Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Contents

[edit] Improvement drive

The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminals

What is the feeling of the group here about the terminal lists? An anon editor slapped a cleanup tag on McCarran International Airport and one of the items removed afterwards was the sections on the terminal and the how they are used by the various airlines and where they airlines fly to. That seems to be a standard element of most airport articles, especially for major airports. I could not find suggested heading as a part of this project. Should there be one? Should the data on terminals be in articles? Vegaswikian 17:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot of articles would be nothing but stubs without those sections, and I think that the information on the terminals, airlines, and destinations is one of the most important parts of an airport article. You should restore the original McCarran Article and be on the look-out for more of those clean-ups. PRueda29 17:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I did restore that section. However on the McCarren talk page there is a discussion about what should be in an airport article. Should charter service be included? What is the recommended order for the sections? Should sightseeing be included, McCarren is a major sightseeing hub, in the article? Should information about cargo be listed? I think these should be discussed in this project under a structre heading that would indicate the suggested order and what should be generally covered in each section and what should not be included in the article? I may add that if there are no objections. Vegaswikian 20:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
My suggestions over at the LAS talk page where to not include gate information, that airline info should be at the end (right before links) and that charter airline info, if included, should be separated out. I also generally do think that article was a bit of a mess, but that the response of deleting all kinds of stuff was silly. Rdore 00:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Layout and formatting of ICAO + IATA codes

Hello all, an issue has recently come up regarding the placement of ICAO and IATA codes in airport articles. It arose at Victoria International Airport, and identified the fact that there is no explicit standard as to whether airport codes should be placed after the article title, in the infobox, or both. I've reproduced some comments from the Victoria airport page below, and started an informal survey &mdash please weigh in. -Lommer | talk 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COMMENTS

Originally copied from Talk:Victoria International Airport.

So Lommer just reverted my edit to add the airport codes to the opening paragraph of this article, citing the fact that they are in the infobox. His (i'm assuming) edits are not incorrect, but i want to put down why i disagree.

  • The codes are redirects to this aiport

The codes appear in bold at the beginning of the article, which is standard wikipedia style for alternate names for things (if something has multiple names) and those bold words should redirect to the article, which they do.

  • This is standard accoss many airport articles

In all the airport articles that i have edited lately, i have been placing the codes just after the primary name, and before the alternate names. I am a big fan of standard layout, and i don't feel it should be altered if the codes appear in a table.

The table seems more like "extra info cleverly formatted" but should not remove the codes from the opening paragraph.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports doesn't seem to say much about what should be done when the info box exists, and perhaps that would be a more suitable place to discuss this. (Man, after checking my own link, the Layout page actually has the codes in the table and in the opening paragraph. However, this issue is still up for discussion, i think)

In summary, i support restoring my codes to the opening paragraph. Please comment

-- Fudoreaper 07:09:32, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

  Fudoreaper's point about redirects is bang on, and it's the thing I dislike most about the solution of having codes only in the infobox. However, I would argue that a having redundant information right at the top of the article is a very bad thing, and that placing the codes in the opening sentance disrupts the flow of the language. I also think that anyone who gets redirected to the article by way of an ICAO/IATA code probably knows a thing or two about them and that makes it less important to identify a redirect in bold (though I know this breaches wikipedia convention).
  Apart from the issue about the formatting of redirects in the intro, I would contend that Fudoreaper's second point about standards is less important. The standard is whatever we choose it to be, and we should choose a good standard. If that means extra work changing articles now, well I say better now than later as it the work associated will only increase with time.
  If others have input I'm willing to be flexible, and I'm also open to solutions that I don't see yet. As Fudoreaper so appropriately says: Please comment. -Lommer | talk 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about assuming someone getting redirected knows something about airport codes. Take the case of my local airport. Everyone in town knows its ICAO code and could type it is as the name. They simply enter KLAS and off they go to the airport, except they wanted the TV station with that call sign. Yes, that is now a redirect, the TV station was moved to a new name so a DAB page could be located put in place. The point here is that if there are more ICAO or IATA code redirects around that point to an airport, it could confuse those who get to an airport instead of the comany or whatever that they thought they would get. So explaining how they got there at the beginning of the article, as suggested above, probably would explain this to those people. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines has a similar problem. I think where they are is, the codes should be in the infobox, and nothing says that an editor can not also use the template.
(i went on a 4 day camping trip immediately after i made my original comments, i'm trying to catch up, now :) My point about standardization was only that i feel that an airport article should have a consistent place for information that exists about every airport. Coords, codes, runways, etc. That info should be put in a consistent place so that i can open an airport article and in sub-seconds find the key pieces of info. -- Fudoreaper 20:33:05, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
One addtiional point. Several airport artciles mention the IATA code since it is import for the article in some way. Whatever decision is made, those types of uses of the code should be allowed in the article. Vegaswikian 19:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course. In every code-related edit i have made, i have conciously not changed any article text that talks about the name in any more detail than "The IATA code is BLAH". If it talks about the history of the name, or how the name was chosen, then this text should be unaltered, as removing it would diminish the article. However, if there is a sentence that says, "The IATA code is BLAH.", i think that can be removed and replaced with that info in a template and/or infobox. -- Fudoreaper 20:38:22, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Given the voting to this point, it looks like most people support codes in the infobox and after the article title. Would anyone object to calling this issue closed and making that format standard? -Lommer | talk 05:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Based on the survey below that would seem to be the case. If so, should it be added to the project page someplace? Looks like the vote was open for about a week, enough time for a good straw poll. Vegaswikian 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I would very much like if the result of this discussion was a consensus that caused something to be written down in a "official" place (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/layout) for future reference for any wikipedia editor. And also reference in case of disagreement. (Like citing the wikipedia manual of style) I'm not personally familiar enough with WikiProjects Airports to say exactly where this should be written--i'm kinda green with airport knowledge--but it should be written, i think. -- Fudoreaper 20:48:20, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

[edit] SURVEY

Please note that this survey is fairly informal. Please check back often to see if comments have been made that might change your mind.

I support placing airport codes only after the article title:
  1. vote here
I support placing airport codes only in the infobox:
  1. Lommer | talk 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I support placing airport codes both in the infobox and after the article title:
  1. Allstar86 00:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Vik Reykja 02:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mike "Mig" · Talk 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Cleared as filed. 05:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Vegaswikian 06:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fudoreaper 20:29:39, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
  7. PRueda29 20:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. MCB 01:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triffling Things

I'm curious how people feel about the following standardization issues for desitnation lists:

  1. Do we prefer Seattle or Seattle/Tacoma? (I don't care)
  2. For BWI, is it Baltimore or Baltimore/Washinton? (I prefer the former since it's a shorter name, the airport is much closer to Baltimore, and there are two other washington airports)
  3. If we distinguish between two airports in the same city by name, do we slash or hyphenate? For example, is it Chicago/Midway or Chicago-Midway, or something else? (I don't care)
  4. Is it Washington-Reagan or Washington-National? (I don't care)
  5. Is it Houston-Bush or Houston-Intercontinental? (I don't care)
  6. Is it New York-JFK or New York-Kennedy? (I prefer JFK, but don't care strongly)
  7. Also, for cases where there is more than one city with the same name, both having commercial airports, (like Portland), I've been trying to specific which state with the two letter abbreviation in parenthesis. Any objections?

Feel free to add to this list. Rdore 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts... I could be wrong....

  1. I've seen (and done) both. I guess I would choose Seattle/Tacoma if we are going to pick a standard.
  2. Baltimore/Washington has become pretty standard and that's what I use. That's it's name, and it is the 3rd airport for Washington, DC.
  3. I've seen both but the slash is more common; I myself always use slashes.
  4. Washington/Reagan is more often used for wiki airports and I use it as well. I would prefer though, Washington/National if it became standard.
  5. Houston/Intercontinental is more often used for wiki airports and I use it as well (and would vote for this alternative).
  6. I've seen both, not sure which is more common, and would also prefer, and use, New York/JFK
  7. It's wiki airport standard to put the state in parenthesis if there's more than one in that city.

