I PRODED the article as unreferenced and possible WP:OR.

I want to bring to attention of an overzealous IP editor who has essentially become a vandal, the latest battle ground is Wichita Falls Municipal Airport and today's IP being User:75.16.27.73. He "improves" airport articles by purely cleansing the text from an American English standpoint, more precisely, a Simple English standpoint. He changes nautical miles to miles, unlinks "CBD|downtown" to just downtown, removes ", United States" assuming every English reader in the world immediately knows where in the world South Dakota may be by just clicking around other links. (Remember, usually a state map pops up, so that still doesn't tell which country!) And he also compromises many more technical terms such as forcing FAA to "call" airports instead of to "categorize" airports. This IP editor has been around for years. Maybe protection is needed for Wichita Falls, but is there any way to do something to an unengageable IP? HkCaGu (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I protected it for a week while you decide how to address the problem. 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am at a lost what I can do. That's why I'm asking for help. While Wichita Falls is locked, today it happened at Dayton International Airport. HkCaGu (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Come on over and help decide whether this article should be kept or not....William 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:World-airport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created Category:Fixed-base operators. I believe that "forcing" articles about FBOs into a variety of categories that at best only partially apply to them, is less than optimal, so I created the specific category. Comments, criticism and suggestions welcome. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the category but nearly all FBOs are not notable and most of the articles in such a category are probably notable for something else. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Iloilo International Airport article could use some additional comments. Over at Talk:Iloilo International Airport I have been in a discussion with another editor about whether the article should even mention the name "Santa Barbara Airport". I argue that the article should mention the name since that name is common, even if inaccurate, and can be seen in histories of World War II and in Lonely Planet guidebooks. User:Tumandokkangcabatuan argues that it is a "lie" that should not be spread by Wikipedia. I have proposed a solution. Other editors comments are needed I think if we are to reach a WP:Consensus. See Talk:Iloilo International Airport#Create a section to discuss the name. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is already resolved as I have agreed to the neutral proposal of the admin. Thank You. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really resolved as it really needs a consensus on the talk page, but despite more than one neutral admin being involved we have a bit of not dropping the stick and an airport authority that appears to be saying we should not mention a reliable sourced alternate because they dont like it. Santa Barbara Airport is clearly being used as a colloquial name by some and not helped by the airport main access road being built from the airport to Santa Barbara. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tumandokkangcabatuan continues to ignore inputs from neutral admins and a compromise solution to include both alternate names in the lead. If anybody else there is interested enough to have a look it would be appreciated as I am just going around the same arguments with a user that doesnt listen. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone review this article to verify it is actually a GA status article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:NWS-current has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airports for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that some United flights from the US to Asia that stop at United hub Tokyo (NRT) have the Asia destination included (i.e. ORD-NRT-ICN UA881/UA882 operating 777 on all segments however, pmCO 737 operates NRT-ICN as UA79). Other flights require plane changes at the Narita hub. I want to know that if United flights thru NRT direct flights are considered "timetable direct" like Delta NRT and we should include those flights? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

UA is shrinking NRT connections so much that NRT is becoming like a "fake" hub like DL at CDG. There are basically three routes left: NRT-SIN, NRT-BKK and NRT-ICN. At the end of March BKK is going away, and ICN is becoming pmCO, leaving only IAD-NRT-SIN (777). Unlike DL/NW, route continuations aren't being repeatedly shuffled around, so there is no timetable direct issues. In fact the less routes there are the more "genuine" they are. HkCaGu (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is an appropriate place to mention a new airport article so forgive me if its not. I rescued a dormant Article for Creation and just moved it to Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport. I haven't created an airport article before so some experienced editors having a look would probably be good. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I need to get the community's consensus on listing destinations for beyond-hub flights by Mainland Chinese airlines.

Currently bullet number 7 says:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. ... 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. 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.

Based on this spirit these are how things have been handled:

• Southwest continuation legs have always been excluded.
• Delta's (formerly Northwest's) continuation legs through Tokyo-Narita (NRT), their non-domestic hub, have all been considered "timetable direct" and excluded. Many of their flight numbers don't continue through NRT using the same aircraft type, and when they do, they often don't even last until the end of the schedule as a result of constant upgrade/maintenance rotation of their TPAC fleet.
• For Air Canada, although Vancouver (YVR), Toronto (YYZ) and Montreal (YUL) are all domestic hubs, domestic segments have been included, e.g. YYZ-YVR-Sydney, YYZ-YUL-Europe, because the same aircraft type and the same gate are often used. Each domestic route is otherwise not served by an aircraft that large, and they actually park at swing gates while passenger goes through immigration/customs. Continuing passengers even get free meals on such domestic segment while other passengers have to pay.
• For Air India, domestic continations/originations are similarly included based on aircraft type uniqueness.

In Mainland China, domestic continations/originations have begun to appear in recent years. I, User:Snoozlepet and others have been maintaining and explaining such situations as new and anonymous editors add or remove these destinations. We've removed anything passing through Beijing (PEK) as domestic and international flights are completely separated into different terminals, meaning both the aircraft and passengers have to move. We've allowed or added these flights passing through Shanghai-Pudong (PVG) because there is no terminal or even gate separation as domestic and international passengers simply board from or disembark into different floors for different procedures.

The latest edit war (see edit history of SFO and my talk page) involves what I believe to be one US, possibly Southern California-based anonymous editor using a different IP every time. This editor reasons that the flights aren't truly direct because (1) may not be the same aircraft everyday, (2) passengers go through customs and immigration, (3) less than 5% of passengers continue the flight, and (4) these continuations are just second-tier municipal government subsidizing airlines to use big aircraft so they can boast international flights.

However, according to our past practice:

• (1) It doesn't matter, if it is even once a week, it is a listable service.
• (2) Mandatory passengers disembarkation does not exclude listing, as shown by United in HKG/NRT, Air Canada and Air India.
• (3) We have no percentage criteria. Ability to continue is sufficient.
• (4) Government subsidies do not disqualify legitimacy, and furthermore, China Eastern's SFO-PVG-domestic flights have even more legitimacy as (i) the SFO-PVG flight numbers actually changes between SFO-PVG-Qingdao days and SFO-PVG-Wuhan days of the week, and (ii) the widebody domestic does not replace the daily domestics, and some even operate less than 15 minutes apart from them.

SFO is due to be unprotected from administrators (currently locked to the IP's version, not mine) on November 28. I'd like to solicit some opinions and support. HkCaGu (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The nature is that the Shanghai-Qingdao and Shanghai-Wuhan are "hub-spoke" flights despite each operating on different days of the week, although they use the same class of aircraft. Moreover, the number of domestic flights between PVG and Wuhan would be reduced by 1 accordingly on the days when MU578 does extend to WUH (also seen in the termination of CA983/4 PEK-WUH, the domestic service was never axed, Air China just reverted back to the domestic flight number). See here 6:20 pm→8:10 pm China Eastern 2020 MF PVG-WUH, 7:50 pm→9:40 pm China Eastern 578 STT PVG-WUH. The total number of flights operated by CES is kept constant except Sunday. So, yes, these hub-spoke flights do crowd out normal domestic flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.77 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013‎ (UTC)

The absence of the same large aircraft on non-continuation days is prima facie evidence of the "genuineness" of the direct flight. We are not going to give in and risk edit wars for Canadian and Indian routes, which have long achieved consensus. HkCaGu (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

YUL, YYZ, YVR can arguably be the same tier, while WUH and TAO are definitely feeders, so this is not the same story. The Canada case is more like Air China's PEK-PVG-Sydney route which no doubt should be listed. After all, the purpose of the destination listings, whatever "consensus" they are based on, is not to give common readers a false illusion that there is an unrealistic amount of Chinese secondary destinations from any U.S. hub (actually if "via" were allowed, there would be no need for such discussions and editing conflicts). Those pseudo-direct flights significantly differ from the following classes of direct flights, which truly deserve listings despite having a stopover (1) A foreign carrier serving multiple Chinese destinations using the same aircraft: FRA-SHE-TAO by LH (2) A Chinese carrier originates from its hub, often its largest one e.g. PEK-PVG-SYD by CA and CTU-SHE-YVR by 3U. (Without PEK, CTU respectively, it's arguable that PVG-SYD (CA's) and SHE-YVR wouldn't even exist, but for those pseudo-direct flights, the main PEK/PVG-LAX/SFO segments have always been there, even for more than 20 years such as MU 583/586. (3) Direct flights by SQ, TG through a third country, or UA flight through HKG to SIN using B744. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.156.89 (talk • contribs)

The focus is "through (domestic) hub"--the gateway point to/from international, so why would it matter whether the ultimate domestic origin/destination is itself a hub (YYZ going to YVR-SYD) or a spoke (SFO going to PVG-WUH)? The spirit in bullet #7 is targeted toward US domestic situation, e.g. UA AAA-ORD-BBB or AA AAA-DFW-BBB. These flight number-saving measures can dramatically expand the list, while MU PVG flights do not. HkCaGu (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Jetstar/Qantas also have some cases of domestic "tag" flights departing/arriving from international terminals which generally continue and/or originate from international destinations (eg QF8 DFW-BNE-SYD) Passengers continuing to end destination does not clear customs until they land at end destination. They are also generally the same aircraft, at the international terminal, at the same gate area, complete with full domestic pick-up rights as home cariers (hence why QF/JQ domestic destinations are sometimes listed in the "International" section of Australian airport pages.

At the stop-over location (eg JQ4 HNL-SYD-MEL), they however, reclear security at the stopover port (in this example SYD) before re-entering the gate area at the international terminal/gates. Sb617 (Talk) 08:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you and others would give some indication of which side you take in this particular matter. In other words, I need third opinions. I'd hate to have to declare "I win because there are me and another established user on one side and the other anonymous side has yet to prove they are more than one actual person"! HkCaGu (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are being reluctant to acknowledge the fundamental differences between destinations such as WUH/TAO and other legit direct, but not non-stop destinations. It is just so unconventional, if not laughable, that CES can serve three destinations from SFO at one flight per day frequency? Clearly, WUH and TAO are spokes, although aesthetically they look better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.236.14 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The subject of discussion is directness, not spoke-ness. Many 737s and MD83s going into DFW and depart an hour later with the same flight numbers nullify directness. Once a day huge planes flying abnormally domestic do not have the same effect. HkCaGu (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to be "nullified", there is never such directness compared to other listed destinations either like Singapore via Hong Kong and Bangkok via Tokyo (both by UAL), or the Australian case mentioned by another user where passengers clear immigration at their final destination. Depending on the purpose, listing Wuhan and Qingdao as destinations on SFO page is clearly misleading and useless, while listing Bangkok as destinations on LAX is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.156.89 (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Chinese carriers from the US/Europe/Middle East to destinations beyond China via major Chinese city hubs are not timetable direct. The flight numbers and aircraft are stable enough to qualify listing. However, if a flight requires a stop at Beijing (PEK) should definitely be excluded because domestic and international flights are in different terminals at the airport. Also, flights that pass through Chengdu should be excluded as domestic and international flights at that airport are in separate terminals as well. Regarding PVG, do passengers going from SFO-PVG-TAO, SFO-PVG-WUH, and LAX-PVG CKG (China Eastern) pass through customs and immigration in PVG or the final destination? Also, doesn't Chinese airlines offer free meals on domestic segments/flights? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They do sell the domestic segments to/from PVG, so immigration must be cleared at PVG both ways. HkCaGu (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In China, both departure and arrival procedure for domestic flights and internationals flights are strictly separated. Waiting rooms for both departing and arriving international flights are beyond immigration, customs and health control. None could be bypassed and accessed by any domestic passengers, which is unlike US and Canada where departing international and domestic flights often share waiting rooms. By contrast, in China international flights depart from totally different areas from domestic flights. For example, passengers arriving at PVG from WUH and continuing to SFO would have to exit the domestic arrival zone first, clear three controls 1. health 2. customs 3. immigration, and then airport security again, and finally merge with all other passengers to all international destinations. The situation at PVG is essentially the same as PEK which could disqualify them even they are not just timetable direct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.79 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly seen here. http://www.shairport.com/chn201004261643479/. The two segments SFO-PVG, PVG-WUH (also for LAX-PVG, PVG-SKG), are operated from different concourses, so they should be disqualified. (unsigned by 192.86.100.79)

