Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references. Almost everyone agreed that WP:V was a priority, but more people felt it was acceptable that references didn't need to be perfect to be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How should we provide references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Option A: The current situation per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT - the airlines' timetables are the implicit references. However, new/resuming/ending/frequently challenged routes require an explicit reference. (It is not yet determined whether explicit references should be deleted once a route begins.)
  • Option B: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. Timetables that require manual searching (e.g. this one) are permitted as references.
  • Option C: Explicit references must be provided in all cases. However, timetables that require manual searching are not permitted. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

Survey

  • Leaning Option C. I believe explicit references are a must, but searchable timetables put too much of a burden on the reader when it comes to verification. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Leaning Option D. In many cases the airline's booking engine or searchable timetable would have to be used as references. However, these sources change regularly, and there is a constant need to update the tables. That too these references are not exactly "explicit," in that the reader has to plug in the data him/herself. It's true that the tables do not need to be up-to-date all the time, but because changes are frequent, there will be registered and IP users regularly adjusting the tables - and what reason is there to revert them? All in all the tables are an enormous "exception" to WP:V that have largely been kept around through WP:CONLIMITED, in my opinion. I am in favor of maintaining a list of airlines only. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Back to Option C. Based on my reasoning in this discussion. I recognize these tables' importance and believe primary sources such as route maps - but not searchable timetables, booking engines, or similar sources - may be used as references. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Hello again... I'll side with the growing consensus on Option B. It seems like the most reasonable option at this point. I think these tables are very useful to understanding a particular airport - the airlines and destinations are the crux of any airport. However, references are a must. We cannot break with the policies that every other Wikiproject must comply with. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A, but Option B is an acceptable alternate. I believe the current policy of implicit references works quite well for the destination tables and per WP:NOTLAW, I don’t think explicit references are necessary for the purposes of routes that are obviously running. Stinger20 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B. I don't really see how Option C is possible. Most airline timetables require some kind of manual searching, there's no avoiding that. Option B is somewhat feasible but I reckon that it would be hard to implement properly. Yes the current system is not perfect but it's too difficult for it to be 100% referenced and mostly correct information is better than no information at all. Perhaps it is somewhat against some WP policies but common sense needs to be considered as well. I favour Option A over the other two but I think that it should be mandatory for charter and cargo routes to be referenced. Changed to Option B. VG31 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • You make a good point, VG31, but I think the absence of references allows errors to slip through unnoticed, especially when the tables are long with a ton of destinations. I don't think "mostly correct information" would be allowed in a Good Article or FA. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B, but should include date accessed. I don't think that searching an airline timetable is too much of a burden on verifiability (especially when the timetables are searched), since WP allows articles in sources that are rare or behind a paywall. Like with most online references used on Wikipedia, I think the date accessed should be included. Verifiable seasonal destinations can be denoted with a footnote. Alternatively, or additionally, the destinations table can begin with a hatnote that some destinations may be seasonal and that destinations not marked seasonal may be seasonal. This follows the style of Template:Dynamic list and Template:Complete list. I think a concise hatnote (is Template:Seasonal flights a good name?) would say: "This table includes some seasonal destinations that are not served year-round. Not all seasonal destinations may be denoted as such in this table. (Further information)" The "further information" link (could also be "Why?") at the end would link to a section of the template page or a Wikiproject Airports page that discusses why not all seasonal flights may be marked as such (eg. difficulty of finding reliable references that aren't original research). A special citation template for airline timetables (Template:Cite airline timetable) could be created for use in airport destination tables with the most useful parameters for how to cite the flights. This would be similar to Template:Google maps and Template:Cite court and be used to create a standardized citation of airline timetables, since most would use Template:Cite web and parameters included would be different based on user preferences. AHeneen (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C if not D for the specific reason that airline timetables often change without notice, and in my opinion violate WP:OR. Would prefer to see the tables moved to wikivoyage. See my comments below but they timetables do not need to be accurate but reliably referenced. Garretka (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C if it can't be referenced explicity, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. Asking a reader to manually search a database of an airline defeats the purpose of listing each destination in the table in my view. Further, what's currently to stop any editor adding a few random destinations - the current system has very weak verifiability -- Whats new?(talk) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Whats new?: I think you're spot on about the weak verifiability. However there are some airlines that only have searchable timetables, and it would not be feasible to find secondary sources (news reports, etc.) for all their routes. Examples are United Airlines and WestJet - major airlines indeed. How do we address this issue? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
If there aren't secondary sources for a route - it shouldn't be listed. Just as with everything else on Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason why particular airlines or routes should be an exception -- Whats new?(talk) 01:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Whats new?: I definitely agree. However, this creates tables that could have big gaps in information. Would this still be acceptable? What about only listing the airlines, a much simpler task in my opinion? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that's ideal either -- Whats new?(talk) 06:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources are not impermissible to support straightforward statements, like airline routes, that do not require analysis (WP:PRIMARY explains how primary sources should be used). Regarding weak verifiability, this is also the case when citations are made to print-only books and, especially, rare or paywalled sources (books, journals, videos). I don't think that this is a particular problem for airport destination tables, as the same can be said about an article on a historic site that uses mostly cites rare books/journals that can only be found in a few libraries, or a medical article that cites a journal that is behind a paywall. IMO, since airline timetables are online and can be accessed easily (even if it takes a couple steps to enter the origin/destination airports), the "weak verifiability" is not a real problem for the airport destination tables. AHeneen (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@AHeneen: Looks like I misspoke when I said that information cannot be added to Wikipedia without a secondary source - I've read WP:PRIMARY and would support the use of primary sources in this situation. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B I would expect the vast majority of readers to take the information in the tables at face value and not bother to look it up in the reference. For the relative few that do want to verify, I agree with Sunnya that providing a link to a searchable reference shouldn't pose that big of a burden, especially if that's the only place it exists online (if it exists explicitly elsewhere, that reference should be used instead). Physical book (i.e. unavailable online) citations are far less accessible than online-searchable timetables, but are perfectly acceptable references and are widely used. Granted information in books don't change (unless a new edition is released) and searchable timetables can, but that's why I also agree with Sunnya about providing access dates. In my opinion an access date should be included with all online references. Cthomas3 (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cthomas3: Just to give credit where it's due, it was AHeneen who had those ideas. Anyways, I would argue that the constant change in airline timetables creates a constant demand to keep these tables up-to-date, shifting attention primarily to the tables over other sections of airport articles, in my opinion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option A status quo is fine. Referencing all routes is not practical. Airlines commonly announce new routes but do not publicize cancellation of routes, so even having a reference is no guarantee that the route exists. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Zanhe: Should we consider this point: maybe this is all an indication that these tables do not belong on Wikipedia. I know we discussed this in a previous RfC, but to be honest I don't believe this problem exists anywhere else in the encyclopedia. WP:PROVEIT is clear on this: virtually any information added to Wikipedia needs an explicit reference. I don't think WP:AIRPORTS can be the sole (massive) exception to the rule. We should bear in mind WP:CONLIMITED. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess they could be deleted if we wanted to be purists and follow WP guidelines to the letter. On the other hand, they're very useful and popular with users, so it's unlikely that any proposal to delete them will pass. -Zanhe (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zanhe: I don't think it's about being purists - As AHeneen notes below, these are some of the most fundamental policies on Wikipedia we're talking about. You say that these tables are highly useful and popular, but I would argue among whom - it seems that primarily aviation enthusiasts are defending the tables. Some editors outside of WP:AIRPORTS have chimed in and do not seem to be supportive, on the other hand. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus are core policies on Wikipedia! Here's a key part of the latter, from WP:Local consensus (emphasis added): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. We can't simply ignore the Verifiability policy!! AHeneen (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason why referencing should not be improved, but removing the tables altogether is totally counter-productive. VG31 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B to ensure WP:Verifiability. Links to searchable timetables should include the relevant search term whenever possible, and citations should provide an |access-date= parameter, so that new readers or editors can accurately assess the timeliness of the information. — JFG talk 09:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @JFG: As different references will have different access dates, how do we introduce the table: "As of [what date?], the following airlines offer service from X airport." As of now, the tables have no such indication - they appear to be current - even though I think this is quite misleading, particularly in airport articles that receive much less attention (e.g. articles on small airports or airports in non-English-speaking regions). We should consider MOS:RELTIME. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option C WP:VERIFY clairly states that "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I don't see how a manual search directly supports anything.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • My concern with this option is that, for some airlines, there are limited to no sources available outside the searchable timetable or booking engine. Route maps can be hard to read when there are so many destinations, such as from hub airports. When there are so many destinations, it can also be difficult to verify all of them on a regular basis, given the regular changes airlines make to their schedules. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option D (move to Wikivoyage) I see no other choice. The airlines seem intent on making it impossible to verify these tables without a significant amount of original research. As noted, that's permitted on Wikivoyage. With sufficient inter-linking, it shouldn't be a hindrance to readers. My second choice would be to maintain the status quo (option A), somewhat per WP:IAR. The data is still verifiable, by visiting the physical airport if nothing else. There isn't anything reasonable to cite for inline references, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • There does need to be a discussion on Wikivoyage as well before any content is moved there. The templates don't work, and as noted in discussion, not all airports have pages on Wikivoyage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B makes the most sense, with option A as second choice. Timetables that require manual searching are no less accurate than other sources as long as an access date is included. Removing the destination tables is a bad idea as the destinations an airport serves is basically the most important information about the airport as a topic. feminist 12:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Option B First, airports do not have destinations. Airlines/aircraft do. Second, those change ALL the time. Third, I fail to see what benefit an airport's regularly-scheduled destinations are unless they are unique (i.e. they only fly to a few places as it's a hard-to-reach locale. It's basically non-encyclopedic. Those three points aside (and realizing previous consensus is against my opinion), we ask for verifiability, not ease-of-use. If a page offers the information requested, you should give directions on how to find it. That may mean you have to check out a book, read a newspaper, or search a database. The important thing is that the information is verifiable, not easily accessible on the internet. Ergo, Option B is the appropriate solution. Buffs (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • What about an option D... omit the tables entirely? The text should certainly cover which airlines serve an airport, but I am not at all sure we need to state the specifics of where those airlines are flying to and from. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies ... I came here after seeing a neutral announcement at RSN, and was not aware of the previous RfC. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the inclusion of explicit references for these tables. My problem with searchable timetables is that they put too much of a burden on the reader to manually search for each and every destination. If they want to be sure the list is not missing any destination, they would have a lot of searching to do. And for seasonal destinations, it can get confusing, as a reader has to search for dates throughout the year to verify them. Still, I'm not sure if they violate WP:OR, as most information can clearly be verified by searching the timetable. Also, we are just listing the destinations without any interpretation, so I think they would be acceptable primary sources.
Besides the timetables, there are many possible sources for these tables: airline press releases, standard news articles, CAPA Centre for Aviation, some airlines publish their timetables in PDF format like Air Canada, etc. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have an aiport or a few airports on my watchlist and I have seen IPs understand the current situation, sometimes with an edit summary. Is anyone else aware of this or is this a small case? Please ping if you reply as I don't have this on my WL. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to quote a previous comment in that the tables do not need to be accurate. What they do, however, need to be is accurately referenced. I note the previous point about most references stating that the route is due to start and not proof that it has started, however, unless another source is provided otherwise then that reference is considered accurate. Leaving explicit references in the table does absolutely no harm. Garretka (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What do we do in this situation: WestJet doesn't have a searchable timetable, instead it has a PDF version here. However this PDF doesn't differentiate between mainline flights and WestJet Encore flights. Nor does the route map. On the other hand, the booking engine does differentiate. Does it come down to searching the booking engine? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Option D (remove entirely). Put the tables on Wikivoyage. This way they are still kept (per the previous RfC).--Commander Keane (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Commander Keane: As an administrator with presumably a lot of experience on Wikipedia, why exactly do you support such an option? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the followup @Sunnya343:. I find the tables really useful and I think they have an important place in the Wikimedia group of wikis but they should exist in one place. I think the best place is Wikivoyage. This is because Wikivoyage does not have Wikipedia's WP:VERIFY restriction, indeed they "encourage original research". The Wikipedia articles should still include information from reliable sources about destination changes (eg from newspaper articles). I also take a rather strict view on Self-publsihed sources. If I create a website and a pdf timetable for a fictional "Commander Keane Airlines" how to do you decide not to include the information in Wikipedia? I am thinking it takes original research. Of course at this stage I don't know if Wikivoyage will accept the tables, but I live in hope.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I used to be very active on Wikivoyage (and am still an admin on en-WV) and was among the initial editors on the voy:Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition to create airport articles around 2013. However, the project never really got off because there was a lot of disagreement about what size airports should be allowed to have stand-alone articles, as many wanted only those that outgrew a reasonable size on the city page that the airport serves. For example, see voy:Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition#Airlines & destinations, in which I tried to add destination tables in airport articles, but the response was mixed. As an example for the project, I created voy:Orlando International Airport. Pros of moving to Wikivoyage: no verifiability policy. Cons: few existing airport articles and the project hasn't been receptive to widespread creation of airport articles. If others are serious about the possibility of moving the tables to Wikivoyage, I don't mind serving as a liason and starting discussions on that project to explain why there is a desire to move the destination tables and how to decide where to move the content. P.S. I live in central Florida which, at the time of writing, is currently predicted to be hit by powerful Hurricane Irma Sunday/Monday, so if it stays on that predicted track, I may be busy in real life and unable to spend much time on Wikipedia until next week. AHeneen (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @AHeneen: First off I hope you stay safe, and please don't feel any pressure to respond soon! Regarding Wikivoyage, where "the traveler comes first", I wonder whether these tables would be necessary in the first place - most travelers will proceed directly to booking sites (Kayak, Expedia, airline websites, etc.) to find the cheapest itinerary. And with Wikivoyage's smaller editing base, the information is likely to become outdated fairly quickly - as some Wikivoyage users indicated in 2013. Personally I doubt this is a feasible solution. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this talk of an Option D is quite counterproductive, there are many primary and secondary sources that can be used to verify routes. I am really liking FlightRadar's route map feature, which shows you all the routes operated from a particular airport and the airlines that operate them. It is really detailed and shows the schedule for the week and aircraft used (mainline vs regional). It also shows most cargo flights as well. Here is CVG's link, there is also a button to expand the list so you don't have to manually click each destination: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/cvg/routes. I think this might be a better source for routes rather than searching through a timetable. It also works for international airports, here are some other examples: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/nrt/routes, https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/hkt/routes, and https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/cdg/routes. Stinger20 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Stinger20: Interesting find. Note that you can also pull up a list of all routes without having to click on the airports (e.g. here for Calgary Int'l). I am considering Option C again. We should remember not to over-rely on any one source like this one, however - CAPA, PDF timetables, news reports, etc. should be used as well. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I think remembering to not over-rely on one source is a good point. I think it would be nice to see a template header on the table with a link to that website or alternatives, keep PDF timetables/search engines in the 'Refs' column, and put news articles/other secondary sources in-line with the routes. Here is kind of what I was thinking: User:Stinger20/sandbox. Stinger20 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I feel that would be too complicated when it comes to quickly fact-checking information. If not "option D" I would support Option C; searchable timetables/booking engines theoretically require a reader to search every possible destination from a particular airport - if he/she wants to be sure no destinations are missing. I also concur with Jetstreamer that such sources do not "directly" support the information. I am furthermore against the notion that the tables are "current" per MOS:RELTIME.
Per my stance, I created this table for Calgary Int'l in my sandbox. I used {{Template:As of}} and made a note that seasonal destinations operated outside the specified time frame are not included. There are some cases where the searchable timetable/booking engine specifies that a route is operated by a subsidiary; however, (per Option C) other sources do not specify as such. For example, some destinations under WestJet in my table are technically operated by WestJet Encore. I'm not sure what to do here... — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: You can now add a references column that is not sortable by appending |3rdcolunsortable=yes. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Listing Operators of Cargo Carriers

Unlike passenger airlines, where we consolidated all operators under banners such as Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection, most cargo airlines have all of their operated listed. Airlines like FedEx Feeder, DHL Aviation, and Amazon Prime Air can make quite complex cargo destination tables, see Cincinnati/Northern_Kentucky_International_Airport#Cargo, John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport#Cargo, Chicago O´Hare International Airport#Cargo, Leipzig/Halle_Airport#Cargo, Ontario_International_Airport#Cargo, and many more. I think it is kind of unnecessary to list all the operating carriers. Like passenger airlines, we could consolidate the airlines under mainline and regional banners.

