Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Help in contacting image author

Who on here has an account on Airliners.net?

IBERIA747 (Alfonso) is the author of this image: He said so on this airliners.net page: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4477362/

I thought it was authored by Xocolata, who uploaded it onto EN at File:Sede_de_Iberia_en_Madrid.jpg (I subsequently uploaded it into commons here: File:Sede_de_Iberia_en_Madrid.jpg, because I was unaware of the image's history), but the rest of Xocolata's images were found to be copyvios, and I found the original photobucket page, so it is likely that he didn't ask permission to upload the image.

Would someone mind asking IBERIA747 for permission to use the image (I assume he and Xocolata are not the same person)? His profile is here: http://www.airliners.net/profile/iberia747 - His e-mail has been withheld. I am not sure if Airliners.net members may contact each other internally.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just logged onto A.net and have sent IBERIA747 an email. YSSYguy (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, YSSYguy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No reply at this stage. YSSYguy (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
According to his profile, his last post was on March 5, 2010 - Do you think that adding "response requested" will get his attention? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Jane Harrison

Is Barbara Jane Harrison of interest to this WP? If so, the talk page needs tagging. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of route/haul information

I don't want to pester this editor too much, so I thought I'd post here. I am just wondering if this editor's removal of this is okay. It seems like useful information. Similar content has been removed from other articles on March 5, 2010 with the edit summary "route / haul not notable". I don't know much about airlines, but I keep an eye on Hainan Airlines article and noticed it. Please advise. Here is my post to the editor in question. (I'm watching this page.) Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Hi everyone! I don't know if this project was ever notified (I can't find a record of it if it was), but Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is up for featured article review at WP:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1. The review has moved to the FARC section, where declarations are made for keeping the article as a FA or delisting it from that status. No declarations have been made since the FARC began almost a month ago, and so we need to get a few more eyes on this review. Any comments from interested editors, especially experts in this field, will be welcomed! Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin air crash

Two dead in Darwin air crash. WWGB (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accident is already in Airnorth article are you looking for any other project involvement? MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When is a company that owns and operates aircraft an airline?

Please take a look at Safair. This company owns aircraft. It leases some of them to other companies. It operates some of them itself - mainly for cargo charter flights. One thing is does not do is operate flights on predetermined schedules and routes. As I understand the meaning of the word it does not fit the definition of an "airline". Somewhere on the main project page there should be a concise definition of "airline". Roger (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the lead of Airline An airline provides air transport services for passengers or freight, generally with a recognized operating certificate or license. The key element is that to be an airline it has to have a recognised operating certificate from the national aviation authority to operate cargo or passenger flights, it does not have to have a schedule. According to the CAA website is is a Part 121 Large Aeroplane operator so it is an airline. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How to list the region "Southwest Asia" and "Western Asia" in airline destinations?

There has been some edit warring with two editors at Philippine Airlines destinations and Pakistan International Airlines destinations. The region which was named "Southwest Asia" has now been changed to "Western Asia". HELP!!! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guilty! What I said to the warring IP Vandal was: "Southwest Asia, Middle East, Upper Jupiter... I don't personally care what it's called. But selective edits are not the way to go. for whatever reason, there has been consensus to list the continental subdivisions in a particular way. And Southwest Asia is what is established in the aviation project. As is the procedure, should anyone wish to make a change, bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place, get consensus, and then feel free to make the change across the board. Until then, things should stay as they are." Jasepl (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the same IP is on another mission to change People's Republic of China in destination articles to China, or some such, using some convoluted revenge logic. Jasepl (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I recommend not allowing wikilinks to regions. When it's banned, then nobody can claim equivalency. HkCaGu (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
See the next thread down regarding listing of PRC. I think now is the time to come with a consensus for such a listing. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Three people deciding concensus, what a dumb world we live in, no wonder, anyways IF China/Taiwan are being written with their full correct names as in listed wikipedia articles for PRC and ROC wehich I fully support now, then why cant the newly renamed title of wikipedia article Western Asia also be used instead of former Southwest Asia.

If there is a Southwest Asia then where the heck is West Asia??? its dosent seem to exist on wikipedia which has Central Asia, North Asia, East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, I think there should also be a Northeast Asia.116.71.61.88 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have known the area that you guys are arguing about to be Southwest Asia. Seriously, has anyone stumbled across the word Western Asia in a book before? If you guys can't come up with concensus, consider Middle East, although Egypt is not part of Asia. Sp33dyphil 09:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

citing timetables

Hi everyone

Apperently there's no standard for citing timetables I'm aware of. The way I am doing it now on the TWA destinations page is: <TWA Timetable, Jun. 1, 1949, 4: flight 7>, for example. If there's a standard way to do this, let me know. Having checked many airline wiki pages, I don't see a single citation to a timetable print source.

Thanks

Chris Chris874664 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My initial thought is that I'd use {{cite book}}. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the feedback. I guess there are any number of legitimate ways to do it.

Does anyone think wiki should establish its own particular protocol here? I don't think I've ever seen one put out by the MLA or any other traditional citation system.

Chris Chris874664 (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil I don't think a timetable should be added-Wikipedia is not a directory. Sp33dyphil 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Timetables are useful for things like destinations, especially for defunct airlines that never had a web presence. We're not talking about posting schedules on Wikipedia articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I got you now, you just want to cite timetables, not posting them onto Wikipedia. Sorry Sp33dyphil 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

LGA focus city still active (future former focus city)

US Airways LGA focus city didn't close yet. I try to readd info box text:

I think focus city should listed until closure happenings. Other editor disagree and wanting to blocks me:

Can you deciding whether 'future former focus city' should be okay? Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LGA is a focus city until it's not, and should be listed as such. With the DOT's response to the US Airways/Delta swap regarding LGA and DCA, the exchange may not happen at all and thus LGA would remain a US Airways focus city: However, we expect that if this order is implemented as proposed the transaction will not go forward and significant consumer benefits will never be realized. http://delta.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=927 -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
B767-500, to avoid yourself from getting blocked, please do not edit the article with the label (future former focus city) anymore. My question to you is... is LGA still a focus city of US Airways at this very moment? If it is, it should be listed as so in the infobox without the (future former focus city). Once it is no longer a focus city, then just simply remove it from the infobox. There is really no need to label future former focus city, instead you could describe the proposed change inside the article.
P.S. Hawaiian717, you bet me to it in answering! Aviator006 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This editor → B767-500 (talk · contribs) ← was BLOCKED for SPAMMING childish/trolling remarks (aka disruptive editing) on the talk pages of 4 regular editors (including mine). Also, per my request, the article has been Semi-PPed against excessive/persistent sock puppetry, of which User:B767-500 is also suspected to be involved in. From the looks of his edits, I'd say that he is driving towards an "Indefinite Block" should he choose to carry on. And if I were you, I'd give him a wide berth from now on. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I am back! Sorry about poor behaviors, which am realizes were mistakes. I try to make good edits. ALso, I try to understanding above comments 'wide berth'. I looking definition berth and founds berth (sleeping) and berth (moorings) and trying to apply to your sentence and still doesn't make anything sense. Can use simple English to understand meanings? Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've removed the addition again, it seems the editor/s involved were jumping to conclusions and were eventually blocked for disruption to the page. I would like to see other input from others involved in the edit dispute before continuing. Sb617 (contribs) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Does US Airways say LaGaurdia is still a focus city? A source must be provided saying that LaGuardia is still a focus city. People can't just decide for themselves that LGA is still a focus city or not. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
What is a future former focus city? Sp33dyphil 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the editor that came up with the phrase was trying to state in the future, LGA will become a former focus city. In other words, a focus city that will soon lose that designation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft names

I didn't see it specifically called out on the page content guidelines. Do we consider a list of aircraft names to be encyclopedic? An IP editor added them to Virgin America the other day and I just cleaned up the list a bit, but I'm not sure it belongs. Frontier Airlines gets a list (not of names, but of the animals on each tail) because of the individual tail art, but I notice we don't have a list of names on JetBlue Airways. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered this too. I made the list on Cyprus Turkish Airlines and I've never been sure if it meets guideline regulations or not. If someone could please enlighten us that would be great. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say that listing individual aircraft names is not realy needed, an explanation of naming conventions like on Olympic Airlines. So we can say that aircraft are named after towns, famous peoples etc or that Boeing 737s are named after rivers and Boeing 747s are named after Mountains, but listing individual aircraft names is like listing individual registrations which is not really notable in an encyclopedia. I would say that the Cyprus Turkish Airlines and Virgin lists are not really needed and can be referenced out to specialist websites. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that Milborne. Is there not a guideline then? Zaps93 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This covers registrations but not specifically aircraft names, just the general notability guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'm guessing that we should come up with a decision now then to clear up the name issue and make sure that it is included on the project page to allow people to know. Zaps93 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Sterling Airlines destinations has been listed for deletion. Arsenikk (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

V Australia destinations

V Australia destinations has recently been created, seems to me that an airline with so few destinations doesn't need a separate list for them. Opinions? YSSYguy (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, probably too small of a list based on the guideline and Afd actions. Merged into main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that's way too small to be created into a list; the last time I looked at it, the airline flied to the same destinations, but list like that wasn't in place. So, could someone change it back, or do I have to do it? Sp33dyphil 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Vegas has done it; thanks for that. YSSYguy (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Listing of Hong Kong on destination pages

I noticed that some airlines (e.g. Air Pacific destinations, Transaero destinations, Hong Kong Airlines) have Hong Kong listed as if it were an independent country. I went ahead moved Hong Kong under PRC. Shouldn't Hong Kong be listed as a city under PRC since it is a "Special Administrative Region"? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, honestly, when you go to Hong Kong, people don't like to be named 'China', rather they prefer being recognised as their own independant country with the name Hong Kong. PRC doesn't actually have any countrol of Hong Kong, Hong Kong is still independant. I think it's best that is is countinued to be listed as 'Hong Kong' and not under PRC. PRC doesn't actually have any power of the country. Zaps93 (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont think it is independent in everything but I think in aviation terms it is still considered as separate from PRC in that it has its own aviation authority and airline route agreements due to it being a former colony. So an agreement to fly from x to the PRC may not include the Hong Kong SAR and the opposite may be true. Not sure if that is still true, perhaps we should wait for comment from our editors more familiar with the region. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing what I was trying to get at Milborne, and yeah it is true, they have their own rules and Government compared to that of PRC. The same with Macau I think, though I am not sure of Macau. Zaps93 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This issue is not just relevant for Hong Kong, but also effects a number of dependencies, areas with home rule etc. At the top of my min I can think of Jersey, Isle of Man, Greenland, Faeroe Islands and Netherlands Antilles. Should these be listed as part of the UK/Denmark/Netherlands, or in their own right? Arsenikk (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
We (Hong Kong) are independent except for foreign relations and military defence. Special Administrative Region is just another term for colony. We were listed as Hong Kong (independent and not as a subset of the UK) before, we should be listed as Hong Kong (independent and not as a subset of China) now. Aviator006 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we list Hong Kong as independant country? Also would the same count for Macau? Zaps93 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we should do the same for Macau since has its own aviation agreement from PRC as well. Since it is also a "Special Administrative Region", we should do the same for Macau as we did for HK. 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Since we are listing Hong Kong as an independent country now. Shouldn't we move Hong Kong and also Macau (which are listed under PRC) out and list them as a independent country since the majority of the other carriers still list HK and Macau under PRC. However, some Chinese carriers such as Air China, China Southern Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, etc have all of the PRC destinations listed as provinces/municipalities and HK and Macau listed under there too. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for the Chinese carries, the same rule applies, move to independent country. Zaps93 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Snoozlepet; Hong Kong belongs to PRC, whether it is a different administrative region or not, or has a different aviation authority, for that matter. The point is, it belongs to PRC, and this is where we have to follow the rule of naming a city under the country of which it belongs to. Many people, even before 1997, thought that HK belongs to PRC, and since then, Hong Kong has been handed back to People's Republic of China. Why don't we just place Hong Kong under PRC at the very bottom of a list, as well as Macau, and format them in bold or italic. Sp33dyphil 03:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there any apply-to-all guideline in place for the countries you've mentioned, and for Guam, Guernsey, the Falklands, Gibraltar, the Northern Marianas, Bermuda, Aruba, Puerto Rico.., and perhaps Åland too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil, I believe Snoozlepet was asking a question on the classification of Hong Kong and was seeking a consensus. Prior to your comment, we already have a consensus on its classification, which included Macau. Your comments are rather ignorant in two counts, (1) this is about an airline article, hence, if it is governed by an independent/different aviation authority, obviously it is important for its classification, and (2) your assumption of many people thought Hong Kong's status prior to 1997 is unsubstantiated. Additionally, your suggested classification does not comply with the agreed format by the WikiProject. An user, Huaiwei, has made changes to over 20 articles, in contrary to this consensus, these will be reverted.Aviator006 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I find it utterly shocking that an issue which is as sensitive as this is being discussed amongst just a few wikipedians in this obscure corner of the site, when other articles related to sensitive political issues are much better handled. Where is the clear consensus made, and why were my edits reverted, when they were to restore them the way they have been presented since most of these where started years ago until the edits by User:Snoozlepet?. Was any major consensus sought from the wider community before the move to move HK out of the PRC in the first place?
Kindly be aware that as far as NPOV is concerned, listing HK as a separate entity from the PRC is akin to making a political statement and support for HK independence, in contrast to the current format which is much less disputable. This is not your local tabloid or your school newsletter where a few of you can choose to change the way sovereign countries and their constituents are being presented just by some kind of gut feel that HKers do not like the mainland. This is shockingly unprofessional.
Finally, kindly be aware that on matters pertaining to naming conventions on the Greater China area, other conventions apply, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). This is the reason why the China article does not refer to the People's Republic of China (and therefore we avoid using the word "China" alone in country lists), and why HK is classified under the PRC as long as the phrase PRC is used. So I would suggest that the above users and the editor who first made the sweeping changes in the past month without wider consultation reconsider their current stance and revert all edits made to what they once where prior to April 2010. If no proper action is done in a week, I will revert all changes myself, or bring this matter up for mediation.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ditto here. A local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policies. I don't see any consensus here, either. And as a point of fact: HK and Macau have independent, but subservient, commercial aviation authorities to the national PRC authorities. The commercial authorities also take a backseat to the national military authorities, which claims the airspace itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As far as I know the Civil Aviation Department of Hong Kong and the Autoridade de Aviação Civil of Macau are both government departments. They aren't commercial authorities. And for the case of Hong Kong, aeroplanes in Hong Kong's airspace have to reach a certain altitude to get into or get out of the airspace of the other side of the border. This restriction is in place due to military reasons - the mainland airspace is controlled by the military rather than by the civil aviation administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.136.235 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How to list the People's Republic of China

I was wondering how we should list PRC:

OR

Since some airline destination pages have both ways written, i was wondering if both ways are acceptable. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer 'China, People's Republic of', therefor it's still got the whole name and yet it's listed in the way people will be looking for it. E.g. Someone looking for China will be searching for 'C', not 'P'. Zaps93 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think either way is acceptable since they both basically mean the same thing. I think that we should wait fot input from other editors first but per previous discussions and MoS, it cannot be written as just plain "China". Snoozlepet (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know to be honest. I'm more happy with my prefered choice, but yes, we will wait. I don't see the problem with just 'China' though to be honest, as long as there is a redirect to People's Republic of China. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zaps93 for 'China, People's Republic of'. I do have one additional question in regards to the usage of the official country name in our destination lists. Since we're using the full official name of 'People's Republic of China' and 'Republic of China (Taiwan)', do we apply the same to other countries like 'Republic of Korea' instead of 'South Korea', 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' instead of 'North Korea' or 'Republic of South Africa' instead of 'South Africa'? Aviator006 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zaps93. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
China first is better. The People's Republic is commonly known as China, and for nearly all other countries, we just list the common name (not 'Republic of', 'Kingdom of' etc.) The reason for the PR is to disambiguate, which therefore should come at the end. Arsenikk (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Before the few of you get all excited over this, perhaps you are not aware that in the earlier stable versions of the destination lists, China was presented as "People's Republic of China" and still listed as thou it begins with "C". This is why the PRC appears first in most pages for East Asia. People don't get lost looking for "China", and there is no need to add additional bytes of wikicodes.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

How should Taiwan be listed as on airline destination lists? Should it be listed as "Taiwan (Republic of China)", "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "China, Republic of (Taiwan)"? (I'd of course expect that this rule wouldn't apply to destination lists of defunct airline companies that were shut down before 1945 or 1949.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And should it be listed under #C or #T? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.150.205 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this section and make it into a sub-section of the How to list the People's Republic of China, as I am about to suggest a way to list them and seek consensus. Would you agree that these two countries are commonly known as China and Taiwan? However, we would like to show its full name in destination list or table. Can I suggest that we list them by it full name but sort them by their common name? Please see example below.
The same will apply if it is listed in a table (see List of Dragonair destinations for example, please note in the table version I have used the Sort template {{sort|China|{{flag|People's Republic of China}}}} and {{sort|Taiwan|{{flag|Republic of China (Taiwan)}}}} to enable sortation by C and T, respectively.) This method while enabling readers to locate China under C and Taiwan under T, it also show the destinations by its full official name. Aviator006 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why this section has to be moved. I agree basically with what you suggested... but I think {{sort|Taiwan|{{flag|Taiwan (Republic of China)}}}} would be more convenient and logical... except for those destination lists that cover Quemoy and Matsu..., and perhaps other Fuchien and South China Sea islands. (Btw is South Korea sort under #S or #K?)
The reason for the move is to discuss them together under one section. My understanding the consensus in regards to Taiwan is listing them as 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. South Korea is listed under #S in this context. Aviator006 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, again, please be aware that you guys are stepping on an hornet's nest. See [1] for the far more established consensus which was arrived after years of discussions by countless folks, and not concensus reached between three people in 7 days. If you wish to change that consensus, feel free to begin the discourse in the talkpage over there.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto of Huaiwei's statement here, and a note that this conversation about Taiwan was initiated by a banned user. Banned because his method of discussing these issues was disruptive to established consensus and ignoring NPOV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Airline headquarters pictures needed

Lately I've obtained images of several airline headquarters (Etihad, Finnair, Scandinavian Airlines, Virgin Blue)

Here are a listing of several that are still needed:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Finnair and Malev requests have been fulfilled. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines already has a photo of its headquarter on its article. Sp33dyphil 09:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not the Singapore Airlines headquarters. The SQ headquarters is Airline House, by Changi Airport. The building in the picture is a different one. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: CDG is a spoke pretending to be a DL hub

We have important discussion on Delta's talk page which may impacts articles for any airlines which they using a hub and spoke model. So, I make posting here to ask for resolutions or inputs. Basic problem is DL claiming to have CDG as hub which offering nothing connections on own equipments. Maybe airline boasting for marketing purpose to have a second European hubs (this is my opinions). We have long discussion here. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It is technically possible to take PIT-CDG-PHL - I wouldn't imagine anyone actually trying to book it, but in this case a "connection" is possible. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This kind itinerary is calling open jaw, which is article you can reads about it, instead of connection. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • And the article has no references or sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New article needing work, or deletion

Came across Air Fecteau, which is in terrible need of work if it is to be kept. It seems like a fairly notable airline to me, perhaps some of you chaps in North America could have a look and decide whether it should be kept and fixed, or deleted. YSSYguy (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just fixed the spelling problems, grammar, layout, internal references etc but I don't know anything about the airline so I can't add any content. Plane Person (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Large amount of hoax edits on small/defunct airlines

I'm out of time reverting the edits done by User:Floribert Piña and User:Brandon Steven Piña Sanchez, which seem to be one and the same editor. Most edits seem like deliberate errors with a small amount of "good" edits. Please help cleaning things up. HkCaGu (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And these contribution lists don't include ones that have been speedily deleted. See:
HkCaGu (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If the bulk of the edits are hoaxes, is it worth it to fact check all? What's the story on rollbacking the whole list of contribs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The same editor was responsible for creating the article I mentioned in the section above. It seems that Air Fecteau did exist, but that it was only a small regional operator. YSSYguy (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Delhi as Primary Hub

Air India recently made Delhi as its Primary Hub. This is very much true because Delhi has more Air India Flights than Mumbai. The reason for doing this was that Mumbai is over saturated and over-crowded compared to Delhi. Each and every new aircraft lands at Delhi during its delivery flight. Paris and Tokyo now originate from Delhi and not from Mumbai. No new destinations are being launched from Mumbai compared to Delhi which has seen Washington,D.C. and Toronto flights. This is enough proof that Delhi is Air India's new Primary hub. [2] (Kshitij85 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Fleet Table Colours

Hello all. I like to edit fleet tables to bring them up to expectations but recently there has been problems regarding table colours. I have a proposition that is already in place for just one airline alliance.

  • Specific colours for each airline alliance: (#9592C6 - already in use for Oneworld) e.g. a lightblue type colour for SkyTeam, dark colours for Star Alliance to resemble the alliance colours.
  • Colurs that match the airline identity as long as they are readable.

Your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with using a colour related to the alliance but I would suggest that non-alligned airlines are just one colour. Otherwise we get a mixture of colours some of which may give problems with users with visual problems. Dont really have a non-aligned colour to suggest but we need to take into account WP:COLOR. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that was my concern. Light blue maybe? It's simple and easy to read. Zaps93 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
While I was overhauling the Oneworld and its members' articles, particularly Cathay Pacific and Dragonair, I used their respective official colour in the tables, #120C80 for Oneworld, #015347 for Cathay Pacific, #DF0422 for Dragonair. I believed it gives the article identity. By the way, I have updated the Oneworld Navbox colour to one of its official light blue colour #00C0F3 (as used in oneworld.com). --Aviator006 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I was trying to say though. What I think would be best is changing the Cathay colours and Dragonair to match that of ONE colour used throughout Oneworld members, like British Airways and Japan Airlines. Not one to match the airlines identity. I think a pacific colour should be used throughout them all along with SkyTeam and Star Alliance. Zaps93 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I actually prefers the tables to match the airline's identity, rather than alliance. However, if the consensus is to use alliance's colour, at least use their official alliance colour, either #120C80 or #00C0F3 for Oneworld members, as per oneworld.com.--Aviator006 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's what I like, I don't mind changing to the official alliance colours, as long as it's someone that can be easy to read, etc. Zaps93 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For: Obviously I'm going to be for the idea as I suggested it. I simply think it will help people understand which airlines belong in an alliance better as there is a much more noticable reference (being colour). For non-alliance members I still suggest we keep to the airlines identity. Zaps93 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can someone point me to the discussion that led to the reported consensus for using alliance colors? I have referred to the discussions here in the past, and for instance the Oneworld alliance previously used #9592C6, as is the case on Qantas. Now there is a consensus to change to #120C80 or #00C0F3? I find using #00C0F3 problematic for alliance member Japan Airlines, because those colors give striking resemblance to that of its archrival All Nippon Airways. IMO, Aviator006's suggestion for focusing on tables to match airline identity works best, especially in this world of changing airline alliances. It also seems rather discordant to have many individual non-alliance airline articles with a consistent identity-matched color vs. OW/ST/SA airlines whose tables don't match the airline identity at all. Moreover with historical fleet tables, and other airline tables (incidents/cabin/frequent flyer program) it becomes rather strange to have alliance-color and airline-color tables on a single airline page, when instead it would be more visually organized to have an airline identity-matched color throughout. SynergyStar (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Any additional comments on perhaps using airline-colors, or establishing which alliance colors are to be used? Thanks. SynergyStar (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there an earlier consensus that alliance colors must be used, for reference? Thanks. SynergyStar (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The link between fleets and alliance membership seems tenuous at best. I prefer colors that mach the individual airline's identity. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hawaiian717. Best that the fleet table match the airline's colors. Sb617 (Talk) 07:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Airline colors: Per Aviator006, Hawaiian717, Sb617, I suggest using airline matched colors whenever possible, rather than alliances. Open to being persuaded otherwise, but in lieu of other points (as mentioned above), this section indicates WP:AIRLINE members' endorsement of airline colors. SynergyStar (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

California Pacific Airlines

When should I begin writing an article about this airline? This proposed airline (planned to be based out of Carlsbad, CA) seems to be in the news a lot, but I'm not sure when I should begin writing the article... WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you have a reliable reference that the airline has been formed and is planning to start. Dont have to wait until has actually started ops but it is better to have some independant sources really to prove that it is likely to happen. MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have several sources for California Pacific Airlines WhisperToMe (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

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

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

Airticle peer review for Vietnam Airlines

Hello everyone, can someone just pop into the article for Vietnam Airlines, have a read of it, and leave some feedbacks and comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1‎; any input, no matter how small, is greatly appreciated. I'm doing this to give it a bit of cleanup. Thanks Sp33dyphil 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

?? So, how I can peer review an article? I can tries to contributes with my poor English. Hope you doesn't mind my ESL backgrounds!? --B767-500 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries mate, I don't mind your poor English, don't worry about that, you can just give me some ideas of what to improve. Thanks Sp33dyphil 08:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A new peer review for Vietnam Airlines has been set up at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive2. Comments are urgently needed, no matter how small. Please add to the discussion. Thanks Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 10:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is improving, keep up the good work! SynergyStar (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How come the newest page review page for Vietnam Airlines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive2‎ is not listed on the announcement board of this page? Can somebody please change it because it's not getting the attention it could or should have got. Thanks Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 07:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegiant Air incidents

Can someone take a look at the Incidents and accidents section on Allegiant Air? Of the six items listed, only one is sourced and two had reported minor injuries, the rest had none. I don't think any of them meet our notability criteria, but I'd like a second opinion before removing the section. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Many times when looking at an airline article, I delete incidents that are clearly not notable or not notable under the guideline. Seems like editors like to report on anything that is a negative for an airline, even if it is a normal type of failure that commonly happens to a flight. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What does the d.d. in Adria Airways stand for?

The article reads: "Adria Airways d.d. is the flag carrier airline of Slovenia and its main base and hub is Ljubljana Jože Pučnik Airport." Any ideas what the d.d stands for? I couldn't dind it on Wikipedia. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) edit: same with Croatia Airlines.

Just the way a public company is identified in Slovenia and Croatia; it is explained at Types of business entity. YSSYguy (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jet Executive International Charter

Hi

I just moved the page from Taurus to JEIC

I cannot find the airline code for it though. On the Airline code page it is listed as JEI but when I search the IATA/ICAO codes it does not seem to be correct

Can someone help please

thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be amazed if it had a code from either organisation - it's clearly not an airline. YSSYguy (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Moot point as the page seems to have been summarily deleted by someone from the "new page deletions squad"
Seems a bit harsh, it's still on the DE wiki though, but at least we don't have to worry about it anymore.
Chaosdruid (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Now been restored again by somebody, ICAO code is JEI callsign JET EXECUTIVE, I have added an infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I asked the deleting admin for their reasons and they kindly reinstated it. I am concerned as to notability though. As an airline the guides say notable if they have "been discussed in multiple, reliable sources."
AS the company is not an airline now what notability set should be used ?
Is that JEI from the ICAO website or from WIkipage info ? As I said earlier the problem is that when I search for that info on the avcodes site it doesnt recognise the code
Chaosdruid (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No I dont use amateur websites like avcodes, it is from ICAO 8585 edition 152 [3] Normally having an ICAO is a help to establish notability. MilborneOne (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Should Airline destinations article format be changed

I reverted the Air India destinations article because User:Inspector123 had changed the format as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_destinations&oldid=367700781

Should we keep it like this or stick to the old format? (Kshitij85 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Read this section [4], there was some agreement to convert some lists to tables provided it is referenced and sourced. 2 of the articles that were converted to the table format (List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations met the featured list criteria for lists, and is one of the project's best lists across the entire Wikipedia project. Sb617 (Talk) 11:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos in fleet boxes

If one looks at the history of Transaero one can see that photos from the fleet box are continually being removed claiming that consensus is that photos are not to go into fleet tables. Can someone please direct me to where this consensus is? If there is no consensus, then can I suggest that we gain consensus on the use of photos in fleet tables. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The current guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content suggests the fleet list should either be shown as a simple list or a table (without images) and it gives an example of each. It does not mention photographs in the fleetboxes but the convention has not to include them but to have images near the table/list representing different types. One of the problems is the agreed table has for example Aircraft/Total/Orders/Passengers/Routes/Notes and when images are added in some cases this leads to a wide table which may cause problems to some users. Another problem which happens regularly in similar tables in military articles (which do have images) is that most of them are just examples and often belonging to other operators and not the aircraft type featured. A lot of airline articles do not have enough images to populate the table without duplicating images which may reduce the quality of the article. That said I dont have a stong view against images as long as some of the issues could be resolved and a better thought out table rationale with images may enhance the article but I would like to see some proposal that reduced the text and the width of the tables we currently have. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to having images in the table, but I don't think it needs to be done project-wide. If it is done on an a particular airline's table, there should be an photo for each row in the table, and it should be in the airline's livery and of the type delineated for that row. That means that, Southwest Airlines for example, would need photos of 737-200, 737-300, 737-500, 737-700, and 727-200 in Southwest Airlines livery; it would not be acceptable to pick one 737 photo and reuse it for all the subtypes. I would also suggest that standard/most common livery photos be used, so no special schemes for the tables. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects from "AL" and "AW" acronyms

I noticed that this Flight Global page http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%200594.html?search=%22Air%20Ceylon%22 shows many airlines as having "AL" acronyms for airline and "AW" for airways. I redirected Ariana Afghan AL to Ariana Afghan Airlines. Would anyone like to establish redirects for the acronyms seen on the page? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Air Exel

It sounds like Air Exel and KLM exel are the same airline. Should they be merged? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. YSSYguy (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Silverfly

Just came across Silverfly (airline) which appears to be just a tour operator that uses aircraft of Berjaya Air. Does not appear to be a licensed airline but looking for any sources before suggesting deletion or otherwise, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ASACO

The artice on ASACO says it is a charter airline with one MD-11 operated for it by Mid East Jet. Cant find any evidence that it is an airline appears to be just an aircraft owned by the Ahd Al-Saudia Company an IT company. Any sources or suggestion welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion and revamp of the Korean Air article

I've been looking at this article and it seems to be a mostly disjoint collection of facts and historical events. I was wondering if anyone had information on reliable sources that I could use to expand and rewrite this article in an attempt to improve its overall quality/readability. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We also need to find some Korean Wikipedians who are willing to photograph the headquarters of Korean Air. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

[5] Is this resolved? Should Taiwan be 'Taiwan (Republic of China)', 'Republic of China (Taiwan)', or simply 'Taiwan' or 'Republic of China'? 112.118.163.236 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the airline project we would just follow the name of the article which meets consensus, currently Republic of China. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
On most other lists outside the airline project it's either 'Taiwan (Republic of China)' or 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. That's because Taiwan is indeed the common name. The same happens on destination lists for Ireland, I suppose. 112.118.163.236 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Then you need to discuss changing Republic of China to something else on the relevant talk page, again not an issue for the airlines project to go against the consensus in that article. If the article changes from Republic of China then we can follow. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No. This is simply because the title of an article must be neutral and unambiguous. The names used for listings are, however, usually common names so as to assist readers to locate the information they're looking for. That is why 'Ireland' is usually used for lists. 112.118.163.236 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry nothing to do with this project. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Where an airplane lands doesn't have to be political. Just plain 'Taiwan' should be fine. People know where that is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Destination articles (yet again!)