I agree these are triffling; and I too don't care that much one way or the other, but they should be standardized. Allstar86 02:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The airlines project has been considering a master list of all airports listed and arranged like they are in many of the larger airline destination articles. This would make it easier to create destination lists for each airline with the same information for all airlines. Maybe this project could use what comes out of that effort. The biggest problem is that they use the airport name but this project uses a city name. Vegaswikian 05:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the airport name. The whole name would be way too long to include in destination lists; I've seen people delete destination lists because they looked too long and messy already. For a big airport, you could have several airlines which each list a few dozen airports in parenthesis. And if you're just using short names, I think city names are generally far more useful. I mean sure, most people probably know O'Hare or JFK. But I think 'San Jose (CA)' or 'Providence' is more useful than 'Mineta' or 'T. F. Green'. Plus for a lot of airports, there is no way to give the name without the location anyway. Rdore 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Probably did not make this as clear as I should have, and this may not help. That list would also include the city name which would be the city name used in this project. Sometimes there is conflict in the city name where the airport is actually located. As an example, POU is Dutchess County Airport, it is listed as a destination under Poughkeepsie and is located in the Town of Wappinger. What city is used here? I'm suggesting using whatever comes out in an airlines master list of destinations. Vegaswikian 21:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you refering to articles in Category:Airline destinations? Because, as I said, those are way to long. I understand your objections. However what I want is a list of short forms for use in Destination lists. I don't see a good way to fit that into the airline destination structure. I think it might be best just to make a list for our use as a subpage of Projct Airports, and specify the full airport name on that list as well. Rdore 23:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Not a problem with two lists. I just think that both projects need to use the same information in articles. Using the earlier comment, one project should not use JFK and the other Kennedy. Both projects should use the same names. Vegaswikian 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the questions

  • For different airports in the same city I would go with the dash (city-aiport)
  • If it's two cities on the name use a slash (city/city)
  • For names, I'd use the traditional one. That way you don't need to change it when someone adds a modified name like they did on EWR and IAH. If you select a short hand like Bush or Intercontinental maybe there needs to be a subpage here that lists these so it is clear what to use since it is difficult to cast a rule in concrete. Based on my traditional comment it would be Houston-Intercontinental. Also the IATA code is based on the Intercontinental name so more support for that as the choice.
  • In some cases usage is the key, JFK is JFK for many but Kennedy has a strong showing in the NY area. I suspect that worldwide JFK would be the hands down winner.
    Vegaswikian 05:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FBOs

Should data for fixed base operators be included in airport articles? What data specifically should be included? How do we prevent the article from sounding advertisement-like while still being informative if we chose to include FBOs? -Lommer | talk 02:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. See also the discussion at Talk:Vancouver_International_Airport#FBOs_section

I think they probably should not be included. It seems like a level of detail that isn't necessary—no one who needs to know that level of detail will be using Wikipedia to find it out, they will be going to more detailed resources (Jeppesen, AOPA). It reminds me of the arguments I just made to delete List of Apple retail stores in the US. (The VFD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Apple retail stores in the US.) We don't want to become the Yellow Pages.
For that matter, I'm not particularly crazy about the airport articles listing all of the airlines that serve the airport, but it looks like that's a little ingrained already for me to start complaining now. Again, too Yellow-Pages like, especially the articles that list gate numbers and whatnot. No one who needs that information is going to an encyclopedia to get it. IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 02:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think someone is removing the gate numbers from the articles. So that concern may be on its way to being resolved. Vegaswikian 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some of that. Don't know if I am who you're referring to. Rdore 05:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a justification for why it should be in an encylcopedia, but info regarding which airlines fly where to where does not exist in an organized way that I have managed to find online. Rdore 05:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
FBOs are often owned by larger companies so if you include them in airport articles, it establishes a link between the company article and airports where that company has operations. In some airports, the FBOs operate terminals so that would seem reasonable to mention. You can avoid the information sounding like an advertisement by keeping the entry short. I think avoiding listing all of the services that an FBO provides would be the correct way to go if FBOs are added. Vegaswikian 02:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Often but not always, many operate under a non-profit charter--Captain433180 05:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
For me, one reason I feel FBOs should be included is that they reflect a side not often seen by the general public and I think a lot of people are actually interested in reading about what goes on behind the scenes at an airport (I'm certainly more interested in the stuff I don't know about than the stuff I can go down to the airport and find out about myself). I also think its cool to establish a company link, but if we remove the list of services then I'm lost on what info we could usefully include. Finally, Some FBOs operate their own "mini-terminals" at large airports. For example, at vancouver international Chevron, Shell, and Esso each operate a "terminal" that handles passengers, boarding, and baggage and is totally separate from the main and south terminals. So how do you get around this? -Lommer | talk 01:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that simply a mention that general aviation FBOs are at the airport would be enough to inform the general public—anyone who needs more detail than that are going to go to non-encyclopedia sources to get it. Unless there's something particularly notable about an FBO on its own, I don't think just the fact that it exists is noteworthy... —Cleared as filed. 01:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would really appreciate anyone with ideas making some edits at Vancouver International Airport by the way. It's nice to get a third party in the action when two editors are in opposition. -Lommer | talk 01:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the discussion here may be the proper way to deal with that article. If the project can reach a consensus then you can use the project position to resolve the difference of opinion in the article. If I look at the comments so far, I see some limited support to allow the FBOs some minimal information in articles. But there is some opposition. I suggest waiting a few days and then summing up this discussion and see if it supports including FBOs and if so with what limits. Vegaswikian 02:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh I fully appreciate that, it was with that goal in mind that I brought it up here. However in this case neither editor is really extreme or out of line (mind you, I'm including myself in that so take it with a grain of salt), and actual edits to the page have a way of bringing out fresh ideas... -Lommer | talk 04:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects for IATA/ICAO codes?

Greetings -- I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I am new to WikiProjects, and since I'm an airport and aviation enthusiast I thought I'd start here first. (Is there a protocol for joining a project? In typical WP fashion I just added myself to the list of participants and have starting figuring out what to get to work on, but if there's more formality than that, please excuse me for barging in.)

Anyway, I didn't see it mentioned but do we have a policy/consensus on creating redirects (or adding to disambig pages) for airport codes? I've worked on a few airport articles and if the code is not a redirect I've added them, and I've seen others already existing, so I guess they're generally accepted, but is it (or should it be) a project goal to add them where they don't exist? MCB 01:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi MCB. I haven't added myself to this wikiproject yet because I've been spending most of my time on the Canberra wikiproject but I have created and worked on a few airport articles so I have added it to my watchlist. In response to your first questions, my experience has been that if you add yourself to a project, people are usually happy to have you along and help out.
In response to your second question, out of consideration for articles that share three letter acronyms with airport codes, it is a good idea to create a disambiguation page rather than create a redirect. Even if other articles for BHX don't exist yet, that's not to say that the Big Hungry Xylophonists won't be created in future. Where there are links to BHX, the correct way to deal with them would be to link them to Birmingham International. So the link would look like 'Birmingham International Airport|BHX' - all in square brackets [[ ]] Have Fun. Adz 05:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic

Any comments on the List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic article? I'm tempted to put this up for AfD since I'm not sure it is needed. Most of the links are to cities and not airports. Any interest in saving this article and cleaning it up and making sure the data is current? Vegaswikian 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also consider Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline and Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination. Vegaswikian 02:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd vfd them all. Don't worry about it too much, if deleting them isn't appropriate after all, then that will come out at vfd. -Lommer | talk 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the pages is an old discussion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination.--Huaiwei 09:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] City disambiguation

I don't like the way that multiple cities with the same name are disambiguated. The parenthesis within parenthesis and non-standard abbreviations are jarring, and in some cases not entirely clear. I favor using Associated Press-style abbreviations where necessary, and spelling out the full name where abbreviations would be unwieldly. ABC Airlines (San Jose, Calif., San Jose, Costa Rica). XYZ Airways (Portland, Ore., Portland, Maine). Alternatively, they could be displayed the way the airlines do it on the terminal displays... that would require separating destinations with semicolons - as in (San Jose, CA; San Jose, Costa Rica; Manchester, UK; Manchester, NH; Portland, OR; Portland, ME). Either way, it would get rid of the parenthesis within the parenthesis. FCYTravis 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Firstly, I think that comma delimitting them is confusing because the destination list is already comma delimitted. There might be a way to do this that's better than parentheses, but commas seem to confuse the issue.It might be obvious for some, but If I saw "London, Ontario" it's not clear that that isn't the London in the UK, and Ontario airport in southern california.
  • Just saw your update abouit semicolons. I think semicolons are far uglier than nested parentheses. Especially with so many of them packed together.
  • Secondly, I don't see why AL is less clearly Alabama than Ala., or OR is less clear than Ore. In all the cases I know of where this comes up, it is fairly clearly from two letters which is which. All of the ones that exist to my knowledge are (feel free to add to this):
    • Portland: Oregon (OR) and Maine (ME)
    • St. Petersburg: Florida (FL) and Russia (RU)
    • Fayetteville: Arkansas (AR) and North Carolina (NC)
    • Charleston: West Virginia (WV) and North Carolina (NC)
    • London: Ontario (ON) and the ones in the UK, all delimitted with a /airport name
    • Rochester: New York (NY) and Minesota (MN)
    • Manchester: New Hampshire (NH) and United Kingdon (UK)
    • Birmingham: Alabama (AL) and United Kingdon (UK)
    • San Jose: California (CA) and Costa Rica (CR)
    • Santiago: Dominican Republic (DR) and Chile, usually just as far as I've seen just (Chile)
    • Victoria: British Columbia (BC) and Texas (TX)
    • I believe there's Springfield Missouri (MO) and another Springfield with a commercial airport, but I can't remember which.
  • Thirdly, people have complained that the destination lists are already too long. Having long abbreviations makes this even worse. People have suggested leaving longer version when it would be a huge hassle to update, but I don't see the point of longer version when the old one is shorter.
  • People aren't going to recognize many of the cities on Destination lists anyways. Do you know where Thief River Falls is?
  • I don't really care about the capitalization bit, although in some cases in seems to make it clearer that it's an abbreviation. E.g. San Jose (CR), then CR is Costa Rica.

