Mascouche airport is closed (there's a reference on the page, for which I've just added an archive URL), so at least that portion of their edits is valid, FWIW. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
In other List of Airports in .... articles I have seen the entries for closed fields in strike-through mode; isn't that better than bluntly removing? Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Rosbif73. It's the first time I have ever seen strike-through in an article, and I doubt it would be widely endorsed. However, that's up to this wikiproject as far as I'm concerned. I removed the struck-through numbers in the infobox which were causing template errors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I was not recommending the use of strike-through in any article; I did suggest using it in a list. See the examples of Gatow and Tempelhof in List of airports by ICAO code: E#ED_ET. I consider this a clear and correct use of strike-through, though I agree it it not nice to use in article text. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl Airport accidents and incidents addition removal?
Hello and good day. The last incident in the accidents and incidents section of article that is dated January 1, doesn't seem like a serious incident but I cant access the Aviation Safety Network report (Reference#115) about the incident. I assume it is 2019, but should it be removed? Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:3166:2CCD:5353:886 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) Acreage citation with FAA Airport Master plan for DTW.
Hello and good day. I took out a dead source from where it says DTW covers 4,850 acres (1,960 ha) but also took out reference #3, FAA Airport Master Plan for DTW and I cant put it back. Can someone just put back that source please? Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:F920:D109:5849:17F9 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
In the passenger route table at Nashville International Airport, I noticed that someone put an inline citation after every single future route entry in the Allegiant section. I'm wondering what the preferred way to do this is. Is it best to keep all the inline citations as they are now, or should the source be pulled into the refs column of the able? It seems messy the way it is now, but I didn't feel confident about how this is usually dealt with enough to edit it. BNA had many new routes announced by Allegiant at once so most of them use the same citation. Would appreciate hearing how folks usually handle this. Thanks! Editor10293813 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello and good day. I have just updated McCarran's Passengers, Aircraft Movements and Cargo Tonnage for year 2019 from the LAS website (Reference#2). Go down to Statistics: Passenger Traffic. Please add: 51,537,638 with +3.7% increase, with LAS website as source. I used their website to obtain the data. Thank you for your help today.2601:581:8000:BDC0:6DFF:45EB:349B:2454 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has agreed that an official date, including year, be cited and verified with a reliable source - same goes for end dates. We have no obligation to list flights that don't exist yet. Ajf773 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Now that this source verifies Seattle–Bangalore starts on October 25 (and you can buy it on AA.com), not just October, THANK YOU to the several editors who FOURTEEN TIMES protected us from such terrible speculative information and reverted the widely reported and well-discussed addition of this route! What a beautiful, pointless waste of effort! A start month is clearly sufficient for mention and we're a wiki – if plans change, we can change too. Reywas92Talk19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Reywas92: The only person wasting time was you. Wikipedia is not a directory, there is no requirement that these tables are up-to-date or particularly comprehensive. There is a requirement that details are referenced and a very liberal established consensus about the scope for entries exists. Please respect this consensus.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
"No requirement"? Sure nothing is "required" anywhere but being up-to-date and comprehensive is a perfectly reasonable goal. The details for "October 2020" are referenced. WP:CCC, and the old discussion with only a few participants was with respect to a case where no time range was specified. Reywas92Talk22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
No you are just simply wrong, the consensus is there to attempt to try to keep the details encyclopaedic. In reality it is extremely questionable that the current consensus is particularly encyclopaedic, stretching it even more towards directory type information is simply counter productive.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Alternative Solution for Destination Maps
Hello. I wanted to ask something regarding Airport Destination Maps. I think having a visual layout of airport destinations for smaller airports such as Tri Cities Regional Airport, Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, Clinton National Airport, and much more smaller airports should something visual to scope out destinations rather than only seeing text. I do understand this wouldn't work for larger airports since there would be to many destinations. However, I also understand the current maps don't really fit with airline destination tables. Quite a bit of people like having the maps and quite a bit of others say it doesn't work out for airline destination tables. So this is my question, is it possible if we can find an alternative method for these maps? Weather it would be a link to a separate page for maps for smaller airports or a different way to include something visual in airport articles or whatever else that could work. I think having a visual scope of destinations for smaller airports so for people who like pictures or visual examples can become more engaged with the article. I think having a visual example would be better than only having text. I'm not saying get rid of the table, i'm just suggesting we should include something visual for viewers to see when it comes to scoping out destinations. So I was wondering if we could find an alternative solution for the destination maps? - Oatmealman10
I am requesting explanation from @Blissfield101: why he has taken it on himself to remove the maps from every airport article he comes across. He has removed the maps, both wikipedia destination maps and maps from other sources, from 21 different airport sections in the last few months. He cites WP:ACCESSIBILITY and says there needs to be a consensus here to have maps. Nothing in WP:ACCESSIBILITY says because something is not accessible it must be removed. This one man war is resulting in removal of huge amounts of content. Instaurare (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason why they need to be included? The maps require constant attention in changing destinations when they are introduced or terminated. Ajf773 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
As has been discussed before maps duplicate the tables so we should get rid of them. We certainly dont need a table and a map in the same article and the table is a lot more accessable to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why these violate WP:ACCESSIBILITY? They don't seem any different to other sorts of maps we have all over the site. Furthermore, there's currently no consensus on whether we should have these maps (and I think it's kind of a grey area) which typically defaults to "acceptable." There are definitely arguments against (just as there are arguments for) but I'm not sure either of them are satisfied here, and we may need an RfC. SportingFlyerT·C10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that WP:ACCESSIBILITY seems little applicable; otoh @MilborneOne has quite a point. There is indeed no consensus on this matter, pending that I should think that nobody should add maps to airport articles, but they should not be systematically removed either. Most of all: what can be done to come to the missing consensus? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I cite WP:ACCESSIBILITY because the dots on the map are colored and the policy says the following: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. Additionally, when a said airport has a ton of destinations, there can be a lot of overlap between different areas making them difficult to read.
Furthermore, as stated, the maps are quite redundant to the Airline and Destination tables and I have found the maps are not updated nearly as frequently. We need to keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING when deciding what information goes in these airport articles. I am finding more often than not airport articles are excessively detailed and redundant and that needs to change. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Except color ISN'T "only method used to convey important information"! The year-round/seasonal/cargo destination are provided in the table so blind users DO receive this information! Not to mention the one removed from Chattanooga did not use color-coded dots so you removal claim in this edit summary does not apply. Simply illustrating textual information with a map or image is providing an alternate method of understanding the content and visualizing distance without readers needing to know where every city is. Should we not have a map in the infobox either since everyone can instinctively place the coordinates? Some of your other clean-up is valid, but this is not a violation of NotEverything.
You also don't seem to understand the concept of the WP:LEAD section: your edit summary "We already state that information in the body of the article, no need to list it in the opening" doesn't grasp that the opening is SUPPOSED to state information also in the body. The previous lead summarized the content of the rest of the article well and should not have been removed. Please stop. Reywas92Talk19:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll give you the lead thing, that is a fair point (even though I do think the Pittsburgh Airport article could be summarized a bit better), but in the case of the maps, in that instance, it IS the only method used to convey important information, because it is a separate thing from the Airline and destination table. Furthermore, last I checked, the Chattanooga article still had red dots. Until consensus is reached to include them, please stop re-adding them. Blissfield101 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
But the color red does not convey information, it's a generic marker there. There is no information in the map a blind person cannot obtain from the table. Must the map in List of power stations in California be removed? No, because even though the colored dots and locations are not clear to someone who cannot see, all information is still conveyed in the tables! It simply provides a visual cue summarizing the tabled content. Reywas92Talk20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does convey information, it shows where the cities are! You yourself admitted in the above discussion #18 last year the colors violate WP:ACCESSIBILITY ("the red and green markers are not accessible"). There is no consensus to include them, most seem to be in favor of them not being there. I won't revert the articles you reverted anymore today due to 3RR, but it is YOU who needs to get consensus to include them. Oh, and the opening paragraphs to the Chattanooga airport article you keep reverting violates WP:V as most of it is uncited. Blissfield101 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I take that back then, it's nonsense – blind people unfortunately can't read any map of this sort, but all content is still provided in an accessible manner. What about the infobox map of 2016 United States presidential election? It uses colors to show information and location! No, blind people can't read it but they are not missing out on information described in words elsewhere. The idea that widely-used location maps are wholly inaccessible and must be removed is silly and you should take it up at WT:ACCESS then. I have added citations to that article. Reywas92Talk21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
As a colourblind individual, I can definitely say the colour of the dots representing the cities shouldn't be an issue as long as the points are coloured properly: [1]SportingFlyerT·C02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I might add I would not be opposed to re-adding the maps if we could figure out a way to do it in a different format (i.e, not color coded and cluttered). Blissfield101 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Given the extreme volatility in changes we're seeing with airline schedules, travel bans, and border closings over the course of this outbreak, I think it'd be good to discuss how changes to airport pages are made regarding the Airlines and Destinations tables.
1. Should changes be made at all right now, given how quickly the situation is evolving and the resulting delay for "final" long-term changes to be made or become apparent?
2. If the answer to the above question is YES, how should changes be listed, given the uncertain timeframe for travel bans and border closings to end? How should they be sourced? Given the volume of changes, it's likely there may not be good sources for each and every suspension and resumption of service.
No, we should assume all suspensions will be resumed as soon as possible without expending efforts on such volatility. These are still intended routes and per NOTTRAVEL readers should not be using Wikipedia as a resource about precise scheduling; these still provide approved routes with reserved gate space or whatever. The only changes people should be bothering to update are those announced to be permanent. Reywas92Talk23:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The rule of thumb should be, if a route is temporarily suspended then leave destination on the list, if it's indefinitely suspended, remove it until further notice. We should not included dates for the duration of the suspension. Ajf773 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Part of the problem right now is we don't know how long these suspensions will last. If there is a resumption date, it is likely extremely tentative and subject to change. I'm not sure that we can tell the difference between temporary vs. indefinite suspensions at this point. --Resplendent (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be writing after some time has passed, but I feel concerned about the "(supended)" notes on some destination lists. When this is all over and the suspensions are lifted, would all such notes be properly removed? I personally doubt that because of the sheer amount and would like to suggest making the notes state the reason so that even if it gets left untouched, it would be easier to tell apart from semi-permanent suspensions or to know that its outdated. Something like "(suspended[C])" with a note at the end of the list to indicate "[C]" means "due to COVID-19" perhaps? --YTRK (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As wikipedia is not a travel guide I am not sure that mentioning temporary suspensions is actually noteworthy or really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I had feared it might be too radical, but if that's the case I'm for not mentioning the suspensions. A note saying coronavirus-related suspensions are excluded might be useful to avoid confusion and unnecessary edits though. --YTRK (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that such temporary information should not be included - the tendency for these tables to become overly complex and directory like is a trend that does not help Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. I honestly wonder if we need to seriously restrict the scope of inclusion into these further than is currently consensus to include. The inclusion of the begin and end dates are extremely questionable in my view - nowhere else in Wikipedia I know of would such detail be tolerated. It is my view that the only reason this has been tolerated so far here is that it aids the referencing and the control of adding and deleting entries. Informally I think proposing a solution where a route is simply listed if it meets a minimum criteria of flying (say 3 months or more) and can be referenced as flying within the next 12 months. Nothing else matters, no charter, no seasonal, no suspensions, no anything else.
