Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Good morning! Over on the main WikiProject Talk page I posed a question regarding the formatting of Part 135 charter carriers in airport article destination lists. Would appreciate any thoughts! Discussion is located here: WikiProject Aviation Talk nf utvol (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that airlines flying on Russia and Ukraine with all their flights suspended are often removed from the destination list (example). The same happens with other airlines with some suspended flights. Those airlines and destinations are treated as if they cut completely. Is that a correct way to act? The Banner talk 11:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. A flight or service can be considered "suspended" if a date for resumption is given. This is not the case here, flights have been discontinued "until further notice". If and when they resume, they can and should be re-added. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Then you have a lot of work to do, removing all suspended destinations. The Banner talk 19:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction: "WE" have a lot of work to do - if we want to have things really right. Do not forget that WP is a collective effort. For myself, I am not in a hurry, in this case - since no one in their right senses will even be considering air travel in this area. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi all,

Opened a discussion over at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Aviation with regards to public transit information in airport infoboxes. Feel free to join in the discussion! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC))

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RNAS Lee-on-Solent (HMS Daedalus)#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sunan Shuofang International Airport#Requested move 2 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have started a request for comments on the "Airlines and destinations" tables. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the draft of my article that got rejected:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Valley_View_Airport". I don't get why it did. I saw other pages of airports in Nevada, and they have the same number and type of references. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I would like to learn why the article got rejected. Thank you so much. CarlosAlfonzo3531 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, you would need to find independent sources that discuss that airport in order to demonstrate that it's notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. The notability guideline has more details. What other Nevada airport articles were you referring to? Sunnya343 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sunnya343, thank you for the answer. I was referring to Calvada Meadows Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvada_Meadows_Airport). It has pretty much the same info. CarlosAlfonzo3531 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Actually I don't even think we should have that article on Calvada Meadows Airport. I found a few sources in the Pahrump Valley Times and the Las Vegas Review-Journal that mention the airport, but they don't discuss it in detail. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Logan International Airport#Requested move 30 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A stylistic question: When should a definite article be used before an airport name? For example, no one would write "at the O'Hare International Airport", just "at O'Hare International Airport". However, what about Sheboygan County Memorial Airport? Would it be "at the Sheboygan County Memorial Airport" or "at Sheboygan County Memorial Airport"? –Noha307 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not about style, it is about grammar. Which is out of scope here. Besides, I suspect regional variance might be playing - there might well be differences between usage in Jamaica versus New Zealand, to name just two of the many English-speaking countries. Please do not seek complications where none are needed, wasn't there a rule like "go ahead boldly"? If you are doing something definitely wrong, it will be corrected one day. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the airport names are proper nouns, the the would be improper I'd say. If you were to say "at the Sheboygan airport" it would be correct, but when using the airports full proper name there is no need for a "the". Reminds me of when my grandmother adds a "the" in front of store names ("the Kroger" or "the Walmart"), which just hits the ear wrong ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. If you say the Sheboygan County Memorial Airport it implies that it's the Memorial Airport that happens to be in Sheboygan County, not that that's its name. Canterbury Tail talk 15:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI, the RfC several months ago was closed on 18 November 2023 as follows:

• "After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE". There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables, but tables without independent, reliable, secondary sourcing, and where such sourcing cannot be found, should not be in the articles.

See:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

A conversation was started on 17 January 2024 at the Administrators' Noticeboard to review and overturn this decision at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for the RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed at Talk:Air traffic control that Airport traffic control tower should be split out into a separate article, with potential for substantial expansion. Please see the discussion there. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello users, tweets of two users on twitter, AviationAll and JetArena are repeatedly being used as sources especially by FlyJet777. I believe these two twitter users are just aviation enthusiasts and their tweets cannot be considered as reliable sources. Would like to know the opinion of other active users in the project. Pinging Fylindfotberserk, Sunnya343, Jetstreamer to add their points. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Don't look authentic, the first one definitely does not. Isn't it better to use news articles or official websites rather than tweets? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

News articles are better no doubt. But FlyJet777 does not seem to do that. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 20:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello and greetings to fellow aviation users on Wikipedia. I would like to mention that I am well aware of the fact that Twitter is not a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. However, I do have an explanation as to why I use it despite knowing the same.

1) As @Fylindfotberserk mentioned about news articles/websites, I fully agree with it. However, there are many routes for which such articles are not available. For example: MAA-KWI flight by IX scheduled to start on March 3. No article was published on the route nor the flight schedule is available on the airline's page. But, the reservations are open for the flight. So I added Kuwait in MAA's A&D list and cited AviationAll because that was the only online source available. And I did it only after verifying whether the reservation of the said flight was open.

If @LeoFrank and other users believe that I should instead use booking links (if Wiki rules permit it) from the airline website for citation, then its fine.

