Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Removal of destinations of airlines?

At WP:ANI I had previously filed a case about User:*AirportUpdater*. (My IP has changed) But the disscussion got to taking the destination lists away from articles, most of these editors were unfamiliar with this project. I dissagree, but first, lets try and generate consensus. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: I think the destination lists should most certainly be kept. The Wikipedia is the only place that lists the destinations of airports, yet, some airports have reached GA status. Here are some examlples:

A planespotter wants to choose the best airport to planespot from, he has a choice of Gatwick or Heathrow. He looks on the internet for spots, then comes here to find out what airlines go there. He in the end, chooses the airport with the most airlines.

What would happen without the destination lists? 87.112.66.233 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that destination tables should be removed. The airlines and destinations served are some of the most important and significant pieces of information about an airport and the table format is the easiest and simplest format to display this information in. People keep citing WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK to argue that they should be removed, but I don't see how information about airlines and destinations constitutes a travel guide in any way, as it is not presented for the purpose of helping people book flights, but is instead supposed to give information about the operation and function of the airport. How can an article provide a thorough overview of an airport without showing which airlines it is served by and which destinations they fly to? Many editors are also saying they should be removed because they constantly require updating; but as long as there is a sufficient group of editors who are willing to do this, then how is this an issue? The WP:Airports community is, in good faith, attempting to keep the airport articles detailed, accurate and up-to-date, and inevitably there will be some editors who see this as pointless or meaningless, but that doesn't mean the information doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Ultimately, having airport articles without listing the airlines and destinations would be like having sports team articles without listing the players; although some people would consider the articles to be 'complete' without them, the article would be severely lacking in context and would be missing the most relevant and meaningful information about the subject. As for the issue of citations in destination tables, this is probably something that needs to be discussed and consensus reached, because it is currently very inconsistent between individual articles. OakleighPark 12:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Names of airlines, maybe terminals they operate from: rarely change, compact, easy to source. List of each airlines' destinations: changes frequently, impossibly bulky, hard to source (probably requiring primary sources), and leads to arguments about whether a change of flight number at some intermediate stop means there is or is not service from Foobar International to Melbourne.
These articles are grossly overdetailed in many places. Example:
At the time of its completion, the JFK tower, at 320 feet (97.5m), was the world's tallest control tower. It was subsequently displaced from that position by towers at other airports in both the United States and overseas, including those at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, currently the tallest tower at any U.S. airport, at 398 feet (121.3m) and at Suvarnabhumi International Airport in Bangkok, Thailand, currently the world's tallest control tower at 434 feet (132.2m).
Nothing after the first sentence serves the reader's understanding of JFK airport. (In an article on a warship, gun statistics tell us something about strategic positioning of nations. But airports don't move around and fire at one another from their towers...) It's fancruft. EEng (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and look! Let's suppose I want to know about Pittsburgh_International_Airport. I'll be more than well informed about every aspect of its current and past facilities in the minutest detail. For example:
American Airlines has its Admirals Club on the mezzanine level of the airside terminal. It is accessible by escalators in the center core area. Before a post-9/11 restructure of routes (effectively dehubbing Pittsburgh), US Airways had three clubs. The other two clubs were located on the upper levels of the A and B terminals. British Airways also had a lounge area in the C terminal during their transatlantic flight operations from Pittsburgh (1980s to fall 1999). Their lounge room is still there intact but now closed off.
Yes, that's what the reader needs to know -- the former locations of now-closed clubs by an airline that doesn't even exist anymore. It's hard to believe the bit about escalators isn't conscious self-parody, but apparently it really is not. EEng (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sarcastic statements like this are not constructive, nor are broad criticisms of the editors in this WikiProject. You can't attribute every single statement on every single airport article to this WikiProject; the majority of WP:Airport editors would probably agree that the sentence about the escalators should be removed as it is unnecessary information, so criticising the entire Wikiproject over it is unnecessary. Additionally, just because 'you' don't see the relevance or significance of a certain piece of information, it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or significant; the tallest airport control tower is definitely worthy of a mention in an article, as are the airlines and destinations served from the airport. It appears as though the majority of editors demanding that destination tables be removed have very little understanding of either the Wikiproject or the subject matter, and their demands for removal seem to be based on personal preference instead of objective analysis of whether it is notable or not. OakleighPark 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, these sarcastic comments are highly constructive, because they bring into laserlike focus the bizarre amount of fancruft in these articles. I didn't have to look around for the stuff about Admiral Clubs -- my eye just fell on it. Everywhere one looks one sees similar nonsense.
Yes, the tallest tower is worth mentioning. Even the fact that it was the tallest at the time of construction is worth mentioning. What's not worth mentioning is the names and heights of two other towers (one domestic, one foreign) which have rendered it no longer the tallest tower. Here's what that passage should say:
JFK's 320-foot (97.5 m) tower was the world's tallest for XX years.
Period. 10 words instead of 70. See how simple? EEng (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that many people would consider information about airlines and destinations to be 'fancruft', and you've given no explanation of why you think the content is non-notable. I also don't think that many people would consider making sarcastic and snide remarks to be part of improving Wikipedia, and the discussion will be much more civil if everyone abides by WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If you think that the destination tables should be removed, you need to give clear and logical reasons supported by policy (and this doesn't include adding vague links to policy without explaining how you think the policy is relevant to the situation). Broad and unexplained criticism of the Wikiproject as a whole is only going to cause arguments, and I'm fairly sure that no one wants that to happen. OakleighPark 10:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of vague links to policy without explaining how you think the policy relevant, you might skip the vague link to ASSUMEGOODFAITH since no one's doubting anyone's good faith, just their editorial judgment. As to your desire for an explanation of why destination information is "non-notable", here's a vague link: WP:NCC, which explains that notability is a test for article existence, not for article content.
Every time you defend this silliness I'm moved to make another random probe into one of these articles to see whether the incredible bloat is just my imagination. It's not. Here's more soporific overdetail:
PIT offers on site parking operated by the Grant Oliver Corporation and patrolled by the Allegheny County Police. Grant Oliver offers usage of a GO FAST Pass account to pay for parking electronically at the airport. Go Fast Pass customers may register their E-Zpass transponders to use with the system, although billing and other aspects of the system are entirely handled by Grant Oliver. There are regular parking shuttles to the Long Term and Extended lots that can be accessed from the Baggage Claim level of the Landside Terminal outside doors six and eight.
Yes, that really helps the reader understand this airport: who runs the parking, who patrols it, and how the billing works. And that doors six and eight are the way to get there. EEng (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur, EEng. Borders on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tiderolls 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
In what way? I don't see how the destination tables breach WP:NOTDIRECTORY; could you elaborate on how you think the tables fall foul of this policy? OakleighPark 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to say here that anyone who is unfamiliar with this project will agree, but then. What will happen? 87.112.66.233 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

KEEP airline service list, REMOVE flights to and from. example:airport A has airlines X,Y,Z.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to remember that the destination lists in airport articles are there to show the range and extent of destinations served (both presents and in the past (although we are not very good at that bit)), not as a travel guide, not as a spotters guide but something to show the scope and extent of services, which is why they dont have to up to date, just reliably referenced and dated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting an overall feeling like there are two different groups of people arguing over this issue. Group 1: Airport Editors. Group 2: Non-airport Editors. I, myself, am an Airport Editor who strongly agrees with having the lists of destinations for each airport. As previously stated above, us airport editors are committed to keeping each page as accurate as possible and we constantly check these destinations charts to make corrections when necessary. They are there because these charts are the most important stat of every airport page. Without them, every airport page would definitely be missing something important. I think it is vital that we keep these destination lists and keep trying to improve upon them. There is also a discussion here on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports regarding former destinations charts which I also think is a great idea. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Former destinations? Are you kidding? EEng (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AirportUpdater. If this cruft is seen as important by a small group of editors, one solution is to split off and make your own project focussing on trivia like the stairways serving former transit lounges of defunct airlines. On this project we have policies which preclude including trivia like this in our articles. A small group of editors with a specialised interest do not have the right to change a long-established consensus about material included on articles. --John (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait, John... you agree with who (or whom, for the sticklers in the audience)? EEng (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP accidentally forgot to mention was that several editors at the ANI were that the airline and destination lists don't have references. Keeping or ditching the lists is one thing but if they are being kept then they should be sourced. The relevant piece is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body item 10. However, that does not forbid the use of references. MilborneOne. We don't include former airlines and destinations as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 8#Former Airlines and Destinations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 9#Should former airlines and destinations be included in airport articles? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7#History, former flight routes and defunct airlines. And *AirportUpdater* please don't turn this into an us versus them thing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Us versus them thing" was never stated and is another false accusation. I simply said that there are two sides to the argument. One side happens to be the airport editors who are supporting keeping destinations/route charts because they are very necessary to each airport page. The other side happens to be editors that aren't that familiar with airport pages, therefore, they believe that these charts aren't that important and these pages can go without them. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this project, but made one or two comments in the AN/I.
Is flight information against WP policy? The scope is clearly defined and limited, the data is complete, it's not a random selection, no DIRECTORY or endless list. It doesn't match any of the descriptions under WP:GUIDE as far as I can see.
Does it need inline citations? per WP:V: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". likely to be? No, there's nothing controversial. But if it's challenged a source must be added.
Are primary, self-published sources allowed? per WP:RS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:V: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities,.." (see conditions).
Just my two cents.
Maybe add a "last checked" date so people know how current the data is. I don't see any reason to remove it. For 98% of people it's the only information they are interested in, yet that's the info we would exclude? Ssscienccce (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
About the former destinations piece, if you read the above discussion, the current project on adding these tables is aimed for specific airports, most notably CVG, which has gone from Delta's Second Largest hub and 700 daily flights, to the smallest domestic hub for Delta, with under 100 flights a day. CVG was the #2 hub for over 35 years, so it was not like it was a brief event and was home to Comair which basically brought about regional flying. For these reasons, the former destination list is very meaningful on airports like CVG, and would probably really only be effective on a few other airports such as MEM, PIT, and CLE, but that is debatable to wether even they should have such a list. The destination lists, both present and former (for mainly CVG and maybe others) are very important to the page, giving an important insight and accurate view of the service offered to a particular airport. Although there are not references on every single edit and destination, many users frequently check the flights with official flight guides and quickly revert IP and other users who try to add illegitimate routes. Also, a common practice of citing routes beginning or ending in the future has been used across most airports and there is no reason to remove this info. Lastly, who cares that the articles are over-detailed, as long as it is sourced, it is still a fact, and who knows what it can be used for by someone. Why on earth would you remove info, unless it is unsourced, which then it should be removed, if the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge for free online.Stinger20 (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The airlines and routes should not be deleted because they are essential to gauge an airports connectivity, which is a very notable aspect of an airport. That said, I do agree that the current destinations need to be referenced (per WP:V). AHeneen (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The current consensus is to only keep references for charter flights. We also need to keep them for scheduled flights. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To this respect, the ongoing discussion regarding the AfD for airline destinations should be exactly the opposite, i.e. remove destinations from airports, as they are almost totally unsourced. We can keep a record of current and terminated destinations at articles covering destinations for each airline. At this very momento, the outcome of this AfD keep all and I don't think this will change.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
But by only having information about destinations on the airline destination lists, it doesn't show the range of destinations flown to from each airport. Without a list of destinations, how would a reader easily know that, for example, London Heathrow Airport serves a much greater range of destinations than London Southend Airport, or that Dallas Fort Worth Airport is the primary airport serving Dallas, and that Dallas Love Field is much smaller? (I'm sure that anyone who hasn't heard of one those airports before, and decides to click the link, will find the destination table useful for gaining an understanding of the size and significance of the airport.) The current lack of sourcing needs to be seen as a completely separate issue to the debate about whether or not the destination tables should be deleted, because the sourcing could be improved so there's no need for deletion to occur over an issue that is easily fixable. OakleighPark 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Former destinations are a good idea for airports such as Donegal Airport. But bigger airports...? We'd need something new. 80.189.105.71 (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Destinations are easy to source, even when they change frequently. It's not difficult to keep up with current changes, and we've done a great job at it thus far. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of control: BOS-CUN: No flights in November and not seasonal?

There is a controversy by multiple, mostly IP editors, who insist AA's BOS-CUN is not seasonal because it runs more than one "season". FYI, there is no flights for the whole month of November. This is ridiculous to me! Can we have a consensus on a basic principle that anything that is less than year-round is therefore seasonal? HkCaGu (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What we need to discuss is how long does a flight not operate in order to be considered a seasonal flight? Some flights do not operate for 3 or 4 months every year but they consider them seasonal. We need a consensus on how many months does not flight not operate to constitute a seasonal service. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree that BOS-CUN should be listed as seasonal. Many of AA and UA's flights (typically American Eagle and United Express) have the same predicament. If a flight is not operated (such as BOS-CUN) for a whole month (in this case, the whole month of November, for crying out loud!), then it should definitely be seen as seasonal.
When implementing/deciding whether or not flights are seasonal, I think it's best to list flights as "seasonal" when the flight(s) are un-operational for a minimum of 2 ~ 4 weeks, respectively. EnRouteAviation (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Continuing in this vein then, AA is suspending BOS-BUF and BOS-PIT for nearly 3 weeks from December 17, 2015 to January 4, 2016 (inclusive). Should those routes be listed as seasonal? Should there be any sort of annotation on those destinations? They're definitely being reinstated on January 5 and I assume AA intends to continue running them the other 49 weeks of the year. BeIsKr (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In this case, a simple (ends MMM DD, YYYY, resumes MMM DD, YYYY) should do it. BTW, the BOS and CUN situation seems to have stablized now, and I've found a decisive and definitive wording at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT that anything not year-round is seasonal. HkCaGu (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not trying to be difficult here, just clarifying in case I come across this. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the situations. When the above two routes "end X date, resume Y date," why is that not "anything not year round," i.e., "seasonal," by your definition? Is there is a distinguishing feature between those routes and the BOS-CUN route? Is it that the BOS-CUN flight is marketed as seasonal, but the BOS-BUF/BOS-PIT routes were temporarily stopped for some non-demand reason? Or is it that going forward, the routes will be 52 weeks a year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim0101 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Kuala Lumpur in destinations list

Please cast your vote at Kuala Lumpur International Airport's talk page to support or against the naming. Thank you.Tafeax (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed Kuala Lumpur to Kuala Lumpur–International in all related articles (airport's destination list). This was done based on the vote conducted on Kuala Lumpur International Airport's talk page. However, little did I know that voting shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Thus, I invite everyone to discuss on this changes. Should there be unfavourable consensus or disagreement, I will revert back to Kuala Lumpur instead. Thank you. Tafeax (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This archived thread may help.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Athens International Airport - Finding Sources for Terminals

Just as a general note to editors: On Athens International Airport, it seems that a significant amount of airlines have their terminal (hall) listed as "Unknown". This might be worth checking out and if sources are available stating what terminal these airlines are located at, it would be very helpful if some editors could address this issue. Thanks! RanterCritic (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Only seasonal/charter services are in that condition. As far as I know, charter flights are not to be included in destinations charts.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? I didn't know that. 46.208.55.208 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Point 10 here: "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular, or private charter services."--Jetstreamer Talk 19:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If the airline operates the charter flights on a regular basis, then it can be listed. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Correct, regular scheduled charters (mostly leisure flights) are neither ad-hoc nor irregular nor private and need to be listed. 212.114.180.41 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the Tumxuk airport page be merged with the Tumxuk page?

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumxuk_Airport is kind of redundant since there is rather little information on there and it wouod be better served by attaching it with the Tumxuk page.


The Winter of Steppes (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it seems it is under construction and should be handling around 80,000 passengers annually by 2020 so it would just gain it's own article in a couple of years anyway. Gavbadger (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

Below are some discussions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Former_Destinations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Permanently Deleting the Cargo Destinations Table(s)


I would like editors to contribute to these to form consensus'. Thanks, - DragTails - 18:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

I'm working on clearing out some of our older unreferenced articles, and there are a collection of airport articles that have been sitting unreferenced for almost a decade at Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2006. Here are the airport articles from the first part of the alphabet:

They all seem to be in and around Russia. Does anyone have sources they know of to get references for these pages? - SimonP (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have come across these types of articles (again, most in Russia). There is few reliable sources that provide notable information for the article. As I don't have time now, tomorrow I will have a look at some of the airports on this list. - DragTails - 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

When writing the article Bogorodskoye Airport, I googled the airport's name in Russian and found some results. For these tiny Russian airports, the best (and often only) references will be in Russian. Use Google Translate to get a rough translation. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Former Destinations

I noticed that a table noting former destinations had been removed from Belfast International Airport, there was 3 comments made, but that was all. I also note that there is a section above regarding this topic, I am opening this section and topic again because there was no clear consensus made on this topic.

