Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 6

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

EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg: where to list?

Most airlines, in particular non-European ones using this airport located in Mulhouse, France are actually serving Basel, Switzerland, in their schedules they only use the code BSL not MLH, but some editors are listing Mulhouse as their destination which is not the case, they only fly into the airport because Basel uses it and does not have one in Switzerland. So how to list in destinations list under France or Switzerland? 116.71.10.112 (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just do as Lufthansa destinations does and list all three countries? While it's reasonable to believe that Air France flies there in order to serve Mulhouse, Lufthansa to serve Freiburg and Swiss to serve Basel, in reality all are competing for traffic from all three markets, especially now that Switzerland is in the Schengen zone. --RFBailey (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it makes the most sense to list it as being in France; after all, that is where the airport is located. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this question is regarding text lists, in table format the issue has been resolved as you stated citing Lufthansa and some others do it too, but regading listing it in France, the airlines especailly cargo ones schedules do not show them serving Mulhouse only Basel, Maybe we should not be pedantic about it and just list it under Switzerland with Basel and the airport name, it dosent matter which country the airport is located in. 116.71.11.222 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam special liveries section

MilborneOne has removed the lists of aircraft in special livery from all three articles. There were no consensuses in two of the corresponding talk pages (in one of them, SkyTeam, I actually opposed I noticed tail numbers shouldn't be included in airline articles and pointed out that similar tables existed in all three articles; other editor besides MilborneOne supported the removal at Star Alliance's one). I have reverted these changes in all three articles as I believe the removal of significant information, as such contents is, deserves further discussion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did have consensus on all three pages as WP:SILENCE - I raised the point on all three pages:
  • OneWorld raised 19 Dec 2012 - no comments removed per silence 5 February 2012
  • Star Alliance raised 29 Jan 2012 - one support comment - removed 5 February 2012
  • SkyTeam raised 29 Jan 2012 - I read your comment as a support as you mentioned we dont do lists of registrations which supports the removal in this article - removed 5 February 2012

When one or two aircraft had special livery it was notable but adding a fleet list of every aircraft in alliance liveries when loads of aircraft are now marked is just not needed. We dont do fleet lists for airlines I dont see why alliances painted aircraft are an exception hence I proposed the tables were removed. After a period for comments I then removed them as per standard practice. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE is the reason I'm raising the discussion here. I only noticed the removal of contents in SkyTeam because I watchlist the page. No one else but you and me commented there. You and me are, so far, the ones discussing this...--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
SILENCE has nothing to do with this project it is something that is done, you raise something nobody objects you do it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus. The three articles are within the scope of the project. Perhaps their talk pages are somewhat hidden and I'd like to hear other opinions from members of the project.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, so you agree I had consensus to remove the lists. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
No way. WP:SILENCE also states that “Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)”.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to butt in here and denounce the list of aircraft in special livery as train-spotting level of unnecessary info that adds nothing to the article. Information on why tthe Alliance members convert some aircraft to the livery, the benefits they think it accrue might be useful but not listing the aircraft. And I've have nuked [[[Star_Alliance#Photo_gallery|the photo-gallery]] too - 20 photos of aircraft showing they have the words "Star Alliance" written down the fuselage giant letters is excessive. TThat's my personal opinion on the content, as to the question of process - no problem with MB1 removing the content if no bugger was bothered (BRD and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) There is no procedural or editorial issue with this. The lists, including tail numbers etc., were excessive detail and it was quite appropriate for them to be removed; in fact, it would have been quite appropriate just to remove them without discussing it first, as per WP:BOLD, with an explanation left on the talk page. --RFBailey (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with GraemeLeggett and RFBailey completely. There is no need for a list of tail numbers of aircraft that all happen to be painted with the letters "STAR ALLIANCE" on the side that just happen to belong to different airlines. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the list of aircraft in related articles and the big gallery in Star Alliance, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion from style guide talk page moved here

Thread retitled from "WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)".

Moved to destinations archive discussion —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me which is the point of reviving discussions that old?--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
None that I can see - although we could redirect the source page here so any new discussion are in one place. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Airlines

This airlines name was reverted to Saha Airlines before their A300 even took off in the new name and livery, suggest change article title. 119.155.44.250 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Check this and read summary under pic [1]. 116.71.16.113 (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not enough evidence to support moving the Saha Airlines article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The Flight Internationalo World Airlines 2011 lists it as Saha Airlines! MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet no change. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
According to an expert source on Iran aviation, Saha and Iranian Airlines were two different companies, some group decided to take over Saha A300's and start a new airline called Iranian, but they were eventually stopped from the venture, Saha continued operations with its other aircraft. 119.155.50.61 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is this "expert source on Iran aviation"? Do you have a source or is that original research? —Compdude123 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is actually an airline named Iranian Airlines. A Google search of "Iranian Airlines" (with the quotes) brings up three wikipedia articles as the first results (the very first one being List of airlines in Iran, the second being Iran Air, and the third being the incorrectly named Iranian Airlines article). And the fourth google result is to the website for Iran Air. Given that there doesn't seem to be any RS proving that the name changed to Iranian Airlines in the first place, I think the name of the article should be changed back to Saha Airlines. And "Iranian Airlines" should become a disambiguation page. Do others agree with this? —Compdude123 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes move it to back to Saha Airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. Tried to move the article back to its former name, but couldn't do so because there already exists a page named Saha Airlines (which is indeed the redirect someone previously created). How is this issue dealt?--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done now at Saha Airlines (you need to be an admin to delete the redirect) MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks!--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
MilborneOne, could you please move Talk:Iranian Airlines back to Talk:Saha Airlines? Tried to do this myself but ran into the same issue that Jetstreamer did when trying to move the main article. Thanks, Compdude123 21:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my fault I should have moved it with the article, should all be OK now. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Re-created Talk:Iranian Airlines by adding a project banner and relevant rating and such. —Compdude123 22:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks OK. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Added the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} to the talk page.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

New and improved Destination table format

Contrary to the argument on merger with main article because list is too long, destinations can be merged into main airline article with this format, also has no flags, no codes, no colour bars, plain and simple, yet all of that stuff including sub-regions can be added if desired. 116.71.16.2 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

another version


Wow!! This is a MUCH better table destination format than what was previously used in airline articles. Thanks for taking the time to do this. We need to pursue changing the destination list format. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not wild about it. You can't sort the columns, because they're grouped by continent. Grouping by continent leads to some potential issues, like Turkey and Russia noted below. I still like the table version we previously developed for Virgin America destinations, though I could do without the flags in the country column, and would be fine with omitting the IATA and ICAO code columns entirely. Keeping the begin and end dates is nice, but is much easier for new airlines were we can actually source dates; for airlines where that would be too difficult those can be omitted as well. Making it collapsable is fine if it's going to be merged back into the main article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yea, no improvement over the example at Virgin America destinations. I agree with Hawaiian717 about the need to drop the flags and I don't like the end of service listed as 'present', but not sure what options would be better. But in the end, those need to be a separate discussion. For the topic here, both of the above proposals remove useful information and function and don't seem to add anything that makes up for the information lost. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the two were done by me, yes the are for main airline article and thats where they were located before being removed, BTW just saw Virgin America table and it looks confusing and distorted, also it does not need its own page as the number of destinations is so few they can easily be accomodated in main airline article without even a table, compare that to the long lists of Air France destinations or Qatar Airways destinations, so soothing on the eyes. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that moving Virgin America's destinations to its own article is unnecessary, but someone else decided it was last month and that's not up for debate right now. Perhaps if you tell us what you think about it makes it confusing and distorted, we can work to improve it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I just proposed moving the Virgin America destinations article back into Virgin America. Feel free to comment if you wish. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Go check now Virgin America destinations and Virgin America destinations section, just to show how nicer both look, revert edits if you like. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a fan of either of the above examples as it isn't sortable, and I personally don't think continents are necessary (as it just leads to edit wars over country politics). Don't think the codeshare notes are notable though. Sb617 (Talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Whats there to sort when its all sorted out for you? the continents can be removed, terminated destinations can be added, using colour keys to mark them and new destinations, hubs, cargo stations etc. if you're missing that stuff, I find the Aeroflot one FL standard. 116.71.9.145 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The table is sorted alphabetically by city name. But making the table sortable makes things more useful for the reader. For example, they can see the order that new destinations were added by sorting on start date. Or if the reader wants to see what destinations in a particular country or state an airline serves, they can sort by those columns. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, maybe we could make those above tables sortable and get rid of the continents listing. Having continents here may cause some dispute especially for countries that are in more than one continent (i.e. Russia is both in Asia and Europe). See my comment in the Turkey destinations section immediately above this one. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not so much the second one which is already too cluttered, but the first list type looks excellent, back to the basics, well sorted, easy to find destinations within continents and by country name. Terminated destinations, which are of lesser interest to be honest, even only just includable, would go in a separate more simple list without links. Then for hubs or otherwise notable destinations it can be mentioned after the airport name (eg Schiphol Airport Hub). As long as we don't start mixing terminated and charter destinations in again, that list type looks far better than the current table format and also more useful than the original list format. As for sortability, er, come on, what is the reader going to do, sort by airport name? And what use would that be?? With the information given limited to Country, city and airport name (as it should be), there is no need to sort by anything other than country. I also see this list format as far easier to edit than the current table format. Speed74 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have modified Horizon Air destinations to an AWESOME-looking format based on the feedback on those two tables above. It may not have pretty colors, but who cares? It may not have flags, but who cares? (Flags are not supposed to be in destination lists anyway) And it may not look like the FL articles List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations, but who cares? (Whether a list deserves FL-status is the opinion of one editor, not 10 editors.) And this new format is sortable; by default, country (don't put continents in any destination table; that creates problems), then state/province, then city, and finally airport. No unnecessary IATA/ICAO codes, either. (YAY!) And it's easy to edit, with no complicated color-coding to wade thru. Anyway, please comment on your thoughts on this new destination list. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I like it. One thing I would suggest is that, for new airlines going forward, we include start/end date columns like on Virgin America's list. I recognize that this will be difficult if not impossible to figure out for most established airlines, but why not provide it for new airlines where we can? A second suggestion would be to make the table collapsable when it's included on the main airline article rather than in a separate destinations article, especially if we move towards merging most of the destination articles back into the main one. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes simple is good, but support Hawaiian717s comments on adding dates if we can which makes it all more encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know; I don't have start/end dates. I could add start dates and peruse the page history for when people deleted terminated destinations (that's something that shouldn't be done; hopefully people will read my note) and maybe re-add some of the terminated destinations. I know of a website that will tell me when Horizon began serving certain destinations; I can use that when I add the destinations. But I'm not sure how to make the table collapsible, but that's not a big deal. Thanks for the advice, Compdude123 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).
Compdude, the Horizon table is wrapping for me which I find annoying, also reference can be shortened to 'Ref' or 'Refs', I also dont think its necessary to list provinces or states of countries the airline does not belong to, so only US states to be included, if you would abbreviate airport names by dropping International, Municipal, Regional it would help in ending the wrapping issue, I have adjusted my resolution but its still wrapping, maybe removing the unecessary photos would be better, do we need so many photos? even in the FL Dragonair and Braathens lists they are totally unecessary. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why images of airplanes are needed in a destinations article at all. Shortening Ref or Refs is fine with me. I'm not sure how I feel about dropping "International", etc from the airport name. We'd definitely still need it if there are any cases where two airports have the same name but still use it to distinguish. It would also seem redundant in many cases where the airport name is the same as the city name, such as Los Angeles. I also don't think we can drop the state/province since we would still need it to distinguish between places like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
For states I meant they should only be used for the country the airline belongs to in this case USA, not Canada, not Mexico, anyways here is a short samply list made to show what it would be like, with everything included. 116.71.31.207 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am currently working on adding the start/end dates. @116.71.31.207, I don't like your use of the rowspan thing, because then it isn't sortable. With the start/end dates in the table, what if you wanted to sort by the date the service started? You can't do that in your version of the table. Also, I deleted the unnecessary pics of the airplanes down the right-hand side; they take up space and don't add anything to the article. And they make the table look bad at lower resolutions (i.e, 1024x768). —Compdude123 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Compdude123 about the rowspan thing. I'd be all for it if we didn't have sortable tables on Wikipedia. As far as states go, although it isn't currently the case, I could see a Canadian airline serving both Portlands, thus you would need the state column for a Canadian airline. And I think it would just look weird to have a bunch of rows with a blank state column. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
One additional thought: Is it necessary to include "(Terminated)" after the airport name if the start and end date columns are present? I think if an end date is included, it's obvious that it's a terminated destination. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Tables in main article destinations, new issue

Jetstreamer is now going table happy and is starting to do tables in main airline articles having only few destinations see Eritrean Airlines, he is also using a different table style format not approved by wiki, I think there is no need for tables in main article lists, its not cohesive with layout of article. If one of wikipedia own is going to flout rules and go unilateral what should outsiders care about? 116.71.12.42 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a new issue. Rather, you're new to the project and it seems you're decided to criticise every effort made by others in improving and supporting the project in particular, and Wikipedia in general. Actually, all you do from different IPs (despite there's a login account of yours) is to makeup the information introduced by others who really cares about the project (this and this edits are just recent examples). I invite you to take a survey on different airline articles (Kras Air for instance) in order to figure yourself out that I did not recently introduced the table of destinations. Incidentally, the format for the table of destinations in Kras Air is exactly the same you proposed some days ago. I believe you have to refrain yourself over your contradictory behavior here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there is no concensus on tables in main article destinations, Yes I had suggested that table layout but for seprate article not main article and it wasnt approved in any case. I myself have reverted all tables created in main article pages including those done by me, like I said it seems like whenever some people are bored they start some new screwup of articles to keep them busy. 116.71.12.42 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the contributions you made to the articles you're mentioning I screwed up, and perhaps we can continue arguing. Besides that, read this if you know the meaning of the word "improve".--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK first of all let me inform other editors here of your petty reversion of my edits because I pointed out your follies:

1. At Eritrean airlines I deleted an unecessary paragraph about frequencies and routing and that too in the destinations section, both totally against wiki rules, this guy reverted it only to get back at me, in summary he posted unexplained removal of content, when in my summary I clearly mentioned as the information being irrelevant, however I forgot to add its also against wiki rules to add these unecessary tid bits of type of aircraft, frequency and routing, since its NOT a travel guide.

2. At Turkish airlines I had put up a colour keyed sortable bar on top, the reason being for unknown reason it shrinks the table content text size by some amount giving a better look, see Air France destinations, this guy reverted the edit telling me it lacks the sorting arrows, so today I modified it to include sorting arrows and yet he has undone my edit calling it totally irrelevant.

If the above arent petty get back at you actions and taking ownership of an article, then I dont know what is.