2) There have been several instances where other users add names of destionations without citing anything. In that case if any article is not available then I provide citation for the routes from AviationAll & JetArena (again, only after verifying if the flight reservations are open or not). Flight schedule updates on new flights are not available in most Indian airline schedules (except SpiceJet). So I provide a JetArena citation. But, as any reliable source becomes available (like Aeroroutes), I replace JetArena & AviationAll citation with that or other similar reliable sources.

Since citation is a very important part while adding content in Wikipedia, I use sources like AviationAll & JetArena when other sources are not available. Also while this may sound as immature statement, but AviationAll & JetArena are correct most of the time. Therefore, I use these two as alternate sources.

I hope I am able to explain my part. Thank you and best wishes to all! FlyJet777 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use twitter as a source only if it is from the official handle of the airline, not when it is some random person's tweet. About sources always not being available, we can WP:WAIT. Also, booking engines are not reliable sources, neither are tracking websites. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 20:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To say, you add only after verifying if bookings are opened or not, it is original research. Please also familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 20:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• These Twitter accounts are user-generated sources and should not be cited in any article.

  Regarding the example of the IX flight from Chennai to Kuwait, if no reliable source like an airline press release or news story can be found, it should not be added. As LeoFrank said, there is no rush to include it. We are not supposed to be a newsfeed of airline schedule updates. If no reliable source arises before the flight begins, a solution might be to add a third column to the table and cite IX's timetable, like what is done in the JFK article. Then when the flight starts, it can be added to the list and it would be supported by the timetable reference.

  To be honest I think this debate demonstrates that we should not have these lists at all per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTNEWS, but I won't get on my soapbox about this now. If the lists are to remain, they should be based on reliable sources. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

is a clear case where WP:SPS applies.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

SeanM1997 (talk · contribs) is one step ahead, they are using their own tweet to add content, eg: [1]. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a lie! I have never used myself as a source. I've been told to use independent sources as apparently airline websites aren't good enough even when they're on sale! I do and now thats not good enough. I meet the terms and you still want to attack me for something which is not true? SeanM1997 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I am also based in the UK, this is an article from India. One I had no control of their content. The accusations are just to harm me! SeanM1997 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I will also say - look at my edit history. Look how many times I have removed other people's edits for quoting my X account and put an actual online article as a source. So when you say self promotion and my editing patterns - then I question YOUR agenda SeanM1997 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Um you're using an article as a source that uses you as a source for something that is supposedly expected to happen? This is so far from a source you can use. The article is literally quoting your tweet as the source. Considering your huge issue and history with providing reliable sources I think this should be taken further. You clearly have some severe issues with providing reliable sources and it's gone on too long. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume that each ICAO airport code is unique; even if they double-assigned a code by mistake, it should be easy to discover the error and (eventually) rectify it. However, we have two articles with code YCHK. Could someone look into the situation?

• Graeme Rowley Aerodrome, in northern Western Australia, has the coordinates 22°21′20″S 119°39′8″E / 22.35556°S 119.65222°E / -22.35556; 119.65222. YCHK redirects there.
• Christmas Creek Airport, in northern Western Australia, has the coordinates 22°21′15.5″S 119°38′31.1″E / 22.354306°S 119.641972°E / -22.354306; 119.641972. YCHK is mentioned there twice.

As you can see, the coordinates are for the same place, but each article mentions the other in a disambiguation hatnote. Rowley links this page from Airservices Australia, which gives the name "CHRISTMAS CREEK", an elevation of 1454 feet (same as the Rowley article), and 22°21′21″S 119°38′33″E / 22.35583°S 119.64250°E / -22.35583; 119.64250. Christmas Creek links this page from "Great Circle Mapper", which gives a very different location (18°53′S 125°55′E / 18.883°S 125.917°E / -18.883; 125.917) and elevation of 125 feet (same as the Christmas Creek article). But the source doesn't look reliable. Has someone accidentally treated one airport as two (perhaps one was closed, and the other was built nearby and given the same code?), or has someone accidentally attributed one's information to the other, or what? Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)]

Being active in documenting aerodromes in the broadest sense of the word, but normally only in Europe, I couldn't resist taking a look. Figure my surprise when looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-22.355556&mlon=119.652222&zoom=15#map=15/-22.3597/119.6418 - obviously a total mess. Sure enough there is only one single aviation terrain! And just for the sake of nitpicking, I do not think the place meets our definition of an airport - airports are where airliners go, by and large. So yes, some cleanup is in order, both in our here Wikipedia and in OSM. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