Another editor recently made me aware of this, where a destination article has a completely different format and structure from what we have been using across the project. Granted this Braathens article managed to get featured, but it also is part of the aviation project. Any thoughts on the best was to address this? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the table format (aside from the country flags), and while I don't think the airport codes are necessary, they don't hurt either. The begin/end dates are great (I think we've thrown that idea around before), and having a column for the reference helps to encourage getting the destination lists better sourced. If anything, I'm not sure the article needs the "List of" at the beginning of the article, since it has a substantial amount of prose as well. A brief introduction to the carrier, a destination focused history section, and the list I think make a decent standalone article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Bringing List of Braathens destinations to FL required a lot of work, and by far do I expect all destination article to comply to this. After a peer review and FL review, the list is now regarded as part of Wikipedia's finest work after consensus by Wikipedia's most experienced list-makers. The review differs quite a bit from the nomination, and quite a bit of the innovations were introduced after suggestions and consensus among the reviewers. To present some of the issues:
  • WP:LISTNAME is very clear that the article be named 'List of...'. While I nominated Braathens destinations, the promoted article was called List of Braathens destinations.
  • Consensus is that all lists, as far as possible, are to be sortable (had I nominated a list without it being in a table, it would have been quick-failed). The FL Braathens list can be sorted by, for instance, city name, country, IATA code, airport name, year the service started and year it ended. This allows a list to be created either as a chronology or by country in the whim of a quarter-second.
  • The featured list criteria are very strict in that a list article starts with an introduction, and includes a clear definition of its scope and inclusion criteria. A decent lead is expected, which both introduces the topic and the list itself. In our case, this means presenting the context the airline is operating in and a summary of the destinations (number, geographic spread etc.)
  • The history section was created because the nomination did not contain a begin and end date for each destination in the article. After I was challenged, it proved possible to make a start and end date for each destination. This may of course not be possible for all airlines (I have for instance tried to establish this for Scandinavian Airlines, and it seems to be very difficult to compose a complete historic list). Given that Braathens is a defunct airline, no "current" list can be composed, so a full-historic list is a necessity for it to be complete. I will probably not make a "history" section in any future nominations.
  • As for containing past destinations, remember that notability does not degrade over time. The rationale for a destination list is that it presents a simple, yet exhaustive list of the production (or output) of an airline, which is again in most cases (at a per-destination level) the subject of independent, reliable souces. In the context of an encyclopedia, the past is as important as the present. Arguments present to exclude former destinations have been that they are difficult to source and difficult to make complete; in Braathens' case, this has been countered through the use of a book on the history of the airline.
  • I do not really have a big opinion of IATA and ICAO codes, but once they are there, there is no need to remove them.
  • I debated not using flags, especially since I am an editor who is very opposed to use of flags for decoration. However, in a list they may be a navigation aid, because people will often quicker be able to find a particular country by its flag because of its color and shape, than by a word. Finding for instance Sweden in a list by flag (given one knows what the flag looks like) is a lot faster than looking for the text 'Sweden'. MOS:FLAG is liberal on the use of flags in tables to denote flags in the context of denoting geographic locations, but more restrictive on super-national or sub-national flags. Given that this passed through FL without any comments, I will stand by this way of presenting the information.
  • If a similar table is used for other airlines, if only domestic services are provided, leaving out the country column would be appropriate. For the US and Canada, adding a state/province column would also be appropriate.
Wikipedia is in constant need of innovation, or it will stagnate. The current suggestions at WP:Airline have been along for at least as long as I have been at the project (almost four years now). The Braathens list meets all the criteria, except the archaic suggestions to not use a table, and the trivial issue of flagicons. I reserve the right to be bold and adhere to numerous higher-lever guidelines, and even to policy, in following WP:FL?, WP:LISTNAME, WP:MOS, WP:LIST, WP:V and WP:RS. Arsenikk (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Saw this discussion mentioned on the Featured list talk page so I'd thought I'd give my two cents. Personally, I don't know how one could propose that this format is better than this one. The latter is based on the style used in another Featured arline destination list and the former wouldn't get a second breath in a featured discussion. If the featured layout violates the guidelines set forth by the project, then the project needs to reconsider their guidelines. Also, where is this style guideline? I search the project but couldn't find it.—NMajdan•talk 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Also saw this discussion mentioned at the FLC talk page; I helped to review the Braathens list and it's an excellent piece of work, in line with standards set across Wikipedia for the very best lists. I entirely agree with NMajdan, and entirely support the work of Arsenikk. If the (completely inadequate) Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists is the guideline that Arsenikk is accused of violating, then I suggest that the WikiProject writes a proper style guide for lists using Arsenikk's excellent work as a starting point. BencherliteTalk 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Guidelines are supposed to describe what editors agree is best practice (i.e., consensus), so if this many editors disagree with the guideline, then it is obvious that it is the guideline, not the article, that should be changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice to have lots of visitors new to the project - just to note the current project standard is actually at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page_content#Destinations. I dont have a big problem with the format but I dont think that having flags and the country names is really needed and I dont think the ICAO and IATA codes are not really needed when a link to the airport is provided. And I have to agree with Hawaiian717s comment in particularly it doesnt look like a list more like an article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick note, the lists being proposed at FLC are for general consumption, not just by this project. If editors are prepared to make lists comprehensive, referenced, illustrated and stylistically appealing, it bemuses me that project editors blindly revert to unreferenced alternatives citing project guidelines. We're more than project aviation, and we should embrace development. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
As for flags – I don't care whether they are present or not. "And I have to agree with Hawaiian717s comment in particularly it doesnt look like a list more like an article" Not really. It's just an annotated list with a fleshed-out lead and a few other paragraphs introducing each section. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the correct guideline. I agree with Dabomb. A lot of us that are coming over here to comment look at high-quality lists every day, and I assure you, this is a list. The ultimate goal for every article or list on Wikipedia should be to achieve featured status. Granted, a vast majority never will but they could if someone worked hard enough. However, with the current guideline for this type of list/article, achieving featured status would be impossible. To address some points that have been made, I, too, have no opinion on the flags while I do believe the country name is needed. Otherwise, I would have no idea where cities like Bodø, Luleå and Málaga are without opening up another article. Regarding the IATA and ICAO codes, they are a nice addition to the list and while maybe not a must-have, it is definitely an additional feature. It may not mean anything to me, but if a pilot or somebody in the industry what trying to get this information, it would be in one please without having to, again, open up another article.—NMajdan•talk 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont think anybody is saying that the format can not change or be improved on following discussion, and nobody should really be reverting or changing anything while a discussion is ongoing. But content rather than stylistic issues should be the remit of the project. And you have to appreciate that some of us are still not sure why the example given is actually a list and not an article. Perhaps if off-project visitors could explain and educate us on stylistic issues and we could give our experience on content issues then we could all work together for the better good. (Getting rid of flags would be a good start!!) MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the list as it has been reformatted now contains considerably more information than the previous version (as sanctioned by the Aviation project) did. It is heavily referenced, and contains information that may be of interest to people outside the aviation project, such as airport codes. As for flags, well if an article meets the Manual of Style, and in particular WP:MOSFLAG then that's just fine. I can't see why there's so much emphasis on "getting rid of flags" to be honest. The reversions of the most recent list are borderline vandalism, show a clear display of ownership and a total lack of respect for editors who are actively seeking to improve the content of the encyclopedia. As for whether it's a list or an article, a quick breeze over our current candidates for promotion, or those which have been recently promoted will show that lists now (for about the past year or so) have a thorough and comprehensive lead, not just "This is a list of x destinations." Standards improve, and hopefully the aviation project can move with the times too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Airlines Project can seek expert advise from FL participants for style issues, the project must itself decide on the content guidelines. For style, we should comply the project guidelines to the manual of style, and set standards that do not contradict the featured list criteria (although they need not be as strict). Style issues include use of sortable tables, whether to use flagicons, complying to WP:LISTNAME (i.e. 'List of Foo destinations'), use of a key, color and symbols to indicate hubs, regional-only destinations etc.
The project guidelines sets up some main content criteria, all which there is consensus to keep (as far as I have seen on discussion pages):
  • Only list the destinations, not schedules and routing.
  • Only scheduled services are included, not charter, even if regular (not stated, but implied, at least in other places).
  • Code share destinations are excluded.
  • Airlines with limited destinations can have a table in the article. Because tables will be shorter than the current bullet points, and in lieu of recent AfDs, the number of destinations for a stand-alone list might have to be raised.
  • List the city, country, state/province (US/Canadian airlines only) and airport.
  • Indicate hubs, focus cities, bases, seasonal services, regional/subsidiary-only destinations and begin and end dates for future services/terminations. (not stated, but implied, at least in other places).
The content which has also been added to the Braathens list is:
  • IATA and ICAO codes. Personally I am ambivalent about this; it does require a bit of work to put them into a list.
  • Begin and end dates. These of course require a lot of referencing (not just to the current online route map), but greatly improve the value of the list, since chronology can be established.
  • Terminated services. This can, for some airlines, be almost impossible to establish without original research. IMHO, it is probably best to leave it as an option.
Another issue entirely is that of complying to verifiability. Articles are now mostly unreferenced, often leading to edit warring because, typically someone in good faith claims a route will start, then it is reverted by someone who hasn't read todays/that country's newspaper. The lack of references also works against the lists at AfD, where there seems to be a tendency that the 10+ destinations rule for stand-alone list has not reached community consensus (which will overrule project consensus at AfD). Being more strict about adding only referenced content will in the long run stabilize the project and create more goodwill among editors, in addition to improving the standing of Wikipedia in the community at large. Because referencing is policy, there isn't much to discuss about it.
Trains WikiProject has a number of very nice station lists, which all comply to the latest FL criteria, see for instance List of London Underground stations and List of Copenhagen Metro stations. These all have a shorter lead than the Braathens list, but use sortable tables and maps, and give good overview of the operations of the metros. Of course, upgrading the project guideline will not mean that everything needs to look like the Braathens list. It can be as simple as converting to a table with city, country, airport and notes. Arsenikk (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done a draft of Tiger Airways Australia destinations on my sub page, User:Sb617/Tiger Airways Australia destinations, following the similar FA-style format from the above. I have removed Australian state/territory flags however and currently working on other references. Will be sorting out a layout before transferring it to mainspace. Sb617 (contribs) 07:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Crossed out my User subpage for Tiger Australia, it is now implemented on the mainspace article, and I have marked my draft for userpage deletion. Thank you all for your suggestions. For those objecting the layout, please discuss here or on the Tiger AU destinations' talk page before making any major changes. Sb617 (contribs) 08:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Arsenikk et al. I am also trialling the same thing for Dragonair destinations in my Sandbox following your FL-approved format. There are a few things I would like input on:
  • Is there any particular reason why you are not using {{flag|country}} template in your Country column? Just in case I missed something.
  • I used {{ref label||Cargo|Cargo}} and {{note label||Cargo|Cargo}} instead of '†', because it is linked to the definition. Do you like the idea?
  • How should we deal with destination that we cannot find a 'Begin' or 'End' date? Or there is no end date as it is still operating?
P.S. Please ignore the asterisk (*) that I have in the first column, it just indicate to me that I don't have either the Begin or End or both dates with citation. Aviator006 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work both of you :) Sb617: I think you are correct to not use subnational flags. To answer Aviator006's questions:

  • {{flag}} was at one point not being used at FL because it did not display the correct alternate text. This may have been resolved, and if definitively not an issue unless bringing the the article to the last step at FL.
  • The ref label syntax will work fine, but the addition of color codes is what is preferred at FLC right now. But who knows, maybe you're innovating with an improvement that will become the future standard for all lists. Perhaps some other people from FL still monitoring the discussion can answer as well. The other option is of course to make a separate column for 'notes'.
  • I have made Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations, where I encountered this exact problem. There are a few destinations I can't find sources for, and for the mean-time they are just left blank, although '?' I guess is also fine. For routes still running, i use 'present'. Arsenikk (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Arsenikk, I ran the Alt text checker for both your List of Braathens destinations and my User:Aviator006/Sandbox2, and it shows no alt text for both 'flag' images. Can I assume it will be okay for me to keep using the {{flag}} template?
In regards to the ref label, I have adopted the best of both worlds, using your colour code method and legend box, but using ref label instead of symbols to add inline linking. Check > User:Aviator006/Sandbox2
About the un-cited 'begin' or 'end' dates, we should come to some consensus about how to treat it, I used '?' in my example, but I feel both 'blank' and '?' are not very good. How about 'unknown'? Aviator006 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts. For US/Canada/Australia-based airlines with a mix of foreign and domestic service, would the same column be used for state/province and country, or would different columns be used? What about other airlines where a state column wouldn't be used (i.e. would we list Los Angeles, California or Los Angeles, United States on Singapore Airlines destinations)? Also, I worry a bit about using color coding exclusively for denoting things as it might impact readers with color blindness. I do like the table idea. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I will leave it to members of this project to answer your first question. But regarding using colors to denote things. You are correct. You can use colors but you need to combine it with some other type of indicator (like an asterisk or dagger, etc). See WP:COLORS for more info.—NMajdan•talk 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend a separate table for the "domestic" destinations of the airline, with state/province/etc replacing the country in the columm of the domestic table, followed by the "international" table with the Country in the column in place of the state, etc. State/Provinces should really only be listed on the "home country" of the respective airline's destination list. Sb617 (contribs) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
On another note, if destination lists are to be listed as a table in the future, I would strongly recommend keeping it grouped by continent (America, Asia, Oceania, etc) for large airlines. The "Home Country" of a large airline should be in a separate table (outside of continent grouping), with State/Territory/Province replacing the "country" in the appropriate column. Sb617 (contribs) 07:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole point of using a table is to make it sortable, and by using several tables, they cannot be sortable as a whole. Remember that to access the home country, just sort the table by "country", and scroll to the relevant section. I don't see the need to sort by continent, although for a few intercontinental airlines adding another column with continent is possible. Then again, there is always the old POV debate about some borderline countries, particularly Russia and Turkey, which are undoubtedly in two continents. If an airline has international services, all destinations need to be marked with a country. even if only serving US/Canada, because a lot of people do not know which country various states and provinces are in. For instance, I doubt the average European keeps track of which of the countries Manitoba and Minnesota, respectively, are in. For non-state/province-countries, use the syntax align=center | — (that is a center-aligned em dash) in the state/province column. We currently do not denote US cities by non-North American carriers with state suffixes; I believe the rationale is that most US cities are more known than most states. Among for instance Norwegians (people who almost all read English and are potential en.wikipedia users), very few have heard of places like Illinois or Massachusetts, but many know about Chicago and Boston. Because intercontinental airlines will only fly to major cities, it can be presumed that the cities are more well-known that the state they are in. This is of course not the case for smaller cities served by domestic carriers. Arsenikk (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've converted Air Canada destinations to table format. It includes the Air Canada Jazz destinations by creating two columns which indicate main/Jazz services (so it is possible to sort by the Jazz column to see which are only served by Jazz). The list contains city, province/state, country, airport, but not IATA/ICAO codes and no flags. Concerning the idea of having a sort by continent, how about including a map for intercontinental airlines? This would make it possible to "see" the geographic spread without adding a column. I've done some .svg maps for airports, so I could take a look at this; they are pretty easy to make with a blank map from the Commons and Inkscape. About including [hub] etc. as a visual indicator, how about using the format <sup>[hub]</sup>, as this created the nice "box-and-text", but doesn't create a link to the notes section.Arsenikk (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just converted Virgin America (it doesn't have a separate destinations article) to use the table format, based on Tiger Airways destinations. A couple changes to the table format I made as I was working:

  • I used {{sort}} as suggested at WP:DATESNO for the begin and end date columns so that the sorting would be meaningful. For currently served destinations with no end date, I used the date 9999-12-31 to force them to sort to the end of the list. Since this is a US-based airline, I used the US date format.
  • I changed the label for "Main base" to "Hub" and the label for "Base" to "Focus city".

Also, I found the formatting for the colored backgrounds and tags for Hub, Focus city, and Future date to be rather non-intuitive. Perhaps we should make templates for these? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, templates for the color formatting would be a very smart move to make this usable. Also templates would move the color choice out of each table and into one place so if we need to change in the future, you only need to update in one place. For the date sorting, {{dts}} requires a lot less typing for the real dates. Don't know if using two templates is a problem. The headings for start and end probably need to be changed to Began and Ended' since if there is a date, it is something that happened in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I really hate this new table format. Former destinations shouldn't be included at all...it looks all messy and confusing to me. I think that we should go back to the old format of listing destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree; former destinations should be listed on the airline's article, as it provides additional historical details for the carrier, not just current details. Hawaiian Airlines, for example, used to serve a number of South Pacific destinations but no longer does, and providing the details helps to show a shift in strategy to focus most of the airline's long-haul service on the US west coast. Perhaps we could maintain a separate table, though the effect would be similar to sorting by end date. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You also got the issue of the seasonal services, as well as the "non-continous" destinations (Destinations which are on and off again every few years), which can be easily solved as such by being marked in either list or table format. Sb617 (Talk) 07:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • As someone not associated with the project I must say like the new format, its looks more encyclopedia worthy, and its better WITH flags. What I dont like is the places being listed by city name first which is adding unecessary chaos in country section with country names going hotchpotch, and are IATA/ICAO codes really needed? also feel there is no need for former/terminated destinations in the main list, they can have a similar but seprate table format list below the current listing as here in the updated to new format Pakistan International Airlines destinations, there is absolutely no need to list former airports anywhere, whatsoever.116.71.89.196 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • The table is sortable, so if you wanted to sort by country, you click on the Country tab to alpha-sort it by country. Sb617 (Talk) 02:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I for one hate the new format! What a cluster ammount of rubbish! And as for the whole 'city, country, etc', why the heck is CITY before COUNTRY! Keep the old format! It was easier and better to read!!!!!!! Zaps93 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
              • The table format, though it can be improved upon, is a lot more referenced than the "so-called" current plain bullet-list that is largely unreferenced in most articles. The "cluster of rubbish" is referenced material showing the history of current and past destinations, and when they may have started. Also to mention, List of Dragonair destinations and List of Braathens destinations using the table format, meets official Wikipedia official list standards and are considered of the best lists on Wikipedia. WP:Airlines as a whole should be embracing those standards, helping to improve the lists and be moving forward, and not holding the project back 5 years. Sb617 (Talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Explain why cities come before countries, it should be the other way round? Zaps93 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • I didn't come up with the initial table format. One reason could be because "Paris, France" sounds more natural than "France, Paris", when read left to right. Since you can sort by any column, you can still sort by the country column if you want to see all of the destinations an airline serves in a particular country. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Some newbie editor Kishtiji is acting all smart at Air India destinations regarding new format for domestic routes, listing of China and status of Hong Kong, please issue warning.inspector (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As there isn't a guidelines to the destinations article. I believe we should keep both methods but before changing all lists to tables, discuss on that destinations article talk page and see which is prefered for that particular article. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe discussion on an individual article's talk page is necessary. The Featured Article status of List of Braathens destinations indicates approval of this format of a greater cross section of editors than just those involved in this WikiProject. While it's certainly possible that even further improvements could be made, the status quo is clearly unacceptable, and the table format provides readers with a lot more flexibility and the ability to include more information while taking up less vertical space. I would take the position that a strong justification is needed to revert changes to migrate to the new format. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Zaps83 is undoing my edits to update formats of Etihad and Air Nigeria as you have noted in his eralier comments he lord of wikipedia and his cronies does not like the new format.116.71.2.123 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Both List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations has been through WP:FLC and passed, thus we are lucky enough to have two "star" articles to base our lists on. There is also consensus here to support the table format, based on for instance guidelines such as WP:LIST and WP:MOS. Zaps83 is being disruptive by reverting the work of 116.71.2.123, who is editing fully in line with consensus. Arsenikk (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the guidelines over at WP:Airlines documentation pages to incorporate the table format (as one of two options to list destinations) in guidelines after reading the comments again, there seems to be enough consensus where both formats can be supported. Sb617 (Talk) 23:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree with you Sb617 it dosent make sense, it would encourage others to undo edits to suit their preference since they dont like the table format, its a double standard and you are contradicting your earlier statements, did Zaps93 charm you into this? in the past he has won over some other editors in a mysterious way, those editors who were totally against him and overnight they started supporting his views, looks like its happening again. What do you think of this unsortable table Safi Airways for main article based handful of destinations.116.71.26.119 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the table from Safi Airways as there is not a valid amount of information. No start dates, ect. If you can provide exact start date. Re-add at all means. Oh and to say I charmed him into it? Pathetic. Zaps93 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
acting like your typical self again, didnt you read all the posts here there is no need for dates if not available, simply a notes section will do, editors who are concerned with implementing new table format please take note this chap is showing ownership of articles and pages created by him which is against wiki rules, he is imposing his own preferences over development and progress, I told you about him, I also suspect he is has multiple user id's two of which he has stopped using one of which he denied for a long time before finally admitting he was involved in it some way, beware of this one. Pathetic truth? can you explain how jaspel and millborneone who had no fondness of you suddenly started dancing to your tune, infact they were literally bending over to please you and saw to it your ideas were enforced, then you brought in mjroots out of nowhere and then snoozlepet or are they all multiple accounts you have created for yourself, I was especially alarmed at how jasel who knew all about you changed and started favouring you, but who knows maybe it was you posting as him, after all its nothing new to you joeyboeing 777. 116.71.29.58 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That issue is resolved. And secondly, I went by what I remembered, unlike you I try to keep to the rules and that's why people agree with me and issues. The explanation? I started doing what they said and worked out agreements with them? Problem? I hope you realise what you're actually saying? Oh please do tell me those other accounts? The JoeyBoeing777 one is long gone, that issue was solved if you ever actually read comments... Nope. Just because you made a long reply doesn't mean your right. Keep it short and simple. Zaps93 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, do we have to use that new table design in all destination lists? Although it looks great in that Braathens article because it is a defunct airline, it looks terribly unclear in Aer Lingus Regional destinations, for example. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like any other in the Aer Lingus Regional article, but I think we should start splitting it by continent again, see Malév Hungarian Airlines destinations. Just put that together and prefer it to one big table. Zaps93 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC):::
I also agree that it looks better when split by continent, but maybe we should also consider splitting it by country altogether, as it would look clearer. Also the use of the flag icons may violate WP:ICONDECORATION.
Another problem are the sections "commenced" and "end". Not only is there no need for them, but they look ridiculous as both the starting dates and ending dates of many routes are not known, and are therefore unnecessary in most lists. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Spineless admin of this site cant even standy by their own decisions after concensus, lets revert to old list format and kiss Zaps93s arse.119.155.38.167 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments like that do make me laugh. Grow up and realise that all us editors are here to help contribute and where improvements can be made, put a view in. I'm not entitled to an opinion? If not neither are you. Zaps93 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently upgraded the Jat Airways destinations article. Please take a look at it. I propose we do it in that style. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm ok with it, though I think for smaller carriers it isn't necessary to break up by continent. Many of them probably only serve one continent anyway, but Air Tahiti Nui would be an example of one where it could all fit in one table. I still think start/end dates should be included when available; this would obviously be easiest for newer airlines like Virgin America where everything is available online and there's not a ton of information to dig through. For older carriers, I'd say that Month/Year or even just the Year would be better than nothing. I'd also suggest using the table format for the terminated destinations section on Jat Airways destinations; again for larger carriers I think it's fine to be separate tables, but that's not necessary on smaller ones (Virgin America, for example, has a grand total of one terminated destination). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the smarties who created the new format have vanished, how spineless can you get. The list is sortable there is no need to cut it into continents and regions, the whole purpose of the new format has been F*****, now its become into a decorative thing to please retards so they can play around and create their own styles, will the sleeping admin wake up and take charge.119.155.43.207 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)119.155.43.207 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hawaiian717, but to be honest, is there really any need to list the end dates what so ever? Once the destination is terminated, we move it to the terminated section, there's just no point in the 'start/end'. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Historical context. In the late 1980s, Hawaiian Airlines served a number of destinations in the South Pacific that they no longer do. But looking at Hawaiian Airlines destinations, you can see that the destinations were served, but can't tell when so you lose the fact that they were all served at once; for all readers know, they could have tried them all one at a time. Southwest Airlines would be another good example, allowing readers to see the airline's growth from an intra-Texas carrier to flights throughout the southwestern US and then into the east coast (I remember when the route map on the back of the timetable didn't even have the east coast states). Sure this could be handled by prose as well in the History section of the article, but I don't think it hurts to present this information as table format as well. Addressing the comments from the IP editor above, I don't think it's really necessary to split things up by continent at all, but I'm willing to accept that some people would prefer doing that so I'm willing to go with it. The IP editor also needs to read Wikipedia:Civility. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I get you now. But should we just make a seperate table for terminated destinations. Therefore they don't get muddled up in the current destinations and can be easily found. Zaps93 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to be civil with a bunch of fools, I am so disappointed with admin of this site, do they even exist? look whats happeneing, where are you all? Zaps93 has taken over again, wake up.116.71.2.130 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The key to good table making is to make everything in a single table, and then use sort functions to get the desired output. If you feel it is so important that destinations are sorted by continent, then make a continent column instead of breaking the article into three to five different tables. And what about continental border issues? For instance, Istanbul's one airport is in Europe, the other in Asia. Similarly with terminated destinations, but using 'present' and dates, it is possible to sort the table so for instance only current destinations are on the top. Similarly, by sorting, it can be established 'when' various routes were established and disestablished, thus creating a chronology. The possibilities with sorting is nearly endless, especially when you "double sort", i.e. for instance first sort by country and then by termination date (giving a list of curent destinations by country and leaving the terminated destinations at the bottom). By creating separate tables, we are presuming what the reader wants to know. If geographic distribution in vital, then I suggest making a map, either like File:Wideroe routes.svg or File:TRD destinations map.svg (the latter is for an airport, but the format could easilly be used also for an airline). Splitting the tables up would be instantly rejected at FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arsenikk, if you would like to create a demo version of the continent column, please could you do so with the Jat Airways destinations article. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
He's trying to lure you Arsenik watchout.116.71.16.47 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got many points needing discussion

I've got many points I think is worth mentioning regarding articles and the way it is set up:

  • Firstly, when wikifying aircraft, I think we should split it up into 2 parts if it has the variant with it. For example, if the aircraft was a Boeing 787-9, we should wikify it this way -Boeing 787-9 [[Boeing 787]][[Boeing 787#787-9|-9]]. I've been wikifying aircraft names on a few pages and some people think this is incorrect, stating it is too precise - Boeing 787-9. Surely a reader can scroll up to the top once they've finished reading the particuler section?
  • Secondly, on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content, the codeshare agreements section is listed under "Services". I believe it should be under "Destinations" since codeshare agreements deal with the flight number itself, and the passengers rarely get to be involved. What do you think? Also, "Codeshare agreements" is normally listed under "Destinations" on airline articles already, so why not change the giudeline?
  • Also, I believe that there should be another important subheading to be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content - Company/Corporation affairs and identity. Under this new subheading, we could include Workforce, Financial performance, Marketing (and sponsorships), as well as Subsidiaries. Agree?

Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  • In the article Jet Airways, there is a long box which is placed immediately underneath the infobox above. I reckon it should be scrapped because: 1) the info is a repeat of the infobox and 2) there are 25 "Key people". What is this? Only include one or two people, not 25. Also, this could be covered in the infobox.
  • On the page Brussels Airlines and Biman Bangladesh Airlines, the airlines are described as flag carrier airlines - shouldn't they be flag-carrying airlines? I've never learnt to use nouns to describe another noun? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 02:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I can only comment on two of these issues. Flag carrier is the way it's always been and I think it should continue as that, secondly, Boeing 787-9 is the correct way to list as per guidelines. Hope that helps! Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Delta inflating/boasting destinations to 368!

We got some consistency problems and have important discussions:

Hello, WikiProject Airlines. You have new messages at Talk:Delta_Air_Lines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My text stating something like this:

  • Delta mainline does not flying to 368 destinations ... Totally incorrect! We need mainline only statistic, which they do NOT includes subsidiaries and Delta Connection flights! MUST make consistent with United, US Airways, Continental, etc. --B767-500 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic problem is Delta is hiding mainline figure because they trying to boasting destination count.

Please give some inputs because affects all major carriers. --B767-500 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor make good comment:
Another editor make good comment:

Fleets in holding company articles

Zaps93 has added a fleet section to the International Airlines Group with the edit summary that as it had been done on AMR Corporation then it should be OK for IAG. I removed the list and put in a summary just saying the total fleet of the subsidaries. Zaps has reverted the change using AMR as an example. I have put it back as before as the onus is on new info to gain consensus not the other way around. I see no encyclopedic need to list a detailed fleet list table in a holding company that itself does not have any aircraft it is just a legel entity to control the other companies. Looking for others to comment either to support Zaps inclusion of fleets in holding companies or otherwise. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As MilborneOne did point out, I did use AMR as an example. But to be honest, I'm not for or against it so what ever is chosen to be used. I am fine with. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of content in Great Barrier Airlines

While doing some vandalism reversion yesterday, I reverted a deletion of an "Incidents and Accidents" section in the Great Barrier Airlines. It had been deleted and restored once before. For the second deletion the edit summary indicated that the deleted content was erroneous. The deleted content has several citations (all to the same newspaper) and seemed to be an OK rendering of the source material. I reverted and attempted to start a discussion about what the article should include [[6]]. Today most of the same content was deleted by a similar I.P. Here's the diff [[7]], so you can see what was cut. Is there any reason it is inappropriate to include this material in an article about an airline? I would appreciate any comments you would care to make. I'm trying discuss the issue at the article's talk page before reverting again. Thanks! Susfele (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Following comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation#Notability guidelines for aviation companies a discussion about notability of airlines and aviation companies has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hubs/Focus Cities in infobox

On the hubs and focus cities in the infobox, most hub airports already has the city the airport is served in the name. For airports that do not include the city in its name, should we put them in parenthesis beside the airport name or leave it alone (meaning do not put the cuty in parenthesis). This was not discussed before. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While most European and Australian airports have city names within the airport names, many US airports don't, and almost all Mexican airports are named after a person. Not including a city name will be very bad in these situations. HkCaGu (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
On a related matter, one editor was recently changing a bunch of the listings to be just the city name, linked to the airport. In some cases with multiple airports, he changed it to be something like "New York JFK". I reverted the changes on the previous consensus that we list airports not cities, and suggested to the editor that he bring it up here if he thought it should be done differently, but I figured I'd mention it since it's related to the current discussion. One advantage I see of showing just the city name (linked to the airport) is that we don't have a lot of horizontal space in the infobox so many entires end up taking two lines; showing just the city name would reduce that problem. If we were to move to this format, I'd suggest we follow the same conventions we do when listing destinations in the destinations sections of airport articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Adding the city is not really a great idea. If we add it, then we also need to list the airport since some hub cities have multiple airports. This simply makes the infobox larger. The details can and should be included in the article text. Add to this the fact that including a city is somewhat incorrect since for many areas, the city being listed is not where the airport is located. Say SFO or LAS or SEA or EWR (which is in two major cities).

Tor Air

Swedish charter operator has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torair, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's move this

Should Airline Affinity Programs be placed under Services? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (JetBlue flight attendant) -- comments wanted

Steven Slater was the flight attendant that exited his flight (JetBlue Airways Flight 1052) via the emergency chute following an altercation with a passenger on 9 August 2010. His article has been nominated for deletion. Should it be deleted? Do we still need some other coverage of this incident? Your comments, pro or con (along with any precedents), would be helpful. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Top served cities

Do tables of top served cities add anything of encyclopedic value? Personally I think that all we need is the hubs and focus cities. See AirTran Airways for an example. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with no. If it's not large enough to be considered a focus city, then we shouldn't have it. What's the requirement to be a "top city". Why does the Domestic table have different contents than the Caribbean/Mexico table? The whole thing is unsourced. I find the "Markets lacking AirTran service" section to be patently absurd. What's the cutoff for being included on the list? Anchorage isn't listed; AirTran doesn't fly there. Since when are Ontario, Burbank, and Orange County all separate metropolitan areas? (Hint: They're all part of the Los Angeles metro area, which AirTran does serve via LAX). Why isn't London or Paris on the list? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed: endangered and deleted articles on small airlines

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Defunct Airlines but it wasn't clear to me how active that group is, so I am reposting here.

It all started with a new entry on the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada list, Articles for deletion/Air Brasd'or. I started digging into figuring out if it could be saved and noticed some patterns common to it and some other aviation articles such as Air Fecteau

I think the same person with weak English skills and an interest in the airline industry has been trying to create articles on defunct, small North American carriers using several accounts. I don't think this person understands our rules on things like verifiability, notability and, of course, sock-puppetry. At the same time, I think this person is well-intended and these little carriers are notable but hard to verify (because they went under before the advent of the Internet so media articles are not available on the Internet). I think with further work finding sources plus some coaching for the editor, some of these articles have potential, as does the editor. For more info, see:


Normally I look askance at things like sockpuppetry, but from reading the communications, I think this person has been genuinely befuddled by our processes. (For instance, deletions: do remove the tag to dispute a "PROD" but never, ever remove the tag to dispute an "AfD" or a "CSD". For a brand new editor getting multiple articles deleted using multiple processes, this protocol must seem pretty obscure, especially when your English is weak.)

Current AfDs underway:

If you can find references to allow saving these articles, please do so. In any event, please comment as to which one you think should be saved or deleted.

I recovered the following deleted articles and put them in their respective users' user space:

Feel free to edit and improve these.