I made a comparison for CVG's page on my sandbox, it makes the table much simpler and clear: User:Stinger20/sandbox

So, I guess it comes down to (a) the current method is fine, or (b) operators should not be listed and are to be consolidated into the banners listed above. Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In the content guide, it currently states "Airlines which sell cargo space on flights operated by other airlines, except for the primary codeshare partner if the operating carrier does not market the flight. In this case, the airline should be listed as for a passenger service, e.g. FedEx Feeder operated by Wiggins Airways." Since we have changed passenger service, the cargo section has not been updated, I would propose that we change this section to match the passenger side. Stinger20 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it should be implied that the guideline applies to cargo tables as well. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-existent refs

How are we to keep the airlines and destination tables up to date if there aren't any sources for the routes? For instance, Virgin and Alaska are switching up A320 and B737 operations (example: VX is starting PDX-ORD with the A320 on March 10), but there's no press release from Alaska because this isn't a new route... This is in fact why it was brought up awhile ago that the A&D tables should be permanently deleted, and even after the WP:RfC at the top of this page was enacted, we're still having trouble with this... 74.83.110.32 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes the destination tables will always be troublesome for the simple reason that they do not really belong in an encyclopaedia WP:NOT is relatively clear that this sort of information is extremely questionable. There is no requirement to be comprehensive (or pedantically acurate - ie up-to-date) in an encyclopaedia, and in Wikipedia there is an absolute requirement to be verifiable as opposed to true. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines hubs and focus cities

There is a discussion beginning due to DL listing contradictory messages about which hubs are focus cities and which are hubs. A lot of this has to do with primary and secondary sourcing, it would be nice to get some opinions. Here is the discussion start: Talk:Delta_Air_Lines#Distinguishing_between_Delta_hubs_and_focus_cities. Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

With the RfC closed, I am really wondering how we are going to use searchable timetables without violating the original research core policy, we cannot simply ignore it as the discussion above suggests. I read an interesting debate on another project about this but can't for the life of me remember where. I'm looking for clarity here because clearly searchable timetables violate the original research policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garretka (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

How, exactly do they violate the policy any more than an offline source where you have to go and find the book does? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your question but I'm going to take a swing at it and assume you're asking about how this differs from print sources. Print sources are just that, print sources. They are essentially printed versions of webpages. They have already been written about and do not require any kind of interpretation, whereas searching timetables often does. Thanks for coming to the discussion. Garretka (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how it violates WP:OR, either. There is no interpretation of the information; rather, the reader just inputs the origin and destination and verifies that there are indeed nonstop flights between them. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 13:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks,Sunnya343. I guess my issue lies with these being used to cite new routes, that to me is the definition of original research - independent data collection with an explanation as to how they found the new route. For verification purposes I understand, but the addition of new routes I don't. And once we head down the route of adding searchable timetables for verification, almost immediately they will be used to cite new routes as well. I'm simply voicing my concerns, but so were on the same page, I have no issues with verifications done but new routes most definitely should have non-primary and explicit references. How do we verify seasonality using searchable timetables? That's interpretation as there is no set guideline for determining seasonality. What are your thoughts on my concerns? Garretka (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources for statements of fact - like airline routes. If it was establishing notability that'd be a no-no, but we're not, we're just saying "this airline (established to be notable elsewhere) flies these routes (which is considered to be information helpful to the reader)". And while it's been a long time, I'm pretty sure I remember reading somewhere official at some point that if you have to input a search string, that still doesn't count as OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
IMHO, searching engines are subjective and borders WP:OR.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That's about the best laid out arguement I've heard during this whole debate. If you happen to come across anything stating that about OR, I would love to read it. Until then, I'm going to continue to struggle with the concept of searchable timetables and OR. Garretka (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Citing a timetable search for a new route does seem like WP:OR to me as well. The editor is conducting "research" by scouring an airline's timetable and looking for new routes. It could be considered that they are "interpreting" this information when they indicate in an article that an airline is starting a new route – maybe it's a glitch, maybe it operates just once a week or seasonally and the editor did not realize this. I think that secondary sources or a press release from the airline are necessary for citing new routes.
Garretka, I also agree with you about seasonality and interpretation. It is difficult to use timetables as sources for seasonal routes, effectively telling the reader to check a bunch of random dates in the timetable. Again, secondary sources and the like that explicitly mention that the route is seasonal (or charter... To be honest I don't like adding charters as they tend to be irregular and hard to reference) ought to be used. (Here's an example from Spirit Airlines.)
In sum, I think timetables (and route maps, which are a reflection of them – unless seasonality is indicated) can be used as sources for currently operating destinations only. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
IMHO, the entire thing could be avoided by not including route lists at all, as Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but I suspect that idea would be treated like a live grenade. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, a move to wikivoyage would be great but there's no quick way of doing so, as discussed above, and previous RfC's always end with keep the tables.
@Sunnya343:, thanks again for discussing. The reason I've brought this up following the RfC closure is because we need to be very careful in wording new guidelines for the project based on the above RfC, such that we do not violate WP:OR. My thoughts are explicit references must be provided for new and ending (reason here is timetables often are updated last minute) routes and should not be deleted upon commencement. It might also be worth adding that users are welcome to add inline references to running routes as they become available, and these inline references should not be deleted. Furthermore, seasonal routes should also always have some sort of explicit source proving the seasonality beyond the timetable. I also do not like adding charters as it's hard to prove if their regular and the sourcability of them is also difficult.
So basically to sum up my post and concerns, we need to be careful how we word new guidelines on the project page. Garretka (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Bushranger: I do think these tables are valuable. What is an airport without airlines that connect it to various destinations? We've had so many discussions here, most aviation editors firmly support the tables in their current format such that it is difficult to bring about change – but we took a step forward with this latest RFC, I hope. Non-aviation editors often express their disapproval, but it never goes beyond that. It feels so easy to just leave the tables how they have been for many years, even though we concluded in the RFC that they violate WP:V! Somehow, these tables have gotten away with this for so long.
I attempted to change a table to comply with WP:V (current vs. mine), but that didn't go well. This is tiring. I've elevated a couple airport articles to GA, although now I realize that the reviewers ignored the lack of references for the tables. I wonder if an airport article can ever become an FA unless we seriously go ahead with the RFC conclusion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Garretka, I concur with all your points. I should have discussed my edits to the guidelines here before carrying them out, my apologies! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries! Quite frankly I hadn't realized you'd made any changes prior to posting this - I just felt the need to clarify some points. Thanks again for the discussion. Garretka (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of destinations tables from airport articles as well.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If I might add my two cents here, I am getting absolutely sick and tired of the inconsistent standards when applying references to the destination tables on airport articles, some airport articles (in particular the major ones) are enforced more than others. Why have references for some of the destinations and not others? Frankly, having references in the destination table makes the table look cluttered and harder to read. So I propose either one of two things, either we put a general reference to the right side that links to each airline's timetable (like a lot smaller airport articles do, take Nashville International Airport or Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport for example) or we remove the destination tables entirely. I prefer the former, since despite WP:NOTRAVEL, it is helpful to have a list of destinations an airport serves. That's encylopedia material if you ask me. And frankly, I don't see why references to the airlines timetable to the right wouldn't meet WP:V, contrary to what some have said. All in all, this needs to get resolved soon. — NBA2030 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. References are there for a reason, and they should not be removed unless the fact they support is also removed. "Cluttered" has nothing to do with this, WP:V does - and cluttered is just another argument I've heard these for keeping these tables that screams WP:NOTTRAVEL. As explained above, tables to the right are fine for verification of existing destinations (although I still have my reservations if we ever want a FA), but that still does not make it ok to remove inline references from the table. Garretka (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm, why not ditch the tables and make destination lists in prose? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Bushranger:, that's been attempted on a few pages where only a few destinations are served but typically ends up being reverted, which is unfortunate. I like the idea of listing major airlines and major routes for which there are plentiful sources, but things like seasonal routes and minor routes that are hard to reference shouldn't be there, in my opinion. Garretka (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Garretka Why does having a reference box to the right not make it ok to remove inline references, when you can look up the destinations with one citation to the right? If we are going to be strict about inline references, why doesn't every single route on an airport table have one? That's the part that bugs me the most, is that the standards are not consistently applied across all airport articles. I say "cluttered" because having a ton of inline references makes the table more difficult to read, particularly on mobile devices. I don't see any problem with having no inline references and instead, having one or two references on the right side in its own column (you should be able to verify all the destinations via that citation). It's a win-win, the tables look much cleaner and it meets WP:V. If that absolutely cannot be done, and people still insist that every single individual airline destination needs a reference (which is incredibly absurd), then remove the tables entirely. It's that simple. NBA2030 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Every route doesn't have an inline citation because WP:V has been ignored in the past. There is literally no reason to delete a reference, ever. It's not a win-win as you've suggested, removing inline sources in favour of general sources provides in pretty significant issue in my opinion: you're removing higher quality sources to replace them with a lower quality, generalized source. That's going backwards in my opinion.
I like the suggestion of stating the tables in prose, just state airline a provides service along major routes and a brief, umbrella statement about seasonal vacation routes. But until then, there remains no valid reasons to remove inline sources. Garretka (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Then I agree about stating the tables in prose. If removing inline references is so big of an issue and timetable references are not sufficient (and I 1,000% disagree with that), then I'd say scrap the tables altogether. NBA2030 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Guys, no need to re-argue the RfC. Let's just implement the consensus shall we? — JFG talk 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no arguement, I'm seeking clarification. Despite the RfC accepting the use of timetables as verification for existing destinations, there remains the issue of removing inline sources, which was never discussed in the RfC, in addition I also want to clarify searchable timetables cannot be used to cite new routes per WP:OR, remembering that local consensus cannot override that policy. Garretka (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would keep inline sources to ease WP:Verifiability, and I would add a press release or press coverage for openings of new destinations. This avoids any appearance of WP:OR. — JFG talk 01:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And I don't see how timetable references to the side do not meet WP:Verifiability, but obviously I'm outnumbered here, so I'd say let's consider stating the tables in prose. NBA2030 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I really do not see the point and advantage of putting in prose some long lists. Please explain. Wykx (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Stating the tables in prose works great for short lists (2-3 airlines with maximum 10 destinations), but long lists will be an issue. Garretka (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I also don't understand what is the problem with sourcing timetables, no different than large tables of stats that are sorted through, i.e. busiest airports, largest countries by area. The tables seem like stats on the service an airport receives. For the most part, timetable are frequently updated and a reliable source. These can easily be supplemented by secondary sources such as https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/, https://flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=&destination=, https://www.google.com/flights/, etc. All these sources are secondary and any user can easily verify wether routes operate or not. Press releases/news sources are great for new/ending routes/regularly scheduled charters (like Apple Vacations)/seasonal routes. I don't understand what is unclear, I think we have reached a pretty good consensus that will allow us to properly cite the destination tables. Stinger20 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
What is unclear is how we are going to move forward with new routes and inline sources, and how we will use them for seasonal routes. Like I've said before, timetables are great supplemental sources to inline references, but are textbook original research when it comes to citing new routes, and local consensus cannot override that policy.
The purpose of me starting this is to spark a discussion that's been hard to get going in the past, and also to sort out a few issues. One is the fact that inline references continue to be removed when they shouldn't be, citing either "there is already a timetable there" or "airport content page says otherwise"(which it doesn't). A specific source beats a generalized source. Generalized sources cannot replace inline sources; however they can supplement them, it's always important to keep sources inline where possible. Secondly, I want to seek clarification that timetables cannot be used to cite new routes, as I've said, that's textbook original research.
Edit: we also see situations where users remove routes from tables citing "no longer bookable" - that is not proof the route is not running or is not seasonal; it's unreasonable to expect a reader to check arbitrary dates and it's also not unusual for airlines to update their schedules last minute and week to week. These should somehow be captured with any changes made to referencing. Garretka (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point and I think you're right on it, but it's not format-dependent. This will have to be enforced and put in the rules no matter prose or table is chosen. Wykx (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@NBA2030: Timetable references to the side obviously meet WP:V. Garretka is only saying that these "generalized" references might not be as desirable as individual references (e.g. press releases, new articles, etc.) that were added when a route began and kept thereafter. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.) However, when you're looking at the list of destinations from Dubai on Emirates, I think a single generalized/timetable/route map reference to the side is ideal (not sure what else can feasibly be done). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: They may not be as "desirable", but for readability and reliability purposes, it makes the most sense consolidating all references into a single timetable on the right. I agree 100% that a reference to a press release or something should be used when a route is beginning or ending, but beyond that, it is unnecessary, as the route can be looked up via the timetable. If we are going to require inline references, then every airline route on every page needs one (why should some routes have inline references and others not?). Frankly, that would be incredibly absurd for a few reasons, the main reason being sometimes you can't really find a reference for a particular route, yet, it exists on a timetable. So do those routes not meet WP:V? Plus, over time, the press releases/articles to which the in line references link to make become broken or inactive, thus leaving articles with a bunch of broken references that have to be cleaned up. And finally, as I mentioned before, inline references in the airline destination tables makes the table harder to read sometimes (particularly on mobile devices). For example, I saw people starting to put references on every destination on the Calgary International Airport airline destination timetable, and frankly, that cluttered the page and made it look unprofessional and hard to read. I'm glad you put the timetable references to the side to clean that up. I am all for simplicity and consolidating, and having one timetable reference for all the routes makes the most sense. NBA2030 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
sunnya343 hit the nail on the head. When specific references exist, why are they being deleted? The goal here is not readability but referencability. There is a [dead link] template for a reason. Garretka (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think we might be mis-defining "inline reference" and "general reference" here. Paraphrasing the definition at WP:IC and WP:GENREF, a "general reference" is typically one that is used to support an entire article or large parts of it. Timetable references used to support a row in an A&D table don't seem to match that definition. But yes, I agree that these timetable references are more general when compared to press releases and the like from when a route is launched. Since there are few times when we can legitimately delete a reference, I say we leave the specific references there after a route begins, while a more general timetable/route map reference can be placed to the right in a Refs. column (to support all those destinations that don't have specific references). Of course there is such thing as WP:TOOMANYREFS (note: not policy), so something would have to be done there.
By the way, I came across WP:CITEBUNDLE. This could be a solution when there's a lot of references supporting individual destinations in a particular row. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 15:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
References for seasonal routes

I have started a discussion on this at Talk:Calgary International Airport#References for seasonal routes. I am focusing on one article at a time with regards to the RFC result so as not to cause any commotion. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 14:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"Air x" should go under "x" for alphabetical order

Per title. Szqecs (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the vast majority, if not all, website sources alphabetise by the first word. Garretka (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course not.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Aarhus Sea Airport

An IP editor has removed the entry for Aarhus Sea Airport in the article List of airports by IATA code: Z with this edit. Flightradar shows the airport does exist but there is no information on flights. Is it possible that only seaplanes are being operated at the airport? And should this airport be on the list? Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss 18:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

After a brief but spirited investigation :) : it seems there is a seaplane base there, active at least till summer 2017. Try if you can make some more from https://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nordic_Seaplanes&action=history ... OTOH the place seems to have never had an IATA code so there is some point in removing it from the list by IATA code Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Airports for antique aircraft

User:Deisenbe has created Airports for antique aircraft and the related Category:Airports for antique aircraft, it appears to be about airports that you land old aircraft on the grass but I dont really understand the language used must be an eng var thing. Anyhow I have proposed the article for deletion because I dont really understand the scope for inclusion or what has already been included is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fully support the proposal for deletion. Or are we going to have "Aerodromes for airplanes with 6-cylinder engines" next? ;) Nothing to do with English language, as far as I can see - and btw what does the "var" stand for? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The eng var is a reference to WP:ENGVAR or "National varieties of English", that is not all English is the same. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But I do not think it is relevant: there may be variations in the interpretation/meaning of aerodrome vs. airfield vs. airport but afaik (not a native speaker either side!) "antique" is quite constant in its meaning and interpretation. I keep on supporting the Request for Deletion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Another user is now saying on the article talk page that the optimum aerodrome is round and has repair facilities for fabric-covered aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I just saw this because of this edit. It's been added because it has a turf runway but no evidence that any antique aircraft ever land there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air (complete mess at PDX and SEA articles)

Another issue that I would like to raise is with the PDX and SEA articles. There are a lot of users changing the start/end dates for lots of routes, and the whole Alaska/Horizon section of the A&D tables has gone to a complete mess. Any thoughts on what we should do about this? I personally think that we should combine both of the SkyWest and Horizon destinations into one column, but I'm open to other suggestions as well... 172.58.43.250 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Anything branded as Alaska Airlines should be labelled as such, the operator is an unrequited detail. If the flight is branded as a Horizon flight, it should be labelled as such. If we were to label all the carriers for the regional airlines we'd be going back in time and creating unrequired complexity and detail. Merge them all under the existing Alaska and Horizon banners. Garretka (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this, and just want to note that we need to be more consistent about this across aircraft articles. Referring to flights primarily by operator rather than marketing carrier will usually violate WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TECHNICAL. Wikipedia is for a general audience, not just us avgeeks. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree too - I would get rid of the whole "operated by" thing and just go by what the average person would understand - anything else is in my view unencyclopaedic directory like information, and confusing. My rule would be "What do the big words say on the aeroplane" and use that. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Something else to consider. American, Delta and United's express destinations are all labeled as "American Eagle", "Delta Connection", and "United Express". All three of these carriers have Skywest planes in their fleet, but we have never labeled them as such in the destinations tables. Alaska's SkyWest destinations in the destinations tables should be labeled similarly, in my opinion. Unfortunately (for us as editors in this situation), Horizon Air does not operate all of Alaska's express flights, hence why we currently differentiate SkyWest and Horizon from each other in the destinations tables. On that note, User:Garretka just recently combined SkyWest with Alaska at Portland International Airport, and I'm not so sure that I agree with this because we would essentially be labeling SkyWest's Alaska destinations as their mainline fleet. It would be similar to combining "American Eagle" with "American Airlines" "Delta Connection with "Delta Air Lines" and "United" with "United express", which we could do, but at that point, I think that would be way too tenacious.
With that being said, I think something like this would be the best path to take:
AirlinesDestinations
Alaska Airlines
operated by Horizon Air & SkyWest Airlines
The destinations column would combine both Horizon and SkyWest destinations in the same box, and Alaska's mainline destinations would be left alone as it currently is... This would match up similarly with how American, Delta and United's are currently displayed. But like I said earlier, it would much easier if Alaska would just combine their SkyWest destinations with Horizon... 172.58.43.212 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for coming here to discuss, I was being bold before making edits to further pages. The reason I merged the fleets here is that the aircraft Skywest operates are a essentially integrated into Alaska's mainline fleet. I don't see this the same as combining Delta and Delta Connection because they are different brands. I see this as going backwards to where we listed "Delta Connection operates by XXX" - we shouldn't list the operated by in any case really. We see #3 at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT saying:
"For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number, avoid using the term dba, an abbreviation of the American business term doing business as."
The reason I didn't merge Horizon is because it was previously its own thing being a regional carrier, but in my opinion these can all be merged too, but I'd rather see further discussion on that front.
TL;DR, we should avoid listing the carrier and rather "what the aircraft is labelled as". Garretka (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been grappling with this issue for a while in my own mind. I actually think the issue is also very profound for airports like Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Here's the current situation there...

