Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 1

message: I started this project when I found out that there were several editors going in opposite directions with airline articles.  I see this project as a way to focus these efforts in one direction.  It should also help move the quality of airline articles up a bit.  
I suspect that we may be able to generate some infoboxes to display some of the common information and provide a common feel to all articles while at the same time not making every article look the same as every other airline article. Vegaswikian
* I noticed the differences in how people were going with the Code Data section versus the Airline Codes template.  For the moment I'll hold off on further cdoe-related edits until a decision is made on this. Hawaiian717 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this project

message: Perhaps I'm wrong, but its my understanding that airlines serve destinations - i.e. the list of places that the airline flies to is a list of *Destinations*, not "Services"?  I know it seems rather trivial, but airlines provide a service, they don't fly to a service.  I ask this because I notice that some "Destination" lists are being renamed "Service" lists, and to me anyway, it just does not make any sense at all.  I've corrected several, but I notice my edits are being undone at the next available opportunity with the user stating that they are being made "consistent".  But yet, the large and long standing airline articles, plus those with completely separate Destination articles, don't follow this "consistency".  Can someone shed some light on it?  --Ayrshire--77 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations or Services? 

message: I think all such templates should be deleted and/or listified. They are unnecessary and just clutter up pages. I put a tfd on the Asiamiles one, and two people opposed it. Does anyone disagree with me? If every program has such a template some airlines could have 20 or more templates on their pages. Dbinder 15:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent Flyer Templates

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

message: I've just created a project notice  which can be placed on the talk page of each airline. This will advertise this project and perhaps bring more people into the fold. Trevor MacInnis 21:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:AirlineProject]] 

message: One problem I have had in listing destinations is getting all of the data, like the airport name.  While this may not sound like a good idea, would it be helpful to create a list of all commerical destinations?  By doing this, all destinations only need to be looked up and formatted once.  It would also list multiple airports so an editor would not they need to choose the correct one and not guess wrong that there is only one.  It would then be a simple cut and paste to add a destination to an airline article.  A side effect would be to have a single list of all commerical destinations.  That would be encylopedic!  Vegaswikian 04:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master destinations list 

message: Should we include airline alliance pages in the project? They are directly related to airline info (and there's only 4 pages - one for each and then an "airline alliance" general page). Dbinder 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alliances

message: I noticed that fleet data format is wildly inconsistent between carriers. I liked the format on the United Airlines article and tweaked it a little. I also created a template that could be used for fleets, although it would require one copy of the template for each model, which we were hoping to avoid. Both types of entry are on the United article. They look identical unless you actually look at the page source. Let me know what you think. We don't necessary have to go with this design, but we should come up with some kind of uniform setup. Dbinder 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleet Data

message: Query. Are we classing companies that run standard scheduled flights but using helicopters instead of fixed wing planes as airlines? I ask because the query came up when I asked why HeliJet wasn't in the Template:Airlines of Canada. HeliJet is listed in the airline categories as are other such operators like HeliHongKong and Copterline. I'm not talking about all the little charter companies, but actual scheduled helicopter passenger services just like planes. Also prompted by HeliJet being removed from the List of airlines Ben W Bell 13:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter Airlines 

message: May I join this project? I have some ideas on how to help tidy up the Airlines sections of the paedia. Ben W Bell 07:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. There is a section called "Participants" on the projects main page. Just put your signature there. Nothing required of you, just read the related talk and edit whatever you want. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: I'm a fan of the current Template Template:Airlines of the United Kingdom and feel that this sort of template should be rolled out across the Airlines pages for the different countries. I find it very useful and (as a not too relevant bonus) asthetically pleasing. Ben W Bell 07:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess that it would be absolutely hideous for the US, but it exists for the United Kingdom and for Canada and I think it is good and very useful, however I shall bow to the majority. Ben W Bell 06:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline Templates 

message: :Category:Airline companies of the United States is different then most other categories that are of the form :Category:Airlines of Canada.  I think that :Category:Airlines of the United States should be created and the airlines in the current list moved over to the new category. When that is done, the current category should change by adjusting the categories it is in.  Comments?  Vegaswikian 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed.  Vegaswikian 20:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  companies vs airlines 