Now about your comment above, I do not see how uglifying an article and losing its cohesiveness to the rest is called improving it, you did screw up my much improved Turkish Airlines destinations list which I brought in line with the better ones i.e Air France destinations minus all those unecessary icons, now that was improvement, removing uneeded icons, photos etc. making it look better than before. 116.71.15.152 (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused again. There are not such rules you mention. The only rules here in Wikipedia are these ones. I'm comitted to improving Wikipedia in many ways (the prooof is that three articles I worked on has been promoted to GA status). On the other hand, I don't see your commitment with clearity, but nevertheless can guess it, starting with the fact that all you do is made anonimously despite many editors have discouraged you to do so in your talk page. You cannot come and ask any other editors to follow rules or guidelines when we don't even know who you are.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Confused about what? the destinations section is supposed to discuss frequency and routings like on a travel guide, does anyone looking up an encyclopedia care to know the latest routing and frequency changes on a route? and care to explain the screw up of Turkish Airlines destinations twice, todays one was so uncalled for, there was absolutely no reason to revert it. The rest of what you are saying is not of concern to me, I just know suddenly you have discovered the joys of editing airline articles and gone trigger happy as they say. 116.71.23.212 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Another confusion of yours, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines you're asking others to follow.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
@116.71.xx.xxx, Read the following carefully: If you want to be able to succeed in communicating to other WP users (and other people in your life, too) what your views are, read these useful tips: 1) Don't contradict yourself by saying one thing and then saying something totally opposite later, and 2) Before you hit the save button, read your comment to see if it makes sense and that it's free of spelling and grammatical errors. And make sure that the comment that is on your screen matches the one that originated in your head. Finally make sure your comment is worth reading by others. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh gee wow, like I care. 116.71.19.120 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You should care, because now you have used one of the modes of persuasion against you. From now on, any of your arguments on this particular WikiProject will now be lacking in ethos appeal (i.e. credibility, essentially the ability to persuade us that your ideas are worth believing). That's why I posted the above comment. Anyway, time for me to start working on expanding history sections! —Compdude123 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ironic, thats what I think of you and jetstreamer, over enthusiatic kids new to wiki editing, you in particular come across as so childish I have never taken your posts seriously, infact I find the three of us very similar in attitude, I doubt any one takes any of our views into consideration much. Also to add that most of my suggestions here are for redirects of short lists into main articles or change of title, plus queries on rules on what to do in some situations and advice on others, table list wise I'm quite content, if you notice I havent ever posted asking for major changes in the project, these collapsible tables created by other editors were only suggestions, I'm not really into them either, so anyone not taking my posts seriously is inconsquential, I'm sure when I seek advice, request or suggest, someone or the other will reply and help out due to its trivial nature. FYI that Horizon Air list is againt approved format and should be reverted as its vandalism. 116.71.6.227 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your comment shows again that you're not familiar with many guidelines and policies. Before accusing any other editor of vandalism you should read what vandalism really is. This is a serious accusation that could lead to blocks. Despite the three of us might have our differences, neither Compdude123 or I have accused you of vandalism.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, just leave the guy alone, ignore him, and he will most likely stop bothering us. Lets go work on expanding history sections, shouldn't we? —Compdude123 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Trust me I dont take you or Jetstreamer seriously at all, never have, so go do what you want. 116.71.4.238 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WHATAMESS

The conclusion being that everyone should have stuck with the list format instead of embarking on the interminable quest for a "perfect table" which has only incited edit warring and inconsistency amongst articles, apart from the other disadvantages I listed originally. Speed74 (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, perhaps listing destinations in text format minus the the continents and regions would have been better, as for tables I like Compdudes AA version, minus the codes, repeat names of countries and listing states and provinces. 116.71.14.61 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
We did have a stable list format used in all articles until a featured list was created which overturned/railroaded all previous consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You got it User:Speed74! We should have stuck with the list format. If we had done so, we wouldn't have had to waste so much time arguing about the best version of a table and instead made better use of our time expanding history sections of articles and making them look less like a travel guide and copying info that looks like a travel guide to Wikitravel, whose airline articles should sure use a lot of help! I'm sick of wasting my time arguing about this and would rather be working on expanding history sections :).
Maybe the best way to end this ongoing argument is for someone to be bold and go change one of the FL articles like List of Dragonair destinations and see what happens. What the heck, why don't I do that myself? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, which can overrule project consensus. Reverting any of certified FL lists back to a unreferenced, simple text format can fall under vandalism guidelines. Sb617 (Talk) 05:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I absolutely am not in favor of going back to the list format. I was saying to try doing the format that I have in Horizon Air destinations. It may not have the pretty colors, but it's MUCH simpler to edit, and there's no stupid flags or IATA/ ICAO codes, both of which are absolutely unnecessary. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, in my opinion, Horizon Air destinations is pretty close to featured-list status. But I fear if I ever nominate it, I will run into a brick wall when the reviewer points out List of Dragonair destinations and List of Braathens destinations to me and mentions how nice they look and how ugly my table looks and then I have to mention to him/her that destination lists have to be updated every once in a while and that having all those pretty colors would result in a not-so-pretty editing situation when it comes to updating the destination list and that not many people understand how to do color coding (you have to understand how hexadecimal numbers work, and not many people do, except web designers and not every WP editor is a web designer) and that WP should be easily editable by all, and not just by geeks, and that even some IP editors have good things to add to an article especially when they provide a source, and so on and so forth. Anyway, it's a better use of my time to expand history sections than to argue about this crap. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely concur with Compdude123 in that airline articles in general (not only their destination pages) are in need of immediate attention. In particular, the task of expanding history sections requires a hard work, and I think we all should agree that much of our time is spent here trying to reach consensus in a deadlocked discussion. At least there's another editor concerned with this topic. Besides the two of us, is anyone else interested in really making this a better encyclopedia?--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tyva Airlines

New article about Tyva Airlines a Russian airline with content also added to Kyzyl Airport, the ICAO code and callsign quoted dont appear to be valid anybody have a reliable ref that it actually exists? thanks MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article relies upon two references: one that is not properly presented, an the other that refers to Kuban Airlines!--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems to be largely a copy-paste of the Kuban Airlines article (even down to which languages it had interwiki links to). I suspect it's a hoax. --RFBailey (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I have proded the article as we have no evidence that it exists. MilborneOne (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A google search of "Tyva Airlines" (with quotes) turns up only 200 results, which is quite small for a google search; usually you'd see millions of results. And the first three results are all Wikipedia articles. No website or anything either; there are relatively few airlines that still fly today that don't have websites; one is Saha Airlines. These search results make me come to the conclusion that the airline does not exist. —Compdude123 19:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lion Air Order

There is currently a discussion going on here about whether to feature the record 230-aircraft order from Lion Air on the "In the News" section of the Wikipedia homepage. Comments from this project would be appreciated. Thanks, Compdude123 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been posted on the main page; you probably already noticed. —Compdude123 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

LOT Polish Airlines destinations: Source needed for service to Beijing

If anyone gets a chance, can someone find a source stating that LOT will launch/resume service to Beijing, China. I know that there is already a source for being a past destination. I keep hearing some people say that the airline's CEO announced the flight but there needs to be a source that can be publicly accessed. But for now, it has been tagged with "citiation needed". Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Air Jamaica destinations

Another redirect contender with too few destinations and in a table format, let it stay or move to main article? 119.155.46.68 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not even a single terminated destination is present in the article. I think adding them will considerably expand the article and there'll be no need to discuss this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not enough destinations to justify separate article. I say merge. Speed74 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Like Air Koryo destinations which you proposed merging recently, this destinations table needs a bit of work. It doesn't have any references, which is a big issue in and of itself, and also it lacks terminated destinations despite the fact that the airline has been flying since 1969. Before deciding whether Air Jamaica destinations should be merged into the parent article, we should expand it with terminated destinations and add refs. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That could take some time. While waiting for the article to get big enough I think it would do fine in the main article, and might attract more editors. Speed74 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
what about this candy shop Caribbean Airlines destinations. 116.71.14.61 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, someone got too carried away with all those colors! —Compdude123 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Air Australia

Hi. Air Australia ceased today but Strategic Airlines Luxumbourg didnt. They are both in the Air Australia page so would you prefer me to create a new 'Strategic Airlines Luxembourg' page? Thanks MKY661 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would keep that in the Air Australia page (make it past tense if it ceased operations) but make a section for Strategic Airlines Luxumbourg saying that Air Australia has ceased but Strategic Airlines continues to operate. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No, make a new WP article for Strategic Airlines Luxembourg. They are two separate airlines; one is still operating the other isn't. But there isn't anything about Strategic Airlines Luxembourg in the article Air Australia right now so please add info about that first. —Compdude123 18:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree on a an article for Strategic Airlines (STU) it appears to be a separate company (= Strategic Airlines SA) with its own licenses and stuff, not sure Luxembourg is part of the trading name certainly not part of the official name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok started it not finished yet but its a start. Called iit Strategic Airlines Luxembourg because if you search this airline it also says Strategic Airlines on everything. Looking into more info.

Strategic Airlines Luxembourg MKY661 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PeopleExpress

It seems like a group wishes to revive PeopleExpress as an air carrier: http://www.flypex.com/includes/pressKit.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Google News shows a fair amount of coverage. We have other articles on airlines that never got started, such as JetAmerica and FlyHawaii Airlines, so there is certainly precedent for having an article on this new PeopleExpress. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of airline name resurrections, a new Pan Am is in the process of being created, see http://www.panamericanairways.net. I am not sure whether we should create an article for this new Pan Am yet. —Compdude123 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't appear to be any updates since 2011 (on their website, Twitter, and Facebook page), and in fact, it talks about events that didn't happen in 2011 in the future tense ("... announces its intent to reopen the Gateway to Latin America in 2011"). Doesn't seem like this has gone anywhere. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's true. But we should create a page for the new PeopleExpress, as there seems to be more info and the company intends to start flying by mid- to late-2012. The "new Pan Am" article could wait till there is an update on their website and such. —Compdude123 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is discussion going on about whether to rename People Express Airlines (2012) to simply "People Express Airlines" and change the currently-named People Express Airlines to "People Express Airline (1980s)." Discussion is here and here. —Compdude123 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

SpiceJet controversy

Recently a differently-abled woman was forced not to travel by a SpiceJet flight in India. This news has quickly spread around the nation like a forest fire. But then we have User:Abhishek191288 who keeps reverting edits. As of now i have stopped editing most Airline pages. But i do find sock-puppets trying to put the info back. Currently we have two problems.

  1. Should Jeeja Ghosh (the woman who was literally kicked off a plane) and the spur be mentioned?
  2. The never-ending edit war between me (User:Anikingos), Abhishek and the puppets be stopped?

We are all looking for a peaceful solution. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That incident is simply non-notable. Five minutes in the news doesn't imply notability.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not notable, except of course if you live in India :). Never heard anything about it in the news where I live, in the USA. —Compdude123 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiara Air

Tiara Air article could do with a tidy up, I have removed the list of registrations in the fleet list but the IP likes to keep putting them back, appreciate if somebody else can have a look/keep an eye on it please. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of this...--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a similar situation at Azerbaijan Airlines. I've just removed the column including tail numbers and links to pictures at Airliners.net.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The user at Tiara Air keeps adding the registrations back in, I have left them a note. Also found that other Dutch Netherlands airlines had lists of registrations and almost histories of individial aircraft. Had a tidy up but if others can keep an eye on them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The same user keeps reinstating tail numbers at Tiara Air. I Left him a level 3 warning on their talk page.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have also seen this on some Alaskan airlines, such as Alaska Coastal Airlines. —Compdude123 23:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Alaska Coastal Airlines will need some work, I will have a go later if nobody else looks at it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
PAWA Dominicana is another article that had tail numbers listed.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tidied up Alaska Coastal Airlines a bit, thanks for doing PAWA Dominicana, lots of enthusiast websites spend a lot of time keeping fleet registration lists up to date, no need for an encylopedia to get into that area. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

El Al

This user has placed {{citation needed}} tags all over the article. Wouldn't have been better to put a single {{refimprove}} template at the top of the article to avoid the unnecessary uglification of the page? --Jetstreamer Talk 11:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to tag bombing and as you suggest added a refimprove to the top. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Airlines of Africa

I started a new article that may be very high priority: Airlines of Africa WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which how come there is no article on the joint venture Alliance Air started by South African Airways, Air Tanzania and Uganda Airlines in the 90s, they operated a single SA 747SP but in their own striking livery, South African Airways article briefly mentions the airline, but its quite insignificant. 116.71.21.124 (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Article crated Alliance Air (Uganda).116.71.22.111 (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fleet Table referencing

Hi everyone, in the article Alitalia there is an editor who is changing the fleet table continuously according to an Italian aviation forum, which seems to provide rumours/predictions on plane deliveries and dismissals, but can't be trusted as a valid ref. Could someone help me explain to him? Thanks, Speed74 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC).

Why don't you try referencing fleet data from www.aerotransport.org?--Jetstreamer Talk 10:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The table is already referenced according to ch-aviation (which gives the same numbers as www.aerotransport.org and should be correct), but the editor is always changing the table to reflect future or uncertain changes, that are talked about in a forum. I tried to convince him myself that you can't do that, but since it didn't work I was hoping to get the support of other editors. Speed74 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, just tell him/her to take a look at WP:RELIABLE. I also made a comment at Speed74's talkpage--Jetstreamer Talk 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope the situation is now resolved. I've told the user if they continue to revert it might be considered disruptive -> block. Speed74 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bhoja Air

Some one is adding stuff in the relaunch section of this airline that is more like PR spin, I removed the information but he has reverted the edits which I have undone again.116.71.22.111 (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all that info needs to be referenced, so does just about everything else in the article. Also, are the links to virtual airlines really necessary? —Compdude123 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the info in the relaunch section doesn't really look like "PR spin" to me, it just needs refs. Also, there should be a new article for this new airline, perhaps call it Bhoja Air (2012). Often when airlines are relaunched under the same name as a defunct airline, the only similarities it has with the original airline is the name and brand. But be sure to keep some sort of info in the article for the old airline to avoid confusion between the two. —Compdude123 21:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying paragraphs starting with "Finally the efforts of Mr. so-n-so paid off ..." are not like PR spin be it personal or company spin, and worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article?.116.71.27.52 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The sentences you are describing are, fortunately, not found in that article. But, unfortunately, few citations are found in that article, and they really should be added. —Compdude123 04:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thats because I deleted those bits, but edits were being reverted by some other editor so I brought it to attention here, agree on the lack of citations.116.71.28.196 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Article is being vandalised by an IP who is deleting almost all content from it. 116.71.5.68 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Left a warning on the vandal's talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

why is an official press release not worthy?