Rdore 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If we were just discussing the US, I would have no problem with using the two letter postal service state code like OR or CA. Does this cause any problems for locations outside of the US? Is there a simlar code available for other countries? Vegaswikian 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Air/ America West terminal listings

At least one editor has already combined these into one, listing both sets of destinations. I'm going to revert that change until there is some concesus on what to do. The problem I see with doing this is that both airlines will continue operating for at least 2 more years. Until the merger of the airlines themselves is complete, America West probably should be listed as US Airways dba America West Airlines. Comments? Vegaswikian 05:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If they're in separate terminals, we should keep them separate until they come together. Once this occurs, we should list them as US Airways dba America West Airlines until the name America West becomes obsolete. PRueda29 05:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

    • There's lots of airlines that are in multiple terminals. We don't not list American Eagle under American Airlines just because they might be in two separate terminals. Some of the merging won't happen for several weeks or months (it will be spread out due to gate leases) but as of tomorrow it's, as you said, US Airways dba America West Airlines. FCYTravis 05:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I know that at Newark, they have had adjacent gates for some months. US Air moved their gates and ticket positions at McCarran last week and that was held up because of leases from what I heard, so they are working to make this happen. Vegaswikian 06:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Forgot to add, can someone look at McCarran and see if I listed the Mesa dba entry correctly? Vegaswikian 06:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we have consensus on what to list it under? I've been told that the correct way to post it is America West Airlines dba US Airways - because the operating certificate says AWA but the marketing name, etc. is now US Airways. Someone reverted my changes and made it "US Airways dba America West Airlines. Can we get some sort of agreement and unification on this? FCYTravis 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Listing as US Airways operated by America West Airlines is not really correct. HP still is an airline that operates on its own. Its ownership has changed. Probably the most correct listing is America West Airlines operated by America West Airlines a division of US Airways Group, but simply using America West Airlines is probably the cleanest and most accurate. this may be the one case that listing as US Airways dba America West Airlines may also be a better choice. Remember that HP will exist into 2007 before the FAA gets around to approving all of the changes needed to kill the airline. Vegaswikian 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • All the America West aircraft now carry heritage stickers with the US Airways merger logo and the subscript: "This aircraft operated by America West Airlines." Semi-technically it might not be correct just yet, but the airline has set a date in the first week of January that all America West branding will go away. All US and HP flights will, after that date, be marketed as US Airways - the in-flight announcements, tickets, videos, safety cards, etc. will be switched over to US Airways. HP might technically still exist until 2007, but the America West brand name will disappear into history in a matter of weeks. So, America West will be like a regional carrier - operating flights exclusively under someone else's brand name. Also, it was determined in a discussion on this page that "dba" is an inappropriate Americanism and that "operated by" is the preferred nomenclature. FCYTravis 19:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americanisms and other recent changes

A couple of changes recently that have sort of irked me somewhat:

  1. dba is in my eyes an alien term, I had to look it up to find out what it meant. I had to add the disambig mention to the dba page! I'd venture a lot of other people are likewise confused. It's American terminology where others would use franchise I guess. Consider these two options of presenting the same info:
    British Airways (Loganair) (Inverness, Kirkwall, Lerwick, Shetland Sumburgh, Stornoway, Wick)
    Loganair dba British Airways (Inverness, Kirkwall, Lerwick, Shetland, Sumburgh, Stornoway, Wick)
    (nb - I'm just using Rdore's changes - "Sumburgh, Stornoway" is his error in the edit)
  2. London/Heathrow, London/Gatwick, London/City etc rather than using the correct names of the airports (London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City) nothing at all is gained by this and it is using terminology which is not in common use.
  3. Over zealous disambiguation of city names... A case in point being Edinburgh Airport which Rdore has just took at hatchet to on the destination list[1] (example of all 3 points raised). All the cities had wikilinks to the correct (disambiguated) city and where required the airport, this has been replaced by a list with no wikilinks on the city names and largely redundant 'disambiguation' of the cityname. I mean, as if there are ever going to be services to Manchester and Birmingham in the US! I'm minded to revert this change given it also added the dba usage...

Regards/Wangi 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure there's places that have service to both Manchester, UK and Manchester, NH. At least US Airways at Philadelphia <grin>. I'm in favor of always listing the correct city names, which are always disambiguated (in my experience) on airline flight information display systems in the US. For consistency's sake... Same with the "London/Heathrow" usage. Is it differently displayed in the UK? FCYTravis 20:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wangi that the dba stuff is mostly unnecessary, when used regarding corporate status during a merger. 99% of Wikkipedia users are not going to care about USAirways dba America West Airlines or the former AMR, Inc., dba TWA, and so forth. We airline/airport insiders tend to make more of that than needs to be done. The traveling public is concerned, from an airports point of view, with what sign is on the ticket counter and what name is painted on the airplane. (The exceptions to this are regional affiliates, where things like SkyWest Airlines dba United Express is somewhat useful, especially in aiports where there are multiple (e.g.) United Express affiliates.) MCB 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The America West Airlines dba US Airways stuff is important precisely because at this point the airlines are merged corporately but not operationally. US/AWA flights, in many cases, operate out of separate terminals, with separate aircraft. FCYTravis 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that since they're not operationally merged, there does not need to be a precise elaboration of the full corporate name or who exactly holds the FAA certificate, or whatever. It should just remain the way it was before the merger, in most cases, e.g., "America West operates out of Terminal 1. USAirways operates out of Terminal 2." When they are merged at that airport, the article can mention that, or some intermediate state. MCB 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's "elaborate" to simply indicate that America West Airlines is now part of US Airways Group operating US Airways flights, as we indicate that Mesa Airlines operates the US Airways Express flights. Ticket check-in counters now all say "US Airways/America West Airlines." FCYTravis 21:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
          • If the ticket counters are merged, then for now listings should probably say (e.g.), "USAirways/America West uses Terminal 2". When the name America West goes away, that can be fixed. This way there's no need for all the "dba" stuff. MCB 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The correct place to list that AWA and US Airways are part of the same company is not on every airport page. If someone who is looking in the airport article for that information they are looking in the worng place. However there is a link to the airline which should explain who owns them. These entries should be logical and easy to read and not be confusing. I'd like to see the listing simply be who the ticket is sold for in the listing. So if you purchased a ticket on foo airlines, then any express flights on foo express would be included in the foo airlines listing since that is what matters on the airport page. If we wish to list the foo express destinations that can be done in that article or on the destinations page for that company. Doing this would also reduce the size of some of these entries since in many cases, both mainline and expres flights operate to some destinations. Vegaswikian 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • For an interesting one look at Sioux Gateway Airport. Vegaswikian 18:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The difference I see is that "Mesa Airlines dba United Express" is useful because multiple regional carriers do business as United Express, sometimes in the same airport (e.g.), DEN. Whereas in the merger case, there's only one, and no ambiguity. MCB 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • But does it matter to the person looking at information on that airport? Why maintain this level of information in two places? Vegaswikian 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FCYTravis - yeah where an airport does serve two identically named cities then extra disambiguation is useful, however in 99% of cases just the name wikilinked to the correct city if enough. In the UK you commonly see just Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City; in Europe London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London Stansted, London Luton, London City. Wangi 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess the question is, what is accurate concerning the name of the company providing the service. Does the person flying xxxxx express care if it is operated by airline 1 or airline 2? Probably not even if both use one airport. The ownership issues are about the airline and should be covered in that article. If someone needs that information they can follow the link. Also there is much confusion over this since brands like Ted (airline) and Song (airline) are really operated by United Airlines and Delta Air Lines, there is no dba involved. If the decision was to keep it simple and just list the name of the airline on the ticket I would not object. Vegaswikian 23:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • On the city names and links, it seems to be policy to list the cities without links. Is this no longer acceptable or am I missing something? The important point is that in airport articles, the destination cities are always listed the same in all articles. Vegaswikian 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Destination airports are usually not wikified. I'm fine with changing that policy, but we should choose to make that the standard, not just do it some places in an ad hoc way. Also, I only disambiguate for airports where both have commercial service. Manchester is an example that deserves disambiguation in any case. The Manchester airport is the busiest in New Hampshire and one of the reliever airports for Bostan's Logan (along with TF Green in Providence). Take a look at the destination list. Perhaps there are some places where disambiguation includes an airport with very minor commercial service. For example Rochester (NY) is much busier of an airport than Rochester (MN). Rdore 00:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airline destination lists in airport articles