After a second look: perhaps the airport descriptive is justifyable, I see images of airliners operating there, likely on charter from the mining operator. My suggestion would be to keep the Christmas Creek Airport entry, since it corresponds closest to the official data from Airservices Australia. The other article ought to be removed, after transferring its relevant info. I will proceed to update OSM accordingly, but am hesitant to touch the WP articles, since I am on (for me) "terra incognito". Looking forward to other voices chiming in! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The content at the Great Circle Mapper reference in Christmas Creek Airport seems completely wrong. The information at Graeme Rowley Aerodrome seems more correct, based on the Airservices Australia documents: 1, 2, 3, 4. The name they use is "Christmas Creek" though, so the articles should probably be merged into Christmas Creek Airport. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, merging the articles is the way to go. After all, the assumption right at the beginning is correct: ICAO codes are unique and unambiguous, though they are sometimes re-assigned to a new aerodrome when the original one closed. It seems obvious that such is not the case here. And, though some say we should use the "name most commonly used", for aerodromes I prefer to stick to what official documents say. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

and at a third look: the articles do give one and the same ICAO code, yet they mention different IATA codes, which is perhaps the source of confusion. Have they been mixing up things at IATA? Again, local knowledge is in order.
CKW,Christmas Creek Mine,Christmas Creek Mine Airport
CXQ,Christmas Creek Stn,Christmas Creek Stn Airport
Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice there are a couple of unanswered comments about the accuracy of the runway labelling at Talk:Sydney Airport. Someone with subject matter knowledge should probably take a look to see if there is merit to them and reply either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed some of the airport articles have a destinations map in the Airlines and destinations section, for example, Appleton International Airport#Airlines and destinations. I didn't see any regulations about it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)#Airlines and destinations. Can someone explain to me when should or should not put the destinations map? It seems that the large airport articles don't have a destination map. By the way, is there any tool that helps generate it? Manually copying and pasting coordinates into Location map+ template is troublesome. Please {{ping|瑞丽江的河水}} to reply me. Xiliuheshui · chat 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussions about the maps can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: Hi Sunnya343, thank your for the reply. I am making an automatic tool that helps generate the destination map. I have a little question, when a destination is both seasonal and charter (airline A operates seasonal, airline B operates charter), but not regular, what type should be displayed on the map?--Xiliuheshui · chat 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the best idea to differentiate between seasonal, charter, or daily service, etc. would be to have there be different colors and/or add dashed lines to further display the difference. Funforme3 (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Funforme3: Yes I think so. If an airline operates daily flights to a destination, we should absolutely mark the destination as daily on the map, whatever other airlines operate seasonal or charter. But if airline A operates seasonal, and airline B operates charter, no airlines operate daily flights, what should be displayed on the map, seasonal or charter? I think the priority is daily > seasonal > charter > seasonal charter > others (e.g. mining charter in Australia).--Xiliuheshui · chat 11:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see little use in mapping only the destinations - to do this seriously, one should map the destinations AND the routes. Different line types or colours for the routes can then indicate the level of service. A destination is not daily, a route can be. But, frankly, I do not think the idea should be pursued, it brings us too close to being a travel guide, which we do not want to be. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether we should or should not place a destination map. My main goal is to provide a solution that addresses the issues of automatically generating and maintaining the map.--Xiliuheshui · chat 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

So you are addressing a problem that you are not sure to exist? Hm, enjoy yourself. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the past discussions on including maps in articles, so I am unsure what the consensus is. In my opinion we should leave this task to websites like FlightConnections.com. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make some useful tools during my programming learning journey. I noticed that previous talks pointed out that the destination map is difficult to maintain. It can also be used in WikiVoyage, if they provide the same map templates.--Xiliuheshui · chat 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see a use for having a route map for the airline pages. I don't see how this would turn into a travel guide but more of a visual representation of the airlines overall service and provide information to a reader who may not be as knowledgeable in aviation and just looking to learn about thr airline. A majority of people just wanna know where the airline flys to and don't want to have to download a seperate app or go to a few websites to get a map to show where the company operates. Besides Wikipedia is supposed to be a knowledge base of information.

I also want to add that recently I started cleaning up and reorganizing the different airline accident and incident sections on pages as some are in a horrible table format and clutter the page. See the American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and others to see what I've done to them. If we want to represent data and information, do it so as to not bloat the page and allow a redirect for more information about the topic instead. Funforme3 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A destination map for airlines is a good idea, but due to the inconsistency of the destinations list in airlines' article, it is a challenge to crawler. Personally, as a reader, I would like to see a destination map in an airport article, but I don't want to debate whether it should be placed.--Xiliuheshui · chat 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yah that adds to the compilation of running such a map. Routea and destinations are always changing many sites maintain a map for stuff like that like FlightRadar24 but they only display upcoming and previous routes for 7 days so not always reliable. These would need to be updated at an airline specific map which then would connect to the specific airport page. It would be a huge undertaking but would be epic if done. It could be achieved using categories as well. Using Wikidata and creating a category for routes and airline routes it would be possible for the auto generation of a route list and connecting it to the airline and airport page. If anything it could be a tenplate for the pages but I personally wouldn't see it being something every airline or airport page needs or will have. I would still like it though. It would provide a valuable resource in understanding different airport and airline operational capabilities past their yearly reported data list that each page has. Funforme3 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

NAlso to note there could be some overlapping integration with OpenSky-Network. Like they keep a track of all flights and log the data and anyone with an account can go in and update aircraft/airframe data as well as add routes and fill in missing data. Could use their API to help populate and fill the routes/flights.

[2]https://opensky-network.org/ Funforme3 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

When you look at airports hour by hour (UTC), there are two hours per day where Memphis International Airport is the busiest airport in the world. A pilot told me that Fedex has special permissions to fly with abnormally short spacing during the night when their cargo planes are the only planes using the airport. The Fedex superhub has no content in the body of the article with WP:ICs from WP:RS. It has been the busiest cargo airport in the world several years and is the busiest airport in the world for 2 hours a day. This airport needs some expert attention to beef its article up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the listing of charter flights in Template:Airport destination list.

Listing a destination with "Charter:" gives the reader the wrong impression. Charter is a synonym for "hire" or "lease", as in a group chartering a plane.

In the United States, we've seen a proliferation of Part 380 "public charter" operators. These aren't a traditional charter restricted to a certain group. The plane is chartered from the operator by a marketer and tickets are sold, just like any public passenger airline. In several cases these two companies only exist on paper, but functionally, they're the same company. The arrangement allows the company to utilize pilots who are qualified to operate charter services, who can be either less experienced or older than allowed on commercial passenger flights.

In the case of these Part 380 "public charter" operators I feel we should either label them in the Airport destination list with "Public charter:" or not list "Charter:" at all in recognition of the fact that these aren't really charter flights in the traditional sense and are only operated under that naming to exploit a loophole in the law . -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely this is a US-only issue? Is it sufficiently noteworthy for a WP-wide rule or directive? Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think we should get rid of all destinations from airport articles. Destinations are not a property of an airport, they are a property of the airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's another discussion altogether. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, this is a US-only issue. But, as such, it impacts a fair amount of articles. When I attempted a bold change, I was reverted by @VenFlyer98 and asked to take the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney:

Agreed this is pretty much a US-only issue. As I stated on your talk page, I only reverted as WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT states to NOT list private charters anyway, so anything under the “Charter” label would be assumed to be a public charter, thus not needing its own label.

Personally, I would be in favor of just removing the charter tag all together since, as you stated, they’re really just “charters” to exploit a loophole. Thing was, a few months ago, another user started adding charter tags to these airlines in the first place (airlines such as JSX didn’t have tags for a long time). A discussion was brought up (I believe in either this project or at WP:AVIATION as well as at Talk:Nashville International Airport where they were adamant about the tags. Forgot how many users overall were involved, but I eventually agreed to adding them (I did however feel that they weren’t needed for 135 carriers, mainly for the same reasoning as you have stated). However, I’d be in full favor of having the tags removed from Part 135 carriers for the reasons you mentioned initially if we reach a new consensus on it here. Think it should be left how it is or the tag should be removed all together.

One more thing, you brought up Part 380 carriers, but airlines such as JSX and Contour are Part 135, which is what the prior discussion I mentioned was about. You also added the tags to these airlines as well, but like I said I’d be in favor of just removing them. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support removing the "Charter:" tag for the cases of the operators buying Part 380 "public charter" flights and them marketing them for sale. For reference, my notable examples would be Advanced Air, Blade, Contour Airlines, JSX, Southern Airways Express, and, if they win their FAA case, SkyWest. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Part 380 companies can sell tickets, but they don't operate planes. Part 135 operators are charter airlines that operate planes. If a Part 380 sells seats on a Part 135 airline, they can avoid the rules applied to Part 121 operators.

Honestly, Contour is the most opaque of the operators. But I think it works like this: when you book a flight with Contour, you are buying the ticket from Contour Aviation (the parent company of Contour Airlines), who then, on paper, charters a flight from Contour Airlines.

JSX is more clear cut: Flights are operated by Delux Public Charter, LLC (dba JSX Air or Taos Air), a Part 135 operator. Flights are public charters sold by JetSuiteX, Inc. as the charter operator and Delux Public Charter, LLC as the direct air carrier, subject to Part 380 regulations.

Good explanations from Cranky Flyer and this commentary from George Mason University. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney

Thanks for linking, those are great articles. It certainly is interesting to look at, such as the entire situation with avoiding the rules applied to Part 121 operators. Like I said, I'm good with removing the tags from these airlines altogether, including for Contour. I believe your explanation of how they work is spot-on, and they operate the least like a charter compared to the other airlines you listed (they also partner with American and offer codeshare flights hence why they pretty much exclusively fly from AA hubs). I found the old discussion on charter tags I previously mentioned, and honestly the discussion didn't really go anywhere. It was just one other user and myself and I agreed to it but there wasn't any big discussion or consensus between multiple users. That discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 23#Part 135 Airlines as Charters in Destination Lists. After I agreed it just looks like the conversation died out so I wouldn't mind brining it up again or like I said, just outright deleting the tags. VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney:

I see you removing the tags, thanks for getting started. Agree if anyone challenges it for now, we can just direct them here.

Thanks for the discussion! VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the link in the edit summary to direct anyone with concerns here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the reverts, didn't see this conversation until afterwards! Recommend getting rid of the "Charter" tag in the style guide if we agree to go forward with this. If it's decided to not use charter tags on airlines that are, by definition, solely charter operators (even if they operate in a manner similar to, though still different from, traditional airlines), then there is no need to have that tag at all.nf utvol (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nf utvol:

We shouldn't outright remove the tag altogether. As stated above, this is mainly a US issue, there are plenty of flights in other places of the world (mainly Europe) that have charter flights with reliable sources to back it up. Mind you, these flights also operate like regular scheduled flights, but are charters. Ricky made a great point above in regards to how most use Part 380 rules.

(VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC))

I get the nuances in Part 380/Part 135 operators, but that is part of the larger point. These are still charter companies operating in a legally distinct way from regular air carriers, and I think it's worth pointing that out if we're going to have a charter tag at all for any sort of scheduled services. It still isn't clear to me how these are substantively different from European scheduled charter operators that are listed as such. A quick perusal of EU charter services shows that they seem to operate similarly to the airlines in question and are still usually tagged in EU airport destination lists as charter. And honestly, in many of the places where the charter tag is used in reference to more traditional charter operations that I've noticed (e.g., the Maleth-Aero flights out of Manchester) that I think you can make an argument that they shouldn't be in the destination list since they aren't really even bookable flights by passengers.

Either way, it seems odd that we're carving out this exception for some charter operators just because they've structured themselves to look, externally, like a more traditional airline in some aspects, even though there are distinguishable differences both functionally and legally from Part 121 operators that are source-able. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I truly feel that placing this distinction and treating these operators the same as Part 121 carriers in destination lists is opinion-based and not necessarily supportable by outside sources. If anyone can provide a reliable source that states that these operators are functionally the same as a Part 121 operator and substantially different than other scheduled, bookable charter operators in other parts of the world, then I'd be less inclined to argue the point. If we really want to separate them out from their EU counterparts, then listing the Part 380 operators as public charters seems like a good middle ground to me so long as they can be sourced as such. nf utvol (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, these companies are legally operating as charter flights. However, my primary concern is including the Charter: tag can mislead readers into expecting a more typical charter flight experience, which isn't the case for these airlines. They function more like traditional scheduled airlines with public ticketing and regular flights. As sources like Cranky Flyer highlight, these airlines operate similarly to Part 121 carriers in terms of booking, scheduling, and what passengers experience. The consensus seems to be that in the case of these Part 380/Part 135 airlines, removing the "Charter" tag seems appropriate, given their operational similarity to Part 121 carriers.

You raise an interesting point about European charters. However, I really don't know enough about operations outside of North America to speak on that issue. While they might seem similar on the surface, there could be key differences that justify using the Charter: tag for those flights. Reliable sources would be helpful to determine if the tag remains necessary for those flights.

However, I don't think the concerns about the European operators should prevent us from removing the tags from the US operators. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everything you said. I just brought up Europe since I remember some examples of sources directly stating certain routes are charters, but in terms for the US, I agree with removing the tags. VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we're at consensus on this just yet (we wouldn't be having this conversation right now if that were so ;)). I bring back the point though: why do we have the Charter tag at all for airline destination lists if we aren't going to use it for these situations, which, in my mind, are pretty clear cut due to the legal status of these charter operators? If anything, the Cranky Flyer article stresses the importance of the legal distinctions between these charter operators and Part 121 airlines. I understand your point about the nuances being somewhat opaque to the typical traveler, however we need to be taking a more wholistic look at it than just passenger experience. After all, we can't just base these tags off of passenger experiences on board the aircraft, if we do we risk getting uncomfortably close to being a travel guide.

Either way, the more I mull it over, the more I think that the Public charter: tag is a good third way. It tags these operators as different from standard Part 121 airlines (which they indisputably are different from, legally and functionally), but also alludes to their status as not-quite-charter in operation. Also, acknowledging that this is probably a different discussion, I would also argue that charter services that do not sell individual seats and operate on some sort of schedule (e.g., the aforementioned fly-cruise flights or casino flights) should probably not be in destination lists to begin with. nf utvol (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they are indisputably different legally. However, I would dispute that they are functionally different. In passenger experience, they function identically to traditional Part 121 scheduled airlines.

I think the concern about using a Public charter: tag is that its meaning is not immediately clear to the reader, which is critical in a table. I'm also concerned that it's just overly pedantic and not actually that helpful to a reader. At this point, I would be opposed to going back to that.

I would be hearing more about the European charters and how they're similar/different to these Part 135/380 operations to understand why this tag existed in the first place and to understand if it's even necessary. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I recently deleted a list of former airlines and destinations in the Kai Tak article on the basis of WP:IINFO. Though I'm not sure it was fair to do so, because we have a discrepancy between our airport and airline articles: we list every current and former destination of an airline (e.g. List of Delta Air Lines destinations), but we only list every current airline and destination of an airport. Is this discrepancy justified? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? One is about transportation hubs, the other is about corporations. The airline articles could be improved by saying when a terminated destinated used to be served or when a current one began. The airport articles could even have what airlines used to fly there. Of course, we've collectively made editorial decisions for each of these sets of pages to have a certain type of format that would be most helpful to readers, but tables on different topics may certainly have different formats, so I don't see a discrepancy. The Kai Tek article could indicate what airlines/routes flew there when Hong Kong Airport opened rather than those at any time, but I don't see that list as indisriminate either. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In my view both are fundamentally the same: lists of airline destinations. One is by airline, the other by airline from each airport. For example we have a list of Delta's destinations and lists of its destinations from Atlanta, Detroit, etc. It's just two different layers of detail.

I don't think most editors would support a list of former A&D in airport articles. Someone once tried to add one to the CVG article and it got moved to the talk page. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For Kai Tak and other closed airports, I don't see a problem with a list of historical destinations as long as we can source them properly. Destinations don't need to be current to be encyclopaedic, and route development to Kai Tak is historically important information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Historical destinations are certainly verifiable, for example from old OAG copies at DepartedFlights.com or old route maps. But that's where I see WP:VNOT come into play. I favor summarizing information from these sources and integrating it into the history section. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place regarding the title of the Bangalore airport article: Talk:Bengaluru Airport § Requested move 4 May 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if the word vertiport is redirected to Heliport it's not the same. Just have a look on Draft:vertiport or the German version from it is translated, to find some of the differencies. Helicopter and eVTOL aren't the same too. So you may unterstand, why I want to create a new article named Vertiport in English Wikipedia. What do you think about it? Leo067 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: we should not be in a hurry to document a neologism that is scarcely used "in the real world". First wait for the term to "take root". Besides, even if today some people make a difference between "eVTOL" and "Helicopter", that difference will only become more and more vague over time, in my expectation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

In the lead sentences of a number of articles about airports, or in a footnote attached to the lead sentence, there is a list of "obvious" colloquial names for the airport. Example: Midway International Airport begins:

Chicago Midway International Airport (IATA: MDW, ICAO: KMDW, FAA LID: MDW), typically referred to as Midway Airport, Chicago Midway, or simply Midway, is a major commercial airport on the Southwest side of Chicago, Illinois, located approximately 12 miles (19 km) from the city's Loop business district.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport begins:

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport^[a] (IATA: PHX, ICAO: KPHX, FAA LID: PHX) is a civil–military public airport 3 miles (2.6 nmi; 4.8 km) east of downtown Phoenix, in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States.

Some other airports have similar lead sentences or footnotes attached to them. Are all these colloquial names necessary, or could we consider cutting back on them somewhat? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing the extra obvious names. I first noticed this in the ATL article: "Also known as Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Atlanta Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson, and formerly as the Atlanta Municipal Airport". Sunnya343 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree, only include other names if they're actually alternatives. Obviously people don't always say the full [Namesake][City][Type][Airport], and we don't have to write out the most self-evident shortenings. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made some edits along these lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What would be wrong with just adding a couple of common colloquial names only inserted in footnotes? Especially names found on highway signage commonly used by travelers. For instance, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, there is a footnote in the lead that says "colloquially known as JFK". You can argue that JFK or JFK Airport is an "obvious" name and also the same as the FAA airport code. It couldn't hurt to include "Kennedy Airport" too in this footnote. Not saying add all colloquial names to create clutter, but only those most commonly used. Clearly cutting back doesn't mean deleting all completely. Tinton5 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I was making the edits to remove some of the colloquial names, I intentionally changed the footnote from "Colloquially referred to as JFK Airport, Kennedy Airport, New York-JFK, or simply JFK" to just "Colloquially referred to as JFK". That's because most airports are not commonly referred to by the general public by their FAA or IATA codes, but John F. Kennedy International Airport often is called "JFK" by the general public. (I'm not talking about aviation buffs who know and use lots of FAA/IATA codes.) Similarly, I left the footnote "Commonly referred to as LAX with each letter pronounced individually" on Los Angeles International Airport because that nickname is used by the general public, unlike most FAA/IATA codes. In other words, FAA/IATA codes are not obvious nicknames for airports since they are only used as nicknames for a few airports. By contrast, a nickname that just consists of the city name plus the word "Airport", or a distinctive part of the airport's name (such as the surname of the airport's namesake) with or without the word "Airport", is the kind of "obvious" name that I think doesn't need to be included, and it looks like Sunnya343 and Reywas92 agreed with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been having a bit of an edit war with some IP editors over at Salt Lake City International Airport. The back and forth edits have been going on for over a month now. Basically, the IP user(s) keeps changing “Washington—National” in the destinations table to “Washington—Reagan National” or something similar. I keep reverting as “Washington—National” is used on every airport page that has it as a destination; it’s even used in the example table at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Just wanted to gather consensus that “Washington—National” is the name we should be using so we have established consensus about it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Washington-National" since it's more concise. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it too simple to refer to that airport with the name/title it has with us? Which does (to my regret, but this is not really my cup of tea) begin with the name of the former US president? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up on the the KSLC page a while ago, and VenFlyer8 was the only person who responded. I think the ongoing good faith edits to Reagan National have a lot to do with it being the most commonly used name for that airport among the people who most frequently use KSLC. In other regions it's probably more common to refer to it as simply National. I know it's a politically charged question to an extent, but I do see the value of labelling with the name that it is commonly given; especially since it's the official name. The arguments I've seen for just Washington-National are that it's shorter, and it's the status quo. Ok, but why is it the status quo, and does that matter? Seems arbitrary. Darkage7_[Talk] 23:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I think either Washington-Reagan or -National are acceptable, as long as there's consistency within the article. "Washington-Reagan National" is another option, but perhaps it's unnecessarily long. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Washington-Reagon National still seems appropriate in my view, even if it may be a long name. Although simplifying the name is ideal, I think the important thing is: 1. is the name correct and 2. is the name consistently applied throughout the article. As long as both conditions are met, then I don't think it's too much of an issue with whichever of these 3 options the airport is called. Jrbob 123 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this, full one seems a bit long, even if it’s accurate. I’d say either of those work, it’s just the consistency across pages (although I know that doesn’t really matter as what 1 page does should have no effect on another). I will say the airport’s name is “Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport” with “National” following “Washington,” I think that’s the reason for my preference towards “Washington–National.” VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another reason that destinations shouldn't be included in airport articles. Destinations are not a property of an airport, they're a property of an airline. Airports don't travel to other airports, airlines do. Canterbury Tail talk 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry if this is an annoying kind of FAQ or I'm in the wrong section but is it possible to tell me, please, whether the Airfields of Britain Conservation Trust can be considered an RS for articles on former RAF fields? It doesn't look to me to be self-published, but I know nothing! Advice gratefully received, even if it is only somewhere else to ask ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No comments here so I shall assume it's reliable till told otherwise. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me for not answering before, the question went unnoticed here. I have consulted this website in the past, and observed that it changes very little. It was quite complete at one time, but is not very well kept up to date. Quite good for historical information, though, and that seems to be the prime intention. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jan olieslagers for the useful reply. My main motivator was old RAF stations (for example Brunton and Eshott), so it sounds like it might be OK for that area: I absolutely take your point re currency. Thanks again! DBaK (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jae winwin: is active on a number of airport articles in Asia. It is an editor who never ever adds sources to an addition, never ever responded on attempts to communicate and often removes connection without explaining why. Very annoying, but he is not a vandal. After all, part of his edits are valid (removing start dates of new connections, removing connections after they ended). He has a talk page full of warnings but zero response. I tried to approach him in multiple languages, but zero response. I am at wits end, what do do next? The Banner talk 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

My two eurocents: @The_Banner, you have been clear and firm yet polite in your communications. Exemplary, all my compliments! Since no reaction came at all, I think you need to continue on the way you entered, and get a first time-limited gentle block on said user. Since her/his contributions are numerous, to say the least, this should be immediately observed, and hopefully it will trigger some reflection, which is indeed long due. If you don't pursue now, you will be making a fool of yourself. To cite from George McDonalds book about Lilith: "she would not yield to gentle measures, harder ones must have their turn". Cheers, and keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I notice, esp. in Template:Airports in France, a lot of airport article titles with spaced en dashes in them; e.g. the redirect Angoulême – Brie – Champniers Airport and the article it redirects to. Per MOS:DASH, these should be unspaced, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not my specialism, but it would seem to me that you might well be right. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not mine either. I have little understanding of the French conventions for hyphens and dashes in locale names and such, but there's clearly a problem with these articles using what appear to be made-up French names and styles that are not found in sources. So fixing the styling of the English article title is only half the problem. E.g. La Môle–Saint-Tropez Airport which I moved and edited, I'm not at all sure of. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Contact French contributors? But they might only react to messages in their own language, been there, done that. Feel free to invoke my assistance, being originally Belgian I have a fair bit of French. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't parle no francais, so maybe you can ask someone to take a look at the French names in the articles on that template. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess part of the problem is that here on enwiki, we apply (or ought to be applying) English conventions, not French ones. MOS:FRANCE is pretty short on details about dashes and hyphens, despite hyphenated place names being pretty common in France. It does mention that unspaced en dashes should be used for railway stations that serve two communities, and we could no doubt transpose that advice, even though some airport names have dashes not because they serve multiple communities but to distinguish between multiple airports serving a single city. That said, at a quick glance it looks to me that changing the spaced en dashes to unspaced ones would be the way to go. There are probably a few cases where the exact locality of the airport can be dropped from the title altogether, leaving just the name of the place that it serves, but that will require checking whether an English COMMONNAME exists or whether the French COMMONNAME or OFFICIALNAME should be used. I don't have time to do all those checks right now but I'd be happy to give advice (as a French speaker and resident). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Merci, @Rosbif73. To continue on the example given, the French article is titled Aéroport international Angoulême-Cognac so it seems fr.wikipedia applies broadly the same guidelines as we do here. I only checked this single one example, though. But everything indicates that@Dicklyon is absolutely correct. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look there for acceptable French names. To Rosbif's point, there are two questions here that we should not mix up: the English article title, and the French name in the article. I definitely aim to apply English (and English WP) style conventions in the article title, but we also want an appropriately styled native name. It seems we all agree that at least unspacing the en dashed is a step in the right direction. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I propose to radically pare down the list of airports in Texas due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY concerns. The list includes a truly epic number of redlinked airports that likely don't meet WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. My impulse is to remove them outright per WP:NOTDIRECTORY but I would prefer to seek consensus whether WP:REDNO might be more appropriate. Discussion here. Carguychris (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You may be right that there are too many trivial entries, but WP:NOTE is way too high a bar for list inclusion in most cases. Just don't link them, in preference to redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added two maps to Nashville International Airport–one domestic and one international–back in mid September. It stayed that way for 2 weeks until Blissfield101 (talk) removed them, citing "the consensus was no maps" and "they clutter the page up." As far as I know, the simple solution is to have the maps be automatically be collapsed so that they must be manually opened. I believe this is a good compromise as the maps can stay but Blissfield and others do not have to see them if they believe they take up too much space. Bliss also has a history of removing content to trim down the page length according to his talk page. One other thing I want to note is Bliss pointed out that other large airports do not have maps. This seems ironic, how does removing content make a page better? Maps visualize the scale of the airport without having to look at a "cluttered" table of destinations. A lot of small airports have maps that feel unnecessary but are there to list three destinations. Yet Bliss doesn't want one that's shows almost 90? In the end, is having a closed map a good way to add content and reduce "clutter"? King airaglub (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

He's making things up, there is no consensus to remove them. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19#Removal of maps by Blissfield101, where previous discussions are also linked. While I've advocated in favor of these in the past, I'm honestly not as into them as I used to be. Users adding/removing destinations from the table might not always do the same in the map since it's a little more complex to edit; I think linking these sections to external maps like flightconnections.com would also be fine. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a feeling he was lying. I am glad somebody with a neutral stance on the topic was able to clarify this for me King airaglub (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Not true. If you scroll down to the RFC I did on that very page, you will see 4-2 in favor of removal (of those who responded). Ultimately, they are difficult to maintain, redundant with the airline and destination table, not well laid out and having styling issues. Now a flightconnections.com link, I would very much be in favor of. Blissfield101 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I remember there being discussions about maps with most users in favor of removing them. Difficult to maintain and look very cluttered, especially in the case of large airports like BNA. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC))

“Difficult to maintain” I don’t care, I do not mind updating these

maps. However if it is necessary I will try to fix overlapping airport names. flightconnections.com does not show future flights like MEM and KEF. I still do not understand why you will not accept my compromise-having them automatically be in the collapsed form. This allows you to not have to see them while they are still viewable to anybody that wants to. King airaglub (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you start an RfC on this then? The last discussion was over 2 years ago now with no consensus reached (despite more people being in favor of the maps being removed) so it may be good to get a new one going to get a firm consensus. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC))

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mboie Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wembo Airport#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)