JAL have just about confirmed they are launching San Diego and Helsinki with in a year with December and March as the given months in their press release, yet these destinations are being removed from the articles here because the release does not carry EXACT dates, why the infelxible attitude? and please dont post that crystal ball bit here, nobody is guessing wether these routes are being launched, the airline has said they ARE being launched in the given months, when they give the exact dates add the dates there, if the destinations are not launched by end of the month remove them from the articles, but please drop this rigid, frumpy attitude more so with official press release. 116.71.20.207 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Airports and airline destinations articles should provide firm dates for start/end dates of services. Despite official, information is useless unless it includes year, month and date.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? infelixibilty again despite the explanation as to what can be done. 116.71.6.164 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. It's just that there's has been a discussion at both WP:AIRPORTS and here and it was agreed to use complete dates.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense at all. 116.71.4.177 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably because this is not a travel guide we are in no rush to include it and have time to add when more information is known. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Just mention it as prose in the destinations article that the airline plans to be launching said destinations soon, but hasn't decided on a firm date yet. Don't put it into the table till there's a firm date. —Compdude123 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thats acceptable. 116.71.4.177 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the same goes for the airport pages. Mention those only in prose but don't put it into the table/list until a firm date is given. I have made hidden notes for those as well at the JAL destinations page and JAL flights to NRT have already been mentioned in prose at the San Diego International Airport as well as hidden notes have been made there as well as at Helsinki Airport. Can anybody make an edit notice saying that do not add destinations until firm start dates are given? Snoozlepet (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Some hyper nit picking editor has semi-protected JAL destinations page calling the edits controversial?? whats controversial about adding just about confirmed destinations be they in prose or listed. 116.71.4.177 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with mentioning the launching of future destinations in prose. Why protecting? Nevertheless, anyone with autoconfirmed permissions can still edit the page, as it is semi-protected.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes you can login and edit the page, dude. In fact, you should use your Inspector123 account 100% of the time. —Compdude123 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Holding company fleet lists

Tried to remove the fleet list from International Airlines Group back to the original summary but was reverted. It was pointed out that Air France-KLM has a similar table. The IAG is an airline holding company and does not own any aircraft a complex combined fleet list is not encyclopedic and the one on Air France-KLM is even worse it even includes seating information. Suggest that holding companies dont need full fleet lists of related airlines, propose that these lists be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I commented on Talk:International Airlines Group. Post your comments there so we can keep them all in one place. Thanks, Compdude123 23:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple of points for accuracy. One - the International Airlines Group article has actually had a fleet table for over a year. Two - the group company owns everything which its subsidiaries own. Three - as the activities of these companies are increasingly integrated, it is simplistic and incorrect to state that aircraft assigned to operate at any one time under one of the brands of the company actually own the aircraft or lease it, this can in fact happen at group level.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

British Midland

Users keep adding british midland aircraft to the total fleet list at International Airlines Group (also changing the British Airways and British Midland article), I cant revert it again, can I ask others to keep an eye on it. As far a reliable references indicate the company has not been sold yet just an agreement for sale, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on IAG. It might be worthwhile to add some hidden text by the relevant fields in each of the articles asking people not to make the changes until the BMI takeover has completed.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously those people haven't figured out that were not falling for their April Fools joke. And this is also perfect example of someone "jumping the gun" and adding futuristic events like they've already happened. This article on the front page of Flightglobal clearly says that the European Commission just gave approval for the sale and not that the sale has actually been completed. In the second paragraph it clearly says "IAG says it expects the deal to complete around 20 April..." Last time I checked it's April 1st not April 20th. —Compdude123 23:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kalitta Air destinations

I had updated their destination list and added a new reference too but some BoT reverted it repeatedly calling it vandalism, going into an edit war, then an editor popped in starting to side with the BoT, I have sent two false positive reports since but the the updated destinations have not showed up. 116.71.17.125 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide a more descriptive edit summary to avoid these things to happen.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok so now this newbie editor has undone my edit despite a valid citation attached, I asked him why on his talk page and he deleted my post without replying. 116.71.30.180 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That user shouldn't be doing that. It's just not right. Try and talk to him and resolve the issue peacefully. If repeated efforts to talk it out between the two of you have failed, then take it to WP:AN/I. But you should only do this after you have been unable to resolve it peacefully by contacting the user. —Compdude123 04:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Reported false positive. Hopefully the bot stops acting crazy. The way the bot works is really interesting and has a super-freaky "machine learning" algorithm so that it learns what is and isn't vandalism. So hopefully it will learn... —Compdude123 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. 116.71.24.39 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
A registered user (not me but Hawaiian717 (talk · contribs)) reverted the bot's removal of the not really vandalism, so hopefully it will go away. —Compdude123 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the airline is wholly owned by Garuda, with its own managing director and own livery, however it pretty much operates with the parent company's GA flight numbers and GA callsigns with all operations under the Garuda Indonesia name. Should it be listed as Citilink operated by Garuda Indonesia, or as Garuda Indonesia operated by Citilink? Sb617 (Talk) 00:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jetlite merger

The carrier has been merged into Jet Konnect since 25 March, and will operate using both 9W and S2 codes till its decided if one needs to be dropped, should'nt the article title be changed and necessary information added? 116.71.4.177 (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No reason to change the current Jetlite article is can remain as a defunct airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, leave Jetlite as Jetlite and once both airline's operations are merged then Jetlite can be regarded as defunct and changed to past-tense. —Compdude123 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
And if Jet Konnect retains the S2 code and becomes a seprate airline, then what? 116.71.4.177 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It will get a new article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which why did Deccan and Air Sahara articles get merged and retitled as Kingfisher Red and Jet Lite, rather than remain independant articles of defunct airlines? 116.71.4.177 (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But how should we list the flights? I know couple of the airports that JetLite served still has JetLite listed as a seperate entry. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

All Jet Lite routes have been taken over by Jet Konnect using the JLT's S2 code, they should ideally be listed as Jet Konnect, but some editors seem to have issues with that, Jet Konnect's own routes are operated using Jet Airways 9W code and listed as Jet Airways, so there is no confusion that Jet Lite routes should actually be listed now as Jet Konnect as they dont get served by 9W code flights which are listed seprate.116.71.4.177 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Jet Lite brand has ceased to exist yet some editor is adding "JetKonnect operated by Jet Lite" to airport articles, while aircraft will sport Jet Lite name till repainted but these edits give the impression that Jet Lite will continue operating as a brand which is not the case. 118.103.228.65 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Air India destinations at Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport (ATQ)

We seem to be having a problem at the ATQ airport article, Its regarding an Air India flight, the flight goes from YYZ-DEL (AI188), than a separate flight takes it from DEL-ATQ (AI971). Should Toronto-Pearson in the destinations area on the airport article? One user thinks so and another doesn't, could someone provide their opinion on whats the policy for this? Thanks. Gsingh (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to raise this concern at WP:AIRPORTS, but the flight seems to be a non-direct one, so ATQ should not be included in the list of destinations for YYZ.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks, I wasn't sure which project to put it on, discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports, please continue the discussion there. Gsingh (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for Alaska Airlines

Hello, I have started a peer review for Alaska Airlines right here. I have done a lot of work on this article over the past year or so, and would love it if someone other than myself gave it some critique before I (eventually) promote it to GA status and even go so far as to promote it to FA status, though this peer review will probably be the beginning of continual improvements to this article; I bet it still has a long ways to go before a GA review takes place. Anyone is welcome to take a look and review this article; long or short, all of your comments are appreciated. Don't post any comments here; please post them on the review so I can see all your comments on this article. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, is anyone going to comment on the peer review? It's been at least two weeks and still nobody has commented on it. So please look at the article and post your comments. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Any more comments, people? If not I'm going to "close" the peer review. Thanks, Compdude123 04:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

airlineroute.net

The http://airlineroute.net is being used more and more as a reliable source for airline routes but most of it appears to be a forum or blog. The company behind it is UBM Aviation http://www.ubmaviation.com so it a commercial concern rather than self-published, any thoughts on its reliability. MilborneOne (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it labeled as not reliable, but practically it has been reliable to me. HkCaGu (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a source that does not cite either references or any news agency can be considered a reliable one.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it says at the bottom that the info should not be trusted as reliable. —Compdude123 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Southwest uplifting

Similar to what many users have been doing to Alaska Airlines, I think it is necessary that Southwest Airlines get an uplifting. The article is unorganized and simply not good. Can we get something like a group or so that will begin the transformation? I am saying this because it seems as though Alaska's page is pretty much at its pinnacle. So if I could have your help, that would be appreciated. Kairportflier (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I'm quite surprised that you nominated AS for GA-status. I thought it wasn't quite there yet. Anyway, I will help with SWA which I agree really needs some work. That was next on my to-do list, maybe after that would be Ryanair. —Compdude123 04:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Western (airline) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Western (airline) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western (airline) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Two other airlines that never flew are also being put up for AfD: FlyHawaii Airlines (deletion discussion) and JetAmerica (deletion discussion). —Compdude123 04:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
And Thai Tiger Airways is also an AfD candidate; see discussion here. —Compdude123 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

KLM Cargo

New badly presented article at KLM Airlines Cargo but doesnt it actually exist as a separate airline and notable enough for a stand alone article? MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

One paragraph and a small fleet list doesn't seem sufficient for a standalone article. Suggest redirect to KLM and merge any relevant content, if any, that's not already there. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Most people would simply type into the search bar "KLM Cargo" not "KLM Airlines Cargo." KLM Cargo redirects to KLM. —Compdude123 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've converted it to a redirect to KLM. YSSYguy (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Fleet Question

Southwest is in the process of converting AirTran 737-700's to Southwest and Southwest is converting 737-700s from 137 to 143 seats, so how do we stay up to date with the count of the planes in each column? Does anyone have a reliable updated source? Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple. Just list the total amount of aircraft that are Boeing 737-700s and don't worry about listing how many aircraft are in each seating configuration. This is an encyclopedia, and listing how many aircraft of one type are configured in each seating configuration is unencyclopedic. —Compdude123 00:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I just found that we had a list of top-viewed pages for this WikiProject. It's updated by a bot every month, and it gives us a good idea of which articles should be improved. Here are some items of note: Out of the top 10, the first three (UA, DL and AA) are all C-Class. Only one article, British Airways (#7) is a good article; IMHO, all of the top ten should be at least good articles! #9 is Pan Am (B-Class; this ought to be a featured article) and #10 is Ryanair, which wins the award for having the longest criticism section of any Wikipedia airline article. (Are they really that bad?) #19 and #20 are Qatar Airways and Etihad Airways respectively, both of which are horrible articles in my opinion, starting with the history section (or rather, the near-absence thereof). Anyway, I hope this will give us all an idea of which articles we ought to spend time promoting to Good Article (let's not forget featured article) status. There's no need to waste time creating masterpieces that nobody will see. While it's important to work on articles for airlines that are smaller and don't get the attention they should, it's just as important to work on the most popular articles. —Compdude123 03:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Article of the month: Alaska Airlines

Hello all. In the interest of improving airline articles with help from project members, I am starting an Article of the Month. The article for this month (May) is Alaska Airlines, which I've been working on for quite some time and I hope to get up to GA class and eventually Featured Article. I would appreciate your help with this article. Thanks, Compdude123 17:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not take part in the improving of Alaska Airlines but took the liberty of GAN. Visit the Alaska AIrlines talk page and you will see the nomination. Fantastic work to anyone who partisipated! Kairportflier (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you're obviously bold enough to nominate it, when I thought it wasn't quite there yet. I might put some final touches on it and maybe ask Arsenikk (talk · contribs) (who has review many airline articles for GA-class) to take a look at it. It's nice to have a new set of eyes looking at this article—especially when doing a peer review didn't work well—and deciding it's good enough to be a good article. —Compdude123 04:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's defiantly ready. I accidentally forgot I was not allowed to write the review if I nominated the article so when I have the time later I have to remove my review but the other user you mention can write I better one anyway. Kairportflier (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, it was definitely not ready because a GA reviewer quick-failed the article. So we nee to work on getting rid of citation neededs, dead links (either by adding another source, using an archived version of the page, or just deleting the info) and then we will be able to renominate the article. —Compdude123 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well its definitely almost ready, lol. Kairportflier (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Evolve Picture

I think it is important to add a picture of the Southwest evolve interior to the Southwest page to replace the picture of the old interior that is in the fleet section. I do not know how to and have no interest in learning how to add a picture to wikipedia so can someone get someone to add this image which is the best to show the interior. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a copyrighted image by Southwest, and there's no point in using that image when anyone can take a picture of the new interior on their next flight, and then upload it to Commons. —Compdude123 01:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thats fine for me, can someone get a picture of evolve to replace the old interior picture. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Avantair

A user is trying to turn Avantair into a company or promotional page, I have reverted twice so would appreciate if somebody else could keep an eye on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all I warned the user on his talk page, assuming good faith. —Compdude123 00:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to have stopped turning the page into an advertisement. I will continue keeping an eye on it nonetheless. —Compdude123 02:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable incident?

Is the incident about a lady being forced to deboard a plane as mentioned in SpiceJet#Incidents (under 2012), notable? — Abhishek  Talk 15:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No it's not really notable. IIRC this was discussed before (unless I'm thinking of something else) and it was decided that this was not notable. —Compdude123 16:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed this incident. Yes it was the same one that was discussed here before, and it was agreed that it was non-notable. I also removed the weird italics from another incident whose presence seemed to put undue balance on certain facts. —Compdude123 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we mention anywhere that, at least for US airlines, the flight crew makes the determination of who can fly on the plane? They can refuse to transport anyone for any reason they deem appropriate. At least that is my understanding. While this is normally exercised for people under the influence, there are other reasons. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that applies to the captain of any aircraft. If he feels that having a certain person on board would endanger the aircraft or others, he has the right to refuse to fly that person, no matter how high and mighty they may think they are. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely non-notable rubissh incidents due to some bozos include stupid incident. I accept sometimes I have make similar mistake, but this article must be dumped of it. Thanks.--B767-500 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaa!! :) You're funny! :D Yes get rid of these "non-notable rubbish incidents." Fortunately it hasn't been added back to the page. But if this incident results in changes to the airline's procedures, (which I wouldn't be surprised if that was so given the amt. of negative PR for SpiceJet) then it is allowed to be on here per WP:AIRCRASH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compdude123 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

POV additions to Delta Air Lines article

User:Vvibbert has been adding liberal-POV information to the Delta Air Lines article. It appears that this user may have an agenda. If you read his/her comments on the talk page, he/she is trying to push POV, accusing the article and its editors of greenwashing and disruptively adding {{POV-check}} to the article to push his/her POV. Does anyone know what should be done about this user? ANDROS1337TALK 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fiji Airways article title

Why is this redirecting to Air Pacific since the airline is going back to the original name next year, kindly change it. 115.42.69.40 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The redirect was created in 2007, long before the recent decision to revert to the original name. At that time the redirect made sense since it was redirecting the original company name to the current one. When Air Pacific actually changes their name back to Fiji Airways, then we'll need to ask an admin to move the article over the redirect and redirect Air Pacific to Fiji Airways. As long as the company is still known and operating as Air Pacific, the article should remain at its current location. WP:CRYSTAL (especially point #5) applies in this case. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Skytrax