Going through inspection does not disqualify listing. Many airports conduct security checks, often many gates away. Mandatory deboard-reboard or going to another waiting room have not been a disqualifying factor. Canada also requires inspections on the inbound, but those planes park at "swing gates". However, you made one good point that we seemed to have overlooked: PVG T1. Upon careful inspection of PVG's map, it seems that T2's floor separation is not in use in T1, which MU uses. T1 has domestic ops on the "right" and international ops on the "left". But you can see that one bridge from the top (departure) floor can lead to more than one gate, so could the plane remain in a "swing" gate? Given that SFO-PVG-WUH must have a cleaning crew finishing the work in less than 75 minutes (minus deboarding and boarding time), I'd say the plane cannot possibly move. HkCaGu (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point for finding out the floor plan. I went for something further. It now seems that SFO-PVG and PVG-WUH segments are operated using different aircrafts, 100% of the time at least recently. We can track this for longer periods if necessary. (See the registration number at http://www.flightradar24.com/flight/mu578) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.48.134 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Similar the other way around, http://www.flightradar24.com/flight/mu577 Different aircraft as always. It is even less direct than those going through PEK so definitely can be disqualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.48.134 (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Beware of the dates. Westbound continuations are the next day. And when I looked at eastbounds (same date), they are primarily the same plane continuing outbound to the US.

2. I looked at three pairs: SFO-WUH, SFO-TAO, LAX-CKG (A340). Are there more?

3. When WP:AIRPORT discussed about UA HKG and NW/UA NRT, I emphasized the point that even one day a week same-plane is still a valid direct service (i.e. sometimes direct is still direct). Back then before ADS-B, we used gate numbers to determine plane change. What excluded NW (now DL) NRT flights were "timetable" stability.

4. Shanghai doesn't post gate numbers. We have to verify by FR24 using ADS-B technology. But these two methods are hard to monitor on a continuing basis, making any "rules" unmaintainable, and goes against the Wikipedia spirit.

5. So therefore, Wikipedia principles kick us back to something solid: Is it the same terminal? And by the verifiable terminal map, it's not. Domestic gates are on one side of PVG T1 and international gates are on another side. Whether the "same" plane parks near the middle or way out there requiring a bus ride, passengers alight and reboard at different gates.

6. But then I had already argued against Point 5: That the plane may park in the middle gate which is a swing gate, hence it's still "genuine direct". However, I looked at the schedules of the 3 routes (2 flights per day each direction) listed in Point 2, their layover times intersect each other each midday (eastbound) and evening (westbound). So if they need to "walk to the other side" after scanning boarding passes, the two planeloads will have to cross each other (unless one plane is parked at remote pad and its passengers depart on a bus gate).

7. Point 6 is incredibly complex and unverifiable and untested for a WikiProject principle. Therefore, I think we should kick back on Point 5: Since it is not the same terminal (or separated portions thereof), the continuing flights should not be considered "direct", and destinations beside PVG should be removed from WUH, TAO, LAX and SFO.

8. But that's just what I say, which agrees with the IP user. I'd give a couple days to let other WP:AIRPORT members to voice any other opinions, and possibly further discussion. HkCaGu (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

LAX-CKG always uses the same plane, which differs from SFO-WUH and SFO-TAO. But if the criteria is whether it is the same terminal/terminal area not the plane, then this should not matter and they can be left as same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.190.48.134 (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

LAX-CKG is also via PVG (passengers pass thru immigrations and customs at PVG) so how do you know if it is the same plane and how does that differ from SFO-WUH and SFO-TAO. LAX-CKG may use a different time of the Airbus A330. 07:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.73.36 (talk)

LAX-PVG uses A340 which there are only 5 left. PVG-JFK (daily) is the only other A340 route--and in both directions airborne (if on time) when the PVG connections happen. These 3 routes means there probably aren't any spare. PVG-SFO is shorter and uses the A330 which are also used in many other routes. But I agree with you, we should treat them the same. HkCaGu (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A few airport articles have had 'destination maps' creep in. There is no mention of them in the guide, so what is the project consensus on these? For example this seems cluttered, outside the resolution of my screen, difficult to update and a bit travel guide. Any thoughts? SempreVolando (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, it's too big for the size of the article. Furthermore, I think it borders what the project is not, i.e. WP:NOTRAVEL. Maybe it's a good time to reach consensus on this. Let me add that they are not only present at airport articles but also at airline ones (e.g. Kuwait Airways. Any more thoughts on this?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the destination maps on both airport and airline articles are useful as a complement to the destination lists to show the scope of service. While the lists show all the places, the maps provide the information in a more visual form that trades the details for a look to see how far an airport or airline goes. To give an example from the airline side of things, Ryanair serves lots of destinations throughout Europe, but only in Europe plus Morocco and the Canary Island. Air Tahiti Nui, on the other hand, serves only five airports, but they're spread all across the world: Tahiti, New Zealand, Japan, the US, and France. I do think the destination maps on the Dublin Airport article are a bit much; I think what is shown on the Kuwait Airways article is more reasonable. The map doesn't need to be able to distinguish every single airport in precise detail (the lists do that), but just seeing the little dots on planes can show the scope. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we can at least agree that this is ridiculous (and even seems to show some incorrect destinations - Oranjestad?), whereas this is a fairly sensible way of showing the scope of service from a large international airport (map of countries served). Either way it isn't easy to source or keep updated, and is duplication of the Airlines and destinations section. SempreVolando (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A few days ago Infobox Military structure merged with Infobox Test Site & parameters from Infobox airport to create Template:Infobox military installation, within articles which still have the infobox military structure on them, the co-ordinates are extremely likely to disappear on the normal "Read" view however the co-ordinates will remain viewable from the edit view. Military structure articles which are airports will be updated first but this will take time, if see any other problems can you please post them under this post please? Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A transgendered woman was allegedly abused by Hong Kong customs and/or immigration in November 2013. It didn't make the news media, local or abroad, in any manner close to universal. No social impacts, no follow up news reports whatsoever.

Two months later, someone decided it was an "incident" worth adding to Hong Kong International Airport, and when reverted (and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT explained), a six-year, less-than-250-edit editor with no edits since late November 2012 reacted at Talk:Hong Kong International Airport and declared, "if we need some people from LGBT portal in Wikipedia coming here to show what an incident is an incident, we will bring them, there is not space for discrimination in Wikipedia." HkCaGu (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you. You should also note I removed the 'Todd Salimuchai' tale from the accidents and incidents section as it fails the definition of one. Feel free to put it in the Airport history section....William 13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Although a requested move discussion has not taken place, there has been protracted edit warring on Sultan Aji Muhamad Sulaiman Airport about the name of the airport. As the administrator who protected the page, I'm advising members of this project to provide any assistance and advice they can. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice that someone has added that Iran Air operates flights from Tehran Mehrabad Airport to Tehran Imam Khoemeini Airport on their respective articles. I mean is it possible to fly between just 2 airports in the same city or could it just be a bus service that Iran Air provides between the 2 airports. Rzxz1980 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Started an RfC on the use of bold in the template at Template talk:Airport codes#RfC: Should the codes be in bold by default?. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has seen this discussion but my thought is still the same. However, I am seeing some improvements. I mean, I am seeing that people are citing sources for some destination lists on airport articles. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of destination lists without sources or at least the {{fact}} template. When I patrol Recent Changes to fight vandalism, I do notice some IP addresses edit airport articles and add and/or remove destinations without an edit summary. Therefore, I cannot tell whether it is a legitimate edit or vandalism. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that on at least one airport article, frequently a source is provided for a start or end date for service. However it is removed after the date passes. So maybe a starting point would be to retain sources about the start of service? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a starting point. However, I'm reverting the addition of new services or the termination of current ones that are made without the provision of a reliable reference across airport articles almost everyday. I have a serious concern with this point, but I also agree with NHRHS2010 in that there are no sources for most of the current destinations. One might argue that the list of destinations for any airline should include all the required information, but in most of the cases that's not true either! What to do?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, many airline web sites have a timetable, destination or route list. So this could be added as a reference to all of the entries. This should also identify the hubs. As an example, this one {Note I have to select the larger route option to get a display). The current problem is getting this done. Maybe we should add an external link for the destinations so that this would be easy to check? The other problem is that simply undoing if there is no reference may not be correct. If you do that and the change is actually correct, then your edit is a bad one in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually, once a new destination is announced, you are able to book it on the airline's website. That is not something we can link to specifically, and even if we could it would make the article look messy. Usually the best way is trying to actually book the flight and seeing if it will come up. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue since it would be in the route map if available. And if it was for future service, there is usually a foot note about when service starts. So for most cases, a valid reference is available. For US airlines, at least, there will also be a newspaper announcement about the new service that can also be referenced. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen news articles about future service for non-US airline, like this article. Unfortunately, it is not in English. While my browser (Google Chrome) now automatically translates non-English websites to English, you can't completely trust Google Translate. However, I do have an idea of what that article was trying to say, even if translation was slightly incorrect. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be in English. So if you use one not in English that is OK. Anyone can go back to the source and verify the facts you used. So if you are comfortable with your translation, go for is. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just totally removed[1] it from the article. Why I did this I addressed at the article's talk page but I'll do it here too.

The entries were unreferenced- 2001 Saudia entry and 2011 bomb, not a aviation accident or incident per 'Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13'- Both 2007 entries, 2008 and 2009 entry. As for MH 370, the accident or incident didn't take place at KL but elsewhere. I can cite a long list of articles- Delta Flight 193 for example, that aren't listed as incidents at their originating airports.