The basis of my thinking is that Wikipedia is not a directory - if you add something to Wikipedia that you know will need deleting at a future date, then this is directory type information and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Something should be done then to prevent a rush of edit-wars on the various airport pages. A note added to the table template seems to be appropriate in order to spread the word. --Resplendent (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
FBO and club promotion
In articles about small GA airfields, I've recently encountered some blatant promotion of fixed base operators and flying clubs. In Page Content under Body/Other, I propose to add a sentence stating that lists of services and/or rental aircraft offered by FBOs and flying clubs generally violate WP:PROMOTION and should not be included unless they are sufficiently unique to meet general notability guidelines in some respect. (Actually, that last part sounds pretty good as written.) Thoughts, comments? Carguychris (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Probably a (mostly) US phenomenon? I seem to understand small fields in the US often have only a single FBO, or two; in which case naming them can be relevant. Hard to keep up, though, this kind of information. Jan olieslagers (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Example: Harford County Airport. I tagged it yesterday because it's probably the most egregious example I've seen. I actually agree that listing the names of FBOs, flight schools, and flying clubs is appropriate at smaller fields; however, I take issue with listing services and particularly web addresses within the article text. This strikes me as blatantly promotional. Carguychris (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
grgwzzzrqzzll (sound of stomach revolving :) ) - Blatant is too small a word for such an abomination - OUT with that! Thanks for taking care! Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Bradley International Airport (BDL) Enplaned Passenger Statistics 2019
Why is Miami listed as a destination for TUI fly Netherlands? I thought one can’t fly from Orlando to Miami on a foreign airline. Is it because the airport is owned by a foreign company and the airline has gained eighth freedom rights on that route? Need some clarification. Thanks! 172.223.6.230 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: We don't need a definition. We do not define things. We reflect only what is written in reliable secondary sources. If there are no such secondary sources such detail is almost certainly not encyclopaedic and should not be included in Wikipedia.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Mohamed omar hamud dalmaax made several edits on 17 April 2020, changing the name from Haaji-Duqow Ahmed Fiidow Airport to Haaji-shiekh hamud hasan Airport. Can anyone advise whether these edits be reverted? (I know very little about airports.) TSventon (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Historical passenger traffic table and Mainline/regional consolidation
Two things.
1. We need to consider removing the historical passenger traffic table in the airport statistics section. As they stand right now, the tables come very close to violating policies such as WP:RAWDATA and WP:NOTSTATBOOK. Furthermore, some tables outright fail WP:V as some or all of it is not properly cited or the links are broken and one cannot find info backing up the earliest years. Why must we have a table that indefinitely lists every year of passenger traffic data when we already list the most recent year at the bottom of the airport infobox with a link to a page where they can see the historical data themselves?
2. I hate to sound like a broken record, but we need to seriously reconsider consolidating the mainline/regional sections in the airline and destination table. I know I attempted this previously and was shot down, but the time has come to reconsider. There are a ton of errors in the tables with flights/routes constantly switching back and forth between mainline and regional, and this COVID-19 crisis has only exaggerated the issue. It is difficult to properly cite changes as well as there is often not a source for when a route goes from regional to mainline and vice-versa, so one cannot put an inline citation for a start date. We consolidate it for some airlines (such as KLM, Air France, British Airways, etc), why can't we do it for all of them? Putting aside airline terminology, from a purely encyclopedic standpoint, why must we keep the two separated?Blissfield101 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps consolidating the passenger numbers tables to give a "snapshot" of every 10 years would still be representative of the change in numbers over time without treading into statistics/raw data territory? --Resplendent (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Even though I don't think it is necessary to list it at all, this is definitely something I could get behind. Putting a 10 year maximum limit and then once the latest previous year is updated, you remove the oldest year to keep it 10 at a time. It's getting out of control on some pages where we have some listings dating back years. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I may not have been very clear. I meant listing every 10 years as in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, etc. rather than 10 consecutive years' worth of numbers. --Resplendent (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I see what you are saying and I could get behind that as well if we only list 10 at a time. The only problem with that is it can be difficult to find reliable sources (per WP:V) for the earliest years. My point is if the tables must remain, they need to be done differently. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree that they can't continue to endlessly expand. As you pointed out, accurate numbers for years prior to the 1980s/1990s are hard to come by, so a hybrid table that lists previous "decade snapshot" numbers up until the current 5 or 10 years might be an acceptable compromise. This way we'd have something similar to this example for PDX:
That is lightyears better than the current setup, but the wording in the guidelines would need to be changed to ensure people not abuse the table and start adding more than necessary. Nevertheless, I still struggle to see the need for the tables when we already list the previous years passenger numbers in the infobox with a link to the airport statistics webpage. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain why WARJ is a redirect to an airport when its actual ICAO code is WAHH?
We're going to need this article page title for a radio station (the call sign has been reserved for a US station being sold) and I want to know if I need to incorporate a hatnote for the airport. Raymie (t • c) 18:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Tucson International Airport Accidents and Incidents Deletion
Don't airport articles' lists of destinations typically only include direct destinations? If they included indirect destinations, wouldn't the lists be unmanageably large due to route networks?
This is an edge case. Indirect destinations should not be included in airport destination articles, but I think this is the exception to that rule: it's a tag flight. Tag flights used to be very popular 40-50 years ago, and only a few remain now, but secondary sources specifically discuss the route. However, it's a moot point as it doesn't look like it's currently being flown: [5]SportingFlyerT·C11:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer and Andrewgprout: Ah I see, thanks to both of you for the explanation! So this would mean that, for example, if there was no nonstop from SIN to EWR (which is at least temporarily the case) but the current SIN to FRA to EWR route run by Singapore Airlines still exists, then Newark would still be listed as a destination at the Singapore Airport article and vice versa? I.e. the SIN–FRA–EWR route is one of the prominent examples of this.Since LATAM Chile is not currently running the route from Faa'a International Airport to Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport, should this be removed from the destination list? — MarkH21talk16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
If the route was discussed as a "direct" route in secondary sources, then yes, we could add it in. The LATAM route should be removed. SportingFlyerT·C17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Well Andrewgprout seems to disagree with removing routes that were discontinued since the pandemic started, in this revert. There's no indication that the discontinuation in June was temporary; doesn’t it only make sense to keep discontinued routes if they're temporary suspensions? — MarkH21talk21:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Likewise there is no real indication that they will not resume after the borders open and people start flying again this is mostly implied by the article linked to above by saying "The airline is suspending these routes until 2021" Best just to leave it in as the article linked to above says it exists, it is just currently suspended like 95% of the other international flights in the Pacific. All this really goes further to prove that listing such tables in this sort of detail does very little to make the encyclopadea encyclopaedic. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to only be saying that with regards to the Argentina routes:
the Santiago-headquartered carrier has made the bold move to suspend international destinations from five Argentinean destinations to the carrier’s hubs in Santiago, Lima and Sao Paulo until 2021.
LATAM is also making a significant scale back on international routes from Argentina [...] The airline is suspending these routes until 2021 and in the meantime will only operate flights from Buenos Aires to the carrier’s hubs in Santiago, Lima and Sao Paulo.
The Papeete mention uses different terminology:
LATAM will no longer fly from the northern city of Iquique to La Paz and from Easter Island to Papeete, a route which originated in Santiago using a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Instead, the airline will discontinue the South Pacific crossing from Easter Island.
If airlines are discontinuing flights from one airport, that's no longer a destination.But you're right in that this is a broader issue. It's surprising to me if it's indeed the case that none of the 2020 route cancellations, including the ones that are reported as discontinuations, cancellations, indefinite, etc. rather than just suspensions or explicitly temporary, are being reflected in any airport articles. Are article really going to be left at their late-2019/early-2020 states indefinitely? Perhaps a broader consensus is needed on this broader issue? — MarkH21talk00:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Air India “Air Bubble” flights between UK and India
It should be published, but the user LeoFrankfurt have removed India Bangladesh Airlines bubble flights from DAC airport. People have the right to know which flights are operating during the pandemic. It is utterly shameful as veteran Wikipedians are so conservative and rigid these days not budging a bit if even there is tonsome of references to back the information. AaronAdamKhan007 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that we are not publishing a travelling guide. There are other sites for that kind of information. Here, we are creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. While we wish to only publish certified verified referenced information, it is neither our intention nor our call to publish the complete details of whatever matter is in scope. If you must consider that as "rigid" or "conservative, I am sorry for you; for me it is rather like "know your limits", "stick to your mission directives" and also a bit of pragmatism. Best! Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Berlin Schönefeld Airport has several items marked with strike-outs. I don't believe this is how we do things. The lead states that the airport was closed. Isn't that sufficient for a defunct airport. We don't strike out text in these cases. Shouldn't all the strikeouts be reverted and left to stand as what the info WAS. MB23:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Status of services after suspensions
Hello there.
I have come to ask if there is any policy regarding how to deal with flights restarting after being suspended. I see this was touched on above.
I have a particular interest in Cuba, where scheduled flights were halted in March and are now beginning to start again. In a couple of cases, I have noted where a service has begun, in order to distiguish from the other services which are still suspended, and have those notes removed by others on the basis that the change has already happened..
At the other extreme, an editor has removed entirely mention of one Canadian airline on the basis that those detinations are not included in the small number that they are currently serving.
I would have thought it useful to have some indication as to which services are suspended and which are operating.
In lists such as List of airports in Delaware, there is a column for "Enpl.", defined as "The number of enplanements (commercial passenger boardings) that occurred at the airport in calendar year 2016, as per FAA records released October 2017."
However, Wilmington Airport (Delaware) (ILG) is shown as having 30,355 commercial passenger boardings in 2016 -- a year when the airport didn't have any airlines providing commercial service to it. (Frontier Airlines left in 2015, and no other airlines have served ILG since then, until Frontier is scheduled to return in 2021.) Other airports in the state which also didn't have commercial service are listed with smaller numbers of enplanements in 2016.
I suspect that the problem is that I'm misunderstanding what it means to have a "commercial passenger boarding" that counts as an enplanement. Can someone explain it better? --Metropolitan90(talk)20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Where did you get your data? This file from the FAA indicates 1,043 emplanements in CY 2016 and 12,574 emplanements in 2015, which is about what I would expect from a GA airport that lost (limited) airline service in 2015 but still had a few charter flights and so forth in 2016. Carguychris (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't look up the underlying data before. I'm just quoting what is already listed on List of airports in Delaware. It appears that the 463 enplanements for Dover AFB (DOV) and 21 for Delaware Coastal (GED) are consistent with FAA data, but the 12 for Summit (EVY) is wrong (should be 5) and the 30,355 is way off for ILG. But does this mean that passengers on charter flights count as enplanements? --Metropolitan90(talk)02:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Berlin Brandenburg Airport
Since Tegel Airport closed on 8 November 2020, should we list the destination in the table as just simply Berlin or as Berlin-Brandenburg? Note that Berlin Brandenburg Airport is the only airport in Berlin now. Thanks! Rzxz0839 (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Vocubulary is a delicate matter, in an encyclopedia. While it may be said that "Brandenburg" is the only remaining airport "in" Berlin, it is certainly not the only airport "serving" Berlin - refer to Schönhagen Airport for one example. It offers to the Bundeshauptstadt the same (level of) service as Egelsbach offers to Frankfurt, Biggin Hill to London, &c. One may argue these fields don't qualify as airports, but that is really a matter of definitions - what constitutes an "airport"? And what does it matter whether an airport is "in" the city it mainly serves? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Revisiting the mainline/regional consolidation situation
It's time to revisit the issue of consolidating mainline/regionals in the airline and destination tables (for those that carry the same brand). The COVID-19 situation has made maintaining the Airline and Destination tables more difficult than ever, and there is a ton of inaccurate information regarding destinations served by mainline and regional. For some carriers, we already consolidate this information (i.e, British Airways, Alaska Airlines, KLM, Air France, Lufthansa, etc), why can't we do this for others and simplify things? From an encyclopedic standpoint, why must we continue to separate them? Blissfield101 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Ministro Pistarini International Airport name change
Wikipedia's article for the major Buenos Aires (Argentina) airport is named with its official denomination. Although the name is technically correct, it's completely out of use, not just by passengers and public in general, but by the authorities and the company running it. Instead, the term Ezeiza International Airport is widely used. In fact, the entry to the aerodrome is crowned by a big sign reading Aeropuerto Internacional Ezeiza over toll booths. Also, services information and flight schedules are under the name of Ezeiza on the official webpage (https://www.aa2000.com.ar/ezeiza?qa=EZE). Wouldn't it be more useful to change the name to 'Ezeiza International Airport, as established in WP:COMMONNAME? This was discussed in the article's talk, but we're bringing the topic here for a third opinion. Aflyingeditor (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If I may be allowed to air my general and very personal opinion: I am aware of the WP:COMMONNAME guideline, but find it awkward to use on aviation terrains. Where available, it seems obvious to me to use the official name from official documents, such as the AIP. About this particular case I have nothing to say, being unacquainted with the local situation. What perhaps about Buenos Aires Ezeiza Airport? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In the AIP (which is in Spanish only, by the way) the airport is mentioned as Ezeiza Ministro Pistarini. Despite this, the terms Aeropuerto de Ezeiza (Ezeiza Airport) and Aeropuerto Internacional Ezeiza (Ezeiza International Airport) are used in various fields of the document. It's also important to mention that the ATC callsigns for tower and approach controllers are Ezeiza Tower and Ezeiza Approach, respectively. Aflyingeditor (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
I'm wondering why airport pages have a list of current destinations but not historical ones. Historical ones seem just as encyclopedic if not more so. Instaurare (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
They should include historical destinations but reliable referencing can be a problem and the need for some to turn them into a travel guide. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
!@#$%^&*(!! Who do you think you are to tell us what we should do?? Nothing keeps you from doing so yourself, instead of ordering people about. A bit of conversation on the article's talk page would be a good preparation, though. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Destination maps
I recently clashed with an editor about adding destination maps to airport articles. I fail to see the use of them and take them as mere decoration. Is there a prior discussion about this subject, and possibly a decision? The Bannertalk14:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Limited utility, hard to keep updated, and for most larger airports, cluttered to the point of illegibility, particularly on mobile devices. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, leave them off. Carguychris (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
While I don't normally see the absolute need for both map and table - I think a well constructed map probably conveys the encyclopaedic need to describe the sphere of influence of an airport better than the current tables which are to be honest are highly questionable content for an encyclopaedia, straying way way too far into directory territory for my liking anyway. That being said the typical map being offered on most airport sites do not fulfil my criteria of being a well constructed map. I don't have a currency issue as even if the map is even mostly up-to-date it will still convey the encyclopaedic need.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2021 (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.