Notice that Skytrax ratings are being added to the lead of many airline article, I suspect it is not important enough for the lead but should we have this sort of rating mentioned at all, and if we do why this one is it more important than the others, I suppose they are other rating systems? MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same. I don't especially trust Skytrax ratings (some airlines are suspected of paying them to get a better rating...), I think this should just be removed. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting point, mostly bearing WP:NOTTRAVEL in mind. Perhaps we should consider removing this particular information.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is sounds goods. Did you Jetstreamer, is relate to user JetBlasted? Thanks you.--B767-500 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Despite the similarities between both usernames, I have absolutely nothing to do.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Qatar Airways would deserve this mention, since it's rated "five stars" according to Skytrax. But I agree that not every airline article that happens to have a skytrax rating needs to say "Skytrax rated ABC Airlines as a 4-star airline." —Compdude123 02:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I conclude that we dont need to mention Skytrax on airline articles particularly as an opinion site it is more travel guide than encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MilbornOne. Can't see a need for these. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This user has been adding Skytrax-related information in a compulsive fashion. I have reverted some of their edits, yet not all of them.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we just not include this info at all (except for the few "five star" airlines), or just remove it from the lead? —Compdude123 04:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this topic. I will stop putting Skytrax information on airlines' wiki pages. I will also revert all my edits.Airlinesguy (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an important distinction made. Rather than a blanket "ban" on including Skytrax information, it should be considered on a case by case basis. I agree that simply having X Airline is rated X stars by Skytrax isn't needed. But in cases, such as with Vancouver International Airport, where it is winning Skytrax's best airport award, and this is being reported on by a wide variety of media, it is worth including. Whether or not this is lead material or should go some where else, though, I think can be discussed on the individual talk pages. Ravendrop 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Vancouver International Airport is not "best airport", is only "best airport in North America" according to Skytrax.
  • More important: Where to include in article? Should article introductions become listings of awards (and many different airports advertise there that they are the best according to whomever they paid)? "Awards" section in article makes more sense than advertising in introduction.
  • General policy needed, or fanboys and promotion companies might defend advertising their awards in introduction.
Aviones de pasajeros (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, I think that interesting Skytrax ratings should be mentioned in articles (there's not much point in saying that an airline is ranked 79th out of 571 or whatever), probably not in the lede, but I'm wary of yet another hard rule that we MUST or MUST NOT mention them. Can't we decide on a case-by-case basis? Spamming skytrax across all articles, and removing it from all articles, are equally inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)‎
  • Why discuss 100 times and not one time here?
  • Spamming skytrax across all articles, and removing it from all articles, are equally inappropriate. Why? Either it is valuable addition for all articles or is spam that should be in no articles.
  • What about:
  • No skytrax star ratings. If skytrax rankings considered extremely important (unlikely), should be added to airline infobox.
  • No ratings in article introductions.
  • Mentioning awards where airline/airport is best in a separate Awards section is OK.
Aviones de pasajeros (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You posted here your concern asking for different opinions regarding the compulsive attitude you took at almost all airline articles plus some airport ones, other editors are providing their point of views, and you keep insisting that your opinion is the one that should prevail for all articles. In particular, some of the pages you modified are good articles that went through a review process, with the reviewer agreeing that Skytrax-related contents is fine to be shown (like in Ethiopian Airlines). Have you ever heard about consensus? Separately, you keep taking unilateral actions by modifying substantial portions of articles, like this one. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is a community. One more thought: in my particular view, this and this show less good faith from you when previous comments made by other editors are removed from your talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That not bad faith from me, it was silentest way to cover your personal attach without escalating. You claim good faith for you for personal attack? Aviones de pasajeros (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack unless you are the person you claim you're not. Should you feel the opposite, you're kindly invited to report me whenever you want.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Do tables and navboxes really need to match airline's colors?

Hi, I notice that with a lot of tables and navboxes for airlines, they tend to match the airline's colors. Is this really necessary? In some cases it may make tables or navboxes harder to read. I boldly edited the Template:Delta Air Lines navbox to remove the dark blue and replace it with standard navbox colors, but was reverted by another editor who claimed that a lot of airlines do this. I think it's unneccesary and that this practice should be ended. Any thoughts? —Compdude123 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the matching. I think it gives more identity to any article.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I dont like some of the bolder colours and we have editors who regular change the colours either to relate to the airline or alliance. In some instances the colours cause problems to people who may not have perfect vision. Better to be the same across all articles then an unplanned mixture. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) In my opinion, they do not have to match. If the colours can match without affecting readability then it can add a bit of life. If however the choice of colour makes it difficult to read then its time to edit the table code. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree to GraemeLeggett's vision.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that having colors just creates potential problems. Oftentimes, airlines will use several different colors in their livery. For example, with Delta one might argue that the table color should be white because that's what most of the aircraft fuselage is painted. Yet the dark blue color is also a sensible color to use since it's painted on the belly of aircraft as well as the tail. Same goes with AA, which uses red in tables. Red is just one of the colored stripes running down the fuselage. There's also white and blue, and let's not forget that most of the aircraft is painted silver. Having the colors in tables would just create edit wars and disputes over which of the airline's colors to use. That is why I propose completely removing them. This is not the airline's website; it is Wikipedia! —Compdude123 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we are here to report factual information about the subject of an article, not try and fit in with corporate branding. --RFBailey (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about corporate branding or promotion? Nothing is more boring than a gray encyclopedia..--Jetstreamer Talk 00:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Readability must come first. However, as long as it's still readable, I can live with some of these tables having their colours tweaked in principle, but in practice I'm concerned it could just turn out to be another hive of trivial edits & conflicts (a bit like music genres). Surely we have more important things to work on...? bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Surely we do!--Jetstreamer Talk 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this issue can wait then. We aren't having a dispute about this, so I will let it wait till we have stupid edit wars about this or if an FA reviewer (hint, hint) questions the color usage. If it ain't broken, why fix it? —Compdude123 00:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, no reason to change table colour if it already reflects Airline colour schemes. The same table colour should be used throughout the same article. Speed74 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AirTran/Southwest Start/End Dates NOTICE

I noticed that there were some major issues with start/end dates for AirTran/Southwest on wikipedia. I believe I fixed them all but just incase I think it is important for you to take note.

  • Any Southwest/AirTran flight that say ending on June 3, 2012 actually end on June 2, 2012. NO Southwest/AirTran flights end on August 3, 2012. Any AirTran/Southwest flights that say starting on June 3, 2012 are CORRECT, do not change those.
  • Any Southwest/AirTran flight that say ending on August 12, 2012 actually end on August 11, 2012. NO Southwest/AirTran flights end on August 12, 2012. Any AirTran/Southwest flights that say starting on August 12, 2012 are CORRECT, do not change those.

If you see any I missed please fix them, if any IP or Users undo these edits please redo them because I took a long time to research each route. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope you like it

New article. Just published it yesterday. Regional Airline Association --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BMI destinations and Bmibaby article titles

Request to change BMI destinations title to British Midland International destinations to match main airline article title (e.g there is no PIA destinations on wiki its Pakistan International Airlines destinations) and the latter from Bmibaby to bmibaby by dropping big B, if you are titling some articles according to their branding style then do bmibaby this favour too. 111.119.165.245 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No? 111.119.168.144 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. 115.42.77.227 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

New column for Australian territories at Qantas destinations

Hello there. Can you please drop some lines with your thoughts here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetstreamer (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We could use some more input on this. Thanks, Compdude123 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article of the month (June): Southwest Airlines

Hello,

The article of the month for June is going to be Southwest Airlines. There was some work being done on it a month ago but the improvement effort sort of faded out. This article still needs some work. More info could be added to the history section (especially for the 1980s and 1990s) and more citations need to be added as well. My hope is to make it a good article, just as I am doing with Alaska Airlines, and eventually a featured article. Any help from this project would be much appreciated. Thanks, Compdude123 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Airline Pilots of the USA

I'm working on a draft article to define the challenges facing airline pilots in the USA today. With Captain Chesley Sullenberger's testimony before the United States Senate that not one professional pilot he knows wants their children following in their foot-steps, this occupation is facing serious issues. I'd really appreciate a second and third POV. The article concept as it exists is admittedly POV of the pilots themselves. Here's my draft. User:XB70Valyrie/Piloting in the United States. Even recommendations left on its talk page would be appreciated as well.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it not basically the same article as Problems facing airline pilots which is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems facing airline pilots. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Source needed to prove AS has focus cities

There seems to be certain IP users who keep adding focus cities for Alaska Airlines. I thought that they didn't have focus cities, and I could find no source proving this. I've been removing the information on the basis that it's unsourced, but users keep re-adding it and reverting my reversions of their edits. And plus, it's being reviewed for good article status, so I'm trying to make sure that any new info added is sourced, or removing if sources can't be found. Could somebody please try and find a source proving that AS has focus cities? Thanks a lot, Compdude123 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Destination table format: Propose major changes and updating of project guidelines

Alright, it's about time we all stop arguing about the destination formats and come to an agreement and consensus. Many of the members of this WikiProject including me are unhappy with the current format and would like to change it. So I am taking this giant step towards putting us on a path to coming to terms on a format we can all agree on. I propose no changes to the list format; let it be how it is. And please let's not get into a debate about changing the two FL-status lists List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations. Those have been approved as the best lists on WP in their particular subject and that's that; don't bother changing them. As for all the other lists, well those we are free to do whatever the heck we want.

So, the scope of my changes would be the following:

  • Default sorting of destination tables should be by country, not city; also country should be should be listed in the farthest-left column, followed by state/province (not required), then city. Everything else following would remain the same.
  • Remove flags from country column; these are absolutely useless and can easily be found by clicking on the link to the country. Also I think that our use of said flags violate the policies listed on MOS:FLAGS. That page, which overrules our own project guidelines, says that flags should only used when the subject actually represents a particular country, and I don't think airports really do that.
  • Remove IATA and ICAO codes as those can also be easily found by clicking the links to airport articles and they're not widely recognized outside the aviation community. For example, LAX, the IATA code for Los Angeles Int'l Airport, is more commonly used as an abbreviation for the sport of lacrosse. (at least where I live, it is; I don't know about you guys)
  • Encourage addition of start and end dates to the tables as they make the tables much more encyclopedic. Both of the featured lists have them.
  • Encourage addition of references to both the table format and the bulleted list format. Bulleted list formats I've come across rarely have more than 5-10 refs, they really have got to have more. Come on people, add more refs please.

So my changes would result in a table looking like this.

As of January 2011, Foo Airlines [this should be linked to the airline article and in bold] flies to the following destinations:

Hub Hub
F Focus city
[S] Seasonal
[F] Future
[T] Terminated destination[A]

[A]Terminated destinations should only be marked when there are no start and end dates, which is not the case for this table.

Country State/Province City Airport Begin End Refs
United States Massachusetts Boston Logan Airport Feb 12, 2009 present
Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún Cancún Airport[S] Jan 19, 2011 present
United States Illinois Chicago O'Hare Airport May 25, 2011 present
United States Texas Dallas Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Dec 1, 2010 present
United States Florida Fort Lauderdale Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood Airport Nov 18, 2009 present
United States Nevada Las Vegas McCarran Airport Oct 10, 2007 present
United States California Los Angeles Los Angeles AirportF Aug 8, 2007 present
Mexico Baja California Sur Los Cabos Los Cabos Airport Dec 16, 2010 present
United States New York New York John F. Kennedy Airport Aug 8, 2007 present
United States California Orange County John Wayne Airport Apr 29, 2009 May 26, 2010
United States Florida Orlando Orlando Airport Oct 6, 2010 present
United States California Palm Springs Palm Springs Airport Dec 15, 2011 present
United States Pennsylvania Philadelphia Philadelphia International Airport[F] Apr 4, 2012 -
Mexico Jalisco Puerto Vallarta Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport Dec 2, 2011 present
United States California San Diego San Diego Airport Feb 12, 2008 present
United States California San Francisco San Francisco AirportHub Aug 8, 2007 present
United States Washington Seattle Seattle–Tacoma Airport Mar 18, 2008 present
Canada Ontario Toronto Pearson Airport Jun 23, 2010 Apr 6, 2011
United States District of Columbia Washington Dulles Airport Sep 26, 2007 present

Please post your comments on this awesome new format in the comments section below. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not against a change, but the first thing that comes to my mind with most of the airlines is that it will be hard to determine the start date of current services, let alone the start and end dates for terminated destinations (a reference should be provided to support that it is effectively marked as terminated). As an editor that tends to reference every written sentence, it will be even harder to find sources for these claims. Furthermore, I'm not sure about removing ICAO/IATA codes, as many airports worldwide are recognised by its IATA code than by its name (i.e, JFK, LAX, CDG, LHR). Besides that, more possibilities are given to sorting if these two additional parameters are provided to that purpose, given that any reader would like to find out if an airport is served but s(he) remembers only IATA or ICAO codes (it happens to me most of the time). I'd also use just a single entry for each country, spanning with it all the rows for the destinations served in that country, rather than repeating it at each row. Finally, a cleaner version results in this version with flags not used. That's all for now.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's lots of support for keeping the IATA/ICAO codes, that's fine with me. Keep in mind that for airport articles, those airline destination lists do not have IATA/ICAO codes for airlines. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The old listing didn't have code listings, but I see the point that airports may have changed names a couple times over the history. Maybe IATA codes are needed if there are more than one airports in a city. Finally, if state/province is optional, and it's absolutely meaningless to sort them, why don't we combined into the country field? We can have United States (California) as the country, then we can sort that way. It's not like we can sort the country then city anyway. Moreover, combining province/state into country will make empty province/state fields less ugly. HkCaGu (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Jetstreamer on keeping the airport codes. I'm not sure row-spanning can be done in sortable tables. Roger (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a few comments. Not sure about codes they dont really add anything to the table so I would leave them out and if there is a conflict in names they can be added at the end of the airport name Foo Airport (FOO) rather than make a wider table (need to make sure it fits on mobile device screens). I think start dates should be included, at the year as it makes it more encyclopedic and less travel guide. Not sure about State/Province as most countries dont have such division or they are not important except to Americans!. Perhaps if we had a domestic and international tables then a variant with State/province can be used in the domestic variant. That said a good effort by Compdude the table looks good and clean (without the flags and codes!) and could probably be used without any changes. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't need codes, they add column width without much addition of information (the codes are given under the linked airport), and airports in the same city have different names - Croydon Airport, Northolt Aerodrome, London Heathrow Airport, (London) Gatwick Airport, London Stansted Airport London City Airport. Spell out dates in full. Province/State are not much use in smaller countries, but I can see how they are commonly in use for US and Canada. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't need any state/province for BA's destinations, as they serve only major cities in US/Canada/China and countries in Europe are small enough. However, for UA/AA/DL you want to be flexible--sortable by state for the US but not obligating state/province outside the US. The best way is to merge state/province into country--e.g. United States (California) or United States − California.
Someone needs to look at LAN Airlines destinations and i believe that there is minor clean up that needs to be done: aircraft type needs to go away and does not appear to be encyclopedic. It is in the table format but it is difficult to read. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Minus the aircraft and regions/continents, this is the best table format in my opinion, I have always preferred it to the other types but as a single undivided list, terminated destinations can also be included in this. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer United States - California. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
For carriers like AA or Delta, the state/province field should perhaps be separated from country. But I'm worried that state/province isn't generic enough. You wouldn't call England and Scotland, or French regions, as states or provinces. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For state and province, I say only include them if the airline serves destinations primarily in the US, Canada or Mexico, and even Australia as those are the only countries that really have states/ provinces. And I should mention Brazil too. If an airline primarily serves other countries that don't have states/ provinces, we can omit that column. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I knew I'd be forgetting some countries; in fact a lot more countries have states/ provinces than most people realize. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that perhaps we should include states/provinces for all countries considering this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, please. We should judge the relevance based on each airline--just like the table format in the old days! Do you really want to see "China - Shanghai | Shanghai" on non-Chinese carriers? On the other extreme, we don't want to see only "United States" with no state and 200 US cities on an American carrier. 06:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to omit the IATA and ICAO airport codes as they provide mostly redundant information that can be easily found elsewhere on Wikipedia and many other web sites. I think North American and Australia-based airlines need the state/province column, but other airlines where it doesn't make sense can exclude it on a case-by-case basis. The color coded backgrounds looks a bit strange being only in the airport column. Is there any reason not expand the colored backgrounds to color the full table rows to which they apply? Start and end dates are a great ideal to have and for new airlines where we can source full data we should include them, but for long-established carriers where we can't get dates, the columns could be omitted, possibly with a separate table for terminated destinations. Partial information (such as just a year) might be easier to obtain and I think it would be sufficient. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Full coloured rows look really cheap except for in terminated destinations case. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that it might be hard to find start and end dates for some airlines, and we could just list years too if that's all that's available. In lieu of start and end dates, terminated destinations should be marked as gray with a little [T] in the airport column. And I don't see anything wrong with putting them in the same table as current destinations. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, current as well as terminated destinations should be placed in the same table. From an encyclopedic standpoint, there's no reason to give terminated destinations a lower status by putting them into a separate table.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have any more comments on this? I would particularly like your views on removing flags, as well as a different way of listing states/ provinces. Please comment in the relevant sections below. Thanks, Compdude123 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag removal: A very important change that nobody has said anything about...