Note: I added the table at BFS, I was just still editing under an IP at the time. - DragTails - 20:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the table at CVG, and I had the tabe removed many times. It seems that the consensus is that "small" airports should have the list, while larger airports should not. I had numerous people say it was too long and remove it, so I have settled for a shorter version with just Delta Air Lines and Comair flights (as DL downsized its CVG Hub). The full list has been kept in the talk page just in case users allow it. I do think former destinations should be included on ALL pages eventually, but I think discussion is needed on how to most effectively implement this. I feel that it is though a very cumbersome and hard task to make the list, especialy for U.S. Airports, which have seen almost 100 years of activity.Stinger20 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
BFS is a small airport, and the website you provided, "departed flights" or something like that. Was a very good source, perhaps more edtiors need to contribute to this disscussion. - DragTails - 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the list for BFS. All these random airlines and cities served from BFS are really not significant. If there is anything significant, e.g. international flights to small airports that have since been discontinued (Air Transat to BFS maybe), it can be noted in the History section. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted, I am also starting a new section linking to this discussion. As no one has discussed this let's leave BFS alone and focus on the importance (if there is any) on these routes. - DragTails - 18:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO there does not need to be a discussion. Virtually no airport article includes such a list; even the small airports (and BFS isn't that small) don't, rather they might mention former service in the History section. Here's one issue with former dest's lists: How far back do you go? BFS has existed since 1917. Is it important and encyclopedic that Airline XYZ flew BFS-ABC in 1979?
I will leave the table there as I'm not interested in an edit war, but I doubt it will be there for long. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Me either, I just hope to see that we can leave this discussion with some kind of consensus. I get really annoyed when people abandon discussions. It's getting really bad. I'll remove the table and put it on the talk page at BFS. So we can share our opinions at BFS. - DragTails - 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, former destinations should be included in airline destination articles, not in airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Permanently Deleting the Cargo Destinations Table(s)

The fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content states that cargo destinations should only be listed if nonstop seems confusing—and even contradicting to me...

It is clearly definite that on more (way many more) articles than not, these destinations for cargo airlines include one or more stops. (direct along with nonstop flights) I was aware for a long time that adding direct destinations along with non-stop has been encouraged. This is mainly due to the fact that, cargo-only OR cargo-heavy airports rely on persistent cargo-airline traffic for economy and/or air traffic boosts. Such airports include but are not limited to:

My proposal here is to completely abandon (and therefore remove) the cargo destinations (table) project altogether. My reasoning for this is due to the lack of sources that are published by the airlines for these routes. As of now, it is very hard to tell if these routes are reliable without (or lack of) sources that are instated for these routes. Also, there are a lot of accounts/IP's that are adding routes that aren't verifiable. (Including myself—which I clearly see as a mistake on my part due to the lack of verifiable sources and also the gratification/significance of the issue. Because almost all of the routes are not verifiable...) Any other suggestions editors? Thanks! Taokaka (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward agreement. It seems to me that while it is trivially easy to verify which cargo airlines use a given airport, it's much more difficult to verify which destinations are flow to from that airport, and that such information may be too ephemeral to be useful. Cargo airlines do certainly have scheduled routes, but they also have far more flexibility to change those routes as needed, and to add additional temporary routings as traffic warrants. Heck, FedEx keeps empty planes circling the country just in case they need to quickly cover an unscheduled route. In short, trying to use the same format for cargo carriers as is used for passenger carriers is a mistake, as they don't operate in the same fashion. oknazevad (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I also wouldn't object to removing cargo destinations completely. Just like the previous US regional carrier issue, maintainability is obviously suffering. IPs add but don't ever remove. But before we reach a new consensus, we already have a previous consensus (that doesn't look like editors in the know will disagree) that routes beyond the first stop are not notable. HkCaGu (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I dont see what the problem is the destinations section is to show the range and quantity of connections to the airport(which is why it doesnt allways need to be up to date aslong as it is referenced) and the fact that the airport operates cargo services is of note. Also we only list the first stop as we are not a travel guide and subsequent destinations are not relevant to the airport. Also we should only be limited to scheduled cargo services as ad hoc stuff is not really notable and are never listed as per passenger services. The original problem was to do with reliable references, thats easy if it cant be referenced then it can be tagged and removed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
According to the proposal we should also consider deleting the scheduled destinations charts, as they are virtually unsupported by any reference across all airport articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider just having a list of airlines that use the airport and move the destination lists to wiki travel! MilborneOne (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a terrible idea. The destination tables have always felt more like an almanac and less like an encyclopedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
A list of airlines without destinations would be more encyclopedic, something like:
Airline Dates Type Notes
Foo Airlines 2002- Scheduled International Passenger
Large Airways 1999-2010 Ad-hoc international cargo Base
Metro Way 2015- Scheduled domestic passenger Hub
Smith Flight 1956-1977 Scheduled domestic passenger Home base, moved operations to Big airport in 1977
Zero Airlines 2002- Passenger Charter

Just an idea obviously needs more thinking about before it can be proposed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the proposed ideas. Just having a list of airlines operating at each airport, be it cargo or passenger ones, is much better than the current format.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would keep all .Wikipedia is the only source that lists these destinations and the destination/airline lists have been very useful in the past for me. Cargo destinations are never listed on any other websites like this and I would not like to see any destination tables removed. - DragTails - 19:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Forget that statement I just made. Thinking back, I do agree that cargo destinations are not notable, as there are almost no sources that provide information for cargo flights. However, I would not agree with passenger lists being removed. - DragTails - 19:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

But they are as unsourced as cargo destinations are.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to be harsh, but the argument is stupid, really. Oknazevad made a point about the removal of cargo destinations while the rest are bickering about sources and "unsourced" tables. If they are not sourced enough, we can find a better way to solve it, not by just removing it. - DragTails - 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Nobody is bickering, taken into an account the discussion further up on destination lists both passenger and cargo it is being suggested they be replaced with a list of airlines that have or do operate from the airport which is more encyclopedic and less travel guide. If you wait I suspect a proposal on this will be along soon to comment on. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And we can discuss anytime whether airport articles are turning into travel guides...--Jetstreamer Talk 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that the cargo destinations table should go and should list only the cargo carriers serving the airport as long as there is a source stating so. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am in disagreement with this argument, as many cargo carriers actualy post route maps on their websites. Also, FlightAware is a great resource for checking if certain routes are operated by a particular cargo airline. There are definantly sources for many routes, the problem is fewer users check and maintain these tables. Just like passengers, cargo movements are an important part of an airports operations, especially for cargo hubs like CVG, MEM, LAX, JFK, ect. These routes can be sources if that is what people want, I think most people do not know where to look. I have maintained the CVG Cargo list for quite awhile, and I always put the flight number when I add the route in my summary, maybe we could add this as hidden text in order to keep track. Lastly, it is important, just as with passengers to see the extent of operations, and the only way to do this is a table. Also, there is a difference between a cargo airline and a charter cargo airlines. You do NOT put the routes for charter cargo routes, as they constantly change. An exmaple is Kallita Air vs. Kalitta Charters, in this case, Kalitta Charters should not be listed. Stinger20 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a point there, people always rely on airline published sources for routes. Google flights are also a good source for passenger routes. - DragTails - 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Tracking a single flight does not mean the route is permanently served. That's what timetables are for.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this was not clear, you find the flight, then look at the history of the number, that will show you the past flights, and if it is a charter or scheduled route. It is actually really simple and an effective way to figure out if a route is being flown by a particular airline regularly. When a cargo airlines does not offer a timetable, this works well. Also, to a point above, as has been discussed in prior sections, the purpose of destinations tables is to show the extent of service, not to be travel guide. Actually showing what airports are served by both cargo and passenger carriers give a lot more informations to a user than just x airlines serve x destinations at x airport. If the problem is sources, they exist, and can be added if that is what consesus concludes. New routes are already being sourced before they begin. It would not be that hard to source all other fligths. Stinger20 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of getting rid of the cargo tables as well, although a list of airlines could be maintained. I was updating the Cargo table at Kempegowda International Airport using http://flightmapper.net/ , which lists scheduled cargo flights. But I didn't know whether to list cargo destinations served roundtrip, one-way, etc. For example, SQ flies BRU-BLR but not the other way around, so should it be listed? It's just confusing so I'd prefer to eliminate the tables. - Sunnya343 22:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines LAX

According to/per:
NRT-LAX-PDX (American Airlines)
SYD-LAX-PDX (American Airlines)
LAX-PDX (American Airlines)

The new LAX flights only show up when booked along with a connecting flight, but the flights may not be reserved individually yet...

Does anyone know why the new AA LAX flights are not showing up when searched individually...?
172.56.39.206 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jacksonville Airports

This may be obvious—as one of the airports only has two current passenger destinations, but is it worth differentiating Jacksonville International Airport and Albert J. Ellis Airport regarding the labeling in the destinations' lists/tables? Thanks! 208.54.5.192 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The first would be listed as Jacksonville (FL) and the second would be listed as Jacksonville (NC). - Sunnya343 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Direct Flights with stops

My question here is specifically regarding direct flights that are not spoke-hub-spoke with passenger pick-up rights on all legs. I'm talking about international flights such as JFK-FRA-SIN on Singapore Airlines or JFK-YVR-MNL on Philippine Airlines. I recently removed some of these 3rd non-nonstop destinations on the JFK article because, to me, it didn't seem logical to list SIN or MNL as 'destinations' from JFK when they literally do not have a single flight to those destinations. (Note: I do get the JFK-LAX-SYD issue, where there is no right for Qantas to fly simply from JFK to LAX, but this is different, b/c there are 5th freedom rights from JFK-FRA and JFK-YVR.)

I noticed that two of my edits, JFK-LFW-ADD on Ethiopian and JFK-MDE-CLO on Avianca, were promptly reverted. Feel free to revert others if I was off base my edits. I know that the WP:AIRPORT content guide says only list direct flights that are not spoke-hub-spoke, but why list the 3rd destination when it's spoke-focus-focus or even hub-hub-hub? It just doesn't seem accurate to me to say that Avianca 'flies' to that 2nd focus city. Moreover, drawing a bright line at non-stop destinations (with the exception of the JFK-LAX-SYD situation) would make this whole thing much simpler, while eliminating subjective judgment calls as to what's really a "real" destination of a multi-stop direct flight.

Thoughts?Jim0101 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT guide point #7, direct flights are included as long as the same plane and flight number is used all the way through to the final destination (please note that SQ and PR uses the same aircraft and flight number on these routes and Frankfurt/Vancouver are not hubs for the SQ/PR) and that they do not contain a stop at an airline hub. But as for QF JFK-LAX-SYD, QF does not have eighth freedom rights to transport passengers solely from JFK to LAX (therefore, LAX is not listed at the JFK article but it has a footnote explaining the stop and regarding the rights. However, PAL also operates a YYZ-YVR-MNL route but I am not sure if the aircraft used on that route is the same as the JFK-YVR-MNL route. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, Lome is neither a hub or focus city for Ethiopian but rather a hub for ASKY Airlines. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nashville International Airport

Someone keeps removing OneJet, Boutique Air, and Corporate Flight Management as airlines operating out of BNA. They keep saying that these are charter flights but you can book these flights on the airline's website and the airlines operate out of the main passenger terminal there (they use Concourse B as per https://www.flynashville.com/flights/Pages/airline-information.aspx). If these are charter flights, they should be in the dedicated charter section below the scheduled passenger section. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page, but yes I definitely agree. This one particular user is constantly deleting these airline routes. I am trying to work with the Admins to block this user or protect this page. This user has not responded to warnings and has not even included a description along with it's edits. This is certain vandalism to me. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Valid Redirects

Are these valid or useful redirects, given that the names seem to refer to individual concourses? CrowCaw 00:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony International Airport

Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport

@Crow: As long as the redirect name is mentioned somewhere within the article (and properly sourced), it should be just fine. Ralletsretni (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Crow: UPDATE: Per this discussion, apparently the two redirects were made by blocked users with no other contributions...? That's really weird... Ralletsretni (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

208.104.105.118

This IP: 208.104.105.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which locates to Fort Mill, South Carolina has been adding resumption + end dates for seasonal routes which is obviously against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.

The articles that they've been attacking are:

If this behavior continues, administrative attention is definitely encouraged here. I am also suspecting some sort of block evasion here, since their behavior seems to be "Long-term abuse" (ish...).

Hopefully the situation can be remedied sooner than later. Cheers, 172.58.32.161 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

But... you haven't left any message of his/her talk page? Slasher-fun (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This [1] edit was not vandalism. Didn't check the others.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SSTflyer

This user has been rapidly disambiguating Airport labels in a manner that is disruptive and has been violating previous consensuses and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. I'm not really sure what to do here since this effects almost all Airport articles. Any thoughts? Thanks. 198.236.17.79 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To me it's not clear what the consensus has been. I raised the PHX issue and there was only silence, and the thread was archived. HkCaGu (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Another user (not the user this the thread is referring to) is has changed Detroit to Detroit-Metro (since Detroit is served by Metro, Willow Run, and Coleman A Young) while the latter two does not have any scheduled passenger service. I have reverted it and messaged the user and I believe Detroit was discussed in the past. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The user has also changed Columbus to Columbus–Port Columbus. I will add any others I notice. The only agreement I see with these changes is that whenever this topic comes up, either no one responds or consesus cannot be achieved. However, it is important to distiguish what level of passenger service necesitates the need for name changes. With this logic, CVG should be changed to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky because of Lunken, PIT to Pittsburg–International because of Latrobe, and CLE to Cleveland–Hopkins because of Burke. All these smaller airports have scheduled passenger commercial service, but I do not necessarily think they should be changed. Stinger20 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already messaged the user to bring his/her changes to the project talk page. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no need for me to raise discussions regarding my changes, since my changes merely follow consensus established in previous discussions, and raising such proposed changes is unlikely to gain attention from other editors. In my changes (Phoenix to Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Orlando to Orlando–International, and Columbus (OH) to Columbus–Port Columbus), ambiguity exists because the other airports are usually known together with the city name. In my case, in airport destinations lists, Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport is usually listed as "Phoenix/Mesa", Orlando Sanford International Airport is usually listed as "Orlando–Sanford", and Rickenbacker International Airport is usually listed as "Columbus–Rickenbacker". In some other cases, there is no need for disambiguation, e.g. there is no need to disambiguate between Frankfurt Airport (now usually listed as "Frankfurt") and Frankfurt–Hahn Airport because in airport destinations lists, HHN is known simply as "Hahn" and not "Frankfurt–Hahn". SSTflyer 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there was no consensus in the past discussions regarding the airport changes (all have gone stale and silent). 97.85.118.142 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Orlando and Phoenix have been discussed in the past but there have been no solutions. Therefore, you CANNOT make mass edits like you did without consensus. Regarding Columbus, this airport absolutely does not need disambiguation as it is the main airport for the city. The city isn't even a major city that has multiple major airports. Midwestern cities such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. do not need disambiguation with their major airports. Every city is going to have county airports and other various airports scattered throughout the region and those airports really only have the closest "major" city in their name so people know where that smaller town is located near. If every major airport was listed with another name, things would get very confusing. I still agree that Orlando and Phoenix should just be listed as it should be and Columbus shouldn't even be discussed for any changes. Besides, OH must be included in the name because there are multiple cities that are named Columbus in the US. I have deleted all of the (Columbus-Port Columbus) edits because I think they are the most silly, I will wait on Orlando and Phoenix to be discussed about. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I am merely making changes for compliance with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #4. I am sure prior consensus has been established for the usage and standardization of that guideline. Disambiguation may be added using airport names when there are multiple airports serving the same city. I do not have to explicitly start a proposal to change the links for a specific airport when I am only implementing changes based on the guideline. It is only your opinion that Port Columbus International Airport is the main airport for the city when Rickenbacker International Airport is a major airport that sees scheduled intercontinental service to Europe and Asia with aircraft up to the Boeing 747-8. As for Orlando, I have already seen some airports use "Orlando–International" in the {{Airport-dest-list}}; it would be a good idea to standardize this across all airports. I maintain that "Columbus (OH)" for CMH is unusable, since LCK is located in Ohio and primarily serves Columbus, Ohio, creating ambiguity. "Rickenbacker" cannot be used for LCK because Rickenbacker is not a place name. It is possible to keep using "Orlando" for MCO and "Phoenix" for PHX, but "Phoenix/Mesa" would need to be changed to "Mesa" for AZA, and "Orlando–Sanford" changed to "Sanford", to prevent ambiguity. SSTflyer 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion should really go to WP:ANI since it is focused on one particular user. However, such airport differentiation changes should be discussed here. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Zagreb International Airport

Hello everyone. There's a dispute regarding the name of this article. Please comment at the article's talk. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