AirlinesDestinations
Alaska Airlines
operated by Horizon Air 		Portland (OR) (resumes February 16, 2018), San Diego (resumes February 1, 2018), Seattle/Tacoma
Alaska Airlines
operated by SkyWest Airlines 		Portland (OR) (ends February 15, 2018), San Diego, Seattle/Tacoma

It appears as if some services are starting and others are ending. In reality, as a customer or casual reader is concerned, the service isn't changing. I think this would be a much cleaner solution:

AirlinesDestinations
Alaska Airlines
operated by Horizon Air or SkyWest Airlines 		Portland (OR), San Diego, Seattle/Tacoma

I've wanted to be bold and make this change for a while now... but I knew it would be controversial... and didn't know the proper forum to discuss the change until now.

Of course, the reason we are having this discussion is that Alaska doesn't brand it's non-mainline flights differently (like American Eagle, Delta Connection, and United Express). But if Alaska doesn't brand them separately, do we have to on Wikipedia? --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would back you in any changes you decide to make to these entries. My opinion remains that everything operated by or for Alaska should be listed as one entry, not "operated by". Until Alaska brands these flights differently, I don't see the added value in having these needless details in the tables. Note that I tried this earlier but the result was a revert pending further discussion. Garretka (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Leave the "operated by" out completely. It was said above "In reality, as a customer or casual reader is concerned, the service isn't changing" such detail it is not really necessary for an encyclopaedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Although I was previously in favour of including the operating airline, I have now (at least partially) changed my mind. The situation with Eurowings is a complete mess. Currently, Eurowings flights are also operated by Germanwings, LGW, Eurowings Europe, PrivatAir, Brussels Airlines and SunExpress Deutschland. This means that destinations are often duplicated multiple times. For example, Eurowings flights to one destination could be operated by Eurowings themselves, Germanwings and LGW, meaning that the same destination is shown three times. Often this information is inaccurate as well. Have a look at the Düsseldorf Airport and Cologne Bonn Airport pages to see what I mean. Whatever about other airlines where there is just one regional airline operator or equivalent, Eurowings operating airlines are an complete mess at the moment and should definitely not be included. VG31 14:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #3 is pretty clear on this. Remove the operated by and merge them. Point them here if edits get reverted. Garretka (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and changed all of the airlines and destinations tables for Alaska's destinations in order to reflect the current consensus of this discussion. See my edit log (here). I'm pretty sure I got all of them, but I may have missed a few so if anyone else finds any, please change them. Regards. 23.17.219.53 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Garretka: I think we should remove the "operated by" for every single airline that currently has that (such as Norwegian, Eurowings, etc). In fact, I would go even further and merge the mainline and regional United, American and Delta flights together. Why have a separate section for United Express, American Eagle and Delta Connection when the general public really doesn't care? What do people think about that? NBA2030 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree "operated by" should be dropped across the board, that seems to be the general consensus at least. As far as merging the regional with mainline, that would require more discussion. I'm not sure I agree with that just because they're technically a subsidiary, and not operating for the mainline. Garretka (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I (and others) have begun the process of removing and merging the "operated by" on airline tables, but it will take a while to get to all the airport articles. If you see one on an article, please remove it accordingly. @Garretka:I am 50/50 on whether we should just merge all regional with mainline. I wouldn't mind doing that per say for simplicity purposes, but I think it is fine to list them separate if the carrier operates a specific regional brand (like Delta Connection, United Express, American Eagle, etc). If we have another Alaska or Eurowings situation however, then they can/should be merged. NBA2030 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Now another thing I've noticed, is we have "Air France operated by Hop!" on many European pages. How does hop differ from Air Canada Rouge in that it's a wholly owned subsidiary? Air Canada Rouge doesn't list "Air Canada operated by" so, why do we need to list Air France operated by hop? I would prefer to just see it listed as Hop!... Garretka (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As a note, I have made some pretty significant edits to Edinburgh Airport that are bound to get reverted, but hopefully we get some more interest. Of note in the edits was I merged BA and BA Cityflyer (all marketed and labelled as British Airways flights) and separated HOP! from Air France. What are other editors thoughts on these changes? Garretka (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garretka:@VG31:@Andrewgprout:@NBA2030: reversions already started as users claiming that Eurowings Europe is separate brand with own IATA code, same as Norwegian Air International or Norwegian Air UK OR Norwegian Air Long-Haul. I do kind of agree as after brexit Norwegian Air Shuttle will be not able to operate as brand in UK due to brexit. I think that it could be stated simple Norwegian Air International instead of Norwegian Air Shuttle operated by Norwegian Air International or any other brand. Same case about Euroings. To use Eurowings Europe brand for flights coming out of Vienna airport. What you guys think? Wappy2008 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: It doesn't matter if it's a separate airline with its own IATA code. That's what we're getting at. Who markets the flight? What are the aircraft labeled as? By this logic every carrier for Delta Connection, or Air Canada Express would be listed. Norwegian Air Shuttle is the primary brand for Norwegian, regardless of whether it's operated by long or short haul, it's considered to be one entity. We, nor the reader, are concerned with who the operators are. Garretka (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wappy2008: I agree with @Garretka:. Eurowings Europe is a separate airline as is Germanwings, but all the flights are still branded as just Eurowings. The majority of passengers will not notice if their flight is operated by Eurowings or Eurowings Europe. VG31 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garretka:@VG31: what about brands of easyjet, Corendon Airlines, Small planet airlines, Travel service all those airlines has different brands in different countries. According what you guys saying all those airlines should be merged too, no?! Those are stated as separate brands across WIKI. America is as one country but airlines in Europe has own brand in specific country. I agree that operated by might be removed but brands with own AOC and IATA code should be in use. Wappy2008 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wappy2008: who markets the flights? What is the aircraft labelled as? Those are really what should be in the airline column, per WP:COMMONNAME. Garretka (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where was the vote to implement this? I personally think it needs a wider discussion and a vote rather than a group of 4 or 5 users deciding this, which is a pretty big decision. Regarding the Eurowings Europe operations we know that all flights operated out of Vienna are operated by Eurowings Europe with their own IATA code and the airline is operated in a separate country so wouldn't it be easier to show every flight out of Germany operated by Eurowings then flights from Vienna, Salzburg etc operated by Eurowings Europe as they currently are, regardless of who they're marketed by as they are a separate company. Whereas flights in America are different as they are operated using the airlines callsigns and IATA codes that they're operating for which is not the case for Eurowings and Eurowings Europe or even Norwegian as they all use they're own callsigns and IATA codes. CBG17 (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17:Incorrect. Subsidiary flights in North America are given a flight number corresponding with the airline they are operating for, but the callsign they use during flight is actually the one for operating airline (to go AV geek for a moment; i.e. AC flight number 8652 operated by Jazz is actually given the flight number JZA652 operationally, only passengers see the AC flight number, same concept goes for airlines in the states, and every other airline in the world...). It's getting ridiculously tedious and unencyclopedic to label these minute details the reader doesn't care to see. As for a vote, there hasn't been one. Just a consensus among participating editors. If you wish to participate or get more users to participate then feel free. Garretka (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garretka:I'm not saying that they still have to have the 'Operated by ...' but they should be separate according to the actual airline operating it, if you present it using brands then how will it be presented for virtual carriers that have no aircraft or callsigns, should they even be included in this case?. Why do they need to be put under one whole brand when they are all separate airlines, if they have their own IATA code and callsign they should have their own line on the table like @Wappy2008: stated. Also you haven't answered my question why hasn't there been a vote surely before you implement a big change like this you need a user vote to reach a fair outcome because at the moment it seems like its just yours and one other users decision which is not exactly a fair situation. CBG17 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to say it again. Who markets the flights? The reader does not care the airline operating flights if they're branded as something different. You're basically saying continue with the status quo but remove operated by. That is the exact opposite of where this conversation should go. That adds unnecessary complexity. If it's one airline that markets the flights but two carriers operate them under one brand, then to the reader it's one airline. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #3 is pretty clear not to list the operating carrier. Why hasn't there been a vote? Did you read my post? Because it's like pulling teeth trying to get outside input, so more often than not the only time to get outside input is by being bold (also it's the consensus among 5+ editors, not just me and one other). Garretka (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Listing the operators isn't an issue in some cases where there is just one operator, for example Aer Lingus Regional flights which are operated only by Stobart Air. The problem is for airlines like Eurowings where there are ~5 operating airlines and the only way to find the operating airline is to search through the booking engine for each route which is extremely tedious. Since not many people are likely to want to do this, it means that the operating airline information is frequently inaccurate. This problem is only going to get worse in the future as more and more airlines set up subsidiaries for tax and cost reduction reasons. VG31 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garretka:@CBG17: I do really think that flights out of Germany should be stated under Eurowings and flights out of Austria under Eurowings Europe without stating operated by any type of leased aircraft , etc. Same about Norwegian Air International to be used for flights withing Europe, Norwegian Air UK for flights out of UK, Norwegian Air Shuttle out of Scandinavia and Norwegian Air Long-Haul for flights over seas as all those has own IATA and AOC. Wappy2008 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's four different airlines operating under the Norwegian Air Shuttle brand. They are all branded as 'Norwegian' so there is no advantage to including the operating airline. VG31 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@VG31:I agree with this for the likes off Dusseldorf and airports in Germany where Eurowings operate, I agree with merging them if they have more than 2 airlines as it gets confusing but as for the Eurowings Europe flights any Eurowings flights operated from a base outside of Germany should be shown as the Eurowings Europe brand especially Vienna as we know Eurowings Europe operates out of Austria, all flights from Vienna should be shown to be operated by them as 99% of the time they are operated using the Eurowings Europe callsign and IATA.

It's no different to Eurowings flights operated by Air Berlin or LGW though. They're still just branded as Eurowings. I don't see why Eurowings Europe should be an exception. VG31 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See that's the problem. The idea here is to have Norwegian listed three times on some pages just without the "operated by". The reader does not care, if they see Norwegian Long Haul and go google it, what's going to come up? A link to Norwegians home page (its one airline, not multiple. The reader won't get that distinction). WP:COMMONNAME also applies here. I'm going to say it again, it's an unnecessary detail the reader doesn't care about. Garretka (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Because Eurowings Europe operates from a different country if they're from the same country then they cam be shown as Eurowings but Eurowings doesn't operate out of Vienna only Eurowings Europe so just show it as Eurowings CBG17 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This effects more than just Norwegian ad Eurowings it will effect:

  • Small Planet Airlines and subsidiaries
  • Travel Service and subsidiaries
  • Sun Express and subsidiaries
  • flights operated for Scandinavian
  • S7 and Globus Airlines
  • Condor and Air Transat flights

there a plenty more but you're focusing on just 2 groups of airlines but this is on a wider scale than just those 2 so do you propose merging all those together even though they all operate from different countries and have different callsigns etc. CBG17 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am saying list the brand. If the flights are branded seperately, (i.e. Air Canada/Express/Rouge, Delta/Connection, Air France/HOP!) then list them seperately. If they're simply the same airline being operated by another, (as is the case with Eurowings, Norwegian and a multitude of other airlines) list the airline that markets the flight. That goes across the board. Garretka (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

100% agree with Garretka. Put yourself in the shoes of an airline customer. When they book the flight, what is the brand they see when they go to a website? When they go to the airport, what brand is at the check-in desk? When they board the plane, what brand will they see prominently displayed? The answer to those questions is the answer to our questions here. The minutia of how the plane is operated and the call sign it uses doesn't really matter to the customers and therefore it doesn't matter to the casual readers we are writing for here on Wikipedia. --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a rule needs to be decided and added to the page as its getting confusing and users are just removing all the 'operated by ...' without knowing whether it is encyclopaedic or not e.g. Finnair operated by Nordic Regional Airlines, most of Norra's aircraft so operated in their own livery so own brand and has its own website so surely the 'operated by...' should still be used. another example is Umeå Airport Finnair flight is operated by another airline so because they are 2 separate brands its different to the likes of Eurowings and Norwegian so do we remove it or leave it? as i feel if its another brand airline then it should stay whereas if its Eurowings operated by Eurowings europe it should go.CBG17 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@CBG17: In the above - the options are either
AirlinesDestinations
Finnair Vaasa, Helsinki

or

AirlinesDestinations
Finnair Vaasa
Braathens Regional Aviation Helsinki

either may be appropriate depending on the situation - I myself tend towards the bigger entity being the more likely (and of a more encyclopaedic level) but it could be argued otherwise. The longstanding but largely ignored WP:AIRPORTS content point number 3 is there to prevent the very mess we are talking about above.

...and encyclopedic does not mean "I think it is interesting so it must be included" encyclopedic means "at an encyclopedic level" that is appropriate for inclusion in a Tertiary information resource - that is what WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are all about. And at the moment the desination tables are definately in the "obviously directory type information" situation. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to editors above claiming this has not been voted on before, this was already discussed at depth. The consensus at that time was to list the marketing carrier, not the actual operator of the flight. See the discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_13#Listing_of_Regional_Carriers_dba_Mainline_Carrier. In regards to Europe, the branding is no different. Norwegian Air Shuttle is the marketing carrier, Norwegian Long Haul, Norwegian Air International, Norwegian Air UK, and Norwegian Air Argentina are just subsidaries. Look at any booking engine, all their flights are marketed as Norwegian Air Shuttle, seperating them serves no purpose and is an unecessary level of information for an ecyclopedia. Also, while we on this topic, I feel like seperating Delta Mainline/Connection, Alaska Airlines, United/Express entries, etc creates similar issues due to uneeded complexity. For instance on Delta, there is a much bigger difference between a flight on an A350 and a B717, wheras a E175 is not much different than a B717 and we sperate them. The average flier does not know the difference between mainline and connection, it is just 'Delta' or 'American'. I would like to see the following done (sorry for only US example, but the same would apply for Eurowings, Norwegian, etc):

AirlinesDestinations
Air Canada Toronto–Pearson
Alaska Airlines Portland (OR), Seattle/Tacoma
American Airlines Charlotte, Chicago–O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, New York–La Guardia, Philadelphia, Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Washington–National
Delta Air Lines Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York–La Guardia, Salt Lake City, Seattle/Tacoma
United Airlines Chicago–O'Hare, Denver, Houston–Intercontinental, Los Angeles, Newark, San Francisco, Washington–Dulles

Stinger20 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Stinger20: I agree. I want to test that out on both Nashville International Airport and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport to see how that looks. Also, I may add that may solve some of the referencing issues for seasonal routes. NBA2030 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the changes. One advantage I noticed is that CVG serves CVG-RSW year round, but 1/2 of the year is mainline, while the other 1/2 is connection, making it difficult to source. Listing it as year-round mainline certainly makes it easier to verify. This also helps to consolidate information in the tables, which helps make it more encyclopedic in my opinion. Stinger20 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I will continue this discussion in a new section below. NBA2030 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not separate domestic and international destinations

Why not separate domestic and international like [1] ? Within the table cell, it can be separated. It may not be needed in places like European Union, where flights work as domestic for many countries, it is useful in some airports. Crashed greek (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you gain when doing so? Remember, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Garretka (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It gives better idea about the international destinations of an airport. All airports have separate process for international and domestic travel, so it is relevant data. Also there is no loss in separating, as it wont take more space than current table. Crashed greek (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The best way of providing encyclopaedic information regarding destinations of an airport is to find well sourced WP:SECONDARY references providing such information. Providing such references is how Wikipedia works. If there are no such references it is very very questionable that such information is encyclopaedic and thus not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopaedia as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
All I told is to leave it to individual article contributors whether to add that information or not. We can remove the policy in this article so that each airport article can decide on its own. Crashed greek (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit. I have given you reasons such as WP:NOTTRAVEL as to why this is not done. The airport project has been carefully crafting WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT such that it does not violate this. Please follow WP:BRD rather than going about making your own changes. If you can present a logical arguement as to how this adds value to the article then we can actually have a discussion. One person wanting something is not enough to override this, your argument right now is basically WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Garretka (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
According to Crashed greek here, WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT isn't an official Wikipedia guideline. I wonder what official guideline needs to be cited to this user just cause they don't like the current layout in the destination table. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed not an official policy nor a guideline. Just the wikiproject with goal to create guideline. So I will take the discussion to the individual article. Crashed greek (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think separating “international” and “domestic” violate WP:NOTTRAVEL neither I think it’s only for travelers. It’s completely useful and essential to tell readers how well this airport is connected to the rest of world by highlight international destinations. And, by doing so, it gives a brief look at how much share each airlines take in the international market. 137.132.234.129 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminal Assignment Tables

Bringing this here because a wide range of airport pages (example at JFK and LAX are displaying terminal assignment tables in the terminals section. This RFC made it clear this information is unencylopedic in its current form but it keeps getting added in this other form. Seeking comments here before performing further mass deletions. Garretka (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC should be followed unless there is a major issue involving WP policy, don't know what else to say. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Garretka that the RFC showed that pretty much everyone who participated seemed to agree that the listing of terminal information is not encyclopedic in the format of stating it in tables or lists. I currently support the removal of tables like the one that Garretka just removed from Los Angeles International Airport.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the RFC was pretty clear, these can and should be removed immediately. Stinger20 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Question about why remove terminal information has almost been the most frequent asked question for this topic. It shows clear, at least intuitively, that it remains controversial, instead of overwhelming majority, that support removing the terminal information. If terminal information is for travelers, then how about airline and destinations? Isn’t that more for travelers? It’s should a freedom to include this information, especially for those airports with more than one terminals, to give readers a quick glance at how each terminal functions. People are interested in the airport operation model, which is very different cross the world.137.132.234.129 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to reopen the debate. I'm simply clarifying that a table on its own is no more encyclopedic than being combined with the A&D tables, per the previous RfC. Garretka (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
However, if you combined terminal assignment with A&D table, it will be soon reverted by some users with referring to this page. At least there should be a quick way to provide such information instead of writing a long airline name list in terminal paragraph.137.132.234.129 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The only noteworthy (encyclopedic) inclusions are airlines that have large operations at the airport, usually only a handful anyways. So there isn't a need for a "long paragraph" in the body of the page. Garretka (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents sections

Should these only include events that involve aircraft operations at the airport, or on approach or takeoff? Plus cases of events where aviation authorities (Not police) investigate.

