Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Assessment

message: I think that a new category, or a redefinition of High importance needs to take place. If you look at the London airports, Heathrow and Gatwick are obviously Top importance, but Stansted, Luton and City are significantly less importance. They are, however, more important than London-Southend which has almost no scheduled service, and is the example for a High ranked airport. Please advise... Flymeoutofhere 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that one! You see, I'm a Yank and not very knowledgable when it comes to European airports. I did my best to try and give examples of them in the ranking section, but apparently I goofed a little. If you are saying you agree with the current standards for ranking and only disagree with the examples I gave, by all means update them accordingly. If you're disagreeing with the criteria I tried to set forth for the importance scale, then please state here which so we can work towards a consensus. Good call, and thanks! thadius856talk 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that looks fine now-I thought that was what might of happened! I'll update Flymeoutofhere 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top and High Importance

message: I was just looking through all the articles in Category:Airports that do not have project banners and adding them appropriately. So far, I've found that far less than 2% are missing banners. When adding them, I've been tagging for class and importance as well.
The problem is our definitions. I've found many airports (mostly in Alaska) where the only scheduled passenger service is subsidized by the Essential Air Service act, meaning the airport would not be able to provide scheduled service without federal financial assistance. I've been ranking them as if they didn't have passenger service, and thus most so far are of Low importance. I suggest this be an exception to the criteria we set, but I'd like some feedback first. thadius856talk 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe low should have a note to include regional airports served by no more than one airline? DB (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but how'd you arrive as 1 for the number? Why not two or three or...? Just curious. thadius856talk 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there aren't any airports with Essential Air Service that have more than one airline serving them. If there's more than one, it implies it's a small regional airport (i.e. mid-level). DB (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! :) thadius856talk 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions for importance 

message: So, I figured I'd just show you guys an update on how the assessment has been going lately. The first table was created on the first day this department existed, the second being the first day we switched to the new statistics format and the third being as of this writing.
 Airport articles
Quality    	Quality
           	1
           	1
           	3
           	1
           	3
           	4541
Importance 	Importance
           	3
           	1
           	1
           	3
Total: 4550	Total: 4550
Airport articles	Airport articles	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance
Airport articles	Airport articles	Top       	High      	Mid       	Low       	None      	Total
Class           	                	1         	          	          	          	          	1
Class           	                	1         	          	          	          	          	1
Class           	                	2         	          	          	          	          	2
Class           	                	26        	11        	5         	2         	2         	46
Class           	                	40        	23        	28        	3         	17        	111
Class           	                	13        	22        	93        	524       	2119      	2771
Class           	                	          	1         	          	1         	1789      	1791
Class           	Total           	83        	57        	126       	530       	3927      	4723
Airportarticles	Airportarticles	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance
Airportarticles	Airportarticles	          	          	          	          	          	Total
Class          	               	          	          	          	          	          	
Class          	               	1         	          	          	          	          	1
Class          	               	2         	          	          	          	          	2
Class          	               	2         	1         	          	          	          	3
Class          	               	28        	12        	5         	2         	          	47
Class          	               	42        	51        	56        	14        	16        	179
Class          	               	13        	34        	185       	625       	2100      	2957
Class          	               	1         	          	          	          	1696      	1697
Class          	Total          	89        	98        	246       	641       	3812      	4886
As you can tell, we've picked up more than 330 articles in just over a month and assessed about the same amount. We still have a long ways to go, but we'll get it done! :) thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 08:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: There needs to be a major clarification concerning Top and High importance airports.  I am trying to rank many airports and contribute to the project, but even after reading the descriptions, looking at lists, and talking with others, I am confused.  For example, Boryspil Airport is ranked as a top airport, as are Turin International Airport, etc.  Those airports only have about 3 million passengers per year.  On the other hand, Logan International Airport (27 million/year), Dusseldorf (17 million), etc, etc. are all ranked as "High".  That seems to make absolutely no sense.  A very clear passenger/usage # should be set for each category.  For example, Top: >15 million, High: 1 million-15 million, Mid: >1 million, Low: no scheduled service.  That would allow for a much clearer designation.  Any futher clarification, such as major accidents could cause the ranking to increase.  Any suggestions how to make the rankings far, far clearer?  (I still believe other criteria should be used, so that important "no service" airports will be ranked higher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gittinsj (talk • contribs) 
:I definitely don't think Torino should be considered Top. Kiev probably shouldn't either. One question is whether importance should be considered globally or within each country (i.e. should an airport such as Boryspil or Luxembourg-Findel be ranked as top since those are the largest in their respective countries, despite their relatively small size on an international scale?). Dusseldorf and Logan, despite having a large number of passengers per year, are not highly important airports internationally, either. There should be a more concrete description of each importance level, especially to clarify top vs. large. DB (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current definition of Top is "Very Large Airports with International Service".  Boston has flights to 17 other countries.  Dusseldorf has even more.  They are both international airports, and they are both very large (at least larger than Borispyl or Luxembourg).  I'm not saying that the latter two shouldn't be ranked higher, but the others do fit the definition.  To not include Boston, Dusseldorf, etc. would suggest that the current definition is problematic. By trying to have so many different criterion for rankings, I think the system becomes very convoluted. On the other hand, Memphis International Airport has only one international flight, but the highest cargo volume, and it is rated Top.  Do we look at total passenger volume, international passenger volume, cargo volume, and if so, together or separately? If the airport has a very high passenger volume, but lower international passenger volume, does that invalidate its importance? Gittinsj 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really Need to Clarify Importance Scale 

message: The new multi-project banner, , does not use the importance scale. Reading over the comments here, I think that this project is having the same problems that other projects are, in that the ratings applied by users are too subjective, and based upon their personal opinions as to the importance of an article/subject. Is it alright with the Airports project members if the importance scale is dropped when the airport articles are retagged with ? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with dropping the importance scale. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WPAVIATION banner, and the importance scale.