Is it time to add a policy to the project page? Vegaswikian 01:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, in an attempt to sum up my views on all this a bit...
    1. "dba" - confusing terminology which is unnecessary, also lists the airlines in a non intuitive order (the first listed should be the one listed on the ticket, on the gate etc - the one you think you are flying on). I much prefer "British Airways (Loganair)" over "Loganair dba British Airways" since it gets the info in the right order (and still contains the finer details in the brackets for us guys, but lists the expected airline for everyone else).
      • Personally I think using British Airways and including all of the destinations there removes all confusion at the airport level. If you need more detail you sholuld know it will be found at the airline link. Vegaswikian 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd be fine with that, but i'm sure most of the folk here doing the edits are the sort of folks that want that info. Wangi 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    2. Differentiating using "/" (eg London/Heathrow) - adds confusion, London Heathrow is more straight forward.
      • The list is of cities, so you need some marker to indicate that what follows is the modifier. Using the "/" or some other character is what I prefer. I don't like the alternative of dropping that marker between the city and airport. Vegaswikian 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • My main problem with that is it adds confusion for airports such as Leeds/Bradford and Dallas/Ft Worth, where the slash isn't differentiating. Wangi 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Would the "-" dash work? Vegaswikian 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    3. Disambiguation of city names, not wikilinking - fair enough
      Wangi 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm moving this list to the project page so we can all change it to reach a concensus. Discussions should remain here. I also made this part of the discussion a heading and adjusted indents. Vegaswikian 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How about this as a compromise. London/EGLL. I know we are avoiding links here, but maybe the airport ICAO code link would be short and clarify to anyone who needs more information which airport it is. Vegaswikian 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost nobody knows what the ICAO code is. I certainly don't. The IATA airport code (LGW) is much, much more common, not to mention intuitive. But just saying London Gatwick would be far more straightforward. I've come around to Wangi's way of thinking. Houston Hobby, London Gatwick, New York Kennedy, etc. FCYTravis 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto, ICAO urgh! :) Only the Canucks know them! I still think using the "conversational" version is the best way forward, and after that '-' is better than '/'. Wangi 20:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree IATA would be better than ICAO. I generally think a dash might be the best bet at this point. I don't like putting nothing. Otherwise for example "San Jose del Cabo" might very well be interpreted as "del Cabo" airport in San Jose. I also generally would much prefer to see JFK as opposed to Kennedy. It is both shorter, and I think it is more recognizable. Rdore 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree (I am a "Canuck" though). The ICAO code is more precise, global, and is the standard that North America is migrating to. In time, IATA codes will become obsolete. Further, I see no problems with ICAO because often the only difference is a 'K' or 'C' in front of the North American IATA code - seems pretty easy to figure out the difference to me. -Lommer | talk 00:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Hang on here! ICAO and IATA codes have different purposes and uses. One does not replace the other. IATA codes are used for ticketing and are what is in the GDS's and the airlines ticketing and space systems, and in computing and publishing fares, fare basis, and routing. They are also used on baggage routing. ICAO codes are used for navigation, dispatch, operations, and for SITA and other communications. The IATA codes are widely known by passengers and check-in counter agents (which is the context of destination information in airport articles), whereas ICAO codes will just be confusing in that context. MCB 04:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The regular ol' Joe would better recognize the IATA code rather than the ICAO code since it's what they see on their tickets and baggae tags. It's also the code that most locals use when talking about their home airport. I don't think I've ever met anyone outside of aviation who knows about the ICAO codes, and the reason for a wikipedia article is to have information everyone can understand. Most people couldn't tell you what RJAA is, but I bet most people could identify NRT as Tokyo. Also, I've never heard of ICAO being more global... everyone I speak to worldwide (penapls and family) seems to know their local IATA codes better than their ICAO codes. As for it becoming "the norm" in North America, that's not true of the US. It's really only used in technical terms, like ops sheets and ATC. You'd never see an airport departure screen say New York/KJFK or Chicago/KORD it always says just JFK or ORD. PRueda29 08:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Wait, wait, wait!! When one needs to identify an airport for weather ICAO is used, when one needs to identify and airport on a GPS ICAO is used and these GPS devices are made and programmed in the US. As far as being useless that’s incorrect. But I do agree that most pilots will identify an airport technically by its IATA code (in Canada because the "C" is assumed). Also this is and "Encyclopaedia" and needs to list all info. To drop one or the other is removal of information someone might be looking for. We should have both. When I teach ground-school I have to list the ICAO because of TC standards. Arguments all around... my vote is to use both. If the Americans are concerned about IATA and ICAO allow us Canucks to list both because in our CFS it, lists the ICAO not IATA. Besides both organizations are head-quartered in Montreal anyways... so as far as anything being "Canadian" both are located in Canada, with the Euro office in Switzerland.--Captain433180 04:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree we shoud list both. PRueda29 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • An airport's page will list both ICAO and IATA codes, but that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing how to differentiate airports in the same city. For example "London Heathrow", "London-Heathrow", "London/Heathrow", "London LHR", "London EGLL", or ...
              In general I think "London Heathrow", but in some cases the IATA code has a life of its own - "New York JFK", "Paris CDG". Wangi 09:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In an attempt to try and see if we have some consensus here is a summary. There are two issues being discussed and I'll list them below so that comments can be directed to each one. ABout the only issue is regional service. Vegaswikian 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Including dba or similar formatting for the airlines in the destination section of airport articles. There appeared to be no objections to dropping this and just listing the airline directly. Vegaswikian 18:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • My opinion is to combine them since most users only know they are booked on Foo Airlines. They don't know that their flight happens to be on Foo Airlines Express. It also allows one destination list, so there is no need to keep up on what plane is used to fly to a given destination or that both mainline and express service is provided to some airports.
      • Another case is multiple names with one certificate. For airports that don't have United flights, but only Ted flights list them as Ted and include a "United (see Ted)" entry. Vegaswikian 18:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How to list a city with multiple airports in the destination section of airport articles. The options appear to be "London Heathrow", "London-Heathrow", "London/Heathrow", "LondonLHR", "London EGLL". Using the IATA or ICAO codes is problamatic because not everyone knows them (including ones like JFK!). However by linking these we add only a few links and everyone can find out which airport this is without doing much and the entries length is kept short. This also is an easy standard to put in place, the choice of what to use is clear cut. The other option is to use some variation of the airport name like the three for Heathrow above. This is not as clear cut since the airport name used locally may not be what others around the world might use (Kennedy vs. JFK).

Can we try and get some agreement on the naming issue? How about a quick poll - put your name under the choice you think best/Wangi 09:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Conversational, e.g. "London Heathrow":
    • Wangi 09:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • City-Name, e.g. "London-Heathrow":
  • City/IATA, e.g. "London/LHR":
The seperator to use is being discussed at #Multiple Airports in Same City Disambiguation below. I would have no problem using Heathrow IF, we can agree on standard names for all airports. Going back to the NYC example, do we use Kennedy or JFK? NYC is a good example since it also has LaGuardia. The NYC destination also includes Newark. And for a point of reference, airline schedules typically identify these three airports as 'K' (I think that is what was used), 'L' and 'E'. Vegaswikian 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to list an airline using multiple terminals

How should you list an airline that is in multiple terminals? At McCarran they were in the terminal most commonly used and then a (see above) or (see below) in the lesser used terminal. Now someone has chnaged this so that Southwest is listed in Terminal B where they have about 6 flights a day with a (see above) in terminal C where they have about 180 flights a day. Unless it is easy to keep track of the flights by terminals I think the destinations should be listed in one place and secondary terminals should have a (see xxxx) comment. Maybe a (see terminal x for list of destinations) rather then the see above. Vegaswikian 01:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • For consistency I think it makes sense to have the flights listed under the first terminal in the list, then "see above" for all others. Dbinder 13:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official/Commonly used airport names

What is the practice regarding the name of the airports? This primarily concerns Canadian airports as I have no clue outside that area. The Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) says on page A4:

"NAV CANADA is responsible for all Canadian civil aeronautical information, however, the Canadian Aviation Regulations make it mandatory for aerodrome operators to report all changes to the CFS information to the Minister of Transport."

The rest of the paragraph explains how to do that.

Now the problem is that many airports appear to have more than one official name which may or may not be reflected in the article. An example of this is Toronto Pearson International Airport, which is the Greater Toronto Airports Authority name for the airport. The CFS listing is Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, which in this case is not reflected in the article. It was moved to its current name from the CFS listing to the GTAA name. This is just one but there are several others Greater Sudbury Airport - Sudbury Airport, North Peace Airport - Fort St. John Airport.