There are two major issues on airport articles that need to be addressed.
1. We need to revisit the issue of consolidating the mainline/regional carriers (i.e, American Airlines/American Eagle) under the marketing carrier (i.e, just American Airlines) in the airline and destinations table. This has been discussed before and was last done around 2 years ago. The consensus at the time was to leave it separated, but the problem is, there were really no valid arguments made from a purely encyclopedic standpoint as to why they need to be separated. It also did not address the inconsistency as to why we allow it for some carriers (such as KLM/KLM Cityhopper, Air France/HOP, etc), but not for others (i.e, American Airlines/American Eagle, Delta Air Lines/Delta Connection, etc). The COVID-19 situation has drastically exasperated the ongoing problems with maintaining the tables, and there is so much error as to which destination is mainline and which destination is regional. At the end of the day, it is still American/Delta/United regardless of whether it is mainline or regional. When the average Joe flies, they aren't going to care whether or not it is American Airlines or American Eagle, they just know it is American. American still does the background work for the flight, they just contract out the actual flying, but they still consider it an AMERICAN destination. Why must from a purely encyclopedic standpoint they continue to be separated? This is getting extremely frustrating to deal with.
2. The annual traffic tables on airport pages have gotten too long in a lot of cases, and come really close to, if not outright, violating WP:RAWDATA. We already list the previous years annual traffic in the infobox, with a link where they can (presumably) see historical data. We need to either remove the tables or figure out a way to condense the information (as long as it is properly cited) so it doesn't go off the page.
1. I think it would be reasonable to combine them, especially because there is often some duplication between them and that doesn't really help readers. 2. I think the {{Airport-Statistics}} chart is nice and we don't need it in tabular form too when this chart and a general source are present. 3. You need to stop removing massive portions of articles and just calling it "consolidation". This is largely sourced, and cites could be found for what isn't, rather than summarily removed. I agree that some articles can become bloated with e.g. news items of new routes and other minor events, but these edits go well beyond trimming wordiness and rather you are imposing your own opinion that every airport article must be identically formatted, without certain information about runways, terminals/concourses, transportation, statistics, maps, etc. Reywas92Talk04:26, 28 March 2021 (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.
With the pandemic, air service is much different. There is some value in having a pre-pandemic chart, at least for 2021 and 2022. For example, I just read about Chennai International Airport. It used to have many airlines, like British Airways, Lufthansa, Emirates, Singapore, ANA, etc. Now it looks like a medium sized domestic only airport. Such pre-pandemic chart would have encyclopedic value and is information I would like to know. Inkfo (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You can look at an article’s history to look at flights for any date you like. Airports grow or shrink over time for various reasons and your proposal to have largely duplicative content isn’t workable. Reywas92Talk20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Article issues
List of B-class articles with citation or other issues
The Airline and Destinations tables need to be either A) changed to consolidate mainline and regional carriers together or B) removed entirely and replaced with properly formatted maps (domestic and international) of destinations an airport serves. The mainline/regional issue has been discussed before and was last done around 2 years ago. The consensus at the time was to leave it separated, but the problem is, there were really no valid arguments made from a purely encyclopedic standpoint as to why they need to be separated. It also did not address the inconsistency as to why we allow it for some carriers (such as KLM/KLM Cityhopper, Air France/HOP, etc), but not for others (i.e, American Airlines/American Eagle, Delta Air Lines/Delta Connection, etc). The COVID-19 situation has drastically exasperated the ongoing problems with maintaining the tables, and there is so much error as to which destination is mainline and which destination is regional. However, changing the tables may draw the ire of certain users. Therefore, as the tables come pretty close to violating WP:NOTTRAVEL as it is and most of the destinations do not meet the WP:V test, perhaps we should consider removing the tables entirely and replacing them with the color coded destination maps we used to have (and still exist on some pages), but reformatted to make it more readable and accessible.
UPDATE (04/11/2021): I have removed the second request regarding the annual traffic tables as it does not appear to be as big of an issue as previously though. Please keep the discussion going on mainline/regional though.
Discussion
Oppose both The first violates WP:V, which means we'd be using our own judgement instead of what reliable sources say - this was brought up in the last RfC with Air Canada and their subsidiary, considering sources clearly noted their subsidiary was starting flights to a specific destination, not Air Canada. To say otherwise would be a lie. The second are encyclopaedic and may need to be cleaned up a bit, but I haven't seen an airport yet with a table I'd consider unwieldy, so I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. We should also probably courtesy ping the participants from the last RfC. SportingFlyerT·C21:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The tables as they exist today mostly violate WP:V as there are no sources for a lot of the destinations listed, particularly for airports outside of the US. Also, with rare exceptions, you are still booking through the mainline carriers website even if the contracted flying is done via the regionals. And again, a lot of the mainline/regional flying is inaccurate as it is impossible to keep up with the switches, hence why I proposed the removal of the tables entirely and replacing them with a map, which seemed to gain some support in the past. As to the second issue, I've cleaned up some and removed some tables that had more than 3 columns worth of years, but there is no consensus as to how many years to list. Plus, the graphic being added is much better. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The point of the destination tables isn't to guide people on where to make bookings, it's to inform what routes are flown from the airport. There's general agreement maps can get cluttered easily and are hard to read on mobile, and may be an accessibility issue. Four column year tables aren't really a problem either, and including too much information isn't a reason for removal. We don't want articles to be all statistics, but clearly formatted statistics are generally welcome in articles. SportingFlyerT·C23:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose against the statistics table removing. Useful, simple and encyclopedic. Too long tables could be "collapsed" if it takes too much on the page/be resumed by decades (1960-1970-1980etc). And tables are always useful to check graphs. I have no opinion about destinations table (very hard to maintain/update, and too many reverts so I'm not saying anything about destinations).--Bouzinac (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose consolidating mainline and regional carriers -- they are operated by different companies and are separated by reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk01:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: they violate WP:V in their current form. One (the average user) cannot easily verify the information whether any route is flown, much less on mainline or regional. Plus, the flying may be contracted out, but it still carries the mainline carrier code and reservations are handled by the mainline carrier. Also, often times regional routes are even announced as if they are the mainline carriers routes (see American Airlines’s recent Austin expansion announcement for an example). They mainline/regional difference is getting too difficult to keep up with, they do not need to be separated, especially when we don’t do it for Alaska Airlines and European carriers. Blissfield101 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought airline destination tables were sourced - you just didn't have to source every route unless it was a future route, thereby satisfying WP:V. Has that changed? SportingFlyerT·C12:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean - WP:BURDEN is clear about what you must do. You cannot decide just to ignore this because it is difficult or impossible to do. Everything literally everything must be able to be verified. And verified without synthesis, mainline/non-mainline route detail is often supported only by synthesis.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, been busy. This right here is a great answer. It has been difficult to get consensus on anything related to WP:V regarding the tables. Moving everything together would somewhat fix the problem, although it still wouldn't be ideal as far as WP:BURDEN goes. Andrewgprout really put it best when he said airport articles are often the "Wild West" of Wikipedia because there is little to no consensus on how to format them. Blissfield101 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The destination tables are required to be sourced. Are you claiming these tables are no longer sourced, and that the sources don't show mainline versus regional anymore? SportingFlyerT·C16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
In essence, yes. A fair amount of airports (outside of the US in particular) aren't even fully sourced. They have a bunch of random inline citations for more recent routes, but others are uncited. The ones that have that consolidated reference on the side are not always reliable in showing whether a route is mainline or regional (or even if they fly to the destination at all). Honestly, I fail to see how having the Airline & Destination table isn't a travel guide compared to a simple (properly formatted) map of destinations. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
nearly always consolidate It is often equally true that a flight is technically run by a subsidiary and run for the brand as a whole. Both are true and can be backed up equally by references although they often arn't in my experience. The real question here is who you are helping presenting the complex detail of how airlines artificially structure their fleet. In my opinion absolutely nobody, plus you are adding unecessary complexity of understanding, not to mention the interminable maintenance burden.
As an aside the encyclopaedicness of these tables in total is in reality questionable in fulfilling the need to properly describe in a tertiary way the sphere of infuence an airport has.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Request for clear examples: This RfC appears to have been written for only the regulars of this page, but that is not what WP:RFCs are for; they draw in editors from the entire project, to provide broad in put and sure not just a "local" consensus level. But this is basically a bunch of insider gibberish to anyone not already steeped in the debates at this page. We need clear examples of both types of table in actual articles, and maybe a demo of the type of table as it would be changed if the first of these proposals is successful. PS: It's not a good idea to commingle two unrelated proposals in the same RfC.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here with your first sentence, but here is a prototype of what they'd look like if they were consolidated. From Nashville International Airport.