Other articles needing help with notability (some were created by others):

I believe even the smallest carriers are inevitably notable if you dig hard enough for reliable sources, however it takes more than my opinion to make an article eligible for inclusion here. Is there aviation industry stuff you use that's out there that I'm overlooking (I rely primarily on Google web and News Archive searches)? Is there print material I'm likely to find at my library? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Exploits Valley Air Services

Hi Project. We're missing an article on Exploits Valley Air Services, who provide some services under contract to Air Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador. To my mind, this makes them at least vaguely notable and worthy of a short article, even if they only have one or two aircraft allocated to this work. It seems a couple of attempts at this a while ago have resulted in speedy deletion (see logs). I've started a stub in my user space (User:RFBailey/Exploits Valley Air Services) but don't have much source material (e.g. where can I find ICAO and IATA codes, or callsigns?), so some help would be appreciated. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Input needed at WP:RM

The move request for Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1977) could use some input. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexicana

Is the airline considered defunct or is it technically still operating but operations are suspended until further notice? Snoozlepet (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider it suspended. It was acquired by new owners just a few days before the shut down, and I can't imagine that they'd acquire it only to shut it down completely. I expect we'll see it revived in some form relatively soon, but until that happens we don't know for sure. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that users have removed Mexicana completely from airport articles saying that it ceased operations. Should we remove it and then readd it until the airline is revived or should it remain in the article? Snoozlepet (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This early on, I think it's ok to either remove the Mexicana line, or to simply tag it with something like [all operations indefinitely suspended]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think some users assumed that suspending the operation equals to closure/termination, which is not the case here. According to Oneworld's official PR [8], the airline is only suspended the operation to sort itself out. I believe we should treat it like suspension rather than termination, as this is the fact. Aviator006 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian city names in arline destination lists

This person Kishtji is going around changing Indian city names to their old ones like Calicut, Cochin, Trivandrum, Banares, Calcutta, all these have new names on wikipedia in article titles/headers, tell him not to do this he keeps reverting edit when I change it.116.71.9.191 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Airline article deletions

There have been a lot of airline articles being deleted with little cause. Correct me if I am wrong the airlines project regards any airline that is or has functioned as notable and deserving of an article or at least part of an article for a re-direct.Petebutt (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

China Southern Airlines fleet

Hi guys, I've just noticed that China Southern's fleet list had been tampered with. Someone added the orders to the total number. I guess I've managed to sort it out quite alright, but I'm not sure if now the order numbers are correct. Could someone with an insight verify the data? Thanks. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Airblue destinations

Request deletion of this page as it contains too little information to warrant it, destinations table merged in main article now.116.71.6.56 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected it to the airline article at Airblue. Since the information is being moved, we keep the old article around as a redirect to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.119.155.42.22 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

iraqi airways london

Some editors keep restoring an irrelevant sub-section labelled return to London, on Iraqi Airways destinations section in main article page, I dont understand their obsession to accord special status to the London resumption over other European or non-European routes, more so since its old news. An updated paragraph on London service is already posted in the airline article for 2010 developments, including relevant information on why the route was dropped, so there is no need for this outdated and invalid bit to be there or be accorded special status over others nor be restored after deletion.119.155.42.22 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters of Airlines - being specific or general

Hello, during the past few days I have been adding HQ info of airlines, but some people have been reverting my edits, saying that it didn't comply with the Template:Infobox airline. I'm trying to do my bit and add as much info as I could. My point is, should we be specific or general? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 05:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming the city or airport is sufficient. Including the exact street address, post box number, phone numbers, GPS co-ordinates, etc is excessive. Roger (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Not needed the infobox is just a quick summary of facts and normal practice has been to have just the city or airport location and country. Wikipedia is not a directory and the other detail is not needed and the user can follow the official airline link to find it if they really want to know. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My practice that I did is to include the building (not the address, post box number, phone numbers, or GPS coordinates) and/or the airport (if the HQ is on-site, i.e. the Air France HQ at Charles de Gaulle Airport) - Sometimes buildings are notable (i.e. 77 West Wacker is United's HQ, Continental Center I is Continental's) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned in my revert summary, the town/city, state (if applicable) and the country is sufficient. Aviator006 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should keep it simple as can be. I have to 100% agree with Aviator006 on this matter. The building isn't notable enough nor is the street or suburb. Just keep it to Village/Town/City, State and Country. Nothing else. Zaps93 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes buildings do have their own articles (usually notable skyscrapers). Would you still exclude it from that case, Zaps? And what about airports? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Roger and Aviator006 here: city/town, [state/province], country is fine, perhaps even the airport if the head office is located at one. Exact street address etc. is not appropriate, however if the head office is in a notable building or complex, mentioning it in the prose with a link is fine (but don't make a separate section about it). On the other hand, surprisingly many head offices are notable enough for their own article, but that doesn't mean the HQ needs to be prominent in the main article. Arsenikk (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If the airport is okay in infoboxes, then you will see that a lot since many airlines have their headquarters on the properties of airports (usually their main hubs) - In regards to the prose of the main article, it is common for primary and secondary sources (such as newspaper articles, architecture books, etc) to discuss, in detail, corporate headquarters of companies (especially when they relocate or new buildings open) - So in many cases, as long as there is ample explanatory text, it is perfectly acceptable to start a section discussing the corporate headquarters facilities of a given company. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe we have come to a general consensus that the full address is unnecessary in the infobox. Hence, can the user please undo their edits? Thank you. Aviator006 (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If I can't be specific, can I just add references instead? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? If the specific detailed address is not mentioned in the article there is no need for a reference to it. It could be interpreted as a bad faith attempt to bring content that has been rejected by consensus into a page via a "back door". Just let it go. Roger (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As MilborneOne points out correctly, Wikipedia is NOT a directory. If the reader would like to find out the full address of a particular airline, they can go to the official website for further information. Please kindly revert/undo your edits. Aviator006 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to revive this matter but WhisperToMe has been adding excessive head office detail to airline articles. I have just reverted such an addition to Airlink. As he/she was party to this discussion I can no longer assume good faith when he/she goes against the consensus arrived at in this discussion. Roger (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus that was arrived, Dodger67, was to not list non-notable places (like street addresses and non-notable buildings)
Municipalities are okay
Airports are okay
I find it disappointing that you did not directly contact me on my talk page and instead said "I can no longer assume good faith when he/she goes against the consensus arrived at in this discussion." - I am going to kindly ask you to understand that A. it is indeed the consensus to include the city ("Ekurlheni") and B. that you are obligated to assume good faith in this instance
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Airlink, I left a post at User_talk:Dodger67#Airline_headquarters explaining what was wrong with the edit.
Again, municipalities are not prohibited by this consensus. All of the posters said that the "city/town" should be named. "Ekurlheni" is the municipality so it is the "city/town." Places like "Modderfontein" and "Kempton Park" are to be treated as neighborhoods (or "suburbs," as Zaps93 referred to) and parts of the "city/town" as they are not municipal entities.
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Flags in the destinations section

Did consensus change on the use of flags in destination sections or articles? A series of reversions over the past few days at Hawaiian Airlines destinations led me to check the project's style guide, and I saw that it now states that flags can be used (emphasis mine). Looking at the history, I see that User:Sp33dyphil made this change on July 22; previously it stated that flags are not to be used. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, changing a yes to no or no to yes really needs to be discussed. I have reversed the change for now with the comment to discuss on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sure we would not have agreed to have flags as per all the previous discussions! But just in case no flags please per WP:MOSFLAG. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A lot of airline destinations have flags but the project page under the page content tab says that "Flags are not to be used in destination lists and previous consensus on this matter. Snoozlepet (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm am sincerely sorry for changing the content. I moved Codeshare agreements to Destinations because numerous airline articles have the mentioned subject listed under Destinations-that's before I came here. I changed *Flags are not to be used. to *Flags can be used. , refering to the countries of which the codeshare airlines come from. I was not think about about adding flags to destinations at that moment. I'm very sorry about the confusion this has made. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 11:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags are only acceptable in the new table format destination lists like here JALways destinations, not in the former style ones. Special:Contributions/119.155.42.22|119.155.42.22]] (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dont think flags are really needed or acceptable in the tables either for all the same reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kam Air destinations page redirect request

Too few destinations to have a seprate page, kindly redirect to main Kam Air article.116.71.23.1 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.119.155.55.183 (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Xieng Khouang Air Transport

Page 130 of the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down refers to the airline Xieng Khouang Air Transport, nicknamed "Air Opium" - It was an airline that the CIA gave to Vang Pao that flew opium shipments from Long Tieng to Vientiane. Does anyone know more about this airline? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

why are these big issues?

When an airline officially announce plans for new destinations without confirmed dates just mentioning month and year of proposed routes, why are some editors against listing these in destinations? obviously dates will be announced eventually, and even if not, if the routes arent launched by the end of the given month, remove them then but not before. Also since these destinations are listed carrying a valid reference quoting official sources, be it from airline website or other media, whats the issue with not accepting it?

Then theres this stance agisnt listing domestic and internationl destinations seperately in airport articles, for example an airlines flies to 5 domestic and 10 international routes why cant we list them seprate using the airlines name twice, even if operating from same terminal so they dont appear jumpled and confusing.116.71.11.5 (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and consensus is that an exact date and source must be added in order to list the destination. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
1. Because there is no limit to what doesn't constitute WP:CRYSTAL. In this economy too many too far ahead announcements are never realized, and the month often arrives without any clear indication of services starting or not.
2. If an airport has separate terminals or areas for international flights, then they can be listed separately (see SFO UA and ATL DL). In the U.S., many airports do not separate, and the issues of Canada preclearance and U.S. territories make separate listing ambiguous. HkCaGu (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD notification

FYI, I have nominated Metis TransPacific Airlines for deletion. The AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metis TransPacific Airlines -MBK004 06:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Novel approach

I found the existence of Southwest Airlines (future) interesting. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fun with WP:CRYSTAL. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no need for that article. Airtran was bought. There was no merger. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LAM Mozambique Airlines destinations

Request redirection to main airline article, due to limited information for a seprate page to exist on the subject.116.71.20.115 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.116.71.15.152 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dabolim Airport

The airport serving the state of Goa is only recognised as serving the state not any city even though its located near a small one called Vasco da Gama, IATA and all airlines flying there only mention GOA being served in schedules etc, yet some Indian editors are insistiong on adding Vasco da Gama as a destination to the lists as being served, which is not the case, if so then cities near all airports like in tiny Island nations should also be allowed to be listed. Help resolve this.116.71.20.115 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that some editors are adding names of capital cities in city states like St. Johns Tobago, Manama Bahrain, Hagana Guam, Victoria Seychelles, Port Louis Maurtius, airlines do not specifically fly into these area's.116.71.15.152 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Airline headquarter photograph requests

There had been some progress in photography of airline headquarters. Here are some requests that are still outstanding:

Africa

Asia

North America

South America

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New airline

On the Japanese Wikipedia I found ja:ANAウイングス - ANA Wings. I suspect it's a new airline, and it needs an article on the English Wikipedia. At a later point I'll go look for English sources for "ANA Wings." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Airlines cargo

Hi guys, the Vietnam Airlines article has a cargo fleet table, though I believe there aren't any Vietnam Airlines cargo planes, rather passenger planes are also transporting freight pallets. Is there anyone with a deeper insight who can sort this out? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right I cant find any reliable reference that show any dedicated cargo aircraft, as you said just using the hold capacity of pax aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines focus cities.

There are a large amount of flights ending in April 2011 from the current Focus Airports of SJU and BOS. The schedule out of SJU/BOS primarily only has mainline AA to their hubs, and only very few point to point routes flying out of SJU/BOS (if any), which IMO pretty much leaves BOS/SJU as large "spoke" stations after that date, rather than a focus city. In addition, LGA only has 5 mainline (AA) destinations, whilst their regionals (MQ) do most of their flying. Is it safe to say that AA is ending their focus city ops by April of 2011?, or is it safer to wait for either a for a official release and/or reliable source that the focus cities are being closed. Sb617 (Talk) 05:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of their flights is to their hubs, then yes, it is barely a focus city anymore. But let's wait until AA officially removes BOS/SJU/LGA before putting "Ends April 2011". Snoozlepet (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Branding and Template:Airlines of the United States

Sigh. "Holding company guy" is back with his scare quotes and his current target seems to be distinguishing defunct branding for airlines within an airline (e.g. Song) from defunct branding applied to regional airlines (e.g. America West Express) on {{Airlines of the United States}}. I originally objected as the distinction seemed a bit excessive, but as I think about it, I notice we don't list currently active brands (e.g. Delta Connection) in the template at all. There was some discussion about this back in early 2009 on the template's talk page and while there doesn't seem to have been much support for keeping these sections, they weren't removed (I don't recall if there was discussion here as well). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

de-linking links why?

Editor Ohconfucious is delinking some places and flags as per WP:Linking, see BMI destinations for reference, is it ok or not?.116.71.8.165 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please discuss this, is it to be accepted.116.71.9.241 (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucious has stopped after being told his edits were wrong, but now Colonies Chris has started doing this despite people notifying in edit summary that all destinatons are to be linked and must show up blue.116.71.1.245 (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed for airlines lacking sources

Hi guys, currently I'm working on finding sources for airline articles which are currently lacking any reference. So far (only doing a quick search), I was not able to find some for the following articles, so maybe one of you might want to sort it out? Or, otherwise I'd guess the whole article should be deleted.

First round

  • Air Ambar - possibly this airline never operated any flights, thus being not notable
  • Air Atlantic - missing start/cease dates
  • Air Canada Tango - totally unreferened, had to remove most of the content. Who can restore it (properly sourced, of course)?
  • Air Charter Service - doesn't seem to be an airline at all, broken website link, not notable?
  • Air City - couldn't find anything other than a IATA/IACO codes (esp. no aircraft)
  • Air Comores International - no source that this airline did ever operate any aircraft, thus maybe never took off?
  • Air Cordial - only operated wet-leased aircraft, couldn't find any source, maybe not notable?
  • Air Djibouti - found 1998 as date of formation, though predecessor might date back until 1971 - who can sort this out?
  • Air Florida Airlines - only operated a single Cessna, so likely not notable
  • Air Illinois - needs to be rewritten (unsourced, reads like an essay/advertisment)
  • Air Kharkiv - couldn't find any source that this airline exists
  • Air Maghreb - also no source to find
  • Air Miles (charter broker) - article started as airline, now charter broker (whatever this might be), barely notable
  • Air Panama - unsourced even though website exists, had to delete most of the content, who might want to restore it?
  • Air Pennsylvania - airline from the 60s, only smaller aircraft, couldn't find any sources
  • Air Puerto Rico - no IATA/ICAO codes, no aircraft, was around for only one year... likely non-notable
  • Air Scandic - missing start/cease dates
  • Air Somalia - no idea whether the airline is still active
  • Air South - actually a disambiguation page, though with huge amounts of overlapping text
  • Air UK Leisure - missing start/cease dates
  • Air Vardar - no source to be found that any flights were operated during its short life, so likely non-notable

Additionally, the following airlines have unreferenced destination lists: ALMA de México, Adam Air, Air Algérie, Air Midwest, Air Méditerranée, Air Transat, Air Wisconsin.

Second round

Some more issues:

  • Airlink Zambia - I couldn't find any source that this airline eixts at all
  • Alpine Air Chile - missing reference for start/end dates and fleet list
  • Ambassador Airways - might fail notability (if at all, then only operational during a brief period in 1994)
  • Amberair - might fail notability (if at all, then only operational during a brief period in 1988)
  • Appalachian Airlines - may not be notable (unclear what sort of operations)
  • Arsh Air - most likely non-notable (never operated any flights). Was once proposed for deletion, survived somehow
  • Aspen Airways - huge amount of unreferenced text (didn't remove it, maybe one of you can provide a source instead)
  • Astravia–Bissau Air Transports - I had once proposed this article for deletion, and still think that one ICAO code source + one line in a book stating that the airline operated some flights is not enough (e.g. unclear when this arline existed)
  • Athena Air Services - I couldn't find any source that this airline eixts at all.
  • Atlantic Airlines (United States) - barely notable, operated only Cessnas
  • Benin Airlines - most likely non-notable (never operated any flights).
  • Bosnia Airlines - couldn't find any source that this was an airline at all, or rather a marketing name for some Trade Air services
Plus some further unreferenced dest-lists: Airways International Cymru, Aserca Airlines, Avior Airlines.

Thanks for your help! I really appreciate it, because I tried and couldn't find out any further info, which means that I strongly tend to delete all those airlines whose notability cannot be verified. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Detailed aircraft histories

I have just removed a fleet list from Aden Airways as it includes a detailed list of all the aircraft operated and individual aircraft histories. I understand that such detailed list dont meet the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) although it mentions dont include aircraft registrations it actually doesnt mention complete aircraft histories. The individual history of an aircraft is not really relevant to the airline article and if for example an aircraft has x owners then repeating a detailed history in x articles is clearly not of encylopedic value. In my opinion this sort of detail should be left the enthusiast websites who do a good job of providing aircraft history details. User:Mjroots who created the article has restored the content while it is being discussed. Any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Aden Airways
Disclosure, this issue affects four airline articles and one aviator article that I know of (there may be others) - Aden Airways, Alaska Coastal Airlines, Reeve Aleutian Airways, Invicta International Airlines and Robert Campbell Reeve (RCR). In all cases, I'd ask that the information is retained while we are discussing this - its removal would make it harder to assess what is being discussed.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) only says not to include tables of flight numbers by destination and lists of tail numbers. I contend that individual aircraft histories are not "lists of tail numbers". All material is referenced. Reading the style guide, it seems aimed at current airlines, rather than historic ones.
While I'd not expect to find that level of detail in an article on a major national carrier, my thoughts are that giving the full histories provides a better insight into the operations of that airline. In the case of RCR, it provides an insight into bush flying in Alaska in the 1930s.
Preserved aircraft are not mentioned in the style guide. The fact that an aircraft has been preserved gives a little notability to that aircraft, and is worthy of mention in article on airlines that aircraft served with.
Maybe the style guide needs expansion to cover historic airlines and preserved aircraft, maybe not. This is an issue that can be addressed on the talk page of the style guide. BTW, the shortcut WP:AVIMOS does not direct to the style guide as claimed, but to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)! Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In the case of the Aden Airways, which I have just viewed, I think there is far too much detail included on the aircraft. It could be precised down into sentences along the lines of "x aircraft-type were added to the fleet from date1 for use to date2 when they were sold on to name-of-airline" their origins could be expanded upon eg that they former military service or from another airline, but the history of their tailnumbers/registrations is excessive. If an aircraft was subsequently preserved then there are "list of surviving...." articles for that detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that while the individual aircraft histories may be notable to the aircraft themselves, they are not notable to the airline. How does it affect the airline that one of its aircraft was operated by other carriers previously? - Ahunt (talk)

PIA disambiguation issue

PIA disambiguation page lists Pakstan International Airlines seprately as main user of PIA acronym saying PIA stands for blah, blah, blah, national flag-carrier of Pakistan, and then states "PIA may also refer to:....." with other examples listed below it, why cant Pakistan International Airlines be listed in there alphabetically rather then being singled out as main user of PIA acronym, this dosent seem to be the case with other articles or airlines in disambiguation pages especially related to acronym use such as KLM, JAL, LOT, SAS and various other airline/non airline ones.119.155.36.163 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to give any use of PIA priority on the disambiguation page the alphabetical list that it is at the moment is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
One editor has posted a message in talk page there for reason why PIA should firstly refer to Pakistan's airline, I still disagree with him.119.155.44.167 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Two interesting deletion discussions:

... which make it obvious that finally an inclusion standard for airlines is needed.

... and jet another two: Air Vardar and Arsh Air. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Add to the list Euro Cargo Air this airline never took off.inspector (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help with Aerojet (Switzerland)

Hi guys, I've just come across this article. It is completely unreferenced (I couldn't find any sources either), and may contain deliberately wrong information. The airline is listed nowhere as the operator of any Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Who can help to solve this issue? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

airports articles and destinations

Is it necessary for an airlines destinations to be listed in an airport article? it involves the hassle of having to go through schedules that keep changing to update, also some editors are againt adding destinations that do not have traffic rights, isnt the destinations section supposed to just let the person know which cities are connected to that airport with/ or without traffic rights. Also why cant tech stops be listed in airport articles if not elsewhere?116.71.16.208 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I say it again listing destinations in airport articles is stupid, as some editors also claim wiki is not a travel site or whatever term they use, so why this is allowed, airport articles should only list serving airlines that is more than enough for an encyclopedia, also if destinations are to be listed why are ones without taffic rights removed or not added, after all wiki s not a travel related site that there should be such nit-picking of details.inspector (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply please, dont act dumb because you made these silly rules and now dont have face to discuss them.inspector (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Should really be discussed at WP:AIRPORTS. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Airline articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Airline articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Raja Sansi Airport name changed

New name is Sri Guru Ram Das Jee International after 4th Sikhism Guru, Guru Ram Das, but someone else had edited it to Sri Ram International saying its after a Hinduism's God Ram, which is not the case as seen here http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cabinet-nod-for-renaming-Amritsar-airport-after-4th-Sikh-guru/articleshow/6873021.cms title of ATQ article still needs to get new name.inspector (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Whats the delay in changing article title for?inspector (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If the source says the name of the airport changed and the airport's official website shows the new name. Then rename the article. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
ATQ website calls it Amritsar International not even Raja Sansi, so why is the wiki article titled as Raja Sansi International?inspector (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I've moved it to the new name. As even in India, there seems to be considerably confusion about the correct romanization, but "Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport" (with the honorifics sri, -ji and two S's in "Dass") seems to be the officialest(tm) version per [9]. Jpatokal (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If it continues to remain Amritsar Internsational at the web site, is it valid to change article title to the newer name? shouldnt it be be Amritsar International Airport also known as Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, several articles are like so for a number of airports here, Kabul International Airport and Mexico City International Airport are two examples, or does ATQ signage at the Terminal Building presently carry Raja Sansi title instead of Amritsar, which will be changed to the new one?inspector (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK there is no "the" website, amritsarairport.com is some random travel agent and AAI's page on the airport has not been updated since the name change was announced. There are plenty of WP:RS for the name change and WP policy for airports, for better or worse, has been to use the official names as titles. Jpatokal (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Working on an article on airline scope clauses. Not having much success finding sources. Any help is appreciated. The article is in my sandbox. Thanks! N419BH 05:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

terminated destinations, airports and those with changed names, codes

Why do terminated airports have to be listed for terminated destinations? Bangkok as a city is still served by JALways but the destination list includes the terminated Dong Mueang Airport, which turned domestic and all international carriers were moved to Suvarnabhumi, its not like JO had suspended BKK ops and then returned but this time to the new airport that the older one should be included in the list.

More than one airport for a terminated city should only be included:

1. if the airline served more than one or all airports for that city simultaneously, e.g LCY, LGW, LHR, LTN and/or STN.

2. if the city continues to be served but one or more of the various airports the carrier served simultaneously, have been dropped, e.g LGW and LTN continue but LHR, STN have been suspended.

3. if the carrier dropped the city and its original or main airport and then resumed service to the city but to a secondary airport, e.g London service suspended where main and only airport being served was LHR, and the then London is resumed but this time with LGW.

4. if carriers suspends city twice, once where it served the main airport and a second time where the secondary airport was served, e.g as in #3 LHR and LGW.

Not to be listed:

1. if airline transfers operations from one airport to another by choice, e.g ORY to CDG.

2. if airline is moved, e.g THR to IKA when the former one turned domestic.

3. if airport closed and replaced with new facility, e.g HKG Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok. Bangkok falls in #2 and 3, so Don Mueang should not be included even when it shuts down.

What about the changed names?

And how to list terminated countries, airports and cities with changed names like Yugoslavia should it be included as Serbia, Bombay as Mumbai, Sri Guru Ram Dass Airport as Raja Sansi Airport or spellings, e.g Pusan as Busan, or codes like Baghdad SDA as BGW? 116.71.3.7 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Aerowings

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I added some basic references and removed the PROD. Still, the airline might not be notable per WP:CORP and maybe even WP:N, as there are no reliable aources and the actual flight operations were very short-lived. The article is one of a large buch of similar non-referenced and barely notable airline articles created during 2005/06 by User:Ardfern, many of which have been deleted in the meantime. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Petra Airlines

Hi guys, I just created the abovementioned article. It is dubious whether the referenced are reliable and significant enough to pass WP:CORP, which is why I'm posting the matter here, hoping for some help and advice. Feel free to contribute and edit the article draft. This is also discussed here. As an alternative, the content could also be merged into Air Rum, which is owned by the same parent company as Petra Airlines. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Air Jamaica

A user has redirected the Air Jamaica article to Caribbean Airlines-Air Jamaica Transition Limited, which hs created today. Unfortunately, his new "article" is quite sparse, and contains no history on the orignal airline! In addition, the title suggest the article is about a holding company, not an airline. It seem to me that as long as AJ is operating under that name, the information should all remain at Air Jamaica. If the airline ceases to operate, then it the article would cover a defunct airline. Any help in reconciling this issue would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Caribbean-Air Jamaica Transition Limited is the name of the holding company. I think should be renamed to Air Jamaica (2010-Present) and rename the old Air Jamaica to Air Jamaica (what year it was found - 2010). Snoozlepet (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
How about disambiguating by year of foundation - Air Jamaica (1968) and Air Jamaica (2010), with the original title becoming a dab page? Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we even need separate articles? I don't know much about this particular case, but is the "new" Air Jamaica effectively a continuation of the old airline under new management? As a point of comparison, US Airways covers the period from the point Allegheny Airlines renamed itself "USAir" in 1979 (and includes some information on Allegheny prior to 1979) to the present, which includes the integration with America West. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've been thinking too. I don't see a seaparate article as necessary at all. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've proposed a merger at Talk:Air Jamaica#Proposed merger. - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it Air Berlin or airberlin?

Hi guys, I noticed that the spelling of the airline's name was changed to airberlin all over the article, though the title (and the spelling everywhere else) remains Air Berlin. It is claimed that AB officially changed its name, which indeed seems to be true, because at least in press releases, the airberlin spelling is used since 8 September, replacing the former Air Berlin (source: [10]). On the other hand, the company address is still "Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG" What are your thoughts on this matter? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont think wikipedia should be title their articles as airberlin, Airblue, airBaltic etc. it shoukd be Air Berlin, Air Blue, Air Baltic.116.71.13.105 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, just changed the spelling back to Air Berlin. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Double entry

Hi guys, just noticed that Aerovías Nacionales de Puerto Rico and Puertorriqueña de Aviación have exactly the same page content. Who can sort it out? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a very complicated and time-consuming way to WP:Merge duplications like this. Sorry, but I am working on a different project right now. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this case is very complicated; since the content is essentially identical, you could just redirect one page to the other. I'm not sure which is the more appropriate title (in either case, it could be changed later). Mlm42 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
done. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help with VIM Airlines

Firstly, is the company name VIM Airlines or VIM Avia? The article makes no clear statement regarding this question. Further, I need someone who can update the destination list. There is a online timetable, but it's only in Russian. Thanks in advance. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Airways fleet

Hi guys, someone needs to have a look at the aircraft fleet of Tiger Airways. The article states that is consists of 21 aircraft (though as of January), but the sources I can find are saying 18 [11], 12 [12] or 13 [13]. Who is right? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

redirect request for Wataniya Airways destinations

Too few places to warrant a seprate page, more so since they are further reducing their network. So please redirect to main airline article119.155.33.80 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this page existed so that it could be in the category Category:Lists of airline destinations. This should probably be taken up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists.. but list at Wataniya Airways destinations is so short, I don't see why it should have it's own article. So I've redirected it to avoid duplicated information. Mlm42 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
All similar requests in past have been complied without issue, this shouldnt be of any concern either, and thanks for doing the needful.116.71.29.215 (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with the destination list of Jeju Air

Hi guys, I noticed that the destination list in the abovementioned article does not state any references or sources. All I could find was [14], stating that the airline only operates the following network:

  • Nagoya to Gimpo
  • Gimpo to Nagoya and Osaka
  • Osaka to Gimpo and Incheon
  • Incheon to Osaka and Kitakyushu
  • Kitakyushu to Incheon.

Who has a deeper insight and can sort this out? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From website they are flying Hong Kong and Incheon, at aviation photography websites they are also seen at Gimpo, Busan, Nagoya, Osaka and Kaohsiung besides Jeju .116.71.25.251 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Airlines Cargo

The freight division of Saudi Arabian Airlines was privatised and renamed Saudi Airlines Cargo from Saudi Arabian Airlines Cargo, a while ago, (like China Eastern Airlines Cargo became China Cargo Airlines after going private) so should it get its own brief seprate article now rather than be included in the main Saudi Arabian Airlines one, same as China Cargo Airlines has its own, as for the argument they should have seprate IATA and ICAO codes, its invalid as China Cargo has same codes as China Eastern, besides Emirates SkyCargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, LAN Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Shanghai Airlines Cargo, Air China Cargo, MASkargo, Aeroflot Cargo be they privatised or not, have seprate articles, the only one merged/redirected back into main airline was El Al Cargo article.116.71.16.224 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignore, it looks like name change will not be applied to fleet unlike China Cargo.119.155.44.186 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with Eurowings

Hi guys, I've just rewritten the Eurowings article. There are two issues I could need some help with:

  • The destinations list does not cite any references (flagged since 2007), which is why I didn't migrate it to a seperate article, even though it's long enough. I couldn't find any official route map on the internet, but maybe someone around here can provide some sources? I updated the list according to what is written at the airport articles. Doing so, I noticed that there are some problems, (some Eurowings routes are only included in one airport airticle, so maybe the route doesn't exist anymore)? Edit: The Eurowings article shares this issue with Lufthansa CityLine, so another article you can help.
  • Who can expand the history section a bit? It doesn't say anything about the extent of the Eurowings operations when the airline wasn't a Lufthansa subsidiary. What routes where flown using the A319/320 or A310 it owned then?

Many thanks for your help! Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The A310 was operated for Hapag-Loyd on charter routes to mediterranean destinations [15] You might find other stuff that helps in flightglobal.com MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing former destinations with older names and spellings

Whats the concensus on this? can for e.g, Czech Republic be listed as Czechoslovakia if the airline flew to it in pre-seperation times, in this case an article on the former country exists or should id be listed as (Czech Republic|Czechoslovakia) or (Czechoslovakia|Czech Republic) where clicking will lead to either one of the latter named articles.

What about city names that have changed where only the article title has been renamed at wikipedia e.g, Bombay to Mumbai, should the city be listed as Bombay as the airline served it under that name or should it be (Mumbai|Bombay) a direct-redirect :)), then theres the spelling thing Pusan became Busan, so if an airline dropped Pusan should it be listed as Pusan or (Busan|Pusan), in this case the airport name got respelled too from Kimpo to Gimpo.119.155.44.186 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OCA International

Just stepped over this article. I couldn't verify that this airline exists or existed (website ain't there, no aircraft listed nowhere). Someone here with a deeper insight? Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now discussed for possible deletion. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dagestan Airlines rebranded as South East Airlines?

Hi guys, in the wake of today's accident at Domodedovo Airport, I found two sources suggesting that Dagestan Airlines has been renamed in January 2010 and is now called South East Airlines. Nothing's mentioned on the official website, though. Anyone here with a deeper insight? [16] [17] [18] Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rheinair

Hi guys, I need help to figure out if this company is an airline at all (and if its notable per WP:CORP). The website [19] looks like a flight booking portal. Who has a deeper insight? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons in codeshare lists etc

Resolved
 – Flag icons should not appear in codeshare sections of airline articles Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of flag icons have been creeping into airline articles lately, most often in the codeshare section but occasionally in random places like destination or lounge lists. In addition to the obvious difficulties with non-countries like Hong Kong and multinationals like SAS, these are pretty unequivocally WP:FLAGCRUFT and should, IMHO, be nuked on sight. Jpatokal (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Would welcome other comments on this, since User:Sp33dyphil seems to object sufficiently violently to edit war over the issue. Jpatokal (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand the only use of flags in airline articles are in the table versions of destination lists. Dont like flags at all myself but I understand that is the current consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there really a consensus in favor? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content says "flags are not to be used", I can't find flags mentioned anywhere else, and this seems to go against general WP policy. Jpatokal (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see where they add to the readability of the information. If I were to present a list of 100 randomly chosen flags, how many readers would be able to identify 100 of them? 50? 5? 1? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I just thought that flagicons point out the nationalities of the airlines. I wasn't the first one to add flagicons to codeshare sections; what I'm doing is make every article as consistent as possible, because a consistent encyclopedia is a good encyclopedia. There have been heaps of airline articles which utilise f/i, and so I thought that it's the right thing to do. Instead of writing out the countries from which the airline originate, we can just add f/i. If you (User:Jpatokal) insist that omitting these templates, please remove all flagicons template from codeshare sections. I don't want to have a bad reputation for myself; I do everything because of one word consistency. I hope you know my view here. From now on, I'll remove every f/i there in codeshare sections. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 03:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
How come nobody objected when about the flagicons when British Airways and Cathay Pacific were nominated for GA status? Adding flagicons to codeshare sections seem to have a long history, and yet User:Jpatokal is about the only one objecting this practice? It just doesn't seem right. Can you somehow explain this, Jpatokal? (Please do not think that I'm being aggresive) I just don't want to revert all the edits people, including myself, have made about f/i in codeshare agreements, which takes a lot of time. I won't object if you say about f/i should not be included in lounges, but for codeshare agreement, it's been a long practice, and takes quite a while to revert. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 03:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
To summarise my point:
  • flagicons have been extensively used before I arrived, so please don't think I've added all of them to airline articles.
  • British Airways, Cathay Pacific, and Japan Airlines, three GA articles, have f/i in their codeshare sections.
  • f/i allows readers to quickly identify which countries they come from.
  • I've been adding them to make them consistent with other articles.
  • in the case of f/i being banned from codeshare sections, every c/s section of every airline article should have flagicons removed, for consistency.
Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 04:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil, this is not about you, this is about whether or not airline articles should include flag icons. And yes, if consensus here is against them (and it's leaning that way so far), they will be removed from all airline articles. Jpatokal (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
@Jpatokal
some other contributors, like User:ANG99, were restoring the f/i after I removed them. This demonstrates how extensive the connection between f/i in codeshare sections are. Please click on this link Also, there are airlines, like China Airlines, which bear the names of countries other than the countries they have their head office in. We know that China Airlines belongs to Taiwan, but who says that all Wikipedia readers out there know that?
If you browse through airlines articles on Wikipedia, you've got an 80% of stumbling across one that has f/i on codeshare agreements, this therefore demonstrates how extensive the use of f/i is. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because the flag icons are there does not mean that they should be. (See also WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Jpatokal (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sp33dyphil, sorry but both Cathay Pacific and Japan Airlines did not contain any flagicons in the article when I reworked the articles to receive the GA status, the flagicons are added subsequently by another user. Please refer to the GA-status approval date and its history. Aviator006 (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added this conclusion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines), with a link to this discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think flags do sometimes add to these sections; for example, in the Cathay Pacific article, I had to click through Comair, because I didn't know it was American; same for LAN, since I didn't know it's Chilean. Even if someone doesn't know the flags, they can at least mouse-over them to get the country. For this reason I think flags sometimes help, and I think that consensus was declared too hastily. Mlm42 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The same logic would apply to any link to any place, person or organization in any article on Wikipedia. Yet they should not be annotated with flags because they would be distracting -- and for the same reason, it's not necessary or desirable to flag codeshare partners. If the airline is unfamiliar, click on the link, and the article should tell you everything you want to know (and more). Jpatokal (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
More briefly, here's my point: 1) Sometimes flag icons improve articles (maybe not everyone here agrees?). 2) I think this is one of those times. Mlm42 (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags is a guideline about the use of flagicons. They are only to be used as a visual aid, and must always be accompanied with the country's name. Flags stick out a lot on a page, directing the readers to that area; therefore they should only be used with good reason. In tables with a country column, they can be of great help to find the country one is looking for. However, they should not be used without being accompanied with the country name, for accessibility reasons. If it is important enough to state the country with the list of codeshare, then a table should be made with the airline, country, etc. Also, things get complicated when dealing with de jure multinational airlines, such as Scandinavian Airlines, which is the national carrier of three countries, or de facto multinational airlines, such as Ryanair. Arsenikk (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Sp33dyphil has started removing the flags but is being reverted. To prevent being reverted, try adding a link to this discussion in the edit summary, or to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content, which also links here. Mlm42 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: non-domestic hubs should be listed last!