What do you all think about removing flags? Since nobody has really commented on this, I don't know if there's really unanimous agreement or what, so please tell me what you think. And consider MOS:FLAGS. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS is clear about the issue. We would need an extraordinarily strong argument to override the MOS on this issue (we don't even have a weak argument to do so) so the flags must go. Unless someone can actually come up with a convincing case for overthrowing the MOS, there really isn't anything to discuss. Roger (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Flags may go, but please bear in mind that they are another tool to identify a country in lists as they are unique for each one, just the way IATA and ICAO codes identify airports. We may even use {{flagicon|BOL}}, producing Bolivia, instead of {{BOL}}, which gives  Bolivia, and there's no doubt the country we're referring to in either way. A slight disadvantage: I'm not sure if flags alone (i.e. the first case here) can be sorted.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The way I understand the reasoning behind the guideline in MOSFLAG: Using {{flagicon|BOL}} is just about useless as I'm pretty sure the vast majority of our readers are incapable of recognising the majority of the world's national flags. That makes {{BOL}} the only viable flag template but as it contains the (wikilinked) name of the country anyway it effectively renders the flag image redundant as mere "decoration" for the written name. (Short version: Most people don't know most of the world's flags so just write the country's name.) Roger (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
{{flagicon|BOL}} could be used so as to get, e.g. Bolivia Santa Cruz de la Sierra, avoiding the use of the country column. Are we really interested in providing the countries served? Cities served are the key point here, not countries. It'd look like this.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I like your new destinations list but I would still like to be able to choose whether I can sort between city and country which I can't do in your version of the table. Perhaps we could have another column just for flags (as seen here) but I think that defeats the purpose of getting rid of the country column. Personally, I like to see the destination list sorted by country rather than city. It just makes more sense. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should keep the country column, and get rid of the flags. If we get rid of the country column, and we say an airline flies to "San Jose", does that mean San Jose, California or San José, Costa Rica or maybe even San José del Cabo in Mexico? American Airlines flies to all three. Plus, the ability to sort by country allows readers to do things like find out what destinations in a country an airline serves. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Hawaiian717 here too. Destination lists, when sorted by country rather than city, look much more orderly and organized. Personally, whenever I view a destination list sorted by city, the first thing I do is change the sorting to country. Who cares about how many "San Jose"-named cities an airline flies to? Most ppl would want to know how many cities within a particular country served by one airline. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a template like {{Dts}} that would sort by country, city and only display the city? Seems like a handy tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(undent) +1 to removing flags. They're useless decorative cruft. Jpatokal (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How to list states and provinces?

Same feeling for the non-necessity for the code, but let me state it stronger: NO PROVINCE/STATE COLUMN. INCLUDE IN COUNTRY FIELD AS NECESSARY. How many times do you want to see "Hong Kong" or "Singapore" on the same line in UA's destination table? Or is "New Territories" or "Island District" relevant? May I suggest a field named "Country - Region" (or only "Country" as appropriate), and a policy which states "include state/province/region if the airline serves a significant number of destinations in that country, and that country is large enough for such subdivision to be relevant." HkCaGu (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
@HkCaGu, I like your idea of listing state/province in the came column as country and in parentheses. This will eliminate the empty state/province column for countries that don't have states and provinces. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Should "City" be replaced by "Metro"? Many airports are not located within the administrative limits of the "cities", for example, Tokyo's Narita and London's Stansted. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, "City" is the standard term used in the industry. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
IMO many Wikipedia readers aren't people in the industry. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Most cities are not part of a Metropolis but all Metropolises consist of cities. Roger (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Who else agrees with HkCaGu's ideas about state's and provinces? To sum it up, he is proposing to put the state in parentheses right next to country, ex. United States (California), and to only put them in where the airline serves a significant amount of destinations in a particular country which happens to have states and provinces. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with HkGaCu's suggestion. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
What about a hyphen instead of a pair of round brackets? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right, maybe using a hyphen such as United States – California would be better. —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 06:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cargo and scheduled-chartered destinations

What about "Cargo-only" and "Scheduled-chartered"? 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cargo-only ought to either be color coded or maintained in a separate table. I'm not sure that a scheduled charter passenger service needs distinction from a regularly scheduled service. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, cargo destinations should be in a separate table. This will allow adding terminated cargo-only destinations. And also, if an airline has a regional affiliate(s) or other subsidiary airlines, DO NOT put them in the same table as the own airline's destinations. Put them in their own destinations article, please. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The two featured lists mentioned above don't have any separate table. Cargo-only and scheduled-chartered destinations are colour-coded though. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because the featured lists do it a certain way doesn't mean all destination lists should follow suit. The featured-list stamp of approval was given by just one editor and one editor's stamp of approval on one article ought not to influence our consensus. The featured lists are totally out of the equation here; forget they even exist. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Cargo only destinations should be part of main single list of passenger destinations not seprate, the idea is not to have more tables, or create a seprate article for the cargo division, MASkargo, Air China Cargo, Singapore Airliners Cargo, Air india Cargo, LAN Cargo, Emirates SkyCargo, Lufthansa Cargo are all seprate articles. 116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Origins/destinations

What about an extra column for origins/destinations?

Country Subdivision Metro Airport Begin End Origins/Destinations Refs
Canada Ontario Toronto Pearson Airport Jun 23, 2010 Apr 6, 2011 Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York-JFK
Mexico Baja California Sur Los Cabos Los Cabos Airport Dec 16, 2010 present Chicago-O'Hare, Las Vegas
Mexico Quintana Roo Cancún Cancún Airport[S] Jan 19, 2011 present Chicago-O'Hare, New York-JFK, Philadelphia, San Francisco
Mexico Jalisco Puerto Vallarta Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport Dec 2, 2011 present New York-JFK
etc.

116.49.130.45 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It will be difficult for defunct airlines to establish the origin of destinations unless you have access to their timetables.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We already do this on the airport article destination lists; adding it here just creates another duplicate place to maintain the same information. I'm going to invoke WP:NOTTRAVEL and recommend against this. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hawaiian717 here entirely. —Compdude123 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This will be useful for readers to identify carriers with extensive fifth freedom rights. For instance, Air New Zealand serves Hong Kong with both Auckland and London, and Emirates serves Brisbane with both Auckland and Dubai. Delta, formerly NWA, has extensive coverage of Asian destinations from Tokyo-Narita. It will also be useful to identify carriers with seventh or eighth freedom rights. 116.49.130.45 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Not needed as per Hawaiian 717 MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Then how can readers identify carriers with extensive fifth freedom rights that serve many pairs of origins/destinations outside of their country of origin? 116.49.130.45 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
By starting an article that covers that topic. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Or just mention it as prose in the destinations list article. That's the best way to explain that a particular airline with extensive 5th freedom flights. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

oh! another destinations list discussion, incase anyone is wonderingt IP 116.49 is not me, this is some one new here, I guess I will have to start using my username now.116.71.25.63 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, don't use "Metro" as a heading, rather use "City" because most cities are not part of a metropolis, but all metros contain cities. Roger (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose changes to project guidelines

Ok, so since there hasn't been any comments on this post in at least a week, I am going to propose changes to project guidelines and add info as well as an example of how the new format should be formatted. Please disregard my original example above; this will be the new example/format that we will be agreeing on.

All the guidelines for the bulleted list format would remain the same of course, but we would essentially create guidelines for the table format, whose use is increasing.

Everything that is indented below is the text that would be added to the project guidelines page:

It is your choice to use the word based format or the table based format, but many members of this project would recommend using the table-based format because it is used in two featured lists, List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations.

  • In accordance with MOS:FLAGS do not add country flags to the table based format because airports do not really represent a particular country, which is required for flags to be added.
  • Destination lists should always be sorted by country, not by city. They should also have the ability to be sorted by the reader.
  • States and provinces should be added in parentheses in the country column. Not every country has states and provinces so do not create a separate column for these as it may be blank in many cases.
  • If colors are used to identify certain destinations as hubs, focus cities, etc., they should be accompanied with a letter or symbol key as seen in the table below. In accordance with WP:COLOR, color alone should not be the only means of conveying information.
  • Destination lists should always include some general info about the airline in addition to the list of destinations. It should include a short description (1–2 paragraphs) with general info about the airline such as a little history of the airline and how its destinations have changed over the years.
  • Information about routing and cities served from a particular destination should not be included (Wikipedia is not a travel guide), unless a certain route is particularly notable.
  • Do not add IATA/ICAO airport codes as these are not widely used outside the aviation industry and can be easily found by clicking on the link to the airport's article.
  • Adding start/end dates is strongly encouraged but in many cases the information may not be available. In that case terminated destinations should be marked in gray to identify them. Edit by Compdude123 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC): Adding start/end dates is strongly encouraged but in many cases the information may be unavailable or hard to find. Even if the information on start/end dates is unavailable, terminated destinations should still be present in the table. And they should be marked with a gray background color in order to differentiate from destinations currently served by the airline.
  • And of course, destinations should always be suitably referenced by adding a ref to the "Ref" column in the table. Ideally, all rows of the ref column should be filled with refs.

As of January 2011, Foo Airlines [this should be linked to the airline article and in bold] flies to the following destinations:

Hub Hub
F Focus city
[S] Seasonal
[F] Future
[T] Terminated destination*

*Terminated destinations should only be marked when there are no start and end dates, which is not the case for this table.

Country (State/Province) City Airport Begin End Refs
Canada (Ontario) Toronto Pearson Airport Jun 23, 2010 Apr 6, 2011
Mexico (Baja California Sur) Los Cabos Los Cabos Airport Dec 16, 2010 present
Mexico (Jalisco) Puerto Vallarta Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport Dec 2, 2011 present
Mexico (Quintana Roo) Cancún Cancún Airport[S] Jan 19, 2011 present
United States (California) Los Angeles Los Angeles AirportF Aug 8, 2007 present
United States (California) Palm Springs Palm Springs Airport Dec 15, 2011 present
United States (California) Orange County John Wayne Airport Apr 29, 2009 May 26, 2010
United States (California) San Diego San Diego Airport Feb 12, 2008 present
United States (California) San Francisco San Francisco AirportHub Aug 8, 2007 present
United States (Florida) Fort Lauderdale Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood Airport Nov 18, 2009 present
United States (Florida) Orlando Orlando Airport Oct 6, 2010 present
United States (Illinois) Chicago O'Hare Airport May 25, 2011 present
United States (Massachusetts) Boston Logan Airport Feb 12, 2009 present
United States (Nevada) Las Vegas McCarran Airport Oct 10, 2007 present
United States (New York) New York John F. Kennedy Airport Aug 8, 2007 present
United States (Pennsylvania) Philadelphia Philadelphia International Airport[F] Apr 4, 2012 -
United States (Texas) Dallas Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Dec 1, 2010 present
United States (Washington) Seattle Seattle–Tacoma Airport Mar 18, 2008 present
United States (District of Columbia) Washington Dulles Airport Sep 26, 2007 present

Please comment on these changes below. I know it's a lot of new changes but we are basically starting from a blank slate because there aren't really any guidelines on how to correctly format a destination list as a table in the project guidelines. Thanks, Compdude123 21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the proposal my only comment is the use of "present" which is not really an encyclopedic term. But if a better phrase cant be found I would still support the proposal. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Everything it's ok for me, except for the inclusion of start and end dates. As I read the proposal, if start/end dates are unavailable the destination should be regarded as terminated. What if a destination is currently served but start dates are hard to get? What if a destination is terminated, but end dates are unavailable? I don't think including such columns is a good idea at all.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, I didn't mean to say that if start/end dates were unavailable, the destination should be regarded as terminated. I will clarify this. I still think these columns should be included because they make the table more encyclopedic and such. And in response to MilborneOne, maybe using an emdash (like this: —) for currently served destinations would be better than saying "present." —Compdude123 22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
In order to standardise table-formatted articles, {{Unknown}} might be used when the dates are unavailable. I've been frequently using this template, e.g. Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have changed it to read Adding start/end dates is strongly encouraged but in many cases the information may be unavailable or hard to find. Even if the information on start/end dates is unavailable, terminated destinations should still be present in the table. And they should be marked with a gray background color in order to differentiate from destinations currently served by the airline. Does this sound better? —Compdude123 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You have my go regarding this matter.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This guidelines must meet our Manual of Style, and I see some nonconformity at first sight. "1-2 paragraphs" should be "1–2 paragraphs" (endash, not hyphen, for ranges). The MOS does not allow boldface to be linked, and boldface should only be at first occurrence in the lead. I'm not quite sure where the sentence starting with "As of January 2011..." it supposed to be (the lead or ahead of the table), but in the first case, starting an article with "as of" is not particularly good and in the latter case there is the boldface issue. Dates, also in tables, should not be abbreviated (again, per MOS and FLC). The preferred way of creating dates in a sortable table is with {{dts|format=dmy|1942|06|15}} (where of course the format=dmy is optional, this would depend on the variety of English chosen for the article). It is correct that blank table cells should be filled with a placeholder, but this should be an emdash (—), not a hyphen (-). Under the header for the first column, both "state" and "province" are capitalized, which is incorrect. The one issue I am uncertain about at FLC would be the inclusion of state/provinces in a separate column, I have never seen it be attempted, but I would tend to guess it would be frowned upon, but who knows. Refs should always be center-aligned, this should perhaps be explicitly mentioned. There is also one instance where a ref column is not needed, and that is where the entire table can be deducted from a single source. I have a book about Linjeflyg, and it contains the entire table's information on two pages, which would then not have to be in each row. In general at FLC (and I'm a bit uncertain of the actual rule) present is replaced with an emdash, and 'unknown' would be used for those instances. To me it seems odd that the country is listed before the city, and I would definitely defaultsort the list by city, not country. I would recommended that a note be placed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates in hope of getting a few regulars over to look through the proposal, as list layout expertise is needed to optimize such a guideline. If we're not careful, we risk creating a non-optimal guideline which could force sub-optimal solutions. Arsenikk (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Destinations are sorted by country in list-formatted articles, not by city.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
While it's important that this format meets the MOS policy, it's just as important if not more important that users of the Airlines WikiProject agree with it. It's all about having consensus from other users, and these proposed guidelines have been influenced by what other editors here think, not what the Manual of Style thinks. The reason why I have the country and state/ province in one column was because it was suggested by User:HkCaGu in the above sections. This also avoids having a blank state/province column for many countries. Take a look at American Airlines destinations; do you think it's better to have an empty state/province column? It just looks weird. I think it's pointless to mention that refs should be centered as most of us could care less about that, and it's one more place that we have to type align=center. But I do agree with using an emdash instead of "Present" in the end column, but I must say that the FL-status List of Dragonair destinations (which you reviewed) says "present" in the end column. And to me, it seems odd that you think that it seems odd that the country is listed before the city; I would definitely default-sort the list by country, not city. It just looks more organized that way. And what do you think about having flags? My interpretation of MOS:FLAGS is that flags would be discouraged, besides, they're really just unnecessary decorations. —Compdude123 03:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone realise what a chore its going to be to redo the lists if a new style is approved, I feel sorry for Jetstreamer who spent so much time making text lists into table even though wiki allowed both to exist, if text format is restored one can go back to older edits and copy / paste the list and add missing destinations, remove suspended ones, thats all, not that I'm saying it should be restored. 119.155.39.105 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't cry for me, because the tables I made will require slight modifications, should the new guidelines get approved. I do not feel I wasted my time. As I told everyone, I'm here to improve Wikipedia. Tables for destination is but a small part of my work here. BTW, I've just implemented this new updated version here. I didn't include columns for start/end dates (they are easy to add, anyway), and flags are certainly gone. How does it look like?--Jetstreamer Talk 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not looking good with all that empty space for Peru, also I feel there is no need for tables in main airline article destinations section. inspector (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, all that empty space for Peru looks a little weird. And the fact that you don't like tables in main articles doesn't make sense to me. How is that any different from having destinations listed out in a bulleted list? And yes, it is going to be quite a chore to change all the tables into this format but it's not absolutely necessary to do this right away. —Compdude123 23:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with some problems

  • Example is need two new columns show the checkbox for "nonstop" and the checkbox for "direct". Maybe some airline have both service, so need to checked both of checkboxes.
  • Does start date for seasonal means first start date (maybe ten years ago) or means start date of resuming the service?
  • What color to use for secondary hub?
  • What color to dealt with fake hubs (example: Delta/CDG)?
  • How to dealt with territories?
    • Example 1: Gibraltar and Bermuda is own country or United Kingdom?
    • Example 2: American Samoa is own country or United States?