After a long discussion, it is clear that Croatian government renamed the whole complex of airport after Franjo Tuđman and we also explained a distinction between Zagreb airport's name and operator of Zagreb airport. Accordingly, Zagreb International Airport is the name of operator (Zagreb International Airport Jsc) and regarding this currently topic's name is incorrect because the article is about Zagreb's airport, not about operator of airport (for example, topic's name of Frankfurt's airport isn't Fraport but Frankfurt Airport).
Finally, in accordance with all published material on Talk:Zagreb International Airport under sections 'Government of Croatia officialy renamed airport after Franjo Tuđman' and 'Explanation of name dispute', as a new topic's name is proposed Zagreb Franjo Tuđman Airport, a form of name with city and person features like other similar and neighboring airports in that part of Europe have (for example, Gdańsk Lech Wałęsa Airport, Warsaw Chopin Airport, Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport, Václav Havel Airport Prague, Ljubljana Jože Pučnik Airport, Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport, Henri Coandă International Airport,...). Regards, ZPσβ (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a reasonable time to take a part in discussion for everyone interested in. All disputes are solved and there is no reasonable objections to renaming anymore. The proposition for article's title is Zagreb Franjo Tuđman Airport. It will be done like it is proposed. ZPσβ (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see consensus in the talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
After discussion with Jetstreamer on User talk:Jetstreamer under the section 'ZAG title', we agree that renaming of article's title may be put into procedure and that he won't block intended move. Most of comments on talk page are in favour of renaming. The discussion should be closed now. Accordingly, renaming of article's title will be done. ZPσβ (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all - I have started a discussion regarding the Zagreb airport name at Talk:Zagreb_International_Airport#Requested move 13 April 2016. Please continue any discussion there, and then await closure by an uninvolved party after the listing period is complete. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Charter Flight Listings

This definitely is one of the most discussed questions within the Airport Editing community and probably has already been discussed in another thread (maybe it was archived too soon?), but how should charter flights be listed? Should they be listed separately or should they be listed along with the regularly scheduled flights? I have browsed around through many airport pages and have noticed that some have separate "Charters" sections and some don't. Thoughts? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that they should be listed along with the other passenger destinations, but with the bolded "Charter:" designation. I say this because they are often just operating out of the same terminals, often operated by many of the same airlines, and in effect are the same 'thing' as a regularly scheduled commercial operation, if we want to get all philosophical about it. Listing only 'public charters' as defined by the FAA is an easy bright line to resolve which charters should go on the list, if that's up for debate. The FAA publishes a regularly updated list of approved public charter prospectuses at https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/licensing/public-charters.
Sorry that above comment was me. Constantly forgetting to sign my posts. Jim0101 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Scheduled charters can be listed with everything else, as long as they are labeled as such. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I think they should be listed with the normal destinations, it would be to confusing to seperate different kinds of flights from the other when all we need is 1 table. Also, I think these charter tables are not allowed. Lot's have been removed, if you see 1. Please remove it from the page, and if there is an edit war take it to the talk page. 80.189.223.6 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Milan Malpensa Airport

I divided the passengers destination list of Milan Malpensa Airport into two sections: scheduled and charter. I read the netiquette and this is permitted. Another user still to change the page to previous version, where scheduled and charter were in the same table. How we can stop this user (User:Riktetta) and how we can proceed? --Wind of freedom (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Wind of freedom These charter tables are not really allowed. The remaining have all been removed because they can get really confusing, to be honest, it's just a whole pile of more work for editors to keep track on. If all the destinations are in 1 table, then it is easier to manage and find the destinations. 80.189.223.6 (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

korean air cargo entry at Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport article

Some fanboy of iran is trying to pass off korean air cargo as serving the place, fact is that uzbekistan airways cargo is flying for them from navoi, he claims korean air operated two flights to tehran on their own but so what, schedule shows uzbekistan airways the main operator with korean just interlining with them this information is from korean air cargo schedule and was linked to article but he removed it, i have restored it but please keep a check on it. 45.114.127.99 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Tamga Airport

An issue I came across whilst creating the UCFA disambiguation page yesterday – what is the correct ICAO code for Tamga Airport? The article states UAFA, but it was listed as UCFA at List of airports by ICAO code: U (I have since amended that). However, googling it, there are loads of hits for sites that says it is UCFA. Can anyone get to the bottom of this? Cheers, Number 57 09:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's almost definitely UAFA. I didn't see a source from a simple Google search backing up UCFA. I did see multiple for UAFA though. Hope this helps. 2607:FB90:429:C53B:0:46:4A7B:1301 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The AIP for Kyrgyzstan is available at EAD (but one needs to create a login). It shows only four aerodromes, not including this Tamga place, but all four have ICAO codes like UCxx. So I think it is safe to assume UCFA must be correct. The confusion must come from the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also please do not take the number of Google hits as a reference; Google is into sales figures, not into facts. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And by the way, is this really an airport? I know the word has different meanings in different variants of English, but for me airfield would be more appropriate. An airport is supposed to offer facilities either for passengers or for cargo, or for both, such as terminals, car and truck parkings, but I can see no such facilities here. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Focus cities

What clearly defines a "focus city"? Some airlines specifically state that an airport is a focus city while others do not. For example Southwest does not. So how was the list of focus cities for Southwest compiled in its article's infobox? Top 10 airports? That seems arbitrary. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The currently accepted means for calling a focus city it that it must be listed on the website of the airline in some fashion. For instance, JetBlue lists Boston as a Focus City on its website, so it is listed as this instead of a hub (although by official definitions is a hub). Similar to "Low-Cost" Airlines (If You Can Call Southwest One at this Point), as recently discused with Frontier, Dever is listed as a hub, then a number of cities are inicated as focus cities based on their route map, whihc uses larger dots for its focus cities. As for Southwest, searching their website, the words "focus city" nor "hub" are listed anywehre on the website. Technically, then nothing should be listed, but per discussion about Allegiant Air, it was decided that maintinence bases would be listed as "maintinece bases" on the airlines page, while the airport pages would still retain the "focus city" lable. See Allegiant Air for an example.
Based on Southwest's Website, here are its Maintinence Bases:
Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Oakland, Orlando, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay
The thing, just like many other "Low Cost" carriers is that they try to minimze connections and maximize nonstop flights. I think listing all these cities as focus cities is too much, because Southwest's model is to provide even service to all the countries major markets. I think the best solution to this problem is to only list these maintinence bases. Stinger20 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be so much easier if Southwest would list their focus cities, but sadly they do not. Stinger20 does make a lot of good points. I don't think Southwest is any different than Frontier for example. They are not "hub and spoke" airlines, but are "point to point" airlines. SW does have a lot of airports where they connect passengers through such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix and so on. However, many of them have lots of flights simply because a lot of people go to a particular destination. So, as Stinger20 says, I think the 11 maintenance bases listed above should be on Southwest's page and list the airport pages as focus cities, same as Frontier. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Continuing my point, keep the current pages that are listed as focus cities the same. Only change Southwest's page to have 11 operating bases. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Stinger20 and AirportUpdater. I didn't notice Frontier's route map had the bigger and smaller city dots. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A typical definition states that a "Focus City" is an airport where an airline has flights to destinations that are not the hub of the airline (if the hub is "A", the airline flies from the Focus City "B" to "C", "D"...). thie doesn't mean that this airport is a Base, because a Focus City can also have all flights operated with aircraft operated by other bases without night-stop. Wjkxy (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Panama City → Panama City–Tocumen

Was there ever a consensus for this change? I didn't even know that Panama City had two airports...

If the consensus was to differentiate Tocumen International Airport with Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport and Panama City–Bay County International Airport, that is completely ridiculous, in my opinion... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:3E77:E6FF:FE9F:4AF3 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Albrook "Marcos A. Gelabert" International Airport. HkCaGu (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There are 2 Panama City (s). One in the country of Panama and one in the US state of Florida. But if we were to disambiguate them it should be Panama City (Panama) and Panama City (FL). I think we are talking about 2 airports serving Panama City in the country Panama not Florida (Tocumen and Albroook). If that's the case, then it should be disambiguate do. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"Former Airlines" (sic) at EWR

I just killed off the entire section. It was getting too long and occupying so much vertical space. It was ridiculously listing CO and US. What's encyclopedic about every former US air carriers having served EWR? What's the point of listing many charter operators or briefly-appeared airlines? And so many items were unsourced. If any former carriers were of any importance, they should be in the history prose, or the notability should reside in the airline's article. HkCaGu (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you here, just FYI... I did the same thing at MCO. None of them were sourced/verified at all... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:3E77:E6FF:FE9F:4AF3 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Tan Son Nhat International Airport

Can any autoconfirmed users continue to monitor this page? Newark continues to be added to the table for United Airlines as the airline operates a direct flight there via Hong Kong but the 2 segments are flown by 2 different types of aircraft (a Boeing 737-800 from SGN to HKG; a Boeing 777-200 from HKG to EWR). A hidden note was made but IPs continue to alter it saying that there is no aircraft change at HKG even though United.com says there is. The page has been semi protected until 4 July 2016 but once the protection expires, there will be continued addition of this service. Thanks! TravelLover37 (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC) If it starts up again after 4 July let me know and I will protect it for longer. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Douala International Airport

An interesting way to introduce the list of accidents and incidents that avoids the lack of references in the airport article.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we have a ban on the "ban" of Turkey destinations in the US?

The US FAA flight ban on flights from Turkey due to those airports' temporary lack of security has led to numerous edits adding "(suspended)" into various airport articles. But this is Turkey, and the temporary suspension is expected to last as long as Brussels'. This is not Yemen or Syria or NE Japan. Such kind of suspension ought not to be encyclopedic. Can I get everyone to chime in? HkCaGu (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is subject to a more generic discussion: when does something temporary become encyclopedic? Whether it be Bryacalabowizj or ZraZraZra is little relevant. Above all: our discussion should not last longer than the ban being discussed. Come to think of it, those editors who were quick to add the <suspended> ought to be trusted to remove it just as quick. No problem that I can see. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
They should, ideally. But I don't think they will. I don't believe the changes in discussion are encyclopedic. This is not a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If there were flight suspensions to a given destination for a few days because of a natural event such as an earthquake, a cyclone/typhoon/hurricane, or a volcanic eruption would we list those as "suspended"? I very much doubt it. I see no need to make mass changes to airport articles because of this. YSSYguy (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The FAA have now lifted all restrictions. Gavbadger (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The user that marked the destinations as suspended at IST [2] did not undo their edits, as expected.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Manston Airport

Good morning. As some may know Manston Airport is a former airport in the UK. There is a proposal on the table for it to be turned into a housing development, which is fair enough. However some editors wish to change the name of the article to represent this post-airport naming and use. I have an issue with this. I believe the article subject should remain the airport and that the post-airport use should be a separate article as the article is about the subject not the land. Additionally even the official website for the post-airport use lists it as a proposal, there's nothing more than an idea here at the moment and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Those are however my views and interpretations and others may have different ones. If people could take the time to chime in on the talk page one way or another for a discussion then it would be appreciated. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that an airport article should remain an airport article. We have numerous articles about former US military bases that have turned into civilian airports. They remain separate articles. HkCaGu (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Flight Search

I noticed that couple of airports but not all have new routes that have not been announced but have Google flight search as a source. Should they be considered reliable sources to put with the new route or better to find a news release as a source. Thanks! TravelLover37 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not, but only if a news source is not avaliable. Especially for mainline/connection changes, which are rarely announced by airlines/airports. The google flight searches are really the only way to verify this information. Stinger20 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Orlando International

I know this topic has been discussed many times beforehand and really, nothing was done to resolve the problem. Recently, one user decided to switch "Orlando" to "Orlando-International" on every airport without discussing here, and their edits were not changed since then. I have a proposal. I have viewed many airport online sites and have seen how they list Orlando International Airport on their departures/arrivals lists and the most common way of listing this airport is as the following: Orlando-MCO or Orlando/MCO. I'm starting to think this is the correct way of listing this airport now once and for all. Anyone agree? Please leave your thoughts and opinions. Thanks. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am quite firmly against this proposal @*AirportUpdater*:. Airports list Orlando-MCO because they need a shorthand way for the airport. On Wikipedia, we aren't confined to space as such. London's airports are abbreviated as London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick etc. Orlando International is the name of the airport, as is Orlando Sanford, so why should it not stay as Orlando-International and Orlando-Sanford? st170etalk 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, MCO was always listed as "Orlando" since the start of Wikipedia. Then this past March, "Orlando" was switched to "Orlando-International" without consensus. This particular user (which you can see the discussion in this talk page) got a lot of heat for doing this. So, that's the history of MCO. Since then, no one has done anything to change these mass edits, probably due to the large amounts of edits to switch. Now, if you are so strongly against my edits because Orlando "International" is the name, then what about every other airport named "International"? So now we must change Pittsburgh to Pittsburgh-International, Indianapolis to Indianapolis-International, Kansas City to Kansas City-International? No, it doesn't make sense. It is much better to distinguish two airports in the same city by a specific name, not a word such as "International" that every airport has in its name. That's why every airport site lists MCO as "Orlando-MCO" and that's why I changed Wikipedia destination lists to "Orlando-MCO". Because it's the most accurate way to disambiguate MCO and SFB. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to disambiguate (and I agree we should), then full words, not IATA codes are a better method. More importantly, this is something that should have been proposed first, not done as though it were fair accompli. More importantly, I would say there was consensus to use "Orlando-International". That's certainly the way I read the prior discussion. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If you think full words are necessary, then why is New York-JFK listed the way its listed? Also, how come all of a sudden everyone's responding FINALLY to my comment? Because I ignited the spark by making all the edits. If I didn't do this, my comment would've never been responded to or discussed about. Last thing, again, there was NEVER a consensus regarding this issue. It was always discussed in the past and then put away. So, I'd say if we are never going to form a consensus, we should just go with what the airports are doing (which we should be doing anyway). *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
JFK has always been the exception, as it's not only widely used locally, but it's well known all over the world. And I would say that the discussion from last year had a consensus, with only one user filibustering because he didn't agree with the consensus because it was a change from past practice. And it wasn't me. But you knew that already. oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
By tagging some editors it would've been helpful as not everyone watches this talk page. With regards to your earlier comment about international, I'm saying that we should keep the status quo by disambiguating Orlando-International using international. You can't compare Orlando to JFK as JFK is known world wide. Also, I want to note here how Belfast has two airports and one airport is distinguished from the other by being called Belfast-International (as per Belfast International Airport). The same case applies here. I think we should revert back to International. st170etalk 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned JFK due to the comment about full words. If you want Orlando to be accompanied by a full word (International), then why not word out JFK (John F. Kennedy)? Paris-CDG words out Charles-de Guelle for example. That's why I mentioned JFK. Anyway, I'm a strong believer in shortening things and not making things too complicated. It seems everyone here wants to word out everything and clobber up the destination lists with additional words that don't have to be there. Another example is Phoenix-Sky Harbor. Why is this worded out? I think if we can shorten things down while not changing the general scope of the destination, it's perfectly fine. "Orlando-MCO" perfectly describes Orlando International Airport and also is a great way to disambiguate the two airports from each other. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Paris-CDG is an international airport that is named after a famous person so I think it is totally appropriate here instead of giving it its full title of Charles de Gaulle. To be quite frank, Wikipedia is not supposed to confuse things with a bunch of abbreviations. We're supposed to use its most well known title. I can't comment on Sky Harbour because I don't know anything about the airport but how else could it be shortened? Keep Wikipedia easy to read, easy to understand and it is therefore less confusing to use International rather than MCO. st170etalk 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, looks like CDG is yet another airport that could be discussed forever. This airport is even worse because the amount of destinations that'd need changed is staggering. Right now, they are all listed as "Paris-Charles de Gaulle". Regarding Sky Harbor, I think it should be left alone how it was before the change a month ago (just as "Phoenix"). Regarding MCO, I still can't see International as correct. I've never seen it. Between the 3 ways its been listed (Orlando, Orlando-International, Orlando-MCO), I think Orlando-International is the worst. SFB (Orlando/Sanford) has International in its name as well, using this word is just a bad way of distinguishing two airports. I can't believe no one else can see it. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that a lot of users on Wikipedia are not aware of IATA codes. I am firmly opposed to MCO because abbreviations are not user-friendly. I would like to revert to Orlando-International for the time being and I would be happy to do this. Orlando is not a well known airport in my eyes (compared with the likes of JFK) and using abbreviations here would be totally inappropriate. You have brought up a good point about SFB using the word 'International' in its name, but it is also true that MCO is the primary airport. We need to name the airports in a way that they are easily recognised by the user, and in this case, International seems to be the preferable option at the moment. st170etalk 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I also just wanted to add that I've checked a few airport pages and they list Orlando-International as just 'Orlando'. Gatwick Airport lists Orlando and Orlando (Sanford) appropriately. Sanford is therefore seen as secondary and in my opinion international should be kept until further consensus is reached. st170etalk 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If not JFK, then "New York-Kennedy" would be appropriate for space purposes. The main point there is that "MCO" is not a well known abbreviation to the general readership, unlike JFK, which is widely used in everyday speech. Likewise, outside of air buffs, Charles de Gaulle is rarely refered to as CDG. "Paris-de Gaulle" would be appropriate as a shorter form, but not the IATA code, as is obscure. But still, all this is false equivalency that distracts from the issue that there was consensus for "Orlando-International" to disambiguate from "Orlando-Sanford", and you disagreed and forced an unneeded change against consensus. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you think MCO would confuse the "general readership", then how is International better? Both Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport have that word in their names. So, now I go back to my original thought back in 2015...should it just be "Orlando" if you are worried about how the "general readership" will view these airports.
"Paris-de Gaulle", what such an horrific name in a French ear... We french commonly shortens the name of CDG as "Paris-CDG" (less often 'Roissy' and everyone comprehends it. I am not however aware of what anglophone thinks when hearing "Paris de Gaulle". --Bouzinac (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, once again, there has been no consensus regarding this topic. None. Here's the link to the previous discussion: [[3]] As you can see, the discussion ended with no one responding to HkCaGu's question. Please stop repeating yourself about consensus when there's been none. That's why SSTflyer's edits got a lot of people talking because there was no consensus. Now, knowing you guys, probably in your next comment you'll say some foolish phrase such as "you're bullying your way through Wikipedia". No, I am simply editing in the info that the Pros are listing on EVERY airport site for departures/arrivals. Everything is the same except for this Orlando situation and Phoenix. London-Heathrow is the same, London-Gatwick is the same, New York-JFK is the same, Orlando/Sanford is the same, Paris-Charles de Gaulle is the same, etc. Orlando and Phoenix are not the same. If we want to make Wikipedia look like it does on all professional websites, then why shouldn't we do it? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you should stop reacting defensively and try to have a civil discussion with other editors. Actually, at certain airports, London-Heathrow is referred to as London-LHR and Gatwick as London-LGW. Paris is also Paris-CDG to distinguish Paris-Orly (see Dublin Airport's website). We want a name that is readily recognisable and able to distinguish itself easily. MCO doesn't do that, it's unheard of outside of the local area and those who know about the airport. st170etalk 11:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus on the way airports should be formatted, see WP:AIRPORTS - DragTails - 10:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are my issues with the various formats:

  • Orlando and Orlando/Sanford - Someone who is flying Allegiant or Thomson into Sanford might see Orlando on multiple articles and figure that is the same airport they're flying to. There needs to be some distinction to indicate that Orlando has more than one major commercial airport serving it.
  • Orlando–International and Orlando–Sanford - As AirportUpdater stated, both airports have International in their names.
  • Orlando–MCO and Orlando/Sanford(?) - I think this is the best option. If someone is confused by MCO then they can just click on the airport link.