message: The "focus city" concept is rather vague, as some airlines choose to use it and some don't. Should all focus city-like airports be listed under an airline's article, even if most of the flights from that airport are operated by a regional affiliate (e.g. Continental out of FLL and MIA)? Dbinder 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus Cities

message: I have completed mergeing the two ICAO lists that existed into a single list ICAO airline designator.  Links for the A codes still need to be added.  Also all of the codes need to be checked to see that the airline is included in a dab article.  I also was suprised about the number of airlines that don't have an article, so if someone is looking for a list of airlines that need articles, this would be a good place to look.  Vegaswikian 01:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICAO airline designator cleanup 

message: I have put up a tag proposing to merge the two articles. I thought people at this project may want to comment. You can comment at Talk:Regional airline. -- Adz|talk 11:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Commuter airline]] into [[Regional airline]] 

message: This hasn't been discussed in awhile, and there was never a consensus on it. I'd like to start standardizing that, so how should we go forward? Dbinder 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now I like the Continental Airlines design. It's easy to maintain but will hopefully stave off complaints of removing too much information since one can simply add notes next to a line. Dbinder 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer something like the Delta article uses.  Dropping, the A/V and the cargo but adding it the number of seats per class.  You can also add a comments section to allow for anything that is missed.  I'm up in the air about the engines.  That's the type of technical information that some would like to have in a reference document.  Tables seem to unclutter an article so I'd go that way over raw or simply formatted text for information like this.  Vegaswikian 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleet Data revisited

message: I listed Singapore Airlines flight numbers for deletion on WP:NOT grounds. If you have an opinion, vote on it. Dbinder 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vfd Notice

message: I just finished cleaning up this article. All of the codes currently having articles either redirect to the airline or a dab article or to an article that dabs to the airline.  Also there are a lot of red links for anyone who wants to reearch and write airline articles.  
Should all of the codes that are red be created as a redirect expecting the articles to be created?  Vegaswikian 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IATA airline designator cleanup 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see... I'll begin this by making a table for us to fill in. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! I have copied the table here. You are free to add entries in this table (talk page) or on the 1.0 page I linked. Keep the suggestions coming. Thanks again! Gflores Talk 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: It is my understanding that this project covers all airlines since we are working to improve the quality of all articles that are airline related.  I have removed that change and broght the discussion over here.  The airline that one editor listed was Singapore Airlines.  I don't see how removing one airline from the project can improve quality of the encylopedia as a whole.  I strongly feel if we are going to support an action like that, then we will be creating a large problem.  In any case, doing something like that requires a discussion here since it is a major change to the project.  It is not a minor change in my mind.  It seems to be an effort to avoid the consensus process.  Vegaswikian 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegas, ok I agree. I had my reasons, which I wrote in the discussion page for WikiProject Airports. If you got a better idea, I'm listening. Elektrik Blue 82 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines not included 

message: Please see the destinations page. Dbinder 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of continents on destination lists

message: A group of editors proposed that all company names that are normally non-capitalized, such as oneworld, should be written with an initial capital letter (i.e. Oneworld). This results in incorrect capitalization for a number of businesses. If you have an opinion on the issue, please add to the commentary at the discussion page. Although one editor declared the vote closed, the matter is still open to discussion. Dbinder 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Do we have a standard for deciding what is a hub? Should we go with the airports that function as hubs or what the airline says are actually hubs? The American Airlines article has been getting a lot of back-and-forth editing over what its hubs are. AA says its hubs are DFW, O'Hare, St. Louis, Miami, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Boston. However, functionally, Kennedy and Boston wouldn't be included as hubs, but San Juan would. Which should be the standard? I say just go with what the airline says. Dbinder 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hubs

message: Do we want to start including this piece of information?  It changes monthly and appears to be impossible to keep upto date.  I just saw this added to Mesa Airlines if anyone wants to see one place where it was added.  Vegaswikian 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet age 

message: Do we want separate articles on each airline's flight numbers? Based on the SQ discussion, I assumed the answer was no. There's now a Qantas Flight Numbers article, which I listed for deletion. If anyone has an opinion, please weigh in. Dbinder 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a lot of work, and I'm not sure how useful and encyclopaedic it would be to have complete lists for each article. However, I can see a valid need for selective lists covering significant routes, along with histories of aircraft used, anecdotes and so on. Qantas Route 1 for example, as many Australians (and Kiwis) take this flight for the more or less obligatory OE and the Kangaroo Run has become a part of Antipodean culture. We could also include flight numbers no longer used due to accident. --Jumbo 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another "Flight Numbers" Article