If above problems are not going to fixed, then I dislikes proposal. --B767-500 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My replies to your points: 1) No, the nonstop/ direct info is not needed because we are not listing actual routes here; 2) Start date for seasonal destinations means exactly the same thing as start dates for regularly served destinations; 3) I don't care what color you use for the secondary hub, just pick one (in fact, you don't even need to use colors if you don't want to); 4) Fake hubs? Are you serious? And 5) Gibraltar, Bermuda, and American Samoa should all be listed as if they were separate countries. —Compdude123 05:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
So, regarding to (1), you have different proposal for Airport article [Airline and Destinations] section. Regarding to (2), you did not answer question. For seasonal service, does start/end date changes every season. Regarding to (4), Delta's code share hub (CDG) is serious problem and false advertisement and need to fix it.--B767-500 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, for (1) this is for airlines, not airports. (2) I did answer your question, and start/end dates for seasonal service would not change each season. (4) If you find a reliable source claiming that CDG is a hub for DL, then it is a hub. Otherwise it is not. —Compdude123 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for current table style lists

Colour keyed headers look really tacky in some cases, it would be better to have a single appropriate neutral colour for all table headers for all airlines be it destinations, fleet, performance, graphs etc. I vouch for dark grey. 119.155.39.105 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been a discussion (now archived) regarding this matter, and the use of different colours for different airlines has been accepted.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thats bad, Alitalia and Sudan Airways look so cheap, the navy blue one is probably the best looking, used by Air France, Iraqi Airways, Lufthansa and some others. inspector (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Colour should only be used where it aids understanding imho. And doesn't impair reading. I'll also add that this an encyclopedia not a travel agent brouchure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with GraemeLeggett here; we don't really need color here. While I did include color in the example above, I really don't care if it actually gets used or not. —Compdude123 23:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
What if a airport serves a region, or suffers from low-cost airline advertising (eg as in this Parisian airport). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Not being familiar with French geography, it looks like this is listed under the largest nearby city in the current destination lists. So does your example support city being indicated as largest nearby city or some such language? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we just get rid of tables and go back to text lists, I have actually startded despising them. 116.71.27.141 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That's removal of contents, and can be considered vandalism.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Going back to the list format, unfortunately, is not really an option anymore. I'm convinced that the table format, despite its flaws, which we are trying to improve by getting consensus from other users, is going to be here to stay. What we are trying to do is improve the table format rather than obliterate it entirely. Once we've got a stable table format, we can focus on making improvements to Wikipedia. That is why I want as many comments from as many people as possible so that we can get a consensus and spend more time on more important matters like promoting the very first airline article to FA-class. —Compdude123 04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus??

I would really like additional comments so that it's crystal-clear to me whether or not you support this. I would want to say that we do have consensus due to the lack of recent comments but I would rather not have people complain about "not having consensus." So please tell me whether you like this version, and then I'll update the project guidelines accordingly. Thanks, Compdude123 04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You got my backing, with the observations I made above.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind it actually, I don't have much time to be on as much anymore, but I would recommend something about encourage start and end dates out of meeting verification. But I do see you got using a "symbol" covered with the color if start and end dates cannot be provided for specific Airline destinations. Sb617 (Talk) 09:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Much prefer the American Airlines list format minus codes and state columns. 119.155.43.13 (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I will delete those once we get consensus. In reply to sb617, what do you mean by "but I would recommend something about encourage start and end dates out of meeting verification"? Doesn't make the most sense to me. —Compdude123 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Inspired by the AA list I had made something similar for Pakistan International Airlines destinations why cant this simple format be adopted for all? 116.71.28.196 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's fine, but lacks complement symbols for color codes, as suggested in WP:COLOR.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
And then there's the empty state/ province column, which just looks weird. I don't quite get why you put it in when you mentioned above that you "Much prefer the American Airlines list format minus codes and state columns." And you also have many blank spots in the country column, which looks a bit weird, and it may not be completely obvious to readers why it's blank. —Compdude123 21:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I made it around the time you did the AA one therefore the province column, maybe it can be applicable where valid, meaning for the specific country's airlines so people with knowledge of those places can add their respective provinces, regions, prefectures and states like USA, Canada, Brazil, India, China, Japan and others, as for the empty cells they can be filled in with a n&dash or whatever that is, though I prefer them empty, looks pleasent, complement symbols can be added, I just prefer the cleaner theme so left it without those. 116.71.14.186 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have consensus here. I will update the project guidelines. Thanks, Compdude123 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to add to the discussion, but with my limited time I'd rather focus on airports than airlines. One thing that discourages my participation here is the complication of table formatting. I know the good old days of text and bullets are gone, and I appreciate WP:AIRPORT's linking airports and its effect of discouraging vandals. But here at WP:AIRLINE, color formatting makes it just beyond my willingness to participate. If we can just have one table for current destinations and another for terminated, I can handle that. I don't know who else is in my situation, but airline destinations are so dynamic that we do not want to discourage participation by making things "look" too good. What's the point of getting featured and recognized but un-maintainable? HkCaGu (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe we should create a template for airline destination lists (similar to the one used in airport articles) but that is beyond my expertise, and it will probably involve a whole new discussion about how to go about it. —Compdude123 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with HkCaGu that terminated destinations should be in a separate table. Current tables are very confusing, in my opinion. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I assumed consensus too soon, so I'm glad I didn't start changing airline destination lists. But I see nothing wrong with having terminated destinations in the same table as the current destinations. After all, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so people should go look at the airline's website if you just want to see a list of their current destinations. —Compdude123 05:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that with sortable tables, you can sort by the End date and that will sort all the terminated destinations to the start or end of the table. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I like your table Compdude123. I'm all for it. Kairportflier (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But what is the justification for including terminated destinations in the same table as the current ones? Using the transportation featured list of former and unopened London Underground stations, the article is divided into two lists, instead of combining into one confusing list. Similarly, List of London Underground stations is also divided into two lists - current and future. This article is also featured. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The longer a busy airport has been in operation, the more likely it is to have terminated destinations. The longer it has been in operation the longer the list of terminated destinations. If you host an airline like Allegiant Air, you can have the terminated destination of the week! So for these airports, a combined list would not offer much value and would probably be a negative. There are ways for the user to select active, terminated or both if we want to build the list in two parts that can be selectively displayed. Going that direction would also move the constant updates for destination changes from the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If we were to remove terminated destinations and put them in a separate table or just list them do we now have a consensus, this discussion is getting quiet. Kairportflier (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well if we did that, we would get lots of complaining and (hopefully not) edit warring by those of us, including me, who want to keep terminated destinations in the same part of the table. We really need to come to an agreement so that we can finally get an acceptable table format that is pleasing to all. —Compdude123 17:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, both terminated and current destinations have the same status regarding the information they provide, and therefore there's no problem in being included in the same table.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That is just your interpretation of that policy. No where on WP:NOTTRAVEL does it mention anything about airline destinations. That policy is more in regards to attraction phone numbers and irrelevant hotels and restaurants. If we were to follow your logic, then every airport article should list every destination served (former or current) because removing terminated destinations would violate your interpretation of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
We're not talking about airports destination lists; we're really talking about airline destination lists. Don't get those confused because they are two different topics. —Compdude123 21:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
And we're not talking about removing terminated destinations either; we're talking about whether they should be put in the same table/section as the current destinations. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with combining the current and terminated destinations. As long as they are marked as such, it's fine with me. BTW the reason why airport articles don't list terminated routes is because then it would be way too long. —Compdude123 21:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It is one thing to say "I see nothing wrong with it" and another to back your opinion up with reason. To back up my opinion, Wikipedia advises against lengthy tables. Per WP:LENGTH "a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope" and "if there is no 'natural' way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact". In my opinion, splitting airline destinations between former and current is a natural and logical way to not violate WP:LENGTH.Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The purpose and scope of "XXX destinations" is to show the cities served by any airline, irrespective of these destinations being terminated or current. Following your reasoning and for the sake of simplicity, a more radical solution would be splitting "XXX destinations" in two different articles: "XXX current destinations" and "XXX terminated destinations". That's a simpler solution than just separating a single article, i.e. a single table, in two. Is that what you prefer?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There would be no need for an edit war over a stupid argument, just split the table, one current table and one terminated table. This has been in discussion for a long time and is continuing for ridiculous reasons. Kairportflier (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Simplicity! What a simple concept! I will simply not touch a table which requires me to learn about color coding. Who knows who else is in the same boat as me. (This ain't an Olympic medal or whatever tables with mostly static contents. Things as dynamic as airline destinations should simply not be over-complicated in formatting. HkCaGu (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I really don't care either way whether or not we have colors in these tables or not. Heck, let's get rid of them; I don't care! As long as it is marked with text (i.e. Terminated, Seasonal, Hub, etc.) that's all that matters. —Compdude123 05:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, look at Cathay Pacific destinations, the colours make the table much more confusing to understand. Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Not saying that one table works, but colors without some other explanation might clash with the MOS. Having a separate table above the main table to explain the colors does not cut it for me. So maybe if you add a column for comments or status, you could have something that is better. But the colors seems more distracting there so I do question their worth. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know we need to have another indicator of certain destinations besides just color. I am all for your idea of having another column for type of destination, where we could indicate "Hub," "Seasonal," "Terminated," etc. And to those of you proponents of segregating terminated destinations from the current ones, consider this: We could make this "type" column sortable, so you could click on the sorting arrow to sort by that column. By having terminated destinations now separated with just one click, all your problems would now be solved! So what do you think of this proposal? —Compdude123 21:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In fact, there exists this template for that specific purpose.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

YESSS! Is everyone else happy? Kairportflier (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus for a single table. There are simply too many issues for larger airports. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That's because people haven't yet commented on my suggestion, like Thankyoubaby. Please see my previous comment and tell me what you think about my proposal. Thanks, Compdude123 17:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems okay with me. Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So tables with start and end dates can remain the same as my original proposal (except without the colors) but tables w/o start-end dates will change. Once I get a chance I'll make a little example table to put on the project guidelines page. I hope we are all happy with this new proposal so that we can finally have a clear format for tables so that we can move on to actually improving articles, which is what a WikiProject is all about. In fact I plan on starting an "article of the month," similar to what we got going at Wikiproject Aircraft. —Compdude123 04:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the project guidelines. Hopefully we are all happy! —Compdude123 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is creating articles based on AA format, they are still using the older table template with the flags and codes.118.103.232.213 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reformatted Royal Brunei Airlines destinations accordingly, and have also modified some tables included in airline articles, i.e. Somali Airlines and Faucett Perú. This takes time. Please be patient.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've nominated this article for deletion, as it contains no information at all, and therefore cannot be considered encyclopedic with all its sections empty. Please provide your thoughts at the nomination page. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Awards

On most low cost airlines pages, there is a section for awards. I could see 2 important awards, AQR and JD Power but do we really need to list all of them? I think for AirTran and Southwest put the AQR in history and for Alaska and JetBlue put JD power in history and just remove the rest. If there are a few other important ones like at Southwest being named one of the best places to work from Fortune they could be put in history. I say this all because for the most part this section on airlines pages is just a list of awards some of which are not important. Your comments are appreciated. Kairportflier (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they might be better off interspersed throughout the history section. Important ones like JD Power (which Alaska Airlines has won for the past five years) could be mentioned in the lead. —Compdude123 23:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge These Articles Together?

Hello. Do you think we need to merge some of these articles together as they seem to talk about the same thing in all of them:

JMC Air with Thomas Cook Airlines

Airtours International Airways with MyTravel Airways

Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree — They were different airlines so they should have different articles. —Compdude123 18:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
They should really be kept seperate as they were not exactly the same airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting new format for listing codeshare agreements

I noticed that an IP user, 39.210.57.151 has been changing the format for listing codeshare agreements in tables from the standard bulleted list to a table with one column listing the airline and the other listing the alliance they are part of. An example can be seen in this edit to Korean Air and other articles as well. Not that I have anything against it, but I just wanted to see what others thought. Personally, while I don't really mind the table, I don't see why having one is any better than having a simple bulleted list that is easier to maintain anyway. Thoughts? —Compdude123 22:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I recently reverted in Kenya Airways, where an editor put the ownership of the company into a table of just three rows. The editor in question, like many others, keeps transforming plain text into tables when there's no valid reason to do so. In the first place, tables span more space both in the actual version and in the HTML code (the one in KE's example certainly does). Furthermore, many articles are in desperate need of expansion of their History section, and little or no editors are taking care of it. I'd rather see editors searching for references and expanding, rather than “tidying-up” articles this way. On the contrary, tables for destinations are worth the effort, since they provide many information in a condensed way. The KE's codeshare table has only two columns!--Jetstreamer Talk 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it's pointless to have a table with only two columns, but I didn't want to revert it because I didn't want to "bite the newcomers." But I agree that that user would have made better use of their time expanding the history section or improving articles. Speaking of which, help would be appreciated with Southwest Airlines, which is my "Article of the Month." I haven't had much of a chance to work on it yet (though I hope to do more soon) because I am currently working on implementing Jetstreamer's suggestions for the GA review and looking forward to additional suggestions for the rest of the article. (hint hint) —Compdude123 04:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Korean Air doesnt really need a table for what is a simple list. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Destinations lists only have one useful column - the destination. Terminated destinations are very unclear in table format. I think tables are greatly misused in that case, and the table uses at least 1000% more characters in edit section than the list. Certainly code-shares don't need tables either. Speed74 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

History of Cubana de Aviación

The article needs immediate attention regarding the lack of sources: it is virtually containing no references, and the few already there are unsourced notes placed at the bottom. Additionally, the IP user that has recently been editing the page is continuously adding unsourced stuff, like a minor incident where an aircraft was damaged by a catering truck at MIA. I opt for protection. Any thoughts?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

London-Heathrow and Frankfurt as United hubs

As this source here http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx and the United page, United claims that LHR and FRA operate hubs at those airport whereas the only destinations served nonstop from those 2 cities are to the other UA hubs (ORD, LAX, SFO, IAH, and EWR) and that page also lists Star Alliance carriers that claim to have hubs at the airports when in reality they do not. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The source says "United Hubs and Key Airports" which means we have no obligation to label the whole list "hubs". HkCaGu (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Does Saudi Airlines Cargo need a separate article?

The airlines cargo division was sold off/privatised two years ago, new owners changed the company name to Saudi Airlines Cargo from Saudi Arabian Airlines Cargo, however no alteration was made to title/livery on aircraft, even though title change did show up in a modified image of a 747 on their webpage but was later removed, webpage logo however reads new name Saudi Airlines Cargo, I doubt they will be rebranding as Saudia Cargo now since they are not linked with the state owned airline who have re-adopted the former title, so should cargo get a seprate article? 111.119.184.231 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment please. 118.103.225.233 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying promptly. Yes, Saudi Airlines Cargo can get a different article, if they are truly separated from the passenger airline. Do you have a source for this? —Compdude123 23:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is one from CAPA confirming it. 42.201.209.19 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be still using SV/SVA callsigns so it may not be that seperate from the parent airline. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You need a subscription to access that article.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
So if an airline uses same codes they are still associated with parent company? what about China Cargo Airlines,they have seprate codes but same livery as parent China Eastern Airlines. Also why does rivatised Singapore Airlines Cargo have a seprate article?118.103.237.35 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Airlines and destinations section at Frankfurt Airport

For wome weird reason, the airlines and destinations table on this page was collapsed. Is the list too long so it is collapsed but none of the other airport pages with the long table wasn't collasped. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't be, as per MOS:SCROLL. Undid the changes and warned the user.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Aerosvit Airlines

The article needs immediate development because of it's top importance: it is Europe's 2010-2011 fastest growing airline, experiencing troubles in very recent history. Non-English users participation is not critical since there's a lot of airline-related international info. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly good article. The main problem with it is that it's lacking references in the history section. Will try and find some if I get the chance. —Compdude123 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you in advance. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Central Eagle Aviation

I've removed the PROD tag from this article, and noted that fact on its talk page. I don't think it should be deleted, I think it has notability. If anyone can improve the article or has more resources to add to it, please let me know. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Eagle Aviation. YSSYguy (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of section at Frankfurt Airport

It's me again guys, sorry but I'm inspired today! Can you please drop your thoughts at this talk page? I propose there the removal of an entire unencyclopedic section. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Boeing 757

Greetings fellow members of the Airline WikiProject! The Featured Article candidacy for Boeing 757 is now open at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 757/archive1. Any input is welcome. Hopefully there are some airline project members who might wish to comment on this article about a widely-used airliner. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to contributors, review is closed and passed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Codeshare agreements: clarification needed

Hi there. I've seen edits like this one many times. Is it true that any airline alliance's member automatically codeshares all flights with the rest of the members in the same alliance just because of its membership? I'll appreciate if someone can clarify this point. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not true. You may recall last year a controversy briefly erupted when some people accused Delta of discriminating against Jews because they were going to codeshare on Saudi Arabian Airlines flights, claiming that that country does not allow people with Israeli passports or people with Israeli stamps in their passports to enter the country. Delta stated that while Saudi Arabian would be joining the SkyTeam alliance and would enter into a standard interline agreement with them, Delta would not codeshare on Saudi Arabian flights, nor offer reciprocal frequent flyer benefits: http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1400 -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

RAK Airways destinations

Reverted edits that all non-Middle East destinations are being dropped from 13 July, the airlines schedules show the destinations being served well beyond that date, but still clarification is needed. 111.119.188.134 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pure vandalism. Just check out the recent contributions made by the IP, like this one.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Airlines cargo divisions seprate articles

What is the criteria for an airlines cargo division to have a seprate article even if not independant/privatised, and what allows some articles to exist with minimal content i.e LAN Cargo, MASkargo while others cannot be made i.e Martinair Cargo when passenger division was still there yet cargo side served more destinations but still no article, yet others have been merged back into parent airline article i.e El Al Cargo with minimum content like LAN, MAS, Cathay Pacific Cargo with maximum content and a seprate destinations page too like Singapore Airlines Cargo. 111.119.188.134 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that it has to be an airline in its own right with a different ICAO Code to get an article.like Singapore Airlines Cargo is SQC rather than SIA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So there is no ruling regarding this by concensus, taking your point of view should the rest be merged back into parent airline articles? I think it makes more sense too, especially the ones with minimum content. 118.103.236.103 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

List of VIP airlines of Russia

Not sure what to make of List of VIP airlines of Russia but I dont really see the need for it, any notable airlines should already be listed in List of airlines of Russia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also from the same user List of small airlines and helicopter airlines of Russia MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The above was suggested at User talk:Alexzarach. I don't know whether to keep it or not, but it surely requires cleanup.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem, should you care, is that many so-called 'VIP' charter airlines only procure planes from other airlines so were worthy of mention (they had their own licenses, people who use them are for all intents and purposes flying on their planes) but not worthy of an article on each of them. And as I said below, although apparently unique to Russia, VIP airlines do exist and don't really fit into the general list of airlines (they are basically charter private jets for private individuals) Alexzarach (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this article is entirely necessary. The term "VIP airline" doesn't seem to be used that often; I'd never heard of it being used in this sense before now. I notified the article's creator about this discussion, inviting him to participate. —Compdude123 20:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
People were getting grumpy at the amount of airlines as they thought many were significant. I spent a day creating the small airlines page as requested by others then made a page on VIP airlines as there are so many and judging by the common view of the main airline list being of 'normal' passenger and cargo airlines, the VIP airlines did not really fit in there. You can undo my day's work with pleasure! Also, that term is used a lot on the websites of the airlines involved, it seems to be unique to Russia. On the 'small airlines' page (which was requested) there was a lot of data on those airlines but I still got told off for not finding enough detail. The airlines are apparently not notable enough for their own page but should still be on Wikipedia. If anyone can find a way to reduce the data on that page to stop each row being so tall then I'm listening, Alexzarach (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This new editor is trying to include airlines that would fail notability for separate articles. I am not aware that there is a notabiltiy requirement for inclusion in a list.!!Petebutt (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As for the other lists it would probably be best to merge!Petebutt (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Still of the opinion that one list of Russian airlines is all that is needed, the use of terms like "VIP airline" is not a well used phrase in English, They are either a licensed airline or they are not. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pan Am Clipper Connection

I just stumbled across {{Pan Am Clipper Connection}}. It has an interesting history. It was created in 2008 as a redirect to Boston-Maine Airways (yes, a redirect from Template to Article namespace). Then last month it was inexplicably repurposed into a template listing former "airline marketing brands" and those of us who have been here a while can probably guess the IP editor who did this. Some of what is in there now may be worthwhile as navboxes in their own right, but the current location is clearly wrong and the layout and wording is atrocious. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be put up for deletion, nothing in it has anything to do with Pan Am Clipper Connection as far as I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess the question is do we just delete and wipe our hands of this, or move it to a more appropriate template name and attempt to salvage it. My inclination is that it's not necessary to keep the original Template->Article namespace redirect. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't originally a Template, but a proper redirect; it only became a Template at the end of May this year, after someone moved it following the IP's edits. IMO the move needs to be undone and the redirect re-instated, the redirect itself is IMO entirely appropriate. YSSYguy (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I missed that in the edit history. You're right that it used to be in the article namespace. This particular IP editor has a habit of creating navboxes directly on article pages; at the same time I found this one, I came across and reverted the addition of a similar template to several articles. I've just reverted back to the original redirect, and removed instances of the template's use. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And that template was one that keeps getting inserted by a certain IP user into pages, often as a hand-made navbox with the code for the navbox in the article rather than the template. This navbox isn't necessary, and has been removed many times but nonetheless it keeps popping up on airline pages. —Compdude123 19:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

vandalism plus racial slur by editor

I turned the vandalised SpiceJet destinations back to wikipedia format for text style lists and issued notice to vandal in edit summary but he undid it plus added a racial slur in his summary, please take note, thanks. 111.119.187.211 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff showing the vandalism you are referring to?--Jetstreamer Talk 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This one is tricky to find since both editors are anonymous and their IP addresses have changed. The original editor that made the change and made the slur in the edit comment ("paki") has two different IPs, as does the editor who restored the previous version twice. This appears to be the original vandalism edit, and this is the one with the slur in the edit summary. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ABSA Cargo become sTAM Cargo

With this development does the article get changed to TAM Cargo, or does it go past tense here is first ABSA 767F painted into TAM Cargo livery [2] inspector (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Global Supply Systems

Do take a look at the article's talk page. Perhaps someone can shed some light into the subject. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Template design for list of airlines of a certain country

While looking through some Wikipedia pages, I came accross this template for List of airlines of Poland:

Should this become the default design of all Template:List of airlines of 'Insert country here'??

Comments welcome. Airlinesguy (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the most common design, most of the rest have seperate sections for cargo and defunct airlines as it is a lot clearer than using italics. Some countries have so many defunct airlines they are not included! MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne; a better design is to separate the current and defunct airlines into separate parts of the navbox, and in some cases (such as with US airlines) have different navboxes entirely for current and defunct airlines. —Compdude123 21:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the template got changed as was suggested by MilborneOne and I. —Compdude123 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

AirBaltic

Two seprate lists for current and former destinations have been created by another editor in violation of approved single table format. 221.120.249.110 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If it bothers you, you are welcome to be bold and fix it. You may want to explain the new format to this other user though. —Compdude123 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tailfins

Is there a reason why there are no tailfin designs as part of the airlines infobox? Could we add it, say, at the bottom of the infobox? Many designs are quite distinctive and different from their general airline logo. BigSteve (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason is simple: that is of no encyclopedic value.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
By that logic, half of Wikipedia is "of no encyclopedic value"... why do we need precise & detailed pictures of every sports team's home & away kit in the infobox, for example? It amounts to the same thing... Tailfins are important in recognizing an airline – in fact, it's an airline's most recognizable trait. BigSteve (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats an opinion not a fact. I have to agree with Jetstreamer, it has no value. Kairportflier (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no encyclopedic value, and they're not needed. Photos of the airline's aircraft serve the same purpose. —Compdude123 19:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow. You party-lovin' guys down here at the WikiProject Airlines! You just can't have too much fun, can you?
You know, I often see planes landing and taking off and all I can see is their tailfins. So...if I could go into Wikipedia and have a tailfin in the infobox, as well as a page called simply "Gallery of tailfins" in the same way as Gallery of country coats of arms, then that would be quite useful. In fact, you know what??? It might even be encyclopedic!
Actually, I think we should change most of the photos in the articles for b&w versions thereof because, let's face it, color just distracts the reader from the cold, hard facts. And that's what an encyclopedia is, after all, right? Facts. Figures. B&W text. Serious stuff. That's what learning's all about, right? Who ever learnt anything from a color drawing, right! Color drawings are for babies!
But seriously. Don't party too hard, will you? You might strain yourselves... BigSteve (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Random thought here. Could a photo of a tail fin closeup, such as File:Starr 080207-2256 Cynodon dactylon.jpg (the filename doesn't mean much to me, but its a Hawaiian 767), replace the use of airline logos in the info box? The logo images we have now are all being used under fair use claims, but tail photos could be obtained under free content licenses. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No reason why aircraft markings cant be discussed in the main part of the article and that would an appropriate place for the Hawaiin image, I dont think we need to add it to the infobox. It is not that notable to the airline (who would consider the whole aircraft scheme as part of there image). Nothing wrong with creating an article on tailfin art over the years but an image of every design used since 1919 is probably not encyclopedic. Just need to remember this is an encyclopedia and not an airline fan site. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My thought is that the tailfin photo would go in the infobox, replacing the logo graphic. The justification for the logo graphic is that the logo is used to help identify the airline. A photo of the tailfin could provide much the same purpose; many times the logo is incorporated into the tailfin. It wouldn't work in every case, especially regional airlines like Pinnacle Airlines that fly exclusively in the livery of their partner carriers, and in these cases, or other cases where the tail logo doesn't match well, we could continue the use the fair use logos. Really this was just a thought that popped into my head, with the added advantage that it could reduce the amount of fair use material used on Wikipedia. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I see your point about non-free, wild idea but why not just put an image of a whole aircraft in the infobox rather than the logo or just the tailfin. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Size mostly. Because airplanes are basically narrow tubes, to fit the whole aircraft, you'll end up with a fairly small overall graphic with a lot of the vertical space used by "background". Even if you crop it closely, you still end up with a long image that isn't very tall. A tail closeup better fills the rectangular area of the image, allowing more of the detail work to be seen. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that if you just show the tailfin, you're omitting a significant part of the airline's livery. The tail fin is really just a part of the livery, and to show the whole livery, you need to have a photo of a complete aircraft. And to replace the logo with tailfins is not an idea that I particularly like. Though many airlines have their tailfin shown in their logo, many do not; and to omit the logo would mean that you are missing part of the brand of the airline. The brand not only consists of the logo but also of the livery. —Compdude123 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Here's a thought - how's bout we make it a practice to add a good photo of a full airplane, tailfin visible, at the top of each infobox, just below the airline logo, as for example in the Hebrew Wikipedia - e.g. El Al, Pan Am. How bout it? BigSteve (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't see why not. I actually like having the logo and livery there. —Compdude123 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As long as the pictures under the logo can stay at a manageable size I like it! Kairportflier (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Airlines pages: Cabin

Is it really necessary to talk in 2 paragraph lengths about each cabin on airline pages such as at Delta Air Lines and United Airlines? If I were the reader personally I would get bored and leave. I can understand a sentence saying Economy Plus offers extra legroom and what ever else but paragraphs about each I think is ridiculous. Thanks for your responses! Kairportflier (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is no need for lengthy descriptions of each cabin class with info about each and every last detail. One to two sentences briefly describing each cabin class is enough. This section would be more encyclopedic if we had details about how an airline's cabin has changed over the years, and I think such details would be worth including. —Compdude123 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The changing cabin would be very interesting and should be included, but where can we get the references? Airlinesguy (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the art of editing Wikipedia!--Jetstreamer Talk 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that would be great Compdude123. Before adding such information though, if some users could go to Delta Air Lines and United Airlines and fix the cabin parts to just a few sentences each, I can't right now, Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I shortened Delta Air Lines#Cabin a bit. I'm more conservative with the chopping block than you are. —Compdude123 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thats great, as usual you did a great job Compdude123. Thank You! Kairportflier (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Austrian Airlines Group destinations

Can someone keep an eye on Austrian Airlines Group destinations? A new editor has started adding various unsourced destinations that I've been unable to verify. The first time he put in "starting 2013", and after I removed them, he's now readding some as if they are currently served. I can't revert again without running afoul of 3RR. Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I though we were not including destination and fleets in "Group" articles when they are already in the related airlines articles? MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Austrian Airlines is a little weird though. Apparently, all aircraft of Austrian Airlines are being operated by regional subsidiary Tyrolean Airways, even the long-haul aircraft. —Compdude123 22:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

I've nominated {{Ecuador airlines destinations}} for deletion. Please discuss at the template's nomination page. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What is with the Defunct Airlines WikiProject?