I think that airlines that have hubs outside of their home country should have such INTERNATIONAL hubs listed at the very bottom, after alpha order of domestic hubs. I suggest this because it is very distracting to have a hub such as AMS/NRT/CDG/GUM listed alongside their domestic counterparts in alpha order. Clearly, international hubs are a gimmick and should be demoted on the list. I would appreciate input. --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Take CDG/AMS aside. How is NRT a gimmick? How is GUM international? Where do you draw the line? HkCaGu (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, GUM (and SJU, a former AA hub) are non-domestic because those island nations are U.S. possessions that have not been admitted for unionhood, and thus not domestic. For that matter, U.S. 'nationals' are not bona-fide US citizens, though merely they have travel rights and are eligible for US citizenship. As for NRT, it is merely a scissor hub for UA / NW(now DL). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetpuppy (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't be more wrong. They are not eligible for US citizenship; they are bona-fide US citizens indistinguishable from stateside-born counterparts. Admission to the union has nothing to do with definition of being domestic. HkCaGu (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You're talking about the "Hubs" section of the infobox? It seems somewhat artificial to separate hubs in this way; after all some airlines have hubs in multiple countries (like Air Berlin). Mlm42 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Frontier Airlines fleet

We dont normally add fleet lists to airline articles but the one at Frontier Airlines has one. Apart from being a bit of a mess is has now spawned Frontier Airlines fleet, is having different tail art make the fleet notable enough for this unusual treatment or could it just be reduced to some examples in the main article? MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean, it's normal to including the fleet list in the airline article (as per the WikiProject guideline), but it's not normal to have a separate article dedicated to the fleet? Yes, I agree Frontier Airlines fleet doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Mlm42 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think MilborneOne was referring not to the normal fleet summary, but to the list of individual aircraft. Generally we do not include the aircraft list, but I believe the exception was made for Frontier because of the unique tail art on each aircraft, based on the clause Lists or tables should not include individual aircraft tail numbers unless they have encyclopedic value in the linked guideline. Splitting the fleet into a separate article apparently was done just today by a single editor with no discussion that I could find. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

—Recruits needed—

I am thinking about forming a group dedicated to improving a number of airline/aircraft/aviation-related articles, with the aim of giving these articles FA status during the next 5 weeks (from late-December to late-January/early-February. Members are needed who have an interest and/or some level of expertise on the aviation industry. The work is intensive, with activities such as finding information on the subject, proof reading, formatting templates/tables, as well as uploading relevant media (though this is not as important as the ones mentioned above).

Anybody interested please leave their signatures below, or drop me a message at my talk page. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 00:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  • So, what is the process for joining? Will there be a dedicated page for the collaboration?
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea - we already have a page for collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration which hasnt been used for a while so it may be worth cleaning that page up and starting it again. I would like to think that most project members would help in some way so in theory are already signed up to the idea! May be useful when you decide on which article you want to improve to then announce it on the relevant project page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe All you need to do is spread the message about the collaboration.
I've been posting banners on a number of article such as South African Airways, Aeroflot, Singapore Airlines, etc. Unreferenced information should be challenged and deleted, paving way for the actual construction of the article. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page) 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to note Singapore Airlines has had some issues in the past with local editors! MilborneOne (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Seats

Notice that some airline article fleet lists have been changed to list the number of seats in each class (for example Emirates (airline)) and an editor wanted to add the info recently to British Airways. In my opinion the number of seats in each class is just not needed and provides no encyclopedic value as we are not a travel guide (or a fan boy airliner site). I can see a reasonable argument for listing the total seats to give an idea of the size of the aircraft but not for each class. The airline websites provide this information (as they are a travel guide) and we already link to the airline website. Anybody have any views on this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of seats by class were already in British Airways but is it really encyclopedic? MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
But isn't this information included in every single airline article already? I don't see an issue with this. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, there might even be a problem with airport destination lists. And there is Seat configurations of the Airbus A380, which survived a deletion discussion, so I guess consensus is to add passenger numbers in airline fleet lists. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with total seats just the breakdown of seats by each class which can be different for every aircraft in a fleet. But if the consensus is to add the seat configuration for every single airliner we just need to be clear, and if that is what is needed it should be added to the page content guide as to how it is presented. MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And if the consensus is that the width of the seats in each airliner as in Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 then we have a problem with notability. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's Something Rotten... concerning Hi Fly and Air Luxor

I've just up a discussion to merge Air Luxor into Hi Fly, as the latter may be only a rebranding of the preceding. But I'm not sure, the information given in the articles in not clear. Who has a deeper insight and can help? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion location - the merger discussion and proposal appears to be at Hi Fly a dab page not Hi Fly (airline). MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A quick search seems to give the indication that they are the same company just re-branded. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those weird names for everything again

Could someone look at my undo of an anon edit here? This appears to be a return of the confusing terminology that one anon editor kept insisting on adding to articles in the past. This occurrence was in an inline template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not needed, just reverted a load of additions of the inline navbox to other airline articles. As you say looks like a user trying to make a point (again). MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New airline article request

Crystal Thai Airlines are launching operatins this year with services from Bangkok and Phuket to regional destinations according to their website route map perhaps a stub can be started on them.119.155.33.113 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Created as Crystal Thai Airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Quick action, thanks.119.155.33.113 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AlbaStar, Virgin Sun & Mint Airways

Hi, i want to Add some more information about AlbaStar, Virgin Sun & Mint Airways, but i can't find anything else except what i have found. Please give me a hand if possible. --MKY661 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also can we find anything else on Andalus Lineas Aereas, Transavia Denmark and Jettime?

--MKY661 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

redirect Kish Air destinations

Too few to have a seprate page, please redirect to main airline article.116.71.24.201 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you.116.71.14.142 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Continental Micronesia

May I bring your attention to Continental Micronesia and Talk:Continental Micronesia. This is a delicate part of the UA-CO merger in that the Guam company's corporate status isn't locked stop with the operating certificate. HkCaGu (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It's getting into an edit war, and the anonymous editor is quoting forum posts as his "source" in his edit summary. The anonymous editor has not actually responded on talk pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AlbaStar

Hello. Can anyone help me get ANY more information on AlbaStar, because no one has done any major edits except for me!

--MKY661 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Jahangir Siddiqui Air, Jahangir Siddiqui Group and Jahangir Siddiqui Charter

Hi guys, I need someone with a deeper insight into the Pakistani airline market to solve the following issue: The above articles all seem to cover one charter operator, who seems to be linked to Airblue. It does not operate any aircraft, and I cannot find this "Siddiqui Air" listed in any fleet directories, so maybe it should just be merged and redirected? Thanbks for your help. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jahangir Siddiqui group own JS Air, a charter company operating aircraft for other firms on contract, it did the same for Airblue for a few years, the company is not associated with Airblue in any other way. It has a fleet of one Beech 1900 now. There is no company called Jahangir Siddiqui Charter, as JS Air do the charters themselves and the charter section was a page of their website www.jsair-charters.com which is invalid address now, based on which some one created an article called Janhangir Sidiqqui Charter. So redirect Jahangir Sidiqqui Charter to Jahangir Siddiqui Air.inspector (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have merged the contents of all three articles into JS Group. JS Air is just a corporate airline with one single aircraft without any IATA/ICAO codes, therefore I cannot see why a dedicated article should be needed. (and JS Charter is just another name for the airline) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
They have two Beech aircraft.119.155.33.94 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Air Alfa Anywhere?

Hello again (I have a lot of problems don't I but we want these articles to be great). Any sign of the old Defunt Turkish charter airline Air Alfa anywhere. It doesn't seem to be on wikipedia. I have an Airliner World magazine that has got a bit of information on Air Alfa. --MKY661 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont think anybody has created an article for it yet, as you have a source go ahead and create an article. It had an IATA code of H7 and ICAO code of LFA. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger of NACIL destinations into Air India destinations

A tag for the merger of NACIL destinations into Air India destinations by User:AroundTheGlobe. I have started a section for discussion on the same over here. Looking forward to an active discussion on the same. Thanks, Why so serious? Talk to me 11:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Key Lime Air

An IP user keeps dumping raw text accident data and other non relevant stuff into Key Lime Air appreciate some other editors looking in. MilborneOne (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Any Of The Following

Anyone have any of the following

  • Niki Airbus A319 Photo
  • AlbaStar Photo
  • Update of terminal at Gibraltar Airport

--MKY661 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Horizon and Alaska air relationship

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/avd/2010/08/23/08.xml&headline=Horizon%20Air%20Changes%20Business%20Model

so can we finally start using the same language as we use for most other regional carriers, in the info boxes? ie: "Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air," instead of just mentioning horizon as we do now. I cross posted this as AS talk but I think I might get a faster response here. 66.220.101.106 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment posted on Talk:Alaska Airlines#Horizon as regional carrier. I don't think we should change it yet. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
although new system takes effect January first according to article? 66.220.113.98 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, now we have a press release that states the branding change will start next month [20] and a rendering of the new livery [21]. I think that's good enough to start the change to "Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air". Normally I'd say to wait until February, but that's only a few days away so I won't object to people staring changes now. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

MONARCH!!!

Hello first of all, Monarch rule but I have ideas to improve the page.

  • Picture of G-OZBI in CelebAir livery and G-MONJ in Hedkandi Livery (Don't get G-MOND because it is not flying with Monarch anymore)
  • Anyone have good images of an A320 (G-OZBB/G-MPCD/G-MONX), an A321 (G-OZBR/G-OZBT/G-OZBU) and a Boeing 757 (G-DAJB) in the new monarch.co.uk livery (Little M) I will add them into the fleet list. Im actually not sure if the A330 G-SMAN is in this livery now as it has just been returned from Garuda Indonesia.
  • Incidents & Accidents. There have been quite a lot but not with fatalities, but they keep getting removed for some bizare reason. and even some more simple accidents with less problems than this don't get removed on other articles.
  • G-MARA landing problem (28 July 2008)
  • G-MARA engine fire (3 August 2010)
  • G-OZBK Hydraulic leak (5 December 2010)
  • G-OZBN tyre tread shed (28 August 2007)
  • G-OZBO engine problem (11 August 2010)

(I am not trying to make Monarch a bad airline)

  • Expansion on 1960 & 1970's

Please help me expand these problems, and lets work together to make these articles great!

--MKY661 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have images of each aircraft type they dont have to all be in the latest livery, not sure the article needs any more images. Not sure of the exact nature of the accidents but I suspect they were not notable if they have been removed before. Adding to the history is a good thing but they are other airline articles that need a lot more work than Monarch and I suspect if it gets any bigger it may have need to be spun out to a history of article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Incidents and accidents - Building on MilborneOne's comment above, the WP:Airlines "page_content" sub page gives guidelines for including incidents and accidents. Unless there was loss of life, loss of an airframe or the "event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" they shouldn't be listed. Your frustration about what's listed in other articles is understandable, but work out that frustration by improving the other articles so their accident/incident sections are up to par. re: Photos - If the livery has changed and the new livery is not currently pictured, then it would probably be appropriate for -one- photo of a representative aircraft to appear in the article (one of each airframe/type gets into the gray area of what WP is not).Ch Th Jo (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, i am not sure if the first accident should be noted. There were no fatalities or injuries and i don't think there were any changes to procedures. all there was was a tiny little damage on the nose which was replaced. --MKY661 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft registration

We normally only mention aircraft registration if the aircraft is notable, more normally accidents and sometimes special paint schemes. Is this an example Air India fleet of what we should not be doing - or is the consensus to turn the encyclopedia to an aviation enthusiast website? MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Does look rather like a trainspotters list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne. We'll have to remove the registration column and include (if necessary) the registration of aircrafts involved in accidents under the Remarks column. Why so serious? Talk to me 17:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, there has never been much support for registration numbers. So if you want to remove them, I suspect that you will get a consensus here to do so. This applies to both tables and in text, except for the exceptions noted above. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, it does look like an aviation enthusiast article. Another point with that table. The configuration column needs to go. This changes on a regular basis as airlines try to fit more seats in, expand the size of sleeper seats and change classes or change size of classes. So in the end that material is not encyclopedic. As for most of the other information, it need to be cited or removed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, note this essay does give a few more exceptions but most do not relate to the fleet list. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the article from tables to prose but it is missing references for most of it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft names/registration

Is it necessary to mention the name of an aircraft and its registration which is done here? And what about this case? Why so serious? Talk to me 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither case is really notable, the Spice Jet list is just registration and name so I have deleted it as not being notable. With the Air India Express the table is not really needed either it actually provides little information other than links to the subject shown on each tail - not really helpful. I would suggest an explanation in prose that the airline uses different tail art (itself not that unusual) and a couple of images as examples is all that it is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I see you've deleted the same from SpiceJet article. Should the one from Air India Express article too be removed? Why so serious? Talk to me 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it should be removed but it still needs some words of explanation about the tail art although it probably only needs one sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen So Many articles with registration numbers on, usually the minor ones like Virgin Sun. --MKY661 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I HATE Airline INFOBOX [show]/[hide] {Collapsible list} ... Let's dump it!

I propose that we remove the useless [show]/[hide] {Collapsible list} for airlines. It is user unfriendly and takes an EXTRA CLICK. Thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Any particular article? MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I found a load of text that needed work hidden-at-first-glance by a collapsed list in Fleet Air Arm. My thoughts are 1) if the list items are important enough to be there why is it hidden initially. 2) if there's a lot of items in the list that together overwhelm the article, why aren't they in a stand alone list. 3) and if neither why not trim down to notable items. Generally I don't see the point for them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's the infobox that was messed up (example: hubs). I did not see that it was vetted here in discussion. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an article with an infobox with collapsed items? I can't recall coming across one in the articles I watch. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Here you go, see change to hub infobox: [22]. Have a look at how crappy the old (left) is and how good my revision (right) is. --Inetpuppy (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that before. Definitely nonstandard, never been discussed here, and there's nothing like that in the example on the {{Infobox airline}} documentation. I don't like it. There are other problems with the United too: There shouldn't be bullets (though this has been argued), and the airport codes and city in parenthesis is also nonstandard. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus reached ... please help revert ugly show/hide in Airline Infobox

Hi All, I'd appreciate your help in reverting the non-standard infobox [show]/[hide] rubbish in airline infoboxes. American Airlines and Continental Airlines need work. United Airlines and US Airways have been fixed or were not messed with by the rogue editor that inserted the unneeded junk. There are probably quite a handful of airlines that were messed up. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2 editors expressing an opinion is hardly consensus

Reading the above, I see only Inetpuppy and Hawaiian717 clearly stating a preference. Input from many more editors is needed. As a courtesy to all involved, you should hold off making changes until there have been a significant number of opinions expressed. Two is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch Th Jo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Two days doesn't seem like enough time to give other editors time to respond, but in general the lack of further comments can be seen either as a silent agreement to the proposal (due to the lack of objection) or the lack of an opinion either way by other editors. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IBX Manual of Style for Infoboxes

WP:IBX "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and "wherever possible, present information in short form"

Please comment on how a list of hubs that is 20 lines long as in Delta Air Lines or the ridiculous example of a 46 item infobox list in Ryanair or the 20 item infobox list at EasyJet fits with the clear intent of the infobox style guide: to present a quick summary of information in short form.

In contrast to Inetpuppy's initial comment, I find an infobox with a ridiciulously long list of hubs to be unfriendly. You are forcing readers to scroll to see what is supposed to be a quick summary. Forcing readers to scroll is much, much more "unfriendly" than a simple mouse click to reveal a long list of airports. Collapsing the list allows the reader to get a quick glance at the entire Infobox - which is the whole intent of an infobox in the first place.

Perhaps a solution is to create a second infobox for -airline hubs- that can be placed under the main infobox. That would allow a reader to see all the other key facts at a glance without an abusively long list of airports cluttering up the infobox while satisfying the needs of those editors who want the hubs to appear in all their glory, uncollapsed, regardless of how ludicrously long the list is as in Ryanair?Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryanair is probably a bit long; there has been some recent discussion on what the bases field is meant for on the infobox's talk page. I oppose the idea of completely removing the hubs completely or giving them their own infobox, as they define key markets for the carrier. I'd propose that the infobox should contain only one of the following, in order of preference: hubs, focus cities, or bases. That is, focus cities should only be used for airlines like Southwest Airlines that don't have hubs. For airlines that have both, like Air France (possibly a bad example since there are only a total of three among the two fields), the focus cities are less important thus we could consider removing them if the length of the infobox really is an issue. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If there's too much content for the infobox then it would appropiate to reference the section of the article from the infobox. Eg Royal Norfolk Regiment where battlehonours (I stopped counting at 50) are linked rather than listing them in the infobox. I believe much the same happens in aircraft articles if the number of operators is more than the primary and three others specificied in the infobox documentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I recruit your help in finding out who made the annoying change and inform him so that he can weigh in on this debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetpuppy (talk • contribs) 10:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD alerts

Aircraft seat map has been nominated for deletion; while BVC Airlines is at AfD as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am destinations and TWA destinations

Does anyone think these lists look too complicated and need updating?119.155.43.183 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, too many sections. Could probably be converted into one or more tables. Dates might be addition of value. And shouldn't they be called "List of .... "GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look at Virgin America for a destinations table format that was developed a while back. These articles appear to basically be using the older list-style format; since both Pan Am and TWA flew to many destinations over the years, the lists would naturally be pretty long. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The IATA and ICAO codes are rather superfluous though since you have a link to the actual airport article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. How many airports had their codes changed? If that was happening, then maybe it would be of interest to have this in the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Northeast Bolivian Airways

Just a note - as I dont have time tonight but Northeast Bolivian Airways is suffering from being mainly a text dump in Spanish. If nobody else has time I will come back to it later, cant read Spanish but it may have been copied from somewhere. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Low cost carriers hubs/bases

AFIK, LCC's typically have bases and not hubs. Then why do articles such as these: SpiceJet, IndiGo, Air India Express, GoAir, Air India Regional, JetLite have some airports mentioned as hubs? Is there anyway in which they can be changed to bases? And what about Jet Konnect and Kingfisher Red. Is it worth mentioning hubs/bases for them as these two are not separate airlines but merely low cost brands of Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines respectively? Thanks, Why so serious? Talk to me 08:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Point-to-point networks are a sufficient, but not a necessary feature of LCCs; YYC is generally known as the hub for WestJet, and JFK is a hub all but in name for jetBlue. One should look at reliable sources for each airline for the proper terminology. As for Jet Konnect and Kingfisher Red, again, it depends on the amount of material that can be written about them. Air Canada Tango in its current state could be folded back into Air Canada and probably no one would notice, but Jetstar Airways is distinct enough and long enough that separation from Qantas improves both articles.- choster (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Independence Air and Atlantic Coast Airlines - merge?

Should these articles be merged?

All three seem to be the same company WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

bot available for large-scale destination edits?

so its official that Alaska Airlines is absorbing their regional subsidiary Horizon Air and rebranding them as part of AS. Because of the prior branding relationship QX is listed completely separately from AS, in every airport destination box it or they appear in. We just use the term "Horizon Air" whereas we need to switch to "operated by" terminology now- so I was wondering if there is a bot available for a task like this?

and on a second note for editors who keep up on this kind of stuff, while the press release doesn't specify the operating names of this new setup, the new airplane graphics say Alaska Horizon as their main labeling. The question being, does this mean AS is branding their regional service "Alaska Horizon" or is it just a graphical misinterpretation? Considering we keep the regionals subset from their mainline parents, in all the dest. boxes, this is kind of serious issue. Before we redo all the QX related pages we need to know what the correct terminology will be

"Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air"

"Alaska Horizon operated by Horizon Air"

"Alaska Airlines operated by Alaska Horizon"

66.220.113.98 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

i take it thats a no? 66.220.113.98 (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Niki Problem

Hi. Im trying to add niki's slogan onto the page but it wont let me. It is in the box on the edit page but not on the article itself. --MKY661 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - you had a typo in the line (the | was in the wrong place) MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to redirect Wizz Air Ukraine destinations, Wizz Air Bulgaria destinations

Someone has configured the page in such manner that edits made cannot be saved, please check, I tried to changed routes to destinations but it didnt appear despite the change being saved.221.120.249.18 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list, it seems to be too short anyway. I think there is no need for a separate article at all. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Kindly redirect these unecessary pages to the respective main airline articles. Also note that Wizz Air Romania redirects to Wizz Air since the airline is Hungarian, the Romanian division should have its own article as is the case with the Ukraine and Bulgaria ones.119.155.33.113 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about putting the destinations on the actual page, but i think we should keep the seperate pages just in case loads more destinations start (I was also the creator of these pages) --MKY661 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.116.71.17.157 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Airline headquarters photos needed

Hi again! There have been some more airline headquarters photos posted recently (China Airlines and Iberia LAE are two major ones) - Here is a listing of some airline articles that still need headquarters photos:

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indian airlines ending operations

The airlines IC code will stop being used from 29 January see all flights will be operated as Air India (AI coded), make whatever changes are needed to article, will destinations now be merged or also added to AI page?119.155.33.94 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm being accused of vandalism for adding referenced information on IC ending service to Kathmandu and Kabul when they cease to exist from 26 January and AI taking over them, but its being reverted by some user.119.155.34.12 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well first of all, this is the only source that claims the complete merger to come into effect on Jan 29. Secondly, the airline is not ending its operations, it will fly with the same aircraft and crew but as Air India. Why so serious? Talk to me 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless your daft ending operations means the airline will stop flying under its own brand and code, also the contents of the link clearly state that GDS (SABRE) is showing the merger being completed from 26 to 30 Jan, all agents being informed, read the contencts of the forum link http://airlinersindia.s4.bizhat.com/airlinersindia-ftopic10473.html ok.119.155.34.12 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, airliners.net cannot be considered a source. It would be of help if you could find any of the Indian media having a write up on their site (which I did not find). Why so serious? Talk to me 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you ok? where did I quote airliners.net? what is the big freakin deal with you people regarding all this, get a life.119.155.34.12 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. It is this one and it is a forum/blog which cannot be considered as a source. BTW we do not hide and make edits like you, we log in and edit Why so serious? Talk to me 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you removed my post, feeling like a fool I guess when confronted by the truth, anyways his cohort is also now removing valid and verified edits of the merger and terming them hoax, the merger is now copmpleted and new AI coded flight numbers effective 12 February are listed here http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5059167/.116.71.17.157 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the merger is in process and for whether it is already complete or will be completed by 12 Feb, there are no reliable sources to prove this. airliners.net is not a reliable source of information. Earlier another IP added the same where the source claimed that merger will be completed on January 29 and there'll be pure AI codes from January 30, but that didn't happen, so it was a hoax that the completion was on 29th Jan. Apparently the problem is that none of the major media have reported on this. Just wait, let's see what other editors have to say. —Abhishek Talk to me 13:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
It would appear that Indian Airlines does not really exist having beem merged into Air India although it is difficult to find any reliable sources. It would appear that NACIL was created as a holding company the two airlines were then "held" by it. It now looks like they have now merged and NACIL has been renamed Air India. All a bit of smoke an mirrors so difficult to tell what is actually happening but they appear to be legally one airline if you read the NACIL company reports. The only reason they appear to be different is the codes used and it looks like that is an IT or computer system issue. I would suggest that as soon as international and domestic flights use the same flight codes then the Indian Airlines article needs to be re-written as a defunct airline and the operational fleet bits should now be in Air India. The ministry reports clearly indicate that Indian Airlines no longer exists [23]. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
What utter nonsense are you spewing, do you have OCD? that everything has to be accurate, the merger has been completed and the airline IC will stop flying under its identity, the people who post at airliners.net at times are industry professionals with acces to various reservation systems that they gather information from, I posted the 29 January link if it didnt happen dosent mean its a hoax, and there was no need to remove the information as it been pushed back by some weeks and was still VALID, you also undid me re-edit where I added a new refernce link from PATA's official website announcing the latest information, which I have reported to another editor, YOU UNDID A VALID AND REFERENCED EDIT WHICH GOES AGAINST THIS SITES RULES, this site requires valid references verifying whatever one has added to article even if it happens a year later, what you did is illegal here, if people were to do as you have then many destinations that are to be launched months later but have been added to airlines articles now with valid references would be wrongly removed.116.71.17.157 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop your edits otherwise I'll have to obtain a semi-protection of the article. Have a look at this first. —Abhishek Talk to me 15:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why should I stop editing there when I am right and am posting VALID, VERIFIED and REFERENCED content, you dont own the article just because you're Indian.116.71.17.157 (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Airliners.net forums are not a reliable source. Like all discussion forums a self-published source. Anyone can claim to be an industry professional when they're really a fourteen year old kid avoiding doing their homework. The linked pages make this rather clear: For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well this chap is deleting valid links and information other than the ones prohibited here, the airliners.net link was only provided to confirm what the valid links that he deleted were telling, anyways the integration has now been put off indefinitely till issues with Indian Airlines pilots are resolved by Air India.119.155.41.254 (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How to list Bonaire in destinations lists?

User Schalkcity is listing the Caribbean Island nation as under Netherlands at KLM destinations, is this acceptable? Bonaire still retains its own flag while Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean is now part of France adopted the French flag, but its not listed as under France for destinations.119.155.34.150 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonaire is part of the Netherlands. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
What about Aruba, Sint Maarten and Curaçao? 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Those three are a different case and can be listed under their own names, so Bonaire should be added to Netherlands in Europe under old format destination listing, like Tenerife for Spain, which is actually near Africa? It would make more sense to list it as Bonaire (Netherlasnds) and keep it in Caribbean instead of Europe, also same for Canary Islands (Spain) and keep it in Africa. 119.155.34.12 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Bonaire, Canary Islands, Hawaii, French Guiana, Réunion; Sint Maarten, Greenland, Aruba, Åland, Faroe Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, Bermuda. 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.87.202 (talk)
What about them? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I guess those of the former set are immediate components, whereas those of the latter set are somehow autonomous and usually appear on lists of countries. 203.198.25.118 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at Gulf carriers destinations lists

Some one has started adding a "By Continent" section to table format destination lists of Gulf carriers Emirates, Qatar, Saudia, Etihad when I undid them two editors warned me of vandalism, is this new section addition authorised by concensus? if so I must say wikipedia is really getting screwed day by day.119.155.43.57 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok by now atleast four editors are accusing me of vandalism for undoing the unecessary section in particular at Saudia destinations article, one even blocked me but for some reason it didnt work and I can still edit.119.155.43.57 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It should use either the table or the text list not both - refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)#Destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the IP. There is no need to mention both the tables and the text list. This makes the article redundant.—Abhishek Talk to me 19:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
All the text tables from the relevant articles have now been removed by me or Abhishek, nothing stopping a local consensus to change from table to text but not both. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Changing table format back to text dosent make sense at all, even more so to hold a concensus on that, what will the contributing editors say "hey I dont like how table format LOOKS" or "I dont like editing anymore, takes too much time" sounds ridiculous, and what about the painstaking effort put into creating the table format which was approved and accepted with much enthusiasm by wikian editors perhaps admin using all kinds of formal, intellectual jargon legitimizing it even more, to me table looks atlot more mature if I can call it that than the text format, which was simple but childish compared to table, perhaps the use of colours for hubs etc. needs to decided upon, so subtle, muted shades can be used.119.155.43.57 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just making the point that the format can be either a table or text depending on local agreement, if a consensus on a talk page wishes to change from one to the other then that it is not a problem, I dont have a view if it is sensible or not! MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but it would still be illogical if table was reverted to text due to more in favor of the latter.119.155.46.26 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Viking Hellas destinations

The airline serves too few places to warrant a seprate page, kindly redirect to main airline article, thank you.119.155.45.212 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.119.155.38.216 (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

British Eagle

Anyone fancing having a go at British Eagle. As it stands the article is need of having its referencing trimmed (the worst instance is a six line paragraph with 15 citations). I'm floundering around at the moment and could use a hand. My initial thought is to remove everything referenced to http://www.britisheagle.net since the website, though comprehensive, doesn't actually cite its own sources. But I'm sure that's not the right approach. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Had a look at the article to see if I could help but was a bit scared of by the large number of citations to almost every point made. It needs a good trim but just ploughing through the references will take time. Its almost if every page on britisheagle.net has a link somewhere, not sure if it counts as a reliable source as a self-published website. Need to find other sources to replace the britisheagle.net ones but I fear it will take time. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I see a similar style prelevant in British Caledonian and related spin off articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And Laker Airways. Am I seeing a pattern emerging? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AirAsia Group destinations terminated section

Apart from not having any references, the section lists routes instead of countries/cities dropped from network, is it acceptable?119.155.38.216 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is prescient for listing terminated destinations, e.g. Hawaiian Airlines destinations and Virgin America. We don't usually list individual routes on airline destination lists. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Iberworld or Iberworld Airlines

Hi

Need some help. Is it Iberworld or Iberworld Airlines? half the stuff i look at says Iberworld, and half the other stuff says Iberworld Airlines. Same with Jettime, half the stuff i look at says Jettime, and half the other stuff says Jet Time. --MKY661 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Iberworld website uses Iberworld as a trade name but the legal name is IBERWORLD AIRLINES S.A as per [24] MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Jet Time website uses both jettime and Jet Time but the legal name is Jet Time A/S as per [25] and jettime appear to be just a marketing name/logo MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquan Air

AfD going on here that could use a wider input of opinion as the course to take is not abundantly clear. Ravendrop 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Transavia Denmark

Hi. Could someone please help me expand about Transavia Denmark befor they cease? thanks --MKY661 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to rename NACIL destinations

Kindly change title to Air India Limited destinations as the company is now Air India Limited, thanks.inspector (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not needed Air India destinations already exists. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed the article be deleted with comment Article is related to a holding company that does not have destinations, it is also a duplication of Air India destinations which correctly relates to the airline MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Basel/Mulhouse Airport listing in destination articles

EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg, sits in France in town of Mulhouse, but most airlines flying there are actually serving Basel in Switzerland across the border, Freiburg in Germany rarely features in any airline list, but some people are choosing to add Mulhouse and Freiburg to an airlines destination list even if the airline may only be flying to Basel, also they are choosing to list Basel under France just because the airport is there, while the concerned airlines schedule only shows Basel being served with the code BSL and not Mulhouse with the code MLH nor Freiburg with its code. How to resolve this, is there a concensus on the issue?116.71.17.157 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the Geneva Airport? 203.198.25.118 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Does GVA Airport sit in another country?inspector (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It serves both Switzerland and France. 116.49.131.235 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

EgyptAir Express destinations

Requesting redirect into main airline article, too few destinations being the reason.119.155.61.11 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.116.71.12.69 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Codeshare section

Alliance names are being repeated with each airline in these listings and that too in linked form, it dosent make sense, and causes clutter and distortion, what to do? perhaps using symbols for each alliance like some articles are doing would be better.119.155.36.234 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to examples? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Korean Air SkyTeam added five times Oneworld twice and all active/clickable.119.155.39.161 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the linked names are a problem, but it's mostly a style issue. Probably not critical they be linked since the article for an alliance member ought to already have a link to the alliance elsewhere. Using the alliance logo instead leads to issues with fair use since they're copyrighted, and airlines will generally only be a member of one alliance anyway, and a generic symbol distracts the reader into having to figure out what the symbol represents. I think it's most important that each article be consistent with itself; either link the alliance name for each entry (similar to how tables can link repeated entries since each row is considered independent), or link none of them.
One thing I think needs to be changed in the Korean Air article is that JAL and LAN should not mention or link to Oneworld. Korean is not a Oneworld partner and thus the codeshare agreements between Korean and these airlines is not part of the Oneworld alliance. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong listing issue back again

Destinations lists of many Asian carriers are showing HKG listed under mainland China.116.71.2.247 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So I guess it can remain listed as part of PRC despite concensus for HKG and Macau to be listed independantly, since just about every list is showing it under PRC now, I changed few but have stopped doing so.116.71.12.69 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There was never a consensus to do so, and all previous conversations on the matter were marred by sockpuppets and trolls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The norm was to list them separately until SchmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei started to get around to modify all of them. Look up the edit histories of all these lists and you can find their names. 203.198.25.154 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You are still griping about things that happened in 2004. Go away. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As far as I know HKG and MFM were being listed seprately back in 2008 or 2009.116.71.22.215 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
After being different before. It swings back and forth depending a lot on how much ruckus the sockpuppets of a banned user can get away with. It feeds into a larger projectwide issue of Chinese denialism around Hong Kong and Macau. The airline articles are just another place where deniers can present, via layout, an independent Hong Kong. A lot of this is done by one user who has been banned for several years and now edits via sockpuppet or IP proxies. When he's done with the airlines project, he'll move somewhere else and make his presentation edits before being discovered and everything being undone again.
I vastly prefer the layout on the airport articles which simply list cities, not countries, because it makes this issue moot. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I notice you are now also changing full PRC name back to just China, also you are being selective in doing all this, some lists still read PRC full name others are just China, some have Hong Kong listed with Chinese flag next to it, others dont, why the inconsistency? from your talk page it appears you are quite rude as well, this attitude shouldnt be tolerated coming from editors.Since HKG is not PRC just a dependency it should remain seprate also Macau, other than China ruling some aspects of HKG it has largely independant policies including aviation, and it has its own currency too.116.71.8.148 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Emirates focus city listings?