message: On a related note to the above, is there a naming standard for articles about non-fatal incidents. Articles such as Qantas Flight 1 and British Airways Flight 9 have titles that suggest they might be about that route/flight number, which is still in use. In fact, both are about particular non-fatal incidents in history. I stumbled across Qantas Flight 1 and attempted to improve the article by ordering the available information so that the general info came first, followed by info about the 1999 crash, and was quickly reverted by Jumbo as the article is named like all other air crash articles. He suggested on the talk page that I come here to discuss how the article should be named or improved. The current naming is fine for major fatal accidents where the flight number was non-notable before the crash, and retired after it (for example Swissair Flight 111), but is wrong for articles where the title suggests it could be about the ongoing service. --Scott Davis Talk 06:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott has raised a valid point and in fact it is one that bothered me when I worked on the QF1 article, as I'd taken that flight not long before and to my mind the title is more strongly associated with the route, rather than a non-fatal aircraft accident. However, the existing standard is that crash articles are named after the route number, and there are a lot of crash articles, so it needs discussion. Scott suggested incorporating the year in some way, and this idea makes a lot of sense, as there could be multiple accidents on the one route, and it would more closely identify the article(s) with a disaster rather than a route. However, I can't think of a way to do this easily. --Jumbo 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an issue here of encylopedic or notable information.  At what point does an incident become notable so that it merits an article?  I have raised the issue about how minor an incident should be before it is listed in the body of the airlines article.  I see this as an extension.  On the specific issue of the name, maybe, if this could be a problem, the article should not exist?  If the airline continues to use the flight number, they apparently don't consider the incident notable.  Some flight numbers, like 1, could be an exception.  Vegaswikian 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If this article is nothing more then a restatement of theAustralian Transport Safety Bureau report on the accident, I don't understand why the incident comment in the Quantas article is not all that is needed?  Just include the link there.  Vegaswikian 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles named after flight numbers

message: A couple users have been adding flag icons next to every country in the airline destination lists. This seems kind of pointless, and the airport project decided to get rid of them. What's the opinion here? Dbinder 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They just clutter up the screens in my opinion and aren't necessary. Ben W Bell 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I've noticed on some of the pages that people did add them, that countries were often incorrect (for example the Hungarian flag for a Polish destination etc.). And the Scotish one when it should be the UK flag, I changed some of these myself but I am just as happy to see them gone as I agree, they are not needed. Dbertman 12:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag icons in destination lists