For a while now, I've noticed that the Defunct Airlines WikiProject has been inactive, and nothing has been posted on its talk page for a while. There are very few participants compared to this project, and it seems unlikely that it ever got off the ground in the first place. What should be done about it? Should we merge it with this project, or should we encourage greater participation in the project? I kind of think that it should be merged with this project but I am not sure. What are your thoughts? —Compdude123 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it basically a sub-project of the airlines project anyway? Seems to make sense to just merge it with this one; I doubt there are enough people who would only be interested in airlines that no longer operate to warrant having it as a separate project. Though I do appreciate the irony of the Defunct Airlines project being effectively defunct itself. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd encourage participation. I'm one of the editos involved with the project. It's natural to have lesser participation than the one this project has, simply because defunct airlines do not atract much attention (that is very fortunate, though, because those articles are virtually out of the target of vandals).--Jetstreamer Talk 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Practically it is a task force of this project, perhaps we need to tweak it to reflect that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that having it be a task force would attract greater attention to defunct airlines? Particularly if we advertised it more, that would help. I'm still thinking it should be merged with this project, though. —Compdude123 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
All activities related to Wikipedia are voluntary. A project cannot be closed down just because it lacks participation, i.e. few people is interested on it. That many of the participants listed as contributions are good editors is enough for me to keep the project alive.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Converting it to a Task Force under this project makes sense - it would also raise its profile. I've been watching this project for several years and this is the first time I discover that a defucnt airlines project even exists! If it became a task force of this project, the members of this project would inevitably become aware of it as posts/edits concerning it will start apearing on our watchlists. Roger (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Roger: you make a good point that most people might not know that the Defunct Airlines project exists. I must make an important point though: if we agree to make it a task force, we agree to be committed to working on articles in that task force. If we do decide to go ahead and make it a task force, how do we go about that? —Compdude123 21:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Converting existing projects to task forces has a section on changing a project to a task force. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Convert Defunct Airlines project to a task force – Input wanted

I've started a discussion regarding converting the Defunct airlines project into a task force. Visit this page for the discussion. —Compdude123 21:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the discussion to help get consensus. Thanks, Compdude123 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What moves have to be discussed here?

I (sorry, lost password for old account) did both moves in the same article. User:Abhishek191288 was clearly not acting rational by approving on the talk page of the first move I did and not reverting it, but reverting my second move (including a wrong claim I would have started the thread) claiming it would have to be discussed here. Either both moves were correct or both moves were incorrect. Can someone neutral who is capable of thinking rational have a look and either revert my Tata Airlined move or revert his reverts? Thanks in advance. Lumialover2 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is AirTran Airways written in past tense?

AirTran's call signs are still in active use. Same for ticketing, FF accounting, much of anything you call operations. Or should I just say AirTran is simply operating on its parent company's certificate. And as previously discussed here and over at WP:AIRPORT, AirTran is not even really "merging" in different steps; it's simply winding down. It makes no sense to say it "ceased operation". Moreover, making AirTran past tense obligates us to add FL/TRS/CITRUS into Southwest Airlines' infobox. Do we really want that stupidity? HkCaGu (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. Same sort of over-enthusiastic "Southwest fanboys" who tried to edit Boeing 717 to claim Southwest is a current operator of the type (before the Delta deal was announced). This "merger" is a bit backwards, most of the time the airlines combine to a single branding before merging certificates, but this time everything is on the Southwest certificate but the AirTran operations continue to be branded separately. AirTran should be written in the present tense. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
True. I think the 717s will always be branded as AirTran, and AirTran will continue to exist until the last 717 is handed over to Delta. —Compdude123 21:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the Southwest Airlines article list the 717 in its fleet table? The reason I'm asking is that it was just removed and I'm hesitant to revert. —Compdude123 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is to say no, but I could go either way. The argument for doing it is that those planes now operate under the Southwest Airlines certificate, even though they will never fly a Southwest Airlines flight. If we do include them, we should include a notation that they operate under the AirTran Airways brand, which I didn't see in the revision right before it was removed. But as the aircraft are already accounted for on the AirTran page and will be going directly from the AirTran operation to Delta, I don't see a long term historic value in including those aircraft as part of the Southwest fleet. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Listing 717s for SWA may serve a purpose of tracking their transfers. Regardless, the TRS article will need to be both frozen and fluid in terms of statistics as it winds down. HkCaGu (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not past tense anymore! Kairportflier (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Delivery of first Dreamliner to ET

Ethiopian Airlines is being the target of anxious editors that are including a Dreamliner as part of the fleet, when the airline is actually scheduled to take delivery of it in the next days. I'm over my WP:3RR. I'd appreciate if someone can take a look at the article. Full protection has been requested. You're also invited to place your comments here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. Protection request has been withdrawn.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ET to Malaysia

Go to amadeus.net and see when they are launching Kuala lumpur service, its exactly on 31 October, just becuase a ref cannot be attached does not mean that every bit of valid information should be deleted and lock articles, if I was tech savy i would have saved the info image from amadeus uploaded it at a hosting site and attached it to the ET list, if you can do that then please do so.. 119.154.188.238 (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:WAIT are the answers.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

List of airlines of India

Is Market share, profit/revenue by airline relevant to this article? — Abhishek  Talk 10:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, as long as it's properly sourced. Not sure about "market share" though, would you only count domestic flown passengers? Slasher-fun (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Market share is irrelevant. It looks like this info has been removed, though. —Compdude123 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really relevant to a list of airlines although it could be of interest in Transport in India or suchlike. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Number or views feature

Can this feature be added to wiki airline and other articles so we know how many people have viewed between edits. 59.103.203.193 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about; could you please elaborate? —Compdude123 04:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Every page already has a link under view history that shows the number of views, click on page view statistics. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why this attitude?

New destinations announced by airlines but with no date have been allowed to be posted as prose in the in airlines destinations lists, since they cannot be added in the list without a confirmed date, these destinations are announced both officially and unofficially as long is there is a valid reference attached confirming this, but Jetstreamer is deliberately removing such edits, whats the problem? I am posting it with in wiki rules and not flouting them. The date itself is confirmed at booking site amadeus.net as 31 October 2012. And I clearly stated in my edit the airlien "PLANS" to launch, not ARE launching, while the reference article clearly states from November. inspector (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Booking sites are difficult to verify. Typically if an airline is adding a new route there is some publicity around it, so a news article or press release can often be found and used. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
KUL not yet included in ET's booking engine.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The news ref was added, thats why I'm astonished it was removed, such information has always been allowed to be posted as prose, I'm seeing an attitude of "1'm maintaining this article, so I own it" in many such that the said editor has been tending too since some time. As for ET not listing it in their schedules maybe they're not that efficient an airline at updating info.inspector (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
But that reference did not state that the airline will launch flights on 31 October 2012. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not the point, as prose and with the word PLAN used, a destination can be added to the artice l(not to the destination main list though) with tentative date in form of month or year if not day if available in the reference article, vague would be if no day or month or year would be provided, editors have allowed to do this in the recent past when issue was raised, infact they suggested adding such info in prose. I have been editing ET and other airlines articles since 2006, infact the ET one I must have edited atlease fifty times or more under username and IP addresses, there were no interventions till Jetstreamer decided to convert these from text to table format about two years ago, prior to that I dont even recall seeing him in any airline articles, since then he has taken up ownership of them, I too have have converted a dozen or so articles in the same way but I have not taken up ownership of any nor have them on my watch list. inspector (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are the approvals in case of JAL destinations.
  • Just mention it as prose in the destinations article that the airline plans to be launching said destinations soon, but hasn't decided on a firm date yet. Don't put it into the table till there's a firm date. —Compdude123 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

SNOOZLEPET your comment is strange considering you said this:

  • Mention those only in prose but don't put it into the table/list until a firm date is given. I have made hidden notes for those as well at the JAL destinations page and JAL flights to NRT have already been mentioned in prose at the San Diego International Airport as well as hidden notes have been made there as well as at Helsinki Airport. Can anybody make an edit notice saying that do not add destinations until firm start dates are given? Snoozlepet (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

and one from JETSTREAMER himself;

  • I don't see any problems with mentioning the launching of future destinations in prose.......--Jetstreamer Talk 10:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The last comment can only be suggesting approval for unfixed dates, Now what do you say? inspector (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding the new destination is important to you, isn't it? I'd just wait, but you can go and add KUL as a future destination in ET's table, but please change your reference for the one that appears at Bole International Airport. It's not an official one, but I'll replace it once the airline releases a press communication.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes its VERY important and I find it very annoying when double standards are practiced in editing as seen above. inspector (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We should be following the rule that is, we don't add destinations until there is an OFFICIAL press release with destination(s) AND dates or until the flights go for sale. Do not add if there are rumors or unofficial reports, etc... Also none of the begins September 30 pending gov approval etc... NO, if its not approved don't add it. Just my input. Kairportflier (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, there is a press release from Ethiopian Airlines announcing its flight to Kuala Lumpur. http://www.ethiopianairlines.com/en/news/pressreleases.aspx?hl= 336. I have updated Ethiopian Airlines destinations, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Suvarnabhumi Airport, and Bole International Airport pages with the official press release from the airline. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to wait till the flight can be booked before adding it. It minimizes these silly disputes of editor A jumping the gun and editor B reverting, and then editor A making a big fuss over it. It's always better to wait. —Compdude123 21:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Images at Flag carrier

User:Camilo Sanchez intends to include images for each airline in the list. I'd like to get some feedback regarding the proposal. I'm against it, because images are already included at each airline's article. Furthermore, I recently removed a column including information that was not that important and not considered encyclopedic, and I believe that plain images will again add no encyclopedic content to the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is not big deal, just a little image where possible --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a good idea - what kind of image a logo, latest type, first type, biggest type, smallest type, clearly would add no value. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree. Of course you wouldn't be able to put the logo on the article due to fair-use issues; a random pic of an airplane wouldn't add much either. —Compdude123 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help required for Aeroflot

Hello again guys! Can anyone of you please tell User talk:PatrickFlaherty that their last edits to Aeroflot are mentioning the same thing twice in the same sentence. I don't want this issue to become an edit war. Let me point out WP:& regarding the same thing.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence structure. The subject of the sentence isn't describe with enough details. Reading the paragraph I came wondering what type of airline Donavia is and was this a big takeover for Aeoflot? Having airline twice in one long sentence isn't the end of the world and in my view, is understandable as its describing who the airline is and where it is located. Undoing my edit which added content to the article seems to me as a bit much. This is an overblown issue. Cheers --Patrick (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
We certainly need a pair of fresh eyes to comment on this. Plase drop your thoughts. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to say the city where Donavia is based, especially considering that the sentence is located in the lead. It's not a well-known city anyway, and most people have probably never heard of it. And I don't think it's a big deal to say "airline" twice in the same sentence. It's more important to say what type of airline Donavia is than to say where it's located. And maybe even less important would be to say what it's former name was. This is the lead after all; only state things that are most important and put less important details into other parts of the article. —Compdude123 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion has been implemented.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ANG99's recent contributions

Let me draw your attention to this, where there has been a mass use of {{start date and years ago}} in airline infoboxes, like in this edit. The user has already been warned, yet I doubt about getting any feedback from him/her. Any thougts on how to proceed? Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most of them have been reverted by a number of different project members, if others can check watchlists for any that have not been caught. The Bushranger has warned them already so I am sure one of us admins on the project will deal with him/her. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is interesting... Kairportflier (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Such changes should be discussed before being arbitrarily implemented on mass edits to a large number of airline articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to include how many years ago exactly when the airline was founded/started/commenced...etc? I think the years ago doesn't do much meaning to the article and who cares how many years exactly. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see why we need to have the number of years ago it started. A widespread change like this needs to be discussed anyway. —Compdude123 01:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet

Hi, does anyone think Singapore Airlines fleet has any encyclopedic value? It just seems a plane spotters list at the moment. Do we really need lists of Aircraft tail numbers? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Commented on Talk:Singapore Airlines fleet that the exhaustive list of tail number is simply unnecessary. —Compdude123 05:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait Airways editing issue

I think jetstreamer has taken particular liking in picking up issues with me, he reverted my edit at Kuwait airways where I removed a supended destination and put in the terminated section, the reason for reverting my edit was no summary given, the destination removed clearly tagged ends 16 sep 2012 with ref attached, like wow as if any one will even bother to look up edit history to see why I edited and what was added or removed, besides no one does leave edit summaries in 99% of the editing done. Looks like a new low at settling scores. 119.154.98.14 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's simple, September 16th hasn't started yet, nor it has when you edited the page.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Boy you always like to hate on Jetstreamer don't you? :) Chillax, September 16th will come... —Compdude123 05:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
GVA was moved to the terminated section. The companion reference has been archived.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Eaglexpress

Some editor is having an issue with the stub created on this new airline, whats wrong with it? many editors here have created similar stubs and I have followed their style exactly, it apperas he finds it not encylopedia worthy, buty its a stub what els eto add to it, this is all the info available now and liek I said similar stubs have been created in the past by editors of Project Airlines with minimum information just to get it started. inspector (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Arctic Sunwest Charters

A few days ago I noticed this edit. I restored the destination and incidents section here. The editor was later blocked because of the user name. Today they sent an email saying the destination is not correct and is not shown on their site and I'll remove that. However, they also said that the incident has nothing to do with 8199400 and should also be removed. I'm not really willing to do that because as far as I can see the article is about Arctic Sunwest and not about either of the numbered companies. But I thought I would bring it here for a second (or more) opinion because I could be wrong. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Flight 48 and Biman Bangladesh Flight 609

Hello. Just wanted to draw your attention to the proposed deletion of the articles for failing notability.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kingfisher Airlines

The airline's operating license was suspended by India's government on 20 October 2012. However, the airline page is written in past tense as the airline as become defunct (but its website its still in operation with the booking engine, etc. still active). Is the airline considered officially defunct or operations just indefinitely suspended. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would take a suspended licence as just being a temporary halt in operations and it is not yet defunct. It should not be written in the past tense as the airline still legally exists just not operating at the moment. It may start services again or the licence could be cancelled or withdrawn but we dont actually know that yet so we shouldnt speculate. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The airline's press release says here (http://www.flykingfisher.com/media-center/press-releases/statement-from-kfa--mumbai-october-20th-2012.aspx) that it is just a temporary suspension not a cancellation/closure of airline. The article has been changed back to present tense and the "ceased operations" date has been removed. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1998 Lignes Aériennes Congolaises crash

You are invited to join the discussions on grammar and article tone at the above page. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:TANS Perú Flight 204#Grammar

You are invited to join a discussion on the above page as to whether this edit improves the tone and grammar of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_6&oldid=1229203160"