I'm asking because these sections have become the dumping grounds for-

  • Someone getting seriously hurt on an escalator.[2]
  • A men's room fire.[3]
  • A biker brawl.[4]
  • A knifing combined with someone driving on airport grounds.[5]

They are also becoming full of terror incidents not related to the operation of aircraft.

  • Brussels bombings being mentioned when it is already in the airport's opening and has its own subsection.[6]
  • Moscow Domodedovo Airport bombing also mentioned earlier in article.[7]

Not to mention airport articles like Miami International once having many accidents or incidents that happened somewhere other than Miami. I'd supply the link to when I cleared out this article some years back but I can't find it.

My personal beliefs

  • These sections should be for aviation related accidents or incidents that involve aircraft and would be investigated by aviation authorties
  • Terror bombings are obviously notable. These should be in the airport's history section.
  • The violence, passenger accidents at the airport, and other happenings either go in the airport history section or preferably in many cases deleted all together as WP:NOTNEWS.

There have been two discussions on other talk pages semi related to this. Click here[8] and here[9]. I am hoping we can have a discussion and will post to Aviation and Aviation accidents WikiProject talk pages in order to invite people to join in on the above topic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents on approach to, at, or shortly after take-off from an airport should be covered in the airport article. Accidents en route involving aircraft that had taken off from, or were due to land at, the airport should not be covered.
Other incidents are to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Generally, minor incidents are not noteworthy. Terrorist incidents may be noteworthy. If such an incident has a stand-alone article, it should be covered, either in an "accidents and incidents" section, or in a section giving an overview of the incident. Major non-terrorists incidents (i.e. terminal building burning down, major hangar fires, major storm damage) may also be noteworthy, on a case-by-case basis. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: Neither the title of the section nor the scope of the artice appears to restrict non-aviation incidents from being listed in the accidents and incidents section - so long as there is enough significance in the incident. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that this section is restricted to aeroplane related events - can you please explain why you think this. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Because we have yearly templates, aviation accidents and incidents in ####, and we don't put terrorism at an airport in them or other stuff like the United Express incident. There is an article called Aviation accidents and incidents. Read the definition there....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: again - This section is NOT intinsically about aviation accidents it is about incidents and accidents at an AIRPORT which is the scope of the article - i fail to see why you are making a link to the template for aviation accidents because it simply does not exist.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You can't read or prone to shooting your mouth off without thinking or checking apparently. I linked to an article not a template! This from the editor who had to insert something[10] in Airport article when it was already mentioned two times and had its own subsection....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Why not list in the history section of an article? It simplifies things. Why Granny falling down the escalator and later dying be next to a aviation crash that killed over 100 people? Seems we're making a totally incomprehensible section....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


@WilliamJE: again again - No need to be rude - because you are verging on being so. It was you that said "Because we have yearly templates" and I have no idea why that has anything to do with this issue. You have not explained why you think the incident section of an airport article is only for aviation incidents - please do so. The Brussels bombing is a particularly significant incident and could legitimately be included in this list even with it already mentioned elsewhere - it would have helped if your edit summary in this instance had not said "not an aviation incident" because as this discussion goes on to prove it appears that you used this misguided idea to delete the referenced and significant information. If you want this section to only deal with aircraft related issues then you will need to gain such consensus and change the section title and probably other features of all such articles. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Pleaso also think that, even though an airport is mainly intended for aircraft operations, there are other activities there, mostly at the largest airports worldwide. For instance, terrorism events like bombings should be covered at the corresponding airport article, maybe in a concise manner if there is a separate article.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Search-able Timetables

@VG31:@Garretka: I have discussion with some user that if search-able timetables of airlines or 3rd party timetables like skyscanner or Matrix are allowed as valid source or not on Wiki? What you guys saying? Thanks Wappy2008 (Talk) 13:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@VG31:@Garretka: By searchable timetables, we are talking about the airline's official website and Google's Matrix. Ongoing talk here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2001:BB6:9DD:FC58:2CA2:2854:CC5F:4115 2001:BB6:9DD:FC58:2CA2:2854:CC5F:4115 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I stand by new routes must have inline references explicitly stating so, and these references should not be removed. If an already present route in the table doesn't have a source, timetables were deemed an ok source to use. The issue remains how to reference seasonal routes, because using airline timetables for that use is textbook WP:OR. If this discussion is about transferring operators, who cares who the operator is? There's two good discussions above about this. Garretka (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit, this is a textbook example of where Aegean and Olympic destinations should be merged under the Aegean brand per the above discussion so issues about such minute details don't occur. For example, Athens International Airport has 4 different entries for Aegean, Aegean operated by Olympic, Olympic and Olympic operated by Aegean. This would be much simpler to merge the four sections into one entry. Garretka (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there an ongoing effort to merge flights operated by other carriers under one carrier? Currently, all major airport pages list flights operated by a different airline separately. 2001:BB6:9DD:FC58:2CA2:2854:CC5F:4115 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes there is, see the above discussions regarding Alaska Airlines (discussion went haywire and included all "operated by" across WP) and the discussion above about merging mainline and regional airlines. Garretka (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Garretka: The flights for larnaca are code shares not using the 'operated by...' so they have been placed back in the right airline section, so there should be no problem on that page. CBG17 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Airliners.net

FYI, lots of people on airliners.net have been going absolutely berserk over the consensus to remove regional carriers from the airlines and destinations tables. If anyone has an account there please feel free to respond there. I have told the members of airliners.net to comment here, and I linked them to the thread in which the consensus was made (at WT:AIRPORTS).

I have made a very lengthy response on the forum explaining the situation to the best of my ability here: http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1384669&p=20118411#p20118411

Anyone else is welcome to comment there as well (provided that you have an airliners.net account, and if you don't, they you can easily make an account for yourself).

Thanks, 5.102.4.218 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Stinger20 has already commented there... :-) 5.102.4.218 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
At risk of opening a can of worms again, this information is more suitable for wikivoyage. Those who do not like the changes made here are welcome to start reinstating this information there. Just think of it this way, if a user is coming to Wikipedia looking for information on how to get to an airport, how to book a flight, any sort of information they could use for that; screams WP:NOTTRAVEL. Garretka (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Garretka: For what it's worth, it should be noted that I and surely others come to Wikipedia seeking information regarding seasonal services and regional carriers, and I am neither looking for information on how to get to an airport nor how to book a flight. I'm not going to argue that the information should be reinstated because at this point it's clearly a lost cause, and after the nonsense at Talk:Calgary International Airport it's best to simply stop contributing to the destinations lists as they no longer have any value. I maintain that the best thing for Wikipedia at this point is for the list to be entirely removed, but I just thought that was an important distinction to be made. -- Acefitt 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
For at least a year, I came to Wikipedia to see "what airline service does this airport have". Until very recently, I got that information in a glance. Now, with whitewashing the regional carrier and putting it under a mainline marketing carrier, I think Wikipedia's information is garbage and not useful. I personally don't care too much if it's Skywest or Envoy, just if it is mainline or not. No!!!!!!!!!!!! Make Wikipedia the Way it Was! Vanguard10 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It's particularly irritating for Air Canada Rouge, whose Airbus A319 are a crime against humanity. To lump them and Jazz in as all "Air Canada" is borderline libellous. -- Acefitt 02:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, there were users saying they were going to take this matter into their own hands on correct the pages, but I think it has been throughly explained why the content was removed. I would be on the look out for the rougue IP editor trying to change pages against consensus, but otherwise I think everything has settled. Stinger20 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Consolidating Mainline and regional sections on Airline tables

There are some great ideas in this discussion -- but no consensus was reached. We can't just go about changing pages without a consensus. Heck -- these changes were made a day after posting the idea! That's not how discussion works here. If you want to make a change, you write the idea, and submit to feedback and modifications. That's not what happened here. As someone who was not involved in the original discussion, but has had a long history in WP:Airports, this is not right. We can set up a proper discussion to agree on a solution. But until then, we should refrain from making anymore changes to airport articles. See my new section below this for a proper discussion. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

I and @Stinger20: have been thinking that maybe it is time to consolidate the mainline and regional sections on the airline tables. For example, instead of listing separate Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection sections, combine all of them into simply "Delta Air Lines". We both feel that consolidating the information makes the table more encyclopedic, and that it helps solve some (not all though) of the referencing issues for seasonal routes, as sometimes a route is mainline for 1/2 of the year and regional for the other 1/2. Listing it as simply a destination that xyz airline serves helps eliminate confusion. The average person isn't going to care whether it is mainline or regional, they just simply know it as "Delta", "United", "American", "WestJet", etc (of course, this would apply to airlines worldwide, not just North American airlines). For examples, see Nashville International Airport and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, two airports I have tested this new format on. Before implementing this further, I would like to know people's opinions on this? NBA2030 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with such a move. And to your reasoning. It is simply a much more cleaner and encyclopaedic (and sustainable) approach. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Just moving my thoughts to this discussion, I like the approach and helps eliminate the complexity induced by trying to list mainline and connection routes. This defintely helps make the tables more readable, concise, and more consistent with wikipedia content guidelines. I am in full support of this change. Stinger20 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The key word being Combine rather than deletion of regional route providers, as regionals have more daily flights than the trunk carriers. What happen to MKE for example? AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@AirOpsExecnPlt: As NBA2030 said "instead of listing separate Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection sections, combine all of them into one row simply named "Delta Air Lines"". MKE has actually already been done so you can use it as an example of how it looks.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@AirOpsExcnPlt: This is not deleting any routes. It is simply combining mainline and regional ops into one section. There really isn't a need to list separate regional operations for an airline when the general public usually simply knows it as "Delta", "American", "United", etc. Plus, combining them simplifies the table and removes some issue when it comes to seasonal routes. I have started implementing this, but I need some help as some of the bigger airports will be a challenge. NBA2030 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I support it, especially as this is the final year for most regionals using turbo-props to up gauge to all jets. Many of us (mature) pilots remember our passengers face when they once walked into a 'prop job', years back. lol AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have started in earnest on making the changes. However, as there are a lot of airport articles, I would appreciate any and all help with the process. Thank you in advance! NBA2030 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I will try to work on some pages that get more traffic so that we cant get more users into this discussion and help solidify the consensus. Stinger20 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I personally do not agree with this decision. I like to see who is actually operating a route, mainline or regional, and feel the reading public appreciates knowing the difference as well. The referencing issues for seasonal routes isn't a big deal, as far as I'm concerned. A lot of flying around the world is seasonal. It will only help make it marginally more readable or concise, as I feel both those aspects are already met with the current format. This will also orphan the regional airline pages even more, as I feel those pages aren't updated often enough as it is. This will only make it worse. The section is called "airlines and destinations" for a reason. We should list the destination next to the airline that actually operates the route. Regionals are airlines. Combining all of them under a brand name seems acceptable to me. Eliminating the regionals completely doesn't seem acceptable, at least to me. Thenoflyzone (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thenoflyzone: This is in no way eliminating regional routes! Sorry if that is confusing some of you! We are proposing as you say "Combining all of them under a brand name". No routes are being completely eliminated from the tables under this proposal. Stinger20 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I understood it correctly. I'm not confused. Presently, all the regional airlines are combined under the US3 brand names, Delta Connection, United Express and AA Eagle. I suggest we leave it that way. It is already streamlined. This wasn't the case a few years ago, when we used to list each operating airline as well (ex. Skywest, Endeavour, etc). That was obviously a bit too much, and so was eliminated. I agreed with that change back then. It made sense. However, combining the regional destinations with the mainline destinations (under the mainline banner) essentially eliminates any mention of the regionals, and that I don't agree with.Thenoflyzone (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As with the discussion above, we should be listing the marketing carrier. One does not book a flight on Delta Connection's or American Eagles's website, it is all Delta Air Lines or American Airlines. Just doing a booking for CVG-MKE, it gives me a nonstop with a DL flight number 4566 (since Delta Air Lines is the marketing carrier) and a tab at the bottom with "DL 4566 is operated by SkyWest DBA Delta Connection." We have already decided that we are not going to list operators or DBA, this particular flight is "Delta Air Lines" operated by "Sky West dba Delta Connection" or more literally "Delta Air Lines" dba "Delta Connection". I see no difference between this and the Alaska Airlines discussion above. Stinger20 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This. The general public isn't going to care if it is mainline or connection/regional, all flights have the same kind of flight numbers. I'm sure most of the population doesn't realize the Dr. Dao incident last April on UA 3411 was a regional flight. NBA2030 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
While the general public may not care about regional carriers per the opinions of those on this forum, this site is about providing people with as much information as possible. Regional carriers while doing business under the airlines name are still however a completely separate entity from the airline itself and a completely different airline altogether with their own crews, maintenance, operations, etc. When booking flights through a website such as aa.com regional carriers are still listed in the primary airlines booking information usually under "Operated by Mesa Airlines, Skywest Airlines, etc. as American Eagle." While you may not think it is important to separate the two carriers on this site, the main carriers such as AA, DL, and UA make sure their customers know who their flight is being operated by. If it's important enough for them to list that information in their flight tables as it may be pertinent to them it should be important enough to list it here. We don't have to list all the regional's like American Eagle operated by ExpressJet, Mesa, Skywest, etc. like wiki used to, however having the regional carrier linked and destinations separated allows people to search for information not only about the regional carrier but the carriers doing business as the regional operator and where they operate. cm85383(talk) 22:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I would agree there is a material difference between a flight operated by a mainline (potentially) Boeing 777 and a regional Dash-8 Q400 or smaller. Being able to distinguish between ~30-75 seat aircraft and larger ~125-300+ seat aircraft via regional vs mainline operators seems to make sense. I personally would be very confused looking at an article for a small or non-hub sized airport and seeing what appears to be all mainline service when in reality it's all 50-seat RJ's or turboprops. I doubt very much you'd get a majority of the flying public to agree that flying on a CRJ-200 and an A321 are very comparable experiences. It also demonstrates the level of traffic at that particular airport notwithstanding who is actually operating the flight. The above commenter is correct that while there isn't a good reason to identify who is actually operating the flight, the sub-brands of airlines exist for a reason, both contract-wise with scope clauses and because Delta/American/et al wants its customers to understand there's a material difference between flying on a regional carrier vs a mainline flight. --Resplendent (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"...this site is about providing people with as much information as possible." --cm85383(talk) 22:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. Some core principals on Wikipedia are that we, as writers, should be concise and write in summary style. On airport pages, we should be providing a moderate amount of information on the more important points. When you need to get into a lot of details on a topic, a link should be provided to full-sized separate subarticles. I agree with the current line of thinking... as far as most non-expert customers (which are a reflection of most of our readers) are concerned... they book a regional flight with the mainline carrier, check in with that mainline carrier and in most cases board from a gate that carries the branding of that mainline carrier. It's only when they look at the body of the plane (assuming that it's not covered up by the jet bridge) that they see it's branded with a subbrand of the mainline carrier. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Being concise also means separating the two because there's a major difference between regional carriers and mainline, yes they fall under the same brand but that does not change nor replace the fact that the flight is being operated by a completely separate entity. Since a lot of people here seem to think that nobody cares about that information well then by that logic we might as well remove the regional pages and regional airlines all together, delete them completely, what's the point of having a page for both United Airlines and United Express, etc. since they fall under the same brand. cm85383(talk) 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"Being concise also means separating" I am sorry, but that does not make any sense. The reason carriers contract regional flying out to other carrier is so that they can pay the staff less money, besides that, there is no difference. It is a Delta plane, with Delta seats, booked on Delta.com, at a Delta gate, with Delta gate agents, a Delta Jetway, the list goes on and on. DL's ERJ-175's are not really that different from a B717-200, certainly there is a much bigger distinction in service from a B717-200 and an A350, yet we don't seperate those two. By that logic, DL operates a single B737 on CVG-SFO, while ATL-SFO sees 10 flights a day on 757/767 aircraft, there is a huge difference there, yet both pages get the same "San Francisco" under the title Delta Air Lines. We are not going to seperate the routes by frequency served, aircraft used, etc, why would we distinguish a much less important distinction like what crew operates the plane. When I am talking uncecylopedic, this one hits the head on the nail, the airport pages are about airports, not the airlines and wether it is a regional or mainline crew operating the plane. That is pretty meaningless incformation in the context of an article. Stinger20 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
"It is a Delta plane" that one is incorrect, while you made valid point about the other thing such as gates, staffing etc. just because the aircraft is painted in the airlines livery does not mean it is the property of the primary carrier. An American Eagle jet operated by Skywest Airlines does not belong to American in any way, shape, or form it belongs to Skywest Airlines, therefore Skywest can do whatever they want with the aircraft such as repaint it in their livery or convert it to a United Express, Delta Connection, whatever. It's