Note that this problem also exists for Dubai International Airport (referred to as Dubai–International) and Al Maktoum International Airport (referred to as Dubai–Al Maktoum). Should DXB become Dubai–DXB? - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There needs to be some sort of disambiguation between the two, and "International" does not accurately distinguish one from the other as both airports have that word in their name. "Orlando–MCO" and "Orlando/Sanford" is the best option. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The current situation here while strange is not particularly hard for people to comprehend, one of these airports is clearly more prominent than the other and the current situation reflects this situation perfectly. Anything you do like the absolutely horrible MCO suggestion will only confuse people and make matters worse. Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is not a guide book or a travel guide, and we cannot just make up a name because it is inconvenient. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: All in all, I evidently have to agree with you here Andrew. For someone that were to see the suffix of "MCO" added to Orlando would most likely be confused because it is not common knowledge to associate "MCO" with Orlando, though this is the ICAO code for the airport. I'm pretty sure the only common knowledge labeling of an ICAO code is New York–JFK, which is currently working very well. With that said though, adding the "International" suffix to the airport would also be confusing because both MCO and SFB (Orlando/Sanford) fly international routes; its just that the title of the MCO article is labeled as Orlando "International" Airport.
I know that we've started this discussion up several times already at WT:AIRPORTS, but Andrewgprout does bring up a good point that the current labeling will definitely confuse people more than helping them to distinguish the two airports, which is the underlying goal here in the first place.
PROPOSAL:
I really think that we need to go back to labeling MCO as "Orlando" as it originally was. Now I do believe that we came to a consensus a long while back to keep this as such, but this discussion came about when a particular user was repeatedly changing the labeling of lots of different airports, such as "Phoenix" to "Phoenix–Sky Harbor", among others including the Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh airports as well. Overall, the "International" suffix should not be used because of the fact that it is very redundant since an airport that would supposedly be labeled as "International" would be the larger airport of the two (or more) airports anyways... This also applies to the Kuala Lumpur and the Dubai airports as well. Eliminating the "International" suffix on all of the labels that currently contain it in my mind seems like the best solution to take care of a lot of labeling issues because the airports are already "International Airports", making it not only confusing but also being redundant as well.
Regarding the labels that don't use the "International" suffix, such as Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Phoenix/Mesa, Orlando/Sanford, and Dubai–Al Maktoum, among others, the labels should probably not contain an additional suffix unless the airports are clearly distinctive in the amount of operations occurring between the two (or more) airports. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:3E77:E6FF:FE9F:4AF3 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando International (redux discussion)

Restarting this discussion again because the last one clearly went nowhere, and the last IP to comment on the previous thread is apparently now blocked. Anyway, in light of the edit warring that has occurred at John Glenn Columbus International Airport back in June and more recently at Calgary International Airport. Here's my take on the issue:

The current labeling of Orlando International Airport as "Orlando–MCO" causes a lot of problems because the ICAO code "MCO" is not commonly associated with the airport itself. In comparison to this, the labeling of John F. Kennedy International Airport as "New York–JFK" makes much more sense because the JFK suffix in the labeling is abbreviated from John F. Kennedy. Because of this, it is common knowledge to associate "JFK Airport" in relation John F. Kennedy, and thus, it makes sense to label the airport as such.

On the other hand, "MCO" is not of any sort of common knowledge to most people, because the title of the airport is merely, "Orlando International Airport". Nowhere in that airport's title, does the abbreviation of "MCO" come into play, as New York's JFK airport, the abbreviation of "JFK" refers to the title of that airport in itself.

With this all in mind, we need to look at other cities with multiple high-usage airports. For example, Dubai's Al Maktoum airport is currently labeled as "Dubai–Al Maktoum". This works greatly because the suffix "Al Maktoum" is within the title of the airport, similarly to JFK, which is abbreviated after John F. Kennedy. If Al Maktoum International Airport were to be labeled with the ICAO code as "Dubai–DWC", this would cause a similar issue as the Orlando–MCO issue.

Now, Dubai's other airport is labeled as "Dubai–International" in order to help disambiguate Dubai's two airports. I see this situation with "Orlando–MCO" to be extremely similar to Dubai's airports. With the following in mind, here is my proposal:

Current labeling: Orlando–MCO
Proposed labeling: Orlando–International

If anyone sees this thread, please discuss your thoughts below, as we need to come to a clear consensus before this starts to get out of hand/out of control. Thanks everyone, — 172.58.40.42 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: I fully support this proposal. I believe that it's more fitting for International to be used rather than MCO, which is complete nonsense. Sanford is referred to as Sanford and, as Orlando is the primary airport, I see no problem calling it Orlando-International. --st170etalk 03:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support: I do not support the "MCO" title at all. I think Orlando should just use Orlando preferably or if not Orlando–International for Orlando International Airport and Sanford/Orlando for Orlando Sanford International Airport. My thought is, look at other Allegiant cities in Florida. In Tampa we use Tampa for Tampa International Airport and St. Petersburg/Clearwater for St. Pete–Clearwater International Airport. Simarly in Fort Meyers we use Fort Meyers for Southwest Florida International Airport and Punta Gorda/Fort Meyers for Punta Gorda Airport. I do not think the international part is necessary, but it is certainly much better than MCO. Stinger20 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support/Comment: I think Stinger20 brings up the most logical solution to all this. It fits the most with how other city's airports are currently labeled. One other example is with Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh International Airport is labeled as "Pittsburgh" and Arnold Palmer Airport (Latrobe) which is 65 miles away is labeled as "Latrobe/Pittsburgh". Orlando should probably follow this same path. "Orlando" for MCO and "Sanford/Orlando" for SFB. I believe Dubai International was also brought up above. This should also be looked into about changing to this type of format. (Main airport: city's name alone, Smaller regional airport: that town's name/closest major city's name) *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support: I do not support the labelling in its current state. It is confusing and cannot be compared to JFK or even CDG, where the physical airport names happen to relate to the ICAO codes. After searching various airlines websites, those who fly into Sanford list the destination as Orlando/Sanford or a similiar wording. Orlando is listed as "Orlando" on the vast majority of the carriers websites (Air Canada, Delta, Spirit, United, WestJet to name a few), however is listed as Orlando-International on American's website. Based upon that, I see no reason why Orlando-International (or even just "Orlando") is not a suitable, and support the decision to go with that labelling. Garretka (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: The proposal seems quite reasonable to me.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: Very logical and agree with the proposal. Orlando-MCO is a horrible option. SempreVolando (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: There is no real easy solution here as one of these airports has consciously named itself confusingly. My view as I have said before is that simply "Orlando" for the big airport that gets 99% of the traffic and is the airport for Orlando in 99% of peoples minds is just fine - the simple solution is always likely to be the best. The upstart (perhaps inappropriately named) airport needs a qualifier and that qualifier must include Sanford. The word international is a little problematic but I would not be worried if consensus included it. Additionally we should perhaps be guided by WP:COMMONNAME which is one of the biggest reasons the MCO solution is so horrible and perhaps WP:NATURALDIS I know these are mainly about article titles but it would be sensible that entries linking to pages should reflect as best possible actual article titles. Also important is to not take the maintenance and scope of destination lists too far, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRAVEL, but perhaps that is another discussion. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Agree. Orlando and Sanford/Orlando seems to be the most logical way to list these two airports. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Orlando-International" and "Orlando-Sanford". I ca may pathos with wanting to avoid confusion because both are international airports and have the term in their full names, but the current solution is lousy (as the "MCO" airport code is not well known like "JFK", which is used in everyday speech around the world) and just "Orlando" is actually less informative, as both are airports serving Orlando, so the plain city name doesn't actually tell the reader which airport it is. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong Support Much more easier to understand and to avoid confusion. - DragTails - 12:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment An easier way to solve this would be 2 airports: Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport. Belfast International is labeled in destination charts as 'Belfast-International' while Belfast City as 'Belfast City'. I think this is similar to the Orlando issue and that MCO should be formatted as Belfast International Airport's format. - DragTails - 13:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs to be wrapped up - no one here or out on Wikipedia in general appears to disagree with the proposals being made here. Is there enough consensus to start to change current entries to Orlando and Sanford/Orlando as appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think so, I have changed some smaller airports (GRR, ROC, TVC, MSN), but I am waiting for more acceptance on larger airports. The only large airport I have changed is CVG. Looks like there was a little edit war on LAX page over this...Stinger20 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: As far as I can tell, "Orlando–MCO" has successfully been converted to "Orlando" on all relevant airport articles. I changed a whole lot of them using the adopt a typo search engine. 172.56.39.170 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to disambiguation rule

In previous discussions on Orlando I had brought up parallel issues like Phoenix, Seattle/Vancouver (and their water airports), and someone brought up Montreal and Cincinnati, and then there was Panama City. Things are so complicated, we didn't get anywhere. Yet the edit war slowly continued. After all these and the recent discussion, may I propose relaxing the disambiguation rule (multiple airports in same city, must disambiguate) in favor of WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how to rephrase WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT yet, but it goes something like this:

  • If a city has multiple airports, but one is overwhelmingly dominant, and much larger than any other competitors, and is known simply by the city's name without much confusion, let it take over the simple city name. This would include Beijing, Phoenix, Orlando, Vancouver, Panama City, Montreal, Cincinnati, Kuala Lumpur.
  • The much smaller airports that have obscured location or city name will have the disambiguation. This would include Beijing-Nanyuan, Phoenix-Mesa, Orlando-Sanford, Vancouver-Harbour, Panama City-Albrook, Montreal-Saint-Hubert, Cincinnati-Lunken, Kuala Lumpur-Subang.
  • All other cities with smaller airports of significant sizes will continue to disambiguate all airports. This would include London, Tokyo, Jakarta, Seoul, Bangkok, Shanghai, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Paris, Berlin, Toronto.

Basically, we shake off the disambiguation for the big airport where everyone serving there does not "disambiguate" in their operations. HkCaGu (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is also an acceptable solution, but I foresee conflicts also with it. What happens with cities having airports with comparable traffic (i.e, Paris-Orly and Paris-CDG or Buenos Aires-Ezeiza and Buenos Aires-Aeroparque)? Let's just wait for other's comments.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. As mentioned above, airports with comparable traffic should continue to be differentiated. But a line needs to be drawn as to where we need and don't need disambiguation. Garretka (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
General Support. I'm not sure this needs to go past some guidance about disambiguation principles. Mine would be 1. Only disambiguate where necessary 2.use the principles of WP:COMMONNAME as guidance, and in this case - 3. it is alright to disambiguate by having a general term for a big thing and qualified general term for a lesser thing. This is most likely the simplest most understandable solution to the most people. Torturous constructions trying to minutely explain differences will nearly always fail to do so clearly.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ARP

Template:ARP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to note this provides a link to "latest operational reports" at aireport.co MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

World Airport Traffic Reports

Hello. I want ask question about World Airport Traffic Reports. I want add data for Birmingham–Shuttlesworth International Airport. But I noticed that some problem in data. For example in 2013 report aircraft operations is 95,734 and 2014 94,534, but for 2014 report they show increase. How that is possible. Can somebody help me, please? --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport

History section has been largely Unreferenced since Feb 2012. If someone could assist thanks LibStar (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems at Indian airport article

G'day all, on one of my periodic hunts for the word "aircrafts" I came across Visakhapatnam Airport, with the usual mess associated with articles related to the subcontinent. I cleaned up the article, but my edits have now been undone twice by the article's 'owner'. Could someone cast an eye over it please? YSSYguy (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The chap has had ample warning on his talk page, it seems clear to me stronger measures need to be applied. Almost sad he got several "last warnings" yet still hasn't been blocked, at least temporarily. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD

I have nominated World's busiest airport for an AFD. Should I put it on a project page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicachicaboomer (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

References for destination

Just to note the project guideline for page content included "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." - please note that this is not an instruction to remove any reliable references that have been added just because the flight is timetabled, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to settle this issue: When should references be added to the destination tables? Certain editors have been reinstating references despite what is noted at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. For some prior discussion on this issue, please see here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This is another issue that has come up in the past. We should stick with what we've been doing. If a new route is announced, you must provide a reference verifying that this info is true. When the route has begun, the reference can then be removed as you can verify it's correct anywhere online. Also, when the route is ending, a reference needs to be provided (as it is new information). Two exceptions are cargo flights and charter flights as it is much harder to find information on these flights online, so a source should be added next to the route and should NOT be removed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I would personally give it 2 to 3 weeks after the launch date (especially recently launched services) for the service to really kick in. If it is maintained, then it can be removed. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There really is very little to discuss about MilborneOne's note above. He is spot on about what the Airports project and Wikipedia's core principles say. These must be adhered to and deleting valid and appropriate references are fundamentally against both.˜˜˜˜˜

I beg to differ. Andrewgprout, you are unilaterally going against consensus. If you wish to make a major change regarding all of the airport articles on Wikipedia, it is best to discuss it here before continuing your disruptive editing. I strongly urge you to explain yourself here and await others' comments. I am refraining from altering your edits in order to avoid edit warring. I see you have a history of engaging in such disputes, but I am not willing to participate in one.
Here is my viewpoint. I do not know how to get around this statement, #10 under WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT: "For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." A reference for every single destination creates clutter; thus, accessibility issues. Consensus is to only include references for destinations that are slated to begin or end. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)˜
With respect - you can disagree all you want - but removing valid references from Wikipedia articles is wrong. What you have been doing is wrong and has always been wrong, MilborneOne explains it above. And I will add - if something has been referenced it was probably for a good reason - someone had challenged the entry or the entry was complex in some way - when you come along and randomly delete that reference - for the absolute non reason that it creates clutter, then that is my definition of disruptive.
Can I suggest that maybe you broaden your editing on Wikipedia to include other topics as then you will.understand how referencing works and the need for it - editing in tall narrow silos is problematic as this thread shows. The biggest problem with the tables and referencing is that the density of the information in thee tables is of questionable encyclopaedic value.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the comment of AirportUpdater above, I'd say to remove the old reference supporting the start of a new destination only after a source confirming the new flight has been added. Confirming a fact and announcing a future event are not the same thing.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: It is not random deletion of references, it is abiding by consensus. If the reference was there for a particular reason, then there should have been a hidden note. My point is that, per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, you are not engaging in consensus; instead, you are freely making edits in line with your viewpoint. And for the record, Wikipedia editors can edit whatever topic they want. You edit what you are interested in; this is not some job. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sunnya343 & *AirportUpdater* here— as more and more routes are announced, the articles are just going to get over referenced, and then the destination tables will be cluttered with completely useless, redundant and outdated references that people won't even bother to use anyway...
I think a guideline that we really need to pay closer attention to is WP:OVERSITE, which could also help to determine how this issue can be resolved. 172.56.38.167 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting WP:OVERSITE as it does not mention not having one or two references for every single claim that requires a citation but to have a lot of references for a single claim.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we get some more clarity on the issue because there have been some issues regarding this topic on various airport articles. Do we source current destinations or not and if there are certain exceptions, laid out clearly, what exactly are these exceptions. Also, if a route is ending (or beginning for that matter) and there is no source besides the airline's schedule, do we put a "citation need" alert next to it or is the airline schedule enough of a source? Obviously if there is a source, that's best but sometimes there simply is no other source. Thanks for the clarity. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are no sources for start/end dates the entry should not be added. Acting otherwise is a violation to WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
So even if it's in the schedule, if we there is no source we simply pretend like it isn't actually beginning or ending? Just wanna be 100% on this. Can we use the schedule on the airline's website as a source? A great example of this is EWR-LAS on WN. It ends in January on Southwest.com but there's no other source to verify it. I will say, in my opinion, there is no better source than the airline itself but the rule should be clear so I just want some clarity on it. Thanks. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The quick answer is yes the timetable is a valid reference for the existence of a flight so long as you provide it as a reference - however it is always better to use a secondary source as per WP:SECONDARY - and just to be absolutely clear the airline timetable is a PRIMARY (ie not preferred) source for this information. For start and finish dates the working out of all this is getting pretty close to original research - you are researching the subject yourself and coming up with a derived answer to the question rather than repeating what someone else has published. This is why such references are nearly always from the media or airline publications and not from the timetable. This at first I know seems counterintuitive but it is like that because secondary sources better ensure notability and guard against original research. Much of the contention in the above discussion rests around the questionable fit the current format and depth of the destination tables with these policies. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ARP