message: From what I know, territories right now are to be placed in the "region" (E.G. Puerto Rico would be placed in the Carribbean instead of with the United States).
But I say it should depend on several things, including whether the flight from the airlines' hub country to the country would be considered domestic or international.
E.G.
* Any Mainland U.S. to Puerto Rico flight is treated as a domestic flight and does not require a passport (Puerto Rico uses the U.S.' aviation authority)
But
* Any flight from Mainland China to Hong Kong is treated as an international flight (Hong Kong even has its own aviation authority)
So while Puerto Rico would either be listed under the United States or the U.S. Territory headings, but Hong Kong can be separate. WhisperToMe 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the argument that from the perspective of a US carrier, US territories are domestic and from the perspective of a British carrier, UK territories are domestic, etc., this would mean that destination lists for each country's airlines would follow a different format. I support a global standardization, whatever it may be. If we are to list territories under their parent countries, then we should do it with all of them (BVI, New Caledonia, Netherlands Antilles, etc.). I think the current format of giving each territory a separate heading and listing the parent country in parenthesis clarifies the fact that a flight to that territory would be domestic from country X. As for Hong Kong and Macau, we haven't really discussed that yet. Dbinder 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, from a perspective of a British carrier British territories are international. In fact British citizens may be needed to show passports in the Cayman Islands, etc. I'm not sure if they are. Also those territories may have their own aviation agencies, etc.  WhisperToMe 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yep - On the Emirates website and I did a search -
"1. If born in Cayman Islands:
   Passport or proof of citizenship required.
   Visa not required.
2. If born outside Cayman Islands:
   Passport required. Also accepted:
   Birth Certificate or Naturalization Certificate provided:
   - accompanied by official photo ID such as driver's licence
     (children under 18 years old do not have to present
     separate photo ID); and
   - return or onward ticket showing that passenger will leave
     Cayman Isl. within 6 months for United Kingdom, its
     domains, territories, colonies or dependencies.
     Exemption: persons of Cayman status.
   Documents must be valid at least beyond period of intended
   stay.
   If passport is endorsed  British Citizen  or  British
   Overseas Territories Citizen :
   visa not required for a stay of 30 days.
   Extension up to a max. stay of 6 months is possible.
   Visitor must hold:
   - ticket and other documents required for next destination;
     and
   - sufficient funds.
   Entry may be refused, if not complying with requirements
   regarding general appearance, clothing and behaviour.
"
The Cayman Islands, aviation-wise, is separate from the UK. WhisperToMe 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is that from a practical standpoint, most people don't consider Guam to be in North America. They would say it's a Pacific island. Likewise, people would label the USVI as Caribbean. You can argue for Puerto Rico being listed with the remainder of the US, since it has somewhat closer ties with the mainland and a significant group of people pushing for statehood. The same is not true with Guam and the Virgin Islands. Hawaii is generally considered North America because it's a state. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands are a territory of the United States, but US citizens do need a passport to go there, so it wouldn't be listed under the US. From the standpoint of someone who's not familiar with the politics of that region (i.e. most people who aren't from the US) the difference would be somewhat confusing. It is likely that other editors would see that Guam was missing from the Pacific Islands section and add it in redundantly. The same could happen with the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. Dbinder (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should territories be treated 

message: Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano(t/c) 10:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skywards destinations which is up for deletion.  This is an awards program and not an alliance.  Vote if you have any interest in this.  Vegaswikian 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for frequent flyer award destinations 

message: Article American Falcon is a big mess; I would like to ask you guys to take a look at it. Please, also check this older but more extensive version. Thanks a lot, Mariano(t/c) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tidied some of the formatting of the page up. Dbertman 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I went back to an older version, did a revert and pulled some of the new relevant info forward..  hopefully I wasn't too bold.. —Cliffb 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Falcon 

message: I have just stumbled upon what looks to be the much forgotten article for FedEx Express, the air transport side of the Fedex corporation.  The page seems to be lacking overall, but what caught my eye the most was the destinations list.  It is many times shorter than the fleet list, and is missing a good ammount of destinations (I noticed that all of my "home airports" are missing from the list, so that's probably some indication of the completeness of the article.)    I am not entirely familiar with the ways and standards of this wikiproject (having spent most of my time at WP:Aircraft, and WP:Airports) so, it would be nice if someone could take a look at the page, and possibly revise or remove that destinations list.   Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how the divisions of FedEx are arranged, but it does appear from the main article that this is the airline portion.  If that's the case, then some cleanup needs to be done.  The fleet should only be in one article and not both.  As to the destinations, do we really need to list 300+ destinations for a cargo airline?  I wonder if the list would be maintainable.  I say this because I suspect that changes in cargo destinations are not well announced so keeping that data updated might be a problem.  Your point about it being out of date may suppport this.  I'd say try cleaning up the articles and getting all of the airline related stuff into the one article, assuming this is the correct structure of the company.  I'll try and at least move these all into one category so they are grouped together.  Vegaswikian 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand policy, when a company changes names you use the new name and not the old.  Vegaswikian 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FedEx Express (Destinations) 

message: Comments about listing the top 10 destinations by any type of measurement in destinations?  Somehow this looks more like information for wikitravel then information for wikipedia.  Vegaswikian 06:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AirTran_Airways#Destinations]] 

message: I joined this WikiProject. I'm going to work on airline-related articles on and off. --Bigtop 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joined 

message: I've just posted a concern about linking to customer opinion websites on WP:WPSPAM:
What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?
For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines ([ all links]). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:
*2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources"
*9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."
I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal?
Your comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Customer opinion sites. Thanks/wangi 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customer opinion sites 