Much of this was trivial happenings, but some like the 2011 bomb could be put in the article's history section if a reference can be found for it. MH 370 is the only removal that could be called controversial but this plane accident took place somewhere other than KL....William 03:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370 is not controversial we only list accidents/incidents at/on approach/on departure from the airport, Malaysian 370 was clearly a long way from the airport when whatever happened. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a crash hasn't been confirmed yet.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not sure we need these, I was just looking at one after the cleanup for the regional carriers in the destinations list. These tables don't list the regionals in there. That begs the question of what does this mean to the average reader? Are the regionals included in the mainline numbers? I believe that is the case, but the table does not make this clear. So should it? Also the table lists the 'Top Carriers' in each market, but my limited experience is that it lists all of the carriers in each market. So are changes needed? Of the better question, which I think was asked before, do we need these tables? I think the source for this data, for the numbers at least, is the site linked and all we do is added the airlines. I think the government site is actually more informative and would rather provide a link there. Any comments? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They do not list the regionals, that is correct. The regionals are however included in the mainline numbers. On the government website, the regionals are NOT included in the 'Carrier Shares' section on the top (ie 'Delta....45%' does not include flying by Delta Connection carriers). If you notice, for example here Delta is #1 with 70% passengers carried, and ExpressJet, a Delta Connection carrier, is #3. However, in the 'Top 10 Destinations' section all the airlines that fly a particular route are combined together to produce that figure. I think, in the 'busiest routes' section, it's safe to just list the mainline carrier even though some flying might be done by a regional carrier. Chances are, if it's one of the 'busiest' routes, most of the flying was probably done with mainline equipment. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Dallas Love Field's airline and destinations section has a messed up citation. It now looks like Delta Connection serves all the destinations and Southwest serves none. Please fix. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

S○me○ne tried to fix, ßut it is still messt upt. Now DL's new r○ute from DAL-MSP is missing. 🐹🐷😺🐶🐸 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to fix ßut looks ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I think it's worth taking a look at this thread, where a reliable third-party source came in contradiction with an official press release. I followed the standard WP:VERIFY protocol of providing a third-party reliable source only to find that I was wrong. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I invite you to take a look at these contributions, where the unsourced addition of start/end dates is just an example of a pattern that has been increasingly spreading across almost all airport articles and is a blatant violation to WP:VERIFY, which is a basic policy. I'd like to draw your attention to this and also to know the way to stop this behaviour. Any comments?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Per this article on SG's website, BKK is listed as an SG destination out of BLR and vice versa. But none of the flight booking websites list SG as an airline from BLR to BKK. Even on SG website, BKK is just not listed in the drop down menu. So this does mean that this route is scrapped right? — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a novice editor and could use some advise. Some one keeps reverting the edits for the Columbia Gorge Regional Airport article. Any ideas on dealing with someone like this? Thanks,Trashbag (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Same person as I had dealt with before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 13#Airport terminology vandal. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, no rationales provided for the reversions.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted another edit on that page. If it persists, then take it to WP:RFPP. Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just that page; I've reverted a bunch of edits in the same fashion today from 128.32.104.164. Even put a note on the user's talk page. The most egregious of his errors is blindly changing nautical miles to miles and removing metric conversions. The simplistic English is not in anyway an improvement , as it simply removes proper technical detail and reads poorly. Honestly, I think it's an established editor, as the markup is not that of a beginner. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I looked at this an left a strong warning. If this keeps up someone will need to post so an admin can decide if this IP should be blocked. I'll note that I did revert a number of these edits. They seem to be on small airports likely not well watched. Some editors need to go though all of the articles this IP has edited and cleanup the edits that were followed up by additional edits by other editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Since User:75.16.27.73 is now blocked for three months, wouldn't any IP he uses in this manner be already in violation? If so, we should tag the IP talk page with {{sock|75.16.27.73}} so it takes less time to stop continuing behavior. HkCaGu (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP at 128.32.104.164 is at it again. I'm 100% sure that it is actually User:Tim Zukas. Here's why.

Tim has repeatedly added external links to a Flickr account containing scans of vintage airport diagrams. He did such in the history section of various airports as a direct external link. That goes against the external link guidelines, so I removed a few, including the one for JFK. He re-added that one, indignantly demanding to be pointed out the rule, which I did both in my edit summary and a note on his talk page, where I said it should go in the external links section.

The very next edit saw the 128 IP do just that. Following up to makes sure that others were similarly fixed, I noted a pattern of behavior among the IP, the registered Tim account (for which he has been in trouble before), and the other IPs mentioned here and in the previous thread HkCaGu refers to. Notably, the 128 IP was one of the IPs involved in the edit war that lead to the block of 75.16.27.73.

So was 173.164.133.26, which has specifically been used by Tim to answer a note on his own talk page. So it seems that this editor, who has been warned about this exact sort of editing before, is editing logged out to cover his tracks.

This is a major accusation, I know, but I wouldn't make it unless a) the evidence was so solid and b) the behavior wasn't so problematic, including edit warring, sock puppetry, and editing against consensus and guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well we have thess edits by Tim Zukas: [2] and [3] HkCaGu (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would tag the IPs as being a suspected sock-puppet since all three of those IP accounts have similar edits. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:128.32.104.164 is back today with two edits. Reporting to AIV. HkCaGu (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a convention for showing in destination tables routes that are ended temporarily, but not on a regular basis? Example: this adjustment on Southwest's ECP-BWI route. I'm sure there are other examples. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Will the airline suspend service again the next year? If it is being suspended temporarily on those dates, resuming service, and no flights are found for next year then it is a regularly seasonal flight. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the suspension will take place next year as well. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 19:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear airport experts: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Should it be kept and improved instead? Or is this information already covered in another article? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: A major issue with the article is the lack of inline citations. That wouldn't be an issue if the references provided were to support the entire draft. I really doubt about it. Maybe my question is trivial, but have you contacted the creator about improving the draft before wiping it out?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Every one of these drafts that are eligible for deletion under db-g13 has had a giant template pasted on the talk page of its creator reminding them that if the draft isn't edited within 30 days it will be deleted. As soon as one edit is made, the category is removed and they drop off the list. As the 30 day time period nears its end, we have to consider the drafts still on the list abandoned. If you think that this is a worthwhile topic, I can delay its deletion for six months in case someone wants to improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Yes, I know what you say but perhaps the creator wanted to keep the article and does not have the time to improve it. However, the creator hasn't edited since last September. Given these conditions a deletion seems appropriate.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just reverted the addition of some very large destination maps in Düsseldorf Airport, not sure even when collapsed they add to the article have these been discussed before ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

European destinations map

Düsseldorf Frankfurt Tirana Ljubljana Pristina Athens Thessaloniki Corfu Heraklion Rhodes Dublin Moscow-SVO Alicante Berlin-TXL Catania Palma de Mallorca Ibiza Kavala Madrid Paris-CDG Malta Chisinau Belgrade Bourgas Varna Riga Rome-FCO Milan-LIN Vienna Minsk Bristol London LHR London City Sofia Antalya Larnaca Malaga Chania Dalaman Dubrovnik Jerez de la Frontera Kalamata Kos Mykonos Preveza Rijeka Santorini Split Tivat Zagreb Pula Zadar Prague Tel Aviv Helsinki Heringsdorf Reykjavik Amsterdam Geneva Aberdeen Barcelona Basel/Mulhouse Beirut Bergen Bilbao Billund Birmingham Bologna Budapest Bucharest Copenhagen Dresden Edinburgh Faro Gdansk Göteborg Graz Hamburg Istanbul Katowice Kiev Krakow Leipzig Linz Lisbon Lyon Manchester Marseille Milan-MXP Moscow-VKO Moscow-DME Munich Naples Nice Nizhniy Novgorod Nuremberg Oslo Porto Poznan Skt. Petersburg Samara Stavanger Stockholm Stuttgart Tallinn Toulouse Turin Valencia Venice Vilnius Warsaw Wroclaw Zurich Ankara Innsbruck Salzburg Florence Friedrichshafen Rzeszow Bastia Olbia Palermo Verona Luxembourg Podgorica Sabiha Gökçen Ponta Delgada Izmir Gazipasa Menorca Patras Adana Kayseri Simferopol Rostov-on-Don class=notpageimage| Europe destinations from Frankfurt International Airport;Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

Asian destinations map

Novosibirsk Amman Dubai Abu Dhabi Bahrain Kuwait Jeddah Dammam Riyadh Medinah Muscat Sanaa Bangkok Yangon Phuket Ulaanbaatar Doha Beijing Kuala Lumpur Jakarta Singapore Tokyo - Narita Tokyo- Haneda Nagoya Osaka Seoul Shanghai Chengdu Changsha Nanjing Qingdao Shenyang Guangzhou Hong Kong Taipei Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Male Delhi Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Pune Colombo Dhaka Baghdad Erbil Najaf Tehran Almaty Astana Baku Ashgabat Dushanbe Tashkent class=notpageimage| Asian destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

North, Latin American and Carribean destinations map

Newark New York-JFK Boston Philadelphia Detroit Atlanta Dallas Houston Charlotte Denver Mexico City Miami Orlando Fort Lauderdale Punta Caña Puerto Plata Barbados St. Lucia Cancun Washington Dulles Chicago O'Hare Toronto Calgary Montreal Ottawa Vancouver Seattle Halifax Anchorage Baltimore Fairbanks Whitehorse Minneapolis Las Vegas San Francisco Los Angeles Panama City San Jose San Juan Santo Domingo Antigua La Romana Tobago Montego Bay Havana Holguin Varadero class=notpageimage| North and Latin American and Carribean destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

African destinations map

Agadir Casablanca Nador Algiers Oran Tunis Enfidha Djerba Tripoli Cairo Marsa Alam Hurghada Sharm el Sheik Banjul Boa Vista Sal Accra Abuja Port Hartcourt Lagos Malabo Addis Ababa Nairobi Mombasa Kilimanjaro Zanzibar Mahe Mauritius Luanda Windhoek Johannesburg Cape Town Fuerteventura Funchal Gran Canaria Tenerife South Lanzarote class=notpageimage| African destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

Also challenged the addition at London Heathrow Airport, anybody else have a concern about these? MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter had been raised not long ago, but I don't remember if it had at this project. Nevertheless, I'm against the addition, as per WP:NOTRAVEL. Furthermore, these maps duplicate the information present in the content included within the {{airport-dest-list}} so I'm for the removal. Actually, I'm also removing the map from Kuwait Airways.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the maps from Frankfurt Airport too ([4]).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed from Ninoy Aquino International Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed in Archive 13 but no conclusion reached. Maybe time to re-assess? SempreVolando (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any support here for retaining these. So maybe we now have a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this comment fits better at WT:AIRLINE. Maps also removed from SriLankan Airlines destinations ([5]).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping these maps. Spatial reasoning allows readers to ask questions and present data in ways that a simple list or table couldn't. I think the maps add value to the airport pages at little cost. I have made a map for Akron-Canton Airport modeled after the one in Madison airport page. Xavier86 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A good example of why these maps add no value to the article, huge map with very little information and what is on the map should be in the article anyhow. Also if it has to be hidden it really shouldnt be in the article. Wikipedia is not a travel brochure, suggest they all should be removed on sight, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:COLLAPSE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WP:NOTTRAVEL is applicable here. It could be argued that it's just a visual representation of the destination charts (which are even more detailed in breaking it down by airline), but it's still better presented as a list than a bulky map. oknazevad (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few WP:BOLD changes, based on what I believe to be WP:COMMONSENSE, in the categorisation tree for airports. I figured I'd drop a note here before moving further with renames, instead of just shuffling the tree. Specifically, originally, the tree went:

• Category:Airports > Category:Airports by type > Category:Airfields

This looked a little odd to me, and upon looking things up, I found that Airfield redirects to Aerodrome. (Which means that, technically, an argument could be made for Category:Airfields to be renamed to Category:Aerodromes, but that's another kettle o' fish.) And airports are types of aerodromes/airfields. As the article says, "all airports are aerodromes, not all aerodromes are airports." So I reorganised the tree to:

• Category:Airfields > Category:Airports

Which is much more logical, as an airport is a type of airfield. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Most airfields are described as airports on wikipedia for some long forgotten reason which may explain the original categorisation. Although Airfields>Airports is more logical. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice that quite a few articles on Brazilian airports are now out of date due to construction related to the soccer World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. Just wondering if there was any interest in working to improve these articles. Hack (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been a dispute on certain European low-cost carriers that are not "Hub-and-spoke" carriers (they don't have "hubs" but rather "bases") but one user instead has designated them as "focus cities". Any suggestions on how to resolve this. Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps invite them here to explain why they think that non-hub and spoke operators have focus cities. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed many EU airports have non hub-spoke carriers listed as focus cities at that airport for a while now. Rzxz1980 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: The issue here is the term "focus city" and does it refer to all carriers or only the carriers that operate a "hub and spoke" system. Rzxz1980 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I always thought focus cities were bases where airlines have many point to point flights to places that are not their hubs? Eightnine2 (talk)

Not sure that focus cities are really relevant to these low-cost carriers in Europe as it is mainly an American term. Have we a reliable source that these airlines actually use the term "focus cities". MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this link shed some light.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an East African Airlines but I'm not sure if it wouldn't qualify as a "private charter" airline in which case it shouldn't have its destinations included on Wikipedia's airport pages. Also the pages that exist seem to list many destinations which I believe involve a plane change or a stop-over. Does anyone have any thoughts on what to do with this airline? Here's their webpage with schedule (http://www.coastal.co.tz/pdf/Coastal_Schedule_2014_issued_20140306.pdf) and descriptions (http://www.coastal.co.tz/pdf/Coastal_Flights_Description_2014.pdf) of their flights:http://www.coastal.co.tz/flights/scheduled-flights/ CheersMonopoly31121993 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing but I've started a project to update the airport pages for Africa. It's been going well but I've run into a few problems and I have some questions I'm hoping members of this group can answer: 1) What is a destination? Is it only a list of DIRECT flight locations or does it include destinations that include stop-overs but not changing planes? 2) If the answer to this first question is that destinations via a stop-over can be include then how about if it involves two or even three stop-overs but no deplaning ? I ask this because in Africa some airlines fly routes that go A to B to C to D to E and then back to A. So should E be listed as a destination for D, C, B, and A? 3) Lastly, what if the airport only receives flights from a destination but does not fly there (for example, A receives flights from B but only flies to C directly from A). Thanks, I hope there are already some rules for this kind of thing. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a detailed set of guidelines at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. If that doesn't answer your question, ask what's unclear. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you! This helped a lot.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993, also WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT specifically state to avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub. I removed your addition of Atlanta at Roberts International Airport for Delta because the flight involve a stop at JFK (JFK is a Delta hub). For the destinations as long as the flight number is the same, the aircraft is the same, and that it does not stop at an airline hub then it should be listed. Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rzxz1980, Ok, thanks for pointing this out and for fixing this for Roberts International Airport. The rule states however that when the flight number remains the same and there is no change of planes that the destination should be included. Your point that if the stop in which the airplane lands but then proceeds from with the same flight number is a "hub" airport then it shouldn't be included but if the stop is not a hub it should be seems like an error that should be fixed. I will ask @ASHill also. CheersMonopoly31121993 (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

As is nearly always the case for flights through a hub, DL479 does indeed have a change of aircraft in JFK. It's scheduled as a 767 ROB-ACC-JFK (a true direct flight) but as a 757 JFK-ATL. However, even if it were scheduled as the same aircraft type and thus could potentially be the same aircraft going straight through, it wouldn't be appropriate to list ATL as a destination for ROB. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited the Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport articles to add each other as destinations for Qantas. QF107 operates SYD-LAX-JFK on a 747, QF108 is JFK-LAX-SYD. Qantas does not have cabotage (specifically, 8th freedom) rights for the domestic LAX-JFK segment, meaning they can't sell solely domestic itineraries. However, they can carry passengers on that segment that connect with other Qantas flights (at LAX). I don't know if Qantas can also connect their passengers between code-share flights to/from LAX operated by another airline with the Qantas LAX-JFK flight (if Qantas sells the itinerary). Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body lists criteria for the airlines/destinations table:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. 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. 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.

Per the above quoted policy, NY-JFK is a Qantas destination from LAX (and vice versa) as: 1)the same aircraft/flight number is used, 2) passengers can embark/disembark, and 3) it's not a "hub" where the aircraft is often changed and/or there is a (nearly) complete turnover of passengers. There's just the caveat that the flight can't carry passengers solely between LAX-JFK. I edited both articles (LAX & JFK) to reflect this after starting discussion at Talk:Los Angeles International Airport#Qantas JFK "destination". However, both edits were soon reverted as "vandalism", despite the fact that my edits were made according to policy and there was no prior consensus to not list JFK as a Qantas destination from LAX & LAX as a Qantas destination from JFK.

I tried searching the internet for examples of other flights like QF107/108 that are operated despite lack of cabotage rights and could not find any examples to see how they are handled on WP. I think they should be listed since passengers can embark/disembark to connect to different flights (just different international flights on the same airline), just as long as there's an endnote to the table mentioning the lack of 8th freedom rights on the route. AHeneen (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember that wikipedia is not a travel guide, the reason the airports have a list of destinations is to show the number and range of destinations from that airport, in this regards the actual airlines are not that relevant but are added to show the number of carriers that operate services. Anything else for exampe cabotage rights and fine details are not really relevant to the airport, basically how many airlines operate to/from the airport and where do they go to is the basic idea, anything else should be in wikitravel. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit and talk history of China Airlines and Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. CI used to operate flights from TPE-ANC-JFK that ended in April 2011 on 747 equipment. Just like Qantas and LAX, CI could not sell ANC-JFK or JFK-ANC to US passengers unless one of the legs involved TPE. I think passengers that wanted to stay overnight or a few nights as a stopover could do so. I don't know about whether they could do an open jaw itinerary of a segment other than ANC-JFK or JFK-ANC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intermediate edits (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainline Carriers in the United States (Delta/United/US Airways (American) outsource much of their flying to regional affiliates, which we display on Airlines/Destination tables. However, the regional carriers that are operating the routes can often change very frequently and without notice, thus leaving the airline/destination tables inaccurate. For example, if Delta Connection flies from Hartford (BDL) to Cincinnati (CVG) using ExpressJet and Compass Airlines, but then decides that they want to start using Endeavor Air instead, it's likely the table won't get updated for some time because the change isn't significant. Regional Carriers often start and stop different routes all the time, and constant updates to the table just aren't practical. In addition, having six different regional carriers operating for one airline looks a bit messy (and confusing for people who aren't as familiar with aviation as we are).

The first table below is an excerpt from Hartford (BDL)'s airline/destination table for Delta Airlines. You will notice DL uses 5 regional airlines at BDL, in addition to their mainline service. In addition, you will see that Chautauqua airline's is stopping BDL - CVG service on May 1. However, this service continues to operate as normal as other carriers (Endeavor Air) are still operating the flight. To the passenger, no change will be noticed.

The second table shows a modified version of this table, with the carriers operating the flight under the Delta Connection brand are not shown. It looks much cleaner and far easier to read for someone that doesn't know as much about aviation as we do here. In addition, it allows us to avoid having to update the tables every time a flight switches hands between a regional carrier. I don't see a practical purpose to listing all the regional airlines. If one is curious, they can click on the Delta Connection link and view all the carriers that operate as DL connection.

Please provide feedback! Is implementation of this practical? The regional airlines are always changing so this would allow us to keep the airline/destination tables looking neat. Most regional flying has a brand (Delta Connection/US Airways Express/United Express/Air Canada Express, etc). Some don't -- for example, Alaska Airlines does not have a 'Alaska Express or Connection' brand, so AS's regional carrier, Horizon Air, would still appear on the table as 'Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say "yes I like this" based on past consensus of what and why of destination listing's encylopedicity. However, I think we could get a quicker consensus if we limit this listing consolidation to a situation where one mainline uses multiple regional carriers. A small airport where AS/AA/DL/UA fly four different routes but they're all SkyWest may still be somewhat encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it too. I could see listing it as "Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines, Compass Airlines, ExpressJet, Endeavor Air, or GoJet Airlines" to preserve the operating airline summary without confusingly splitting the Connection destinations. This approach would obviously would leave airports with only one regional operator for a particular brand unchanged. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If we make a change, we should streamline it throughout. I feel like if someone is interested in seeing what airline operates the route they can click on 'Delta Connection' to see what carriers fly as Delta Connection, or look it up. Even listing just the regional carriers can cause confusion, and some carriers may not operate all year round or may come in on an irregular basis as they are needed, if that makes sense. For a start we can consolidate situations where airports are served my multiple regional carriers (as mentioned by HkCaGu) under the same 'Connection/Express' banner, and go from there if that works out well. Obviously, as aforementioned, airlines (like Alaska Airlines) without a regional 'Brand' would not change. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys -- see this page for an example of how the Bradley International Airport table looks now, and after modifications. You will notice it looks much cleaner and is easier to read. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Any further feedback? We need consensus to even test this out. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say go for merging multiple operators of the same brand into one line. (Blahblah Connection operated by A, B, and C...) Managing which operators fly under the same brand isn't any harder than maintaining destinations. (FlightAware can easily show if a particular operator exists weekly at a certain airport.) Destinations are encyclopedic (somewhat). Operators are encyclopedic but secondary to destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So something like this? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If we go with this format that 'and' needs to be 'or' since all of the other companies do not operate the flights jointly. This may be a reason to only list the brand. Shorter and less confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree re 'or' and don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about operating carriers. There doesn't seem to be any objection to this idea amongst those who have commented, so I'd say go ahead, be bold, and do it for a few airports to see if that generates any opposition from editors who don't frequent this talk page. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the Delta Connection combined with all the regionals listed. I agree and needs to be changed to or. If no one has any objections, I will start with Bradley International Airport and Dallas Love Field to test the waters and if all goes well, I guess we can expand it site wide. Great Idea! Aviationspecialist101 (talk)