For some strange reason the deletion discussion for Template:ARP is asking that the template should not be discussed for deletion but rather a consensus gained that we dont need it first. Not something I have seen before but I would propose per my nomination (Provides a link to operational reports from airport users which is not an encyclopedic subject and without a template would not be added to the article as it adds no value to the article.) that the template is not used on airport articles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

After being told that TfD was not the right place to discuss deletion of a template and I removed the template during the discussion they have undeleted the template and added the entry back to the airport articles. I can assume that as nobody has commented here that WP:SILENCE applies and the template can be removed from airport articles but just to check I will leave it a few more days before removing them again unless anybody supports keeping it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nawabshah Airport

This article is being vandalised with the city being referred to as benairabad, not such name change has taken place officially at state level and cannot be recognised as such. Only district has been renamed. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

List of airports in Canada

Hi! I think there might be a problem with the article "List of airports in Canda". The article says "Due to the size of the list it has been broken down into:" and then the article is blank. I left a message on the article's talk page, but I'm not sure if it will be checked soon. I just wanted to let you know about this possible problem so that it can be fixed. Jith12 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jith12: There is a template below that statement in which the lists are divided up by name, province, etc. If you are in mobile view, I don't think you can see templates. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Need Help With 3 Small Airports In East Texas

I would appreciate it if someone from the Airports project could give me a hand in understanding where exactly to find some of the information on small airports, and to understand how that information fits in the boxes for airport pages in this project. I am working on articles for Mineola Airport, Winnsboro_Airport_(Texas) and Wood County Airport (no page yet, will be soon). However, I am more of a historian and not familiar with the technical aspects of airport. I am wondering if someone would be willing to team up with me and help edit the boxes and technical information for these articles while I handle the history aspects? I'm a total newbie to how the maps work in the boxes and also do not want to put incorrect info in the boxes, and I simply don't understand how to parse "raw" data on runways I am seeing to separate it and put it in the boxes. I do not want the data to be incorrect. Can anyone assist with these three small airports? Thanks. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have done some work on aerodromes in Europe but have little idea of the situation in the USA. But AFAIK the FAA is the one universal source of information, over there? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Some sources that you can also consult - but neither are authoritative! - are www.openstreetmap.org and wwww.ourairports.com In the case of Mineola, I observe OSM calls it "Wisener Field" which seems a better name to me - "airport" suggests a lot of infrastructure that is unlikely to be available at this rural airfield. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Decorative flag

The flag in {{Airports in the Netherlands}} and similar templates is merely decorative and should be removed per WP:ICONDECORATION. An anonymous editor keeps reverting the removal, not giving any proper arguments, but merely stating that similar templates also have flags. I hereby propose to remove the flags from this and similar aiport templates. – Editør (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is supported by MOS:FLAGS.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I would agree to removing them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. The category Category:Airport templates contains 176 templates of which 151 have a decorative flag. I want to be sure there is consensus about the flags before we start removing them, so I've posted a message on a couple of template talk pages. – Editør (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised to see so much hesitation - but in a way I support reluctance to remove somebody's hard work. Still in this case there can be little doubt, given the MOS:FLAGS directive. Anyway, you certainly have my support: those flags are no more than eye-candy, adding not the slightest bit of information. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Since there is consensus here supported by the Wikipedia guideline on flags, I will start removing flags from templates. – Editør (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe all flags have been removed. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I owe you one! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:IATA code for US with FAA ... is erroneous

Template:IATA code for US with FAA: This template appears to be an old one, and has gone unquestioned for some time. The logic behind the template is based on the fact that the IATA tries to use 3-letter codes for major airports which coincide with the codes issued by the local governing authority, in this case the FAA. However, the fact that most IATA codes for airports in the United States are the same as their FAA or ICAO code is unfortunately taken to equate to "most airports in the US having the same code..." under both systems. This actually is not the case. The fact is that the IATA doesn't recognize the majority of airports in the US, because they don't need to. Many airports in the United states use a combination of letters and numbers, 3 or 4 digits in length (the 4-digit codes represent private-use airports), and the IATA doesn't issue those types of codes at all. So, while the IATA code will most often be the same as the FAA code, the reverse is not actually true. MOST airports in the United states do not have the same FAA and IATA code. Most US airports have no need for an IATA code, and therefore don't have one. Since the IATA uses a 3-letter code identifier, this would very sharply limit the ability for that organization to account for all the world's airports, were that the case. In fact, it would only allow for something like 17,000 different 3-letter combinations, while there are approximately 44,000 airports in the world, and there are over 19,000 airports in the US alone. The US, by itself, would use up all of the possible combinations of letters were the IATA to attempt to include them all in its nomenclature. In fact, they limit such identification to those airports which have commercial service (passenger or cargo) or have in the not-too-distant past. This is quite decidedly a minority of US airports. Therefore, I feel this template should be eliminated and or corrected. It is incorrect, and often unnecessary. Mister Sparkle (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it is erroneous. However, since the IATA/FAA difference is a significant source of errors in quite a few data sources (for instance, Geonames), I would vote to fix the erroneous part of the template, rather than eliminate it. By the way, IATA codes also reference railway and bus stations, heliports, sea plane bases, ferry ports. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am interested in this topic since that I've developed a template in french {{Aéroport|code=xxx}} as this template helps finding the right french wiki article of airport. And it does indeed not take into account the FAA US minor airports pb. In fact, the major problem I am striving to is the fact that the airport destination list is mostly often accurate only in English and not elsewhere. What a pity airport list aren't multi-languages. Bouzinac (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not against Denis's idea to fix the erroneous aspect of the template, as opposed to eliminating it. And then, making sure that the template is only used when an airport actually has an IATA code...in some cases, this template is used when there is no IATA code, which I think is pointless. Something like "While the IATA usually tries to use the same 3-letter identifier for US airports as that used by the FAA.." Along those lines. Mister Sparkle (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced content in airport tables

Lots of information in there with nothing cited, can it be removed with summary to restore with a valid reference? fan boys can add anything they like if you go lax on the reference part.139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be incredibly difficult and impractical to cite everything in an airports airline/dest table. This information changes very frequently and it often hard to source (you can't source an airlines booking system). For the most part, there are very little errors in these, and additions by these fan boys are often quickly removed. There's enough of us watching the project that this has become a non-issue. Thanks for looking out! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made an effort at times to confirm other peoples entries through searching google and airline websites and added refs if found, but the other editors never do that, they simply remove info even if its valid but unreferenced and ask you to add a refernce for it, even if they know the information is real I'm guessing they too are avgeeks so shoul be in the know of latest developments, if not why are they on an aviation related project? been on wiki too long and have observed this practice. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: WP:V must be followed - impractical does not enter into the argument, neither does difficult. What you are in reality suggesting by your statement is that the destination tables are not suitable in this form for inclusion into Wikipedia articles.Andrewgprout (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@139.190.175.128: the short answer is yes any unreferenced fact can be deleted, I would however suggest that if you think that something is questionable putting a [citation needed] tag on the entry is probably a better option. Or even better still find a valid reference for the entry. However these tables attract a reasonable amount of vandalism and without proper referencing it is hard to tell a valid piece of information from vandalism. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
As Andrewgprout suggests, I strongly support the use of references in these tables too, even when the common practice is not to use them (against WP:VERIFY, a core content policy). However, I do not encourage the mass addition of citation needed tags for unreferenced entries across all airport articles because that would fall into tag bombing and may be seen as disruptive.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: @Andrewgprout: Okay, then should we start adding references to every destination in the tables, should we scrap the tables, should we what? How do we reach consensus on this issue? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We're trying to reach consensus at this very discussion, so everyone's opinion will be appreciated.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: @Andrewgprout: If you do not mind, I would like to shift the discussion to an organised place here. Thanks — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "airport in a city"

In lists like List of cities with more than one airport and List of busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic ‎, one of the most commonly argued point is about what count as an airport serving the city and what does not count. For instance on one of those article I have cited a source that the airport in Tijuana can be count as serving Mexico but another editor disagree. Any input? And then there are also some discussion about should GA airports count, and should scheduled charter services count. Or should we simply delete those articles on the ground of too much OR in the article definition? C933103 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Reply: Your remark points the oddity of some airports, like Châlons Vatry Airport, supposed to be serving Paris, whilst it's 147km far away and thus is not seriously serving Paris.--Bouzinac (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe it's up to the city to decide if a particular airport officially serves them or another city. Think London, it recognizes 6 airports as serving it thought there are other airports nearby that they don't recognize. I have heard that there is a particular reason why big cities like London and Paris do this, thought I don't remember why? Now to answer some of your questions; if I were you I would open up a discussion with the user that disagrees with you about Tijuana and try to come to a consensus about the issue. But remember that Wikipedia doesn't have to have the most up-to-date information regardless if you can cite it or not; most of these list articles are only updated once a year. So don't feel bad if you get nowhere with that user. I definitely believe that "Should the GA and charter flights count" is a wonderful topic for a discussion. Have a nice day, KDTW Flyer (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Reply: Specific to the example I mentioned, I have already discussed about it with the user on article talk page and both of us believe that conclusion cannot be reached without involvement of other editors. And that is one of the main reason why I opened a discussion here. C933103 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

References and destination tables

Issue: There has been consensus to only keep a reference in an Airline and destinations table if a destination is starting or ending. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. However, certain editors feel that this violates WP:V and other core Wikipedia policies regarding references. Let us try to establish consensus on this issue. Please feel free to add your own proposal below. Also, consider taking a look at WP:CONS and WP:CONSBUILD. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


PLEASE NOTE - this discussion is about whether it is acceptable to delete a valid reference for a fact that has for whatever reason been included in an article IT IS NOT as most people are discussing below about whether every fact needs an explicit inline reference - no-one is suggesting that. The contention here is simple valid references are being wantonly deleted and this is not supported by either WP:AIRPORTS or Wikipedia's core principles. It is also somewhat about whether a local consensus can ignore Wikipedia core principles. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: What is the difference? Per #10, we delete references once a route has started. At least that is how I see it. For consistency's sake, we either have references for all destinations or don't have any, right? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
What is point of having a conscensus then, the idea was to do something regarding all the unreferenced information in there, you have twisted it around to something pointless. Its ALL the unreferenced conent that needs to either be cited or removed, at best just keep airlines and not the destinations in there. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #1: We continue with consensus, that is, abiding by WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, #10. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Way too many references would be needed, creating clutter and accessibility issues. See my notes here. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of this would be an issue if we were to simply have a general reference to the airline's schedule next to the airlines name or in a "notes" column. We don't need a reference for each individual destination (except for the ones beginning of ending, as we already do), just a general one for each airline. oknazevad (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Oknazevad: That sounds interesting. Do you mean a reference to an airline's PDF schedule or to their online timetable that must be manually searched? Because the latter sounds like WP:OR or something (I saw this argument elsewhere). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
      • PDF if available, manually searched if needed. I can't see how that could be considered OR, though I could see an argument for it being insufficient sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Many airlines don't have PDF published on website and online timetable data is not always accurate. There is no need for such referencing I feel. I edit Irish airports mostly and always review schedules at beginning of each season to see if there is any changes and reference as required. I suspect many other editors do something similar. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Current system is working adequately and changing it will over complicate things. Jamie2k9 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It is usually easily to check if a scheduled flight is still running by looking at the airline's timetable or booking engine. I would make an exemption though for charter flights as these can be very difficult to verify and often if the charter stops running they don't get removed, particularly at busy airports where it can be hard to keep track. The same should apply to cargo flights. VG31 02:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The current system is perfectly fine. I think that haveing a citation for everything listed would be too complicated and make the article extremely long in terms of total bytes, which someone actually has to pay for. The other thing is where would you find sources to claim a route is legit, it would just be too hard to enforce. With the PDF schedules, it would be too hard to cite it for each airline like mentioned above because... A. users will just get lazy and not put the page numbers in the citation, which means when someone wants to look at it, they will have to spend valuable time looking for the page with the routes for that particular airport (the Delta PDF flight schedule for this month is 1603 pages long). B. As already stated not all airlines publish their timetables. - If one were to question a routes legitness, all one has to do is look at Flightaware or other similar web services and they can tell you if a route is real or not. As for beginning/ending routes, I expect to see a citation to support the claim. That isn't hard because people hear about these things in the newspapers and press releases, both of which are available online. Thanks, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Note I am happy with anything that meets WP:VERIFY. Can someone point out to me where in the famous number 10 quote above it suggests that a valid reference should be deleted it most clearly says nothing of the sort? The only problem here is that some are insisting they have the right to in a wholesale fashion delete valid references because they are untidy. You simply can't follow Wikipedia's basic principles delete a reference because that fact is obvious to find in a non-referenced source. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I interpret as; they are saying that typically unless a route is challenged, people typically don't provide a reference because the airlines published timetable counts as a universal reference that doesn't have to be directly cited in the article. It doesn't state that that citations for running routes aren't allowed like some people think, KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Oknazevad makes a good point. However, airport destinations change so quickly that it would be unfeasible to require references for them. A more optimal long-term solution would be to do away with destinations entirely, but this would need much wider consensus. SSTflyer 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I support removal of table only the airlines serving an airport should remain with ref ofcourse, I have never found the destinations section of airports serving any purpose, only the airline information is of interest. some people argue wiki is not a travel guide well by listing all these destinations it certainly seems like it is, its totally unecessary and pedantic. 139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We should somehow modify #10 to help end this edit war. A new daily or weekly nonstop route is usually not going to be challenged, so the reference can be removed once it starts. However, anything unusual, like multi-stops, charters, seasonals, or obscured airlines, should probably have the references kept. This should be the spirit of "verifiability". HkCaGu (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry User talk:Sunnya343 - I am here and looking - this week started with the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake continued with flooding mid week along with continuous aftershocks and trying to effectively work from home because I can't enter my potentially munted place of work. All this is taking my time and energy. I'm having a think about what I think I could suggest as the actual question for a request for comment as I suspect it is bigger than the tight discussion about deletion of references we are trying to have here. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, man. Be safe and good luck. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: Hope things go well for you. So you want to go ahead with the RFC? Is CambridgeBayWeather's work around not sufficient for WP:V? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Note If you are going to add sources or revert someone who removed them, make sure they actually are a source stating the route is running. I have seen multiple examples of users adding references that do not prove wether the route is currently running. For instance, an article announcing that Delta will launch CVG-SAN flights on June 16, 2017 can remain until that date. On that date, it is perfectly acceptable to remove the source as it does not give any explanation that the route is running, as it does not tell you if/when the route actually began. If you insist in putting a reference, it NEEDS to show that the route is running. Examples include press release on launch day, timetables, route maps, ect. Quoting some users above, many of these sources are not "VALID" indications that the route is running and are completely useless. Sources that show the route is running should be allowed per WP:Verify but can be deleted if you provide a CLEAR explanation as to why. However, adding many sources for no valid reason would fall under WP:OVERCITE and is overkill to cite every destination, so similarly, please provide a reason for adding a source as well. Examples include it being a charter flight, being challenged, odd/inconsistent schedule, ect. Stinger20 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Indeed. A source confirming the fact that the route started should be mandatory.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Stinger20: I agree with what you are saying, there are times when a source details the first flight of a route. However, 99% of the time, these things go unpublished. As suggested previously by @CambridgeBayWeather:, a simple statement at the top of the destination table stating that the airlines schedules remain the most accurate source and can be found on their respective websites. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. A brief mention that acts at both a source and a bit of a disclaimer makes sense. Still think we should, if we can find it, add a general ref per airline (like a link to said timetable), but that's an ideal situation. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems it's been forgotten once again that this is not a travel guide and that there is a policy on verifiability that requires a citation for statements that are likely to be challenged. Can we please focus on the encyclopedia and not on Expedia?--Jetstreamer Talk 21:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Personally like above IMHO we should get rid of the tables altogether but that would require a bigger discussion, Anyway support this proposal. –Davey2010Talk 16:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with all those who suggest destination lists should either be referenced by schedule or pdf or be removed entirely, just keep the airlines serving the airports, nothing more.139.190.175.128 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the only references should stay in the table are charters (seasonal and daily) as those are not typically listed in the airline's timetable unless it is bookable to the public and some will continue and some will be terminated and not return. But for newly launched regular services, I would say leave the reference in until the service really kicks in and the airline maintains it then we can remove it. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Airport Map