similar to when airlines lease aircraft, they may paint it in their livery but at the end of the day it's still the property of the lessor, just like a car. I mean in your page itself under airports you have visited you yourself list Delta Connection/Comair separately from Delta Air Lines. cm85383(talk) 19:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But it IS a Delta plane because it is all under the Delta brand. It does not matter if Republic/Skywest/Endeavor or whatever, it carries the parent carriers name. To the general public, they are on a Delta flight. We need to eliminate redundancy on Wikipedia, not create more of it. NBA2030 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
There's just no point in discussing it any further because clearly your not understanding. Like I said we might as well do away with the regional carriers pages all together since they don't operate as an independent carrier but rather under other brands. Those pages create redundancy then because American Eagle is a part of American, United Express is part of United, Delta Connection is part of Delta, so why not just merge the pages under a single brand then or get rid of them altogether. cm85383(talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
(a) My user page has no relevancy in this dicussion, I can list it however I want on there, please stay on topic, (b) You don't get to decide that there is no point is dicussing because YOU don't agree. Stinger20 (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"...we might as well remove the regional pages and regional airlines all together, delete them completely, what's the point of having a page for both United Airlines and United Express, etc. since they fall under the same brand. cm85383(talk) 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, that’s part of Wikipedia’s summary style. The premise is that “information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs.” We have detailed information on the regional airlines because some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic, but that information isn’t necessary for more casual readers. --RickyCourtney (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The airport articles are about airports not about mainline and regional airlines - please keep the articles (and the discussion) about each article's primary topic. Because things are drifting a bit here. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The main point here is that we have already decided to eliminate operators and subsidies from the destination tables, there is extensive consensus on this issue. The US3 are no different and there is no reason that we should be making an exception for American, Delta, and United. The airport articles are about airports, not the interworkings of outsourcing some flying to subsidaries and regionals. Stinger20 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Combining the two makes for tidier articles, so I agree. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How would you be able to distinguish between the services that are not actually operated by say American Airlines, but are actually operated by Expressjet? If something is not broken, do not fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by He1101n+Erne+ (talk • contribs)

You wouldn't. That's an unnecessary and unencyclopedic detail that lengthens the tables with often duplicate information. Garretka (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget to consolidate the airline page for Toronto Pearson International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and O'Hare International Airport page. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FABD:C858:FFD9:F6BC:B3CC (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: The whole point of the destination table is to show how the airport connects to other airports. The destinations themselves are the primary point of the table, so it makes sense to remove excess secondary info (the airlines). If people want to learn more about who operates which flight, they can go to the airline's article and read about the operational details. (Although even there I would say detailing exactly which regional operates a given flight is probably too much detail for an encyclopedia.) Sario528 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Garretka (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Another thing brought to my attention below is Aegean/Olympic. My thoughts are these need to be merged, see the mess at Athens International Airport where there's four different combinations of Aegean and Olympic. Garretka (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Should Air Canada Rouge be integrated with Air Canada and Air Canada Express since their business model is slightly different?--AirportExpert (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert

They should be merged based on "Air Canada Rouge, stylized Air Canada rouge, is a low-cost airline, subsidiary of Air Canada. Air Canada Rouge is fully integrated into the Air Canada mainline and Air Canada Express networks, flights are sold with AC flight numbers but are listed as "operated by Air Canada Rouge" (similar to regional flights operated under the Air Canada Express banner)". Stinger20 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They should merge Air Canada Rouge and Express into Air Canada on the Toronto Pearson International Airport page like what’s done on the Montreal Trudeau Airport page. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FABD:2C66:B2F8:9925:EC77 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How about El Al and Sun d'Or? I'm not entirely sold on the idea that this should apply to the leisure subsidiaries of these airlines, since they are often very distinct from their mainstream counterparts. Maybe if we were to include a footnote below the template about the destinations flown by the leisure provider.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert
I am not exactly sure. Just doing a booking, the flights are being marketed as El Al: https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=TLV;t=KRK;d=2018-02-09;r=2018-02-13;tt=o;sel=TLVKRK0LY5119;s=0, with an operated by tag of "Operated by Wet Lease on behalf of Sun Dor". Seems like both should be under El Al per the previous discussion on operators, but I welcome other thoughts on this. Stinger20 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to write that even though the decision has already been made, I strongly disagree with it. For instance, even though Horizon planes are branded as Alaska, I believe it's important to know Horizon and not Alaska connects Seattle and say, Spokane. Alaska Airlines doesn't fly to Yakima, but they're listed as flying to Yakima now. It's ridiculous. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: I'm with you, buddy. Not only are the lists far less informative now, they are blatantly inaccurate, to the point that I am contemplating spearheading an inevitably useless effort for all of the lists to be removed. It's been quite some time since I've seen Wikipedia take such a massive step backwards. The reasoning is so flawed I can't even wrap my head around it, and the justification provided on this page is an embarrassment. -- Acefitt 02:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, every major hub airport in the US is finished except for Detroit. Could someone else finish that one along with the Canadian airports? NBA2030 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Evening everyone, just notifying everyone that I just did a check and every Commercial Service – Primary airport in the United States except for Detroit should now be done. I will attempt to work on Detroit and try and get that finished tonight. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For China Eastern, there is currently a China Eastern Airlines operated by Shanghai Airlines listing. In this case, Shanghai Airlines merged with China Eastern, however their operations are not being merged. What should be done about this listing? Stinger20 (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion I see it no different as Delta/Delta connection. It's a wholly owned subsidiary (similar to Aegean/Olympic) and CE does the marketing. If Delta was merged I don't see why these should have an exception. Garretka (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: & @Acefitt:. I agree with both of you. This is a poorly thought out decision with no clear consensus from the discussion. Such discussion is still ongoing and shouldn't be implemented. Aside from that, a good example came from Air Canada Express. After consolidating the list, it's a disaster. Air Canada Express is actually an umbrella for 4 separate companies. It shouldn't be lumped into Air Canada. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This makes no sense and is not supportable with evidence. United pilots do not fly United Express planes, they are legally separate entities. After the Continental Express crash outside of Buffalo, more people want to know whether a plane is operated by a mainline carrier or a regional one because at the same, most passengers thought they were flying Continental and there was no difference. It is a disservice to their memories to label all flights as being operating by one carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Rules (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zack Rules: Too little, too late, my friend. The best we can do at this point is make sure people are aware the lists have been rendered useless and inaccurate, and direct them to a proper resource. More productive to the accuracy of the encyclopedia would be to eliminate the information entirely, which is a movement I'd be willing to lead if it garnered enough support. -- Acefitt 19:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zack Rules: It seems like almost all airports have changed this, so it's late now but I was thinking we could possibly put citations on the articles with links to find regional or mainline. I mean, I often use Wikipedia so I can find if I'm going to be flying if I'm on a big plane. BadgerPacker (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is incredibly stupid. You realize regional flights have their own brand right? I was ok with removing the operated by, but this goes too far. Regional flights can and should be listed separately if they have their own brand, such as "Delta Connection" or "United Express". Only if they have an usual situation like Alaska Airlines should they be combined. This needs to reconsidered. Mealer2015 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Users reseperating mainline and regional carriers, please stop. Based on pervious discussions such as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Alaska_Airlines_and_Horizon_Air_(complete_mess_at_PDX_and_SEA_articles), we have agreed that subsidaries/operatores are not to be listed and destinations should be listed under the marketing carrier. At this point, separating the US3 would be an exception to consensus, which would need a new discussion (not "movement"/reverting edits how you would like, that is not how WP:AIRPORTS works.) Stinger20 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion referenced was almost 4 years ago. Current discussion is useful. I came here because even as recent as a few months ago, there was listing by regional carriers. Now, it is increasingly not like this. At first, I thought "what is going on with theses errors", causing me to come to this page.
There should be a breakdown by regional carriers, not listing the marketing carrier. The reason to only use the marketing carrier boils down to 2 reasons
  • Readers don't know any better and don't need this information. I disagree.
  • Great deference should be given to the mainline carriers and to make it look like they are comprehensive and big. I disagree. Wikipedia is not their advertising agency.
The reasons to list the regional carriers are better.
  • Greater accuracy and tells some readers what they actually want to know.
  • Can eliminate mass confusion because if you allow the marketing carrier, know that British Airways markets a lot of codesharing flights to the US and if we don't display favoritism, would hypothetically show that not only does United, American, and Virgin America flies LAX-ORD but also Qantas, Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines, British Airways, Air Canada, EVA Air, and many others.
  • If we don't do this (separate Delta Connection from Delta in the boxes), then we risk upsetting what was agreed to in other articles, such as the Colgan crash in 2009 was under that name and not Continental Airlines.
If people want to list things like Delta Connection, operated by Skywest, so that it will be close to Delta, that is ok.
I move that we restore the way it was (separate) and not make the premature conclusion that we are combining to one marketing carrier. At least have a RFC.


Vanguard10 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really want this? No, not just the marketing carrier. Note: Emirates flight 3077 is a Seattle to Sacramento flight. So if the marketing carrier is used, be prepared for this, a completely accurate situation. Delta Connection (Skywest) flies Seattle to Victoria and Seattle to Portland.

Seattle Tacoma International Airport

AirlinesDestinations
Delta Airlines Victoria (BC), Portland (OR)
Emirates Airlines Sacramento (CA)

Vanguard10 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You're mixing up code share with marketing. We don't list codeshares; only the primary operator. I'd move to put this to an RfC as well, as there seems to be a fair amount of naysayers coming here. I agree with the idea to drop "operated by", but like I've said before to combine mainline and regionals requires further discussion (my support for Alaska merger was due to the fact that there is no separate regional brand for Alaska, it's all one airline as far as readers are concerned). Garretka (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m totally against this! I use Wikipedia for personal use.

The changes that I don’t agree about:

SXM: - Air Canada is operated by Rouge... If FL24 says Rouge then I would go by “Air Canada Rouge” on Wiki

- Winair is a small prop company in the Northern Caribbean Islands. But Winair has now leased a ATR and a MD. With the airlines being consolidated... It takes time to find what routes get operated by the MD as the Caribbean Airports have weird names (Can’t separate from South American)

ISP: - American Eagle operates the flight to PHL. Smaller Airports shouldn’t be touched with this.

JFK: - It’s so hard to find the international (long haul Flights).

I JUST DONT SEE THE POINT OF THIS WikiAirports has been fine to this point. There’s no need Balloonchaser (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

-Winair, it's all one airline. Wikipedia is not a fan site used to track aircraft.
-JFK, we don't seperately list international destinations per WP:NOTDIR; again Wikipedia is not a fan site nor should it be used to aid in planning travel. Your arguements are about decisions made far previous to this one. Garretka (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible solution?

I propose the following solution in one week.

1. Have a RFC.

2. Have several people agree on a RFC, which should be written in the most neutral way possible and also include education of the reader into situations like "what is United Express, Skywest, United Airlines, Lufthansa (codeshare for a US domestic flight)".

3. Decide where to put the RFC. Wikiproject Airports or one airport as a test. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Have a RFC

2. Have a neutrally written RFC and have at least some input from many people.

3. Where to put the RFC? Wikiproject Airports or an airport.

  • weak support for one airport as a test because then people can see what we're talking about and not an abstract discussion. Suggest Chicago O'Hare International Airport as a test. Alternatively, O'Hare should be used for examples, if possible so people don't have to click on different airports. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All -- no consensus has been made here. We should not be changing pages until that is done. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Destination Maps on airport pages

Bringing up this topic again because maps have appeared on some airport pages again. I know it's been discussed (several times) in the past with arguements for and against them. I see them as redundant and irrelevant, but another editor has brought the argument that it's pertinent information. What are other editors thoughts on this matter? Garretka (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you link to some examples of the type of maps you're referring to? -- Whats new?(talk) 05:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Something like here (below the destination table)[11]. Garretka (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove them.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of time here and they dont have the support of the project and should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been watching the discussion on that talk page as a third party. Most of the airport articles don't have a map, but they also have a ton of destinations that would have to be displayed as well. So I won't be picking a side and will just see how this thing plays out. Buffaboy talk 20:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd consider them to be like a graph to a data table, sure its redundant, but it provides a cleaner simpler way to view data. I vote to keep.Thesabre9401 26:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No those maps look rather unwieldy, and they add extra burden for editors to sync them with destination list. WP is not a travel guide. — JFG talk 18:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
However somewhat ironically a well constructed map indicating the sphere of influence of an airport almost certainly fulfulls the encyclopaedic need of an article in this regard, while the detail and pedanticness of the current table format screams WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I must note that by well constructed I do not mean one of those once ubiqutous bland maps [[12]]that simply colour in the whole country if there is a route to that country. I most certainly support the non inclusion of such simple maps however I do support maps that properly indicate routes as a vaild way of describing the places an airport is connected to. Something like this [[13]]. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I personally support the inclusion of maps in airport articles. I support them because as some people have said, they better help the reader to visualize the places that an airport is connected to. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with editor Thesabre9401. My friend KDTW Flyer, you oppose GRB (4 destinations) and CWA (3), but would fight to the death if another editor deleted your interest ATW, at only 8. So, set a min level?? AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC) I vote 3 AirOpsExecnPlt (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