message: The Air Canada page has been re organised into the catagories on the main page. It still requires some cleanup, new information and organization. What are your opinions on further developing this page, possibly to the point of using it as a template for all other pages? (Greenboxed 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like it.. Although I think the fleet boxes should mirror those on United Air Lines —Cliffb 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Great! I simply used the project outline and moved the information into the relevent order! Thanks for the suggestion! (Greenboxed 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated [[Air Canada]] Page

message: Thank you, I saw you worked on United's page. As an employee I must say; looks way better!
United Airlines is currently up as a good article nominee - Blood red sandman 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[United Airlines]] 

message: I just created this page after seeing its website, and I added your project's stub template to the bottom.  I'm not sure if this is the right place to put a request, but if anyone has any information on the airline it would be great if you could add it. NcSchu 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Silverjet]] 

message: Can someone look at Midway Alliance and see what you think?  Vegaswikian 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing, and I've nominated it for deletion. It's a neologism for a two-airline codesharing agreement. FCYTravis 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midway Alliance 

message: Airline destinations is proposed for deletion.  If interested, drop in on the discussion.  Vegaswikian 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations AfD 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Today I have posted a comment on the BA Connect Talk Page to ensure that following the sale of the airline to flybe we do not lose the histroical information about the airline form its formation as BA Citiexpress (following the purchase of BRAL by BA who combined it with Brymon and BA UK Regional operations). It may have only been in existence for a few years, however the article details an important evolution of the regional operations by British Airways. 
My aim of provoking this discussion is to prevent an hasty deletions/edits that lose this historical reference data. Over to you.... Stewart 11:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of the [[BA Connect]] article following sale to [[flybe]] 

message: Another user brought to my attention that the main page says affinity programs should have their own page if they are "large or well known". In practice, only a few such articles have been kept, so the guideline should be reworded to reflect this. I don't know what the wording should be, but I think that only the multi-airline programs (Miles & More, Asia Miles, etc.) and a few other particularly notable ones (AAdvantage - the first, Aeroplan - a subsidiary with ties to other companies than just Air Canada, etc.) should be kept. DB (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to strongly disagree with the blanket assertion that ALL non-multi airline frequent flyer programs lack notability to remain on Wikipedia. There are many single-airline programs known worldwide by millions of people. The fact that only a few of these articles exist may well be attributed to the fact that this topic has not yet been fully documented, rather than users going around deleting them, as Wiki is a work in progress. Finally, according to WP:DELETE and WP:NOTE, single-airline FF articles that (1) do not violate WP:NOT; (2) are of "encyclopdic quality"; (3) NPOV; and (4) follow wiki copyright policy; should be allowed to exist as they meet the rules of "notability, importance, or significance" set out by the wiki community. Parnell88 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is to keep them, then they will be kept. The SkyMiles, OnePass, Mileage Plus, Executive Club, SKYPASS, and some other articles were all merged and/or redirected into their respective airline articles. They are not notable in themselves. Except for members and people knowledgeable in the industry, most people probably haven't heard of a lot of these programs. Cathay Pacific is known for excellent service, but it is far from the world's largest airline, and the Marco Polo Club is not a huge program. In fact, all of the programs I listed, with the exception of SKYPASS, are larger than the Marco Polo Club. I am not saying all the information should be removed altogether, but that the relevant info should be merged into the airline article, and the page should redirect to the airline. DB (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: while the current discussion is about Cathay, my comments apply to all articles on FF programs. DB (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affinity Programs

message: Noticed a trend for contributers to add none notable incidents to airline pages. Most of these are what I call "just a bad day at the office" stuff like engine fires. Just wanted to ensure that my understanding of the agreed criteria was that any incident or accident should be verifiable and sourced and be notable (persons injured or killed, hull loss, or had an effect on the industry, regulations or procedures).MilborneOne 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Vegaswikian, I dont think there is any dispute - just contributers who are not aware.MilborneOne 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents and Accidents 2 

message: I've noticed a couple of editors adding flags to the infoboxes of airline articles recently - this is against common practice and doesn't actually add anything at all to the article or infobox. Plus they're not using the correct  template...
If this is actually people think is a worthwhile addition then it should get consensus here first.
Thanks/wangi 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in the infobox