Airport Map

Hi! Is there any reason, why this map should not add to Prague Airport? I can't follow the arguments. Discussion here: Prague Airport Talk
Thx! --CellarDoor85 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

IATA/ICAO/callsign

Should we include references for the IATA/ICAO/callsigns of airlines? They are often difficult to find; how can the average reader know where to find them. For example, I have no idea where the ICAO code and callsign for LaMia came from, but the norm is not to provide a reference so... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No as they have no relevance to airports, they are clearly mentioned on each airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops wrong talk page! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

DAFIF

Plenty of aerodrome articles still mention DAFIF as a reference. It has been 10 years that this service was discontinued (to the public at large, anyway) so I think it cannot be considered a reliable reference now and henceforth. Couldn't we agree that all references to DAFIF ought to be removed, even if it is perhaps not very urgent? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: I agree; writing "As of October 2006" is quite out-of-date. However, could the DAFIF references be maintained for information like coordinates, elevation? Especially on articles with few other references. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see your concern: it is better to have a poor reference than no reference at all. Yes, indeed, I quite agree. Still, I daresay the vast majority of aerodromes, at least in the Western World, will now have better information at places like ourairports.com or openstreetmap.org Above all, I would suggest to not use DAFIF data for creating or updating articles. Actively removing the existing references can be a slow and non-systematic process, for me. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's true about airports in the Western world. However, we should avoid using ourairports.com and openstreetmap.org as references, as they can be edited by anyone. FAA data, etc. is more appropriate. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course official sources are to be preferred. Here in Europe, however, most Civil Aviation Administrations publish only information about the main airports. US'ans are blessed with their FAA! Non-official sources, including the airfield operator's website, will need to be used if any reference is to be given. I therefore disagree we should avoid them, they are much better than nothing, as a reference. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose, but that seems like citing Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. There is usually some reliable information out there, e.g. at Great Circle Mapper and SkyVector. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Exact date issue for new routes

A lot of editors are getting nasty and picky about dates for new services as they are not aware that there was any consensus on this matter and not thoroughly discussed. LOT announced that they will resume service from Krakow to Chicago in July 2017 and it was added to the pages. Also MH will start service from BKI to TSN in 2017 and it was restored to the table. We need a final consensus on this. Should we just go ahead and add it to the table as long as it is sourced (we can update the entry it when a date is known) or we should just remove it completely as in the past and add it with a firm date. I know A LOT of people are very impatient on adding future routes. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait until a firm launch date is announced. Airlines say things all the time, but we don't know they are certain until a set date is announced and reservations open. In June 2016, Qatar Airways said it would start Las Vegas–Doha flights in January 2017. Evidently, that's not going to happen. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. There were a lot of past discussions. The date requirement was not an arbitrary rule. Based on what we've observed about their reliability, a news report without an exact date is simply not a good-enough source. HkCaGu (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I went looking for those discussions, but failed to find them. I added a [when?] template to a couple of them, but if the consensus is that a month is not good enough and should be excised, I'll cheerfully agree ... richi (hello) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@richi: here is one Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_14#New_Routes.2FServices:_Exact_date_issue. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Got it. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, bullet 11 ... richi (hello) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Just here to echo HkCaGu's comment -- unless a news report has an exact start/end date, it is not good enough. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Runway length in Goma

Someone recently updated Goma International Airport with a change of the runway length, citing as a reference satellite imagery. It was obviously done in good faith, still I think this is not a good idea: only the data in the AIP can count as a reference, or, lacking that, what the aerodrome operator publishes - if anything. Yet I am reluctant to revert this, as there seems no better source/reference available. Opinions? Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. I admit that I did this for Wonsan Kalma International Airport, and each measurement I took came out different obviously. That too I didn't know where to start measuring: at the white line at the end of the runway? At the furthest end of the asphalt? Now, that person also changed the runway number per Google Maps. That makes sense, but do we consider satellite imagery a published source? Ultimately, I feel it is best just to use AIP data because this is reliable and published, even if it's somewhat outdated. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I changed to use the length given by the national aviation authority (RVA): 2000m. The ICAO did not include the DRC among online AIPs, but Eurocontrol listed the website for the national aviation authority and this PDF of airport/aerodrome info which I used to update the runway length, coordinates, and elevation in the Goma airport infobox. There is no AIP on the RVA website and that PDF is the only source of info about the elevation and runway lengths (there are also a few maps of airport locations and a PDF list of airports with IATA & ICAO codes), so that PDF is the most official information about the airport available. AHeneen (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with using the published data. Satellite can be difficult to calculate, and the published data is usually accurate, even if it is a bit outdated as Sunny mentioned. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing "airport"

Hello all. Are we supposed to capitalize "airport" all the time? According to the Associated Press, the answer is no. I feel this makes sense. This also reminds me of the convention for railway station articles, in which "railway station" is not capitalized. Thoughts? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

When you are referring to the name of the airport -- for example, Bradley International Airport, you would capitalize it. However if you were saying the "Hartford airport" you could not. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Please re-read that AP style guide. It only says use the lowercase when not using the actual name of an airport either in full or in a shortened form. oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed the standard is to capital "airport" regardless, examples: Bogorodskoye Airport and Bellingham International Airport. That's why I'm asking the question. So the article titles should change to Bogorodskoye airport and Bellingham international airport (while Bradley International Airport remains how it is)? I'm asking because this change would affect lots of articles... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Those are capitalized because those are the proper noun names of those airports. Nowhere in that AP style guide does it even remotely suggest that those names should be rendered with lowercase. You are completely misreading it. No article titles need to change at all. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Oknazevad it should be "Airport" when using the the name but "airport" when you say things like "the airport was opened in 1977". MilborneOne (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
The thought behind Bradley International Airport is the same as with Bellingham International Airport -- I'm not sure what the difference is. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I seem to understand now, thanks. I was thinking that "[City name] Airport" is not a proper name; but I see that if the airport officially refers to itself that way (like the example Newark International Airport in the AP style guide link), then it is a proper name. However, in the case of New Bellary Airport, "airport" should not be capitalized, right? Because that's not the proper/official name? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It would end up being New Bellary airport. I'd just wait until they announce an official name. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. What about this: the airport in Khajuraho, India, is officially known as "Civil Aerodrome Khajuraho." I highly doubt that that is the common name. Would it be wise to change the article title to "Khajuraho airport," noting the official name in the lead? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
If the A is typically capitalized in quality sources, then no, it should not be lowercase. Of course there is the possibility that the official name is commonly used, so it should be checked with things like newspapers. I doubt any reliable source would consistently lowercase it, there's zero reason to move it. oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I did a search for "Khajuraho Jet Airways" regarding a 2015 incident that happened at the airport. Looking at some articles from reliable news sites, "Khajuraho airport" was used in six articles; and "Khajuraho Airport" was used in two. One used both, and none used the official name. Even then, the articles use some interesting constructions like at the Khajuraho Airport and at Khajuraho airport. Also, the AP style guide seems to indicate that "airport" should be lowercase, given the Boston example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Virgin America/Alaska Merger

Virgin America is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Airlines. Some users have changed the destination charts to say "Alaska Airlines operated by Virgin America." This is incorrect. Just like we list Eurowings completely separately from Lufthansa, we should continue to list Virgin America on it's own as it will operate as a separate airline for the time being. We screwed this up with Southwest/AirTran too when we listed it as Southwest Airlines operated by AirTran Airways and then swapped it to AirTran operated by Southwest. Does anyone disagree? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


It should actually read, Virgin America an Alaska Air Group Company. After all it is a subsidiary of Alaska Air Group. Captoza (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of boldface in destination templates

Why is Bold used for "seasonal" contrary to MOS:NOBOLD instead of italics? Why not the recommended emphasis code of {{em|...}} or Italics? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: The use of {{airline seasonal}} and related templates has been adopted by consensus for destinations tables.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Punta Gorda Airport

Is there a consensus on how Punta Gorda (PGD) is meant to be written in the "Airlines and destinations" tables of airports that have flights going there? I'm seeing some tables where it's written down as Fort Myers/Punta Gorda, and some that show it as Punta Gorda/Fort Myers. I've had a look but can't see anything on here to confirm which it's meant to be.JamesRenard (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To me, alphabetical order would be best, so Fort Myers/Punta Gorda. But I don't think that rule is followed. For example, Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport is listed as Phoenix/Mesa. I'd like to see what other editors have to say. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought the slash names had been eliminated. I think it is best to just use "Punta Gorda". The Punta Gorda area (Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte, North Port) has about 150,000 residents and it is not contiguous with the Fort Meyers metro area. Allegiant Air (the main carrier at PGD) does not have "Fort Meyers" in the dropdown destinations menu on its website. AHeneen (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
AHeneen's response makes sense, too. Perhaps we should just leave it as Punta Gorda. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, if no one has any objections I'll go about making the necessary changes. JamesRenard (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I just noticed that there's also a Punta Gorda Airport in Belize. Changing the name in the "Airlines and destinations" tables to Punta Gorda (FL) should be fine, right? JamesRenard (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@JamesRenard: That sounds fine to me. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, I'll get to it. JamesRenard (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Can I suggest you spell out Florida rather than the code FL (or perhaps disambiguate with United States or U.S.) - the abbreviations for US states are not well understood by the majority of the world's population. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand that many may not know US state abbreviations. But the real problem may be the inconsistent use of disambiguating abbreviations in parentheses. For example there is San José (CR) for the airport in Costa Rica and San Jose (CA) for the airport in California, Manchester (UK) in the United Kingdom and Manchester (NH) in New Hampshire, Birmingham (UK) in the United Kingdom and Birmingham (AL) in Alabama. But Melbourne in Australia and Florida are not disambiguated. There is a London (ON) in Ontario but in the UK the airports are used (eg. London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick) and likewise Hamilton (ON) in Ontario but Hamilton in New Zealand is not disambiguated (both are small airports, the NZ one is domestic and the other serves the US and Canada). However, there are many examples of US cities that require a disambiguating abbreviation, in which case state abbreviations are needed: Portland (OR) in Oregon and Portland (ME) in Maine; Rochester (NY) in New York and Rochester (MN) in Minnesota; Columbus (OH) in Ohio and Columbus (GA) in the U.S. state of Georgia; and probably many more. I don't know of a better way of disambiguation that the most common abbreviation for the state/province or country and there should also be a policy on when disambiguation is necessary. AHeneen (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If the one is Punta Gorda Airport (Belize), I should expect the other one to be Punta Gorda Airport (USA) Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables

The RfC has been open for about three months and has been largely stale for the last week, with the exception of two short comments. A request for closure has been registered.

By breadth of support, 10 editors support option 3, 4 support option 2, and 1 supports option 1. Two editors supporting option 2 subsequently indicated they could find option 3 acceptable under certain circumstances. Argumentation will be addressed next, however, there is a clear consensus for Option 3.

The method for implementing the consensus has prompted an elaborate discussion which does not see any clear community decision. There is a general agreement that "something should be done with regards to references" but there is not a consensus as to what that something should be. There is not even a consensus as to whether WP:SECONDARY or WP:PRIMARY is appropriate for this purpose. A new discussion and/or RfC should be opened that is tightly focused on how to properly implement Option 3 in a way that is compliant with core policies of WP:VERIFY. Two issues need resolution: (a) are PRIMARY or SECONDARY acceptable in this application, (b) how should Option 3 be styled to implement referencing? DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Options

  • Option 1: Remove the tables and replace them with paragraph(s) about notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination).
  • Option 2: Only list the airlines that fly to an airport, each supported by a reference.
  • Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY.

Survey

(Please only indicate which option you support here, with discussion in the section below.)

  • Option 2. Per CambridgeBayWeather's decision below. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Yes, remove these per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is very hard to maintain these (as routes tend to get updated frequently sometimes). I see quite a lot of unsourced information in multiple articles. Stuff like this goes on the Airport's website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 List all the airlines, with references, rather than having editors try to decide which are notable at which airport. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Options 2 Support the inclusion of airlines, but not of destinations.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. A (sourced) list of airlines serving an airport provides scope without being too difficult to maintain and violating WP:NOTTRAVEL (as the current charts are), but it also doesn't cross the line into WP:OR the way option 1 seems to, as that requires creating a definition of what constitutes a significant airline for an airport. Just easier and more objective to list them all, so long as it's sourced. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3, but without listing terminals - As explained in detail in my comment under the general discussion, destinations are an important element of the subject, as it conveys the connectivity and importance of the subject. The problem with using prose is that, particularly at large airports, it is difficult to prune the list down to the most important destinations. By trimming down the lists to a few destinations, it risks edit wars and may be too indiscriminate to be appropriate (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information). Discussion of destinations is an important aspect of the subject and should be included in airport articles. However, listing the terminal used for routes in the airlines & destinations table is, in my opinion, a relatively unimportant aspect of the subject, falling under WP:NOTTRAVEL, and should be removed. However, discussion of which airlines use which terminal is appropriate to mention in prose about the individual terminals. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3, I feel that the airlines and destinations table is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe for a good airport article. As I mention below I definitely feel that something must be done to make them more reliable. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3 We have done a lot of work to improve these tables -- and they are widely used. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 03:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I think these are really important and the only part of an airport article I am guaranteed to browse. I do think however there is imprisonments in regards to references particular when it comes to referencing new scheduled routes announced by airlines which are clearly visible via their booking engines. I don't feel it's really necessary unlike for example a charter service which can change frequently. Jamie2k9 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It would be a big step backwards to remove the destination tables, which are actually very useful and accurate the majority of the time. 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)VG31
  • Option 3. The destination lists are a great asset. They should be kept up to date, which I think they are. They should probably be referenced better. It is obvious that each airline website are used as source, but other used sources should be listed. If we decide to remove the destination lists for airports, we must as a minimum list all airlines using it, and in airline articles list all its destinations.--BIL (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Destination lists are very useful information, as multiple airlines and routes explose in Europe and elsewhere. I think it is all the more encyclopedic as it sources how important the airport is (1 route = little airport vs a long table = big airport for instance). A "As of date xx" should be written, so that one knows the "freshness" of information. Terminal/hall/jetway are however needless to my point of view. I furthermore think airport list should be wikidata-friendly (with lua code) so that only one change and the table would be visible in every wikilanguage and always "up to date".--Bouzinac (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I think it would be a terrible idea to remove the tables for all airports. You can see my comment below for more of my opinions. I have no problems with adding sources, either on the airline name, or even in another column. The North America flight tables are some of the most up to date information on all the airport articles. Adding information dealing with which airlines use what gates, food/shops, transportation, etc. is much more of a travel guide than showing the extent that an airport is served. The whole reason an airport exists is to transport passengers on flights, so the flights at an airport are really the most notable information of all. Stinger20 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Fox1942 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It is really important to list the destinations of an airline, but yes, something needs to be done regarding references, perhaps a separate column for references alone. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Having edited airport articles for some time, I present this argument:
  • Wikipedia is not a travel guide with up-to-date lists of places a person can fly to from a particular airport. WP:NOTTRAVEL
  • The lists are changing regularly and are difficult to maintain. Some airports have so many airlines with so many destinations, it can be difficult to keep track of which still operate and which do not. As a consequence, the lists may be out of date; but this is not indicated with an "As of xxx" statement (nor would this be feasible with so many airlines).
  • The existing consensus is that there is an implicit reference for the information in the tables: the airlines' timetables. But how can the average reader be able to quickly find and verify this information, for so many airlines and destinations? And does the reader need to know every single destination served? WP:VERIFY
  • Especially in Indian airport articles, new destinations are often added without references – the timetable shows them, but there are no news articles, etc. that confirm it. A reader has to go into the timetable, set the origin/destination and the date – and, what if the destination appears at some earlier date? Imagine checking each prior date for that.

All in all, the timetables are a hassle to maintain; and it is difficult for a reader to verify the information. In addition, I don't believe the reader needs to know every single destination served from an airport. As an alternative, I think mentioning only notable airlines (e.g. airlines hubbed at the airport) and notable destinations (e.g. an airport's only international destination) is enough.

— Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sunnya343 can you explain a bit more about what you mean by notable airlines and notable destinations? The reason that I ask is for some airports if restricted to airlines that use it as a hub or their main base then they would have no airlines or charter airlines only. I would suspect that there plenty of airlines that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but could still be referenced as existing and providing flights. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: I guess I do not mean "notable" in the strict, WP:N sense of the word. For example, at McCarran International Airport, I may talk about Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air – which sort of have focus cities at the airport. I may also discuss Virgin Atlantic, which started the first nonstop service from the UK; and Korean Air and Hainan Airlines, the only airlines offering service to Asia. Sunwing and Sun Country may not be so "notable", however. Meanwhile, for an airport like Bathinda Airport – which has only one airline and destination – I could be more detailed. For example, "Air India Regional is the only airline to serve the airport, offering flights to Delhi on the ATR 72-600 five times a week."
If this becomes too subjective, perhaps Option 2 is better, with an introductory paragraph or something similar. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes it easier. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd steer clear of naming aircraft types and frequency. This is what changes the most -- and the beauty of these changes is we don't have to acknowledge them at all in the airline/destination tables. It doesn't matter if Delta is flying an A320 or a 738 on a certain route -- the appearance on the able is the same. It doesn't matter if the flight goes from 5 times a week to 5 times a day -- it would appear the same. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to weigh in on this: these tables are really useful and are extremely important for showing how the airport is still in use today. For articles where there are barely any sources, I think the destinations should not be added without verified sources. I am of the opinion, though, that chartered routes should not be displayed or if they are, then indeed sources should be added. Removing these tables would be a mistake in my eyes. st170etalk 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The question to me is what is encyclopaedic - what information enhances a reader's understanding of an airport in question and what is just unnecessary complexity? In my view information on typical routes that are flown from the airport are of interest and should be covered in an airport article, such information indicates its busyness, its sphere of influence for example. Likewise I suspect it is also interesting to cover the airlines that typically use the airport although I would consider this slightly less important than the routes. What I am certain in my own mind is that the current pedantic matrix of these two concepts co-joined adds little more to the understanding of an airport than a much simpler splitting of these concepts into separate "lists". The current matrix is very complex and full of unnecessary, uninteresting (to most readers - not you and me I know!) and often unverifiable detail. The nature of how the route information is presented is of interest, I quite like the idea put forward above of it being explained in words - this is likely to be the best way to concentrate the necessary information, I would not be entirely opposed to separate lists of destinations and airlines that serve an airport, I'm also relatively in favour of route maps as a concise way to show such information in a graphical way - although there are good and bad ways of doing this. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: Wouldn't a list of destinations be just as difficult to maintain and reference? Having to account for each airline that serves a destination (so a destination terminated by one airline isn't removed incorrectly), going to each airline's timetable to see which destinations they fly to from an airport, etc. Also, regarding route maps, solely having a route map could present accessibility issues. Regarding the presentation of route information, see how you like my response to AHeneen. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The table isn't that difficult to maintain, though. Flight's don't change as often as you'd think. Most changes are notable enough to be reported in the local news, by the airlines, and on the airport's website. I understand that they may appear to change frequently, but I spent several years working on these tables and we never really had any issues. I am proud to see how far we have come with airport articles and these tables, and I think it would be a detriment to the project to get rid of them. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: I have noticed that the Indian airlines' domestic schedules seem to change regularly; IPs are always adding and subtracting destinations. I can find these route changes in the airlines' timetables, but I rarely find secondary sources. Also, one of my biggest issues is that these tables are deemed to be "current" – there is no "As of [date]" at the top of the tables. This situation may work for big airports in English-speaking countries, but I don't think it works for Chinese, Russian, etc. airport articles. I updated the destinations across several airport articles for GX Airlines sometime back. Some months later, I found that the airline had added a few destinations, and many of their routes had changed. Google Translating the timetable, secondary sources, etc.; going to each destination article to update – a big pain, and I gave up. Again, our current situation works for airports in the US, Europe, etc., but elsewhere... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: Fair point. It works very well for most airports of all sizes in North America, Europe, and many other English-speaking countries. I just don't think it makes sense to eliminate it across the board because it doesn't work everywhere. If McDonald's can't sell a certain product in Connecticut, but it sells great in Texas, then they'll keep the product on the menu in Texas and axe it in Connecticut. If this is what we have to do -- keep the tables on airports in the US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, South America, etc, and just axe them in places where they don't work, then perhaps that is what we should consider doing, but not removing them from places where they work very well. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 05:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: That is an interesting idea. Still, I have seen problems with even US airports. At LAS, WN's seasonal service to ORF was correctly removed in September of this year. Doing some research at flightstats.com, I realize this route has not operated since summer 2012! To me, there is just so much information in these tables that has to be verified on a regular basis, and people aren't really doing that here. The appearance of the tables as being current can be misleading. You bring up OAG Guides as a way to reference, but those can only be accessed by people with a subscription(?). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: That is correct -- the OAG Guides are a subscription only service. There are many ways to access this service and many who do have access; in addition most changes are published to the public. In regards to the Southwest seasonal service to Norfolk -- it happens, unfortunately. Especially with seasonal routes, if the route doesn't resume the following season it may not be noticed right away. However, I don't think this is that common nor do I think it is that different from any other Wikipedia article with outdated information. If you go to any Wikipedia article you are going to find information that is outdated (even four years outdated!). In fact, I think it's easier for us to go through the Airline/Destination Tables to find outdated information that it would be to comb through any other article to find outdated information. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: The thing is, with other Wiki articles, there is an "As of [date]" statement (or at least there should be). I don't know how exactly to do this with the tables. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that listing the destinations is just as important as listing the airlines, since the destinations indicate the connectivity of the airport to the world. The names of airlines don't necessarily indicate the country they fly to. Orlando is a good example of this, as it is connected to every large US airport (except Honolulu), nearly every mid-size US airport east of the Mississippi River, every large and mid-size airport in Canada and many other international destinations, but that wouldn't be obvious in a listing of airline names (Norwegian flies to Oslo, but also London, Copenhagen, and (in July) Paris; Air Berlin will fly to Düsseldorf, not Berlin). Listing the destinations is really the only way to gauge the connectivity of the airport to the world at some hub airports where the hub airline operates most international routes with only few international airports (eg. Atlanta and Seattle/Tacoma, but not London Heathrow or Sydney). In my opinion, I don't think it would be appropriate to list one of airlines or destinations without the other. While it is true that frequency of service matters, very few routes are less than weekly and the statistics section fills in that information gap. It is possible that major destinations and airlines could be listed in prose, but I think that would be subject to frequent edit wars over which destinations are significant enough to be mentioned and how many to list.
In my opinion, there is no need to list the terminal the airlines use, as that is trivial information that would fall under the WP:NOTTRAVEL (but tables with such information may be welcome at Wikivoyage). However, both airlines AND destinations add an important element to the subject and should be included in articles. The content of the tables unquestionably need sources, per WP:VERIFY. AHeneen (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@AHeneen: I agree, where you can fly from an airport is very important to know. However, my point is that these lists of destinations are hard to maintain and have problems with referencing. That too, is every single destination notable? Looking at MCO's article, is it notable that WN flies to Flint, B6 to Worcester, Magnicharters to MTY on a seasonal charter basis? Or at the LAS article, is it important to note that G4 to Eugene, Kalispell, and Shreveport?
You make a great point about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps something could be written as such to deal with that policy: "As of December 2016, X airlines fly to X destinations from MCO. The top airlines by pax are X. X operates a hub at MCO, while Y and Z operate focus cities. MCO has service to X countries on X continents. The top destinations by pax are X. X was the first to offer service to X country, which is the top source of int'l passengers to MCO as of 2016. MCO is the second airport in Florida to gain nonstop flights from the Middle East, offered by EK to DXB, after QR to MIA." This is just a rough suggestion. Perhaps some guideline could be created for this. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - mild support for "too hard to maintain". I don't see anyone devoting the necessary amount of time. Speaking as a user (I would never get involved in this sort of article) my take is that wrong information is worse than a scope set to exclude certain information Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
As someone who spent a few years maintaining tables, it wasn't too difficult. There are not as many changes as one would imagine. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to say, I can understand the debate whether it is encyclopedic or not. I'm not going to vote on this, but I will say that I am sincerely going to miss the destination tables here if they are removed. They may not always be 100% accurate, but its greatly helped with my research in the industry and was an easy place to come and check routes, that I would then verify on the airline's websites. Encyclopedic or not, it was very useful to me, but I understand the case to remove them from Wikipedia too. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Aviationspecialist101: I can understand. There was an Airliners.net thread asking if there is anything else on the web like the Airlines and destinations tables here. Originally I was strongly opposed to removing the tables, but I have started to see their problems. I have raised three airport articles to GA, but I doubt they could ever get to FA because of those tables. Please consider some of the options listed above, and see how you like my response to AHeneen above. We can still maintain the important information while keeping airport articles well-referenced and easy to maintain. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Advancing certain airport articles to FA should not come with the consequence of costing all airports their airline and destination table. It is possible to source every flight on that table -- and ensure it is accurate. If that's something you want help doing, I'd be happy to help. It is possible, and it's not too difficult. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - summoned by bot. I like the idea of having the destinations served by the airlines at each airport, but only if the info can be easily maintained. I don't have any idea how frequently routes and airlines change, but a simple search found this site [[4]], which seems to suggest that there are on average about 12 route changes announced a day. If this was my sole focus on Wikipedia, I'd be able to maintain the lists myself, so it stands to reason that 3-4 dedicated and coordinated people could manage it.Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Good find! Many of these changes don't require any update on the destination table. For example: a change in frequency, from 1 flight a day to 6, would require no change. A change in aircraft equipment or time does not require a change on the timetable either. Unless it is a new service or a cancellation of a service no table update is needed. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether they can be verified by looking into airline schedules and the like. The issue is whether airline schedules are suitable sources. Reliable sources are supposed to be published, but airline schedules typically aren't anymore (at least not in a form that is readily available, since the PDF schedules have gone the way of the dodo for many airlines). Schedules are also transient. The verifiability and no original research policies don't require that a source be explicitly cited, only that a source be available (the example being "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need to be cited, but there is no doubt that a source exists that says that). Therefore, in principle, destination lists are OK since the schedules do exist (at least for current destinations). But they're borderline: the sources aren't published, aren't third-party, and aren't even easy to explicitly cite (since there's typically no direct link to an actual schedule: finding the schedule for a given route typically requires entering a search query).

Well, for option 2, being just a list of airlines, but not destinations, that information is typically available at the the airports' websites as part of the terminal listings. It's actually pretty easy to verify that, and far less transitory than route schedules. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: That's true, but those websites often don't say the date they were published/last modified, so they can be outdated. Example is McCarran Airport's website. It still lists Hainan Airlines as starting service on December 2. Also, it continues to display Vivaaerobus, which has not flown to McCarran since January (It seems like they fly to McCarran on-and-off, and I can never find a secondary source for this). Now, CAPA has a list of the airlines flying to every airport, example. But it states "Airlines currently operating" – with no published/last modified date on the webpage. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We are often more accurate than airport websites. Many are not updated frequently. However -- because the OAG comes out every month and because many route announcements appear in local media we are able to verify all changes in service. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I went with option 3 because I feel that the airlines and destinations section is a good indicator of the size and notability of an airport (I consider larger airports to be more notable). But here's what I would change.... 1. stop listing the same destination under multiple airlines, for example, you go onto an article like Chicago O'Hare and you see Atlanta for about 6 airlines. I feel that we should come up with a way to merge so these so Atlanta is only listed once. 2. Get more strict on people listing starting, resuming and ending on the table with terrible or no citations given. 3. Remove seasonal destinations and charters, most things listed under charter only run once and newer run again, to me this is just a place where editors place destinations that they are unsure about, they may see it once on Flightaware and list it there.
    I feel that we should just keep the current policy of only destinations that are starting and ending need citations. My argument for this is, there are people who travel on these routes everyday; if there were no such thing as that route anyone can come here and say this route does not exist and delete it. There are many tools out there to verify if a route is present such as Flightaware for most of the world. KDTW Flyer (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is such a unique and incredible place. There is no where else on the internet where you can find a list of airlines/destinations like we have here on Wikipedia. If the issue is sourcing: every domestic flight can be sourced OAG Guides, which are published monthly. In addition, most airport websites provide a list of airlines and their respective destinations. I'd argue that they are encyclopedic as well -- the lists provide a good idea of which airlines operate the most routes, have the most business, and have the largest impact on the respective airports. It would be hard to have the same level of information in a paragraph. I'm not sure what improvement we would make by removing the tables. I think that would be a detriment to the project and to what we offer. We have done a great job at updating and modifying the tables -- and to see them go I think would be a huge blow to the project and everyone that has spent years keeping them accurate and up to date. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
In addition, I know many people across the industry that go to Wikipedia for the airline/destination tables. Even pilots will check Wikipedia -- as our level of accuracy often is greater than that of most airport websites. When Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia in 2001, did they think (or even want) Wikipedia would contain a comprehensive list of "Airlines & Destinations" for nearly every commercial airport in the world? No -- of course not. But did they think that Wikipedia would have over 5.3 million articles (just in English) or that the article for NYC would be over 20,000 words long, and contain over 525 references? Doubtful -- but here we are. We spend so much time explaining what Wikipedia is not and not enough time stepping back to look at what is truly is. We're so much more than an encyclopedia. We're a global resource of information, used by everyone from elementary school students to scholars in all disciplines. In a generation where everything is moving forward, I think that removing these tables is a giant step backwards. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the main problem is unverifiabilty/being out of date, this is really a problem for pages in Asia/Africa/Rural Europe. Just try adding a destination on a US Airport table and you will be reverted within a few minutes. The bigger problem is that we put these tables on all of the world's airports, when a majority of the editors are from North America and are focused on their local airports. I myself almost solely edit Ohio/Kentucky/West Virginia airports. The US destination tables are incredibly accurate and are some of the most up to date parts of Wikipedia. I think the destination tables are an incredible resource for the aviation industry, as the most important information about an airport is its connectivity to the world. Before I started editing on Wikipedia, I would often explore the tables out of curiosity to see what airlines fly where, there is no other source like it. Listing the destinations is not a travel guide, look at Wikitravel, Wikivoyage, etc. they do not list destinations, people fly the cheapest routes they find online. If the tables on Indian airports cannot be verified, remove the flights that cannot be verified, but do not remove everything just because parts of the table cannot be verified (I.e. Small Chinese Airlines, etc). Maybe we could put a header that the tables reflect the verified operating routes. Also, we could add a source to the airline name or in another column, if no source can be found (timetables should be accepted), remove the flights. Overall, I think many of Sunnya343's points really do not apply for North American airports. I know Sunnya343 and Andrewgprout are huge international editors of flights, however there are not many other dedicated users working on international destinations. So, I would not judge all of the flight tables based on certain regions where information on flights is lacking. Stinger20 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Option 3: Next steps

I am seeing a lot of support for Option 3. If we are to go with this option, we need to address referencing. Issues with this led to this RfC in the first place. In particular, editors would be reverted for removing references for destinations that have begun, resulting in edit wars. Still, having one reference here, another there creates consistency issues; here's an example.

My concerns: The tables have the appearance of being up-to-date, but they are not always. Also, the information is not easily verifiable for the average reader; and the fact that the "implicit reference" is the timetable may not be obvious to such a reader.

The question: How do we properly reference these tables? And how do we note that the information may be outdated?

Pinging users who have contributed so far: @CambridgeBayWeather, @Jetstreamer, @Oknazevad, @AHeneen, @KDTW Flyer, @Lemongirl942, @Tofutwitch11, @Jamie2k9, @BIL, @Bouzinac, @Stinger20, @St170e, @Elinruby, @Aviationspecialist101, @Timtempleton. Please consider adding this page to your watchlist so that we can have an active discussion and come to consensus. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for every single destination to have its own reference. One reference per airline, in the airline column, should be fine. If something like this is available and current that would be the best idea. If not then this would also work provided that the editor was aware how the codeshare routes worked. And there is also this. There are a lot of destinations listed there but many are not direct flights and again the editors working on a particular airport are going to be aware of which ones are not valid. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
References must be there, either for each destination or for each airline. Otherwise we will be against a core policy.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The "airline websites", OAG Guides, FlightAware and airport websites will be our best resources for many of them. For existing routes that have been operating for years, there will likely be little to no news coverage to cite. I think citing the airline website, "www.delta.com", should suffice. Anyone can then go into the booking system and verify the information for themselves. You can't actually cite a specific booking. FlightAware is another good tool, but again it is all based on "dates", so there's no use citing a flight from 6 months ago, as it is no proof that the flight operates currently. Airport websites are good resources as well, but many are very outdated, so perhaps we use them when we can (and we confirm they are up to date). Otherwise, we use the other sources. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually really like the idea of referencing the airline website, the flight schedule would be even better, either on the airline name or in a new column. This should cover seasonal routes as well, since they should be listed on the schedule in the future. For airlines like Delta, we could cite their timetable instead. We could then continue to list sources for routes beginning, ending, or resuming, then remove those once the flights start. Also, challenged routes could retain a source if they cannot be found on the website. Example, please take a look, feel free to duplicate the table and make another proposal/change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stinger20/sandbox Stinger20 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the second one better, with the box for the source(s). I think the first with the source in the actual table looks messy. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tofutwitch11. A separate column for references looks cleaner, like how it's done here for example. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We should remove the column for terminal/concourse, too, right? Most people seem to agree that information truly belongs in a travel guide. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that #2 looks better and I removed the terminal/concourse column. Stinger20 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am in support of removing the terminal/concourse column, basically all the airports with multiple terminals and/or concourses have the terminal-airline assessment data posted, that data is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. There are plenty of places a traveler can find out the terminal their flight is departing from so we don't need it here on Wikipedia. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thanks Stinger20 (talk · contribs) for his table template wih clear refs. May I advise a more user-readable table like this one. So that one can read easily how many companies (and who) are serving route point X> point Y. It has also a reminder of IATA code (==> easy to translate airport list in another languages such as french, with a single copy-paste of wikicode) :
Airport Airline(s) References
Aberdeen (ABZ) Company X, Y, ZZ Ref 1, 2
Paris-CDG (CDG) Company AA, BB, ZZ Ref 3, 4

Bouzinac (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, but I'm against that for two reasons. First, it would require a significant overhaul to all of the pages. Second, it doesn't show as accurately each airlines presence at an airport. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I know its been discussed before that formatting the pages like that falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL, though you raise the issue of non-english airport pages being grossly out of date. That is very important, I am currently learning Chinese, so I hope to being work on updating the airport pages in Chinese, but I think that should be raised on another topic as it goes beyond the simple verifiability raised in this discussion. Thanks for help out though, I wish more users would help in Talk Page discussions! Stinger20 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition, it would make the pages incredibly long -- imagine airports like JFK or Atlanta with over 100 destinations. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Long/big tables can be collapsed/collapsible with a simple parameter in the template airport-dest-list so I don't think it is a serious problem. The problem of long tables already exist in the current template, for instance Atlanta airport with Delta having so many destinations from ATL, so the line of Delta destinations is about to be unreadable. However, I agree that it is a big challenge to modify all existing tables. May we imagine having two different templates (Airport, then companies // Companies, then airports) adapted to the size of airport? Or may we present big lines with a columns template such as in French page, line "Air France" fr:Destinations au départ de Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle Bouzinac (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the way we list it now is fine -- we don't need to change that. In terms of how to cite, I think the separate column with citations works the best. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tofutwitch11. Consider Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport. The current format produces a nice, small table; whereas a table organized by destinations would be quite long. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stinger20, in the example in your sandbox, you provide the airlines' flight schedules page or website as the reference. However, are these appropriate references? Do a control-F/command-F search on this page for "The issue isn't whether they can be verified" to see another user's concerns with using such references.