At the current state of most airport WP articles, I see no point in including these maps at all. The same information is already given within the A&D tables themselves, and this is pretty much just adding the same content (the destinations) again (in map form and in written form within the A&D tables). However, I do think that using such maps could possibly be used as a replacement for the A&D tables, granted, that they provide most of the same information that the A&D tables currently provide... 74.83.110.32 (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Half of the information is missing on the maps: the airlines. A graphic is always good when it enables to understand immediately the content. Wykx (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there truely an encyclopaedic need to present the "destination" and the "airline" information associated with an airport in one place. These distinct facets can possibly better (certainly simpler) be presented seperately. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am interested to this topic. A map view is indeed a better way for a lambda reader to comprehend an abstruse table filled with many cities name. I'd rather propose a map than a table. Is there a way to show a map with airports points and in tooltip over a city X, captioning airlines serving this city X ? Besides, I'd like to read the debate and the consensus WP:Anglo has decided over airports maps. Bouzinac (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
You also have to remember that not being a travel guide then the destinations should cover all destination covered since the airport was opened which is better presented as a list. The fact we dont list all the destinations is more to do with reliable sourcing on the older destinations and airlines. We really shouldnt remove routes that are no longer operated. As encyclopedia we need to show the range of destinations covered over the years, in a way the actual airlines in most cases dont really matter. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues including a graphical representation of destinations. I don't see the harm, nor how it breaches NOTTRAVEL but the table doesn't - its the same info just presented in a different way. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If we've reached a consensus before and there's some official decision made regarding the inclusion or exclusion of destination maps, we should mention it in the project page instead of just discussing it in the talk page. The airport I've helped maintained has gone back and forth on the matter (not quite an edit war, but it seems people just willy-nilly add and then remove destination maps over time) and it's hard to defend one version over another if there's nothing in the official page that allows or disallows it.Randhuck (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There has only been discussions in the past, nothing "official" so to speak. Perhaps open it to an RfC? Garretka (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 for a RfC, if destination maps have never been settled/discussed before. Two questions to my point of view
I'm not an active project participant, so I don't have the benefit of knowledge of past consensuses, etc. But for whatever it's worth: if the airport articles are bound to be NOTTRAVEL and geared towards general public interest (rather than aviation enthusiast trivia), then I see value in providing information of the "scope of service" at an airport. Is this airport a major hub, or is it a leaf on the aviation network with limit service? From a general public perspective, that kind of information probably comes in the form of "how many / which airlines serve this airport", "how many / what kinds of destinations are connected directly to this airport", and perhaps general characterizations of passenger volumes and types of commercial aircraft (puddlejumpers, regional jets, widebody jets, etc.) serving the field.
The airline/destination lists answer the questions of airlines and destinations, but they perhaps are not the most concise way of presenting that information.
A map accompanied by a brief listing of airlines, in some circumstances, may be a better way of providing the requisite information concisely. I don't see it being advantageous to use a map for a limited-service airport (like Essential Air Service destinations in the US). I suspect a destination map for a major hub (like LHR or ATL) would be too cluttered to be useful. But for a medium-sized airport (served by "the usual" airlines, with access to hubs and a few individual destinations), a map is probably useful.
So: I'm not opposed to maps, as long as they are legible, include multiple destinations, and are maintained with the same regularity as the destination lists. MikeTheActuary (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to maps, either. However, if we are to allow them, they should follow a template. For major airports like LHR or ATL, it could be fine to simply display a map with unlabeled dots, since at that point its purpose would be to simply illustrate the airport's reach across the globe. Such a format might even be reasonable for more regional airports, especially if it's meant to supplement the tabular list we already have.Randhuck (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The current consensus is to use a standard table format for destinations per Wikipedia:AIRPORT-CONTENT. As the project essay recommended a table format for the destinations then we should not add maps (or any other format) unless we get a clear consensus to change. As maps are creeping back into a few airport articles against the current consensus do we need to amend them to specifically mention maps (as either do or not include) or any other alternate suggestion. We may need to take it to an RfC as we are sure to get into endless debates and edit wars about "it doesnt mention maps so we can include" and "we dont mention alternates as the agreed table presentation is OK as shown". Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree it's an issue that should be settled by an RfC. Bouzinac raised some options that could be posed in one, namely are maps acceptable in addition to the A&D tables; should they replace the A&D tables; or should they not be allowed at all (and edit the WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT essay to display this (we'll still have issues with users claiming they're not "official" Wikipedia policy and they're entitled to make their edits). Garretka (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I am a proponent of maps being a very good encyclopedic way to present the sphere of influence an airport has in a comprehensible and concise way - pretty much the same way that an image or a chart can further understanding of information. If we are to write some guidance I think that guidance should include something like.....

1. Maps are not compulsory or often required.
2. A map should be appropriate for the sphere of influence of the airport
3. A map must show the airport and specifically show the airports it connects to. Colouring in whole counties is NOT acceptable, such maps should be deleted on sight.
4. It does not matter if the map is mildly out of date and inaccurate - it probably isn't so wrong that it misrepresents the whole.

I think such guidance may limit some of the dangers of map inundation and maintenance issues. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not putting cat among the pigeons but one other question should be in the RfC : should the map be only with dots or with lines linking to the airport ? ^^ --Bouzinac (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Lines are very distracting, unnecessary, and for some airports with many destinations downright impossible to read. I strongly oppose lines on airport maps. Randhuck (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Taxi sections in airport articles

Some airport articles have a small section under e.g. Ground Transport that says something on the lines of "taxis are available outside the terminal" or "city taxi companies offer service to the airport". My feeling is that such sections are not notable - taxi service is likely available to/from every airport in the world. These sections may also invite addition of taxi company links. Just wondering what others here think. Thanks Declangi (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A general statement as such is fine if it's something deemed notable (im my opinion I really don't think it is); the goal here is not to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. Garretka (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this information can be discussed in a general manner, focusing on how the airport is connected to the town/city it serves (by road, rail, etc.). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Too much detail on how the airport is connected to the neighbour cities is a matter for Wikivoyage, not for an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I just found and removed[14] a services section at Portland-Troutdale Airport. It was not referenced and WP:NOTDIR would equally apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your thoughts on this. Declangi (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Airlines and Destinations

This section should be removed because it invariably breaches 10YT. Consensus does not override WP Guidelines. A compromise might be to lodge destinations that have been in place, for a long time, say, twelve years plus, and are therefore likely to be there in ten years time. The template will need changing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This should wait for the DRV to conclude before discussing any further changes are made. Garretka (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Airlines/Destinations has been an integral part of this project for over 10 years, and is an invaluable asset to the project and Wikipedia. Most airports and tables are well sourced, updated, and accurate. Not sure of the issue. I don't get why people want to take away good things from this project. An airport could go a year or more without needing any modification to the table. The tables are a small part of a much larger article. Not really sure how WP:10YT applies there. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
10YT is part of Recentism and is NOT a WP policy or guideline and is NOT vetted, says so right at the top. Airport articles are not real time evolving situations. The destination tables may be updated a few times a year and following a specific template. Recentism is a guideline for comprehensive re-edits of real time created articles. The Airport articles do not fall under any of the portions of the Recentism issue. Northstardc4m (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

From recentism: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles should be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias or article imbalance, and not every topic eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article. This applies to sub-articles such as 'Airlines and destinations'. Put differently, the week-by-week changes to timetables, that occurs at airports, is not encyclopedic. The timetabling data fails the 10YT, which indicates that it is recentism, which means it should not, in its current format, be on the template. Airport destination tables change more than a few times a year at larger airports like Gatwick. Since I posted this comment, the sub-article has changed three or four times. It is NOT encyclopedic, any more than the ever changing price of fruit and veg at your local supermarket. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger from recentism: This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. and Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. and Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline and consensus can change later on. Why is this an issue now? Destination lists are not timetables they do not change weekly and can be easily cited from multiple sources. They don't fail any of the tests that apply just as well to census data, product lines, location lists or the like. 10YT does not apply in a way that the information in any article or sub-article can't change for 10 years, it does not state that in any way, just asks will the information still be useful in 10 years and again not a vetted official guideline, well I think most would agree that the destination list served by any transportation hub, airports included, is useful important information. Northstardc4m (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said earlier, this discussion needs to wait until the conclusion of the DRV currently in progress. If the consensus reached there is to delete Airline Destination Articles per WP:NOTDIR, then this topic will likely need to be reignited with a wider RfC. Just because you're able to cite an article well does not mean it is encyclopedic, and that's part of the discussion at hand. Garretka (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC).

I had not seen this [15] before making my original posts here and on the Gatwick article: it was coincidence. I will take Garretka's advice and wait for a decision before commenting about this again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that there is a DRV on the topic of airline destination standalone articles here and a broader RfC at VPP. Garretka (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing of OPERATED BY for airlines

@VG31: @Garretka: @Andrewgprout: @NBA2030: @Stinger20: @Tofutwitch11: @AirOpsExecnPlt: @KDTW Flyer: @Thenoflyzone: @Cm85383: @Resplendent: @RickyCourtney: @Cptmrmcmillan: @Tofutwitch11: @Cm85383: I am creating discussion and tagging people who was recently involved in above discussions. Did we actually came to agreement on removing of OPERATED BY for airlines as is a bit confusing and misleading what was actually agreed on here. As i seen on major US airport and across Europe many of operated by was removed already. My question is to make it clear: Shall we continue with removing OPERATED BY or is this on hold until future agreement? Wappy2008 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is consensus is to remove the operated by (also echoed in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #3. Garretka (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I say remove. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The "operated by" created a great deal of churn of changes and duplication of entries which are largely eliminated by not listing operated by. The operated by served very little encyclopaedic value. Pedantic value for editors - yes, encyclopaedic value - no. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Operated by is only to be used in certain circumstances, but for the most part Operated By should not be used, and was not the subject of the prior debate. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential Major Change to WP:Airports: Removing Regional Carrier Listings from Airport Articles

There has been a recent discussion on making a dramatic change to the way Airport Articles are structured. However, changes were made without any consensus from the community. Until a consensus is reached, please refrain from continuing to modify any airport articles. It is very important that we reach consensus before changing a policy. For those who spearheaded this change -- I commend you. New ideas and discussions are welcome. But it has to be gone about the right way -- you can't just take an idea and run with it without consensus. From my reading above, there are really three ways to go about this:

Method A: Leave airport articles the way they were, with Regional Carriers listed below the Mainline Carrier.
Method B: Modify airport articles and include Regional Carrier routes in with Mainline Routes.
Method C: Some combination of A & B, explain.

As Method A is the current method (sans the premature change that seemed to occur), there has to be significant consensus and reason to modify that.

Below, please respond with the method you think we should move forward with, and why. It is important to have a positive and constructive discussion before making a change like this. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Method C: My idea of option C would be to leave the Air/Dest tables in the state that they were after the last discussion with the Mainline and regional's combined into one row (like what option B suggests). But add something like a star next to the destinations which are operated by the regional brand of an airline. We could then add a little key at the bottom of the table saying that the star means that the destination is partially to even fully served by a regional airline. I chose this because I feel like there are a good number of people who still have interests over whether or not a destination is operated by mainline or regional planes. I can also see it as a way to show the reader how busy a particular route is. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If this can be reasonably achieved with the current referencing method then this would also be my preference. Garretka (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method C: as proposed by KDTW_Flyer, but only if it is reliably sourced. Otherwise, Method B. Please don't contact me about this topic, I will be on an extended wikibreak due to personal issues, so you will not get a response :-). Happy Editing! Stinger20 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A: I would like to go back to listing main line carriers and regional carriers separately because 1) they are legally separate entities operated by different airlines and crews, 2) the Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge example is particularly deceptive because Air Canada has a drastically different level of service the Rouge, with more legroom, free food etc where Rouge charges you for it. By this logic, are we supposed to combine Qantas and JetStar? Emirates and FlyDubai? British Airways and Vueling?.

And 3) lots of people do not know they have bought a regional carrier ticket and therefore turn to Wikipedia to figure out who is Delta Connection and where they fly {Method B&C do not provide this]. After the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash in Buffalo, many people did not know that Continental Airlines did not fly main line jets between Newark and Buffalo and changing wikipedia to make it appear as though they do is deceptive to the very folks we want to inform. We have an ability ot provide a ton of useful and unique information that no one else can match, there is literally no other place you can go to find where regional airlines fly other than Wikipedia. If it is not broken, what exactly are we trying to fix besides someone's personal pet peeve? Zack Rules

Comment: "there is literally no other place you can go to find this information", that's evidence this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (based on tertiary sources that have already been written about). As I've long been an advocate for, and with that explanation, these tables are much better served on wikivoyage, and if they won't maintain them there then why does the main encyclopedia serve as a better place? I'm all for the tables but the location is this issue I have. Garretka (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the no other place to find this information doesn't itself make it encyclopedic. That being said, I think the definition of encyclopedia and encyclopedic has, for sure, evolved over time. One may argue that the airline/destination tables are non-encyclopedic and thus not suited for WP, perhaps for Wikivoyage. I'd argue though that these tables do more than just list the airlines and destinations...they give an insight into the airport, the airline industry, the city the airport serves, and more. You can learn and understand a lot about a city or airport just by looking at the airlines/destinations list. I think that reason alone more than justifies the tables. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I do like the idea of showing the regionals alongside mainline, as I've said before as long as they are branded differently (Alaska is not hence my support), but like you said below when routes change from mainline to regional or vice versa, these changes are often unreferencable (and happen more than you'd think). Consolidating them makes the tables more reliable from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. Garretka (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it makes it unreliable and unreferencable -- timetables are generally easily accessible, and websites like FlightAware make it easy to see changes. Changes between mainline and regional are few and far between -- and I don't think that in itself would justify scrapping the entire thing and just merging them. I think the merger loses more accuracy than not merging. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A: I was happy with things separated into Mainline/Regional brands. Besides Alaska, each carrier has its own regional brand that I believe should be separated for reasons I stated in the discussion earlier on this subject. I don't believe we should separate it any further as it was once with operating carriers each having their own line (i.e. don't have separate rows for Airline Connection operated by XXX and Airline Connection operated by YYY). --Resplendent (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A is preferred and the most accurate. Method B is unacceptable, inaccurate, and makes the table unusable for me (and I don't use it as a travelguide). As Wikipedia is often compromise, I can see Method C as possible. That possibility would be to separate into one regional carrier brand but list several regional airlines within the box. For example, in Chicago O'Hare International Airport, might list "United Express (operated by Skywest and/or Air Wisconsin)" instead of two separate listings. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A. For what it's worth, in case anyone has forgotten how this discussion has reached the point that we now have to retroactively fix the carnage... a user "proposed" of his own accord, with the support of one other editor, that the significant changes be made. The changes went ahead swiftly in "earnest", and was subsequently called consensus when questioned. That it takes an RfC 8 days after it begun to simply halt the process is somewhat telling of the uphill battle that will be required here. Even if I lose in regard to regional carriers, I maintain that Air Canada Rouge be separated from mainline. It is not a regional carrier. It is a completely different (and horrible) entity with a vastly inferior level of service, and the overlap of routes served by both is effectively zero. Clearly quite a different situation than the typical regional carrier. Carry on. -- Acefitt 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A. This wasn't broken and didn't need to be fixed. I do want to note the "no other place to find this information" comment above as it is false; Wikipedia is simply the most convenient place to learn most of this information at one glance, as it is with millions of other articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: If that was truly the case then referencing these tables wouldn't be so difficult. But this discussion isn't about the tables or referencing, just a comment. Garretka (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Referencing seasonal destinations remains a challenge. Referencing service by somebody like Rouge vs mainline, which is the focus of this discussion, is far less difficult. -- Acefitt 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A I also agree that Method A is the method to stick with. There are huge differences between mainline and regional -- and you'd be surprised how much of the public does actually understand the difference. While some don't understand that "connection" and "express" are different carriers, many do, especially considering the fact that the very staff working for those airlines wear badges with different names on them (ie Republic, SkyWest, etc). In addition, these levels of service tell a lot about an airport. Some airports, think of the old CVG, were largely regional hubs -- with tons of regional Delta Connection flights but not a ton of mainline...and then you have some other airports like Seattle/Tacoma that are mostly mainline hubs, with less regional service. But when you merge the list, this significant difference is lost. I really do think that splitting the lists by branding is acceptable, and remains encyclopedic. Worries mentioned above like routes going from Regional to Mainline (and looking weird with two end/start dates for same route) are far and few between, and can be addressed on a case by case basis (perhaps don't bother with the start/end dates, just switch the destination from Regional to Mainline when it switches over officially). Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment When I edit airports, I leave whatever is there alone. Were I to create an airline destination table (which I wouldn't), I'd combine express and mainline, because that's the counter where you buy the ticket, and that's what's available to ride on, regardless of service level. But whatever is okay by me. I doubt many people check Wiki for up to date scheduling info. Undoing the wholesale revision would probably be a good idea, tho, and let whoever is tending the table do it the way he prefers. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, method A is not intended to present up to date scheduling info, bur rather it is an effort to not make the table horrendously inaccurate and misleading, as the most recent changes have done. -- Acefitt 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A aka status quo, and revert the changes back to the way it was. And trout the person(s) who implemented the change without waiting for a little bit more time for input because now it takes even more time for discussion and undo all the changes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method B There are two main points for this method. 1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel site. If you're coming here to see what kind of plane you'll be taking on your trip, then you are on the wrong site. 2: These articles are about the airports, not the airlines, nor the flights themselves. The minutia of the flights is irrelevant to the article. The primary reason for the table is to show the airport's connections. Sario528 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that nothing about Method A indicates what type of plane you'll be taking on your trip, nor has it ever. The primary purpose of the list being to show "connections" is not justification for it to be blatantly inaccurate. -- Acefitt 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll restate my comment from above, refuting this point...these levels of service tell a lot about an airport. Some airports, think of the old CVG, were largely regional hubs -- with tons of regional Delta Connection flights but not a ton of mainline...and then you have some other airports like Seattle/Tacoma that are mostly mainline hubs, with less regional service. But when you merge the list, this significant difference (which speaks volumes about an airport) is lost. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A. There was nothing wrong with the status quo. It was clear, concise and not overly complicated. The people who implemented the changes started combining not only regional carriers with mainline, but subsidiaries as well. (ex. Air Canada Rouge, even though it is not a regional carrier, was combined with Air Canada mainline).Thenoflyzone (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method A Merging regional airlines/subsidiaries is a step too far (e.g. Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge). VG31 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Method C I was the one who consolidated a lot of the mainline/regionals together, myself and Stinger20. I now realize I jumped the gun and I apologize, and I am beginning to regret my decision to do the consolidation. I was fine with having separate mainline/regional, but the reason I moved forward was because of the larger issue of referencing seasonal routes (which is a another discussion). I vote to change it back to separate mainline/regional, but NO "operated by", list only the marketing carrier in that case. NBA2030 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Airports, "Operated By" shouldn't exist anyway for regionals. The only time "Operated By" is used is when a different airline is operating a flight (for example, how ASL Airlines Ireland operates flights for Aer Lingus, and they are marketed the same, as Aer Lingus) that is marketed as the main airline. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:Airports, "Operated by" should never be used period. Only the marketing carrier should be used in those cases. If it has its own brand like "Delta Connection" or "United Express", then that's fine, but there should NEVER be "Alaska Airlines, operated by Horizon Air". NBA2030 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would not write "NEVER". One interesting example comes to mind. St. Pierre is a small island that is part of France but located close to Canada. Air St. Pierre has service to the airport. This year, they are starting one great route to Paris! However, the flight is operated by ASL Airlines on a 737 with ASL livery and ASL pilots and cabin crew. This might be a good case of Air St. Pierre operated by ASL or ASL Airlines (flying for Air St. Pierre). Vanguard10 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would, hence why I tidied it up. How is this single situation different from Skywest operating for Alaska? Or when Lufthansa Cityline operated for Lufthansa? The latter sells the tickets while the former does the flying. I don't see the difference; ASL is essentially wet-leasing to Air St. Pierre. Garretka (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Method B: we should list destinations by primary marketing carrier (assuming we keep destination lists). I've advocated for an approach like this for many years. The difference between regional operators and mainline operators is nerdery that is very difficult to properly reference. It makes it difficult to find all airports served by a single marketing carrier; it doesn't make much sense that year-round service by Delta from, say ATL-MSN should be listed twice (once under mainline and once under regional), while ATL-ABY is listed once in one set of alphabetical destinations and ATL-LAX is listed once in another set of alphabetical destinations; if you want to see if Delta serves Albany from Atlanta, you have to remember to look in both places. I think there is an argument for separating marketing carriers under one ownership structure. We certainly keep Virgin America separate from Alaska as long as they have separate reservations systems, and I think there is an argument for separating Air Canada Rouge from mainline Air Canada and Air Canada Express (like Jetstar should separated from Qantas/QantasLink, though not as clear-cut because Air Canada Rouge is more integrated into Air Canada than Jetstar is into Qantas). The argument that a Dash 8 is a fundamentally different experience than a 777 doesn't really hold water to me. First, a domestic 737 is also a fundamentally different experience than an international 777. Second, a regional E175 is fundamentally the same experience as a mainline E190. So it's not at all clear to me that the mainline/regional distinction is a bright line.