My feeling is that the article should have one name and the info box should have the other but I'm not bothered which way round. CambridgeBayWeather 21:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the correct way to handle this is to include the other names bolded at the beginning of the article and have these other names be a redirect to the article. Vegaswikian 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I halfheartedly agree with Vegaswikian, but it does get quite verbose at times. At any rate, I'd be inclined to use the CFS title over the local airport authority's title, if only because it's easier to standardize. -Lommer | talk 05:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

CFB Goose Bay is a good example of that. The problem right now is that there is no standard of airport names (see above) and I don't know if we could get one. CambridgeBayWeather 19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific airport airlines template?

Would anyone mind if we moved the section about all the airlines into a template that was included in the article? I don't mean a parametarized template, merely a subpage of the airport article that is included inline using the template syntax. The reason for my request is that I watch several airport articles, yet have zero interest in airlines and their respective destinations. For an airport like CYVR, the vast majority of edits are to the airlines/destinations list, if I could ignore these edits that on my watchlist that would be great (they also consume a lot of space on the page history). I'm not saying that its not a worthy section of the article by any means, I would just like a way to sort of separate the two subjects so that those wikipedians who want to focus on only one or the other can do so. There's no difference from a reader's POV, and from an editor's the main dif is that you'd have to use the section "edit" button instead of the article "edit" button. What do people think? -Lommer | talk 06:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe that for airlines, you can just create a destinations page. Not sure how that would work for an airport. If you are asking if it would be OK to have an airport specific template for airline destinations, then I'd say the answer is no. Generally single use templates are a reason to delete the template in TfD. Vegaswikian 06:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is the possibility of making a separate "Airlines and nonstop destinations" page, but I think this information is valuable enough to enough people that it should be included in the main article. And yes, I am proposing an airport specific template for airline destinations, but I don't think there will be problems with it. For starters it's not really a template, especially since its not in the template namespace. The better way to think of it is a subpage of the article that is included inline using the template syntax. -Lommer | talk 18:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • A subpage would be much better then a template. Before you start on that we probably need to decide on when a subpage is needed and resolve the major heading used. I know of destinations being listed under terminals which I think is the most common and under airlines at others, usually the smaller airports. What metric would you suggest to say the terminal/airline/destinations would have to meet to get a destinations page? What would the subpage be called, Foo Airport direct destinations? Vegaswikian 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Cannot see the reason - as it is the section edit can be used. Perhaps if you could give a demo? Wangi 22:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've done up a proof-of-concept at the Vancouver International Airport article. Compare the old version [2] with the new [3]. To the reader, they look identical. However, I've basically extricated the airlines information from the article and placed it in a new subpage: Vancouver International Airport/Airlines and Nonstop Destinations. This subpage is then included inline in the article where the content formerly appeared. How does this change the mechanics of editing? Well first off, changes to the subpage wont appear on the watchlists of those only watching the main article, and changes to the main article wont appear on the wachlists of those only watching the subpage. If, while viewing the main article, an editor clicks the "edit this section" link, he is directly taken to editing the subpage. Unfortunately, the downside of this technique is that if one clicks the edit button at the top of this page and is hoping to edit the airlines section, all one sees is the template syntax for including the subpage. Reading back over this, it sounds pretty complicated, but go check out the proof-of-concept implementation I've made and see what you think. -Lommer | talk 05:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I will say that is an interesting result. Like you said, the article edit is one potential issue. Vegaswikian 06:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport

Huaiwei, I see you have reverted my edits which standardised the infobox and the desination lists. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports project exists to improve the airport articles on Wikipedia and give them a consistent style.

The standard infobox - Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/infobox - contains much less information. It is intended as a quick source of facts.

Destination lists on every other arport page include the airline name (with link) and a list of the destinations they fly to directly. The table format used in this article contains far too much information - information that should be on the airline's page.

Please can we continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports (I have copied this message there).