Also, shouldn't we provide some sort of "last updated" statement? Per MOS:REALTIME. Or are certain airport articles considered to be "regularly updated"? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Certain airports I would say are regularly updated. And I do agree with the issue with that but if someone is so concerned about a particular reference, than they can go in the system and look for the flight. We have many citations on WP that are print publications or other sources which are not easily accessible -- like the OAG Guides. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true. So do we consider those searchable timetables to be published sources? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The "last updated" stuff fall well within WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
My only concern with "Last Updated" is that people will go in and update these tables everyday and puting last updated will confuse the reader that they're reading non-current data.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@KDTW Flyer: True. I suppose that for major airport articles that are updated often, "last updated" does not need to be written. Whereas for smaller airports (for example see what I did at Nogliki Airport), it can be done. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello KDTW Flyer, Stinger20 and other numerous aviation professionals .. as one who links the FAA with airport operations staff, airline staff and numerous local and regional political groups - the charts are very helpful and do reflect on airports well. I would be Pro use of searchable timetables as reliable source material and Against both any further edits of future/ending routes or charts of specific aircraft usage. Funding and/or politics change both often, before quality editors can respond in that short time frame. AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What do we think of this reference? The schedule data is provided by Innovata. With this reference, the reader does not have to enter a search query manually. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I could not give your specific link to work, however I found the information navigating from the homepage of the website. If we could get the links to work (this may be a problem on my end, though), this is a great reference to use and it even shows cargo flights, which would be nice for the cargo tables as well. Stinger20 (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I see there have been some concern over using the airlines timetable/flight schedule to reference the destinations. I don't see a problem with it though. Multiple airline articles use the same timetable/flight schedule to reference the destinations already. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Remembering of course that each airline timetable is a Primary Source - and as WP:PRIMARY states considerable care needs to be taken with such sources - care which is often not taken, with entries often approaching Original Research for anything more than a route simply existing. Secondary Sources are always better and should always be sought and kept above simply the timetable - the fact that such secondary sources are often hard to find suggests that the subject matter of these tables definitely have trouble being of a Tertiary (ie Encyclopedic) level. It is not that the sources are poor it is that the content trying to be added in this instance is being stretched too far for an Encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Though, secondary sources are not always better. For instance, Taiwan news sources are reporting that DL is going to end NRT-TPE in May, however, Delta has not announced anything on the matter or changed anything in its schedule. While its possible Delta plans to end the route, these secondary sources are not always accurate, and we are not listing the route as ending until Delta says/schedules the end of the route. As you said, Primary sources can be used if they used with care. If an editor is not careful with the routes/does not source them, that is an edit that should be reverted. I think you have to be careful saying that secondary sources are always better, many writers take liberties with facts and rumors about all subjects, this is not limited to aviation. Stinger20 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
NO NO NO - You need to read and understand the links I gave - this is not opinion it is Wikipedia Policy - If you and others do not understand this an informed choice can not be made in this discussion. On Wikipedia it is all about what the (Secondary) sources say it is never about truth - "strange but true!". Also we all need to understand what an Encyclopedia is for - accuracy to the nth degree listing every detail is NOT what Encyclopedias do - that is what is meant by Tertiary. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Stinger20, regarding your Delta NRT-TPE example, the sources say "reportedly", so we should be careful using them. Andrewgprout, could you provide an example of how information in an Airlines and destinations table could become original research? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sunnya343✈ I did say approaching :-) - but some of the start date stop date and charter or temporary additions that are based only on timetable (PRIMARY source) entries and speculative dummy bookings would be Original Research. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: I understand the Primary/Secondary source thing and have read it many many many times, I am pointing to this passage, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". My point is that Primary sources are just as good, if not better in some cases, for referencing routes. As far as your statement that "core policies/Wikipedia policy" must be followed, a quote from Policies and Guidelines, "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." All of the polices need to be put into context of a situation, just because its suggested that Secondary sources are better, this is not necessarily the case for everything. I would suggest that timetables/flightmapper/route maps are the best sources, followed by traditional secondary sources that have been verified. Stinger20 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think by your argument Stinger20 you are supporting the central point I was making. If a fact only has Primary sources and it is hard to find a secondary source (ie as you say Primary Sources are the better reference) then it is really questionable whether that fact should be in Wikipedia, which is undoubtedly a tertiary source. I some time ago suggested that those editing the destination tables gain some experience editing in a totally different part of Wikipedia for some context (you guys must be interested in other things as well as airline timetables as interesting as I will admit they may be) I still believe that those here who have very narrow editing habits should edit Wikipedia generally and by this may understand why and how this all works, because at the moment the destination tables are way way out-there in the too detailed spectrum. And the Wikipedia core policies may be editable but they are very very well established about how things work well. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
IMO, secondary sources are preferred but if they are not available we can use airline's timetables. I'm not totally in favour of using online search engines. I prefer pdf versions or something similar, but I'm afraid they are not available in many cases.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY notes that "[d]eciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages" and goes on to define the policy as (bold emphasis added; italics and red/bold "policy" in original):

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I do not see how use of airline route tables as primary sources is inappropriate. As relevant to the discussion, they are only being used to support facts (airline A flies from B to C) and no interpretation/analysis is needed. AHeneen (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AHeneen. I agree that airline timetables can be ideal sources – I doubt the airline would want them to be wrong. For example, Air India conveniently has a PDF timetable with a "last updated" date. Andrewgprout, I agree on what you said could be original research. Personally, I feel we should avoid listing charters as they are quite variable. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, @Andrewgprout:, quite the opposite. AHeneen hit my point right on, there is nothing on these pages suggesting the tables are overly detailed. As far as charters, I think ones like Apple Vacations or Vacation Express are fine since they publish a html flight schedule that can be linked by city. Otherwise, I agree charters without a proper source should not be listed as they are variable, inconsistent, and not important to show the service at an airport. Also, I think we should stop listing "operated by" on the charter entries, as this just further clutters the table and is not necessary information. Stinger20 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with AHeneen and Sunnya343✈, I see no problem in using the airline's own timetables/schedules as sources since it's just confirming facts. Btw, Stinger20, I like the sandbox table that you created further up, and agree that the terminal/concourse column can be removed and replaced with a sources column. Not to mention the concourse information is sometimes not possible to find for some airlines at certain airports (for example Southern Airways Express at MDT). JamesRenard (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Are we ready to change the tables such that there is a third, unsortable column for references? I am ready to make an edit request at Template:Airport destination list. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should make an edit request there. I think this should be rolled out on a case by case basis, and see where it goes. It's difficult to draw a clear consensus from this discussion -- so let's try it out on a few articles, see how it goes, and then hold a !vote on whether it should be kept permanently or withdrawn. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. However, we would need to create a new table (not using the template) in order to add the unsortable references column (the template can only add a sortable column). I know how to do that, I'm just saying the format will look different to editors. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am in favor of trying it however all of you would like. I am not very knowledgable in templates, so I will leave that up to you all. I can change CVG as one of the test pages if needed. Stinger20 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Unsortable columns can be nested in a sortable table template, simply use class="unsortable" in the header cell of the unsortable column, isn't it? Bouzinac (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I tried that, but it doesn't work. I would have to write {{Airport destination list| 3rdcoltitle=class="unsortable"|Reference, but that does not work. Anyways, I'm not well versed in template-editing. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have instituted a new table here for Jodhpur Airport. I included an "As of" statement as this article is unlikely to be updated as often; in fact, there was a mistake in the table that I had to correct. What do you all think? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sunnya343: I like the table overall, I think that is what the airport destionation table should be changed to. When the template is changes, I am assuming the current terminal/concourse data will display in the reference column, so it should not break the tables on most airport pages. Also, whoever makes the change to the template should also probably remove the 4th column option also, as I am sure some users will try to add back the terminal/concourse information. Stinger20 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that, personally, I still have problems with option 3... I don't like the fact that references are typically the airline's schedule that has to be searched manually. There's also the fact that outdated information can be hidden in these tables, which do not indicate the date they were last updated. Here are recent examples: here and here. Also, there are difficulties citing seasonal destinations. And, secondary sources are typically published when the route started, so they could be outdated. Overall, the tables are full of information that is plain difficult to cite... I still have doubts that any airport article could pass FA. Maybe I will have to try and see...

Almost everyone who voiced support for Option 3 is an aviation enthusiast/regular editor of airport articles. And, only a few editors seem willing actually to discuss anything. So I don't think we got a proper consensus, even though this is an RfC and was posted at appropriate noticeboards. Sigh. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing: An editor added that Air Costa flies between Bengaluru and Chennai here. To determine if this was true, I had to find Air Costa's flight schedule myself and search it manually. Turns out there's no Bengaluru–Chennai flight offered by Air Costa. Now I can't revert the edit saying, "unreferenced addition," can I? These tables are just...weird and unlike anything else I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm still against them I think. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. No sources, no additions.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't that seem odd, though, as none of the other destinations have explicit sources? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Template Discussion

Pinging users who have been involved: @CambridgeBayWeather, @Jetstreamer, @Oknazevad, @AHeneen, @KDTW Flyer, @Lemongirl942, @Tofutwitch11, @Jamie2k9, @BIL, @Bouzinac, @Stinger20, @St170e, @Elinruby, @Aviationspecialist101, @Timtempleton, @Sunnya343

I think we are probably ready to submit an edit request on Template talk:Airport destination list to the format Sunnya343 provided. If you object please reply! Stinger20 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have tested these changes on the Module Sandbox: Module:Airport destination list/sandbox
This is the list of changes I think we have agreed to propose, please add to the list if you see something missing:

  • Remove "3rdcoltitle" option due to WP:NOTTRAVEL (such that terminal/concourse information cannot be provided)
  • Remove "4thcoltitle" option due to WP:NOTTRAVEL (such that terminal/concourse information cannot be provided)
  • Add "Refs" column, initially have module scan for column and skip in order to not break tables without a 3rd column currently, eventually make this a REQUIRED parameter
  • Make "Refs" column unsortable
In response to Tofutwitch11, personally I feel we can move ahead with the edit request for the template. I don't see a reason why adding references would be controversial; in fact, the presence of an empty column will force editors to keep these tables well referenced. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't think we are ready to submit this request. This would change airport articles for airports around the world -- and I don't think we are ready, nor do we have the capacity to update all of those articles at once. I think we should go article by article, get many of them done, and then go from there. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I will change this on a few tables to see how it goes (CVG/CMH/DAY/LUK). These are not huge airports, so it should be a good place to start. I guess its not a huge deal if the ref column is sortable for the present, but we are going to need to change the template to fix this issue at some point. Since there are no objections to removing Terminals/Concourses, I will change this from the documentation on WP:Airports so that we can gradually transition to sourcing refs in the 3rd column. Stinger20 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a list going of the pages I have updated here. I am keeping to the Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana/West Virginia area and plan on expanding to Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia soon. So far I have not had any opposition, which is good, but I am still going to stay away from major airports for the time being. Hopefully since its out there, some editors will take notice and hopefully provide feedback/suggestions. Stinger20 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to have the Concourse Information listed next to each airline, however there's no need to show which gates airlines use as airlines change or swap leased gates like people change shoes. Captoza (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The info really belongs in a paragraph about the terminals and the airlines using them. We are trying to steer away from WP:NOTTRAVEL as well, and listing the concourses in the table of destinations is pushing that. Stinger20 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I've asked about getting a bot to make a list of airports that use the 4thcoltitle and the 3rdcoltitle at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Require a list of articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a question; are we planning on doing anything with the Cargo AirDest tables or are we just leaving them as is? --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@KDTW Flyer: To me, they are even worse than the tables for scheduled operators. Even WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is not very approving of them. On one GA, Kempegowda International Airport#Cargo, I have converted the table into a list. Although I don't even know if a list of cargo carriers is encyclopedic, but maybe that's a different discussion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 00:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank You, I definetly agree that they are are worse than passenger tables and something needs to be done, but lets sort out the passenger side of things before we worry about the cargo side. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree, but there are cargo tables that are in very good condition. However, if you see an airport with a terribly inaccurate Cargo Table, I think there is no reason you cannot replace it with a list. I will keep this for a discussion another time, though. Stinger20 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It turns out that there are only 359 articles using 3rdcoltitle and none with 4thcoltitle. Those should be converted to references first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you CambridgeBayWeather for using a bot to get this list. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 04:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statistics

Hello, the Airports Authority of India publishes PDFs every month with traffic statistics for the airports it manages. For example, here are the passenger statistics for January and for February. Would it violate WP:SYNTH to add statistics from different PDFs, ultimately calculating, say, an airport's passenger count for the whole year? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say per WP:CALC it would be fine to add the totals from each month to get the passengers per year, provided that you include all of the sources for each PDF. Since adding the passengers is "basic arithmetic", it seems permissible under WP:OR. Stinger20 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Airport names in local languages

Pardon my ignorance here, but when did it become consensus that airport infoboxes should no longer contain the airport's name in the native language(s) of the city/country where it is located, and that in the text itself they should be prosified instead of being put inside parentheses? I've checked the archives and there seems to be no indication that such a consensus was reached.

I've looked at several airport articles both locally (I'm from the Philippines, so I'm appalled to see "This airport is also known as xxx in Filipino" when it was previously parenthesized) and abroad, and it looks like these edits have taken place within only the last few months. I'm loath to endorse the engineering of consensus based on changing the facts on the ground (i.e. edit articles the way you want, then force a new consensus based on those edits), so unless something has changed I'm seriously considering reverting things to how they previously were. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know it is still standard practice by the project to use the local language name in the infobox "native name". MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Sky Harbor, may I ask what you find so appalling about that? You may have noticed that I made those edits. At Mactan–Cebu International Airport for example, I removed the native names from the infobox because there were two of them and it was adding to the length of the infobox. Also, I moved the translations out of the lead sentence per WP:LEADCLUTTER and MOS:FORLANG: "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence" (emphasis mine). The separation between subject and verb in that sentence was too great in my opinion. All in all, I wanted the translations to stand out less, as this is the English Wikipedia.
Of course this is largely a WP:BOLD move on my part; if you feel it is wholly inappropriate, feel free to revert. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Airline websites no acceptable source for route changes?

Fellow editors, please have a look at London City Airport where User David.moreno72 keeps removing sourced content regarding the ending of several routes stating that airline website booking sites are no acceptable source and violate WP:ELNO and WP:REFSPAM. He also seems to not accept secondary sources and keeps referring to WP:ELNO as he removed some of these as well. As the use of these sources is common practice I would like to have some opinions on this. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.177.145 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Flights not starting on the established start date

Back in December last year, OneJet announced that they would start flights between Pittsburgh and Albany on March 22, 2017. The date has passed, and the flights aren't operating yet. In fact, they can't even be booked and I've not been able to find a new start date anywhere. What would the consensus be on this issue? Should the destination either be removed from the table until a new start date is established, be kept on the table with a note, or something else? JamesRenard (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If no reference can be found to prove the route will be starting it should definitely be removed. It's not all that uncommon for an airline to announce a route and then cancel it before it starts, often with little publicity. VG31 20:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I'd initially removed Albany as a destination from the Pittsburgh International Airport page (and vice versa) but someone else just added it right back again. JamesRenard (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_15&oldid=1136418085"