As you can see, we are simply listing the mainline carriers instead of separating into mainline/regional (i.e, American Airlines and American Eagle). We already do this with European carriers, not sure why it has to be different for US carriers. Blissfield101 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
My 2 cents : for very long enumerations of airports for one airline, I'd suggest to present in a more readable way such as following
Strong support for consolidating mainline and regional carriers -- In many airports, you end up with duplicate information. For example, take the Seattle and Portland route: Delta offers both mainline and "Delta Connection" regional service operated by SkyWest. We list that service twice: once under Delta Air Lines and again under Delta Connection. Ultimately passengers can't book with SkyWest or Delta Connection... they book with Delta who sells the mainline and regional flights side-by-side. Meanwhile, Alaska offers both mainline and "AlaskaHorizon" regional service operated by Horizon Air. We list that service once under Alaska Airlines. I don't get what the benefit to our audience is. We don't do this on European carriers, we don't do this for Alaska Airlines. I know one of the arguments is, 'Well, the regional airlines fly different planes.' That's a really squishy argument... personally, I like the Embraer 175 better than the Airbus A320/Boeing 737... but if that's the case, why don't we point out when some carriers fly a 777 on a route at sometimes, and say a 737 at other times? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no benefit for our audience, and there is no reason to do it from a purely encyclopedic standpoint. Only the airline enthusiasts care. And it is indeed super inconsistent we do it for European carriers and not for US carriers. Blissfield101 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it proper to ping the participants of the last RfC even though it was basically a snow oppose? It was firmly enough against this that I don't want to be seen as canvassing, but I also don't know how many of those users are active. SportingFlyerT·C22:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I would rather hear from editors who aren't involved in this project or that last RfC to get a more neutral point-of-view. We basically have two camps internally in this project that can't come to a solid consensus. --RickyCourtney (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
^^^^^ This. We need outside perspectives. I have a sneaking suspicion some of those users in the last RFC were airliners.net/flyertalk members that don’t understand Wikipedia policy and just want them separated because it’s useful. Again, no serious rationales have been given as to why we separate US carriers, but combine European carriers. Blissfield101 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, if outside perspectives are wanted I may perhaps have a go, as a (continental) European, and mostly a recreational pilot, only marginally interested in commercial air transport. I find the whole discussion moot, if not ridiculous. You could as well separate services into "jet-operated" versus "prop-operated" - equally useless and equally non-encyclopedical. Moreover, it seems to be (once again) a US-only discussion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The "serious rationale," again, is that we go by what sources say, not by what we decide should be correct. If sources say a flight is operated by a regional airline, then that's what it should say. For instance, it's incorrect to say an airport had or has Qantas service when the sources clearly state they receive QantasLink service. (I also find this a bit ridiculous.) SportingFlyerT·C19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
But at the end of the day, the flight is booked through Qantas, the customer checks in through Qantas, the flight has a Qantas flight code and the route is considered a Qantas destination. This is not a place for super technical detail; if we are going to get super technical, we'd go back to the method of listing each regional carrier separately. What are we suppose to do when a particular route goes back and forth between mainline and regional several weeks in a row or every other month? I guarantee you the megahub threads have a ton of inaccurate information regarding mainline/regional routes, especially with the COVID situation messing up schedules. I'll ask again, why can we do this for British Airways, Air France, KLM, etc, but not for other carriers?. I'll say it again, it does not matter if it is contracted out to a regional carrier, it is considered the parent airline's destination. When putting out PR releases, the airline/airport almost always says it is operated as a said airline's route. Blissfield101 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose consolidation, keep regionals separate. Combining it is dumbing down and eliminates information. Separate is better. Inkfo (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose consolidating I think keeping them separate is better, just for the information. However, I think we also need some consistency, unlike now where we have most US airlines separated but most EU airlines consolidated. VenFlyer98 (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've found this template to be difficult to use in the Visual Editor. Personally, I would rather a non-template table is used, this would be easier to add sources to it. I regularly see editors reverted because they did not add sources to airline destination lists, but it is rather tricky to do this in the Visual Editor so I feel if we do want a source for every destination, this template should be removed and replaced with a normal table as that will make it easier to edit for new users and people like me who prefer the Visual Editor. Thoughts? Thanks for your consideration. NemesisAT (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Recently, an IP editor has added some routes onto airport webpages. These routes are not operated by an airline, but rather a company called Landline which operates busses. These busses operate airline flight numbers to allow passengers to reach destinations the airline does not fly with their own aircraft. However, it is not operated by the airline themselves and as mentioned it is on a bus, not an aircraft. Is this acceptable to allow in the airline and destinations table? I wouldn’t think so as to keep it to aircraft, but I’m not entirely sure. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
"Map of Air Routes and Landing Places in Great Britain, as temporarily arranged by the Air Ministry for civilian flying", published in 1919.
Looking at the above map, from Aerial Travel for Business or Pleasure, published by Thos. Cook & Son in 1919, and captioned as shown, we appear to have no article (nor redirects) for the airfields at:
Is it unreasonable to ask for independent sourcing for passenger routes? Most of the information about these is ór completely unsourced ór sourced by the airport from where it departs ór by the operating airline.
People keep removing source request or request for better sources, claiming that is that what WP:RS demands. What sounds rather strange. For an example of what is happening: [Dublin Airport].
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Annual passenger traffic at ALA airport.
See Wikidata query.
This graph is generated by the template {{Airport-Statistics|iata=ALA}}. However, it appears that around 2012, the trend line doubles back on itself. This should be impossible for a graph which is a mathematical function of time. For each year, there should be only one number of passengers, not two different numbers. --Metropolitan90(talk)15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes ?
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Annual passenger traffic at ALA airport.
See Wikidata query.
Since there has been a clear change of Airport administration in the city of Ndola as of August 2021, I need to know if my page, Copperbelt International Airport, should remain as it is or if it should be merged with the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport page. Sources indicate that the name ""Copperbelt International Airport"" is no-longer in use and this new airport has been renamed to ""Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport"". Sources also say that the Old Location of the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport has been renamed "Peter Zuze Airforce Base".
Also, at the bottom of Airport articles for Zambia, Ndola is listed as having 2 airports instead of having just one!
They are different airports around 20km apart. I see no reason to merge. There may need to be some renaming, and a dab page, etc. You can propose renaming both to the new names by starting a move discussion. MB15:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Today, there is no airport in Zambia known by the name "Copperbelt International Airport", as that name only applied to that airport while it was under construction. I suggest the article be deleted.
The Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport is now the name of the new airport in Ndola, meaning that that landspace is no-longer known as the "Copperbelt International Airport". The old location of the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" is now known as the "Peter Zuze Airforce Base".
What that means is that the city of Ndola remains having only one commercial airport and that Ndola retains the name it has been using since 2011 to refer to its International Airport. Even Wikipedia Viewers should see that Ndola only has one commercial airport while the other location is an airforce base. Wikipedia Viewers should not get the impression that the "Copperbelt International Airport" and the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" are two separate airports; they should not get the impression that Ndola has two airports!
So, in summary, the name "Copperbelt International Airport" does not exist anymore and the name "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" is the name of the new Ndola Airport. The old location of Ndola's airport is now the "Peter Zuze Airforce Base", no-longer a commercial airport. It is safe to say that the "Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport" has simply moved addresses.
Hi all. I was wondering what was decided upon in regards to adding resumption dates in the airline and destination tables for routes resuming due to COVID-19. I saw an older discussion where it seemed the general consensus was to not include “suspended” for routes that were cut due to Covid. However, I was wondering what the rule is for one of these routes coming back. If the airline already flew the route prior to the pandemic, is adding resumed necessary? In the old discussion I noticed it seemed to be decided not to add resume dates as per NOTTRAVEL and users not using Wikipedia to find precise dates for these resumptions and scheduling. I bring this up as I noticed recently that the page for LaGuardia Airport is filled with unsourced resumption dates from an editor. I’ve noticed that the editor changes the dates every once and a while as the resumption dates keep getting pushed back. Nearly all the resumption dates on the LGA page are routes that were suspended due to Covid. Should these be removed? They are not sourced and as these dates can change a lot regarding the current situation of the pandemic, I was wondering if they should be kept. I’m fairly new at this so just want to make sure I don’t do anything wrong if I were to remove them. VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
When is a flight a resumption and when is it a new service?
Many airlines are resuming routes they operated a couple of years ago or even in the 1990s. When should a destination be marked as a service resumption (ie resumes xxx) and when should it be marked as a new service (ie begins xxx)? --90.248.188.123 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It is a resumption only if the companion source says so. Otherwise it should be marked as a new service, even when the destination was served in the past. Please bear in mind WP:V.--JetstreamerTalk16:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologizes for bringing this topic back up after awhile with no reply. Recently, the same editor I mentioned in my original post has begun adding sources to resumption dates on LaGuardia Airport. However, a bunch of these “sources” are links to the individual airline’s bookings and Google Flights. I don’t believe so, but are these acceptable? Sources like these really make the page feel like a travel guide which obviously is a no-go for WP:NOTTRAVEL. Tried looking around for a solid answer, but just want to make sure if these should be removed since they aren’t exactly quality sources. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC))
@WilliamJE: that deletion discussion was 11 years ago. Maybe consensus has changed over the years, maybe it hasn't (I've not looked at the current CfD yet). Might be better to allow the discussion to play out, and SALT if deleted again. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The image on the right, from the FAA, says that the gravel road next to the runway is closed to all aircraft. I'm quite certain that small aircraft with fat tires for beach landings do in fact use it. The file is from 2008 and there have been several major projects at the airport since then so this is probably just outdated. However, when I click on the source of the image, it doesn't go anywhere. I'm guessing the people involved in this project might know a better place to look for updated information? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Mass Addition of Leading Zeros to US Runway Numbers
I've come across numerous edits by Uli Elch in which they have added leading zeros to single-digit runway numbers at US airports (see this diff for an example). I believe that this is mistaken, as runways in the US with magnetic headings between 0 and 99 degrees do not have leading zeros painted on them, nor are leading zeros used on official charts (see an example here). The last discussion on the topic that I could find is here, way back in 2006, where consensus seemed to be to omit the zeros. The documentation for {{Infobox airport}} also specifies that "For airports in the United States the leading zero is not used."
In short, I believe that these edits go against established consensus and should be undone, but I wanted to get more input on the subject here. TitanAndromeda01:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason not to have uniformity with the rest of our articles that cover runway numbers; I believe consensus should change to support their use for US runways as well as non-US runways. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to do that then all runway lengths in the US and Canada should change to metres and not feet. I believe we already use both for all runways? BilledMammal (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes but in the US and Canada the lengths are in feet first. We should be consistent and make them metres first even if the sources don't mention metres (although there is one Canadian runway that does have metres first). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I cannot be sure, and am not sufficiently motivated to research the matter to the bottom, but it seems not impossible that this leading zero is one more ICAO requirement that the US disregard; they have quite a strong tradition there. But I think we should report what there is, rather than what should be there. So that if official documents and/or the paint on the runway say 6/24 then the runway is 6/24 and not 06/24. The crunch comes if paint says the one and official documents the other... Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that this is an area where the US explicitly differs from ICAO; see Runway#Naming which states that US policy is specifically not to use leading zeros at civilian airports. I believe this lends further credence to the prior consensus of leaving the zeros out of US airport articles here. TitanAndromeda03:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for confirmation. And yes, we should then remove the leading zeroes for US'an runways. (Omitting sour comment about headstrong US'ans) Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
RFC on splitting "Airlines and Destinations" out from articles
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
With no commentary for 12 days, the discussion has clearly run its course; no consensus has emerged for the proposal, which therefore falls. SN5412915:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should "Airlines and Destinations" lists with more than 10 airlines be split into separate list articles. This RFC is not intended to result in a new guideline or policy, but to get consensus to implement a broad change. 06:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Per billedmammal, I broadly support this. Such lists become very long for certain airports, and can make up huge chunks of the page by size despite not conveying too much information (a map could convey much of it in a much smaller space). They're also a magnet for unsourced additions. CMD (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Regarding suggestions that the list of destinations is what readers go to our articles for, if true this feels problematic. There are the WP:NOTGUIDE issues mentioned already, and as Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source for such lists, we should not be acting in a way that serves to encourage this usage. CMD (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
support as per above. On a sidenote, if we review the "airlines and destinations" overview, I suggest adding a column "frequency" - there is a world of difference between a once weekly service and one with several flights per day. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Doing so will turn the split articles out of context. Furthermore, most of the lists are unsourced as we do not currently require sources for current destinations. Regarding the suggestion right above, adding a column for frequency is against WP:NOTRAVEL.--JetstreamerTalk14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
we do not currently require sources for current destinations - a WP:PRIMARY source would be acceptable, but we do need a source - and if no sources exist, how do we have the information? BilledMammal (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, does not require sources for current destinations. nope: from WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, this is covered in point 10: Per WP:VERIFY, references must be included for "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged," and this includes the list of destinations.– robertsky (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Removing the lists from the context of the broader article defeats their entire purpose, which is to show the significance of the airport as a nod in the transportation network. A standalone list would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL by removing it from the broader context of the airport, and the fact that some lists are long is actually something that points to the purpose. Some airports are really busy and heavily used by many carriers, and taking out the list that shows that fact to readers removes the ability to illustrate that at a glance to readers. In short, sure some are long, but that's a feature, not a big, and standalone lists would reduce the utility of the main article and quite possibly would not survive a deletion discussion. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't we write "83 airlines operate from Heathrow, serving 203 destinations in 83 countries[1]", and show the significance of the airport as a node in the transportation network that way? It would be easier for readers to understand, and it won't negatively affect the readability of the page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not in the proposal, but only because I didn't think it needed to be mentioned. To be clear, are you saying that you would support removing the tables entirely, if they were replaced with prose like that? BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Being able to see a largely complete list if which airlines fly from an airport is a reason why many people look at airport pages on wikipedia. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a lot of people who are interested in aviation and keep the Airline/Destination pages current. Making this information harder to find is not helpful to many people who are infrequent visitors to wikipedia. If we want to split off something that's probably referenced infrequently and used by few people from these pages, the lists of Incidents/Accidents is probably a better candidate. Pmbma (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Support per the above. An encyclopedic article should summarize important information. Destination tables are overly detailed for the main article. There should be a summary in prose, perhaps more detailed than "83 airlines operate from Heathrow, serving 203 destinations in 83 countries". It could also say "over half the destinations are in Europe, etc." MB18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Pinged, hence am here. Why is everyone jumping to vote immediately without discussion? I am on the fence for the removal, at least for Changi Airport. Double-checking its GAR, the destination tables weren't raised as an issue, but it had plenty of other issues then. Looking at the updates to the tables thus far, many on the surface looks like they are unsourced, and will probably have to be worked on to verify the table. If readability and/or length of article is an issue, would the following alternatives be more palatable:?
summarise number of destination/countries served as raised by BilledMammal somewhere in the votes.
default collapse of the tables, with a summary, similar as above, to introduce the collapsed table. Readers who are interested in the list, the tables are expandable anyway.