Separately, I don't actually think the destination lists are verifiable to begin with. There are only third party reliable sources to cite for a minority of new destinations, and very rarely for terminated destinations. Airline schedules do not, to my mind, fit the definition of a verifiable source because they are not permanent and cannot be readily accessed later. Admittedly, this isn't a clear call: one could argue that airline schedules are ok per WP:SPS because they're airlines providing non-controversial information about themselves. I also think that the fleeting nature of airline schedules makes them unsuitable for an encyclopedia; we should not have content that explicitly gets removed as soon as it gets out of date (not sure if there's a relevant policy or guideline here; I couldn't find one). There are also reasonable cases that the destinations lists fail WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTTRAVEL (the destination lists really belong on Wikivoyage, I think) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that value that destination lists add to these articles is invaluable. You can learn so much about an airport simply from looking at it's destination list, information lost when removing the lists. In addition, airline timetables are updated frequently and are accurate and referenceable. I'm not sure why we would remove something that adds such tremendous value to Wikipedia. There's enough of an argument for them that it should really be a non-issue. In addition, Delta Airlines and Delta Connection are marketed differently -- the customer is fully aware when they are flying on a Delta Connection flight (it's on their ticket, on the plane, etc). Not really a 'nerdy' concept. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Method B - We need to consider our audience here. I don't want to spend a ton of time rehashing Wikipedia basics... but this is an encyclopedia, meant to be a straightforward, non-technical resource for a general audience. Most of us on this discussion, myself included, are either aviation geeks or at least highly knowledgeable about aviation. We are an audience for these pages, but arguably not the primary audience.

So trying to put myself in the shoes of that general audience... I just don't see what major value we add to their knowledge of an *airport* by including the regional carriers. To echo what Sario528 said... the primary reason for the table is to show the airport's connections. If the point of listing the regional brands to point out that smaller planes are used, that's beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Travel sites will give better information on the airplanes to be used on a specific flight and do it far more accurately.

By adding in the regional airlines we are also adding in a massive amount of complexity.

Many of the airport pages I watch had situations where both the mainline carrier and the regional brand served the same destination from the same airport. Under the old system, it made it look like two airlines served the same destination when in actuality it was simply that sometimes a bigger plane is used. For a general audience, I don't see why that's different than a route being served by a mainline 737 on some flights, and by a mainline 767 on other flights. We certainly don't list that difference.

Many of the airport pages I watch had situations where both the mainline carrier and the regional brand served the same destination seasonally from the same airport. Under the old system, it meant editors had to add "ends" and "begins" notes in each row. For a reader who was giving a quick glance (especially on big tables) it looked like service was being added or removed... when again, for a general audience... it was simply the size of the plane changing.

Also, I hear a lot of mention of it being easy to verify this information. That's simply not true. It was never easy and it's only getting harder. American, Delta, and United have all, to my knowledge stopped publishing PDF timetables. That means that to verify information in the destination lists editors must either manually enter city pairs into the airline's websites (or an airfare search engine) or rely on information posted on other websites that track routes, many of which require expensive subscriptions. Once the information is obtained, it needs to be constantly rechecked since, like in the real-world examples I gave above, the information is subject to change.

All of that said, I also don't really get why the regional brand information is necessary for our readers. 10 years ago you could've made the argument that the service offered on Delta Connection was demonstrably different than what was offered on Delta Air Lines, but with the retirement of the vast majority of the turboprop planes (save for Alaska/Horizon), the retirement of many jets smaller than 70 seats, and the added comforts of bigger cabins, first-class seating... the line between regional jets and mainline jets is becoming very blurry. Add to that, the airlines are no longer going to great lengths to point out that passengers are flying on the regional brand. As I walked through the Fresno and Seattle/Tacoma airports this morning, I saw no signs (digital or printed) that said American Eagle, Delta Connection, or United Express. Beyond the fine print online, the tiny type on the ticket, and the slightly different livery (often obscured by a jetway)... at every "touchpoint" the passengers identify the airline by the mainline brand, and not the regional brand.

--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't use Wikipedia for a travel guide. Recently, I've looked up many airports to gauge what kind of service they have. Some airports don't have major airline service at all or very limited, like Fort Wayne, Indiana. They do have the regional carriers (commuter airlines) but if we get rid of ways to know this, we are doing a dis-service to the world. Just because one user or two "don't really get why....is necessary" is potentially dangerous form of censorship and spoon feeding. I don't really get it why we need biographies of obscure people from the Middle Ages but they do serve a purpose.
We also have to be careful about marketing carrier because there are so many marketing carriers with the advent of codesharing. Emirates markets a lot of flights in the US. Some people are even ticketed like that. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
We absolutely should exclude information that's not necessary (WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."); our job as writers/editors is to choose the information that is relevant to our readers and present it in a clear way. I think we should eliminate the separation of regional affiliates from mainline carriers because it harms clarity (see my comment and !vote above).
Re marketing carriers: There's no ambiguity: there's always a primary marketing carrier, just as there is now: we already clearly associate Delta Connection flights operated by Skywest with Delta Connection; there's no more issue listing such a flight incorrectly as an Air France flight if we eliminate the separation between Delta and Delta Connection than there is now.
For getting a gauge of the scale of an airport: I think statistics like number of flights and number of destinations are far more useful as an encyclopedic summary. Just a listing of destinations can of course be misleading: Allegiant may serve 20 cities out of one airport but only have four flights a day. (I exaggerate, but only a little.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Why are we having this discussion without a formal request for comment? I think that if we're going to establish a consensus for changing every airport article (which, as noted above, I do support), we should get a broader audience than those who stumble upon this talk page. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I second Ashill's proposal, a proper RFC is in order here to settle this matter once and for all.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a project focused topic, no? I've been on the project for nearly 8 years now, and many others as well, I don't think we need a formal RFC to make a decision here. Feel free to reach out to other involved editors in the project, but I don't think we need an RFC on this (beyond what this already is). Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 15:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
We certainly do. Even when WT:AIRLINES, another project, supports stand-alone destinations lists, an RFC was carried out and the result of the discussion ended up in an ANI thread, that ended up in this ongoing AfD discussion. The corollary is: do not naively believe that decisions made in a project last.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
What if the airport only has regional carriers (such as Toronto Billy Bishop Airport) and no mainline? Canterbury Tail talk 15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? Under Method B, it would just switch to the mainline brand. Method A would keep it as the regional brand. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Method B mentions rolling them into the mainline routes, but in these instances there are no mainline routes to roll them into so that's not workable as worded. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Method B doesn't make sense to me since having lived in places with regional airline service, even if it's branded as mainline service on the airport website(!), people generally know they are flying on a different airline than the actual airline. It doesn't make sense to me to have say QantasLink on a regional airport page, but Qantas on the page for a major international airport for branding. I believe the QantasLink is an important distinction to make on the regional page, and I believe consistency is important, so I disagree with the assertion the regional brand information is necessary. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It would just switch from Air Canada Express to Air Canada. Not saying I'm for it, but that's what would happen. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that I support switching back to the old format of separate mainline and regional operators (sans the "operated by"). I went ahead and switched my home airport Nashville International Airport back to the old format, I'll leave the rest to you guys. NBA2030 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like this is a proposal "withdrawn by nom". I still can't believe how a couple IP editors managed to push through such a dramatic change and leaving all of us to clean up the mess left by them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Method A: But for different reasons. If we are to choose Method B there must be very clear guidelines on what a connection airline is. I will use Air Canada as an example: If we want to make the argument about Air Canada Express, then there is a clear cut definition, however Air Canada Rouge has it's own marketing and website, different crews, distinct branding and operates a different class of product than Air Canada itself, and if we merge them then the same argument pops up for Qantas and Jetstar, Singapore and Scoot, ANA and ANK, JAL and JTA... we need clear definition and so far there is nothing but marketing carrier which isn't anything near a defined term.

And then we have services operated by the Tier 3 airlines like Air Georgian which have be de-branded from Air Canada Express, but are still sold by Air Canada. Do those get merged? And then what happens with situations like Cape Air flying services on behalf of JetBlue out of San Juan... are those JetBlue? Cape Air? When is it a codeshare vs a marketed flight vs a connector flight vs a affiliated flight? The number of disputes this will cause is simply mind boggling to me as even cites will NOT agree, especially when the sources are translated from different languages and regulations.

Alaska muddied itself up so I have no objection to merging the former Horizon and Skywest branded routes into them... but this is not a clear cut issue, even amongst airlines themselves there are alot of variables about how operators are classified. Northstardc4m (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Northstardc4m: We have the exact same issue now. The question now is whether Air Georgian flights get listed as Air Canada Express or Air Georgian; if we choose option B, the question will be whether those flights get listed as Air Canada or Air Georgian. So that comment has no bearing on the choice between options A and B, unless I'm missing something. "Marketing carrier" is absolutely a defined term. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is unquestionably a difference between Air Georgian (Air Canada Express) and their 18 seat 1900's and Air Canada. Even with a single-class CRJ vs a mainline 737. A few years back we combined all the regionals to fall under the brand (they were once separated by operating airline) -- and I think that consolidation fit well, and will best serve the project going forward (aka sticking with Method A). Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tofutwitch11: Right, but that decision is no easier or more difficult for us with either option A or B, so I think it has no bearing on this particular discussion. We decide whether Air Georgian flights count as Air Canada (Express) or Air Georgian; that's the tricky part. Then we list the flights as Air Georgian (method A or B), Air Canada Express (method A), or Air Canada (B). But even this isn't that tricky under our established practice: does Air Georgian sell a flight under their own marketing code (even if it's also sold as an Air Canada codeshare)? If yes, list it as Air Georgian. If no, list it as Air Canada (Express). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Air Georgian flights certainly count as Air Canada Express. How is it different from Jazz operating as Air Canada Express (90% of the flights are operated by Jazz). Air Georgian doesn't sell any flights. Nor does AC Express. Air Canada does while contracting the flights out and branding them as AC Express. I think based on the discussions happening at AFD, the days of these tables might be numbered. Garretka (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Air Georgian B1900Ds, and those for EVAS, are being de-branded and do not carry Air Canada Express markings or branding anymore. Air Georgian will be painting them into a new color scheme soon, EVAS haven't said. The de-Branding is extending to the gate screens in Toronto I've noticed, they no longer have an Air Canada Express logo on them for Air Georgian, just the flight number and destination...But Regardless, Method B is a rabbit hole that is going to become more and more contentious for many reasons. People say it will be less confusing... but a wikipedia reader looking at the site for YYZ might wonder why they see planes with "Air Georgian" or "Rouge" on them but no listing in a destination table just because someone decided that they should be called Air Canada because that's who markets them? People want this to not be a travel guide under WP:NOTRAVEL, then maybe we should look at this beyond a passenger standpoint and think about the guy driving down the road next to the airport, the curious person just wanting to know where that plane with the red tail might be going... he doesn't know it's Air Canada, it says "Rouge" on it, it's got a tail that's red, not black or green... we can't assume people looking at the article are travellers, they in fact probably are not, they are people looking for information for hundreds of reasons. Do we really need to make this change just to save a few lines that frankly aren't really confusing anyone more than removing them will? Northstardc4m (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I think we are making this discussion way too complex. Again, put yourself in the shoes of a customer: you see that an airport has service to a certain destination... what airline would you book that with? Under Option B... that's the airline we list. Example: You're looking to fly from Colorado Springs to Chicago. You wouldn't go to americaneagle.com (a web design company, BTW)... you would go to aa.com because they are the airline scheduling, marketing and pricing that flight... even though it's operated by a regional airline. --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Airport articles are about AIRPORTS - just about all of the discussion above is about the minutae about airlines and their interelatedness and this has very little to do with airports. Wikipedia is NOT a DIRECORY nor is it a TRAVEL GUIDE, it is this you have to sort out while keeping the content encyclopaedic (Encyclopaedic means the information provided by an article is primarily tertiary in nature) and on the subject of an AIRPORT. This is not what is happening at the moment. The best Wikipedia rules/practices are the ones that don't define what needs to happen too much, If the destination tables are encyclopaedic, which is somewhat debatable, then I would choose the best brand/airline for each article which remember is about and only about the airport, this may not be the same solution for another different airport that hosts the same airline. This can be defined by consensus for each article. When Wikipedia works well this is how it tends to work. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not putting myself in the shoes of a customer, because this encyclopedia is not here to serve customers, and I don't care what they think. -- Acefitt 11:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment well apparently... Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_140#Should_Wikipedia_have_and_maintain_complete_lists_of_airline_destinations? apparently it was decided there and anyone can see it's going to inevitably apply here so enough, I'm finished, this is a lost cause. List the airlines and let the rest go. Northstardc4m (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Next step?

This discussion seems to be languishing.

As it stands the vote is:

  • Method A: 10 (62.5%)
  • Method B: 3 (18.75%)
  • Method C: 3 (18.75%)

So, what is the next step? Do we feel like 62.5% of 16 votes is enough of a consensus? If yes, we should start making changes. If no, we should broaden this discussion to a wider forum on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe we should bring in more editors, particularly those without any vested interest in this discussion or in this project to bring a neutral point of view to the discussion.

No matter what... we should wrap this up and get these articles out of this weird limbo situation they've been in for a few weeks now. --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I still strongly believe this is something worth an RfC to get more outside opinions, as most editers here will tend to be biased as members of the aviation community. Garretka (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
To me, 62% is still a weak consensus. I agree with both of you, I think we need to get a larger audience from outside the aviation community in on this topic so we know we're getting a neutral POV on the discussion. KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is never a vote - 62% is not a consensus - Consensus is consensus. We do need an RFC and definitely need input from people who know how Wikipedia works and what it is for. The RFC needs to be worded correctly and needs to centre around what is an encyclopaedic solution to present an airport's sphere of influence. Because what we have now is NOT it. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone more experienced in these matters than myself that can write up an RfC and submit it in the right places? Thank you in advance. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is what will the RfC cover? The fate of the tables? How to present the information in a more encyclopedic way? Combining the regional airlines to eliminate duplicate listings? I'm not well seasoned in starting RfC's so I'll sit on the sidelines but I think we need to establish what this RfC would encompass. Garretka (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport

I have been attempting to cleanup the Minneapolis Saint Paul Airport article for some time, removing uncited information and excessive statistical information that is not relevant for an airport encyclopedia article. However, a certain user (Maxbaby01) keeps adding it back and reverting attempts to clean up the article, simply because he disagrees with it and wants every single little thing about MSP mentioned. Can we please do something about this? He has been talked to several times and will not stop. NBA2030 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Airports serving in Dakar, Senegal

With all of the civil aircraft now operates Blaise Diagne International Airport (Dakar–Diass), while cargo transportation remain at Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport (Dakar–Senghor). Some airline destinations must put the new airport in order to match with airline destination articles. ApprenticeFan work 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but with sources. You did not add sources in your edits, as I told you in your talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)--Jetstreamer Talk 22:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport

Can someone do something about this page? A lot of new services started at the airport but the references keeps getting deleted per this edit [16] and there was a reference improve section tag for the table. Since references keep getting deleted from the destination, the tag seems useless now and I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's really not a valid reason to remove a ref improve tag. Removing references can and is considered vandalism, especially when so many users want to keep the tables but want to do nothing to improve the referencability. I would suggest others to read and understand WP:BURDEN in regards to this, and to not remove references. Just because some destinations don't have references and others do is not a reason to remove them and is a reason the ref improve tag got added. Garretka (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Spelling of the destination "San Jose (CA)"

User Garretka objected to (and reverted) my change on Portland International Airport, changing the spelling of the destination "San José (CA)" to "San Jose (CA)". My argument is that although the City of San Jose uses the diacritical mark in its official business, the common, widely-used name of the city (airport destination) is "San Jose"; see San_Jose,_California#cite_note-common-14. This spelling is also used everywhere on the target San Jose International Airport Wikipedia page (and, I strongly suspect, on 'Destination' boards at Portland International Airport). Wikipedia should reflect common usage. (I note also that this spelling is useful to help distinguish "San Jose, California" (SJC) from "San José, Costa Rica" (SJO); flyers have been confused by this in the past.)