Looks good, Aviationspecialist101. Be sure to use the 'break' code < br > (omit the spaces between < and >) to ensure the table doesn't get too wide. Look at how I've fixed Bradley International Airport -- keep the airline section that wide or less. If we decide to omit the operators all together, that would solve that problem. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree this looks much better, but can I ask that < br /> is used instead, for those of us that use syntax highlighting? Thanks. Kennethaw88 • talk 01:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the breaks look bad, at least for my browser configuration (Safari running full screen on a 13" Mac laptop). The problem is that (at least on Bradley), it breaks weirdly in several places. For example it breaks in the space in "Chautauqua Airlines" then again as a forced line break after "Airlines". It would be best to set that column of the table to a certain maximum width (as a percentage of the full table width?) and let the operators wrap as they will. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 07:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How do we set a max column width? Let's do that because without it the 'Airline' column looks way too wide. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If that is a problem, then just listing the brand is probably the better solution. The only time I was able to recreate your problem, was going full screen at 1920x1080. My normal viewing window displays the tables just fine. So your mileage may vary depending on everything. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mine has the 'Airline' section of the table taking up more than half the table, and it looks ridiculous. I'm okay with just the branding. The various regional airlines will still be listed if you click on the brand. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also applied the change to Raleigh–Durham International Airport. So far, so good. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This sort of formatting issue is why using forced line breaks to get a desired table width is a bad idea. Depends on browser, screen resolution, font, and font size so it's hard to identify and reproduce glitches, and messes with accessibility. I'm afraid I don't have the template wizardry to specify column widths, but it's probably a minor modification to Template:Airport destination list (and probably can't be done without modifying the template). It looks like the template already forces the third column to be 10% of the table width. The point that the article for the brand lists all the regional operators make me lean towards not including the operators anyway. (But if we want to include the operators for editorial reasons, it should be entirely possible to make the column widths work properly.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are doing this, what should we do with AirTran? I think we should just get rid of "Operated by Southwest Airlines." Does anyone object? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that yesterday. On the pages I changed I elected to leave it alone since I was not sure what is best. I wonder if dropping the operated by Southwest is the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. What do you guys think? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We can remove it. I believe AirTran and Southwest still have separate operating certificates (AirTran flights still operate with TRS) so it's probably okay. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They got a single operating certificate a long while ago. I just don't know if it is necessary to have it as they are just converting from AirTran to Southwest, not the typical merger. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They did, yes, in 2012. Let's wait until they retire the AirTran callsign and brand before removing AirTran. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of AirTran, I'm suggesting we remove "operated by Southwest." Because while its true, it's really still separate. I'm completely open for discussion though. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I call your attention to this edit, where Alaska, Alaska operated by Horizon, and Alaska operated by SkyWest were condensed into a single entry for Alaska. I thought that since Alaska doesn't use separate Connection/Express style branding for the Horizon and SkyWest operated flights, we were going to leave those as they originally appeared? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is no Connection/Express branding (in Alaska Airlines flight's there is no branding) we are going to leave them as they originally appeared. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see that, my bad. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What are everyone's thoughts so far? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say leave Alaska alone. We try to stay true to who the operators are, but the reason we changed was because DL/UA/AA regionals have become cumbersome, meaningless and unmanageable. Not the case for Alaska, at least not yet. HkCaGu (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, we agreed to leave Alaska alone because the regional flying in Alaska does not have it's own brand. It's not 'Alaska Express' or anything, so we are indicating the operator. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing this for just US carriers only or does this apply to all worldwide regional carriers dba as mainline (i.e. Lufthansa Regional, Etihad Regional, KLMCityHopper, etc.)? Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with airports in the US and Canada, and if all plays out well, we can move it worldwide. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good start. A bundle of US airports articles still has not been updated to the new format. Rzxz1980 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How does everyone feel this is going so far? I think it's working out well. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I firmly believe this entire effort is a terrible idea, and completely detrimental to the usefulness of the destination section of the articles. Regional airline routes are updated by interested users with knowledge of the changes, such as myself. Treating "Delta Connection" or "United Express" as airlines themselves provides readers with misinformation that is more problematic than what we had before. (CLCadiz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

I have to disagree with you on that. Airlines change what regional operates operate certain routes very frequently, so it's difficult to constantly reflect those changes in the articles. Listing just the brand is an effective solution -- if someone was interested in knowing which airlines fly as 'Delta Connection' they simply click on the link and they can see. We aren't treating United Express or Delta Connection as airlines, we're treating them as brands. People are far more familiar with the brand than they are the actually operating carrier. There tables look much cleaner since we've implemented the changes, and from my perspective, easier to understand. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. First, these "brands" are displayed under the "airlines" column of the table. Therefore, they are being classified as standalone airlines with actual operating certificates, which is clearly an incorrect categorization by association.

Secondly, you also mentioned that an interested reader could click on the regional "brand" name in order to find out the route details, should they chose. Unfortunately, this is simply not adequate. Clicking on the regional "brand" takes you to an article which lists the regional airlines flying under that "brand." Clicking on one of those airlines takes you to that regional airline's page. On that page, there may be another link to "XYZ Airlines Destinations." Clicking that link takes you to a page which simply lists destinations. This does not provide any valuable information on route structure, nor does it indicate which destinations are served from a certain airport. It also rarely separates destinations by "brand," for the larger regionals with many major airline contracts (ExpressJet, Etc.) This means that all the destinations are lumped together in an unusable list. This is not a replacement for the airport-specific route information that we have had.

You also mention that most people are not familiar with regional airline carriers. I find this to increasingly not be the case. As you know, the law now requires airlines to disclose if a regional carrier will be operating a route. This alone has increased awareness of their existence. Furthermore, in recent days, major news outlets have reported on an "Airline Quality" study which listed airlines such as Endeavor, ExpressJet, SkyWest, and American Eagle. These names (and their roles) have become more prevalent, and I do not believe that omitting them from the airport page is productive. Regional airlines account for more than 50% of scheduled airline service in the United States. By only referring to the codeshare "brands," we are ignoring the fundamental mechanism by which the US air travel system works.

I also submit that "operated by" lines are not messy nor confusing. On the contrary, they provide a clear reference as to the routes operated by a certain carrier. The route structure can sometimes be complex, but that does not mean we should be dumbing down these articles. Wikipedia contributors should be striving to maintain accuracy and not to commit to destroying good information for the sake of simplicity. The vast majority of airline-serviced airports in the United States are smaller Class C and Class D facilities with a very small number of regional destinations. The regional routes from these locations are manageable and have, in fact, been largely correct. Especially at these locations, which account for most of the airports, the route and operator volatility that you refer to is greatly overstated. The accuracy of these routes can be easily verified by cross-checking the recent flights on tracking services that monitor filed IFR flights, such as Flightaware. The regional airline's official route map can also often be used. For most of these airports, it would take a mere minute or two to verify route information currency.

The difficulty mainly arises with larger class B airports that serve as major hubs for the regional networks. This poses a challenge, but can be effectively managed by a coordinated division of responsibilities. A major airport's regional route structure can be updated and verified in 15 minutes. I believe that it is completely reasonable to enact a system in which these routes are validated at a regular monthly interval. A "Regional Route Team" should be created, where each person updates the ~5 major airports under their area of responsibility. I volunteer myself to prove that this can be done. It would be a terrible shame to destroy largely accurate information for the purpose of streamlining and expediency, especially when doing so does not accurately portray the US commercial aviation network. I strongly suggest moving forward with a trial to demonstrate viability. (CLCadiz (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

While I appreciate your feedback, and you make some good points, I again have to disagree with you. If someone is so interested in exactly which Regional Carrier is serving which routes from an airport, they can look that up on the airlines website, or as you mentioned, FlightAware. We simply don't have the manpower or the time to constantly monitor which Regional Airlines are flying which routes. It changes very often, and can be sporadic. Trust me, I've been active on WP:AIRPORTS for over 4 years. There are more productive things that we can do on Wikipedia with our time than constantly check the accuracy of which Regional Airlines are flying which route. The Airline/Destination tables look much cleaner now, and I find it to be easier to understand. I don't have time to cross check the routes for airports every month, and I doubt people would want to spend their time doing that. Wikipedia is about content creation. We're not creating any new content if we are spending time ensuring that we ensure the Regional Airlines operating a particular route haven't changed. Listing just the 'Connection' or 'Express' brand solves this problem, makes the page look neater, and does the job. I see no reason to go back to the way we had it. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, this type of change does not get a big announcement. In fact, many of these may not be pre announced at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, most changes of regional operator are not 'announced'. The only way to spot a change is to attempt to book a flight on the airline's reservations system, or check FlightAware. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the changes.. disappointing. I prefer the old format. (27.122.12.74 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Why is that? In my opinion, the new format looks much nicer, is easier to read, and is less confusing for people who aren't so knowledgeable in aviation. In addition, it saves us from having to update the table every time a flight changes regional carrier. All in all I think it's a good change. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well this grinds my gears a bit. I rarely ever comment on here but I had to. This is a lousy change. I'm far from an aviation expert but I'm not ignorant about those commuter airlines masquerading as US Air and so forth. Ton of them out here in Phoenix, and I travel regularly so I like to check the Phoenix airport wikipedia to see which ones fly where before I try to book. (had a bad experience with one so I like to know because it effects which airline I choose) Now it's a real pain and I can't find that info. It was so clear before. I don't get it????! - Kent H. (108.170.1.2 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Kent H: Stop pretending to be three people. Your signature style gave you away. You are CLCadiz, 27.122.12.74, and 108.170.1.2. Please read WP:NOTTRAVEL. Accuracy is not supreme here. Encylopedicity and notability are higher in priority. We had not entertained "timetable direct" destinations--those that change every few weeks and never continue through the schedule and seasonally not repetitive. Multiple-carrier regional brandings are of the same nature. Wikipedia listings aren't intended for travel reference. HkCaGu (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need to use Wikipedia for that? Don't the booking engines give you that information? I'm sensing an something odd here. No one is masquerading as anything in the airline business. Makes me wonder if you are the IP, that keeps trying to confuse the terminology and seems be have a grudge against the regional carriers. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! First time I've been accused of multiple personality disorder! (lol) Unbelievable, Forget it gentlemen, should've known there was no point in bringing it up - Kent H. (108.170.1.2 (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)))

How should we word this change on the WP:AIRPOTS/page content page? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The bulletted format would be ideal:

--71.135.174.99 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the new format will solve anything. Someone (myself included) might propose to provide more details on which carrier operates which services when the number of bulleted airlines in the list is greater than one. Furthermore, the proposed format unnecessarily increases the size of the table. More proposals like this one should bear in mind WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was working on the DAL page and I looking through it, I was just thinking that it looks rather bulky and even a little confusing when all of the dates are in the Airline/Destination chart. I thought of using notes rather than writing it in the chart. What do you guys think? I think it would just make it a little cleaner.

Note: This is from the DAL page but I've removed and changed some of it for this example.