Comment need to remember that the airline and destination lists are there to show the range of destination and users from the airport, in theory across the years. It is not intended to be a travel guide (not a function of wikipedia). It would be perfectly reasonable not to update the lists that regularly and summaries would perform the same function. The travel guide approach tends to loose the historic information which ruins the encyclopedic value and should really be just linked to wikivoyage. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose Absolutely no reason to make readers go to a separate page for this. It's key information readers go to these articles for, and it's a disservice to move that out. This is wildly unnecessary, and your 10-airline threshold is simply ridiculous. Reywas92Talk21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I understand the argument for moving these tables to separate pages, but I feel they belong on the main airport page. Many readers look at airport pages to see the destination lists, I’m one of them and it’s one of the reasons I started editing in the first place. I know WP:NOTTRAVEL is a thing, and I feel that a separate page just for destinations makes it feel a lot more like a travel guide compared to sticking the table on the airport’s main page. Also, there are plenty of small airports with less than 10 carriers/airlines, and I think it would be off putting for some readers to go from pages where the list, despite being small, is still on the page to larger airports where they have to take an extras step and go to a new page just to find the list. These tables are a core part of an airport’s page that many are interested in, and I don’t think there’s a good enough reason to split it. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC))
If I were alone (but I am not), I'd have these destinations list be moved to wikivoyage, with a clear link between enwiki airport page and wikivoyage. Bouzinac (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose The destinations and airlines on airport pages are integral to the majority of the pages they're included in, both for the likely majority of readers and for contextual encyclopedic value. Frankly, however interesting it may be for the people who contributed, most readers probably scroll past the history and background of airports, so they can see where they can fly to, instead. Depriving readers with what is likely to be the least trivial part of these pages will simply diminish Wikipedia's purpose to inform and educate. If it's about getting more people to visit Wikivoyage, which, let's be honest, isn't often the top result for "X airport destinations", cutting the most used part of the pages for the world's largest airports isn't going to make it skyrocket. If it's about shortening pages, for the most part, the character count for destination tables are really not too bad and being substantial is an indicator of the airport's local/regional/national/international important - based on where the section is usually located, if someone is willing to scroll that far, they'd probably be able to scroll slightly further. Bacon Noodles (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It has been stated more than once but it seems it needs to be repeated once again: if people consult wikipedia to see what flights are operated from which airport then they are using it incorrectly. You don't consult WP for a recipe for Tripes à la mode de Caen, do you? No, you consult a cooking website. Why should it be different for travelling information? Apart from that, I'd like to know how all these opposers seem to know that the "airlines and destinations" paragraph is the most consulted part of airport pages - where are the statistics to support that? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong support per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:ARTICLESIZE. When there are large lists of detailed information the lists should be summarised on the main article and presented in detail on a spinout article. This is especially true if the lists are to be made more encyclopaedic by including historic information, which will make large tables larger. The precise details of which airlines fly and/or flew where is not integral encyclopaedic information nor the key thing that most readers will be looking up in an encyclopaedia, summaries like "As of 2022 four airlines operate scheduled flights on five domestic routes. Three carriers operate international routes, predominantly to France, Ireland, Germany and Spain with individual routes to seven other European countries. Flights to the United States and Canada operated until February 2020." are much more useful and encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see why. Nothing is mentioned that could help in actually planning a trip. I cannot help feeling that WP:NOTTRAVEL is used by some to decline almost everything. Just like my suggestion for adding frequencies to the split-off lists of airlines and destinations: mentioning that a service operates three times per week doesn't help in planning a trip. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There are very many things that Wikipedia includes that book encyclopaedias do not because Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. If your view is that the tables violate WP:NOTTRAVEL then they do so in their current location exactly as much as they would in a separate article (actually more so, if confined to current information only) yet you seem to support them where they are currently? Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not uncomfortable with wipping them out from the airport articles. Actually, people seem more interested in directing their effort in keeping these tables up to date than in expanding the rest of the airport articles, e.g. the History sections, something that, IMO, is truly encyclopedic--JetstreamerTalk02:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose It is very useful information to see on the main page for the airport and allows you to see the interconnectedness of everything. I only wish that there was an easy way to turn it into a map as well.Gusfriend (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A recipe for Tripes à la mode de Caen would be useful, but that doesn't mean that it should be covered by that article. And I struggle to see how it allows you to see the interconnectedness of everything; the lists are too long for readers to easily conduct that analysis, which suggests that any such effort to show the interconnectedness should be done in prose, which can both show the currented interconnectedness as well as historic interconnectedness. For example, using prose we could show how Heathrow went from a small airfield to a global hub, including covering the impact of events like the pandemic, all of which is encyclopedic content, and none of which can be done with tables. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In addition to BilledMammal's points, I don't understand how moving this information to a subarticle will make any difference to your ability to "see the interconnectedness of everything"? Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2022 (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.
Automatic Database based comparison and updating
Hello, at Airportinfo.aero we maintain a very complex database of aeronautical locations in Europe which we plan to expand on a global level. Even on European level, it is very bad to refer to Wikipedia as a source for an incorrect information. It would be very good to learn if there are any possibilities for mass data verification. Which would i.e. cover the identification of outdated or new weblinks, identification of new and defunct ICAO or IATA codes, proper sources reference updates, i.e. to AIPs and how to reflect those changes or create non-duplicate new pages in Wikipedia.
Aside, there is still the problem that many ANSP publish their data inside PDFs or freeflow-text sites requiring time consuming review. Or create new directory/names for each publication. Maybe there are ideas how the monitoring of changes on those pages can be automated to reduce the maintenance efforts (both for Wikipedia and Airportinfo.aero. So anyone having ideas how to do it, do reach out to me.
A typical example of what I face in Wikipedia: ICAO code EBLR: Helipad closed, reclaimed by nature, after several years the code gets reassigned by the ANSP, which led obviously to a article mixing information and references for two different airports. But Reninge Airport must have responded with a page 404 for some years before the code was reassigned.
Another example that we use Wikipedia API for the extract of the short description/summary. Which meanwhile got better, but still has it's mistakes, which we only realize if someone reports it to us, usually accusing us, not Wikipedia, not understanding how Wikipedia API works. Then we disable Wikipedia and use the "manual description". So while we could contribute data to Wikipedia, Wikipedia ain't a database and it's rather tricky for amateurs to understand possibilities to mass update the data we compiled in time-consuming, tedious work from the "official sources"...
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
According to an edit comment in List of airports by ICAO code: E, we had an article about Crowfield Airfield in Suffolk but it has now been deleted. I do not remember seeing a discussion about its removal? Perhaps it was considered insufficiently noteworthy? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Article is back online now - thanks! - and I must admit that it does look a bit meagre, for a wikipedia article. Neither would I know how to improve on it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Doha World Cup flights
There has been some news that KLM will be operating flights to Doha during November/December 2022 for the World Cup games. Should these be added and are these really seasonal flights? We are leaving these flights in the table until a decision can be reached.
97.82.30.107 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a directory it does not deal with such transitory and limited information. A few limited ad hoc flights do not make encyclopaedic content. Lets keep the encyclopaedia encyclopaedic. And seasonal means not all year but regular ie. recurring for year after year so these certainly are not seasonal.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Being the third one in this discussion I first of all want to say I am a bit annoyed you ignored what User:97.82.30.197 said. If they are the person to start a discussion on this page and kindly asking you to leave the information in, then don't delete it again, because then edit wars start and nobody wants that. Also I spoke about finding an option we both agreed in and you ignored that as well.
That said, we will go on-topic again. Since KLM and Lufthansa are among the first ones to announce those special WC flights I think we should look what happens in the future; In case more airlines add extra flights, I think we should consider putting them in, since it then becomes a big part of Doha Airport's destinations list. For now, since only a few airlines announced they will add flights for the WC, we should make a little text at the Airlines and Destiantions section, because those tickets are bookable for everyone and are part of a ongoing discussion.
Let's set the benchmark at 10 Airlines who announce extra flights and then we will have a look again for what's possible. I will try and have a look what they did in 2014. So I will make a little section about special flights we will see during the WC. Please let me know what you think and keep the discussion going. In the future we may edit things but we will see. Let me know what you think and we will see. RudolfN23 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I seem to read a lot of annoyance here, some of it more or less understandable. Rather than discuss what should be in the "airlines and destinations" section, I would suggest adding a separate paragraph or or subparagraph titled "Extra services for fall 2022 World Champion Games". IF we consider them noteworthy, at all. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
And, at a second look at [[8]], this is precisely what has been done - looks quite acceptable to me, we just need to update or even remove the paragraph after the event. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Andrewgprout; these are ad hoc public charter flights for an event that's clearly not seasonal because it's not scheduled to recur in the same location. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it sets a bad precedent to fill airport pages with transient information that will quickly become outdated. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where travelers can find the information. Carguychris (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
At the end of the day, we're not a travel guide. Some airlines laying on some specific flights for a one off event, actually doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Mind you I question the notability of having most of the flight destinations in an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tailtalk17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Ditto. Las Vegas doesn’t get special treatment for the annual CES so I don’t see why the World Cup is any different. Garretka (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with what’s being said here because of WP:NOTTRAVEL. If the route isn’t a regularly scheduled flight and not even seasonal (just for an event), I don’t think it should be listed. As Garretka said, Vegas doesn’t get special treatment for CES. Another recent example is Breeze Airways announced flights to SDF for about 1 or 2 days for the Kentucky Derby but ONLY on those days and we didn’t add them. Unless the route becomes a regular flight, I’m in the camp of keeping them off the tables. Adding to this, many pages include “The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights to and from (airport here)” at the top of the tables (such as London Gatwick for example) and as stated these aren’t regularly scheduled flights. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC))
However, KLM (before it became a year-round destination) also flew temporary schedules to Las Vegas for CES every year. And every year, those flights have been included in the Airlines & Destinations section. Not as a special treatment, but just as a seasonal destination. So that's a precedent right there. Hhl95 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Being convinced that it shouldn't be in the schedule, I do agree what (Jan olieslagers) said and in my opinion it should be mentioned considering the fact that otherwise you would leave information out. If no one else has any problems with the current state of the Airlines and Destinations section, then we'll leave it for what it is, keeping an eye at the announcements from other airlines. RudolfN23 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@RudolfN23: From above "otherwise you would leave information out". I suspect you need to accept that it is quite alright to leave this detail out, it is the default stance anyway most details in this world don't make it to Wikipedia. To add it it would need some significant WP:SECONDARY discussion as to why the detail is out of the ordinary and why it is interesting or unusual and with some perminant value to the encyclopaedia. This all may exist but you will need references beyond the WP:PRIMARY timetable references or brief mentions in media just saying the flights exist. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andrewgprout: Understandble, but what source exactly are you searching for then? What kind of reference do you want more apart from an official announcement from the airline? Do you want to see a website where it can be booked? A discussion why it is out of the ordinary is not needed in my opinion; WC only occur once every four years, and this is the first time that Qatar will be the host. The term 'interesting' is subjective of course, but I understand what you mean - In this case I find it interesting that airlines add flights for a special event, meanwhile you aren't too bothered which is fine as well-. We found an alternative and added the little text in with the airlines which will fly during the WC. However, someone has deleted it without discussion while we are all still figuring out what to do. Again let me know what you're thinking. Please understand that I'm not forcing my own willing, but rather searching for a solution in the future when other events occur and we need to compare RudolfN23 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@RudolfN23: I am not looking for a reference you are - WP:BURDEN. You are certainly not looking to justify such an edit with a booking website these are most definitely WP:PRIMARY and should be used with absolute caution to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS and or WP:OR. What you want is one or more good WP:SECONDARY references that say someone else is interested in this detail other than you, you cannot use your personal interest to justify any addition to Wikipedia. WP:SECONDARY and just about every other piece of advice given on Wikipedia defines what is encyclopeadic or not, as a rule of thumb I would say that if the thing you are going to add will need to be deleted in the future then it is probably not encyclopaedic and should not be added. I see you are having trouble making your proposed edit stick I would take that as a sign that the way it is at the moment at least is very questionable.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Opposed, these flights should not be included in the chart and especially not in and additional subsection. We have a long standing consensus, which is also reflected in policy such as WP:AIRPORTS, to not include short-term flight operations, e. g. Event charters - so we do not need a solution, we already have one. Additionally we are neither a travel guide nor a news page. You need consensus to change this policy, adding unwanted content and then challenging it’s justified removal is mildly irritating. Best regards, 2001:A61:3AD7:EB01:98F8:3C2B:95ED:BDCA (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Except, it isn't exactly an event charter. First of all, those are not charter flights. These flights are official flights by the airline that no one chartered. And second, although the reason for the flights is an event, the flights are not limited to that event. The flights are bookable by anyone who wants to fly from Amsterdam to Doha or from Doha to Amsterdam; also people who are travelling for other reasons than the event. And maybe I shouldn't even call it a reason. KLM simply sees a business opportunity there, as demand for flights to Doha rises in that time period. Hhl95 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Following the guidelines is the best thing to do in this case, so we will leave it for what it is. I agree on the decision made. That means; No edits regarding to the Doha FIFA 2022 world cup on the Doha Airport page. Since those flights are for a short period of time and for one event only, this is not a useful part of information. The only thing that bothers me a bit is although you are right, the way you enter this discussion just gives me mixed feelings; You didn't see my earlier redirect to this page which isn't your fault, but then I would love to see a bit more respect then this. Again, thanks to everyone for the discussion, I hope we won't have any problems with this in the future. RudolfN23 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I see no objective basis to treat the flights to Doha differently from other seasonal flights. They are not charter flights, as no one chartered them. Bookings are also open to travellers who don't attend the event. And those who mention "transient information" and "travel guide" as an argument, should really rethink what we're actually doing here, because the entire Airlines & Destinations sections on all airport pages are a matter of transient information. All in all, I find that the flights to Doha should be included in the A&D sections on the basis that they are sourced, they are not charter flights and they are bookable by anyone regardless the event. Therefore, the flights are no different from other seasonal flights. Moreover, the WikiProject definition of seasonal destinations is as brief as "destinations that do not operate year-round". The flights to Doha fit that destination. There is no requirement for seasonal flights to last more than one season. The end date is already known, so the destination can be removed once that date has passed. Hhl95 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. These are temporary flights that will only run a few times then cease. We simply do not need to list every single destination and when they operate from. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
These two move requests cover about ten articles in all, but are having to be relisted through lack of comments. Please join in if you can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
References for newly active routes
When a new route normally begins, should we leave the reference or remove it? Some are saying that they are no longer required. 97.82.30.107 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Flight suspensions due to Ukraine-Russia war
I know on a couple of pages that all flights to Ukraine/Russia are listed as "Suspended", removed entirely from the table, or made it hidden. Should these suspensions be treating the same as if these flights are suspended due to COVID? 97.82.30.107 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Operating bases?