I notice that MEL, BKK, SYD, and SIN are listed as focus cities for EK. However, by looking at the destinations the airline served from the airport(s), they are mostly point-to-point routes or just routes operating under the same plane and flight number. I have tag the section as "Citation Needed" if anyone can find proof that Emirates do have focus city operations at those airports. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Air New Zealand destinations

Page is looking all messed up with inclusion of three sets of tables, atleast ANZ link destinations should not be listed here and should be in those carriers own articles.Terminated destinations can be merged into destination table as done with Braathens destinations.116.71.8.148 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines to Milan-Malpensa

Some IPs are continuing to add Milan as a future destination for ET. However, no press release for flights to Milan have been made and it is not listed as a desitnation on their website. Can anyone find a source that Ethiopian Airlines is indeed launching flights to MXP on June 15 and update it to the respective articles? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Jordanian

The carriers name is Royal Jordanian Airlines, why is the article title abbreviated? yes they market the name on aircraft in abbreviated form, so do PIA who use just Pakistan International, but their wiki article has full Pakistan international Airlines header.116.71.21.218 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PrivatAir destinations redirect

The table has been merged into main airline article, kindly redirect to same. Also there seems to have been some vandalism in main article, fleet section was removed too, which has been restored.116.71.8.226 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Being an IP doesn't prevent you from redirecting existing articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thanks, but I dont know how to do it myself.116.71.0.146 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia rejecting Emirates article updates

Any idea why they are doing this? I added new destinations there as well as a terminated routes section even telling them in edit summary that its all updated and sourced to EK website and english wiki atricle, but still they're not accepting it.116.71.0.146 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am / Panagra

Hi,

Pan Am was half owner of Pan American Grace Airways (Panagra), and in Pan Am timetables Panagra flights were listed separately from Pan Am ones. Some destinations that were only served by Panagra have been entered in the Pan Am Destinations page. My sense is they should be excluded. Anyone? (see wiki entree for Panagra).


Thanks Chris874664 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingfisher Red

This subsidiary's fleet and destinations are fully merged with Kingfisher Airlines article fleet and destinations sections, yet it maintains a seprate article of it own, should it me merged into main Kingfisher Airline article as a subsection?116.71.26.25 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Or its own fleet and destinations added to its own article?116.71.19.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Photos in destinations lists

Adding photos in table layout page is crunching the table with some places wrapping and not good to look at, prime example Ethiopian Airlines destinations, I say there should be a no photo policy in the table region, however photos may be added to sections above the table as in Dragonair destinations. If the table is there it look good not just merely serve its purpose as a table, or font should be reduced in size so there is no wrapping around, is that possible?116.71.19.141 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Air India Regional

Someone is reverting edits made to the article infobox to change IATA and ICAO codes for the carrier, its not using previous codes anymore after being merged into AI, it just operates using Alliance Air AOC thats all. Also should the subsidiariy's destinations and fleet be merged into Air India like KingFisher and KF Red and Air Asia Group articles?116.71.19.141 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone has removed or is removing this subsidiary from various airport articles and merging its destinations the into Air India's.119.155.44.65 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am destinations format changed

Someone has changed the format for listing countries/cities for part of the Pan Am destinations page, and also the TWA destinations page. Is this part of an ongoing change for all airline destination lists, or should it be changed back?

Chris874664 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see glancing through the history on Pan Am destinations, the changes are minor, albeit non standard. The newer format is a table-based design, such as the one seen in the Destinations section on Virgin America. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-standard??? you are contradicting yourself Hawaiian 717, see your post for Air Asia Group destinations terminated section query just a few posts above here. Whats been done to Pan Am and TWA Is the standard text format for terminated destinations Country/City names only with airport name added if required in some cases where more than one airport was served, check every airline articles terminated destinations lists Chris, and to date it continues as the second standard format in addition to the new table layout, the older format of listing every bit of information in terminated destinations was done away with, the few articles that remain as such, are to be changed as well as they come across, wiki supports both this text and newer table forms of lists and concensus was held on it, but text lists once converted to table cannot be reverted to text format again .119.155.44.65 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, 119.155, thank you. I will leave as is, and add new destinations w new format. Chris874664 (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable Accidents?

Are these accidents noteable. Safety reccomations were made or one of them. This is the sources http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/896.pdf http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Airbus%20A321-231,%20G-OZBN%2012-07.pdf

--MKY661 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion no. It appears that the second accident was not even investigated as such. YSSYguy (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regional Air Lines or Royal Air Maroc Express?

Which of the two are they? article says they are RAMX topic title is somerhing else.119.155.47.98 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cham Wings Airlines destinations

Please redirect to main airline article.119.155.47.98 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Help:Redirect tells you how you can do it yourself rather than having to post here to ask someone else every time. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the information.116.71.6.224 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Afd Frontier Airlines fleet

For information the Frontier Airlines fleet article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontier Airlines fleet. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags not appearing in table

Some country flags are not showing up in various airline table laoyout destination lists.inspector (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Viking Hellas destinations

Hi. can we put Viking hellas destinations as a seperate page. it used to be but it was then redirected as there were not many flights, but now there is loads more than there used to be and it does waste the space on the article. --MKY661 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that for Lufthansa Cityline who have many more but all in the main article.116.71.18.70 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dhaka Airport

Someone is adding airlines and routes that do not operate from DAC, keep a look out, I have cleaned it up for now.116.71.12.37 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Martinair

This airline will end passenger operations from November, cargo service will continue, will a seprate article need to be created for cargo division or will the destinations page title be changed?116.71.5.179 (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

400 Boeing images available

Boeing have released on their photostream on Flickr a range of 400+ images under CC-BY licence. This stream was part of promotions for the Expo 2010 held in China last year. A web cache of their website confirms that these licences are legitimate. There are lots of photos of Boeing aircraft in China, but also a lot of historical photos as well. Any editors who are able to help upload these photos to Commons are welcome to do so. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a few photos onto Wiki Commons two months ago, and some are used on Boeing 777 and Boeing 727. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Air India Cargo

They have all but ended freighter operations and most of the fleet is up for sale, this article should be merged with Air India as a sub-section eventually. 116.71.21.50 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Notability does not end when a company does. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the article is irrelevant since they are just an arm of the mainline carrier, they are not an entity in its own right without a fleet of their own. There are airlines with full fleged cargo divisions with some even privatised that do not have their own articles infact seprate article pages of El Al Cargo and Cathay Pacific Cargo have been redirected to main airline article for some unkown reason, why? El Al Cargo being private airline its not even part of mainline privatised El Al anymore.116.71.18.152 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fly Hellas

Hi. should I create a new article for Fly Hellas or use the Viking Hellas page to create it? --MKY661 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

When it officially changes name you can rename the Viking Hellas page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but what woud be better. JMC was rebranded into Thomas cook and they have seperate pages, and and Britannia became Thomsonfly and they have seperate pages. MKY661 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Only because they had a lot of history and information, the Viking Hellas page is not that big and has a one paragraph history and mostly a list of destinations. No strict rules just a judgement call. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
OK then. I will also create a seperate page for the destinations as well to save space in the new article. --MKY661 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cities in destination lists

Linking to a specific city in the destination lists has always seemed inappropriate since airports don't serve one city, but entire areas. While editing one article today, I noticed an unique solution to the problem. The link with the city name was actually to the airport. I'm wondering if this should become the standard? Clearly JFK while in NYC serves at least three states so when we say an airline has service to NYC it is entirely appropriate to link that to the airport. So instead of having a destination of New York City, we would have New York City. Comments? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why we dont just use the airport name? MilborneOne (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably since the airport name does not always included the city and many people would not know where it is. Examples include Princess Juliana International Airport or McCarran International Airport. That's why listing the city and linking the airport could make sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

El Al Cargo and Cathay Pacific Cargo articles redirect, why?

Any idea why the two carriers articles redirect to main airline one? I recall Cathay was at par with Singapore Airlines Cargo article, so why was it done away with? 116.71.18.152 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess but Cathay and El Al Cargo are just part of the parent airline with the same ICAO code, Singapore Cargo is a separate entity with its own ICAO code. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
That may be the case but then why do MasKargo, Emirates cargo, air india cargo and mny others have seprate articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.41.172 (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sun d'Or

This airline was shut down in March, but someone is re-adding it to airport articles with "operated by El Al", does it still exist as company but with no fleet of its own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.41.239 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All flights are operated by El Al and should be listed as El Al destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not according to el al website schedule and map. inspector123
I don't know much about this situation, but I think it should come down to how you can book it. If the flights are codeshares and can be booked under both a Sun d'Or "2U" flight number and an El Al "LY" flight number, then the should just be listed as El Al on airport articles. If, on the other hand, these flights are being operated for Sun d'Or exclusively and you can only book tickets on them with a 2U flight number, then they should be listed as "Sun d'Or operated by El Al". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Aerosvit

Is this format wiki approved? especially check out destinations section, concise, well presented, though missing lots of cities, whole thing looks good in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.53.2 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

KLM cityhopper routes mixed with KLM destination list

Both have seprate articles and destination lists, plus IaTa and ICaO codes, yet cityhopper routes are now listed with KLM ones in KLM article, all other airlines subsidraies destinations are only listed in the subsidiary's own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.59.74 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos in destinations lists

I dont know why photos on this page are being allowed in table layout listings, as the entire table gets screwed with wrapping around of text see List of Dragonair destinations, kindly disallow practice of photos in table layout destinations pages, its even odd that original articles on Scandinavian carriers featuring the same, got approved and star ranked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.47.11 (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the problem there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I do, it makes text wrap, which doesnt make sense of having table then, compare to table lists with no photos in them.116.71.18.152 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrapping maybe dependent on the browser.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Orbest Orizonia

Hi. Iberworld has rebranded to Orbest Orizonia Airlines. New Article?, or should I use the Iberworld page. --MKY661 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Orbest Orizonia

Hi. Iberworld has rebranded to Orbest Orizonia Airlines. New Article?, or should I use the Iberworld page. --MKY661 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it is merely a name change of the existing airline, I would suggest moving the article match the new name. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, the airline is still legally Iberworld Airlines with Orbest as a marketing name so a move would be appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong: East Asia or Southeast Asia?

Hong Kong is part of China. What region of Asia should it belong in? Snoozlepet (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First, which China are you talking about? And second, in what way is it part of that China? Is it in the same way as the NYC is part of the US, or as Paris is part of France? Sounds like you're trying to oversimplify the facts. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
IATA says China is a region. So it should be in the part of Asia classified with China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Hong Kong and Macau don't use China's ICAO codes. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
in a list ICAO clearly organizes HK/MO as part of China, and use "Hong Kong, China" as the name. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I am saying PRC. Should Hong Kong be listed under East Asia with PRC or under Southeast Asia? Snoozlepet (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
With all due respects, I'm afraid this is still somehow oversimplifying. Even if it were to be listed under East Asia, is it readily part of the PRC, as is Paris to France, the NYC to the US, or Auckland is to NZ? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
And so? [26]
Meanwhile, don't try to confuse people with designation and separate personalities. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Southeast Asia describes the region as, among other things south of China, referring to the PRC, which includes Hong Kong. The linked map doesn't highlight Hong Kong. East Asia states "The UN subregion of Eastern Asia and other common definitions[3] of East Asia contain the entirety of the People's Republic of China[10] (including all SARs and autonomous regions), Republic of China[11] (commonly known as "Taiwan"), Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Mongolia[3]." Regardless of whether you wish to include Hong Kong as part of the PRC or consider it separate, Wikipedia's own definitions define Hong Kong as part of East Asia. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
These subregions are very often overlapped, and do not necessarily have to follow political borders of sovereign states of the modern times. Hong Kong has long considered itself to be geographically Southeast Asia, and this is the position of the government, while also recognising its cultural and historical ties with East Asia (which under this cultural definition would include Vietnam). 119.236.250.27 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I have been discussing this matter on many articles I've edited, even with some people involved in this dispute. First of all, it should be clear for everyone that we are talking about mainland China, or the People's Republic of China if we use its official name. Disputes regarding the different names for Taiwan (Republic of China, Chinese Taipei) are not to be solved at Wikipedia. The way I see the problem, all of us editing articles related to airlines should focus our attention in providing the information concerned with airlines and its operations. These articles are not a lecture on geography. It is also true that Hong Kong an Macau do not use Chinese ICAO codes, but that is likely due to the fact that those codes were implemented before Hong Kong and Macau were transferred to the Chinese administration. Back to the core of the discussion, the Southeast Asia article does not include mainland China within its borders. If articles are to be consistent with each other, East Asia should be used for mainland China, and that applies also to Macau and Hong Kong.11:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)—Jetstreamer (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it necessary for a sovereign state and its dependent territories to be classified under the same continent and/or geographical subregion? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a very specifc question about Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not a dependent territory and is not separate from its parent state. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What is an "airline"?

We've got a frequently-changing IP user (who's M.O. fits that of someone occasionally referred to as "Holding Company Guy") again going in and making edits to overly-verbosely redefine companies that provide air transportation services under another company's certificate as something other than an airline. For example, this edit, which changed "an airline based in" to "aced business which brokers charter flights by contracting and leasing none scheduled airlines from it's offices in" (yes, there are a couple typos in there, later fixed). Looking at the first paragraph of airline, which I've reproduced below, I don't think it excludes the possibility of companies being called airlines that aren't operating under their own certificate:

I think in common usage, the term "airline" applies to any company providing air transportation services. It's certainly worthwhile to denote companies that operate under another airline's certificate as such, but not to the point of adding dozens of words and describing the service as something other than an "airline". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I dont know what the Flight reference says it appears that Sportsflight Airways is just a ticket broker or charter agent and not an airline so the edit is basically correct although a bit verbose it just needs a simplier form of words. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Sportsflight may not be the best example, it was just one that I noticed recently and the editing there spurred me to post here. Other examples where the operation's status as an airline might be called to question would include go! Mokulele and Direct Air. In those cases, customers buy individual tickets from that brand and they see that brand as the airline, even though it may be a different company actually operating the flight under their own certificate. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Channel Islands

Aren't they normally treated as two separate bailiwicks, and separate from the UK, on lists of airline destinations? What about Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, the Faroes, and the Åland Islands? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are US territories and they are listed in the Caribbean region in airline destinations (not with the United States). Isle of Man needs to listed under UK as it in between Britain and Ireland. Hong Kong, in Wikipedia's own definitions, is part of East Asia (not SE Asia, which does not include Hong Kong and Macau) so they remain listed under East Asia either with PRC or independently. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
From what I observe on Wikipedia the Isle of Man and the two bailiwicks (and Gibraltar too) aren't classified under the UK, although they're all under the Western European grouping. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of help needed to improve Fly Guam

A lot of help is needed to improve Fly Guam, a company which leases a plane (for now, more expected later) from Sky King, Inc. (a charter airline) to operate (with its own livery, cabin decoration, inflight magazine and catering services) continuous scheduled flights to Saipan and Hong Kong. It's a company with a real small airline as its parent that operates like an airline, and the charter airline operates something not exactly a charter service. Regardless, in this article, a lot of standardization, POV-tuning, wikifying needs to be done. HkCaGu (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Had a tweak probably still needs more work, as we discussed above it is another "virtual airline" which charters an aircraft and sells tickets, not really an airline (in that it doesnt have an operating licence). MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aer Lingus Cargo destinations proposed deletion

EI do not have a freighter fleet how can they have this list? it should be deleted, freight carried on passenger planes does not warrant a list of cargo destinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.15.184 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree - you could Propose Deletion as a first step. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Done.signed inspector123

Air India focus cities

Since Indian Airlines has been merged into Air India, shouldn't the focus cities of Air India be the same as the former Indian Airlines? — Abhishek Talk to me 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If they are, then yes. Also, on the IC page, Kolkata and Chennai were secondary hubs for Indian, aren't they suppose to be Air India's secondary hubs or focus cities too? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes CCU and MAA should be secondary hubs for AI now. —   Abhishek   Talk to me 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Done.inspector123

Air Jamaica/Caribbean Airlines

Starting 1 July 2011, all Air Jamaica and Caribbean Airlines flights will begin operating under one code BW (which is the code for Caribbean Airlines; Air Jamaica's was JM) according to this article http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-data/news/air-jamaica-caribbean-airlines-further-integration-0630 and official press releases. Should we go ahead and list all the JM-operated flights as "Caribbean Airlines" or do we leave as "Caribbean Airlines operated by Air Jamaica"? I went to Air Jamaica's website and all JM flights are now marketed as Caribbean Airlines flights after July 1st. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Table centering

I have just been told that the aviation project guidelines stipulate the use of html markup rather than css for table centering - see User_talk:Sitush#Spicejet. I really have no interest at all in aviation and was merely fixing one article due to the appearance there of a well-known sock. However, Help:Table#Centering_tables is a guideline that suggests that css should be used, there is no doubt from my own web design experience that css is preferable for alignment of block elements and there is no logical reason why it cannot be used in this instance.

So why is it not? - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see not mention of table centring at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines), and I note that the example given is not centred. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I see no statement about centering either. The example on my TP appeared as I was writing my comment above, but earlier in the thread it was said that the project followed the html method, which looked like a WP:OSE situation to me.
I was not going to raise the issue of colours here but now think that I will ... I have a bit of a problem with WP seeming to subliminally promote airlines by adopting their colours for tables etc and, as a stalker at my talk page has pointed out (& I already knew, from my web design work) there are potentially issues for challenged viewers/ I really do not see how these colours are necessary. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point about colors Sitush. If you see airline destination articles like List of Dragonair destinations, the table is full of colors. Let's see where this goes. Whether color or no, I have no problem. —  Abhishek  Talk 10:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, that article appears likely to have an issue with WP:MOSFLAG also. It is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so. Flag icons were removed from code share section of airline articles but retained in airline destination articles. —  Abhishek  Talk 11:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I ran the table through a rough (grayscale) check for colour-blindness accessibility and there doesn't appear to a problem with the coloured cells within the table. Aesthetically for me though, the column headers do jar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is more about the project guidelines, in any event. Just because the table in one article passes the test ok does not mean that others will. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, tables seem to look nicer when they're centered, but I don't know if there's an actual consensus about that. &mdashCompdude123 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that you may have missed the point. The centreing is not the issue. What is concerning me is the manner in which they are being centred, which is contrary to guidelines and, indeed, good web design practice. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

  • Singapore Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Greetings to all, I was adviced by BilCat to request for neutral third-party assessment from experienced editors here on the aforementioned article page as I am an employee of a subsidiary company and is deemed to have COI if I carry out too controversial an edit on it. The matter is being discussed on the talk page now... thoughts, anyone? And thanks in advance. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It depends on how much further coverage it receives. I'd be tempted to make a one-line mention of the incident, due to the CEO himself having to take note and make an announcement on the situation, a very severe billing malfunction is a noteworthy event. I would, however, not make a whole section onto itself on the topic, as this is likely WP:Undue, I would make a single sentence, perhaps two, at most at this point. No need to overblow the issue. Kyteto (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice @kyteto. That works for me. Are comfortable with the suggested approach @dave? Hugh Mason (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

are these defunct airlines?

If an airline simply changes it name, is its former title to be listed in defunct airlines article? what about airlines that are shut down and restarted under new ownership but retain the airlines name, codes etc. as they were before, does this mean they are to be removed from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.47.193 (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, old names go under the list of defunct airlines. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the former name of the carrier is defunct. For airlines that have shut down and restarted under new ownership (e.g. Alitalia, Frontier Airlines), the airline under the old ownership is defunct or kept historical and a new article is created under the new ownership but a disambiguation page is to be made as to which carrier are you talking about. Also, if 2 airlines are in the process of a merger, the merged airline will become the current one and the airline being acquired would be considered defunct. Examples are: Delta/Northwest in 2008 (Kept Delta name; Northwest defunct), US Airways/America West in 2005 (kept US Airways name; America West defunct), United/Continental (United name will be kept; Continental will be defunct), Southwest/AirTran in 2011 (Southwest name to be kept; AirTran will be defunct). Snoozlepet (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
For a good dab page see National Airlines. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Aviación Del Noroeste

The Aviación Del Noroeste article has been PRODded, with a rationale of "Garbled content; no sources; impossible to improve the article or even interpret its content". The assertion of "no sources" is incorrect, as there is a reference given which appears to be a book or magazine source. A quick search on the 'net verifies that the airline existed. Although needing improvement, this is not a reason to delete the article. Therefore I've de-prodded the article. Mjroots2 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with de-prodding the article. It is a grammatical mess, which I suppose was the reason for the assertion "garbled content". It appears to have been written by someone not fluent in English, and/or automatically translated (presumably from Spanish). I attempted a rewrite but not being familiar enough with the airline's history, I couldn't figure out what the correct events were supposed to be. I've tagged the article for translation cleanup. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
...and as I was posting here, someone else went in and removed the whole history section. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta

An IP user with few edits has added a slew of {{cn}} tags and an advert header to Delta Air Lines, per this diff. It seems like overkill to me, but I don't have the time or energy to eyeball each tag. Can anyone take a look there and see if these are all justified? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I scanned them and don't see why they were added so I reverted the lot. The article is reasonably stable and if we had that many problems, they would have been flagged long ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The user has now posted at WP:NORN#Delta Air Lines, and included accusations of what amounts to canvassing, which is odd since this is the only place I've mentioned the issue. - BilCat (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Micro-airlines

Some experienced eyes might be useful at Micro-airlines. The talk page has some comments and the edit history deserves a look. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd toss it up on AfD, noting it's a contested prod and probably a neologism. The only reliable source for the term "micro-airline" I could find is [27] which uses the term to describe something else. The term "micro-airline" appears to be a synonym for a "commuter airline" as described in the second business model at regional airline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
During my career I have worked for two companies that fit the definition given and have also lived in a town that had air service that would fit the definition; and I have never heard the term. I found this as well as the other web page, but it discusses another different concept. YSSYguy (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

United Express flights operating to Continental hubs

Why is United Express flights from Continental hubs in CLE, IAH, EWR to non-hubs are operating from CO gates at airports and not UA gates? Cause CO and UA still operate from different concourses/terminals/gates at airports. If those flights are operating as "United Express", shouldn't they operate from UA gates as they are marketed as and not as CO Express? Snoozlepet (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not really a Wikipedia question, it's better directed at an airline discussion site like airliners.net. That said, I'm guessing it's because express flights are typically designed to feed connecting operations, and at CLE, IAH, and EWR those would be centered around the CO gates. UA mainline I expect will eventually move to those same gates as well, similar to how CO has moved to UA's terminal at SFO. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

vandalism at SilkAir destinations

Taking place now even as I revert it, editor adding all former destinations and some new with misleading reference, please take note, Bandung and Kolkata are the only new routes.116.71.20.211 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vektra Aviation

Vektra Aviation seems non-notable, and has no reliable sources. Can someone look into this, and PROD/AFD it if it's non-notable? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems questionable to me too. As a first step, I added a {{Notability}} tag to it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

better format for terminated destinations list

Mainly for table format layout articles that dont want to merge terminated and current destinations into one list, nor want a seprate table style list for former stations, what do you think Finnair destinations. 116.71.14.105 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, colors should be avoided when not really needed as they are not in this case, better to handle those special cases with a comment field. Again the flags! These are problematic and at a sub national level a waste. Anyone recognize the flag of North Dakota? Yokon? Norfolk Island? Why have the IATA and ICAO codes and the airports? That is overkill. The city is ample for 98% of the cases and for the others you can list one code as a comment with a link to the article. What is really lacking in the current lists? I know the format could be improved, but what is lacking in the content? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The table format, which has wiki concensus approval and special status is a non-issue, whats being discussed here is the former destinations section below it.116.71.6.32 (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo request--New Horizon Air livery

Could someone who lives in Seattle, WA please take a picture of a Horizon Air aircraft in the new livery? We had an image before, but that was a non-free rendering that was only here until a plane is actually painted in the new livery. But that has happened now, and the image that we had is now up for speedy deletion. Now we need a new picture of the livery. So could someone please upload a picture they took? That would be great. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone PLEASE upload a picture???????! It's gotta be on someone's computer. Just upload it, please. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen any uploaded on Flickr with a license we can use in the new livery. I'll be in Portland later this month for the Airliners International convention, so I'll try to get a photo when I'm there. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and I appreciate your efforts to contribute airplane pics to Wikipedia. Surprised there weren't any pictures on Flickr that we could use here. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually got a photo yesterday at LAX and just added it to the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for adding the picture. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of the United States

{{Airlines of the United States}} is getting modified by an IP user, once again creating multiple levels of breakdown with interesting distinctions and bad grammar ("classed as: Majors" should probably be "classified as: Majors") and including archaic terminology such as referring to regional airlines as feeders. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it to an earlier uncomplicated version MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Any support for protection, since this is an on going issue? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to ask. MilborneOne's reversion back to the long-standing version has been reverted. At minimum, can we semi-protect to force the user to login and be accountable for their edits, since the pattern suggests a single editor with changing IPs, but a warning/block is useless because the addresses keep changing. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur with semi-protection, as it was reverted again by a third IP from another US West Coast location. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
And IP #2 of the most recent spree of reverters reverted BilCat. They're all showing as mycingular.net IPs, which is AT&T Wireless. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Now semi protected. If someone wants to add the icon template go for it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Destination Lists (again)

I noticed that the standard template for list based destinations British Airways destinations has been changed to table. Dont need a re-action just wanted to note the sad demise of a plain and uncomplicated system for what is a complicated flag-fest of an idea with no hope of making much sense to the average reader. And if this is not a travel guide why do we have IATA and ICAO codes! MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains wikipedia has given this table listing Gold star/FL status, nothing else needs to be said. I dont know why you even brought it up here again, I agree some versions are not nice like Aeroflot destinations but then theres Qatar Airways destinations thats good, I made an effort to make Ethiopian Airlines destinations look nicer and it seems to work . However I would like these tables to have more of an official/formal look, like out of a tables and statistics book, more mature I guess, I dont know how else to describe it.BTW just saw BA and it looks good, perhaps the text size needs to shrunk in all tables.116.71.27.237 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment - that's List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations that made FL.
Comment - since we are discussing the style - why do the codes come before the airport name? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It keeps getting raised because they look complicated and confusing to the reader, we keep getting the point that it made a featured list - but in reality that is just an opinion of a small group of editors and doesnt overide common sense. I think the reason why we have destination lists has been lost somewhere along the way - it is just to show the scope and range of services from a particularly airport, this is not a travel guide. It is not the table format itself that is the issue it is the amount of information and the ugly flags. The flags are just being used for decoration, so perhaps the compromise is to stay with the table but ditch the flags and the two code columns. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny, I like the flags, dont mind all the codes and colour bars going, tables without flags seem dull, literally like something is missing and its only the flags them seem to fill that void.116.71.12.254 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Two things. First - table content:ICAO and IATA codes are somewhat redundant to the actual airport link. If you search on wikipedia with either of those you should get to the airport article. On the other hand there are discontinued destinations with no mention of when they were discontinued. Was it last year, or the day after BOAC and BEA merged in spring 1974? Second is about FL and lists which I will separate out below. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation lists and Featured list

This is a spin off line of thought from the destinations table format question above - which is "content" question. I am thinking of a quality issues. At its heart are the questions - "what is a list article?" and "what should a list article go through on its way to FL status?".

  • On wikipedia List_of_aircraft_engine_manufacturers is a typical list article. It's a list of articles. And thats it, bar a couple of notes. [List of regiments of the Russian Air Force]] is called "list of" but contains a lot more content.
  • A simple list is relatively easily assessed for content - lack of spelling mistakes and the links can be proven to be part of the group they claim to be. A list with added content is getting closer to an article - information from various sources brought together (with a concurrent risk of OR or SYNTH), a paragraph or two of background, more notes.
  • Progress of an article under WP:Aviation aegis goes roughly: create as start, expansion and checking against B-class checklist until B achieved, assess against Good Article, A class, nominate for Featured. Bingo - job done.
  • Progress of an list would seem to go: create, assess as List-class, improve, nominate for Featured list,
  • In other words it seems a list with extra content (as happens with destination lists or lists of surviving aircraft or a list of pilots) could, by receiving a list-class assessment at the start, bypass a lot of the checking we take as natural for articles.
opinions? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your observations that what was a minority decision is held up as a gold standards when it clearly is not. That said I am not a fan of the table format but happy to work with a compromise to improve it and remove the clutter. Perhaps an agreement on removing the codes may be a start. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pullmantur Air

The name is now written as such and not as Air Pullmantur, please change article title.116.71.27.237 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Finncomm Airlines

There seem to be double articles for this airline atleast as far as the first two lines of the first paragraph are concerned, one redirects from Finncomm, the other from Finnish Commuter Airlines, kindly verify.inspector (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue resolved on its own somehow.inspector (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Code Shares

Can unilateral c/s be listed in both airlines articles, even though just one is code sharing on the other? 116.71.16.77 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Airline holding companies of the United States

Usual problem, complicated ownership details are being added. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect it? As usual, its an IP editor. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted again but the IP has changed it back, dont really want to revert again and to involved to protect it, any other eyes on this appreciated as it appears that the current editors opposing the changes are those who concentrate on the simplistic airline hobby, and not on commercial aviation and business, so we need some more serious editors to have a look please. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some additional eyes on the template's talk page? Right now there is a discussion about removing Direct Air and go! Mokulele. Direct Air was already removed and now this IP editor wants to remove go! Mokulele as well, on the basis that neither are not airlines but "travel advertising marketing brands". If we want to have a consensus standard that the airlines included on the template are certified airlines in their own right, that's fine and I won't object to removing Direct Air and go! Mokulele (though Mokulele Airlines would need to be added). But I would like to see that we have consensus, not just one persistent IP editor pushing his agenda. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New airline article

I'm working on a new article Southern Star Airlines and need some help. Where can I find the IATA and ICAO codes and the Callsign of the airline? I'd also like an experienced editor to check that I haven't made any mistakes with layout, templates, categories, etc. and that the article complies with the styles and standards of this project. Roger (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this (which is as official as it gets), Southern Star's IATA code is 4P. Can't find an ICAO code, because in the finest tradition of international organizations their website is a useless, festering pile of shit. Jpatokal (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
[28] doesnt show an ICAO code or callsign yet, might be to new to have been published by anybody yet. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Another good place to check for ICAO and callsign is the FAA at [29] MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks MilborneOne, I'll keep an eye on those sources for updates. Is the article ok as far as layout, style, templates, etc are concerned? Roger (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Images in fleet lists

Is this a new trend, refer Adria Airways? MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the same user who added the photos may have more planned, possibly for the airliner articles also. See User:Russavia/A320, User:Russavia/737, and User:Russavia/Tu-154. I've never liked photos in list tables, as it makes the tables too big, and "cluttery". I don't this trend on airliners and airline articles is a good idea. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless we get a consensus not to add images the practice will spread, but it appears that pretty is the new encyclopedic, sigh. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Except that the Adria Airways table is really quite ugly. I'm generally against images in tables where they dominate the text. And when it creates monotony. In this case we have two images of twin engined jets with the engines under the wings and two images of twin engined jets with wings on the rear fuselage. Put me down on on your side of the new consensus. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Its been a couple of days since anybody commented if we get no objections in the next few days then I will add something to the appropriate guideline about not using images inside the table, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Take this as an objection. It is my opinion that images within the tables gets rid of the "cruft" down the right hand side of articles which is ever so prevalent in airline articles. Given the sheer amount of images I have gotten permission to use, we have enough images to be able to display historical photos in the "history" section of articles, and by placing images in the fleet tables, it allows us to use current photos of the various aircraft in airline fleets, whilst keeping articles neat and tidy. It is my opinion that User:Russavia/Aeroflot#Current looks 1000% better than Aeroflot#Fleet. I am also working on things such as User:Russavia/747-200 and User:Russavia/Il-62 and User:Russavia/Il-86. Having images in the table where possible adds some variety to the articles, and also adds "value" to our readers. We have usage of over 30,000 (and counting) aircraft images, we may as well utilise them as much as possible. --Russavia Let's dialogue 16:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the images at Adria_Airways#Fleet look nice, and it's great to know what the different plane types look like in the company's livery. Maybe I've missed something, but I cannot understand how such fleet tables with images could be considered "ugly". Please do not remove these useful images. Nanobear (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the images really don't belong in the table because they seem to dominate it and distract readers from all the other info in the table. I think a better practice to adopt is to add a photo gallery right below the fleet table with all the planes currently in the airline's fleet, as done on the US Airways article. We could maybe even do this for photos of special liveries as well. This would also solve the problem of having a bunch of pictures to the right of the fleet table, as well as prevent pictures from distracting from the info in the table. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought there was some policy discouraging the use of galleries? Anyway, I definitely like the images in the table -approach more than the gallery approach. This is just my opinion, of course. Naturally, having the pictures in a gallery is still much better than having no pictures at all. Nanobear (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem with the appearance is that it leads to a lot of dead vertical space in the tables. You get the one photo column which is full, but every other column is a single line of text vertically centered in the row, leading to a lot of empty space above and below the text in each row of the table. The smaller you make the photo in the table to reduce this problem, the less useful the photo becomes because more detail is lost. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If you look at featured list articles such as List of Presidents of the United States or List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria, one will see that they use images in the tables. This is an expected feature of featured lists. Although airline articles aren't lists, there is no reason that we shouldn't use some of those ideas in airline articles. I have been working on, for some time, User:Russavia/SU_fleet. Note how there will be images in the table. Compare that format with List of Scandinavian Airlines aircraft - there is a table, and then there is a gallery underneath. Formatted properly, i.e. put images inside the table, add some prose and that could easily become a featured article. In terms of "normal" airline articles, I honestly believe there are more important things to worry about than something that should be discussed on talk page of the article concerned, and allow editors who work on those particular articles to discuss as well. I see that no-one has reverted the Adria Airways page, so obviously there is some acceptance of those changes by editors who have worked on that individual article. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
List of Presidents of the United States is a former featured article - demoted in 2008 and failed "re-election" in 2009. I'd like to see some previous discussion that images in large numbers are "expected" in featured lists. List of Governors of California has some, 2008 World Series of Poker Europe has fewer. List of Harry Potter cast members has one - though that may be due to lack of free images. List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy has a few though not incorporated in the tables. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list criteria - number 5 - especially visually appealing, and use of images. Compare Transaero Airlines with how I had it some time ago [30] - sorry, but having images down the right hand side of the page does not look visually appealing, neither do stand-alone image galleries (which are crufty), and by having images down the right hand side, it looks like a dumping ground. We have use of some 60-70,000 free images commons:User:Russavia#Aviation-related for more info, we may as well put them to good use. Take Adria article for example - previously images were dumped around the article - now the current fleet is in the table, which leave more room in the prose above to include relevant images from when it was call Inex-Adria (for which we have free photos available). --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, so currently it appears that there are more people against this practice of putting images in fleet lists than there are for it. Out of the 7 different users who have commented on this, there are 5 users that are against this practice (including me) while there are only 2 users who think this is fine. I think we need more people to weigh in on this issue before we really have a consensus.
And by the way, I absolutely do not think that dumping pics along the right-hand side of the page is a good idea—that looks really darn ugly! Putting them in the table isn't a good practice, either; all I want to look at is the pics and nothing else. I think the best thing to go with is putting them in a photo gallery immediately below the fleet table. If you agree that this is much better than putting them in the table, please comment below. Like I said above, I want more opinions from more users.
Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just put all the pictures on Transaero Airlines into a gallery. How does it look? Way better than if they were in they table? Heck yeah! —Compdude123 (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Refer to WP:IG. Galleries are discouraged, and should probably be deleted completely. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to upload photos

I have managed to get permission from a heap of photographers for the use of their photos. One of the latest permissions is proving to be a treasure trove. The photos so-far uploaded are at commons:Category:Photos by Steve Fitzgerald, with information at commons:Template:SteveFitzgerald. So far I have uploaded a few gems such as the Singapore Airlines Concorde, Sudan Airways Comet, Air Malawi 747SP, etc.

But there is a heap more to go:

  • Air Bridge Carriers Argosy
  • Air Burundi Caravelle
  • AirCal 737
  • Air France Caravelles
  • BOAC VC-10s
  • Air India DC-8
  • Air Jamaica DC-8
  • Air Martinique Caravelle
  • Air UK Heralds
  • BEA Airtours Comets/707
  • BEA Vanguard
  • Concorde prototypes
  • British Air Ferries Herald/Carvair/Viscount
  • British Airtours 707
  • BA Viscount/VC-10/Concorde/Trident/Merchantman
  • Scottish Airways Viscount
  • BCal 707/1-11/Bells
  • British Midland 707
  • Canadian Air Force Argus
  • Court Line 1-11
  • Dan-air Comet
  • East African Dc-3/VC-10/DC-9/Fokker 27
  • Finnair Caravelle
  • Ghana Airways VC-10
  • Gulf Air VC-10
  • Iberia Caravelle
  • KLM DC-8
  • Merpati Vanguard
  • Monarch Britannia
  • PSA TriStar/MD-80
  • SAS Caravelle
  • RAF Beverley/Viscount/Argosy/VC-10/Varsity/Comet
  • UAE VC-10
  • Oman VC-10

and on, and on, it goes. Would editors like to help with 1) getting these up onto Commons (not enwiki) and 2) getting them into articles where appropriate. Would appreciate a lot of help with all of these. Cheers --Russavia Let's dialogue 23:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for negotiating those pictures, hopefully the OTRS e-mail verification will go through soon. I suppose then that all uploads can be done manually, with the same OTRS template used as evidence of permission... Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

60,000-70,000 photos available for uploading

Tu-144 at Paris Air Show in 1975. Just one of the photos we can upload.

If you refer to commons:User:Russavia#Aviation-related there is a big list of photographers whom have allowed us to upload their photos from a variety of sites. I calculate that there are some 60-70,000++ photos so far available for us to utilise on Commons. I am letting the Wikiproject know that you are free to upload the photos as described on this list. Photos cover a diverse range of aviation - civil, military, general, business - and cover the era from the 1960s right up to the present time. There are many rare photos available for use, such as the Tu-144 shown here. Please take advantage of these resources, upload them to Commons (not local WP), and get them into articles. Any images which may be from airliners.net and have the watermark, add them to Commons:Category:Images from airliners.net with watermarks and I will get the unwatermarked versions. If anyone has any questions, contact me on my Commons talk page at commons:User talk:Russavia. And just to let you know, I have thus far contacted around 300 photographers, and I have a lot more templates and the like to create on Commons where permission has already been given; some photographers I am explaining what releasing under a free licence means to them and am waiting to hear from; some photographers have yet to respond; and some have said they don't want to put their photos on Commons (luckily, these are in the vast minority). So there will be new photographers added every day. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate Russavias efforts and I think a number of images would greatly improve current articles most dont really have a place in wikipedia so we shouldnt be uploading them for the sake of it, we will then be adding them and inventing galleries and image laden lists just because we can, perhaps better organising the pages with relevant links and stuff on commons may be worth some improvement. The registration based system of categories at the moment makes commons a nightmare for finding airliner or aircraft images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to concur with MilborneOne that we don't need to upload every image to Commons for the sake of uploading them. There are definite holes in what's available and this can probably help, but just dumping everything into Commons is a lot of effort that may never be used. Having the resources documented in areas like this WikiProject that ought to be well known to interested editors is good so that they know where to go when they're looking for a particular subject that needs to be added. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, I didn't say dump everything onto commons, I have suggested uploading what editors can use, and place them into articles where they can be used. A bit of common sense peoples. As to how images can be used, that is up to individual editors I guess. I am certain in the two minutes that it took both of you to write that, it could have been a photo that could have been uploaded and utilised in an article. ;) --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, on how to find images on Commons, I agree the registration system is a right pain in the arse. I don't categorise that way. However, use "catscan", search for images, and you can find them that way. --Russavia Let's dialogue 19:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Wiki editors are not known for their common sense, see my Biman 747 post below and you will know what I mean. People ENTHUSIASTIC to edit airline articles at wiki should be in the know how of developments in the industry, use google, browse aviation sites and forums to confirm things themseleves rathar than be a b****, then they run off to some Mommy editor to make the article semi-secure and uneditable, Mom editor BTW belongs to a group who uptil earlier this year seemed to have hijacked this site but some of them have thankfully left since, anyways I have done that too i.e compalined to other editors to help resolve issue, it was that editors choice wether to semi-protect article or not, I did not suggest it, but I did this only after I repeatedly told concerned editors that the information they were adding was factually wrong/false, as I had confirmed it through those airlines websites, schedules and google also by discussing it in forums at other sites, thats how a proactive airline enthusiast editor at wiki should be and I'm not even associated with this site or its projects, yet I make the effort if need be. 116.71.3.3 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments but you need to assume good faith and comment on edits not other editors. Please remember this is an encyclopedia not an airline enthusiast web site, forums and blogs are not reliable sources. And just to repeat the comment below you really need to discuss this on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Exploits Valley Air Services

I have just moved a userspace draft (that I'd forgotten about) about this small Canadian airline (and Air Canada subcontractor) into the article space. It's currently lacking any references (although the fleet data can be found by searching Transport Canada [31]) and certain basic information (IATA/ICAO codes), but I'd rather not be having to defend it at a deletion discussion. Hopefully this project may be able to help.... Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone has already been along and stuck a "prod" on it. I've contested it, but would really appreciate some help on this. Any takers? --RFBailey (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Biman 747-400

Biman recently added a 744 to the fleet, despite adding reference in form of photograph an editor is deliberately trying to star edit wars there, I also added another discussion there earlier as ref in summary not as citation, which gives further proof of the lease through various other sources in the topic, I know this is not a valid ref source but it should be sufficient to confiorm that edit is true and acceptable, there are many things added to various articles regularly without reference why is this editor acting like an a**, when its been provided be it in any form, kindly resolve this.116.71.3.3 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You really need to comment on the article talk page, the other editor is not trying to edit war he is just looking for a reliable reference that the 747 is being operated by Bangladesh, not an unreasonable request. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to add for information that the forums indicate that the 747 is being operated probably as a wet-lease on behalf of Bangladesh by Air Atlanta Icelandic on the annual Hajj flight, it is normal for even wet-leased aircraft on the Hajj run to be repainted into appropriate colours. No indication that it is being operated by Biman Bangaldesh themselves so all that is is being asked is a reliable reference about the aircraft, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The 744 will be used elsewhere and is not just for hajj, all the info was in the link provideed in edit summary, if anyone had cared to read it. Air Atlanta and others operate aircraft for many other airlines for hajj and otherwise in full or patial livery, these aircraft are listed in the respective airlines fleet lists at wiki, as an aviation enthusiast you should know better, infact there are some that are flying in their own liveries for other airlines and are listed in the other airlines fleet.116.71.3.218 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on airline articles in general

If anyone would like a sneak preview of some 2,000 photos that we will soon have access to, going back to 1960, take a look at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Ralf%20Manteufel&distinct_entry=true and http://www.abpic.co.uk/search.php?q=Ralf%20Manteufel&u=photographer - I have had a good look thru photos that I could need for my own articles I am working on, and it seems that all 2,000 are absolutely gems.

Having a look through it has got me thinking. Gems like this jumped straight out at me (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Breguet-763-Provence/1230009/L/). Whilst it is suitable for the article on the aircraft (which doesn't have a photo such as this in it), the vast majority of the photos we have permission to upload are absolutely useless to us, because the vast majority of the articles I have looked at are full of recentism material and in a lot of cases, cruft. Take my eternal favourite, for example. Singapore_Airlines#In-flight_services is 3-4 times longer than the history of the airline. We have photos available of a Concorde in Singapore Airlines livery, yet in this article it is absolutely useless, because the article totally skips any resemblance of history and is instead a Wikitravel article (advertorial) detailing every facet of promotion of inflight services that doesn't belong in the article, but in the airline PR. I am not singling the SIA article out here, but am using it as an example of what is wrong with airline articles in general.

Having a look, we currently don't have any Featured Articles within the scope of this project. And looking at the Good Articles, the problem is just as bad. Some of the GA's are well deserved, but some are not, and are full of cruft. Take Cathay Pacific for example. Cathay_Pacific#Expansion_in_the_1960s.2C_1970s.2C_and_1980s - Thirty years of history is summed up in 6 lines. Cathay_Pacific#Loyalty_programmes - Airline PR on their loyalty program is god only knows how much longer. This is indicative of what is wrong with airline articles in general. Too much precedence is given to things one would expect to find in a travel guide, whilst the information that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia is either omitted in its entirety, or is skipped over with just a few lines.

Instead of discussing trivial things such as whether photos belong in tables or not, this project really needs to deal with the endemic problems that exist on a lot of articles--things that will prevent almost all articles from ever reaching FA status. Thoughts welcome. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Many articles I'm working upon are image-lacking ones, especially those related to defunct airlines like West African Airways Corporation, for which the page has been expanded extensively, yet I believe the lack of any image there makes it less attractive, even to the interested reader. Tell me how can I help, and I'll do my best. I support your position, and keep holding mine's that there is nothing as boring as a formal encyclopedia. Warm regards to everyone.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Russavia on the lack of history, perhaps the historical images may prompt an increase in interest in history sections. Not sure what the answer is perhaps we should convince those keen on article improvement in the aircraft project to take on a few airlines. I am sure with support from everybody articles can be improved. It often happens when somebody takes the lead and says I need help with Foo Airlines we can all help. Perhaps we are spending to much time on things like destination lists which are not any more important than history but take up a lot of time and effort to keep in order. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I can say that having images can be helpful, and could be the kickstart for what is needed. When I got permission from the Kremlin to use images under CC-BY (commons:Template:Kremlin.ru), I spent some time uploading photos to Commons---much like I am now with these aircraft photos. In the course of uploading, I noticed various subjects, and upon checking on enwiki we didn't have articles. Some of the articles which I created, just because we had images, included Koni (dog), Slava Zaitsev (the design house later provided a range of promo photos for the article). Many of the airline articles at User:Russavia/DYK have been expanded by myself merely because I "now" (back then) had photos of the aircraft of the airline available. To me, things like comprehensive inflight service guides and frequent flyer program information are not encyclopaedic. I have yet to see a published book on an airline (and not published by the PR department) which would devote space to things like seating, and inflight service, and the ins and outs of frequent flyer programs, but they all have comprehensive information on the history. And it's a shame that our articles look nothing like this, but more like PR puff-pieces.
I would suggest that guidelines for articles be revisited sometime in the near future, and seriously look at reducing what should be included in such articles, such as Wikitravel type information. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Commons:Category:Photos by Ralf Manteufel are now available for uploading if anyone was interested. Russavia Let's dialogue 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, Russavia! Airline articles are not that great. They need more history, more citations, and less PR/ marketing. And I expanded the history of Alaska Airlines a while ago, but it's all text and no pictures. Hopefully some of the pictures have Alaska Airlines planes in them. I'd also like to work on making Alaska Airlines a featured article, as well as two great airlines that aren't around anymore, Pan Am and TWA. I would love some help with these articles. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Airlines to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why Pan Am blows away all of the other articles? Could it be the T...? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

El Al article title

Propose the title be changed to EL AL in all caps from current El Al, as it is a number of airline articles are titled in the style that the name is applied on the aircraft i.e airblue, airBaltic, Jet2 so on.116.71.7.54 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We dont always use the marketing style but it is up to individual articles, need to make move request on the article talk page to see if anybody objects to the idea. If you need a wider input then come back here with a link to that discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
As a rule, Wikipedia does not apply all caps to article titles unless the name is an acronym or initialism, which El Al is not. See WP:ALLCAPS. Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
{edit conflict) It would go against the Manual of Style to use Allcaps (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps and [[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks]]) so I doubt there would be any support for it. More so as reliable sources don't use all caps style eg El Al 777 makes emergency landing at Tel Aviv . GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

unsavvy editors dealing with airline articles

People who dont bother to look up airline schedules even when they have been attached as reference in the article, and dont even have knowledge of industry develpoments, and then undo the edits made asking for sources and trying to act frikkin smart to hide their stupidity, kindly make some rule to deal with such people, this happened at PrivatAir look up history. 116.71.7.54 (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC

You should assume good faith by other editors we dont have a any qualification to edit the encyclopedia everbody (except a view vandals) are editing as best they can. You have to remember that a lot of editors add stuff they find in blogs and forums in good faith but really needs to be better sourced. As to PrivatAir I can understand that editors would remove the destinations as it appears the PrivatAir hasnt actually got any, it operates the services for others not in its own right, so clearly not cut and dry as it would appear. MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
But in his edits he said GF fly to the places with their own aircraft, actually its Privatair flying their aircraft for GF painted in GF livery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.7.92 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If this is a re-occurring issue, you can add a "page notice" that will tell all editors "Hey! X is Y! Z is W!" so you won't have to deal with the same issue over and over again WhisperToMe (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Continental HQ is now in Chicago

Hey guys! Continental has now moved the headquarters to Chicago!

It still has employees in Houston, but now it's Chicago-based. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Really needs updates: Alaska by SkyWest

Just realized that SkyWest Airlines destinations and SkyWest Airlines still lack information about destinations and other infobox information for Alaska Airlines. If you have the time, please help. It's been five months since they started. HkCaGu (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

geography at KLM destinations according to UN or Wikipedia?

Some editor there is adamant on using UN view of listing destinations in regions, Mexico is listed as UN defined Central America not North America as at WIKIPEDIA, similarly he's adamant on listing Angola as UN defined Middle Africa instead of Central Africa as at WIKIPEDIA, when you search middle africa it redirects to central africa that says it all, Mexico is listed in wikiproject continents??? as a North American country not Central American, can you people please practice some control here and have everything done as per the information at WIKIPEDIA and not as defined elsewhere, THANK YOU.116.71.3.218 (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of Mexico being in "Central America". Which, by the way, isn't a continent; there is only North America and South America. Along the same lines, there is only "Africa", no "Central Africa" or "Middle Africa". Also, the very first sentence of Mexico reads: The United Mexican States[14] (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos (help·info)), commonly known as Mexico (pronounced i/ˈmɛksɨkoʊ/; Spanish: México [ˈme̞xiko̞] ( listen)),[15] is a federal constitutional republic in North America. That said, this does present an interesting point: Going by the UN definition of regions does give us a third party external source. I also wonder if the UN list is also based more on cultural than geographic boundaries, as Spanish-speaking Mexico does probably fit in better with the other Central and South American countries than with the mostly English-speaking US and Canada, though I would call this cultural grouping "Latin America" rather than "Central America". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The UN geoscheme, which I think is what is being used, is described as "devised for statistical purposes and is used for carrying out statistical analysis." and "does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories". Surely the defining element would be what KLM (or a commentator on KLM flight destionations) refers to it as. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
He is also listing North America as Northern America as if its a region and not a continent. Oh, so now destinations at WIKIPEDIA can defy wiki rules etc. and list them as the airline or the editor choses to define them, why are you running this site then, why do you have rules? why cant I then list Southwest Asia as Western Asia in the text format style destinations list, because when I type southwest asia in search it takes me directly to western asia article, which is what should be used, but due to some bizzare rule it has to be listed as Southwest Asia, but wait the rules can be bended for others as in KLM case where North America can become Northern America, Central Africa Middle Africa, Mexico can be grouped with Central America because it pleases the editor or the airline likes it that way, guess what most airlines in Europe list Pakistan as Middle East region for time table, I guess I will go about correcting that to airline standards in contradiction to those of wiki.119.155.35.79 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, I think we're saying the exact opposite. Perhaps in the specific case of KLM, the Region column should be renamed to "Continent"? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that column shouldn't exist at all.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Note the existence of {{airline destinations}} which we created as a guide a long time ago. This was pieced together from several smaller lists to avoid problems. Does that need updating? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I see it lists Afghanistan in Southwest Asia (Western Asia/Middle East) according to UN or Wikipedia? its more Central Asian. I agree with jestreamer no need for that coloumn infact KLm article is only one with it, BTW some tables are not listing cities in alphabetical order when you list the countries alphabetically infact it seems to keep changing, for PRC sometimes Shanghai on top Beijing under, some times Guangzhou on top but never Beijing, several other examples for countries where multiple cities are served. 116.71.7.54 (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to KLM, that was resolved not too long ago. The continents column was removed entirely because it is too confusing to many readers. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OpenSkies ORY-IAD

OpenSkies announced that this route will be ending October 28 but one user change it to seasonal as it will return next summer. However, 2 references were provided (for the IAD) and 1 reference was provided for (EC and ORY) stating that the service will be ending; nowhere in the sources state that the route will be converted to a seasonal route. Also, flights are not bookable for next summer. Is this route permanently ending or seasonal until it returns? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know details about this specific instance, but if there are reliable sources saying the route is ending and no reliable sources stating that it is becoming seasonal, than as far as we on Wikipedia are concerned, it is ending. We can always change it later if it comes back or new information is released. I would contact the editor that is making the change and ask them to provide their source; the onus should be on the person making the change to be able to support the information they're entering. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Airline destination lists RfC

An RfC request regarding airline destination lists was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#Classification of Hong Kong and Macau under airline destination lists. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How about consulting a Feng Shwei expert? I think its better to list them seprate since they are not part of PRC regards to aviation, maybe PRC in parentheses can be added next to each, such as in some lists for various foreign governed island nations in the Pacific and elsewhere. 116.71.21.216 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Years for start dates

Since the consensus was to add the year for start dates at WP:AIRPORTS for airport articles. We should do the same for airline destinations. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the same discussion should be held here before modifying airline articles. This is a separate project. The addition of the year to start/end dates is uneccessary to me, as no ambiguities should arise regarding them, given that airlines do not foresee the market with an anticipation of more than a year, let alone amid the ongoing international crisis. Please provide your opinions here to gain or not consensus on this matter.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Jetstreamer. Airports may be fine however, but Airlines is a different thing entirely considering they can announce services and various upgrades to onboard or check-in services next year and cancel them before it even starts. Sb617 (Talk) 11:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I would go ahead and add the year to any start date. Adding the year helps the reader understand what year the date in question. Snoozlepet (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is to discuss this before making further changes to the articles. I'm against your vision as it renders unnecessary under unambiguous dates, but the poll is open. Since this is another project and we cannot simply extrapolate the results of another projects, we need to gain consensus first.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Snoozlepet that we should add years for start/end dates in airline articles. The comments about why adding years makes sense to airport articles but not airline articles doesn't make sense to me. It's the same information from the same source, just presented different ways. Typically an airline announces a new route and that gets added to the airport articles. If the route serves an airport that the airline hadn't served previously, it gets added to the airline's destination list as well. The problem of the average reader seeing a year-less date and not knowing if its in the past or future is no different on airline articles than it is on airport articles. Those of us who keep the articles up to date know they're current, but the average reader doesn't. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jetstreamer. Adding the year for start dates is unnecessary as most airlines announce commencement or resumption of routes in less than a year. The 13 months criteria to add year is fine. — Abhishek  Talk 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
@Abhishek: Actually, the 13 months criteria for adding the year is for start dates in airport articles and that matter was discussed not too long ago at WP:AIRPORTS. The consensus is to include the year regardless. As Jetstreamer states, WP:AIRLINES and WP:AIRPORTS are seperate projects and there was no consensus here to include the year. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
@Hawaiian717 That's what I was trying to say in my previous comment but didn't know how to word it. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, may i point out that WP:AIRLINES mentions nothing regarding future destinations and start dates but WP:AIRPORTS does and as Hawaiian717 states it is the same information but presented in different ways. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian and I'm just here to let you know that your request for a Third Opinion has been removed because of the number of editors involved in this discussion. 3O is for disputes in which exactly two editors are involved and have reached a stalemate. If you feel that you still need dispute resolution you might want to consider the dispute resolution noticeboard, but let me note that this discussion seems pretty vigorous and does not seem to be in need of much help at this point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And let us not forget the MoS which still allows dates without a year. I did not comment on the other discussion electing to see what happened. The result is reverting of edits that follow the old style and the MoS which does not require a year as I read it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree year should be added, earlier I though the discussion was for adding yet another column to table style lists, so that post deleted. 116.71.21.216 (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Codeshare and alliances

Many editors think that just because an airline is an Alliance member it automatically code shares with all others carriers in that alliance, that is not the case always, so instead of listing it as "in addition to XYZ Alliance partners, ABC Airlines also have codeshare agreements with the following" it should just be "ABC Airlines codeshare with the following" and only list those airlines with whom they have the agreemnent from the alliance they belong to, in addition to the other carriers. 116.71.21.216 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, many SkyTeam, Star Alliance, and Oneworld members already have codeshare with some of their member carriers. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats is what I am saying they c/s with SOME not ALL, but the c/s section states "in addition to the XYZ Alliance partners", implying that they c/s with all partners which isnt the case.116.71.16.46 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Firefly: Controversy/Critism section

A user continues to add a section on critism to Firefly but is adding invalid/inappropriate sources (such as a personal blog and Facebook). If anyone can find a reliable source for this, please readd? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta hubs

We got several IPs (presumably the same user) remnoving CDG as a hub again from the Delta Air Lines page again. We go through this every few months there. I know this has been a contentious issue within the project, but the last I remember, we decided to go withthe airlines' individual definitions, as there are no objective standards for determining what constitutes a hub. - BilCat (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's simply your opinion that there are "no objective standards for determining what constitutes a hub". And while I did attempt this change several months back, I assure you I am not the only person who finds CDG listed without explanation among Delta hubs odd.206.255.176.167 (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times, and no such sources have ever been presented. While you are free to present verifiable, reliable sources, just claiming that they exist isn't enough. Present those sources, allow other editors to verify their content and reliablilty, and you'll probably be able to change the consensus. - BilCat (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
My (entirely OR and POV) opinion of what constitutes a hub is an airport that has flights (by a given airline) to and from multiple other places. Roger (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So an airport that hosts xxx airline with service to all of the airline's hubs becomes a hub? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Qantas Grounding

Is there any article covering the recent staff disputes that Qantas has been having, or is this not considered to be encyclopaedic? The current situation where the CEO has now grounded the entire fleet seems rather extraordinary:

ref: Simon Benson and Vanda Carson (29 October 2011 6:02 AM UTC ) "Shock as Qantas chief Alan Joyce grounds airline's domestic and international fleet". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). Retrieved 29 October 2011
- 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 06:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not notable as a separate article, but possibly worth a mention on the main Qantas article. Let's see what happens from there. Sb617 (Talk) 07:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Remembering of course that Wikipedia is not a news service. Any addition to the Qantas article must not only be sourced, but the information must have lasting, historical significance. SempreVolando (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The Qantas article has been updated, and there is now a new article, 2011 Qantas trade union disputes covering the issue in more depth. Regards, 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do not change the Qantas article to past tense. The airline is not defunct, operations are just suspended until further notice. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing terminated destinations

I consider it vandalism, one editor is going around removing these from tables lists to suit his fancy, as you know the table list is meant to have both past and present destinations, so what should be done? 116.71.30.241 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would consider it vandalism as well, as maintaining a list of terminated destinations provides a better overview of the airline's history than just showing the currently served destinations. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with maintaining both present and terminated destinations in the same article. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a travel guide dedicated only to active destinations, so the whole history of any airline should be reflected into its destinations article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Both present and terminated destinations should be maintained. Also, some tables have current, future, seasonal, cargo destinations, etc a different color (hence terminated destinations are in gray). Also, terminated destinations in non-table format have its own section but it needs to be sourced if possible. It helps the reader what destinations the airline served, not served, and will be served in the future. Another note, terminated destinations needs to be sourced (if possible). Snoozlepet (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Some editors do not like the terminated routes being in the same table, more so marked with grey so they remove them, creating a seprate section as in text style listing, sometimes in table form sometimes text style.119.155.44.100 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Right now there are three types of destination pages. The first and original list-form (which separates current and former destinations), and the two table-form variations. One lists them separately below the table (example: KLM destinations and Air Canada destinations) while the other lists all destinations together. As two out of the three styles list the destinations separately, I suggest the third form follows suit. Furthermore, I would draw attention to any airline page which lists the current and former fleet separately. I see no reason to list them together. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI original format table calls for single listing i.e Braathens destinations, the other variants exist as editors are finding it tedious or boring to merge the lists with all the additional information required for table style, even I have now given up doing that becuase admittedly it is a chore, I had merged Air Canada lists which someone else going against FL standard format seperated them again, many others lists had been seperated and I remerghed them, KLM is meant to be merged into the current table just as have British Airways, Air France and Aeroflot have done, only two list formats are allowed one is the old text style with its seprate text style Terminated routes section and the other is the full single table listing current and former routes, the KLM one is not approved format, it maintains its stsus due to sheer laziness on editors part and those who dont want to apply new format single table list which I think is going against project.116.71.16.113 (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi. I have been doing a bit of maintenance, adding infoboxes, among other things, and have found that the majority of articles in WPAviation requiring infoboxes are airline articles. Can YOU help by adding infoboxes to articles listed at [32].Petebutt (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A template can be found at Template:Infobox airline.Petebutt (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Accidents and incidents articles do not require infoboxes, and you have marked some of them as needing one.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
We do have infoboxes for accident and incident articles see Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. I'm talking about articles listing accidents and incidents for any particular airline.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
OK i should pay attention, we usually use Template:Infobox Aviation for those articles just so they look like other aviation articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Have just used it at Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents, following Petebutt's suggestions. Thanks!--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tentative launch dates

These should be acceptable as semi-confirmed in this case http://www.hindustantimes.com/flydubai-to-connect-Ahmedabad-with-Dubai/Article1-700243.aspx yet its is being reverted by editor abhishek. inspector123

As long as there is a firm date, then it can be added as long as you include the source. Once the airline reconfirms a new start date and the airline officially announces it then updated it and the new source as well. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinair

The airline has ended passenger service, should there be a seprate Martinair Cargo title for destinations list, while Martinair destinations can host all historic passenger destinations? 116.71.17.64 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New page Martinair destinations. 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The above article is completely unsourced.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unecessary uglification of destination lists

Some editors in good faith are going arround poting tons of un-needed photos to the destinations lists pages of airlines, making the articles look unappealing to viewers and distortiong table layout with wrapping text see Turkish Airlines destinations which used to be a simple and clean looking article, kindly put a stop to this unecessary practice, it seems like whenever editors are bored they try to take a new challenge of dressing up wiki articles and that too without concensus. Though original table layout lists of airlines also started off as such, I think less is more and the photos should be removed from there as well, you clearly see the clean look difference in ones made later without photos.inspector (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no wrapping text in that particular article. Recall that wrapping depends upon the browser you use, and not upon the format of any particular article. Separately, the guess I can take from taking a look at your talk page is that you are prone to make disruptive edits to many of the articles you stepped into. I kindly advice you to contribute in other ways (adding references to Martinair destinations, which you recently edite, would be a good start) rather than modifying the aestectics of articles that were in the very same format for long time before you tried to changed it.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Trust me I have never done anything to uglify articles nor take control of them like you did of KLM while still under construction, YOU DO NOT OWN ARTICLES NOR DO I, the only editor whgo had an issue with me was Jaspel who seemed to be a psycho and a sock puppet ganged up with other like minded supporters or maybe he was all of them, he used to revert and clash with everyone and bitch about all, anyways the articles need to be edited with mutual consent reaching common ground and a wider consensus with other editors involved, now unless they are your pals and will side with you regardless what, like a certain gang of five used to till last year its pontless. Martinair article still carries underconstruction tag and is open to editing by all who can add more places, references or even tablefy it, unlike you and the KLM destinations article ownership.inspector (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not intend to turn this into a battleground. Please take a look at my recent edits to KLM destinations and you'll note that I have added sources (I actually added most of the sources it currently has), plus an infobox that MilborneOne kindly advised me to use. I agree with you in that nobody owns any article, never said something against that policy. Again, I advice you to make edits aimed at positioning you as a reliable editor. That's the only thing I'm trying to say.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FYI Chrome, Explorer and Firefox are all showing the table text wrapping, which broweser are you using? inspector (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox and I don't think I see Turkish Airlines destinations text-wrapping at all. Maybe you should try setting your computer to a higher screen resolution (at least 1280x1024) and see if that fixes your problem. If you have your screen resolution set at 1024X768, you will indeed see that the table is text wrapping and looks really ugly. I know this because as I am typing this, I have my screen resolution set at 1024x768 (normally it's 1280x1024), and the Turkish Airlines page looks really ugly. So just try setting your computer to a higher screen resolution (at least 1280x1024) and that should fix your problem. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
However do keep in mind that not everyone has a display capable of high resolution. What is the best available on your netpad? Maybe 1020x600? I seem to recall somewhere the recommendation that articles be written to display on an 800x600 display to avoid screen issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not tech savvy, can you guide me how to do it. inspector (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Right click on the desktop if you are on a windows machine. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly there no wrap on iPad, so I apologise to Jetstreamer, and thank him for removing unecessary photos from the lists as well. 116.71.18.97 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem buddy!.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Monarch's New Logo.

Hi can anyone please get Monarch's new logo (Indigo crwon with Monarch.co.uk on) and put it on wiki because the current logo (Monarch with indigo & yellow crown) they stopped using in 2009. Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The logo i currently see in the infobox matches the logos available for download on their web site: http://www.monarch.co.uk/about-us/photo-gallery/monarch-photo-gallery -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesnt look like it has been updated. Plane pictures look old too as the 757 is no longer in those clours and G-OZBJ left in 2008 as well. I would get the one in the top left but the colour makes it go finny :( --MKY661 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC) I would get the picture in the top left

Terminated and future destinations as separate tables?

Apologies if this has been raised before but I'm not a regular here. Most major airlines list of destinations seem to include a single table purporting to be a list of destinations as of ... . eg. Qantas destinations. I suggest that terminated and future destinations be moved into separate tables within the article. I believe that this would make the articles much more useful to the reader. Moondyne (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we are discussing the way of presenting the information, instead of the nature of the information itself (which in most of the cases is far from being complete and/or accurate). I see little or no efforts from most of the editors in reverting this particular issue.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What does that have to do with my proposal? Separate tables might encourage more effort in adressing incompleteness and/or innacuracy. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I support separate listing. "Terminated destinations" are not "XX Airlines destinations" per se. They are additional information. One should not find 100 destinations in a table and then realize only 3 are current. HkCaGu (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not support separate tables, as current, future and terminated destinations have all the same status and should be treated as such. If we give priority to the list of current destinations the article turns out to be a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not for.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that concern but per WP:SURPRISE, separating inactive destinations just seems more natural. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Using a single table allows the reader to sort the table in any way they want, for instance chronologically, by country or by terminated destinations. By creating two tables, we are removing many of the readers options and simply presuming what information they want. A good example of how to organize the table is at List of Dragonair destinations, which is a featured list. I can assure you the list would not have been featured if it had been two tables. Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
How can you assure that it wouldn't be a featured list if there were two tables? Looking at another featured list (tallest buildings in New York), there are multiple tables including current, future and former buildings. Another featured list (former London Underground stations) separates former and unopened stations. I support separate listings. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
List of Dragonair destinations doesnt include any terminated or future destinations which is specifically what this proposal is about. How can you give that assurance? I've reviewed a few FLists and think that this issue is one I would raise if I was a reviewing. Moondyne (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to let us all know, User:Thankyoubaby has reverted the recent edits I made to KLM destinations thinking that this is a poll. I spent an hour and a half making such edits. May I ask why an editor that had never edited the article before can revert a total valid improvement to that page? I will stick to WP:IGNORE in this case.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I prefer single list, the multiple ones may work in other articles but not airline destinations, Air France destinations and British airways destinations are better examples. Qantas and Dragonair types look bad due to text wrapping too many coloured bars and unecessary photos. only pastel colours should be used like in Qatar Airways destinations with no symbols to mark or identify anything either.116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW there is some problem in tables, they are not listing cities alphabetically if you line up countries in alphabetical order, please fix. 116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is deadlocked. Can we reach a consensus asap? I'd like to hear the opinions of experienced editors in the matter, not the ones of unexperienced editors that only cause disruptions to any attempt of making a better Wikipedia. I am here for making improvements to articles (the proof is that two articles in which I contributed gained GA status in the last three months), rather than wasting my time in discussions already treated. This discussion is banal, we are dealing with aesthetics and not with contents. There's very much to do here. The only actions taken by User:Thankyoubaby is to revert the edits I made to KLM destinations. Furthermore, I don't see his/her opinion here, only complaints about other's edits. Why don't you set to edit the encyclopedia constructively instead of reverting?.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a big fan of tables but if we are going to use them then they look a lot better as one single table, although I would include start stop dates rather than the ICAO and IATA codes (not sure why we need them). As this is not a travel guide but an encyclopedia then why split out the current destinations, the article should show the scope of destinations covered by the airline since it started not just this week. The only reason to split the article may be to have domestic and international shown as separate tables, but this would depend on the airline on the balance between domestic and international and should be decided at each article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor has taken unilateral decision to revert Alitalia destinations from table style back to text format, a table cannot be reverted to old style text list and the reasons he has listed in talk page are nonsense, that way all tables could be reverted to text style listing.116.71.21.32 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I'll take it.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

charter destinations

What is the ruling on charter destinations operated by non-charter airlines especially flag carriers, can they be listed in their destination lists with reference, are they to be only listed in airport articles only or neither of the two? 119.155.53.160 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd say you'd create a seperate list for them within the article, under the heading "Charter destinations", and they would probably not be included in the destinations count. Also be sure to provide a ref for them because they can be quite hard to trace.Speed74 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alitalia Airport

This airticle is about a gropund handling company and not an airport, it should be changed to Alitalia Airport (Company). 119.155.37.228 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To be quite honest I find the interest/notability of the article to be close to null, although my deleting of it was rejected around a month ago. To answer your question, there is no airport named "Alitalia" to create confusion, so for me the name is quite fine as Alitalia Airport. Speed74 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

United and Continental

A lot of people are saying that both carriers are to receive a single operating certificate on November 30, 2011. Can anyone provide a source for this? Snoozlepet (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Found a source: http://news.yahoo.com/pilots-united-gets-single-operating-certificate-231520061.html they will get a single operating certificate on November 30. I believe tomorrow we can start listing CO flights as 'United operated by Continental". Snoozlepet (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest rather "United operated as Continental". See my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

When do we change the Continental Airlines page to past tense and what date should "cease operations" be? Should the date of cease of operations be the date when United received the single operating certificate on November 30, 2011 or the date when the reservation systems combine and the "CO" IATA code disappears? Need to solve a "mini" dispute regarding that page. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why we cant change the Continental page to a defunct airline and freeze the data, as far as most people concerned it is the same airline so all the current stuff should be in United. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, obviously we can't do that yet because the page has been fully protected, apparently due to edit wars. I would go thru and change it to past tense, but I'm not a Wikipedia admin. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Because of silly shenanigans the page is locked and only sysop's can get at it. You guys should know much better than this. I'm disappointed in everyone that took part in the edit "war" of sorts that happened there -- and now we have no access until December 7. Don't let that happen again, if you see a situation like that coming upon you, just let it be and talk to them on the talk page, not in edit summaries. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No reason why the page cant be edited all it needs is a consensus on the talk page and an edit request. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite a tedious way to go about doing it, isn't it? Just a bit frustrated this all happened -- especially from experienced editors. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD Czech Airlines destination list

Project members may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Airlines destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Republic Airways Holdings

Our favorite IP editor is at it again, now with a newly redesigned {{Republic Airways Holdings}} navigation box. Three of the links go to the same article (and who is "RAH Air Carriers", anyway?). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to {{tfd}}? Or can we simply delete this as part of the ongoing IP WP:POINT battle being waged without consensus?Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted it back to the "simple" version again but not sure how long it will last. I dont think nav boxes are designed to make a point just to navigate but the IP doesnt appear to understand. Also need to look at Template:United Continental Holdings which far to complicated, looked at trying to simplify it but it appears to have a lot of non-relevant stuff and internal links to things that dont exist as articles. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted it again to the simple version. The IP user (who uses constantly changing dynamic IPs, making any sort of blocking action pointless) has been trying to push an agenda of exposing holding companies for years. He's made up terms before (anyone else remember "regional sub-brands"). Now he's making up company names; when I search Google for "RAH Air Carriers" the only hits are Wikipedia articles that include this template, which suggests to me that there is no such thing, and is a WP:MADEUP violation. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, he will not be changing that one again unless he registers. If any of the admins disagree, feel free to unprotect. But I'd rather work on something else then deal with this IP. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Blue Holdings > Virgin Australia Holdings

Virgin Australia's parent company Virgin Blue Holdings has officially changed their name to Virgin Australia Holdings, [33]. I have requested a page move at Talk:Virgin_Blue_Holdings#Page_Move_request_to_Virgin_Australia_Holdings if you wish to participate. Sb617 (Talk) 11:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject

Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tegel vs. Brandenburg

May I draw your attention regarding this section? Isn't it crystal balling? Why assuming all the airlines will continue serving Berlin once operations will be taken over by Brandenburg?--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Common sense states if an airline quits Berlin it is to be removed from which ever airport its serving and from the list for Branderberg between now and June 3, so yes till then its expected all airlines serving TXL will serve BER too, unless they announce quitting Berlin.116.71.21.32 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone please intervene in this issue, several airline destination lists show BER starting from 3 June TXL ending from 2 June, but for some reason Jetstreamer has hijacked Turkish airlines list not letting this information be added there and reverting my edits, despite giving him a logical explanation above, remember you do not own that article, and my edits are inline with what has been done in several other airlines destination lists and remains there, if its an issue then go delete BER from the lists of all those airlines and not just Turkish.116.71.12.101 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot take care of all airlines serving Berlin, but I do watchlist Turkish Airlines destinations. It seems you have a preference for saying that I own articles. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before making such statements; you're specifically missing the part claiming that all unsourced information is prone to be deleted. How can you assure with certainty that the airline will continue serving Berlin once the timetable provided in the article is due?. I just say wait. Or you may also find a reliable source to support the claim.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to show my will to changes, and also to show that I do not own articles, I reverted myself, and requested a source for the beginning of services to Brandenburg.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey destinations

Some editors are listing Turkey in Asia on destination lists of text format, do the Asian side cities list in Asia or Europe? what about Russia's Asian cities, if an airline only flies to those, where do they get listed. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing about Turkey is that a small portion of it (Istanbul) is in Europe, while the rest is in Asia. Same goes for Russia. If you're west of the Ural Mountains, you're in Europe but if you're east of the Ural Mts, you're in Asia. I think that to solve your problem just remove the continent column altogether. As you've stated above it creates more problems than it solves. If any user disagrees with you and starts an edit war (hopefully it doesn't get to that extreme!), just explain to him/her what I have explained to you. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a fairly large chunk of Turkey in Europe which could form a small country, and not just part of Istanbul as you stated. 116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Some Jewish or Israeli editor has taken offence to Turkey being listed in Europe and has spent his entire week removing Turkey to Asia in all airline destination lists on wikipedia, kindly help undo this, he has also vandalised some other non aviation articles, mainly those dealing with Arab countries. 116.71.1.159 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly why we should not list continents in destination lists. —Compdude123 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin America destinations

The places are too few to warrant a seprate page or even a table format, these can easily be merged with main airline article in text list style, normally such articles are redirected to the main one and destinations moved there, but some editors seem to have taken ownership of certain articles and this is one such where there will be edit wars unless some one with clout deals with it. I had just listed the destinsations in text format in main article just to show, and it looked great, but was reverted as requested, you can go see it in edit history.116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just proposed merging the Virgin America destinations article back into Virgin America. Feel free to comment on Talk:Virgin America if you wish. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
With four support votes and none opposing, to move to main article will someone take action? 116.71.29.208 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe let's wait for some more votes. Give it another week... —Compdude123 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Future hubs/bases

When an airline announce that they will open a hub at an airport on a specific date, do we list the airport in the hubs list with the opening date or should we wait until the hub officially opens and then add it to the list? Snoozlepet (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless the airline is opening several destinations at once on a specific date, I don't see how a hub could suddenly come into existence, an airport is either a hub or not. If we are indeed talking about a future airline or a sudden hub opening, then as long as the opening has been confirmed the airport could be listed as a hub immediately. Speed74 (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Australia and Virgin Australia International

We apparently have two different articles for one airline. Virgin Australia and Virgin Australia International Airlines seem to be the same airline with evidence from their website. The Virgin Australia fleet now contains the V Australia Boeing 777-300ER, which is why I don't see how there need to be two articles for the same airline. I hope someone can clarify this. →εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 11:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

They are still I think different airlines just using the same branding, but it is all a bit confused by editors moving and merging the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this press release - it proves that both Virgin Blue and V Australia have been rebranded and combined to form one airline, Virgin Australia. They aren't two separate airlines anymore. I'm assuming this means that V Australia is now defunct and that it has merged with Virgin Blue to form Virgin Australia. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
OK but the what was V Australia article (which has been renamed the doubtful Virgin Australia Long-Haul International) should have been left as a defunct airline article rather than redirected. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yup...exactly! But I fear that if I change it to past-tense, I will get a backlash of angry editors that revert my edits. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cargo Garuda Indonesia

Is there such a subsidiary with a fleet? its not listed anywhere on internet no references online either. signed inspector123

Kindly redirect this to main airline article as there is no such seprate division of the airline with its own fleet, cargo is ferried in belly hold of passenger aircraft only.
Made a comment so the archive bot might notice this undated text. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrianair destinations redirected

Some one has redirected Syrian air's fairly large destintions list to main article, kindly revert back to seprate destinations list page. inspector23

Resolved.signed inspector123
Made a comment so the archive bot might notice this undated text. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Boeing 767 featured article candidacy

The featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 is open, and is in need of comments from fellow editors. This is a widely used aircraft among many airlines; hopefully members of WP:AIRLINE can provide some input. Thanks in advance! Best regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Want to expand history sections? Here's a good website to use...

Are you sick and tired of wasting so much of your time arguing about the best destination list? Feel like you're getting nowhere? Want to work on expanding history sections but don't have time to go searching for a good reference? Well, don't worry about finding a good reference yourself because I have found one for you. Just go to fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/. You can search for a particular or browse thru a list of companies from A to Z. While it's just a general resource for companies in general, it has LOTS of comprehensive info about airlines too. It looks like it has info on defunct airlines too, such as Pan Am and TWA. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have regional airlines that are subsidiaries of another airline. While it doesn't appear to have been updated in the past ten years, that shouldn't be a big deal because most articles already have plenty of info on events that took place in the last ten years. I used this website to help me expand Alaska Airlines' history section a while ago, and I will probably be using it again. I plan to use this to expand Korean Air and Kenmore Air in the near future, and I would love it if other users volunteered to work on other articles too. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Table format for destinations lists

Hello everyone. I recently reverted the Alitalia destinations article to the list format from the newly instated table format, and was greeted (after ten days or so) with a flurry of angry editors saying I am being unconstructive and should use the sandbox (!). I had given quite a few reasons for this change however, and I believe the table format is quite a nuiscance to the readability of the article:

  • The table drastically increases the amount of characters unnecessarily and becomes less accessible and more confusing to edit.
  • The terminated destinations (which are very abundant) and Charter destinations (which have been for no reason excluded in the table format) should be clearly separated and as such in separate lists. This is much easier with the list format.
  • The IATA and ICAO codes aren't necessary, if you want you can find it by clicking on the link to the airport page.
  • The Flags aren't necessary, they are just useless fluff which again can be found by clicking on the link to the country article.
  • The Air One (a subsidiary) flights and Hubs/Seasonal/future/Focus airports are more clearly outlined in the list format.
  • The regions and continents, to be able to browse the destinations more easily, are only in the list format.
  • The list needs to be in alphabetical order by country and not city, again so that the destinations are better grouped.
  • For the same reason again, countries should be in bold.
  • If several airports are served within a city, the city itself only needs to be listed once.
  • Tables should in general only be used where there are digits (or similar data) which need to be attributed to a certain column and row, otherwise I don't see the point.

Now, I believe it was decided that having the table or list format is A CHOICE and in this case I see the list format as far more useful, so why have I been reverted on the basis of having violated a rule ("you can't go from the table to the list format")? Thanks for any help - Speed74 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here my reasons go: Dragonair destinations and Braathens destinations reached FA status, and both are in table formats. Please also read a comment posted by Arsenikk above regarding this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I am not terribly interested in wether Dragonair destinations reached featured status, what I am saying is that the table is confusing continents, terminated/seasonal/hub/cargo/charter/air one flights, and is providing unnecessary information as well as making the article more complicated to edit. We are talking about a different article than Dragonair destinations here. Speed74 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about improving Wikipedia, and making an article reaching GA or FA status is actually a step forward. Irrespective of my opinion regarding reviewing processes, the fact that an article has GA or FA status shows that it has been improved by all the community to the extent that its contents has been praised as encyclopedic. It is not only a matter of the information it contains, but also the way it is presented, and a general disadvantage of list formats is that sortings (be it by country, by city, by airport, etc.) are not available at all.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
While tables may look nicer than lists and are easier to sort to your own liking, they are harder to edit than a list. This is especially hard when it comes to color coding (I still haven't figured out how to change colors of cells).
Also, I feel that there are a few things wrong with the info displayed in tables. I think that the sorting should be changed to increase commonality with the list format. It should go like this: country, then state/province (not always necessary), then city, and then airport. This is how the list format is sorted; why not do it with the table format as well? Also, I thought flags were discouraged in destination lists; if so, why are we putting them in the tables? Also, do we really need to list the IATA and ICAO codes in the table? These are also not listed in the list format and probably shouldn't be listed in the table either. --Compdude123 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above - while the table may be (slightly) more visually appealing, it would be better to list destinations by country, and I also find that mixing terminated destinations in is a bad idea - creating several tables or changing the order will be very complicated by nature of the table formatting, and thus the list format is more managable. Also, I'd like to ask what extra practical benefit the table brings - in Dragonair you have the start and end times of terminated destinations, which is all very nice, but apart from that you are simply putting things into columns intitled "country", "city" and "airport", which are quite self-explanatory in the list format to be honest. Speed74 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
See my posted suggestions below in topic New and improved destination table format. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Are flags optional in table list? it was given FL status with flas and everything, an editor just removed them from one article without consent form others, I think its vandalism. 116.71.7.190 (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Flags aren't optional; they are NOT allowed, yet people still put them in the tables. Flags are totally pointless, and their removal does not constitute as vandalism. See this policy. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Then why has table format been approved with flags? to me they seem to add much needed colour to the rather bland table, but their repetition is annoying, but flags do not suite the text list at all.116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The above link provided by Compdude123 is not a policy, but project's guidelines. It also says that flags are discouraged in word-based formats, not in table formats.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, if it isn't a policy as you say, well then why do you link to a "policy" on the same page here and here? —Compdude123 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't me but JetBlast. Please pay attention in the future when blaming me for actions taken by others.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you two have similar user names and sometimes I get you confused. That was indeed JetBlast, and I apologize for the false accusation here. Probably not the first time others have gotten you two confused, but I will make sure this will be the last time such confusion comes from me. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Air Koryo destinations

Another article that needs to be redirected to be merged into the main one due to too few destinations. 119.155.45.193 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems short enough to me with the table format to be merged. As we're talking about a similar length list as Virgin America (18 entries for VX, 21 for Air Koryo), I suggest waiting to see how that discussion is resolved and apply the same resolution to this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually they dont even serve half the destinations listed in there, all the more reason to move to main article, their current fixed services are Beijing, Shenyang, Vladivostok while Kuwait, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok are not even mentioned in summer 2011 schedule which was valid till October, the rest are charters or seasonal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.29.208 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me remind you all that Wikipedias is not a travel guide, so there's no need to have most of the destinations in a list currently served. What if an airline has dramatically shrunk its services and now serves a small number of destinations? I support stand alone articles for airline destinations as long as the airline flies or flew to more than a minimum number cities/airports, disregarding if these are current or terminated destinations.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The minimum number is arbitrarily assigned, and having the separate destinations lists tends to expose them to AfD nominations as has occurred at least three times now. Each article nominally has to be an encyclopedic topic in and of itself; not all editors buy the argument that the destinations articles are really sub-articles of the main airline article which generally doesn't have difficulty being established as notable. The table format is more compact, and the ability to collapse the table completely suggests that we should consider moving the destinations back to the main article, as the primary argument for moving them out was that a long destinations list easily overwhelmed the rest of the article. As far as the case of Air Koryo having shrunk dramatically, having a separate table for previously served destinations (as some like) or having a combined, sortable table that shows end dates (as I prefer) would show that. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Despite I do not share your position, I get it. Aside from this, the project cannot be continuously discussing this matter any time (most of the times, actually) IP editors raise their concerns over it. Many of the pages within the scope of the project are far from being concluded, with most of the articles in desperate need of expansion and sources. In plain words, I suggest joining our efforts to improve these articles, rather than revisiting past stuff.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the destinations list would fit quite nicely into the parent article, considering that the parent article is not that long, either. This article is just barely longer than the VX destinations article, and it too would fit nicely in the parent article. BTW it's quite interesting that we're bringing up this debate on the North Korean airline considering that their supreme leader just died. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The Air Koryo list was much longer including charter and terminated destinations but someone deleted those. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted back to a version with terminated destinations. It's somewhat longer than before, and I think if we kept it like that, we could keep it a separate article. However, it would be nice to list the start/end dates, though. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
So there's no need to continue the discussion, but the current version needs a lot of cleanup to become in standard form.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
But here is the official summer 2011 schedule listing only three cities http://www.korea-dpr.com/airkoryo.htm what does that say? 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That really goes to show how much their amount of destinations has decreased over the years. Keeping it in its own article will continue to give us the ability to show that. Boy am I surprised they even have a website! And the fact that North Korea calls themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is, unfortunately, a real "knee-banger." —Compdude123 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Is all that you said of any valid concern here? 116.71.2.77 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's the number of destinations the airline currently serve. Period. I still support maintaining its destinations article as a stand-alone one. Presenting its list of terminated destinations is as valid as showing the list of destinations of Lufthansa or Emirates. The project is here but to maintain all related stuff as accurate as possible.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Not really, that's why I just crossed it out. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the list is merged into the main article or not, the current table is terrible. Describing eg. Seoul as an operational charter destination from Pyongyang is actively incorrect; just because there has been a showpiece flight or two for some delegation does not mean it's actually even remotely possible for people to fly Air Koryo to anywhere in South Korea. Also, the color scheme is vomitous and the flags blatantly unnecessary (see MOS:FLAGS). Jpatokal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags are not encouraged by the project in list-based formats, not in table-based formats, as is the case here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The rule of thumb straight from MOS:FLAGS is that Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality - such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. An airport does not "actually represent" any of those, it just happens to be located in a country, and there is no reason to decorate the country column of an airline destination table with flags. Jpatokal (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant compdude's rant on North Korea as a country, as for the list yes it can now remain as an article in its own right, and for Seoul, Air Koryo have operated several charter flights there taking South Koreans to meet their families in the North and not one off VIP flights. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@Jpatokal-- Yes you are completely right; we do not need flags!! They are totally unnecessary and and since we are using them in a manner that's not in accordance with MOS:FLAGS, well then that's all the more reason to remove them! Thanks for the "third opinion" here. Please stop putting flags in destination lists people, and get rid of those not-so-pretty colors. The color coding is too confusing and whenever I look at destination list with those colors, I'm always thinking "Wait, What does blue stand for again?" (scroll back up to legend) "Oh it stands for cargo destinations" (scroll back down the page) "Wait, what does green stand for again?" ... Anyway, you get my point, enough said. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The list is approved as is and stays as is, stop cribbing. 116.71.20.3 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"Approved"? By whom, pray tell? Jpatokal (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If it was approved as you claim, why would we all be complaining about the current table style/ format for destination lists? It obviously does not have widespread approval from editors in this wikiproject and needs to be changed. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria, which can overrule WikiProject consensus provided the lists meets official Wikipedia guidelines. If you wish to change it, I suggest you head over to WP:FL and obtain consensus to remove table formats in general there, as removing tables will affect most Wikiprojects in general. As for Flags, that is a different discussion altogether which should be discussed by this Wikiproject. Sb617 (Talk) 05:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont think we have a problem with a table it was just the mantra that it must be identical to the one list that got featured status. The FL criteria doesnt actually require that the format has to be the same as the first one to reach FL status. So all we need is to agree to the format that everbody in the project is happy with so we can be consistent. Compudude123s latest Horizon Air destinations is a pretty reasonable format and I would support that as a starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean if it was approved and who approved it? its got FL status, that didnt happen by magic, there was opposition to it back then too, but its here and those who approved it are not budging nor seeking anybodys opinion or giving it second thoughts nor participating in these stupid talks on the subject anymore that pop up every few months, incase you didnt notice. 116.71.19.120 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured list criteria makes no mention that it must be the same as the last destination list and also as a project we have no requirement to meet the FL criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait a sec, dude. Weren't you the one who originally introduced a new destination list format above? How come all of a sudden you're calling all this talk about changing the destination table format "stupid"? You should read the following. I posted it once before, and I'll post it again (I saved it in a word document just for you):
@116.71.xx.xxx, Read the following carefully: If you want to be able to succeed in communicating to other WP users (and other people in your life, too) what your views are, read these useful tips: 1) Don't contradict yourself by saying one thing and then saying something totally opposite later, and 2) Before you hit the save button, read your comment to see if it makes sense and that it's free of spelling and grammatical errors. And make sure that the comment that is on your screen matches the one that originated in your head. Finally make sure your comment is worth reading by others.
—Compdude123 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I only stated that its got FL status and was approved by those in power, to answer people questioning who approved it and if it was approved, wether it does not conform to original format or the project does not require articles to aim for FL status is not the issue. 119.155.52.223 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No newbie dude, I did not say change format as I'm very happy with tables, in anycase I had posted those collapsible lists in the topic asking for deletion of CSA destinations where it was being argued that the destinations cannot be merged into main article because there are too many, so contrary to that I gave these examples from elsewhere because it appears no one had considered this option, I dont know who created a seprate topic for them and moved it from the CSA discussion, I never even said that seprate destinations pages/articles should be done away with, its Hawaiian717 who assumed thats a possible way to go. As for the stupid repeat lecture post of yours in italics, I give no fuck about it or what people think of me, do you think I would be responding in this manner if I heeded advice from you or others or cared what you people thought, as it is I think wiki has gone to the dogs in the past two three years, it was much better before. Also my last post in this topic was to reply to the last post by Millbourne, why did you put your post in between mine and his, you are to respond in the end no edit and pop in between, cant mind your own business? 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How many destinations does it take for destination lists to have their own articles?

I recently proposed moving Virgin America destinations back into the parent article Virgin America since I felt that the airline didn't even have enough destinations to warrant having a separate destinations list and I also felt that merging it back into the parent article wouldn't overwhelm it. I thought there would be unanimous agreement, but there wasn't. A couple other users pointed out to me that there had been consensus on the talk page a long time ago that ten destinations was considered "enough" for a separate destinations sub-article. Is this really so? If that is true, then why isn't it clearly stated on the project guidelines page? My idea was that if destinations weren't viewable without scrolling up and down the page, or if the list of destinations took up the majority of an airline page, then it deserves its own article. I don't like the fact that we have this rigid rule (it isn't really being followed or enforced, anyway), and I also feel that the guidelines at WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE should take precedence over this project's own guidelines. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue for these articles. Many editors are not interested in the changes of destinations at the various airports. So by having the destination list in the article, the increase in the number of updates, is annoying to many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I remember I had read about that “magic number” within the project guidelines not so long ago. I recently went again to the guidelines just to learn that they were entirely moved. Nevertheless, “the number” is mentioned here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The "10 destinations" bit was removed from the Project page a few months (a year?) ago because some articles with 11 to 15 destinations, and say no terminated destinations, were decided to be merged back into the main articles. For Virgin America I think the 17 or so destinations are enough to justify a separate article. Then if you want to change the suggested number to 20 destinations because the table (which still doesn't have an approved format) is more compact, I think it's a bit of a detail to waste time on. Speed74 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, you bring up a good point by mentioning the AfD discussion for Porter Airlines destinations. I like the fact that people brought up the point that Wikipedia guidelines trump a project's own guidelines. That definitely needs to be brought into more consideration here, especially MOS:FLAGS. I'm not really interested in changing the 10 destinations rule to, say, 20 destinations; I just wanted to clarify our policy. I think that if I had suggested the collapsible table, my proposal on the Virgin america destinations article would have stood a better chance of being merged. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
collapsible text (except in navboxes) within an article is contrary to the MOS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and in fact now that I look at it Wikipedia's MOS discourages the use of tables at all for lists as they complicate things (reading and editing) unnecessarily. The only plus tables are bringing to Destination articles is when the start and end dates of routes can be traced, but for many airlines this is either unnecessary or impossible, and therefore I would strongly encourage the use of lists rather than tables in those articles at least. Also I don't see the point of including flags or IATA/ICAO codes which are of little interest at best and can be found immediately by clicking the link to the airport article anyway. Finally I think it is very useful to separate destinations CLEARLY by TYPE (Charter, Cargo etc.) and by REGION (continent, country), which has been forgotten in the obsession of making sortable tables which most readers won't even know are sortable. Speed74 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#When_tables_are_appropriate contradicts your view on discouraging tables all-together, Speed74. If a list is going for the Wikipedia's Featured List standard, a lot more information such as start date and end dates, etc, is obviously going to be required than just the standard basic list of services started. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#When_tables_may_not_be_appropriate, if it only requires 2-3 columns or less (as per the example in the MOS), it's more encouraged to use it as a list. However, most "basic" destination tables require 3 or more columns (Country, City, Airport, and in some cases Continent and State/Region/Province). IMO adding continents will just lead to pointless edit wars that's not really worth pursuing considering regions do affect the entire Wikipedia project as a whole, not just this Aviation Wikiproject. Sb617 (Talk) 14:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
@Compdude, wow! YOU proposed moving Virgin America destinations to main article? AFAIK it was me who did so, go see the post #19 on the subject, you might have taken it to the articles talk page after my proposal/suggestion and thats about it, also YOU did not remove photos from Horizon air destinations list article, as you claimed in one of your posts here, I did, go see the edit history, only out of courtesy I didnt point it out earlier when you made the claim, I hope others take note not that its an issue but it will give them an idea of what they are dealing with, I'm also suspecting sockpuppet. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Colors in destination lists

Another Wikipedia policy that needs to be considered by this project is WP:COLOR. We use color coding in destination lists, so that's why I wanted to bring this up. (BTW I don't want to get rid of it altogether; I just want everyone here to be aware of the following). I noticed some things there that we aren't doing as a project, here they are:

  • Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. (very important) Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. This really needs to be followed more here; in addition to colors being used to convey info such as hubs, focus cities, terminated destinations, etc., there should be some sort of symbol or footnote in the cells. Or just say Hub, Focus City, Cargo, Terminated (or, better yet, just list an end date) in the respective cells.
  • Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. Be sure that links are still visible even with a colored background. This applies to fleet tables too. Don't ever use a blue background when there is a wikilink in a table cell. Better yet, just don't even use a blue background at all. Pick another color.
  • Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color blind. You may not be color blind but other readers may be, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

I am not trying to propose getting rid of the colors altogether; I just want to make sure that everyone knows that colors should not be used as the only means of conveying important information. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But here you say I have modified Horizon Air destinations to an AWESOME-looking format based on the feedback on those two tables above. It may not have pretty colors, but who cares? It may not have flags, but who cares? (Flags are not supposed to be in destination lists anyway) And it may not look like the FL articles List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations, but who cares? (Whether a list deserves FL-status is the opinion of one editor, not 10 editors.) quite contradictory to your statement above, and lets not forget the vandalised Horizon Air list and its unilaterally approved format change. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Here, I just want to point out a wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia guidelines ALWAYS over-rule project consensus and project guidelines. I really don't care whether or not tables have colors in them, it's not the end of the world. And stop accusing me of the fact that my Horizon Air format is "vandalism;" it's not! (Please read this to find out what vandalism really is.) The Horizon Air format was just an example used to aid discussion on a new and improved destination table format. I may have changed it without consensus from other users but that's because I was using it as an example, and several other users liked it. Also, the way it was formatted before I edited it wasn't anything like other destination tables to begin with. Like I said twice already, I am not proposing to get rid of the colors; I just want to point out WP guidelines to members of this project and am not trying to propose a monumental change. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Dude vandalism at wiki is making any unapproved major edit or even smaller edits that do not conform, especially deviating from approved formats. 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually vandalism is only when an edit is made with the sole intention of degrading the quality of the article. If the editor thinks they are improving the article, then it is not vandalism. Speed74 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Examples to aid discussion. Here's a table one trying to use colour to convey info not present in the text and a colourless list. I note also that sometimes the colour used in the table header can make seeing sort arrows difficult to see. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The second of the examples provided by the user above is not an example that fits into the discussion at all because that article is list-formatted, and no colours are supposed to be used in that kind of format. As to the first example, it does use colours, but each colour has a companion legend. This and this are examples where only colours are used.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The pages you mentioned, Jetstreamer, are exactly what I am talking about what we should not do. British Airways destinations suggested by GraemeLeggett is perfectly fine and meets the guidelines listed on WP:COLOR —Compdude123 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the legendless versions of Air France and Qatar airways, they look smart, clean and very pleasing to view, worthy of FL approval, a definite improvement even over the original FL table format. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No, they are exactly the type of table which violates WP:COLOR, and they are also extremely unclear and messy. The whole idea of tables for destination lists is a complete fail. Speed74 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Then all tables violate that if you go to see, infact they seem to violating everything according to you people, whats your problem? have you bothered to notice no one really concerned with approving the tables and giving them FL status is even listening to you all, its like the saying let barking dogs bark (and ignore them). 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
FL status is not that important the main concern is getting a consistent look and presentation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mesaba Airlines

Can anyone provide a source saying that Mesaba and Pinnacle's certificates were combined? The headquarters were relocated to Memphis, TN a couple of weeks ago but did the airline cease operations? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[34] According to this, all of Mesaba's CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 aircraft were transfered to the Pinnacle certificate, though the Mesaba certificate is still maintained for now with some grounded Saab 340 aircraft. Based on this, I think all "Delta Connection operated by Mesaba Airlines" should be changed to "Delta Connection operated by Pinnacle Airlines", if this hasn't already been done. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fleet size in infobox

According to the Airline infobox template the fleet size field should only include the total active fleet of an airline. Recently an editor has changed a few articles to a collapsible list in the fleet size field showing 'active', 'orders' and 'commitments'. To me this goes against both the project guide and WP:IBX which states the purpose of an article infobox is ...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance (my emphasis). Information can't be obtained 'at a glance' if it's hidden in a collapsible list. I don't see how this modified way complies at all with either objective. Do any other editors have an opinion on this? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning seems fine with me. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 04:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand that people are collapsing stuff to make the infobox shorter, but important info like that should NOT be hidden from view. Even if the airline has a whole lot of hubs, you shouldn't hide this info from view. I agree with what you say about not having orders and options listed in the infobox; the # of active aircraft in the fleet is enough. I don't think important information should be concealed like this. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally I'm not a fan of 'collapsible lists' either, particularly in the infobox. I think they do have their place in articles where listing an airline's hubs or bases results in a very long list, like Easyjet and Ryanair, but to use the feature in an article like Frontier Airlines (which has only two hubs, and I just changed back to standard format) is crazy in my opinion. SempreVolando (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I didn't know orders shouldn't be included in the infobox (I've always recalled seeing them included), and I don't see the harm of including them in brackets, as it is a piece of information which could be useful to be found "at a glance". Speed74 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox airline clearly says that only active aircraft should be included when counting the fleet size. I've already started modifying the articles I watch.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is the template was not followed up until now, as most articles included orders and even options in the infobox. As this went on for years it may be concluded that orders are useful information in infobox after all, as long as they are clearly stated as such. So we might want to consider changing the template, rather than attempting to change all airline articles. Speed74 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a good observation. I actually don't know when this portion of the template was last updated, but the move from {{Unbulleted list}} to a bulleted {{Plainlist}} for the organisation of hubs or subsidiaries was in fact a recent change that was not discussed. The change doesn't make any difference at all to the reader, but the question is: who modifies this template before discussing the changes? --Jetstreamer (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to the fleet list I think the collapsable list with Active, Orders and Options are nicer and we can always change the format but I don't care that much. When it comes to Southwest Airlines, American, Delta etc... or really any airline with hubs or focus cities, if there are 5 or more I think the collapsable list is necessary. Also... SempreVolando, on Alaska Airlines and Spirit airlines you changed the hubs to just the city name and this was a controversy a few years ago and it was agreed that we should use the whole airport name not the city name. I undid it on Alaska and Spirit but if you did it on any other airline pages please undo them. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If we do end up listing orders in the infobox, I'd rather we didn't do a collapsible list for that. I'd suggest just having the orders in parenthesis, like this: 117 (+23 orders), where the "117" is the number of aircraft in service. But I'd say just do firm orders and not other stuff like options, commitments, purchase rights, etc. And collapsible lists for hubs and focus cities should only be done when there are more than five of them. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I think its settled... nothing but Active fleet in the info box and hubs are in collapsable list if there is 5 or more hubs, focus cities or secondary hubs. Key people I think if there is 3 or more put it in a collapsable list because that can be very confusing if there are too many not in a collapsable list. Are we good? Cali4529 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Should the documentation for the airline infobox template be changed to state that you can use a collapsible list for hubs, focus cities, and bases where the airline has at least 5 of these; and for key people when there are at least 3 listed? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of collapsible lists where there are a significant number of hubs / bases / focus cities etc... in an airline infobox. I think setting a 'hard' limit (like 5) in the infobox template is unnecessary though - in this case you could have an airline with 5 hubs and no focus cities requiring a collapsible list (perhaps unnecessarily), but an airline with 4 hubs and 4 focus cities having to have them all listed (perhaps taking up too much room!). In all of this we mustn't lose sight of WP:IBX - Purpose of an infobox stating what an infobox is for allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I believe we should only be hiding things if it's necessary to do so - otherwise it detracts from the primary purpose of the infobox. I'd therefore support allowing collapsible lists where necessary to reduce the size of the infobox (it would be for editors to come to agreement at individual articles if necessary, but I think for most articles it will be obvious if the infobox is taking up too much room). As for key people - if that's taking up too much room then there are probably too many people listed in the first place in my opinion! I'm neutral on including orders in the infobox - provided the format is Fleet Size: xxx (+xxx orders) all on one line. The template would have to be updated though. SempreVolando (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If there is something like 4 and 4 we can agree on either doing one or both whatever can be agreed on.Cali4529 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Two comments (questions) 1- what purpose does listing orders serve? These are planes that will join the airline at some point in the future. They represent a potential addition to the fleet, but when introduced they might be replacing other aircraft - and if a single large aircraft replaced two smaller ones, the fleet would decrease in numeric size. 2) what is the point in listing a large number of hubs etc in the infobox, why not use the infobox to direct the readers attention directly to the list. By way of comparison (stop me if you've heard this one before) British Army regiments have a long history and consequently a large number of battle honours. Too many in some cases to list in the infobox - in this case there is a link ( #Battle honours ) to the section further down in the article. Why not instead of a list of hubs, give the number of hubs? The number would represent the scope and size of the airline just as the fleet size does. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Given that life is made of experiences, let me tell you all that Arsenikk told Sp33dyphil and I not to link to other portions of the article when Vietnam Airlines was being reviewed for GA status. Hence, I'm not sure if a link to other portions of the article emanating from the infobox will work...--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes according to WP:IBX - Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. SempreVolando (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes fair point, I didn't say I agreed with the guideline (nor did I write it!), just bringing it to your attention as what you're proposing would go against the guide en-masse for Airline articles. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding collapsible lists, American Airlines is a case in point I think. This airline has 5 hubs and 1 focus city, but the infobox looks absolutely fine to me, it's not excessively long at all. Why hide the information from users unnecessarily? The sort of wording I would propose in the template guide would be: where a large number of hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet any thoughts folks? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds pretty reasonable, it's not like a rigid number but it has more flexibility and is more open to interpretation. Not all WP articles are the same. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SempreVolando that you should just determine when it gets to long but AA should get the collapsable list because it is long enough that it is not very sightly. Cali4529 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I still don't think American Airlines warrants a collapsible list. Listing the hubs and focus cities in full there doesn't take up much room, and does not affect the article formatting negatively. Hiding the information without necessity simply goes against WP:IBX as I previously mentioned. What about Jetstar Airways as another example? 10 hubs and focus cities in total, yet this infobox also looks fine to me in the current form. I wouldn't want to see useful information hidden from users because a rule was being applied. Granted, US airline articles are not helped by the long airport names which take up more room than typically is the case in Europe / elsewhere, when more often each airport takes up only one line in the infobox. SempreVolando (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, American Airlines does not need collapsible lists in its infobox. It's not long enough for it to be jutting down into the history section. It would need to be much longer for that to happen. —Compdude123 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So how about a template wording along the lines of: where a large number of hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet? SempreVolando (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure that seems good. I think that ought to do, and your addition that if it disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article it should probably have collapsible lists sounds pretty reasonable. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd mention EasyJet alongside Ryanair, but it sounds good time as well.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have raised this in new section below as the title of this discussion doesn't really fit with the proposed change we are making. Give it a few days for editors to add any further comments before we go ahead with the change. SempreVolando (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC) <------Read Below------> This discussion has been moved to "Collapsible lists in infobox - amendment to template / project guide". Please when posting in that discussion keep your posts short and to the point so we can get a consensus and the fighting can END!!!!!

Kam Air

Kam Air have sent in an OTRS request to have the article on them deleted. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is OTRS and why this nonsensical request? 119.155.32.202 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why the airline wants their article deleted, I don't understand any more than you do. They should have given us a better explanation other than "the info is incorrect." Anyway, to answer your question about what OTRS is, click here. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

American Airlines destinations

It has seprate lists for domestic and international routes, why? when sort function is mean to sort that out in a single list. 116.71.10.128 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of domestic destinations and I mean a lot. Apparently the list combines destinations served by AA's regional carriers American Eagle Airlines and Executive Airlines, which doesn't really make sense. First of all, said regional airlines have their own destination articles and it would make more sense to just have destinations served by American Airlines in the American Airlines destinations page and put the regional-only destinations in their respective articles instead of just mashing them all in one page. Also, with the current list it's impossible to tell which destinations are served by just AA, which are served by just regional airlines, and which are served by both. I think we should get rid of the regional destinations since there's currently no way to tell them apart from mainline destinations, and tell people to go to American Eagle Airlines destinations and Executive Airlines#Destinations if they want to see those destinations. That will solve the problem of having two separate lists because then there will be much less domestic destinations to deal with and it'll be easier to combine the two tables. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything Compdude123 says here. We normally sort destinations by operating carrier, so if a destination is served only by a regional affiliate, then we list only on the regional airline's destination list. In addition to having the reference to the separate American Eagle destinations and Executive Airlines destinations list on the American Airlines destinations list, we should also refer from Eagle to Executive since Executive flights are branded as American Eagle. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, partially though. It is a fact that you can book a flight of an AA affiliate airline from AA.com, so it's not a bad idea to list such destinations within the AA destinations article as well. Furthermore, aside from AA, if a company is a subsidiary of another one, I'm not against listing the destinations of the sister company in the one for the cities served by the parent company. Just putting the {{See also}} template at the top of the latter article (e.g. {{See also|Grand China Air}} at the top of Hainan Airlines destinations) will solve the problem. Particularly for this example I provide, the destinations of both carriers had been merged into the Hainan Airlines destinations page, and I'm pretty sure the Luanda route is not flown with Grand China Air aircraft.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think putting American Eagle destinations on the American Airlines destinations article opens a whole codeshare can of worms we rather wouldn't. Our convention has been to stick strictly to the certificated carrier that actually operates the flights, and I don't see a reason to change it. If a plane operated by American Airlines doesn't land at the airport, don't include it on the American Airlines destinations list. I'm not familiar with the Hainan Airlines/Grand China Air example you cite, but it sounds like combining the two to one list was an incorrect move. The {{See also}} template you suggest is an option, though depending on the situation it may be better to elaborate early on in the destinations article or section the codeshare or similar relationship between the two carriers and provide a link there. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The only problem with removing regional destinations is that there's no way to tell the two apart. In theory you'd think you could just remove all the destinations here that are listed in regional carriers articles, but then again, some of those destinations may also be served by AA too. So really, we just need to differentiate these two somehow—and add more refs to the article while we're at it—so that you just have the mainline destinations on AA's page and remove regional destinations. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The maps in the inflight magazine might help, and American's has a digital version: [35] for example is the January 1, 2012 issue. Destinations marked with a triangle, for example, are American Eagle or AmericanConnection only, so they don't belong on American Airlines destinations. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Most airlines destinations only include mainline service but the regionals/affiliate destinations are explained in prose such as "This list does not include destinations only served by Delta Connection, United Express, etc." and there is also a seperate destinations page for American Eagle. Also, I would combine domestic and international together. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@Hawaiian717: thanks for that link, I have removed destinations served by American Eagle, Exec. Airlines, and AmericanConnection in the domestic section and have yet to do the international section. I will finish that up tomorrow. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll also combine the domestic and international lists, but that will take some time and it will probably be best to throw it in my sandbox and work on it there (ie sort by country, then state, then city; get rid of the stupid flags and unneccesary IATA/ICAO codes) and then copy/paste back into the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have finished working on this article, now it's a lot better. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks so much better and organized too! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Very nice, even though I miss the flags which add much needed something else to the table, also is there really a need to repeat country/state/province name, if written once it can be wikilinked, while country names can be made bold so they stand out, like in text style lists. The states/provinces of other countries should not be included there, since its a US carrier only US states should be listed. 119.155.51.31 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm glad you liked my new table. As for the flags, I think that our use of them violates the guidelines on MOS:FLAGS. There it says that flags should only be used if something actually represents a particular country, and I don't think airports really represent a particular country; do you? And yes, I know, the country and state/province names do seem a bit redundant, but it's MUCH better organized than by city. I would go change other tables to my new format but it's very tedious and a pain in the butt and I have better uses of my time :) —Compdude123 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant the country/state/province name should only be listed once, not that they're redundant, and for state/province section it should only list US states only, the country to which the airline belongs. 119.155.51.31 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the table looks fine as it is. Putting in states/provinces for countries other than the US makes the most sense because the USA isn't the only country to have states or provinces. There's many other countries that have states or provinces. It's really worthwhile to put in other countries' states/provinces; otherwise you have a blank state/province column for all countries except the US. As for listing the states and county's name only once, (I'm assuming that you mean do rowspan) that would make it far too complicated than it needs to be. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So has this new format been approved that its to be used for all airlines? 119.155.51.31 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well?? approved or not? or is it UNILATERAL without concensus. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I plan to propose this soon, yes it does need consensus, and I do want to end the constant arguing about destination lists so I can spend more time on WP doing other things. Remember there is no deadline for me to propose this, just be patient. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There you go again me, myself and I, "I do want to end the constant arguing", so "I can spend more time doing other things", whos stopping you from that? and whos asking you to keep partaking in the destination list discussions thats keeping you from other work, do you own wikipedia are you supervisor of editors here? 119.155.33.19 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hilarious, I removed ICAO codes from Air Canada destinations because it dosent make any sense as the IATA one are not listed there, bringing it closer to your format for AA and Jetstreamer undid my edit calling it disruptive, what hypocricy regins here, good luck trying to get approval for the new format. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW I removed the IATA/ICAO codes from the AA table also, but some other IP user re-added them. You are welcome to remove them, I don't care. In your defense, to be honest I'm not sure why Jetstreamer thought that your removal of IATA/ICAO codes was "disruptive." If I were him, I would care at all, I'd actually be happy with that. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats bad, already your simplfied format is getting screwed by others, and I'm sure jetstreamer must have been itching to revert your AA list or add those unecessary features back to it all this time, why he didnt do it is strange considering it was a kind of vandalism, had I done this he wouldnt have missed a second in reverting it, makes you wonder, double standards. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible lists in infobox - amendment to template / project guide

The Fleet size in infobox discussion above diverged a little from topic and grew into a debate over the general use of collapsible lists in the infobox of airline articles. I'm adding this section in case any other editors wish to comment on what was discussed or the proposed wording amendment to the infobox template, as it may not be obvious at first glance because of the discussion title used. The proposed wording for bases, hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities would change in the infobox template, to add: where a large number of bases / hubs / secondary hubs / focus cities results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet and Ryanair. Any further comments / discussion welcome. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

First, we need to decide how many airports (hubs, secondary hubs, bases, focus cities) does the infobox must have in order to warrant a collapsibile list. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, please see the discussion above. We started off with a proposed 'limit' but then the issue was raised that it varied significantly between articles and it would be preferable not to define a 'hard' limit, but instead suggest the use of collapsible lists only where a long infobox resulted which impacted the formatting of the rest of the article (on the basis we should avoid hiding anything in the infobox if we can, per WP:IBX). Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
We can't move on without an actually number because without a certain amount it will get fought over on some pages. What number is an acceptable number for Hubs, Bases etc...? I am thinking 7, what are we all thinking? Cali4529 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
If we think it's totally necessary to do a number, maybe we could have it be so that if the hubs, focus cities, and bases adds up to a sum of 10 total, then we should collapse them. That would solve the problem of an airline having five hubs, 4 focus cities, 3 bases and that not being enough to make collapsing totally necessary. As for key people, don't put a whole ton of random people in there; for example, only do founder(s) and the current CEO, president, and chairman of the board and any other awesomely notable CEO(s) that the company has had in the past. The key people, if there's just three of them, generally don't need to be collapsed. —Compdude123 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. If anyone has any objections speak up. Cali4529 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly having a sum total would be the most straightforward policy to have in the template, but it doesn't solve the problem of then applying the rule for airlines which don't need i!. This section of the infobox for US carriers is usually twice as long as those for other airlines because of the long airport names in the USA, which nearly always take up 2 lines each. Take United Airlines, for example, these 10 hubs would take up a lot of room if they weren't hidden. Now consider Virgin Australia, 11 airports in total and I don't think any of them need to be hidden. Under the 10+ policy they would be. We need to come up with a solution which can be applied appropriately across all airline articles on Wikipedia, not just devise something in a hurry to prevent edit warring or satisfy users opinions on a small number of articles. SempreVolando (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah see, that's why your proposal works better. I was only suggesting a different idea to try and please Cali4529. Maybe let's combine our two proposals. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So, something like: where the total number of bases, hubs, secondary hubs and focus cities is 10 or greater and listing all of them results in an excessively long infobox which disrupts the formatting of the rest of the article, consideration should be given to using collapsible lists for this section, for example at Easyjet and Ryanair SempreVolando (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It just keeps getting better. As for the fact that US airport names are super-long and that they often go on two lines, you can force them to display on one line by putting the {{Nowrap}} tag around the airport name, see Garuda Indonesia for an example of this being done. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't familiar with the use of nowrap, that's quite useful for saving a bit of space. SempreVolando (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't familiar with {{nowrap}} either, just saw it when I was editing Garuda Indonesia and thought that it would be pretty darn useful. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any further comments I will ask an administrator to update the template to the latest wording. Thanks for all contributions. SempreVolando (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually anyone can edit the documentation for the template, but only admins can edit the template itself. If you click here to edit the documentation, you should be able to do so even though you're not an admin. That's because the documentation is a separate page, and it's transcluded onto the main template page. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, consider it  Done. SempreVolando (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the peer review; see below. Thanks!

Minimum criteria for including incidents/accidents

I remember reading somewhere that for an accident involving an airliner to be included in articles there must be deaths and/or airframe total losses. I'm currently engaging with another editor on Airlink about the inclusion/exclusion of an incident that caused no injuries or severe airframe damage. The sticking point is a paragraph about an emergency landing with the nose gear stuck retracted. I'm against including it, the other editor wants it in. I earlier removed a paragraph about another "no injuries, no major damage" incident from the same article - that removal has not been challenged (so far). Some guidance would be appreciated. Roger (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. A deadly accident, a hull-loss event, or a change in procedures are the criteria for inclusion. If none of them are met, the accident/incident is not notable.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the fleet-grounding entry. It's ridiculous to include such a description within the “Accidents and incidents” section.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I put it back - in the "History" section. I'm going to research the reason for the groundidng and subsequent actions to add to the section. The grounded planes are still in service today so the issue was resolved one way or another. Roger (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I have requested temporary full protection for the article in order to avoid you and the other editor to get blocked. Please use the talk page to discuss your differences.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What about incidents such as involving scheduled airliners landing at the wrong airfield? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It if landed OK it is unlikely to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well some like Japan Airlines Flight 472 (1972) are notable because it was an aircraft loss. I mean what about pilot error, those where an airliner lands at a military airfield instead of a nearby civilian one? Or, another type of pilot error, forgetting to land somewhere and landing up elsewhere. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If there were fatalities, whether or not the aircraft was written-off, or there were any change in procedures, inclusion is fine. A Sudan Airways Boeing 707 landed in the River Nile due to a pilot error; there were no fatalities but the aircraft was written-off. This is an example of pilot error.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Domodedvo Airlines destinations [sic]

Just to let you know, this redirect has been nominated for deletion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain Air destinations

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Bahrain Air#Proposed Merger
 – The scope of this dispute are just two articles, the discussion should take place at the at the articles talk page. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor is undoing edits merging the destinations with main article, reason being for merger that destinations are too few and main airline article also has minimal content, makes sense to merge. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot merge content unilaterally. It needs consensus. — Abhishek  Talk 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems long enough to stay on its own, it's longer than the Air Jamaica destinations article (which I merged into parent article). However, per WP:MERGE, merging it into the parent article will not overwhelm it, seeing that the Bahrain Air article is barely longer than a stub. @116.71, please don't call people "hypocrites" :). On a separate note, yes splits and merges always need consensus from other editors. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Compdude. Let's reach a consensus on this whether to merge the destinations into the parent article as the parent article is not long enough (although the destinations article is long enough to be a stand alone). — Abhishek  Talk 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I will call anyone whatever I like thank you, this guy left with a somewhat critical tiny message for wikipedia and now hes back, thats hypocricy, and by the way abhishelk no need to drag in other editors to issue warnings, dont have you have guts to do that yourself? I'm talking about the one who messaged me before comp123 jumps to conclusions. 116.71.20.232 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
@116.71, all the stuff you like to complain about is really never a big deal. Really, it's not like the end of the world that Abhishek said he was going to retire and then came back; who cares? Anwyay, just take a chill pill. :) —Compdude123 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW Abhishek did not "drag" me into this conversation; I watchlist this page, so I see whatever changes get made and I am free to comment on anything that's posted here. Look at my talk page--Abhishek never posted anything on my talk page asking me to comment on this and yell at you as you have wrongly assumed. If you didn't want anyone else to comment, if you wanted it to be just between you and Abhishek, you know you could have posted on his own talk page as I would have never seen it. And please stop finding every petty little thing I do that you just happen to dislike to accuse me of. Remember, if there's some minor thing that another user does that you don't like, just don't worry about it, okay? Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Get over yourself, go read my post again, i clearly said the guy who messaged me i.e another editor NOT you, and I even said "before comp123 jumps to conclusions" i.e takes it for granted that I meant him, you're so into yourself me, myself and I, thats all that matters. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Air France

An edit war seems to have broken out at Air France. Being a good admin, I've fully protected the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION for three days. Input from members of this WP is sought at talk:Air France. I've not blocked the parties in this dispute because I want them to discuss the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

UK not a country

An interesting point arose from this edit: the United Kingdom is not a country but a realm comprised by for countries. Despite this, it has been given country status in most of the destination articles, as it was included under the column entitled "Country". Has this issue been previously discussed? The way I see the whole thing, all destination articles in which the UK is labelled as a country should be appropriately modified. Following are just three examples showing the misuse of the term for the UK: Air Canada destinations, American Airlines destinations and Lufthansa destinations. Comments please.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say but the UK is a country so the lists are correct, I see the change to KLM destination has been correctly reverted. MilborneOne (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What a load of complete nonsense (and I say that as a person who owns a passport issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). If one wants to split up destinations between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a matter of convenience (in the way that we do for US states, Canadian provinces, etc.), then that's fine, but it is factually incorrect to say that the "UK is not a country". I have reverted the change to the KLM destinations article. The AA, AC and LH lists are fine as they are. --RFBailey (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Perfectly understood. Apologies for the confussion. Fortunately, talk pages exist.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, United_Kingdom#Etymology_and_terminology makes the meaning about as clear as can be, given the muddied reality. A sovereign country, comprised of smaller countries at least one of which considers itself sovereign (albeit with a shared monarch), and subject to Euro-laws which can be passed against its will. Lets not cloud matters more by bringing airlines into the mix. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems this hasn't came to an end. The IP keeps claiming the UK is not a country in their last edit and also in my talk page.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems strange the an IP user that resolves to the United Kingdom doesnt know what country they live in! MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be down to a bizarre use of logic: if England is a country, then the United Kingdom can't be. But the use of the term "country" to refer to England does not conform to the usual usage of the term to mean a sovereign state---it's simply a hangover from before the Act of Union in 1707. In an international context, the use of the term "country" to describe the UK is deemed to be quite appropriate. --RFBailey (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I know where I live. The UK is a unitary state, not a country. England and Scotland are countries, but are not sovereign states. Regardless of this argument, what is the actual problem with my original edits? The first person to revert seemed to do so solely because of my comments on view history. I have been accused of inaccuracy, vandalism and not citing references, but the edits are perfectly correct. If the UK and its constituent countries are all considered to be countries, then any of them should do. I will revert back tomorrow as I spent time making a decent contribution, unless someone can explain exactly what the problem is! 78.86.37.131 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A few questions: Who is the current Welsh ambassador to Poland? Where does one apply for a Scottish Passport? Where does one apply for a visa to visit Northern Ireland? Who represents England at ICAO? It's all a matter of context; the fact that the sovereign state of the United Kingdom insists on an idiosyncratic usage of the word "country" in a way that other English speaking countries use words such as "state" or "province" is of no consequence in the context of global aviation. Roger (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to add that you are clearly going against consensus and changing the article back will probably get you blocked for vandalism. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Roger, sovereign states have ambassadors and issue passports not countries, although most countries are sovereign states. England is a country of that there is no doubt, but it is not sovereign. Regardless of this argument, what is the actual problem with stating in a Wikipedia article that London is in England and Aberdeen is in Scotland etc? I cannot see the problem. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from singling me out by name here; please address your posts to the readership at large. Also do not attempt to split this discussion by posting to my Talk page. Roger (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I do not know the rules, but no one has yet come up with a valid reason why England or any of the UK's other countries cannot be listed as a country on a Wikipedia article. It is not vandalism or incorrect. In fact it is more accurate, even if UK is also correct. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In everyday language countries are states and states are countries. Arguing about sovereignty is semantic political BS. The UK is a country. England, Wales, et al, are constituent; whether or not they call themselves countries is irrelevant. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Indeed. In everyday language, in an international context (which is what we have here--this is an international project), "country" and "sovereign state" are synonymous. The fact that some non-sovereign entities self-describe as "countries" is irrelevant here.
Besides, this issue is not something that pertains to the destinations of a Dutch airline, or indeed any airline. Consistent use of terminology across the encyclopaedia is important, as is a consensus among editors. It is clear what the consensus is here, and the anonymous IP editor's behaviour is verging on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --RFBailey (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It's so silly why we have to get into these kinds of disputes. UK is a country; DUH! There is no doubt about it, just go look at any world map or on any globe. This kind of debate is even more stupid than the ones we have on destination lists. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According the the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom it states "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries" but the article also says the UK is a unitary state. One of the references puts the government's position. I didn't want to start a massive argument, so lets all accept that the UK and England, Scotland etc are all countries. In that case, can someone please say why it is wrong to put in a Wikipedia article that London is in England and Cardiff is in Wales etc? What is the actual problem with stating the truth? It would be more accurate, and certainly not incorrect or vandalism. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect if you have no consensus to use administrative areas of sovereign countries in these destination list, I dont see any consensus here and as a project and we normally follow what is normal practice rather than create our own guidelines on such matters. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please see my entry below regarding the Kingdom of Denmark, and how in other airline's destinations lists the constituent countries are listed separately along with their flags. It does not seem to be a problem. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be awkward to see United Kingdom - Scotland under the new table proposal below. And I do expect to see, for example, names of German states to be mentioned for Germany-based carriers. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
If the topic was the UEFA European Football Championship or Rugby (football) it would be correct to treat England, Scotland, etc separately. However the context here is international air travel and the simple fact is that flights between Glasgow and Cardiff or Liverpool and Belfact are not international flights (by any reasonable definition of the term). It's all about context, and BTW, 78.86.37.131 have you ever read WP:Consensus? Roger (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dependencies

A little bit sidetrack from the discussion around UK. If England, Scotland et al aren't countries, what about dependencies such as Greenland, Puerto Rico, Aruba, Jersey, Guam, the Isle of Man, the Falklands, the Faroes and Gibraltar? Should they appear as countries or as provinces? The problem had appeared with KLM destinations and a large number of other destination lists. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The status of Falklands shouldn't be raised here, as there is an international ongoing dispute over its sovereignity.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Although these are dependencies, rather than sovereign states, convention dictates that we list these separately. Also, the constitutional status of dependencies varies widely. However, it would be absurd if we listed, say, Nouméa as being in France rather than New Caledonia. --RFBailey (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Some territories such as Hawaii, Reunion and French Guiana aren't dependencies. And those that are dependencies are often listed separately with other countries. Apart from Puerto Rico, Greenland et al, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Aland, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Macau, Saint Helena and Sint Maarten share the same case. Should a policy be specified in the project page (or some other manuals of style on Wikipedia) for the UK and for inhabited dependencies? Uninhabited dependencies such as the BIOT and South Georgia aren't likely to have regularly scheduled flight though. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW Hawaii isn't a "territory." It is the 50th state of the US of A. I think territories ought to be listed as separate from the country which it belongs to in the country column. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"Hawaii isn't a territory"---no, which was my point: the constitutional/political/administrative status of these entities which are geographically separate from the "main" part of the country to which they belong ("belonging" to be interpreted as "ownership" or "membership" as appropriate) varies. Hawaii is an extreme example at one end of the spectrum--having the same constitutional status as the contiguous US. Saint Helena and the Falkland Islands are at the other end. Places like Aruba, New Caledonia, or the Åland islands are somewhere inbetween. --RFBailey (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of these places aren't really that geographically separate. For example, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and Macau. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I should have said "some places". Should there be a guideline or policy as the basis to resolve disputes around listing of dependencies? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Channel Islands and Isle of Man they are not part of the United Kingdom and in aviation terms have independent civil aviation authorities that do airline licenses and such like so it would be normal to list them in destination lists. I havent looked at the others but we dont normally make up guidelines or polices at project level on stuff that is not really anything to do with airlines but for which wikipedia precedent is around to guide us. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
116.49.130.45: why do I get the distinct impression you are now just being pedantic for the sake of it? --RFBailey (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There have been a lot of disputes around listing of dependencies. Frequently there are edit wars that place Puerto Rico and the USVI under the US, and Hong Kong and Macau under the PRC. It will be helpful for this project, or the aviation project too, to look into the problem around dependencies on these lists. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Denmark says that "The Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state consisting of the country of Denmark and two autonomous constituent countries, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The article Scandinavian Airlines destinations lists Denmark and Greenland separately along with their flags. Why is this the case here, but cannot be done for the United Kingdom. 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to use a bit of common sense her 78, Greenland is a long way from Denmark and in airline terms are on different continents, it would just look daft to show an airline serving Nuuk Airport, Greenland, Denmark, Europe it would be misleading. Bit like London, London Heathrow Airport, London Borough of Hillingdon, Greater London, England, United Kingdom not really needed. I suspect you will not get any consensus here to do anything different, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Denmark is constitutionally different to the United Kingdom, in that the three constituent parts are Denmark itself and its (remaining) two overseas possessions. The Kingdom of the Netherlands treats its overseas possessions similarly. However, the appropriate analogues of Greenland and the Faroe Islands in the context of the United Kingdom are not England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the British Overseas Territories (Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, etc.) and Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man). Those we list separately in destination lists, just as we do for Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Aruba, etc. So to cite the Kingdom of Denmark as a precedent for these dubious "UK is not a country" claims is a false analogy. --RFBailey (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Airlines that have ceased operations

I know that a couple of airlines: Continental (merged with UA), Spanair, Mexicana, Malev, etc. all have ceased operations therefore making those airlines defunct. However, does that necessarily mean the airline left their alliances. I know that a lot of people removed the airlines from the respective alliances. However, the official alliance webpage (Star Alliance, Oneworld, SkyTeam) still has those airlines listed as a member. Should we wait until the airline diappears from the list (I know that CO will diappear once its reservation system will be combine with UA shortly) or should we remove them from the alliance pages once the airline officially has ceased. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say follow the alliance's website. In my experience they know exactly which day to take the logo off their own page. HkCaGu (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't share your faith in the timeousness of corporate webmasters. Roger (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. The day after Spanair collapsed, the Star Alliance homepage had a sort of emergency pop-up message about it, but with the Spanair logo still scrolling across the screen with all the others. If an airline has ceased operations, then I'm not sure how they can belong to an alliance.
As for when a webpage is updated, I'm sure if it's planned (as with Continental) they'll have the update planned in advance, but with the sudden collapses then they'll take time to respond. --RFBailey (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Same with Malev and Mexicana when Oneworld announced those carriers' suspensions but the logos still appear on the top of the Oneworld webpage. The problem is that when a carrier ceases operations the alliance webpage should have been updated to remove the airline from the list. As of Continental, they will disappear from the list when passenger and ground operations are combined by March 2012. I am not sure I remember if NW was removed when certificates were merged or reservation systems were merged. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@RFBailey, I just checked the Star Alliance webpage and Continental is no longer listed as a member. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the Oneworld page, they refer to Mexicana as a inactive member. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New York-Newark

I am interested in possibly changing Newark on airport pages. Newark Liberty serves the entire New York area and we all know it and it wouldn't hurt to add so for example on an airport page instead of it just saying Newark it would say New York-Newak. Comments are appreciated! Cali4529 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying to just do this on airport pages, or are you talking about doing this on airline destinations pages as well? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's been discussed before at WP:AIRPORTS, see here and most recently here. While I didn't personally contribute to either discussion, I believe the consensus was to keep it as 'Newark' in destination lists on airport pages. SempreVolando (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's just keep it simple and just use the name of the airport and not add anything extra. I can see there being edit wars going on over whether to say "Newark-New York" or just "Newark." Let's not let ourselves waste time on stupid edit wars like that. If there was consenus on WP:AIRPORTS to keep it as "Newark" and not anything more confusing than that, so it should be here. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the FAA's master record for EWR shows it as owned by the Port Authority of NY & NJ, on leased property owned by the City of Newark, and simply named "Newark Liberty Intl."

Given that NYC has YORK&Use=&Certification= ten listed airports, and that Newark isn't one of them, I'd want to see a much stronger argument than has been presented before supporting New York as part of the EWR article title. Is there some reason a passenger flying to NYC would prefer EWR over other airports? I can see why an airline would choose to do so, of course. If the carrier has limited flights to other regional airports they'd still prefer to get some of the NYC destined passengers' business. To make matters even fuzzier, there are other YORK&Use=&Certification= Newarks with airports in Newark, Ohio, Newark, New York, and Newark, Illinois. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We just finished the discussion of London Southend. In EWR's case, it's only a few international carriers that market it as New York-Newark. (Similar to Ryanair's practice in Europe.) The bulk of international routes and all domestic flights call it Newark. Furthermore, the PA is owned by the two states, not at the county or city levels. The PA doesn't call it NY-Newark. HkCaGu (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And the official name of the airport is "Newark Liberty International Airport" as on the Port Authority's website with no New York. As HkCaGu stated, the port authority that operates JFK, LGA, and EWR is not only owned by New York but also owned by New Jersey. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What about Viracops Airport which serves Campinas the third largest city in Brazil or Sao Paulo state, same issue despite its name Viracopos-Campinas International Airport, its listed as serving Sao Paulo rarely Campinas is mentioned as the city it belongs to, unlike Newark-Liberty which gets listed as serving Newark and not New York City in articles here.116.71.11.222 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Outside of the United States, Newark is not a particularly well-known city, especially when compared to New York (one of the most famous cities in the world). So in an international context, it is quite understandable for Newark to be described as "New York-Newark". In many international markets (especially those formerly served by Continental), Newark is the only of the airports listed by IATA under the "NYC" code to be served. It is not uncommon for airports to be located outside of the principal municipality which they serve (e.g. Pearson, Gatwick, Narita, etc.), or even in a different state-level jurisdiction (e.g. Cincinnati).

Of course, if a reader is looking at a destination list (say, for Birmingham Airport), happens across the name "Newark" and doesn't know where it is, if we were to link to destination airports in these lists, they could always click on it to find out. --RFBailey (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag carrier

I'd like to redirect your attention from the previous discussions for just a moment. An editor (that is also an administrator) is adding unsourced information to the list of flag carriers table in the article. Can anyone help with this? The straight solution is to remove all unsourced material, but then I will probably be accused of vandalising the article. I already explained him/her that their actions go against the WP:SOURCE policy.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't consider it vandalism if you remove all such material. It seems this would mean that all mention of being a "flag carrier" or "national airline" in the relevant Wikipedia articles on those airlines would have to be cited or removed. I added those airlines to this list because the Wikipedia articles themselves said they were "national airlines" or "flag carriers". --  Denelson83  21:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, we're talking about this article here, not about the ones you say you're getting the information from. But yes, if unsourced, that information should also be removed. I already told you: sourcing is a policy. Otherwise I may claim that Air North is Canada's flag carrier without providing a valid and reliable source for that.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources! MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
No dispute there. If you wish to revert my edits to Flag carrier, then go right ahead. I'm fine with moving on. --  Denelson83  00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find sources for the entries you added, but please bear in mind that every piece of information should be supported by at least a reliable source. Please also notice that there's another issue with this article. I'm posting it right below.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Needing cleanup

A recent discussion over the contents of the article arose between Chrisieboy and me, this time regarding excessive information. In particular, the last column of the table seems to be completely irrelevant to the scope of the article for both of us, while my vision for the remaining ones is that they seem to be poorly referenced. In summary, I believe the article requires cleanup. Seeing that the page is also within the scope of the project, I'm asking for other opinions, just the way I requested third opinions for the inclusion or not of lists of aircraft in alliance liveries below. I kindly request your views to be posted here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with removing notes column. Most of the stuff in there is irrelevant and/ or redundant. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_5&oldid=1190227796"