Notes

• ^1 ends October 12, 2014
• ^2 begins October 13, 2014
• ^3 begins October 28, 2014
• ^4 begins November 2, 2014

Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposed version of the table is confusing. At first sight, it looks like all the destinations are currently served, and one should move the mouse over the notes to understand what do they mean or the reason they are there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I find that table notes should be contained within the table. Also, the proposed format has the notes appearing larger then the information in the table. That's not good. While not sure, I'm leaning against this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The notes citation are already in use for example an airline that fly a certain route and make a intermediate stop but do not have traffic rights on that route, when an airline have check-in at one terminal but depart from another terminal, or an airline is moving from one terminal to another at a certain date. It just makes it more confusing. I would keep the original format which is much more clear. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted this to a user that misposted or vandalized the Washington-Dulles destinations section:

Please do not vandalize United Express destinations, specifically IAD-MIA, as non-stop itineraries can be booked at least 300 days from now. Please do not rely on United's PDF timetables because they are non-industry standard and only schedules for the next few months are displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.169.242 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

no flights found in the airline's booking engine from iAd to Mia after August 17. Do some research first before making accusations, 68.119.73.36 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. When should American Airlines and US Airways be merged into one cell in the airlines and destinations tables? They are in the process of changing US Airways liveries into AA ones.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightnine2 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been policy and discussed many times, after the airlines get a combined operating certificate. However at that point, much of the US information becomes static to reflect the last status before the combined entity. The US data is not removed however the tense in the article is changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We merge both airlines' destinations into one when a single operating certificate is achieved (sometime late-2014 or early 2015). AA is currently repainting all US Airways' planes into the new AA livery. Until then both airlines' destinations remain separate when they receive a SOC. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone take a look at this page? An IP (a possible suspected sockpuppet of Jakedn135 who kept constantly removing start/end dates that have not occurred yet) keeps insisting that UA Express has vacated Concourse D at the airport (the source provided states that they will leave Concourse D on June 5, 2014 and the airport's official website still shows UA still at Concourse D). Also, a lot of the UA Express destinations that were listed to end in June supposedly ended May 30, 2014 (but I have reinstated them). If UA did end those destinations on May 30, 2014, then United would've de-hubbed CLE on May 30, 2014 instead of June 5, 2014. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is the actually city name for Bangalore/Bengaluru should we put in the destination lists? I know a couple of Indian airports pages lists the destination as "Bengaluru" (I believe that is the official name) and "Banglore" is the common name for the city. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

″Bengaluru″ seems to be the most appropriate choice. Air India uses this name in its online schedule.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We should really follow what the related article uses and it is at Bangalore. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Users user:Fnlayson and user:BilCat have been edit warring with me over my strikeout text of Boeing 737 orders, in which the total orders do not add to the sum of all individual orders. Clearly the figure is wrong, so strikeout text should be shown. 66.87.119.254 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Should never use strike text, if you think something is wrong then discuss it on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Striking is an awful choice right from the start, aside from the order matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Use a template that does this properly, like Template:Update inline. WP:Aircraft or WP:Aviation are the more relevant projects for aircraft info. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am just curious why we call DCA Washington-National rather than Washington-Reagan? We do New York-JFK rather than New York-International, we call ORD Chicago-O'Hare, LGA New York-LaGuardia, MDW Chicago-Midway, IAD Washington-Dulles. The airport's name is Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. National is used as International is in other airport names. Reagan is the same as Midway, Dulles, O'Hare and others. If it is political and some here don't like him, I don't think that is a valid reason to not call it Washington-Reagan. I am interested to know. Thank you. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking as per WP:COMMONNAME as National is the common name used rather than Reagan (as most people still called the airport as "National"). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That, and the "National" was not part if the name in contrast to/analogous to the "International" in other airport names, but more like the use of "national" in other Washington area locations, like Washington National Cathedral or National Art Gallery. That similarity is why the name persists, even after the addition of Reagan's name. oknazevad (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason is more straightforward than you might imagine: Reagan was a controversial president. WMATA has not and will not rename its station which remains National Airport Station. 71.135.174.99 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, the Metro Station doesn't have anything to do with it. Secondly you are wrong regardless. MWATA HAS renamed the station after Reagan.^[3][4] Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What name does most people refer to the airport as? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. There is no factual answer. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at these two articles? IPs keep modifying the Air Canada services as if they were year round. An airline 's press release confirms the start of scheduled services, but only after 26 October. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would put it in the year-round section but put "resumes 26 October 2014" with the source saying it's being converting to year-round. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@68.119.73.36: Thanks. You can find the reference at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Actually, I'm confused. Is the route currently a summer service or a winter service? If its a summer service, it will operate flights continuously after 26 October 2014 then there is no need for the resumption date. If it was a winter service operating year-round after it resumes service then the resumption is needed. Sorry, didn't know if it operated during the summer or winter? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

From the press release: "Air Canada in St. John's...[bullet] In summer 2014, Air Canada and Air Canada Express will operate over 174 scheduled flights each week to 7 destinations across Canada and one to London Heathrow." The press release does not make mention of a break between summer "seasonal" flights and the resumption of year-round service on 26 Oct...so to me it seems that "year-round" service has begun since there will be no end to service. The airlines use of "resumes" is really in reference to winter flights resuming on a limited schedule 26 Oct...since they are currently flying to St.John's and won't stop, "year-round" service has effectively resumed already. AHeneen (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing many IPs and editors listing the US Airways flights at European airports as "American Airlines operated by US Airways". Do we start designating these flights when SOC is achieved? Some have been reverted. 46.140.101.190 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no clear indication at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content. I checked the US Airways website to buy a ticket (20-26 June) to Paris (CDG) and the choice of flights were mostly operated by US Airways with a few operated by AA. So it appears that US Airways is still marketing and operating their own flights. I think the criteria for listing "Airline operated by Other Airline" is that the flights are booked and marketed only by Airline, while the flight is operated by Other Airline (and Other Airline's flight # is not used in marketing). So it seems to me the only situation where "American Airlines operated by US Airways" should be used is if US Airways operates the flights, but no longer markets "US Airways" flights (ie. if the airlines have separate operating certificates, but only "American Airlines" flights are marketed). After the airlines receive a SOC, if they still market the flights as separate airlines, then "US Airways operated by American Airlines" wouldn't be used, because "US Airways" flights would probably be equivalent to a codeshare. AHeneen (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've checked all the European airports at US Airways destinations and American Airlines destinations...none currently include "American Airlines operated by US Airways" or "US Airways operated by American Airlines". AHeneen (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that you can buy US Airways flights on both carriers website and that both carriers have codeshare with each other. 46.140.101.190 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of charter airlines listed in destinations sections that are not labeled as charters. Just to give one example, look at Punta Cana International Airport. At least half of the airlines there are charters but it doesn't say that. Was there some new rule about this that allowed them to remove that charter label? ThanksMonopoly31121993 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the media copyright questions page about whether the airport aerial images listed there are screenshots, and therefore quite possibly copyright violations, or are they actual photos the uplaoder has freely released. Any and all comments appreciated. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear airport experts: Nobody is working on this old AfC submission. Is this a notable topic, and should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: It seems to be a notable topic, but I don't think the creator will continue with their improvements as their last edits date back to last November.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jetstreamer, that is the point. The article was rejected as needing Wikilinks and sections, but those aren't valid reasons to keep a draft out of mainspace. If it's a notable topic, and has references, is there any reason that this draft can't be moved to mainspace as it is, for others to improve later? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I find it well referenced. I'm not an expert on the topic but if it is moved to the mainspace I can manage to make some improvements.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jetstreamer, thank you for offering to help. I have accepted the article, but I don't know how it should be categorized, so I have left this for you or someone more into that sort of thing. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saying. Please chime in with your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.110 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

True, I believe JFK will be rolling over in his grave to have his namesake airport use his initials rather than his last name. The fact that Houston is "Houston-Bush" and Washington National is "Washington-Reagan" adds insult to injury. 71.135.174.99 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Heeelllloooo? Anybody there? 71.135.174.99 (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that nobody has commented on this yet. The proposal is interesting, but I'd still tend to stick to JFK. Give the members of the project a couple of days for them to drop some lines on the subject.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is appropriate here. The airport is widely and commonly referred to as "JFK". IAH is listed as "Houston-Intercontinental", DCA as "Washington-National". This has been discussed numerous times. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You got several facts screwed up. DCA is known as Washington-Reagan, and IAH is known as Houston-Bush in destination lists. As for JFK, it's a toss up between New York-JFK and Kennedy. For instance, ATC refers to itself as "Kennedy Ground". Please check your facts before posting as you did above. Thanks. 66.87.119.227 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@66.87.119.227 Now, that is indeed a personal attack! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. National Airport and Intercontinental Airport remain more common. Any destination lists that have Reagan and Bush (which I believe are minority) should be changed in pursuance of long-time, yet unchanged project consensus. One good determination would be if you're waiting on the street with bags obviously heading to the airport and you hail a cab. Do you naturally say "Kennedy" or "JFK"? HkCaGu (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - from the perspective of an outsider (I'm Australian and most of my air travel is domestic) I can tell you that most outside of the US would be confused to hear it referred to as anything other than "JFK". It's at the point where you can talk to a lay-person about "flying into JFK" without needing to explain "on a plane, to New York". "JFK" is referred to in films, television shows and in songs. One might be more "technically correct" but "JFK" is exactly why we have WP:COMMONNAME. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Some one keeps removing Air India Regional charter service to Car Nicobar Air Force Base for Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration, the edit has reference with all valid detailed information attached and a valid launch date, and note added i.e operated for the said admin. but this person keeps finding some reason to delete it. The service will use Air India Regional branded aircraf, AIR crews and flight code CD too. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed MH17 a number of times from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol as as far as I know Ukraine is nowhere need Amsterdam, as is normal the accident or incident needs to be at or close to the airport, it has been raised on the talk page but that is not helping. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless something like a bomb was loaded at AMS or families riot at AMS, MH17 is not relevant to AMS itself. HkCaGu (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I wouldn't fight it for now, as long as it's nothing more than a line in the Accidents section with a wikilink to the relevant article. Once interest dies down, remove it when there aren't lots of editors who aren't familiar with normal practice adding it (very much in good faith). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 08:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I just did further editing to the section. A diamond robbery, a fire at the airport, and a man flying without a pilot's license aren't either a aviation accident or incident. Did similar edits a while back to the Kuala Lumpar International Airport article....William 14:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but a fire killing 11 people at the airport is more than notable. This section should not be limited to "aviation" (as in aircraft mishap) events. The whole airport is aviation-related. Commonality also drives notability. Emergency landings are common occurrences. Diamond robberies are common occurrences. A fire killing people under detention at an airport is not. Gunman killing people at LAX El Al counter is not. Another standard we can follow is whether there's an article covering the event elsewhere--it would be a conflict to have an article on an event and it is not notable as an incident at an airport. HkCaGu (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 says what an aviation accident or incident is. That's the definiton. If you want to put this non aviation stuff in the airport's history section, fine....William 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

When did we start using ICAO definitions for AIRPORT incidents/accidents? The project standard is "incidents and accidents" without specification of aircraft or airport or whatever. This section is similar to "notable people" on city articles--current leaders are not notable but people otherwise notable in Wikipedia elsewhere are listed. This section is already at a "secondary" level: not something that changes the airport forever that belongs to the history section, but things that are otherwise notable that happened at or near an airport. HkCaGu (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On a similar vein, there was this[7] back two years ago and whether airport bombings and massacres should be in the yearly accident and incident templates....William 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've reverted all the edits made by JPark99 (talk · contribs) where the dash was replaced with an ndash for multi-airport cities. To the best of my knowledge there is no consensus for these changes, and this is also reflected in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified this at the project guidelines ([8]).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, JFK, LAX, MIA, IAH, and many other major airport pages already used an ndash for multiple airport cities long before my edits. It seems like a very nice way to stylistically and neatly differentiate between multiple airport cities and cities whose names include dashes. I made those minor edits in a goodwill effort to try and improve wikipedia. Example : London—Heathrow (multiple airport city) Port-au-Prince (city whose name uses dashes)