Hi all,
Sorry if this has been discussed before. If an airline has an operating base at an airport, but it isn’t considered a “hub” or “focus city,” does it get listed? Noticed this with Avelo Airlines and Burbank Airport. Avelo was listed in the hub field of the infobox but it got removed. I changed it to focus city, but this also got reverted since it’s “only an operating base.” Wouldn’t focus city fit the terms of an operating base? For example, nearly every airport Southwest or JetBlue has a base out of has those airlines listed as a focus city. The definition of focus city at Airline hub states “Although the term focus city is used to mainly refer to an airport from which an airline operates limited point-to-point routes, its usage has loosely expanded to refer to a small-scale hub as well”. Wouldn’t that fit Avelo at an airport like BUR or HVN where their only flights are point-to-point routes, and the airports act nearly like hubs? Don’t want to get into any edit wars if I’m wrong, but feel like Avelo should be listed in the infobox but if I’m wrong then we’ll just leave them out. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It depends. Operating bases, as I see it, are airports where crew (pilot and flight attendants) are based. That doesn’t necessarily mean that airport is a focus city for that airline. Though I will admit the definition of a focus city is a little vague as well. I agree it can be confusing. Blissfield101 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
No matter what, we need reliable and preferably secondary sources that call BUR, HVN or MCO a “hub” or “focus city” for Avelo Airlines. On that note, we should also have reliable and secondary sources listing Southwest or JetBlue's focus cities. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair answers, and I agree that an operating base can not necessarily match the definition of a focus city. Example, Norse Atlantic announced FLL as a base, someone edited it to say it’s a focus city on the FLL page. But do we really consider it so when they only are currently flying a few weekly FLL-OSL flights? I think a destination fits the definition of a focus city if the airline has a hub/base at the airport and has significant flights (such as Avelo at BUR and HVN). It’s just hard to find sources sometimes since plenty of airlines never will outright say if an airport is a focus city or not. I do agree it’s a very confusing term, I found an archive discussion here where it didn’t seem anyone could agree what should or shouldn’t be considered a focus city. Certainly confusing, not made any easier with it being difficult to find sources for them. VenFlyer98 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
A link to a general article on grass is not in any way helpful. It's a common English word, everyone knows what grass is. That being said, a link to an article on grass runways, how they're maintained and what's different than just a field, I'd support a link to. But just to grass? Nope. Canterbury Tailtalk14:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
RFC on Maps and Airline & Destination Tables
I would like to once again propose we consider the following.
1. Reach a consensus on possibly including maps in the Airline and Destination section in airport articles and eliminating the Airline and Destination tables as they are redundant with one another. Lately, a lot of maps have been popping up in airport articles and my understanding is there was no previous clear cut consensus on whether or not to include them. The information IMO is better served in the Airline and Destination table and a additional map is not really necessary, plus, it *can* be difficult to view on mobile layouts. I also see maps don't get updated as easily as the traditional Airline and Destination table. If we include them, it ought to be in lieu of the table, not in addition to.
2. If we keep the Airline and Destination tables, consolidate the mainline and regional airline and destination tables as we do on European airlines. It is increasingly difficult to keep up with the mainline/regional changes at major carriers and it doesn't really matter what equipment they are flown on, it is all marketed by the main carrier. It would be much easier for citation purposes.
It's wildly inappropriate for you to keep saying "No consensus on whether to include maps" in your edit summaries when you know there is no consensus to remove them either. Again, I and others have no issue with keeping them. Maps tend to be redundant by their nature: the map on Legal drinking age is redundant to the tables but that doesn't make it inappropriate. Stop making BS claims about accessibility. That map likewise can't be read by a screen reader, but the same information is in the table.
Why revert the edits instead of trying to come up with a solution? It is most certainly not "wildly inappropriate" to remove maps when there was no consensus on whether to include them. You are the only one making an issue here. Again, why do we need them when the information is already listed in the table? It DOES have accessibility issues on mobile layouts, and maps are often not updated as regularly as the tables are. It's incredibly stupid to have both. One or the other would be sufficient.
The citation issue is airlines keep moving equipment back and forth between mainline and regional, so often times when there is a change, it is not cited when users add a begin date, making WP:V difficult. Again, why do we allow for European carriers to be consolidated, but not North American? Does it really matter? No, the general public reading these articles do not care, but the extreme aviation fans won't allow us to make this change. Blissfield101 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
My solution is that we don't need to be mandating that articles must or must not have this. You are the only one going around and repeatedly excising them and making this an issue rather than letting this be decided locally since the people here can't come to a conclusion. It is inappropriate to claim your basis for removal is a lack of consensus to include when there is a lack of consensus to remove. I just opened Kansas City International Airport on mobile and it loaded just fine, not sure what the issue is. It's stupid for you to think that the table must be sufficient when some readers could more easily take the information in at a glance rather than digging through a dense list.
How about this? Here is a sample new format that we could use, using Kansas City International Airport as a sample. The main part article would be structured into (roughly) a simple format like this (with variations depending on the airport).
History
Features, which would include things such as destination maps, terminal info and other relevant info.
Statistics
The following is a sample of the features section.
The following destinations are served from Kansas City Airport.<Insert citation here>
All international destinations from Kansas City International Airport (MCI).
This would eliminate maintaining the airline and destination tables, remove redundant info and make the articles more encyclopedic. It would also eliminate the need to cite the cargo tables, which are often not cited and difficult to cite. Blissfield101 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I am vehemently opposed to removing the tables, as I suppose most other editors would be as well. The map alone fails to include the airlines and actually does create an accessibility issue by presenting information in a visual format only. A map alone is substantially harder to maintain because if, say, Spirit cancelled its flight to Las Vegas, where's the data table ensuring that the city is kept for Southwest's flight? Again, it is not redundant (or inappropriately so) to have both a map and a table. Do we need to delete the map at Visa_requirements_for_United_States_citizens#Visa_requirements_map because it has to be maintained in addition to the table when something changes? Reywas92Talk17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
We wouldn't list the airlines, as honestly, the current format of listing the airlines and destinations comes really close to WP:NOTTRAVEL. It wouldn't matter if Spirit cancelled its flight to Las Vegas, because if it served by another airline, it will still be listed as a destination. We'd only remove and add destinations based on if the airport has a flight on any airline to that said destination. Keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING as well, pages should be a summary of the major points. In this case, we really don't need the same information listed twice (hence why mainline/regional should be consolidated), and in some cases, the maps go way off the page like the Denver one you restored, making it difficult to read on mobile devices, hence why I was saying it could cause an accessibility issue on mobile devices. Blissfield101 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This has already been discussed elsewhere, we are not removing the airline table. My point is that we wouldn't know it's still served by another airline if there's not a list of airlines in the first place! Lucthedog2 was in the process of making this Denver map when you removed it, and it being too big can be fixed without just removing it. Reywas92Talk18:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I was getting closer by the minute and I was trying to do it but if i did it any smaller than all the airports would be bunched together. Lucthedog2 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
So while most editors use desktop browsers, it's vitally important that we consider the needs of mobile users, because that's where a huge portion of Wikipedia's traffic come from. These maps look awful on mobile. They're unreadable. Here's what your example looks like on my iPhone...
It's not a great user experience. The city names are smashed together, the map is far wider than my screen, and the map is unhidden by default. These tables are neat, but they're unnecessary decoration that leads to a bad user experience on mobile devices. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. This is what I was trying to get at. Let’s figure out a solution before blankety adding maps to every page. When this has been discussed in the past, they were removed, but because a certain user says there is no consensus to remove them, we just have to blindly follow their command rather than talk it out and only add the maps if a clear consensus is reached. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Better perspective from what? It’s useful is not a valid reason alone to add something. That is a tired argument brought up on airport articles all the time. We already have the information in the tables, we don’t need another map, and if we want to include maps for whatever reason, get rid of the tables. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Lucthedog2 See the image I posted? That's the same map on a iPhone, with the proposed size. It's not a good experience for the 50% of users on mobile devices. So, again, how do you propose we fix that? RickyCourtney (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I told you that is a bigger size than having it the same size as the heading which for that you would have to change the width. Lucthedog2 (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh but we do have to blindly follow your command to remove them? On KCI, the original map was added back in 2018. An IP address (maybe you?) removed it over a year later, reverted by Digital inf3rno, then you removed it in October 2019, shortly reverted by Ashtonliberty13. You removed it again in December 2019 with the BS accessibility excuse. It was restored by Skew-t in September 2021 ("restore maps that were removed without consensus") and you removed again in October, which I reverted. Then today you removed it once again] and brought the issue here. I reverted to what has been the status quo and am also discussing here. So why the hell do you feel so entitled to have us follow your command with yet another removal just now? You don't get to say "Discuss at WT:AIRPORTS before adding the maps back in" when we already are doing so and the status quo version was with the map? Reywas92Talk01:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
So are you gonna criticize RickyCourtney for reverting the Denver page when he said the exact same thing? All I am saying is discuss it here before blankety adding them back. YOU are making a big stink out of nothing, YOU are the one forcing your will and frankly, you have been incredibly rude and condescending. If you continue to cuss me out like you’ve done twice today, I’m reporting you to the administrators. Stick to the topic. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Lol didn't notice that. Hey Ricky, leave it in place! Though it hadn't been there for most of the last four years like KCI. You're the one who's gone around and systematically removed these from dozens of articles multiple times over the years, so you're full of crap if you think I'm forcing anything except that you should leave others' constructive edits alone until you do in fact have a consensus to banish the maps. Lack of consensus that articles ought to have them does not support your forcing your will that none may. Reywas92Talk04:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh go off. As I said, I didn't even notice it till you said it, and that one wasn't there already for the last four years, so the status quo during discussion for that article I suppose would be without it. Reywas92Talk13:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry it's just that he was told to leave them until he had evidence to ban them so sorry that was what the other one besides you said. Lucthedog2 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:IMGCONTENT says that images must "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..." I'm not convinced this is true of these maps, and they are clearly a downgrade from the destination tables (which clearly don't violate NOTTRAVEL, which exists to make sure our geography articles don't turn into guidebooks: you don't get destination information in guidebooks, transportation hubs for other transport types include destination information, and furthermore they attract a lot of readers and gnomes.) I would vote no for including maps, as they don't help increase the reader's understanding of the topic. SportingFlyerT·C23:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
So after a few months, it seems the current vote is 4-2 in favor of getting rid of the maps, with no comment on the mainline/regional merger. Anyone else have any input here? I am seeing more and more instances of inaccurate mainline/regional listings and bloated maps that do not belong. Blissfield101 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Blissfield101 I think at this point it's well established that the members of this project are opposed to the maps and opposed to the mainline/regional merger. I disagree with at least one of those decisions, but I feel like doing a RFC every few months is beating a dead horse. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the busiest airports in the European Union until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Question on resumption dates - 'Airlines and Destinations'
Hi all
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but are resumption dates of certain destinations due to COVID notable to put in the airlines and destinations list? Most Airport wikipedia ages have resumption dates for whatever reason (COVID, airline decision etc). However, there have been instances when resumption dates have been added and subsequently removed on some of the Australian airport pages, for example Sydney Airport. For that reason, I thought I'd ask on this page to get some clarity.