Regards/Wangi 15:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It was not a revert of the infobox, but a restoration of the old infobox into seperate ones which I dont think is the business of this project to delete. Sure, I fully understand the need to standardise information, and hence I did not touch the new infobox, but as for the remaining information, I dont see any reason why work to add more information in any one airport should be removed just because other airport pages lack them.
The same applies to the destination lists. First, there was an effort by one project member to delete statistical information. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination). There were comments made that this table is "sufficient" for the purpose the tables were supposed to provide. I suppose now even this table is considered overwelming?
The aviation business is one basically about numbers, besides gleaming metal and girls with plastic smiles handing you trays. By the fact that my academic speciality was on international transportion (my "mini thesis" for my final year was just about one plane make), I should have been a part of this wikiproject. But when it is staffed by some members who seem most determined to create slick presentation at the expense of information, I see no reason hence why I should be playing a part in it.--Huaiwei 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I was one of the people who put those articles up for deletion. I don't consider the information encyclopedic. That data also would appear to be difficult to maintain since that type of information is always changing. Are those tables filled in and accurate for today? In general the wiki guidance in that case seems to be to point to a site that has and updates the data.
One quality of an encyclopedia is consistency. It sounds like you are saying that this is not good and that you have a right to do as you see fit. Well, you do, and others can take exception to what you do by changing what they consider to be not the best way to do something. An infobox is intended to display common data across several pages. So if you are proposing using those infoboxes, they probably should be discussed here to determine ttheir utility.
Given their past history, I wonder what the article cleanup team would do to Singapore Changi Airport if they were made aware of it?
As to the terminal list. This is an article about the airport and not about details of the airlines who use the airport. The airline articles should include details specific to their operations. The airline code is associated with the airline and not needed in an airport article. The few who need it already know it or can link to the airline where it is located ay the top of that article. It is not encyclopedic to show when every airline started service at the airport. For the few that are important, they should be included in the history section. The number of flights is not encyclopedic and should not be included. Code shares should not be listed since the airline does not fly those routes. The destinations listed by terminal are what the airline actually flys. The concessus here is to not add code shares since they are difficult to maintain and don't really improve the quality of the article. Again, this is not a travel site, like wikitravel.
Disparaging other wikipeidans is not the wiki way. To say that everyone else does not care about providing information is completely off base. I have not seen anyone try to suppress encyclopedic information. In fact, the project has adjusted to try and resolve disputes, generally by adding to what can be included if an article proves the need to include more.
The fact that your thesis is somehow involved does not matter in this discussion. Vegaswikian 18:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll also add that the information in those tables is, if not wrong, misleading at best. I checked one entry for Air New Zealand to Rome which you list as a code share. Yes, this is in fact correct. However the restrictions on that code share is for connecting service only. You can not fly that route and it is not offered so it should not even be listed except under Singapore Airlines. But even their listing code share routes is not suppoted. Vegaswikian 19:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll echo a lot of that. The destination tables are confusing and simply full of too much information - it should be in the airline page (codes) or is worthless (code share). Additionally it is very hard to read - strings of airport names without punctuation. I'm going to revert back to the changes I made yesterday.
Okay, you didn't revert the complete infobox - rather you put back in everything else that was stuck onto it in individual sections. An encycplopedia isn't about dry numbers and stats, that's a spreadsheet! Most of these stats are largely meaningless - I mean what on earth is the use of knowing how many km of takiways (and their width)? I recommend you do a bit of reading around WP and read up on the view that many have about infoboxes - they are good you quick facts, is stops being info when there are reams of it - it should be rewritten as a paragraph.
The awards and accolades section also needs attention - it reads like an ad for the airport. Recent changes to the Singapore Airlines page covered similar ground by splitting off the section to a sub-article and I think that would be an improvement here too.
Singapore Airport is the business of this project as much as it is your business - a lot of people contribute to the project in an attempt to improve all airport articles with consitent style. No one is attacking your knowledge - we're just trying to improve things| And you are welcome to join us.
Thanks/Wangi 15:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I am much too dissapointed to bother about this anymore. Feel free to delete the page eventually if you guys decide the airport itself isnt important enough for wikipedia. I suppose I shant contribute much to this page anymore least some people deem its "not important" and delete it in a matter of seconds, erasing hours and hours of work.--Huaiwei 09:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei, this is a collaborative effort. Wangi 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The current Project's infobox is really inadequate. At the minimum, it should contains the (1) handling capacity (passenger), (2) Parking bays (for aircraft), (3) date of opening (4) #Passenger, (5) # Cargo handled (6) # Aircraft served. The airport is not merely a coordinate or some concrete strips; rather, an airport is a transportation service hub, and hence information on its services are essential and should be included as quickfact. Is there any reason why these are not included in the Project's infobox? The country's infobox is more elaborate and problems (due to the size) have being resolved; so size should not be a reason why airport's infobox should not be expanded to contain these essential and interesting quickfact. Growth is good, right? :D --Vsion 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think those suggestions should be on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox where the previous discussions are, including a discussion of at least one of your suggestions. Vegaswikian 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Meant to reply earlier today - yeah check the infobox sub page Vegas' link above, but remember to read the archives linked from the top of it - all the interesting discussion will be in them. Thanks/wangi 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with this page, used to have so much information, but now its gone. What a WASTE!!! I wish you Vegaswikian and wangi, from good info, but making it so short! I wish you just don't be so self-scented, and at least discuss, what standardisation is this! Can't some articles be different from others. I don't like the current revision of this article. This is a Singapore article, and you are being very selfish, extremely selfish. I hope you can put back that table in place, and just kindly leave, and let other users of the project handle this! And also to that, you have made a stir with SGPedians. Thanks to you guys. I can't beleive this. Why out of a number of users in the project, only two are doing this. The more information the better, right? Can you please do not intefere with the article, and I will also copy the table from the old edit, and put it in the LATEST ADDITION and DO NOT change it! Terenceong1992 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
There aren't that many people in this project, and of course as volunteers they are spread thin and can't all focus on this one thing. Anyway, more information is not always preferred on wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to list what some politican ate for lunch last week? If you feel that this information should be in wikipedia, please do explain. Also, please focus on discussing issues related to the article, and don't attack other users personally. In any case, there is a lot of debate about what an airport page should look like. I encourage you to join in the discussion here -- the more people we have thinking about such things, the better. Rdore 19:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei commented Reverted to Terenceong1992. Where is the guideline forcing the removal of all such content? while reverting to the table again (and loosing edits made to the list since). I can only point back up this discussion to Vegaswikian's long comment near the start... Both Terenceong1992 and Huaiwei seem to be of the opinion that more is better, while I think the rest of us agree that is not the case - SIN is the only airport which listed codeshares, these are not useful in this day and age of mega-alliances. Additionally the table was riddled with 'N/A' entries too. The list format is concise, more accurate, easier for passenger reference (i.e. it where they can fly to directly from the airport, indirectly they can fly anywhere in the world anyway), plus also easier to maintain. Thanks/wangi 09:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not going to make any edit war or things like that. The rest of us? Who? I would want to know. Did you know that before you guys (Wangi and Vegaswikian) came in, there was no conflict. I don't see other members of the project, in this discussion or going to edit the article. I think I will start a debate on this on my talk page as a subpage. However, no one must not make any personal attacks on anyone, and we will end the debate when the two parties can agree. Also, we are one whole community. Terenceong1992 11:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wangi's comment above leaves me wondering just how familiar he is with the aviation business. Codeshares arent redundant due to global alliances. Dont assume all flights by all member airlines in the same alliance are codeshared. The fact is they arent. Member airlines in an alliance continue to forge codeshare agreemens, and no codeshare exists if they dont formalise anything. SIA, for instance, has yet to codeshare on a single flight with Thai International despite being in the same alliance. Hence, why should codeshares be removed? Just because plenty of "NA" exists because there arent codeshares?
I am not so sure why comments like "rest of us agree" here, when the so-called "rest of us" constitutes no more than 5 people here. As far as I can see, it is not merely Terenceong1992 and me who resisted this attempt to remove information from the Changi article. I suppose by this comment, you are ignoring Vision's statements? Or all those members who voted to keep articles related to Changi's passenger statistics? Why this dismissive and high-handed attitude? I dont see how a "discussion" can take place when people seem to be refusing to acknowledge the existance of the opposing party and their viewpoints.
I also detect a tinge of hypocracy. Strange that "easier for passenger reference" should exists, as thou wikipedia's airport articles are meant to be read by air travellers? Isnt that the role of wikitravel, the very same comment made when trying to remove the more comprehensive table? The comprehensive table is obviously not geared towards air travellers, and is hardly useful for wikitravel. So just who is trying to write an article for wikitravel now?
A list is only as accurate as how we want it to be. Saying something should be removed for being inaccurate is like saying all wikipedia articles which have elements of inaccuracy should be deleted. A concise list? Yes of course. But tell me if it is useful if you want to have a guage of traffic flow and level of connectivity from this airport? The table is difficult to maintain? Are you able to predict that others like myself have no time for wikipedia?
I am going to restore the table back into that page. Saying there is "concensus" here to remove it as an excuse is a plain lie. Convince us why it should be removed, instead of expecting us to explain why it should remain, because I simply dont see any comprehensive effort in gaining wider community concensus before forcing all articles to conform to a wikiproject dictated by a few.--Huaiwei 11:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought the "first round" of this discussion did come to consensus... Anyway, a lot has already been said re the list v table format and redundant information (the place for airline code share info is the airline page) and I think instead it would be more useful if we have a quick straw poll to determine where the consensus actually does lie. Please add your name (~~~~) below your prefered option:
agree: wangi 12:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Terenceong1992 14:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"First round"? Where? Strange that I, like the others, are routinely directed to this page to see the "concensus", yet I am still unable to locate them till now. Unless of coz you guys think two individuals agreeing with each other in here = "concensus". I suppose "community" in the "community consensus" equation has become redundant here?
And I question the use of votes to measure "Concensus". Is this the best we can do in wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a democracy as far as I see, and it is arguments which count far more than statistical votes alone. Why this love for hard numbers now, when there was an insistance of removing numbers and statistics from wikipedia and deeming them "unencyclopedic"? I dont think much has been said, and this is far too premature for a voting process when people seem clueless of just what they are voting for.--Huaiwei 12:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh come Huaiwei, please try to act in good faith. I am trying to show consensus, one way or the other without having this eventually get to WP:RfC. A vote does not restrict further comments, or indeed a change in choice. wangi 12:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I have never participated in any discussion until recently, not because of this, but I want to express my opinion. I agree with Huaiwei's comments above. Why do we need a first round, second round and stuff like that? And even a vote?! That is nonsensical! With only a group of five in this talk, and a vote! Once again, so what if Changi is the only airport with the table. As far as I know, you guys are foreigners and i have a feeling that you have not visited Singapore. I think we need an admin to protect that page. Good faith, haha, lol!!!!!! I think getting this to WP:Rfc is not a good idea.
Why not a debate instead of making this page longer, at a talk page. This article should be the way how to Huaiwei's version. We are SGpedian's, but you are not. And please do not go and say things that we should be put for atribation and probation, or stuff like that. Terenceong1992 14:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Terence, don't worry about the length of this page - it's a talk page and it routinely gets archived, with old/inactive topics being moved to a subpage. The discussion should be done here (or on the airport's talk page) rather than a personal talk page. Most of the discussion is here, so it makes sense for it to continue here.
It does not matter where WP participants are from, I notice you make edits to London Underground articles - do you really think you shouldn't be able to do so since you do not live in London? Please, discuss the issue at hand. Thanks/wangi 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm..that said, lets not become too embroiled in this "I am a Singaporean and you arent" thingy. I dont think sg-related articles are the sole domain of Singaporeans, and we do need input from anyone possible to improve on them. However, I agree on this strange over-obsession in ensuring every single page must conform to the amount of information as is so for other related articles. I know of wikiprojects trying to standardise formatting and general content layout and scope. I have yet to know of any project actually forcing better-developed articles to be shrunk to a size more in-line with less elaborate counterparts. I echo terence's sentiment: So what if Singapore has more detailed information that other airports cannot have? Is standardisation exclusively more important than information? Whats the rationale for this compromise?--Huaiwei 15:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Having a table of the airlines, destinations codeshares, date started, number of flights and airline code is a good thing, as it will give readers more information of the airport and the airlines, and if anyone is searching Wikipedia or via Google or Yahoo as an example, they can know more information of the number of flights that goes to the city per week or whether that airline serves that city. If students or researchers are doing a research of Changi Airport, and they need information such as runway length or very detailed information. It will be a great help to them. Then Wikipedia will be a more popular site due to the very detailed information given on most of its articles. A reader will have more knowledge about Changi Airport after reading the article. Terenceong1992 15:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wangi, though mainly I disagree with you most of the time, I think what you said above is true and I agree. I've been to London years back, but when I edit the tube articles, I just added the London stations box. I like United Kingdom and I hope to go there soon. I think what I wrote earlier made no sense, sorry about that remark. Wikipedia is where anyone can edit, so let's don't talk about this kind of You are not and so. Terenceong1992 15:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll ask why do we need more detailed information about the airlines on any airport page then even the airlines project is willing to support for the airline articles? I'm having a hard time getting concensus there to keep direct flights on the airline page. The article is about the airport. It is not a place to completely document everything about every airline that flighs into there. This wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 18:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(resetting the indents!)

Ok, I'll go column-by-column over why I consider the simpler standard list format for airline destinations to be better than the "data rich" table format as used on SIN.
  • Airline: Matches entry in list format - no problem.
  • Code: Redundant information which is not of inherent interest in the airport article. The code is listed on the airline's own page, there is no need to duplicate that here.
  • Since: It is not encyclopedic to show when every airline started every service at the airport. For the few that are important, they should be included in the history section. Hard to maintain/research (see the large number of fill in entries in the table).
  • Operated destinations: Roughtly matches entry in the list format (non-stop or direct destinations), although formatting is poor (no punctuation) and consensus here is against wikilinking to the city/airport (the place for that is the Airline/Airline XYZ destinations page).
  • Flights: Too specific data - hard to keep up to date and correct in the first place (see the large number of fill in entries in the table). Not encyclopedic.
  • Codeshare destinations: Consensus here has been to just list direct and non-stop destinations - the destinations you will see on the monitors if you were to walk into the airport. A list of code shares is hard to maintain (see the large number of fill in in the table) and is redundant now in an age of mega-alliances. From my local (regional) airport I know I can get code-share flights to just about anywhere I want to go, and it is the same the world over. There is little use in this data, if there was you'd see airport websites listing them too, however what they are (rightly) interested in is direct flights from their airport.
I'd just like to restate Vegas's comment above: "This is an article about the airport and not about details of the airlines who use the airport. The airline articles should include details specific to their operations". Even if every airport article had the table format (and that's something this project could have standardised on earlier) I still would prefer the simpler list format - it's the right balance of data. Thanks/wangi 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we should leave it just the way it is. Though i have to say, it is quite hard to find this data sometimes. Terenceong1992 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Terence, but you'll have to come up with a better reason than that. Many good reasons have been why the current standard format is better for all aiports, and should be used at Changi too - can you give any reasons to support the table format? Thanks/wangi 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, would it be safe to assume I can now revert the article to the standard list based format? Thanks/wangi 12:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Very funny Wangi. Silence dosent neccesarily mean consent. Exercising a little bit of patience will go to great lengths in resolving disagreements, I suppose. I am choosing to delay my reply until we get more comments, all the more so as I am bogged down by matters related to my non-wiki life. No point me repeating my views again and again anyway. Does my delay equate to your liberty in restoring your prefered format as thou you are in a quick hurry to do so ASAP? Whats the rush?--Huaiwei 12:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get things resolved, a hiatus isn't good for anyone. I think we've got pretty much all the responses we're going to get without canvasing this to a larger audience (i.e. WP:RfC). Huaiwei, I'd appreciate it if you could write (when you get the time) why you prefer the non-standard format over the standard airline/destination list and give rational for each column, as i've done above. We know your views, but it would be good to get reasons and rational (as myself and Vegas' have given). Thanks/wangi 13:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, if I may assume good faiths. I am not sure what you mean by "good and rational" reasons thou. Quite obviously, your comments above dont quite fit this criteria either as far as I am concerned, and I would think the opposite is true.--Huaiwei 13:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, can't see where I said that, but anyway if you back up your reasons with good rational then that makes it a good reason in my book ;) Thanks/wangi 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Its ok...will let it rest. Hope to come back to this when I am done with a mentally draining course at the end of this week.--Huaiwei 14:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Huaiwei, managed to find the time yet? Thanks/wangi 12:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Er...thursday can? Whatever time I have left is currently fully occupied by the on-going 2005 Southeast Asian Games. :D--Huaiwei 13:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add one more past action that does affect the discussions here. At one time, McCaran International Airport included the airline gate assignments. Those don't change all that often. However around the time the cleanup crew got attracted to the article, that information was removed. You can research the reasons in the discussions, but eveyone accepted that this type of information could be dropped without hurting the quality of the article's information and make it more maintainable and therefore more accurate. Much of what these destnation tables is adding is in the same area. Also, the cleanup team wanted to blow away the destination list completly. They accepted leaving them in place since the project stood behind them since they were maintainable, simple, without links, did not duplicate unnecesary information and were useful. I suspect that pushing an expansion of the destination list will create more problems down the road. Vegaswikian 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we should now come to a concensus after a lengthy discussion. If there is no concensus, we will leave it just the way it is. --Terence Ong |Talk 05:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Geez now I am back into this conversation after almost forgetting about it. Just hoping my views are still wanted here? :D--Huaiwei 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind your views, you can also discuss at my talk page. :) --Terence Ong |Talk 14:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Airports in Same City Disambiguation

I'd like to see some sort of consensus on how one of several airports in a major city (for example Heathrow in London) should be used. Many people have object to using a slash, because it is also used to list multiple cities (and it's vaguely ugly). I personally dislike having nothing because then its not clear when the city name ends and the disambiguation part begins. For example, San Jose del Cabo could easily get read as del Cabo airport in San Jose. Therefore I propose we move to using a dash. A colon also seems reasonable to me, but I think I like the dash better. Can everyone please weigh in on this? (especially anyone who might get upset by the choice.) Rdore 05:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Given no consensus on the word to disabiguate the city, I guess the character used could be decided. Are the only options '/', '-', ':', ' ', and ';'? I guess you could use '@' but I don't think that would look good or read well. Vegaswikian 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiwings award

Wikiwings 2.0

Hi all, just thought I'd send a heads up that us 'pedians over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft have created the wikiwings award. I figured people here might be interested in awarding them too. I've copied the blurb that describes the award below:

The wikiwings are styled after military flight wings, and awarded to anyone who makes extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to the area of aviation on wikipedia. They awarded by anyone, to anyone, in a barnstar-like fashion.

The wikiwings award is styled after Rlandmann's wikiwings award, and were officially adopted by WikiProject Aircraft on October 29, 2005.

[edit] Question about use of templats and 'when is a stub not a stub?'

Hello, I haven't been active in the airports project but have worked on a few airport articles here and there. I have a couple of questions. Firstly when is it appropriate to use the {{AirlineProject}} template? Can it be used on any airport article that needs work, or just those that are actively being worked on? Should it go on the article page or the talk page? Do the participants in the project need to have any ownership in the use of the template?Adz 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing hard and fast - if you want to add it, go ahead. Probably of most use on articles that get a lot of edits. It goes on the talk page. wangi 12:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, would a few of you mind looking at Cairns International Airport for me and tell me whether it should have the stub tag removed or whether it is still a stub. Thanks Adz 12:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work, I'd say so. I've made an edit to the page, removing the stub plus also making use of the Template:Airport infobox and Template:Airport codes templates. Thanks/wangi 12:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Adz 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airline flight destination lists