Along with reverting all of the work that I did, I hope that Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) will also check all other airport pages and ensure that there are no ndashes being used where they shouldn't be, as many airport pages are styled this way, edited by users other than myself. I didn't realize that this would be a controversial issue. JPark99 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@JPark99: Well, I cannot monitor all airport articles at once. The only thing that I pointed you to is a guideline that was established by consensus. I want to make perfectly clear that it wasn't my point of view. Despite the fact that consensus can change, MOS:DASH and MOS:NDASH clearly marks the distinction between their use. Let's see what others have to say regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to add that the user above did not edit Charles de Gaulle Airport but their claim is true in that the ndash is used to separate the city from the airport. The difference warrants a discussion. I've reverted/rollbacked all my edits regarding this issue until this is settled.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: I would like to clarify that I do realize that it was my mistake for not confirming this before I made my edits. I would hope that any edit I make which is not in line with guidelines would be reverted. In my original remarks, I wanted to make clear that similar edits have been done extensively prior to the edits that I made, so in order to bring all of the airport articles into alignment with guidelines, this would be a major issue. I agree with you that a discussion should take place on this issue, as again, I did not realize that this had not previously been discussed. I obviously am in favour of using the ndash for multiple airport cities, but am interested to hear your viewpoints and the viewpoints of others. I would be more than willing to rectify the edits that I have made if it is decided to not use the ndash. JPark99 (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@JPark99: It's ok, you did not violate any policy. We all were newbies once and maybe my first approach to you was not exactly the friendliest one. If you felt I was somewhat rude at your talk page or here I apologise for that. Again, you're right regarding other airport articles you did not edit. This is just a misunderstanding. A very convenient one actually, as it triggered the discussion on the use of dashes. Nobody besids you and me has commented so far, but they surely will. In the meantime, please do not continue with such modifications. Let's just wait for other to voice their opinion. Regards.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personally the plain simple dash works for me. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree and the real world does particulary care it is just one of the not really important things that some wikipedians obsess over. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Plain dash Srwikieditor (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed moving City Airport & Heliport to City Airport (Manchester Barton). Please see Talk:City Airport & Heliport. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an IP that is being very disruptive at the Dusseldorf Airport page regarding sources for seasonal services. There are two sources that say the EXACT same thing for AA's seasonal service here. Also, should sources go before or after the destination? Also the IP is calling the edits "vandalism". Please help! 71.12.206.168 (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've commented at the article's talk. And references go after punctuation, per WP:REFPUNCT, or at the end of each statement, which is the case here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles of airports with flights to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport (Kuala Lumpur's previous main airport) have become like the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks with an intense edit war between User:Tafeax and a roaming IP user from Singapore, with each calling the other vandal (in edit summaries) and going far beyond 3RR with no talk page discussions whatsoever.

What can we do? What do we say on this issue?

Obviously Subang serves KL. Shouldn't then the destination list "Kuala Lumpur-Subang"? But then the majority of KLIA's destination airports simply say "Kuala Lumpur", which would be unbalanced with one airport being disambiguated and the other not. Currently the only legitimate examples of partial disambiguations are seaplane airports (e.g. in Canada, "Victoria" while "Victoria-Harbour"). Should we go disambiguate all "Kuala Lumpur" to "Kuala Lumpur-International"? HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Geographically, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport located at state of Selangor. However, it also part of Greater Kuala Lumpur, that determines the boundaries of the city. Historically, Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport IATA code was KUL before the opening of KLIA. The main reason I keep on reverting was to ensure readers not to confuse "Subang" with a city in Malaysia and West Java, Indonesia since there are flights connecting "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" with some Indonesians cities. I agree on the fact that "Kuala Lumpur" a bit unbalanced. "Kuala Lumpur-International" or "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" can be consider.Tafeax (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that a discussion was started at Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Kuala_Lumpur-Subang_or_Subang.3F long ago regarding on listing Subang but I believe KLIA should be differentiated since both airports serve Kuala Lumpur and they both have commercial passenger service. However, "Kuala Lumpur-International" should be used. Does anyone call the airport Sepang? What do the airport departure boards lists KLIA" as? Rzxz1980 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the 2009 discussion, so I think we can conclude it had been one disruptive Malaysian IP and is probably the same person working from the Singaporean IP. We should be using "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" for sure, but for KLIA, shall I propose we use "Kuala Lumpur-International"? "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" is not a common name and is too confusing with Subang. "Kuala Lumpur-International" is the clearest expression of "KLIA". HkCaGu (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the conclusion on that discussion is that all Firefly flights serving Subang Airport were to be listed as "Kuala Lumpur-Subang". I would go for "Kuala Lumpur-International" for KUL since Sepang is not common to most people. Rzxz1980 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is more than one airport in a city or a city's greater metropolitan area, one large and one small, do the links to the larger airport always need to be differentiated? A similar case exists with Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport, the latter is located in Sanford (a city of 53,000 about 32km north of Orlando) and has just one passenger terminal that serves a budget airline (Allegiant Air) and handles seasonal/charter flights for five airlines because they have lower fees than OIA. I'm sure it was renamed from Sanford International Airport to Orlando Sanford Airport for marketing purposes. OIA, meanwhile, is the 13th busiest airport in the US (29th in the world). Links to OSIA use either "Orlando-Sanford" or "Orlando/Sanford", but I've never come across a link to "Orlando-International"...links to OIA are always just "Orlando". Do both airports need to be differentiated, or is it ok just differentiating OSIA as "Orlando-Sanford"? If links to OIA need to be changed, is there a bot available to do the task (there's far too many links to do manually)? I imagine there are a lot of similar cases around the world where a small airport exists in the same metro area as a significantly larger airport (like KL & Orlando...I'm not talking about eg. Paris-CDG/Orly, Washington-Dulles/National, or similar cases where the smaller airport has lots of flights). AHeneen (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Orlando" for MCO will be a problem because of the official name for SFB. We don't necessarily consider metropolitan areas, e.g. ONT/BUR/LGB, OAK/SJC and EWR are all in their own rights. SFB is entirely in Sanford and much farther away than MCO (officially within Orlando) from Orlando. The problem for KUL is that it is primary for KL and there are no airports within KL, and Subang is much closer and also the former airport, which makes it hard to say it's not KL. HkCaGu (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Initially, this airport name was Sepang International Airport as reflected on its masterplan. In 1992, after some debates, they changed to KL International Airport (perhaps Wikipedia KUL page are wrong in naming this airport). If you guys landed at KUL on board MH or AK, the announcement will be 'We just landed at KL International Airport". To avoid more ambiguous naming, I would suggest "Kuala Lumpur-Sepang" as I believe all airport should reflect its locality. Sepang, like Incheon and Domodedovo were unknown to some foreigners (at least Sepang have Sepang International Circuit) but it will give the idea that this airport are not geographically at Kuala Lumpur. "Kuala Lumpur-International" should be avoid at all cost since "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" do cater international flights albeit at small scale. Personally, the word 'International' sounds quite ambitious and redundant.Tafeax (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

However, Sepang is not the common name for the airport, and to foreigners, Sepang and Subang are confusing enough. Incheon is in the airport's name. Sepang is not. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT requires City name-Airport name. "Kuala Lumpur-International" makes most sense. HkCaGu (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How about "Kuala Lumpur-KLIA"? This abbreviations is very well known among Malaysians and foreigners. If someone take a taxi to airport in KL, the driver would ask "KLIA or Subang?". Just like "New York-JFK", its commonly known with their IATA code and abbreviation JFK. No doubt "Kuala Lumpur-KLIA" more sensible. However, this changes are not crucial. This unbalances only appear in 13 airports; 7 in Malaysia, 3 Thailand, 2 Indonesia and Singapore Changi. Unlike DMK, "Kuala Lumpur-Subang" is relatively small due to aircraft and noise restriction. Tafeax (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

JFK as used there is more likely the common name for the person it was named after more then the code. The fact that they are the same may simply be coincidence or the adaption of the public's common name for the airport and person by IATA for their code. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What do people commonly call KLIA? I would go for Kuala Lumpur-International. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have proposed a merge from Cavern airfield to Aircraft cavern, but I am getting resistance from the author who is not prepared to discuss the issue. Can someone else have a look and chuck their Ha'porth in.--Petebutt (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If any editor has time to take a look at this page regarding AA service at this airport. The airline originally launch this destination as a year-round destination but it has been converted to summer seasonal now. The dispute is that where do we place the source for such a change (after the seasonal note or after the destination itself?) Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, Wiki-meteorologists and Wiki-geologists,

Last year, a pair of OAK's runways were quietly relabeled due to changes in Earth's magnetic north: KQED science article

I can't imagine this phenomenon only impacted OAK. I am asking y'all if runway information for all other North American airports have been updated, since this was an FAA-mandated change.

71.135.174.99 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not urgent it happens all the time all round the world, and doesnt mean every airport in a country or region changes as it depends on the runway heading. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly not urgent. The magnetic pole is in constant flux so things will change. Now when the north and south magnetic poles switch, that will be something that we will need to deal with on everything. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe this will impact all runways at certain latitudes that used to be rounded down, that now need to be rounded up. For instance, a runway at 273 degrees was rounded down to be known as Runway 27L. If it crossed the boundary of 275, it would have to be rounded up to Runway 28L. It could even cause Runway 36R to suddenly be redesignated Runway 1R, a drastic change. I believe such changes are encyclopedic and have safety impacts. Thanks. 71.135.174.99 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There should not be any safety impacts! Any pilot who uses our data rather then the official aviation releases is stupid and probably should not be flying. The information here is informational for the general public. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel I am stupid for suggesting it might be a safety problem? You can be honest and dish it out. I can handle it. ;-) 71.135.174.99 (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No you aren't stupid because it seems to be common sense that they would all change at the same time. As others have said not all airports are going to change at the same time. I know over the years that I have changed the headings for some runways in Canada but there is never a large number changing at once. Also runways in Northern Domestic Airspace (Canada) are in degrees true rather than magnetic. At one time they used to be written as 13T but that T was dropped some time ago. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're stupid for bringing up this issue...it's an interesting topic and something many people don't know occurs. I recall that the nearest major airport to me...Tampa International Airport...had to do the same thing a couple years ago. The magnetic poles move about 64km/40mi per year and over time the magnetic "north" (on a compass) will shift. The amount of shift varies, with latitudes closer to the equator experiencing a smaller amount of shift while areas near the shifting magnetic pole will experience substantial amounts of shift. I'm not a pilot, but I doubt a 1° shift will have much effect on aviation safety. From this article, it seems like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA...US aviation authority) only calculates the drift every five years and then requires runways where the shift is significant enough to change their numbering. It's not a common event, but not very rare either. I was going to suggest adding this information to relevant pages, but it's present at Runway#Orientation and dimensions & Magnetic declination#Air navigation. But again, please don't feel "stupid" for bringing an interesting event/subject to our attention. AHeneen (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it stupid either, but unduly alarmist to suggest that it's a safety issue. Runways are re-numbered all the time, and pilots are given clearances only to runways that exist. Altaphon (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a different template for air traffic topics? There will be lots going on in the next decades in this area. ILS and other features of the airport environment are within the scope of the airports project, but the airports template really only facilitates adding an entry for an airport. For instance the paragraph on FAROS in the PAPI entry is good but it needs to have its own. Altaphon (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please create the following article: Boeing Long Beach Factory. It should follow the format of Boeing Renton Factory. Thanks you. 71.135.174.99 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If an airline flies non-stop/direct to Airport A from Airport B (passengers can board, not a refueling stop or hub) but does not fly non-stop from Airport A to Airport B, is Airport B considered a "destination" for the Airport A article? Simplified, an airline flies A-B-C-A (B & C follow guidelines, ie. not refueling stops, no cabotage issues), is B a "destination" on the C airport article? AHeneen (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The destination list is to show the range and scale of routes from the airport it is not meant to act as a travel guide. So in this instance "B" is a not a destination from "A" but "C" is. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would routes from the airport be more important than routes to the airport? In my opinion, listing both shows the "range and scale" routes served by the airport. On the other hand, only listing routes from the airport is acting like a travel guide (where can people go from here?). AHeneen (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, B is not a destination from C, as the route described in not circular. This has nothing to do with considering inbound destinations more important than outbound ones.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a disagreement at Julius Nyerere International Airport on the need to have destinations referenced, appreciate if anybody can have a look at it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It'd be useful to start a discussion at the article's talk. I cannot figure out what's the issue from the edit summaries.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that International airport, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 29 September 2014. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

• Recently Globalair.com has been removed from the Template:US-airport and it appears we need to come to a consensus before it is re added. The link that was in the templates can be seen on the Template:US-airport examples section. This link has been up for a long time and I am not sure why it has been removed. Globalair.com is one of the best resources we have when looking up airport information before heading up. I know when I am preparing for a flight I am always trying to quickly get the information I need on the airports I will be stopping at and as you all know the resources that are on there right now are outdated and sites like Airnav only update their information on the airports every 6 months or so. That is not acceptable to me as a pilot and Wikipedia is where most of us find the information we need as far as airports go so I ask that we come to a consensus so that it can be re added. Srwikieditor (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The template breaks so many guidelines on what wikipedia is, it certainly is not a travel guide, a weather site or information for pilots. Perhaps we should revist deleting these templates again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the template needs a revamp of the resources available and also the pages these resources are on. For example the Flightaware airport information link goes to an FBO page which is clearly a promotional link for them but the live flight tracker link is a useful resource for pilots. These templates are on basically every airport on Wikipedia and should only be on airports that are used for private pilots. Although most commercial airports have a general aviation ramp not very many piston aircraft if any at all are landing there. These resources are generally for smaller airplanes and private airplane owners so having this template on the commercial airports doesn't seem like a great addition for those pages. I sat in on a pilot's training course recently and the instructor was telling the students how they would go about planning a flight. One of the first things that was said was to figure out which airports you would be stopping and go to Wikipedia and find that airport then scroll to the bottom to find airport information from the links on the template. So I know it is being used as flight instructors are teaching their students to do it this way. I think we need to determine which sites are providing the most valuable information for the pilots and what pages these templates should go on. Srwikieditor (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not, nor should it be a flight planning reference for pilots. It might be nice to look at what we have here, but that should be after you do your planning. So, arguments that pilots need this will likely not get much if any support. See WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think airport information for the specific airport articles is supported by WP:NOTTRAVEL "a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city." and that is why these specific templates were created so that we can easily add references to each city. I would hate to see this template disappear as it is frequently used in the aviation world. I am not saying that all the references are Wikipedia appropriate. Some of the references do need to be changed but I think it is a good reference. Can we come to a consensus of changing it to make it better or a consensus of removing it completely? Srwikieditor (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• As the person who originally removed these links, I am obviously opposed to the inclusion of GlobalAir. Note Srwikieditor has reinserted the link at {{US-airport-ga}} despite the direction of this discussion. The link does not add any pertinent information that cannot be found at the links already included. --auburnpilot talk 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have created an example of what the {{US-airport}} should look like in my sandbox. I have removed and modified a couple of links on there because one was pointing to an FBO page and the other to a flight tracker. Can we come to a consensus of changing the template to look like this? Srwikieditor (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we need the sky vector link? I know it is in the current template, but should it be? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth keeping in there as it has all of the correct and updated information. The current template has two sky vector links in there and one of them is just a map so that is why I have removed that one. The one that remains looks good to me.Srwikieditor (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there are no objections I will put up the new template that is on my sandbox. Thank you Srwikieditor (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't have rights can someone please add it for me? Thank you. Srwikieditor (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I still object to the inclusion of Global Air as a redundant link that provides no information that isn't found at the links already included. On a few airports I checked, it actually provided less information that AirNav. Why should it be included with or over other links? --auburnpilot talk 02:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the order of the template matters that much, I thought that was the order that it was in previously before you removed it. If redundant links are a problem then we will need to remove Skyvector, Airnav, and Globalair as they all seem to be providing the same information that the FAA link is providing. I was unable to locate the airports you were referring to that are missing information it seems that both Airnav and Globalair have all the correct information. Srwikieditor (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the {{US-airport-minor}} template and I think Globalair should be added to this one as well. I don't think the argument for it being a redundant link is a valid one as all the links in both the Template:US-airport and {{US-airport-minor}} are very similar. Each one offers similar information. I ask that AuburnPilot add Globalair.com to both of these templates as he is the one who removed them after previous discussion and consensus has already been made on Template:US-airport page. Thank you Srwikieditor (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with Globalair.com by any means? I will certainly not add the link to either template as no such consensus ever existed. The link is superfluous. Your own statement is that it provides no more information than links already provided. There is zero benefit to the reader and you have failed to demonstrate a reason for its addition. Wikipedia:External links: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link". --auburnpilot talk 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also like Globalair.com to be added to the template again. I am unclear on why this was actually removed in the first place. I feel as both of you are affiliated to one of the companies on the template. Either way I think it is time to revamp this template. The reasons I think Globalair.com is a better fit than Airnav.com are as follows: Airnav.com has a lot of the airport information for the airports this template is used on but in order to view the navaids you must navigate away from the page provided on the template and do a search where Globalair.com has all the information on one page. Globalair.com does have more information than Airnav.com including the correct Metar and Tafs. Along with the Metars Globalair.com provides weather information for the airports on the same page with the Metars. Flightaware should be removed completely as this link does not provide any pertinent information regarding the airports using the template. Skyvector terminal procedures link has the correct airport information but the aeronautical chart doesn't seem to add any value to this template. Iheartgo (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Iheartgo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It seems like a couple of people have chimed in but they don't really seem interested in making this template better. I really don't see why this resource shouldn't on the template. The page is setup so much better than the other resources on there and not all the resources touch on every airport so it is a good thing to have a little redundancy so that one airport doesn't get left out. For example if one of the other resources doesn't have the correct information for one airport there will be other resources on this template that do. It covers a large amount of airports so I think having more than one of similar resources is a good idea. Can I please get some feedback or support on this so we can come to a consensus, thank you Srwikieditor (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No consensus is an normal outcome. Your last argument introduces and interesting problem. If some of the links do not have correct information, why do we need to add more links so the readers need to decide on what information is correct or not? How would they know? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is not really a matter of the readers deciding on what information is correct but if they are at a specific airport and click on the airnav or flightaware link and the information they are looking for isn't displayed for that specific airport they have other options to find the resources and information they are looking for. It is not like there is an abundant amount of links there that make it excessive. This template covers a lot of airports. Srwikieditor (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think I have made a convincing argument on why this link should be RE-ADDED as I don't think it should of been removed in the first place. So if no one objects can someone who has the permissions please update this template per the information discussed above. Thank you. Srwikieditor (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it's time to accept the lack of support for your website. Your newest proposal (17:29, 30 September 2014) is especially baffling in its attempt to replace FlightAware with GlobalAir. FlightAware is an immensely popular/useful site that drew 6.9 million unique, global views last month according to Quantcast, compared to GlobalAir's 75,000 unique views in the US. To use another source, Alexa ranks FlightAware 1,432 in the US and 3,439 globally. GlobalAir? 74,140 in the US and 149,249 globally. It's not a widely used resource and adds no value. Let's move on. --auburnpilot talk 19:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• My 2 cents would be to not add Global air, it does not add any value to wikipedia. Also, it's fairly common for single purpose accounts and COI editors to come and try to spam links into those airport templates. That's why they are protected. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines's route from HOU to SJU is a summer seasonal service and it has been listed under the seasonal destination. However, a user constantly continues to add the resumption date to route which is scheduled to resume March 7, 2015 (the route operated this past summer, is being suspended for the winter, then resuming again next summer) as WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT (bullet #8) specifically states not to add begin/end dates for seasonal service. Can someone help??? 71.12.206.168 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just come across Poznań–Ławica Airport. Shouldn't this endash actually be a hyphen? The airport serves Poznań and is located in the Poznań district of Ławica. If I understand correctly, endash is only used where an airport is named for two or more distinct cities that it serves. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm a new editor, inspired to get involved by a course at university, and am looking for a critique of my addition of the story of a B-747's emergency landing to the history section of the CFB Comox page. Thank you in advance for your input! Mlaboda (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you copy this message over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Gavbadger (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm seeing a lot of pages that have "seasonal charters" listed as part of the destinations list. It seems to me that the only time charters should be listed on the page is if they are under a separate section titled Charters. This page says "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular or private charter services." Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

these charters are listed under the scheduled because these types of flights can be publicly booked to the general public and the flights are operated on a regular basis. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You are refering to something else (Apple Vacations). If a travel agency will book tickets for you on a regularly scheduled flight we don't include the name of the travel agency as one of the airlines flying to that city.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this (Monopoly and 71.12's) No, travel agencies or vacation companies should not be listed as an airline. But the section is 'Airlines and destinations', so all scheduled destinations from an airport should be listed (including winter seasonals). So if Apple Vacations charters flights on Frontier to Montego Bay, Apple Vacations should not be listed as the airline, but I think Frontier should -- perhaps in this case the destination would be 'Seasonal charter: Montego Bay'. Or maybe there should be a separate section for Charters (I'm not sure if there is a standardized way of doing it, many airport pages are different).

If not listed that way, it needs to be listed as a Frontier, AirTran, etc destinations. These flights are clearly bookable or either should be listed as a seasonal charter destination for the airline. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, in addition to Apple Vacations, 'Vacation Express operated by' also appears in a lot of airport articles. Dj1997 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

However seeing as an airline may not directly sell the seats themselves but just operates the flight shouldn't the travel agency that sells the ticket be listed someplace. --Purduefb15 (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that when Sun Country operated seasonal charters for Apple Vacations, the flights were bookable from either Apple Vacations or Sun Country web sites. Dj1997 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would either put the operating airline operating the flight with a footnote or some sort stating that the airline is operating these flights on behalf of the tour company or we can make a section separate for charters. There are a couple of Canadian, Asian, and European airport articles that do this. As long as it is sourced. 107.77.68.82 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to make a note at the bottom or at the top of the destinations table in prose saying that XXX Airline flights are operating on behalf of XXXX tour company. Can the flights be bookable on the airline's website (can Apple Vacation tour charters be booked via from the airline's webpage). If they can be booked then it is a scheduled charter service and can be listed in the table. If not, then remove completely. Some charters also operate "on demand" (such as Southern Airways Express). 71.12.206.168 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I also see that some airport pages have established a section for Charters just like there are also sections for Cargo flights. I would vote for that since it avoids removing the flights altogether for simply not meeting the guidelines of the inclusion criteria ("Do not include ad-hoc, irregular or private charter services"). The problem with keeping these things however is that it's often impossible to verify that these flights even exist. There are no timetables and the reservations are made through private companies so in many cases it's not possible to verify when a service begins/stops or whether or not it will continue. Charters are basically a mess and I think that's why wikipedians had agreed to avoid them to begin with. At this point I think a lot of the charter material is serving more of an advertising function than an encyclopedic one (Apple Vacations and Vacation Express being two of the more obvious examples).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the airlines and destinations section is to give the reader an idea of the range of operators and places that connect to the airport, it is not a travel guide so the actual tour or travel company is not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)