Thank you
Thanks for bringing this archived reference up, Coastie43. I do take your point to some extent, given how unpredictable COVID-19 can be and how some flights may technically be only suspended for now.
It's an interesting one given a lot of the airport pages I've come across within the time I've been editing (and before I became an editor as I've used Wikipedia for a while now) it has actually listed resumption dates, including due to COVID-19, so I thought the consensus was it was ok to list resumption dates of flights so long as exact dates are specified, irrespective if they were on the page previously or not. Additionally, whilst some flights are still suspended, it's a tricky one, because there may not be sources that confirm that the airlines have pulled out completely or not and that it might be a little while (e.g. into 2023/2024) before they come back.
One solution that I would suggest is that we keep the 'suspended' flights in the 'airlines and destinations' for about a year after confirmation that a flight has been suspended and
- if they happen to have not made any announcements of flight resumptions at that point then we remove the destination from the list and add them back with resumption dates if an airline make an announcement after that period that this particular flight is resuming.
- else if they happen to have made an announcement of flight resumptions before a year after the flight got suspended then we keep the destinations without resumption dates and just add the most updated reference we can find
I hope this makes sense. More than happy to discuss further on this :)
I think I understand the idea better now on why certain resumption dates would be removed, especially if a destination is already listed after a COVID suspension given, as mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_19#COVID-19-related_Schedule_Suspensions/Changes that Wikipedia is not a directory (which makes more sense so I apologise for any issues beforehand, I must've misread that when I looked at that archived discussion)
However, now that we're approaching a point where things are starting to open up across many countries, I would suggest that if a destination has been suspended for more than 6 months after border restrictions have been eased in that particular country then it would be best to just remove the airline and/or destination list from the Airlines and Destinations list but keep it there if it's earlier than that. It's possible that some airlines or destinations might not come back even after border reopenings.
I'd agree with that. Also if its been suspended for more than 1 year with no reliable secondary sources suggesting a resumption date, it may be safe to remove the entry (until they announce a new date with a combination of primary and reliable secondary sources backing the primary source). Coastie43 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
That is assuming the borders has opened in those countries/jurisdictions, but overall I personally think a 12 month (1 year) timeframe may be more realistic, I'm leaning towards agreeing with the 6 month timeframe after borders/etc had opened. Coastie43 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the above stated system for removing destinations which aren't served. In particular, it seems much worse to have incorrect information with an outdated source (e.g., listing destinations which aren't served) than any other alternative. What are the community thoughts on either listing such destinations as suspended if there is a source for that, and otherwise removing them? This would avoid the problem of steering readers wrong by listing a destination which is not currently served and which may or may not be resumed at an uncertain future date. KrmezljavKuza (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that many airport pages on Wikipedia that are served by airline operations lack information on private general aviation (GA). Even though the percentage of people served by general aviation is relatively small compared to those served by airlines it seems that general aviation could be represented better on Wikipedia. I also realize that there are countries that have a stronger GA presence than others, but even many US and European airports barley mention their GA facilities if at all. Could this be a possible collaborative part of WikiProjects Airports? KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Question on resumption dates/deleting/keeping Russian/Ukrainian routes in table
As it has already been a year since war started between Russia and Ukraine i would like to hear opinions of all users to get involved in what should be done regarding this matter. Shall be destinations kept at the table or completely deleted as has been done at Damascus airport in Syria or Sanaa airport in Yemen. As we cannot predict when war will end if it happens tomorrow or in a few years airlines and destinations should be removed and relisted as resumption if they become available again. let me hear your thoughts on this please Wappy2008 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
As long as the flights are suspended (and not cut) they should be in the articles, with sources that they are suspended. But we can review that after five years of suspension. No need to rush. The Bannertalk13:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Emirates service to Edinburgh
Does anyone is Emirates still flying to Edinburgh? It is listed as suspended and I just want to confirm. Users keeps saying that it is still on their route map. Jz0610 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
According to an interview in October 2022, Edinburgh will eventually return to the Emirates' network, at least that is the plan TTG Media. Therefore, I see no reason to delete it from the list since it is expected to return. RudolfN23 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a preferred process to update FAA airport diagrams?
Full date on new or resuming destinations in lists
Is there a rule here that full dates are required when adding a resuming or new destination to the list of destinations on airport pages? I'm currently engaged with another user that reverted my edit which re-added a resuming destination but has no full date of resumption (only month and year are stated with no day). RPC7778 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
For future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year and references should be provided.
Should subsidiaries be shown under a common name with the parent company or differently?
I am engaged in a discussion on my talk page with user @Wappy2008 regarding the showing of airline subsidiaries under the name of the parent company, i.e., (Air Arabia Abu Dhabi and Air Arabia Egypt listed and shown as Air Arabia) in airlines and destinations section of airport articles.
While I strongly oppose this idea as this idea will result in confusion among readers and is illogical, the latter continues to mention that this matter has been already discussed on Wikipedia and it has been agreed that airline subsidiaries will be shown under the common name of the parent company. The latter has failed to provide the archived discussion link and has instead termed me as a "lazy" person, for not reading this project's archives starting from the year 2004.
I believe that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and this is the reason I am opening a new discussion on this topic. FlyJet777 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Given that the subsidiary is a separate airline with its own IATA/ICAO codes and everything, its name and not that of the parent company should appear in the A&D table. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. However, user Wappy2008 does not seem to understand this simple logic. That's why he keeps on reverting the edits of users who distinguish the airlines on the A&D table and then sends me warning messages on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing. FlyJet777 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This issue comes up every so often. It comes down two imperfect options:
Option 1: List everything, including regional brands (American Airlines/American Eagle) and subsidiary airlines (LATAM Brazil/LATAM Ecuador)
Option 2: List only the most well known brand (we did this with Norwegian)
IMHO, option 2 is the better option, for purposes of brevity and clarity. Other than Avgeeks, I'm not sure anyone cares if Air Arabia Abu Dhabi or Air Arabia Egypt operates a flight. Both have planes painted in Air Arabia colors, and in both cases you go to airarabia.com to buy a ticket.
As to the argument "that the subsidiary is a separate airline with its own IATA/ICAO codes and everything" -- that's true about regional airlines. Take for example SkyWest Airlines they are a "separate airline with its own IATA/ICAO codes and everything" -- yet we only list the brand names they operate under. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you that's what i was trying to explain all along but someone doesn't get it. WE did it not only with Norwegian several other Smartwings, Wizzair, Eurowings, easyjet, etc. The list goes on. Exactly as you wrote none cares if Air Arabia Abu Dhabi or Air Arabia Egypt operates a flight. Both have planes painted in Air Arabia colors, and in both cases you go to airarabia.com to buy a ticket. Wappy2008 (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The challenge I have with "I'm not sure if anyone cares [...] in both cases you go to X to buy a ticket" is that we should strive to be accurate, not to be a travel guide. That principle aside, I'm not sure if I have an opinion either way, but I do want to note that I don't think the archives demonstrate as clear a consensus as has been alluded to above. All I see are un-resolved arguments and various exceptions. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. This issue comes up every so often, no consensus is reached, and we rehash the issue a few months later. I agree that the policy is clear that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I'd argue that including these tables at all may violate that policy. The general feeling is that although they feel like travel guide information, they provide an idea to the readers on the breadth of service from that airport. But that said, I don't really understand the reader benefit from listing that American Airlines flies to Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, while American Eagle flies to Dallas and Phoenix -- or that Air Arabia flies to Sharjah, while Air Arabia Abu Dhabi flies to Abu Dhabi. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number, avoid using the term operated by or dba
AirAsia has several subsidiaries like AirAsia X, Thai AirAsia Indonesia AirAsia, etc. All these have the same website (of AirAsia). However, they are listed differently on Wikipedia. Don't you think it will create confusion if we list all AirAsia and subsidiaries flights under the same banner of AirAsia? They also kinda have the same livery (except AirAsia X). As to the example of SkyWest Airlines, I think since SkyWest is contracted by several airlines such as American Eagle, United Express, etc, it is better to list it as SkyWest only. As to rule 3, there we are talking about flight operated by one, marketed by another. However, here we are talking about two different airlines which have the same parent company. They might have same liveries and same websites. But that doesn't make them same airlines.
I'm not aware of the AirAsia operation but I think that the test question would be: Does Thai AirAsia primarly operate flights marketed by AirAsia? If so, then list everything as AirAsia.
I would argue that since SkyWest primarly operates flights marketed by American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, they should be listed as such.
The complicating rule is the part that the flights primarly use the "marketing airline's flight number." All these carriers have their own IATA codes, but I guess the best test is duplicate flight numbers. Does Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia each have a flight 82 (or whatever number)? If so, then it would fail the second part of the test. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
As was said before Airasia has just one website that uses all subsidies under one roof. wouldn't create any confusion as except flight number all is the same and wiki readers don't actually know what IATA/ICAO belongs to which brand as it is not stated in the table. Only aviation geeks like us know it but the rest of the wiki readers have no clue and don't really actually pay attention to it, which codes belong to which brand. I flew with Airasia few times and even on a boarding pass you have just Airasia logo not subsidiaries. Wappy2008 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@RickyCourtney That's why I agree with you with the listing of SkyWest Airlines since the flights are marketed by American, Alaska, Delta and United but operated by SkyWest. So it should be listed as one. However, in the case of AirAsia, IMHO, it is different.
AirAsia is a Malaysian airline which has subsidiaries in different countries that are different airlines altogether. Example: AirAsia India, Indonesia AirAsia, Thai AirAsia, etc. Thai AirAsia's flights are solely operated by Thai AirAsia, a Thai airline having a Malaysian parent company. But having the same parent company doesn't make both airlines the same. They operate to different routes and have different operating bases. All of these airlines have been always listed differently on Wikipedia.
And while I also agree with you and user @Wappy2008 that except for us avgeeks, other readers won't know that they are different, don't you guys think just for the sake of more clarity, we should list them as different? The listing of an airline's flight marketed by one and operated by another can be the same. However, subsidiaries are entirely different and distinct from one another. FlyJet777 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Why should we waste our time to separate subsidies if they use the same website, same booking condition, same logo, same aircraft pain/types. Airarabia has so far 4 subsidies soon 5th is coming Airarabia Sudan. No point to separate them in 5 columns instead of one just because every country has to create their own AOC/subsidy. British airways has 4 subsidies, easyjet has 4 subsidies, wizzair has 5 subsidies, airasia has 6 subsidies, norwegian has 5 subsidies and it goes on and on. Readers and airline users don't care about subsidies just about the main common name. For the sake of clarity of who? users don't pay attention to it and i mean literally at all. if i talk to someone who has no idea about airlines they don't even know that airlines have a certain amount of subsidies. Final words are it is absolutely pointless, unnecessary and time waster. Wappy2008 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If you do not wish to waste your time, then you could consider ceasing arguing here. What other people do with their time is for them to decide. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Claims of what readers care about are not credible without data, and in any case not applicable. On Wikipedia we use other criteria for inclusion, not what most readers care about. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I think one of the biggest difficulties with this discussion are that there are so many different scenarios that trying to distill everything down to one simple rule is proving challenging. I can see how one airline that has a bunch of seamless vertical subsidiaries for each country can get cumbersome. But I want to take the example of Alaska and Horizon, which I know has been discussed before. Horizon is a fully-owned subsidiary of Alaska and only operates flights marketed by Alaska, which checks off the guideline discussed above. However, when taking into account the other arguments given here: the fleet is entirely different, the planes are co-branded Horizon (example), the distinction is called out when booking tickets through Alaska (example), it has its own IATA/ICAO code, and so on. At some point it just feels weird to not include it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
But Horizon is the only US regional airline we DON'T list seperately. We list American Eagle, Delta Connection and United Express seperatly, but not Alaska Horizon or Alaska SkyWest.
Here's my arguments against your arguments:
The fleet is different, but carry a near idential livery.
The co-branding is there, but it's tiny and easily missed by most passengers (by design).
The distinction is called out when booking tickets, but it's tiny and easily missed by most passengers (by design).
It has its own IATA/ICAO code, but it will also carry the code of Alaska (QX 2315, but also AS 2315).
So for the two part test:
"For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another,..."
Check. Operated by Horizon, but marketed by Alaska.
"...so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number"
While the Horizon flight has it's own QX flight number, it's also a AS flight number, that can't be assigned to a flight operated by Alaska.
Seems to pass that test to me.
I'd argue that in our quest for completeness, we are ignoring clarity. At the end of the day, for our audience, they only care about who schedules, markets and most importantly, sells a flight. In this argument we're more focused on who staffs, operates and maintains the aircraft. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
And that's not even relevant. We are not catering to the expectations of any audience, we are creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, for the benefit of whoever. But according to our own standards and definitions, even if these are under continuous discussion and evolution. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Inexperienced new user here. A no name IP address added lots of good info to the Parkes Airport page, but broke the formatting a little bit. I tried to fix it but it broke more so I reverted it and I don't know where to go from here. Some help fixing the issue would be appreciated. ThumperOP (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
So I can't recall if this has come up before (I'm sure it has), but I wonder if it may be high time to cut destination lists from airports. They're subject to massive amounts of edit warring, poor quality edits, lack of references, rumours etc and at the end of the day they're technically properties of the airlines, not the airports. The airport is just the start location for a route, it's the airlines running them. They're taking over some articles and causing so many issues I wonder if we should relegate them to the airlines only and not the airports. Canterbury Tailtalk17:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Sigh - how many times has this hot potato come up? Not for the first time, I take position that we should give a general overview of commercial services offered, if anything. "As of 2023, the airport has daily passenger services to the capital xxx, by airlines yyy and zzz; and summer-only holiday charters to several destinations in the Carribean" - or anything along those lines - should be largely sufficient. So that "Destinations" is indeed too hard to maintain and keep up to date, but some scope of available services would be valuable encyclopedic information. If it can be referenced, that is. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Strong opposeThis discussion found clear consensus to keep the tables. The airlines that fly at an airport and the destinations they serve the very purpose of an airport and are integral to these articles with high relevance. I see little issues at the several airport articles I watch and we can implement clearer guidelines for how they should be included, but removing them would be a massive disservice to our readers. If you want to complain about lack of references, then add references: this RFC found that timetables adequately verify flights and may be used as sources. Also, this is not a properly formatted RFC and the above votes may not be imposed on the thousands of airport articles with this valid and useful information. Reywas92Talk17:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Question Is this feasible? I don't know the challenges of maintaining airport articles, but I do for roads, trains, and geography. One thing all of those projects have in common is there are just certain tables, and entries in tables, that nobody who is active in maintaining the articles likes. They are more trouble than they are worth, yet the projects have reluctantly decided to tolerate them in the interest of article stability. You can delete those entries one day, and they are back the next. I've come to accept such entries as the price paid to be the "The Free Encyclopedia That Anybody Can Edit" and an encyclopedia that governs by consensus, not expert decrees. Based on my experience in those projects, I'm guessing the destinations table is one such section. Is it?Dave (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
What is considered a resumption and what is not?
I just want some clarifications if the route is considered a resumption or isn't since I encounter this dilemma several times.
Example #1: Airline A ended flights from X to Y in the 1950s, but flight was reinstated in the 2010s. Is this considered a resumption?
Example #2: Airline A started charter flights from X to Y and ended. A few years later, airline A reinstated flights from X to Y but is now scheduled. Is this considered a resumption?
Example #3: Airline A started seasonal flights from X to Y and ended. A few years later, airline A reinstated flights from X to Y but is now scheduled year-round. Is this considered a resumption?
Example #4: Airline A started flights from X to Y and later ended. Some time later, airline A merged with airline B. Airline B reinstated the flights flown by airline A before. Is this considered a resumption?
Stop wondering. There will and can not be a clear guideline, or hard criteria, on this as on several matters. Someone will always come up with a reasonable exception. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
My approach would be to consider none of them resumptions :) Even better, I would prefer to not list services to such a level of detail - but that is of course another discussion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Redhill IATA code
Redhill Aerodrome historically had the IATA code KRH assigned, but this is no longer assigned, witness the IATA website <ref>https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=KRH<ref> So I did my best to remove it from the article, but came upon fierce resistance, to which I have no final answer - it seems to have to do with some template no longer working, but I must admit I don't get the fine details of the story. Things have degraded to brutal revert warring, which I do not wish to persevere in. All and any support welcome! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Dear all, please take a look at ICAO airport code where someone wants to revert-war with the simple argument "disagree". I hold it for obvious, and sufficiently documented, that IATA codes count three letters, thus needless to mention this fact outside the context of their own article. Thanks for opinions and actions. Jan olieslagers (talk) Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not incorrect, I never stated that. But it is needless to mention, one might as well state that a circle is round, or that five plus five makes ten. And, if you'll excuse me, I am slightly upset with the simple motivation "disagree"; in my opinion, some more tangible argument is required. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course a circle is round, but an article about squares might distinguish that. This is an article about ICAO codes and the sentence begins with "ICAO codes are separate and different from IATA codes", so pointing out that a (yes, perhaps obvious to those who may already know about the topic, but not to others) difference is that one code is four letters and the other is three seems quite reasonable and the current wording is appropriate. Reywas92Talk13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Shall we mention "apples are separate from pears"? The proper reference seems to be WP:BLUESKY - enough said? Again, I hold it for obvious, and sufficiently documented, that IATA codes count three letters, thus needless to mention this fact outside the context of their own article. Whoever wanting to know can find it all in that article. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
A link to IATA airport codes is provided in the See also section of the article. As Jan olieslagers proposes, I'm comfortable with removing the mentioning of the three-letter code in the article body.--JetstreamerTalk12:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
Detailed history of new air service
Looking at most airport articles, the history section seems to always cover the basics, like general history which is what's described over at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, "The history sections should explain highlights of the airport's history in prose form, avoid lists when possible." I've noticed with a page, specifically Westchester County Airport, that an IP editor adds info to the history section every time an airline adds or cuts a route from the airport. Just wondering, is this too much? I feel this may violate WP:NOTTRAVEL since it goes into detail about EVERY route from the airport that is currently flying when that info is already provided by the destination table. Thought about asking first before I removed it in case it's ok to keep, but compared to most other airport articles I've read that just list highlighted history, this one goes into much more detail. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC))
@VenFlyer98: I agree. I do think certain routes should be mentioned in the history section, like an airport's first transatlantic flight. But the info you removed is certainly excessive. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, I think certain notable routes are fine, such as maybe an airport’s first international service, or a new airline starting service, but listing every route that is announced is a bit much. VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Airport naming conventions
Hi, all! Just looking for a little guidance.
I was wondering if there is a part of WP:MOS that deals with style and naming conventions for airports. I have noticed a few apparent inconsistencies in the way cities are listed in the "Airlines and destinations" table of articles. We uses a slash (/) to denote an airport serves multiple cities and an en dash (–) when a single city has multiple airports. That makes sense.
We do not use the slash for "New York/Newark," even though Newark serves New York City, is owned and operated by the same agency as Kennedy and LaGuardia airports, is included by Flightradar24 as New York, and some airlines market the airport with a slash. We also do not use it for "Baltimore/Washington," even though both cities are in the airport name. Those two cities generally follow the sources listed above: Newark and Baltimore (which I am in agreement with, for the record).
Adding "Operating base for" to Template:Infobox airport
I would like to propose that we add an "Operating base for" parameter to Template:Infobox airport. My reasoning is that several low-cost US airlines like Allegiant, Avelo, JetBlue and Southwest don't have typical "hubs" (with some proudly proclaiming that they don't have hubs) but instead have "operating bases." For example Form 10-K for JetBlue lists its bases on page 24 and the Form 10-K for Allegiant lists its bases on page 29.
Furthermore, this information can also be matched up to the similar parameter in Template:Infobox airline.
Anyways, I made the request for an edit on the template, but it was requested that I discuss it more widely with the WikiProject first.
Little late to reply here, but I do agree with adding this to the template, and there are even airlines outside of the US this could be good for (big one that comes to mind being Ryanair). Only issue is it might be confusing for airlines that do have traditional hubs since these hubs usually count as bases for the airline. For example, at an airport like Atlanta, would Delta get listed under both "Hub for" and "Operating base for"? Easiest way to remedy this in my opinion would be to include in the new parameter to only list airlines in the parameter if they do not have traditional hubs, examples being airlines you listed (Jetblue, Southwest, etc.). This would then also apply in the other direction, if the airline does have traditional hubs, then they don't get listed under the operating base parameter. Or we just decide on including traditional airlines under both parameters (example for Atlanta again, Delta would be listed under both "Hub for and "Operating base for"). I just think it may get a bit confusing when traditional hub airlines technically also have operating bases.
Again, I'd like to see it added rather than just grouping operating bases into focus cities, just would need to find the solution on listing the airlines with traditional hubs. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC))
I think this could be listed as a note in the template instructions: "Only use if airline does not use airport as a hub or focus city." RickyCourtney (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Fully agree, mainly just concerned about new editors or IP editors that aren’t familiar with the infobox or parameters. Only problem with a note like that is again, overlap. JetBlue does consider JFK a focus city, for example but it’s also an operating base. If we just figure that out, I’m all for the new parameter especially since many airline pages already list operating bases in the airlines’ infoboxes (see pages for Southwest or Avelo, for example) (VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC))
Just a question. How do we decide whether to refer to it as a focus city or an operating base? For example, JetBlue refers to them as focus cities in its 2021 Form 10-K. Also, for the airline's description of New York as one of its focus cities, it includes all New York–area airports, not just JFK. (Does JetBlue have a separate crew/maintenance base at Newark?) What determines whether we leave it as a focus city or call it an operating base for that airline? --Precision123 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
My opinion: follow the sources. If JetBlue lists a city as a focus city, list it as a focus city not as an operating base. There's no need to use both focus city and an operating base. I would see operating base as a tertiary listing. For example, we shouldn't list Atlanta as both a hub and an operating base for Delta. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
If JetBlue (or any other airline) calls New York–LaGuardia and Newark focus cities... list them as a focus city. If they're listed as a focus city, there's no need to list it as an operating base. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTE: This parameter has not been added to the template as of this time. However, the original proposer has already made 48 changes to airport articles using this term. This is causing template errors as reported at Category:Pages using infobox airport with unknown parameters. Can someone with the proper authority please sort this? Thank you. (Cc: User:RickyCourtney, User:VenFlyer98.) Precision123 (talk) -- User:dhpageDhpage (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It throws an error, but works as intended. Not sure how to fix the error, it’s far beyond my knowledge of template coding. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Done, the issue was a change in format at List of airports in Michigan Reywas92Talk 04:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Airport codes § Combining codes that are the same. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)