  • I would like to propose a change in policy with regards to airline destination lists. I believe that ONLY the non-stop destinations an airline serves from a city should be listed, NOT "direct" flights. With many (I daresay most) carriers, "direct" flights are not scheduled on any rhyme or reason, and can change at any given schedule change, or even in the middle of a schedule. Gone are the days when airlines would fly intentional multi-stop itineraries. Virtually every flight today is point-to-point or hub-and-spoke. Listing such "direct" flights will very rapidly become unmaintainable and unwieldy. Non-stops make clear where the airline flies in a place to place fashion, not in a "fly here, then fly there" fashion. FCYTravis 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As somebody who comes from the far flung reaches of the globe, i can see a problem with this. Many flights between the Pacific and Europe/The Americas need to make intermediate stops. Currently, all Australia/New Zealand - London/Europe flights need to make an intermediate stop, but the fact remains that most people on the flight are flying from Aust/NZ to Europe. (QF1 SYD-BKK-LHR and the return QF2 are considered institutions by some). This would also be the case for flights connecting New Caledonia/French Polonesia with Paris. Sydney-Vancouver requires a stop in Hawaii, even though the flights are operated by Air Canada and are intended to connect both final destinations. Australia-South America is another case in point. Implementing this new policy would imply that places like Sydney and Auckland don't have flights beyond Hawaii and SE Asia connecting with Europe and the Americas - when clearly, they do! Adz 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see that point... then I would suggest that those certain exceptions be allowed to stand, with notations that the flights are direct, not non-stop. What I'm most concerned about is the addition of "direct" destinations on many US airport listings, where those direct destinations happen to simply be a happy accident of scheduling. FCYTravis 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There are "direct" flights out there that are marketted to the second destination as well as the first. For example, we can take an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Madrid via Miami, it is marketted as both a flight to Madrid and a flight to Miami and should be listed as one of American's destinations out of Dallas. You then also have American's fifth daily Miami-Houston Flight via Dallas, since Miami-Houston is already four daily non-stops, that fifth flight is not generally marketted as a Miami-Houston flight, but as two separate flights (Miami-Dallas and Dallas-Houston) with the same flight number, this leads to a conflict in removing these one-stop destinations. It comes down to whether or not the second destination is as important or more important than the first? As noted above, SYD-BKK-LHR would have London as the more important destination on the route, and should be listed as London via Bangkok. But since American already flies to Houston non-stop, we don't really need to add Houston AND Houston (via Dallas). PRueda29 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Direct flights, as far as I know, always list all destinations. So they really do belong as long as the flight number is the same. Vegaswikian 00:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case, every single destination list will have to be radically (and confusingly) expanded and heavily maintained - as I mentioned, "direct" flights end up in random places and change with every scheduling whim... Southwest often offers two-stop "direct" flights. I think there is a good argument to be made for direct international flights being listed, but listing direct domestic U.S. destinations is pointless, unnecessary and confusing. We're not telling anyone anything by listing "Kansas City" among the American Airlines destinations from San Francisco... when the plane is actually going to Dallas. The destination list should mirror an airline route map - showing which flights go where. FCYTravis 22:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how many changes would be needed. Right now, the lists suffer from a lack of timely updates in a lot of cases. Some of this is because the airlines tend to not advertise when they drop service or switch it from a non-stop flight to a direct flight. If we were to accept what you are suggesting, then we could not list the effect of HP flight 437 from Orange/Santa Ana to Vancouver, Canada. Not doing that would be confusing since it would be different then the actual airlines information. Our information would also be wrong. Vegaswikian 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Many, many, MANY changes would be needed - there are numerous examples of direct flights. We shouldn't list that America West flies from Orange County to Vancouver. They don't - they fly from Orange County to Phoenix or Las Vegas to Vancouver. If we were to list direct flights... HP would fly from Oakland to Philadelphia, Baltimore/Washington (oh wait, those two are ending for no reason in December), Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Washington/Dulles, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Colorado Springs, Chicago/O'Hare, Puerto Vallarta via two stops, San Diego, Salt Lake City... you see how absurd this gets? Heck, you can fly "direct" Kansas City-Oakland but *NOT* Oakland-Kansas City. Like I said, there is no rhyme or reason to "direct" domestic hub flights other than a temporary scheduling convenience.
A destination list should not be a list of random cities that happen to be scheduled to be flown through via a hub - they should be a listing of non-stop flights. Airlines rarely, if ever, switch from non-stop to direct flights - because point-to-point flying is very rare today. Most every flight on network carriers today is flown non-stop to or from a connecting hub. It's important to emphasize the nature of the hub-and-spoke system. FCYTravis 23:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Should this wiki have articles on Direct flight and Non-stop flight? I think the articles would be very short, but given the number of times they appear it could be reasonable. It would explain the difference. Being at an airport and dealing with travelers, it's amazing the number who don't realize that their direct flight is not non-stop. Vegaswikian 03:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of the general public simply cannot decipher between the difference of "Direct flights" and "Non-stop flights" and assumed them to be similar. They cant be blamed, for much of the mass media are similarly confused too. I notice this lack of diffrentiation even amongst academics. Anyway, direct and non-stop flights should be included, because a direct flight has always been considered operationally different from a flight involving a change of plane (actually, it is much more accurate to say the former usually uses the same flight number, while the other tends to involve different numbers). Simple technology is "at fault" for disallowing direct flights between any two points on the planet...while....for now at least, so why penalise airlines and pretend they dont operate to destinations beyond what their aircraft's range? This point may be less relevant to American and European carriers, but it unduly skews the lists against the interests of many Asian and Oceanian airlines/airports. This is like saying the Kangaroo route should be removed from Australian and London's list just because they must involve stopovers (for now).--Huaiwei 12:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Specifically referring to US Airways here, their "through international flights" should not be listed because the only thing that's through is the flight number. One *must* change planes to go from a domestic destination through to a European destination via Philadelphia or Charlotte, and not only that, you change terminals too. There are no exceptions. It is not "direct" service, it is "let's pretend this is direct service, but it's really just another connecting flight" service. FCYTravis 06:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dba vs. (Operating Airline) vs. operated by

I believe that it is time that we once and for all create a clear policy for how to indicate flights marketed by one airline and operated by another on these pages. With the extensive use of express/regional airlines, low-fare subsisdiaries such as Ted and Song, and the America West-US Airways merger, there are many locations where one of these titles is necessary. Above, non-American users expressed negativity about the "dba" term. I personally think "operated by" or "Marketing Airline (Operating Airline) are the best options. It is time to reach a firm policy, or this will be inconsisent and constantly being reverted/re-edited by numerous users. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Airline 01:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. "Operated by" is pretty much the de-facto world standard for what appears on tickets, reservation forms, Internet travel sites, itineraries, etc. The use of "dba" (besides being US-centric) is confusing and inconsistent, and describes a business relationship, not an operational one. MCB 01:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
So, for example, we would have...
That looks good to me. FCYTravis 03:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Except America West Airlines operates their own flights. They happen to be owned by US Airways Group. The HP flights have nothing to do with the flights operated by US Airways, at least for now. How would Ted and Song be listed? They are really just brands for their partent airline. Vegaswikian 03:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe 2/3 of the flights are codeshared now, and the rest will be done shortly. The AWA aircraft now carry heritage logo stickers with "US Airways/This aircraft operated by America West Airlines" statements. [4] That's good enough for me.
FCYTravis 04:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The America West/US Air merger will eventually result in a US Airways branded airline, so we might as well start showing it as part of US Airways. In the grander scheme of things, it appears that "operated by" is the preferred notation. I think I'll change the project page to reflect this. Airline 01:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to using operated by since it makes more sense the longer I think about it. I'm still not convinced that listing Song under Delta or Ted under United is correct. To most passengers, they are flying Ted and not United, they ask about Ted when they ask about directions or for information at an airport. The problem with a simple listing policy is that when you talk about Delta Connection or United Express or American Eagle. In those cases, most, but far from all, passengers will think of the major airline like Delta or United or American and not the regional airline. Vegaswikian 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll update the project page - there is agreement on "operated by", and the Delta/Ted is a separate issue really. wangi 13:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
If you look at a Ted ticket, it says "operated by United Airlines." There is no separate operating certificate, only a separate branding scheme and paint job. FCYTravis 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airport lounge

I've initiated an attempt to expand the Airport lounge article, notably with a list of airport club schemes and locations. Any attempts at expansion (particularly outside of the US) would be helpful. Thanks! FCYTravis 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This morning while doing some edits on Québec/Jean Lesage International Airport I found that the name of the company that runs the airport (Aéroport de Québec) redirects to the article. So I tried it as an external link in the infobox. What does anyone else think. I wait to hear others opinons before I do any more in that way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As in you end up with a recursive link... Sounds like a bad idea to me - better a red link, or no link if the operator isn't notable enough to warrent one. wangi 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not bothered about the external link, more the links in the infobox that returns you to the article. It would be better to have no link at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I've been WP:BOLD in swapping the article structure. The average Wikipedia visitor looking for information on an airport is going to care more about the airlines than the terminal buildings themselves. Therefore, the table of contents should stress the most important feature of the section - which airlines serve the airport where. Then, subordinated under that, of course, each airline is listed in its correct terminal location. FCYTravis 07:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Terminals has been the heading used for quite a while with no one having expressed a problem. In general Airlines are used as a heading when there is no terminal information provided so that usage has been accepted in many articles without a problem. The change you made to the project page just seems to add an extra heading that does not appear to serve any purpose. Also, this is not a list of non-stop flights as your heading suggests. Airport displays list destinations that the flight is going to, which may or may not be non stop flights. The issue of direct vs. non stop has been discussed several times without any clear concensus. Vegaswikian 07:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Airlines and destinations" then? I'm not wedded to non-stop destinations. I just want "Airlines" to be in the table of contents so that users can quickly jump to the destination listings. FCYTravis 08:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem is that based on other discussions, charter, private, FBO and cargo terminals are also included. It it not only for commerical service. So terminals appeas to be the most accurate. Would Terminals and destinations for the larger airports and Airlines and destinations for the small airports be a solution? Vegaswikian 21:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox addition

User:69.70.164.120 has added an extra section to the infobox for Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. The extra section shows the "Number of Passengers" and "Number of Takeoffs". I don't really feel that it does not improve the look. However, because the stats for the movements are ones that I don't feel are correct (see Talk:Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport#Aircraft movements 2004) I didn't think it a good idea to remove it. I was wondering what anyone else thought of the box? Also, if the box is to stay then the "Number of Takeoffs" needs to be renamed to "Aircraft Movements". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If kept, it should be 'Aircraft movements' since that is the more common term. I don't have a problem with including that data. However I do have a problem with adding more information that needs to be updated every year to every airport. For the larger airports this data could be important, but for a small airport does it matter? Maybe the direction should be to add this to the template and only display the headings if data is provided for the fields. I should add that if this information is added, there should be information on where to get the data used so that all airports are listed based on the same criteria. Vegaswikian 00:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
For Canadian airports the TP577 is the government publication. However, it does contain at least one error. The problem with using the data as provided by the airport authority is I feel it may be inflated. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review

Please note that feature article Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is open for review at Wikipedia:Featured article review#Active reviews. Please consider reviewing the article and help resolving its issues. --maclean25 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge of circuit (airfield) and traffic pattern

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Circuit (airfield) about which article the merge should terminate at. I feel traffic pattern should be the destination, but I'd like to gather opinions and get some consensus on this before we continue. ericg ✈ 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Airports_Archive2_6728.html"