Does anyone else have any objection to this change? Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would leave it as San José - having the accent really hurts no one and it is quite valid to use the diacritic in English prose. Categorising one version as English and one as not is not particularly helpful. WP:COMMONNAME should be what is used to come up with a consensus. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that I was not the user objecting, I was simply pointing out WP:BRD rather than continuously edit warring which goes nowhere; you made the edit, it was reverted; the discussion should've started then. I'm indifferent, it's one half dozen of the other, but I agree common name should apply here, and I'm not entirely sure what that would be as both spellings are valid. Garretka (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather support San José, as it approaches more Spanish and French pronunciation/writing. I would however understand if the "é" is a turn-off for English speakers. --Bouzinac (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a (non-neutral) POV, which is something that WP discourages. The issue is not whether or not "é" is a "turn-off for English speakers"; the issue is what is the best choice for an English-language Wikipedia page, given the desire to use WP:COMMONNAMEs. By just about any criterion for WP:COMMONNAME (including the points I noted above), the spelling should be "San Jose" - which is by far the most common spelling for this city.
I think there can be little discussion: as long as our own article on the airport has "San Jose" with no accent in the title, then such is our name for it and we should systematically use and apply it. Whether that naming is correct can be discussed, but the discussion should be on that article's talk page. If ever the article title gets changed, then so should all references to it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Having gone several days without meaningful objections, I went ahead and made the spelling change (once again). 13:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfinlayson (talk • contribs)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Accident inclusion

I propose a minor change to inclusion criteria for accidents and incidents. The current criteria allows inclusion if "the accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport." I believe this is perfectly appropriate for commercial airline, air charter, and air taxi accidents; however, many routine non-fatal general aviation and military accidents—such as directional-control accidents and gear-up landings—result in "substantial" aircraft damage in the accident report, but aren't really notable otherwise. This can result in a lot of extraneous entries for a busy general aviation airport or a military airport that conducts pilot training. I suggest that for light aircraft (MTOW under 12,500 lb), a non-fatal accident should only be included if there was a hull loss, the aircraft was carrying 10 or more people, or an aircraft occupant was seriously injured. Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree but we have had issues with users outside the project with being to proscribed, you would have to take care on how it is worded. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
That is my concern as well. I propose to word it as a broad suggestion: "Although serious aircraft damage may result, most runway and helipad accidents involving a single light aircraft (loss of directional control, hard landings, gear-up landings, etc.) are not notable. To reduce clutter, such accidents are typically omitted unless serious injuries to a person, a hull loss, or a substantial number of revenue passengers are involved." Carguychris (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreeing with the broad idea, I'd like to support the "careful wording":
Why should only numbers of revenue passengers be relevant? Recent Il-76 crash in Algeria did not involve revenue pax, still it seems notable. s/revenue passengers/occupants/
Why limit to "a single light aircraft"? Does a runway excursion in heavy rain or so become notable when the plane was a B747 or An-225? Or if it was a formation landing of the Red Arrows? s/involving a single light aircraft// (iow, leave out that phrase :) )
My 0.02 euro... Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Airport naming conventions

It appears that many of the naming conventions have defaulted to what has been previously listed, rather than the actual policies specified on WP:Airports. I have pulled up a few cases different scenarios, but I am sure there are more:

  • St. Louis and Belleville/St. Louis
  • Columbus–Glenn and Columbus–Rickenbacker
  • Phoenix–Sky Harbor and Phoenix/Mesa
  • Cincinnati and Cincinnati–Lunken
  • Orlando and Orlando/Sanford
  • Tampa and St. Petersburg/Clearwater

Here are the guidelines from WP:Airports:

  1. Use city names for destinations (not the airport names), and only disambiguate using airport names when there are multiple airports serving the same city. Wikilinks may be made to destination airports; for instance, one should link to Calgary International Airport rather than Calgary. Each occurrence of a destination airport should be linked: as the destination tables are re-sortable, there is no fixed "first occurrence" of a destination in the list. Note that the overlinking guidelines do not apply to tables.
  2. Differentiate between multiple airports in one city using "–" (en dash) (e.g., "London–Heathrow", not "London Heathrow").
  3. Use the actual cities served (or city/airport combinations, where appropriate), not the ones that some airlines choose to use instead (e.g., "Beauvais", not "Paris–Beauvais"; "Rygge", not "Oslo–Rygge").

If we follow precednece, such as the decision with Orlando and Orlando/Sanford, they should be:

  • St. Louis (for STL) and St. Louis/Belleville (for BLV)
  • Phoenix (for PHX) and Phoenix/Mesa (for AZA)

For Cincinnati, based on the previous example, the airport loactions are reversed, so it would be:

  • Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky or Cincinnati/Covington (for CVG)
  • Cincinnati (for LUK, though, Cincinnati–Lunken still might be appropriate b/c it is still the smaller airport)

For airports within the same city, this is much simpler (someone went ahead a swithced all the Columbus pages on their own without discussion):

  • Columbus (OH)
  • Columbus–Rickenbacker

Perhaps we could decide on the best format, then rewrite these naming conventions to be more clear? Stinger20 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The primary airport serving the city should carry the city name, (MCO is Orlando, SFB is Orlando/Sanford; CVG is Cincinnati, LUK is Cincinnati-Lunken). The smaller, lesser airports should be disambiguated. Just my opinion. Garretka (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'd rather support a template {{Airport|code=PHX}} that would render both wikipage to the airport + "uniformized" airport name that prevents disambiguation problems. Such a template exists in french wiki. For your information, here's an example for one single airport, BWI that I've found among many airport dest lists in english airports pages :
  • [[Baltimore International Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore Washington International Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport|Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall]]
  • [[Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport|BWI]]
  • [[Baltimore-Washington International Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore–Washington International Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore–Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport|Baltimore]]
  • [[Baltimore-Washington Thurgood Marshall Airport|Baltimore]]
--Bouzinac (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of the template, that would make things a lot easier, but the ICAO code would probably work better. I also agree with the primary/secondary definition, but if we decide on that, it needs to replace the current guidelines as they can contradict this format in some circumstances. Stinger20 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Edit, there is already a template with all the ICAO codes, this would be pretty simple to implement. Stinger20 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Stinger20 (talk · contribs), which template ICAO did you refer to? I'm trying to build as a test Module:IATA and ICAO code‎ with data being stored in Module:IATA and ICAO code/Data. Not enough good at lua-writing... ; Bouzinac (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Bouzinac (talk · contribs) I have exported all the ICAO, IATA, [[Airport|City]] into a file. I am currently working to clean it up. Is there a specific format that would be useful? Stinger20 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: Ok, I have the file ready, it is a CSV file. I am currently trying to update as many airports to the correct naming as possible, but the basic format is:
KCVG, CVG, [[Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport|Cincinnati]]
KCVH, HLI, [[Hollister Municipal Airport]]
KCVK, , [[Sharp County Regional Airport|Ash Flat]]
So, the first line shows the basic format with nothing missing. All lines have an ICAO code, while some such as the third line do not have the IATA code, and it is left blank. Most airports have the link with [[airport|city]], but some do not have the city entry. In these instances, it will render as just the airport name. Stinger20 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for pecking at what might seem a detail, but could it be the IATA code that is missing, not the ICAO code, in the third line of the example? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. I forgot to finish the sentence. Fixed above. Stinger20 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Stinger20 (talk · contribs), I have created the {{IATA and ICAO code}} template. For the time being, works only with AAA+CDG airports. Needs the population of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:IATA_and_ICAO_code/Data as following:
p.IATA['AAA']='Anaa Airport'
p.WikiName['AAA']='Anaa'
p.ICAO['NTGA']='Anaa Airport'
p.WikiName['NTGA']='Anaa'
--Bouzinac (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bouzinac: Sweet! I have added all the US airports with commercial service. I figured we would just add airports as needed since many airports do not have commercial service. Stinger20 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stinger20 (talk · contribs), being for the moment testing an improvement to the code, in collaboration with Lua-team. So let's wait...--Bouzinac (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC) + Hi again Stinger20 (talk · contribs), Possible that you revert your edits in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport ? The template/module is still in pre-alpha and should nt be used for the time being in wikicode. @Trappist the monk: Thanks!
Absolutely, I will remove it right away! Stinger20 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stinger20 (talk · contribs), data is almost done. Still cleaning and deduplicating work but most of data is ready. Also still work on cleaning airports when big cities, like Paris-CDG and Paris-Orly etc. Could you please test this way : {{IATA and ICAO code|(your IATA or ICAO code)}} ? Bouzinac (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stinger20 (talk · contribs), you can now use the template this way : {{IATA and ICAO code|ORD|LAX|SEA|LGW|YUL|YYZ}}==> 
{{IATA and ICAO code|ORD|LAX|SEA|LGW|YUL|YYZ}}
. Would be more code-readable and make sure every airport city is on alphabetical order. Let me know what you think. Bouzinac (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bouzinac (talk · contribs) That is really nice! One issue with that format is going to be adding start/end/resumption dates. Not sure how easy/hard that would be to implement. Idk if something like this would be reasonalbe to implement: {{IATA and ICAO code|ORD|LAX|SEA;begins March 3, 2019|LGW|YUL|YYZ}}. To render as: 'Chicago–O’Hare, London–Gatwick, Los Angeles, Montréal–Trudeau, Seattle/Tacoma (begins March 3, 2019), Toronto–Pearson'. Really nice job working on this! I have gone through and fixed many of the airport names to WP:Airports style guidelines, I will continue to work on those. Stinger20 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, well, I understand your point. I'd make this way {{IATA and ICAO code|ORD|LAX|SEA}} begins March 3, 2019 {{IATA and ICAO code|LGW|YUL|YYZ}} I'm pinging @Trappist the monk: who might have an idea for this specific but frequent need. Thanks! Bouzinac (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I might but I think that all conversations about this template and its module should, from now on, take place at one location. Moved to Template talk:IATA and ICAO code
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting content style guidelines

I am working on rewriting the style guidlines, specifically for the passenger and cargo tables. The old list was getting way too long to navigate and there were many recent style guidelines/decisions missing. I also tried to remove repetitive information.

This draft also assumes ussage of the new Module:IATA and ICAO code, so those specific guidelines are just placeholders as the module evolves out of the Alpha testing stage. Please direct anything specififc to that module to its talk page: [[17]].

Here is my (very much work-in-progress) updated style guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content/sandbox. Feedback, improvements, and ommisions would be greatly appreciated! Stinger20 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

All seems overcomplicated to me, not sure why we need such complex mark up for what should be a simple list. Complex markup doesnt help new editors or experienced editors who cant be bothered. Also hope that some of the iffy sources are not used on any final result. I expect it to return here at some point for project approval. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Surely by using this new format it is going to make it harder to edit pages and more confusing for new editors and some current editors? Seems more complicated to me. As it's shown in the talk page, it is already becoming complicated of how to add start and end dates, whereas the current format is easy to edit so surely this is not the best option to improve the tables?.CBG17 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
From what I gather above; the issue described is the variation in either the city name or the linked article. I'll point to WP:NOTBROKEN in that even though the link may not be the title of the desired page, if it works, don't try to fix it. For city names, it's simple for users to change in its current state. We may need better guidelines for disambiguaton sure, and I like the idea proposed, but it seems like the wheel is being reinvented here. Garretka (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, to my point of view, if a people is editing a destination airport list, he is probably aware of its IATA code, so I don't think he would be bothered typing only the code. The aim is double :
  • to make sure name shown on wikilink is written correctly and evenly.
  • For instance, what I've found in the case of Madrid airport:
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid-Barajas]]
[[Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Barajas International Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Barajas]]
[[Madrid Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas International Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid Barajas|Madrid]]
[[Madrid-Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
[[Madrid–Barajas Airport|Madrid]]
  • to make sure the wikilink arrives on the correct page (for instance, if an airport title change, simply update the data and the link will be automatically updated, no redirections)
  • to help easy copy paste into other wikipedias language (English wiki airports are much more update than other languages). The code would render same result into whichever wiki language [what a pity Wikidata isn't autorized so far inside wikipages]. Bouzinac (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it looks like a big sledgehammer to solve what is not really a major problem. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBROKEN - there is no requirement for consistency among wiki links nor is there a reason to fear bypasses. Garretka (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Garretka, there is nothing wrong with the current method, with the linking problem its easy to, when adding the route copy and paste the name of the airports article name into the table which is what I do and I'm sure many other editors do as well which makes sure the link goes to the correct page. CBG17 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you don't care about unaccuracy/out-of-date in other wikilangagues awes me : it's surely a major problem.Bouzinac (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic at hand, please continue the discussion in the correct topic. Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports § Modulo for airline destinations

@Garretka:@CBG17:@MilborneOne: I would appreciate if you actually read what I wrote above... This has nothing to do with the new modulo idea, please keep that disucssion elsewhere. The purpose of this discussion was to discuss improving the guidelines, which is needed. Since people don't bother to read, I will go ahead and hide anything realted to the modulo. Please continue the discussion below: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Modulo for airline destinations. Stinger20 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stinger20: It does have relevance to the new modulo ideA as you’ve included it in the guidelines you have written, if you’re going to write new guidelines write them for the style used today not one that hasn’t even been discussed or implemented, which is a waste of time re writing it for something that’s not being used. CBG17 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I get your point, that is why I removed all references to the modulo yeasterday. Stinger20 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stinger20: Yeah I've just looked at it and looks much better, could we inclde a point about charter routes being referenced all the time? charter references are sometimes harder to find and therefore should not be removed when the route starts which some editors think is acceptable when it goes against the whole reason of sourcing routes. CBG17 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The examples in the guideline still use the "IATA and ICAO code template" they should be built using the Template:Airport destination list. There is also a lot of use of "flightaware" as a reference which I dont think is a reliable source for these lists. One of the examples is "Amazon Air" which is not an airline so we need to consider how "brands" are treated. That said the rest of the guideline looks ok. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Flightaware is an iffy source. It proves a flight between point A and B happened, and may show the regularity of it but you can't make that connection based on the source. I would also like to include a note that seasonal routes should include an explicit reference stating the route operates seasonally; there should also be a mention of not removing sources from any destinations in which they exist. Other than that, the guidelines look reasonable. Garretka (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I have implemented those changes. On the Flightaware piece, that is already included in the style guidelines:

If a timetable is not available and no other reliable source explicitly states that the airline operates a cargo flight to the airport, each destination should be justified by footnoting a flight number. URLs for cargo schedule/status on airport websites can be used. For areas of the world with air traffic control tracking coverage (North America, Europe, Australia, and any flight flying through related airspaces, such as most of the North Atlantic and North Pacific), a flight number and a static URL of such a flight number (e.g. CPA095 on FlightAware within <ref></ref> tags) should be included so anyone can easily verify if the service still exists. For these types of references, the inclusion of an access date is particularly important.

So are we now saying that this guideline is incorrect? Probably going to have to have a discussion on that change. I for one would disagree that it cannot be a reliable source. For instance, this link proves pretty well that Amazon Air operates CVG-SCK on a regular schedule: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI3051/history.
As for Amazon Air, it is no different than a marketing brand such as Delta Connection/American Eagle/DHL Aviation/etc. The ABX/Atlas planes are painted and marketed as Amazon just like Republic/Endeavor planes are painted and marketed under the brand name Delta Conenction. I beleive there was a discussion awhile back to use the brand name for cargo airlines that outsource flying. Stinger20 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I suspect we may need a discussion on flightaware, I cant see how that can be used to show a scheduled flight between two points and in the example you give it shows an Atlas Air flight no. mention of the Amazon brand. And if we take the not travel guide approach then brands are not really important - the destination lists are there to show the breadth of services from an airport the detail about individual airline destination could be considered not that important to the airport over an historic list of destinations served. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it shows Atlas becuase it is them operating the flight, but uses Amazon's flight numbers (3000-3999). Similarly, this SkyWest flight is listed as SkyWest, but uses Delta's flight numbers: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW4575/history, we wouldn't list this route as SkyWest in the destination table... Flightradar24 actually lists it as Amazon, so that would solve that issue. We probably need a seperate discussion on the use of FlightAware/Flightradar24/etc. Stinger20 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17&oldid=1186951804"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy