Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 3

message: New article has been created Criticism of Ryanair - must get an award for not being NPOV and that is just the title! MilborneOne 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is nice to finally get rid of that lengthy criticism on Ryanair. Marcusmax 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, we should try to make it as NPOV as possible - if the basis is inherently flawed, move the appropriate content back to Ryanair, redirect, and Singapore cane anyone who tries to insert non-notable rants :) WhisperToMe 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Ryanair 

message: I'm just curious but how should we list the destinations of regional airlines, like NW Airlink for example? Should we list them in an article named Northwest Airlink destinations then separate it by the destinations served by the different regional carriers, or list them in the carrier operating for the airline? -chris^_^ 05:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anybody?-chris^_^ 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined that destinations of all airlines, regardless of whether they be regional or whatever, should only be listed in the article concerning the actual airline operating the service. --Russavia 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations 

message: Since certain users persist in arguing semantics and preventing any sort of consensus from being reached, I'm going to force us all to repeat our statements above in a a way that hopefully is completely unambiguous.  Question Number 1:  Should articles include tables listing flight numbers by destination? -- Hawaiian717 16:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables with flight numbers by destination 

message: Since certain users persist in arguing semantics and preventing any sort of consensus from being reached, I'm going to force us all to repeat our statements above in a a way that hopefully is completely unambiguous.  Question Number 2:  Should the fleet tables in articles include individual aircraft tail numbers? -- Hawaiian717 16:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft tail numbers in fleet tables 

message: Should the same apply to the flight number sections?  How about the tail numbers for all of the aircraft? Vegaswikian 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to not include tail numbers and flight numbers 

message: There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Maintenance 

message: Should the individual airline articles be including the fleet tables for EVERY SINGLE AIRLINE that is part of the parent company? I think those fleet tables should only be included in List of Airline Holding Companies. For example, I don't see why it's relevant to list the fleet of ATA Airlines in an article about North American Airlines just because they're a part of the same parent company (in this case, Global Aero Logistics. Without a doubt the tables should be included in the parent company articles, but I don't think they should be included in articles about another airline. Any comments? Sox23 22:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  Actually, I don't think airline holding company articles need fleet information at all, but if you're going to do it that would be the place.  The individual subsidiary airlines provide specific information, and readers who need combined information can aggregate the information themselves.  Providing a combined table increases the workload of maintaining the lists and increases the possibility of inconsistency.  I still think List of Airline Holding Companies needs to just go away, but that's for its AfD to reach consensus on. -- Hawaiian717 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% Sox23 02:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm opposed to keeping multiple copies of information since it becomes difficult to maintain.  Fleet tables should only be located in the article of the airline that actually operates them. If we need to make a note on the project page, then lets do it. Vegaswikian 04:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree as per Vegaswikian. MilborneOne 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline holding company fleet tables in airline articles 

message: It has long rankled me that pages in :Category:Airline_destinations which I visit commonly contain incorrect, outdated, and/or unsupported information. Is it the position of WikiProject Airlines that these articles are exempt from WP's verifiability policy?
Examples:
*Asian Spirit destinations
*Cebu Pacific destinations
*South East Asian Airlines destinations
-- Boracay Bill 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We obviously want the information to be correct, it's just very difficult for all destination articles like these to be constantly watched.  I myself only monitor a small number of such destination articles and only ones that I feel safe editing.  NcSchu(Talk) 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess most of us figure that these are implicitly verifiable through the airline's web site, or some other material from the airline (timetable, route map) to define destinations.  Sourcing new destinations typically isn't hard as there is often media reports surrounding the announcement and/or commencement of new service.  Where we run into problems is when an airline ends service to a destination, as typically airlines don't publicize it much so it may slip by our notice for a while. -- Hawaiian717 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  However based on AfD discussions, we might need to start referencing each of the destinations. Since the sources will vary over time, we probably need to have a reference for each one.  The other option is to provide one source for the airline, like the web site, and then only add specific references when the source is not the web site.  Putting the source on each destination would make the need clearer for editors but would add a bunch of references.  This does not affect these articles but also the airport ones. See this for a partial example in an airport article. Vegaswikian 07:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having too many footnote references in a paragraph hurts readability.  In that case it actually doesn't seem to bad (but a bit overwhelming to see the same one over and over, though the number 7 does seem rather appropriate for LAS).  I have found that when many footnote references are added in the middle of a paragraph of text it does get harder to read, thus when I'm writing I'll tend to put all of the references for that paragraph at the end of the paragraph -- or at least at the end of a sentence.  I like the idea of having one or more "global" reference at the end of an article (probably a link to an airline's route map, destination list, or timetable on their web site), and supplementing that with additional references for specific destinations where necessary (in particular I suspect we'll need this for new/upcoming destinations, where we'd need to link to a press release or media report).  I think the same works for airport articles -- most airports seem to have a list of carriers serving their airport and we'd link to that as the primary global reference, with new services needing supplemental links to a press release or media report. -- Hawaiian717 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another issue in doing this is that each verification can be on a different date.  As a result, not everything would be using the same reference since you would need a new named cite if you do this on different days. Another issue is the problem that this causes for editing.  With the reference tags, even though they are the short form, it is next to impossible to find the cities when editing. Tagging the airline with the reference is not an option since it would imply that all of the destinations were verified on that date.  Not sure that would be a good assumption to make. -- Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  I'm not sure if you're advocating for or against the model used on the LAS article, but as I think about it, I think it would be okay after all.  Since people generally wouldn't be reading the destination lists the way they would a paragraph of text, I think it doesn't hurt readability too badly.  I tried doing something for the Virgin America destinations to see what that might look like, and I think that's okay as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That was basically my previous thinking.  I think the issue is what happens when they add more destinations.  To be completely accurate, we'd need to recheck every destination (which we really should, but I'll get to that).  That's easy with Virgin America and other airlines that fly to only a few destinations, and for that what you suggest I think is fine (I used VX for this demonstration specifically because they only fly to a few destinations so it would be quick for me to change).  Not so much for, say, United Airlines destinations.  By individually citing each destination, with each citation giving the retrieval date, we don't run into the issue of implying that each destination was verified the last time the list was updated. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And you corrected the incorrect information, right?  Vegaswikian 07:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases I did, but that led to edit wars and those wore me out. The Asian Spirit destinations page was WP:PRODed and deleted at one point, but reappeared with more unsupported information on it, some of which was either incorrect when added or quickly became incorrect as things changed in the real world. It's not just destinations & schedules (though wrong info there can cause problems for people who take WP at its word); there's unsupported (some of which is incorrect) info about facilities, hubs, "focus city" designations, etc. on some airline pages. -- Boracay Bill 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're at it (rankling over assumed exemptions that is), how about ? If we must point to airline destination pages, at least we should provide a relevance date and stable version (e.g. via archive.org) -- LeadSongDog (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been though this at least twice before in AfD discussions (here) (here).  Destination lists aren't subject to rapid change, as airlines don't add or remove destinations all that often.  New airlines will add new destinations relatively quickly as they grow, but larger airlines don't change all that much -- they are more likely to "connect the dots" and add new routes between two existing destinations than they are to add a completely new destination.  These changes would affect airport articles, but not airline articles.  Regardless, where an airline flies is an important part of identifying and describing an airline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply wrong. British Airways, for example, changes destinations several times a year. As for 'where an airline flies' unless the airline has only two or three destinations its destinations are accurately described by such terms as 'US domestic', 'USA, Europe and the Middle East' or again with BA as an example, 'Worldwide'. The fact that BA operates to Charlotte NC does not in any way 'identify' BA. Can you explain why you want to include information which will be unreliable and which is readily available from other web sources? treesmill (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same reason other information on WP is included, because it's relevant and provides useful information to an article.  Now, yes, both of these things are sort of in the eye of the beholder, but because we feel they have value we want them included.  The fact that the information updates frequently is irrelevant and so is the fact that information can supposedly be "easily available elsewhere", since a lot of information on this encyclopedia is in the same position and that's no reason to remove it from here.  In fact I think that is a commonly used reason that hurts the encyclopedia as a whole, telling people who come here to find such information "Oh, sorry, you can easily find this elsewhere, so bugger off."  I don't think that's the message we want to send. NcSchu(Talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all airports provide a single source of their direct destinations. This information does not support all of the information listed like the start and stop dates.  There is the implied assumption that for each update of the referenced page, we are checking and verifying that all of the destinations are verified and still correct.  One point that was made in the AfD discussions is that the length of the reference list is not a concern. A I said above, a singe reference for each airline would be OK if we can guarantee that it covers all of the information and that it is verified for all destinations on each update.  If not it is not used to verify the data.  I agree that fewer references would be better, but we also need to cover all bases to confirm that the data is verifiable from the source used.  Each airport and airline can have different solutions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that each airport has the info page that CMH has; just how the information is referenced; kind of like one big reference at the end of each set of destinations. So for example, instead of having a reference after each destination that US Airways serves from LAS, have all references (I know they probably won't be listed on one source, so just have like 2 or 3 or however many references needed) listed after the destination sections for each airline. Do you know what I mean? I don't understand why we need to have a reference after each and every destination listed as in the current LAS article. Basically what I'm saying is why not just put the reference(s) at the end? Sox23 20:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works in theory, however it does not show the cite for each entry. So if you wind up with 5 citations, which one supports a specific city? My understanding is that if cites are going to be needed it must be by city or a broader area ONLY if we can say that each update of the source means that they contents of the entry were all verified.  For small airports that may not be an issue.  For the larger ones it clearly is.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know but this whole citation idea has been brought up so randomly; I mean we've had destinations in articles before this and nobody has complained about references, so if we just reference info at the end, what's  the big deal. The info is still better referenced than it is now, and it's been like how it is for a long time. And, shouldn't this be on WP:Airports? Sox23 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two flavors of this. One for the airline destination lists and the other for the lists of destinations by airline in the airport articles.  So a common approach for both would be a good outcome.  Two discussions would not be an issue.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the random occurrence, I think this is expected give the last AfD discussion on destination lists.  For the short term, using a single reference source may be the correct starting point as a compromise.  If there are no complaints, then we are fine.  However if this is questioned as not sufficient or not meeting WP:V then we would probably need to ref each destination.  In the airline lists, we would also need to reference the hubs and focus cities, in fact that may be a good idea from the start given some of the problems with the destination articles.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: :Agree (loves or likes bullets) - 6 editors
:* User:Inetpup
:* User:Huaiwei
:* User:NcSchu - slight preference
:* User:Hawaiian717
:* User:Mlaroche
:* User:Sox23 - slight preference
:Disagree (hates or dislikes bullets) - 1 editor(s)
:* User:O
:Didn't vote, didn't care, no objection, neutral or no preference - 2 editors
:* User:Vegaswikian - states pros and cons of both
:* Boracay Bill - no preference indicated, but added a thread to an assertion made by Huaiwei 
--Inetpup (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tally 

message: Can someone take a look at National Airlines/Private Jet Expeditions?  If this is real, it probably needs to be moved to article space from being a subpage.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy deleted as an attack page.  Is it worth still considering?  IIRC this was a couple of different names for a relatively short-lived DC9 or MD80 operator.  I'm pretty sure they were covered in one of the Deregulation Knockouts books; I can check later this week. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Airlines/Private Jet Expeditions 

message: I'm planning to revise the destination layout on the destinations pages of the regional destinations such as Chautauqua Airlines destinations since the current layout takes up a lot of space. I'm suggesting to change the layout simillar with Oneworld destinations by placing the IATA code of the mainline carrier beside the destination. What do you guys think? -chris^_^ (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anybody? -chris^_^ (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think its nuts to be putting something as volatile as airline scheds on wp manually until the airline goes defunct.  If it's not an automatic update it doesn't belong at all, just link to a cache/mirror of the official sched.  Format is secondary to trustworthy content.  Still, if you're going to put these lists up,  at least make them intelligible.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a completely different discussion that has been had several times before at AfD. Let's not have it again here. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It does have the potential to reduce duplication, but I'm not sure I like how the Oneworld destinations article handles hubs. Look at HKG for example. Why are CX, KA, and QF spelled out as hub/focus city airlines when IATA codes are used for everything else. And why is KA not listed with the other airline codes serving the airport? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click this for an example I already made for SkyWest destinations. It's approximately 14,019 bytes, compared to the current 22,769 bytes. -chris^_^ (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad (as an aside, the current version of the SkyWest destinations page is atrocious, with the Delta Connection/Midwest Connect/United Express branding appearing in parenthesis at every heading level, I suppose to get around the problem of having the same heading title at multiple levels causes issues in MediaWiki).  I'm still not sure how I like how the hubs are handled (UA twice on the same line for DEN, for example), but I'm not sure what else would be better.  Hope you don't mind, I tried something a little different for the LAX line, putting the hub designation in with the list in parenthesis, but I'm not sure I like it better or that it's much clearer.  I'm tempted to say something like "airline codes listed in bold have hubs at this destination" but that means people will have to look back at the legend to figure out what bold means. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would be much better to add a dash (-) between the code and hub or focus city. -chris^_^ (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks reasonable.  Not perfect as someone might think that MCI for example is a focus city for both DL and YX.  The only way I can think that might avoid this confusion would be to put hub/focus cities first (so MCI would read (YX - Focus City, DL, UA)) but I don't know if that is really necessary. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we would do it like this instead: (Kansas City International Airport) Focus City - YX (DL, UA), or, (DL, UA, YX [Focus City])? -chris^_^ (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This info might (or might not) be relevant to this discussion -- just pointing it out in case it is relevant. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but it does list a few articles that have incorrect information.  Vegaswikian (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Airline destinations 

message: Just noticed a user adding airport categories to US airlines for example :Category:Stapleton International Airport to Continental Airlines. As this has a potential to add over 290 categories to this airline in particular and other US airlines had this been brought up for discussion anywhere? Is it a good idea? MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport categories 

message: List of airports in the Philippines appears to have a problem.  Apparently in the Philippines, they commonly use the last 3 characters of the UN location codes to identify airports locally.  Some editors are apparently insisting on calling this the IATA code.  I have no problem using that code in the table as long as it is not called an IATA code which it is apparently not.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  If the codes are not defined by IATA, then calling them IATA codes is quite simply factually incorrect.  It sounds vaguely similar to the situation at such places as McClellan-Palomar Airport, which has different FAA and IATA codes (whereas most US airports have identical FAA and IATA codes).  I have no problem with including the codes, but they should be listed as whatever they are, and not as IATA codes. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of airports in the Philippines 

message: Hello members of WikiProject Airlines,
I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.
Please let me know if you;re interested!
Bluegoblin7 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this not an WP:ADVERT?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wouldn't go quite to that length, it is another wiki.  Nevertheless, I choose to focus my efforts on only one website, this one.  Sorry.  NcSchu(Talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's a MediaWiki powered site doesn't mean it's not an advertisement. I'm leaning towards it is, though in the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I help run a MediaWiki site that contains some of the kind of content this new site aims to provide (though we're GFDL-incompatible as we went with a non-commercial CC license). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wiki specially for Planes... 

message: A user has just renamed :Template:Airlines of the United Kingdom to :Template:UK Airlines have I missed something has this been discussed anywhere ?  MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some user has been creating templates using the UK format for other purposes.  I would not be surprised if this is part of a misguided plan on their part to make all UK templates start with UK.  I have other issues with the templates they are editing.  I'd rename it back. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline of the United Kingdom 

message: There is an AfD debate ongoing regarding the article Clickair destinations. While the page clearly complies with WikiProject Airlines guidelines on destinations lists (by taking long destinations lists off the main page into a dedicated article as this one) the suggestion is that the article does not belong in an encyclopedia and that it should be removed (without subseqent replication on the original Clickair page).
I am concerned that this would set a significant precedent for all airline articles and the 236 other airline destinations articles on Wikipedia. I would appreciate the views of other members and interested editors both here and at the AfD debate where I have already given my own thoughts. SempreVolando (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, most of the airline and airport pages should be deleted due to blatant noncompliance with WP:V. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there some rule that an article can't be nominated for Afd more than once in a certain period?  According to my records, Airline Destination articles were nominated in January 2006 and May 2007.  Both results were keep and it seems absurd for them to be nominated again.  NcSchu(Talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absurd to nominate them again. Both results were keep and it wasn't even close. Take a look at the archives. Sox23 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations pages - keep or delete? 

message: I have nominated Singapore Airlines Flight 380 for Afd. As we don't have the ability to call upon nationalistic tendencies in any keep/delete reasonings, project members are urged to weigh in with their opinions on the matter. --Russavia (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on Singapore Airlines Flight 380 

message: The only thing I have to say, is that I have nothing to say, but will let the links do the talking.
Emirates Airline
** Emirates Lounge
** Emirates destinations
** Emirates Airlines Fleet
** Emirates SkyCargo
** Emirates Airline Services
**** Emirates Airline Cabins
****** Emirates Lounge
** Emirates Airlines awards and accolades
** Emirates Airline Marketing and sponsorships
Most of it is mere duplication of content in the main article, and this fanboy behaviour is seen on other articles such as Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways International and Singapore Airlines (funnily enough the creator of the Emirates navbox has used the Singapore Airlines navbox as a guide, but has stupidly left some of the Singapore Airlines in it).
This really does need to stop, the amount of absolutely irrelevant information in the airline articles is getting totally out of hand, and I will begin by simply nominating some these articles for deletion. There is no other way, is there? --Russavia (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Russavia is found to use belittling words against editors, the very same insult he once labelled contributors to the Singapore Airlines article which ignited a heated relationship since almost a year ago. I wonder just how closely he adheres to Wikipedia:No personal attacks before he thinks he consider himself in the moral position to make such comments.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take it as an insult, if you take it that way then I am sorry, however, the amount of cruft-like information creeping its way into airline articles, and then being split out into separate pages is very much inline with fanboy behaviour. We don't need to include every conceivable piece of information in our articles, and we most certainly don't need article forks covering every conceivable subject relating to the airline. There would not a single airline which couldn't have all the relevant information included in the single article, yet more and more articles are having these forks, and perhaps project guidelines need to be reviewed and tightened somewhat. --Russavia (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Russavia, it is not as thou this is the first time you insult contributors by labelling them as "fanboys". I am pretty sure you are well aware that your behaviour resulted in reactions from multiple users opposing your inappropriate before, which you then gave a half-hearted promise not to use such comments again. Well now we can all see that your "promise" has never been worth much, since you are apparently hardly apologetic about it.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting absolutely ridiculous 

message: Just a heads up that I have put Emirates Airline Marketing and sponsorships up for Afd, which you can view here. Interested project members should weigh in with their opinions in the negative or positive. --Russavia (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd notification for Emirates Airline Marketing and sponsorships 

message: Just a heads up that I have put Emirates Airlines awards and accolades, Malaysia Airlines awards, and Singapore Airlines awards and accolades up for Afd (bundled together), which you can view here. Interested project members should weigh in with their opinions in the negative or positive. --Russavia (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangentially related. Curious about this as I just looked at the awards section when I was re-writing Go_Fly. I looked through both Airlines and Aviation to see any consensus on the inclusion of awards in the main articles. Are past, and difficult to cite in Go's case, awards notable? I left them in the article when I re-wrote but don't know what they need to be there. Travellingcari (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my opinion, others can weigh in also if they like, that awards can probably be provided in the main airline article, but it would be best to instead of having a list, that they be mentioned in prose within the article proper, with references of course. --Russavia (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  re: references, that's exactly the issue I'm having with some of the Go awards. If they were big enough to garner any press when they were awarded in 2000-2001, that press has gone off line now. I think one was citable, that's part of why I was leaning toward eliminating them. At this point, I think they fail notability and verifiability. Thanks for your inputTravellingcari (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can always try the google news archive search for sources, and if you need access to them, there was a list of editors who have access to various news databases, but I can't find it at the present time, that may allow you to garner some sources. --Russavia (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to point out that this is Russavia's second nomination on Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, the first AfD resulting in a keep. Nothing much has changed since then.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out that the previous debate had next to zero input from this project, and nearly wholesale input from the Singapore wikiproject. But you are right, not much has changed, especially the fact that these lists still fail WP:V in that they are wholly attributable to the airline PR departments and that they fail WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. --Russavia (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING reasoning for this. NcSchu(Talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any general discussion of awards in any wiki project?  My feeling is that long lists of these likely cross the line into problems like WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING.  However I'm not sure when that would happen.  Are all awards notable and encyclopedic?  If a company received one of the yearly awards from the RJ is that notable and should it be included in an article? I do know that most awards are not considered defining so Categories are not created.  I suspect that part of the problem here is that many awards are simply not notable.  Please note that I have written this as a general comment.  I have not looked at the nominated articles recently to see what they actually include.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I clearly remember this issue being raised before, and yes, the Singapore Airlines awards and accolades article has never tried to list every single award there is. The introduction says it all: "The following lists the more significant awards the airline has garnered.".--Huaiwei (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this was asked by myself, what is so significant about awards given out by the Scottish Passenger Agents Association, Korea Productivity Center, and Common Wealth Magazine, etc. The only response I got to that, from editor unknown at the moment, was along the lines of "seems notable to me" --Russavia (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And which editor could that be? Meanwhile, if you were to remove those awards from the list, would you your subsequent response be?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know which editor from memory, perhaps Vision or something like that? In response to the question as to what my subsequent response would be if I were to remove those awards from the list, it would likely be a response to the inevitable revert which would be performed by yourself. :D --Russavia (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You assume too much, Russavia, but thank you for reaffirming your resolve to violate 3RR. ;) Meanwhile, I think it is only fair that you be specific and cite the relevant diffs to support your insinuations against anyone. I will not be pretty if they finds this out.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "nearly wholesale input from the Singapore wikiproject" Kindly do not paint an inaccurate picture, Russavia. The profile of those who voted "keep" apparently involved three members from Singapore, and four members which are not from Singapore, including Vegaswikian. Did Vegaswikian join the Singaporean Wikiproject? No I just checked and he isn't in the list.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Unfortunately, Vegaswikian's response in that Afd was, IMHO, somewhat flawed, because as I have pointed out in the current Afd for all 3 airlines, the correct response to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, rather than creating a new article for it. --Russavia (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Unfortunately, this doesn't absolve you from an apparent attempt to mislead, regardless of how flawed the responses may be.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd notification for several airline awards lists 

message: I think that the British Caledonian article needs some attention. You have the main article, then these:
* British Caledonian in 1977
* British Caledonian in 1978
* British Caledonian in 1979
* British Caledonian in the 1980s
* Reasons for the failure of British Caledonian
I did propose article mergers sometime ago, but those were removed by the editor who is responsible for these articles. Shy of Afd'ing them, what is the best approach to get all relevant information back on the main article page? --Russavia (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any particularly good reason for merging all of them in the first place?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cmon now Huaiwei. WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK. There could also be copyvio issues at play here, seeing as a single source has been used for the majority of the text in those articles. --Russavia (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for the live demonstration of your negative commentary style once again, Russavia, plus yet another horrific example of policy misinterpretations and abuse. That you consider the above to be a case of WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK is but a matter of personal opinion. None of the above articles qualify as an essay, because they are clearly sourced, even if they are derived primarily from one source. They are not WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK, because they are simply presenting the history of the airline. In what way do they "teach the subject matter with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples."??--Huaiwei (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm not Russavia, but I can't imagine any good reason why anyone would want to look in 6 different articles for information that are a part of a whole. They seem to be chapters of one whole, therefore one article. Travellingcari (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they exist in seperate articles for no reason than keeping the main article at a reasonable length.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hadn't really considered that. Would one article on the 70s, therefore paralleling the 80s one also be too long? Or as Milborne said below, with some pruning? Just brainstorming. Travellingcari (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It does look like somebody has dumped the source book into the articles. They are some bits that cover other happenings in British aviation which could probably be pruned a bit. Dont think it would all fit in one article. Not sure what the answer is. Perhaps it should be summarised and readers pointed to the book for further info! MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Caledonian in need of attention 

message: (copy and update of my own text, which I'd posted to the wrong spot)
I just did a massive re-write of Go_Fly because it had been unsourced for more than one year and read like a non-bulleted timeline with the associated lack of flow. Anyone have anything to add? I tried to keep it as "Go" focused as possible since easyJet, Ayling and Cassani have their own articles and we were entering the Department of Redundancy Department. In addition, the scope of the article is about Go, not the effects of Go on the other entities (except the BA relationship, which I attempted to address). I think the article is much better than it was, but there's probably still some work to be done. This is my first full-scale re-write under Aviation/Airlines so I'm definitely seeking your input. I'm not certain what needs to be added at this point for an airline that hasn't operated for 5+  years. Thoughts? Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go Fly 

message: Should we remove the advertised destination tag under the destinations of Skybus Airlines on Skybus Airlines destinations. My opinion is we should remove this for it just makes the list longer. -chris^_^ (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's ok.  Skybus doesn't really fly to that many destinations, and it's a major part of their operation to serve alternative, smaller airports but advertise it as part of a "nearby" major city.  The same could probably be done with Ryanair destinations.  In some cases, what Skybus does isn't that unusual (many airlines consider OAK a San Francisco airport and BUR a Los Angeles airport, for example), but some are a bit more unusual (St. Augustine as Jacksonville/Daytona Beach). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination list on Skybus Airlines 

message: While working on Mahalo Air today, I started to wonder what is the best way to handle the fleet size in the infobox for airlines that are no longer flying.  Should it be zero since the airline no longer has any airplanes?  Should it show the largest number of airplanes operated at any single time?  Should it show the total number of airplanes ever operated by the airline?  I would be tempted to say that it shouldn't show up at all for airlines that no longer operate; if this is the way to go I'd suggest someone more familiar with the template's complex syntax can make it disappear when the value is omitted, rather than appearing as a blank spot like it currently does. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would using 'defunct' work for the size?  The template could be modified later to not display that line if the size was defunct.  In the meantime it would be meaningful.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question, I was considering the same question (among others) for  Go. I was making myself more than a little crazy trying to find out the total nuumber of planes that it had and then said more or less, why kill myself? For Go, there's actually more useful stuff that I'm still trying to track down.  Travellingcari (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet size of defunct airlines 

message: An anonymous editor recently added IATA codes to many of the airlines listed on .  I haven't seen any discussion of doing this on here; what do others think? I'm not sure I like it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. The IATA codes are adding nothing to the enhance the ability of readers to find other airlines. I'd say remove it. --Russavia (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does not add any value to the navbox, it should only be used as discriminator if two airlines have the same name. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe those edits are from an IP that has been behind some other interesting changes like adding the term 'regional airline sub brand' or something like that.  A look at the edit history would be informative if this is the one I am think of.  There were a bunch of early edits from a similar IP.  BTW, this IP also adds some useful material. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that.  Looks like yesterday a badly formatted section (using lots of blank lines) was added for "Business organizations with multiple certificated airline holdings".  Verbose term to provide way too much info.  I removed that, and will remove the IATA codes from the template as well.  I think we ought to add a charter airline section for the likes of Xtra Airways but I'll get to that later. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IATA codes on {{tl|Navbox Airlines of the United States}} 

message: The peer review for EasyJet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[EasyJet]] now open 

message: The peer review for Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy of [[Future of air transport in the United Kingdom]] now open 

message: I just completed some work on SkyEurope but the additional information and sourcing appears to have broken the layout with respect to the photos. Can someone lend a hand with that? I know the article needs more information, but I found overall sources to be somewhat lacking apart from some PR cruft. I plan to look more into sources when I have the time. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had three photos, two of which both illustrated the same livery, and the third was a rather useless boarding-the-plane shot.  I've cut it to just one. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much! I think it looks a lot better now and less bunchy. Travellingcari (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SkyEurope]] 

message: I'd like to break up the way too long List of airlines page. I think List of airports has the right idea, and I've already incorporated some into the intro (Airline codes). Comments? Should the be a separate page for each country? Or for each continent? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you but would suggest it should be by country or you could still end up with long lists. It is an advantage to have a list as well as a category to show up the red links for articles that need to be created. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay I think I was directed in this direction to comment.  I too am in agreement that the list of airlines is way too long unyieldy and does not facility quick, practical and expeditious searches.  I posted the same thing too somewehere recently and had tried to add list boxes to help facilitate to no avail.  Good luck with this as I am over many of the wikiNazis (sorry no offence intended to real Nazis and anyone concerned with political correctnesss and all that may be concerned with this confederate flagged term!!!) that frequent this place.63.215.26.148 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of airlines]] 

message: Should we have articles on codeshare destination like Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is necessary, standalone airline destinations articles were designed to take long lists of destinations off main airline pages, lists which themselves should explicitly not include codeshare / franchise destinations. Also, the fact that this franchise (Flybe / Loganair) will not start for another 10 months further reinforces the lack of value in this particular article. SempreVolando (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations 

message: User:63.215.26.148 (along with similar IP address presumably being used by the same user) is at it again with improperly implemented, badly formatted navboxes of questionable usefulness.  This one is titled "Regional and Mainline Airline Holding Companies of the United States".  While it sounds good in concept, I think it needs work:
# It's not implemented as a template, but rather directly on Trans World Corporation.  I haven't come across it anywhere else yet.
# It should probably be called "Airline Holding Companies of the United States".  Regional and Mainline doesn't add anything.
# Should it list the subsidiaries of each holding company?  I'm thinking that if it's a navbox of airline holding companies, it should not.
# It takes up way to much vertical space when expanded.  Too many blank lines.
# Is it useful to list holding companies that don't have a separate article from the subsidiary airline, such as Aloha Air Group?  Should they be listed but linked to the article on the subsidiary airline?  What if the subsidiary owns multiple airlines (e.g. Pinnacle Airways Corp.)?
-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered in  which was already included in the article.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not sure it is.   covers the airlines themselves; I could see a usefulness of a navbox for airline holding companies (US Airways Group, AMR Corp., Mesa Air Group, etc). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is also :Category:Airline holding companies so would we need both a template and category? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And to clarify my opinion, I'd rather have the category than the template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If there is consensus here that the IP is a vandal then we can consider blocking the IP address.  Since it appears to be a static address, this should not present a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure this is the same guy we were talking about above in "IATA codes on Navbox Airlines of the United States".  Same MO: an obsession with detailing the minute details of subsidiaries, sub-brands, and so on.  Whether or not this is a vandal is up for debate (as you pointed out above he does have some useful edits), but it's definitely not been a static address (we'd probably have to block the /24 to really block him).  I'd rather someone could convince him to register, join the project, and work with us to refine what he wants to add to something that actually works. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: .  I'm thinking we should drop the listing of each subsidiary airline but didn't do that yet.  If we do that, I'm thinking that holding companies without their own article should be linked to the subsidiary airline article--unless people think the holding company ought to have its own article, then leaving them redlinked would be good for article development.  Companies with more than one airline but no article on their own would be linked to the primary carrier (e.g. Northwest Airlines for Northwest Airlines Corporation). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was pointing out to Hawaiian recently, with all this merger and buying and swapping of airlines.....airlines names change with the drop of a hat... however IATA codes do not.  That is why I included IATA codes with the airlines... for it keeps the tracking history much more simple.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional and Mainline Airline Holding Companies of the United States 

message: Think that AeroLogic (see Lufthansa Cargo) should be created as a new airline article now that it has officially been founded.Bthebest (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some details of the airline's operations are mentioned here. Might be useful when sufficient information is found for article.Bthebest (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AeroLogic 

message: What is the current feeling about flags in the destinations lists for airline articles. I noticed that stand alone destination articles like Air Canada destinations have flags, but when the destinations are part of the article like Zoom Airlines they are not included. Of course there are exceptions like Skyservice destinations and Montenegro Airlines. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that the flags should go. They add nothing to these lists, except possibly for excessive download time for those on slow net connections. --Russavia (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see how they add anything except for minute amounts of color to an article. I wouldn't care about seeing them removed completely, but if we have to keep them they should be used only for the highest section titles. NcSchu(Talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with User:NcSchu that they only really add colour/color to the articles and dont add any real value. Air Canada is an example of flag madness particularly including flags of all the states in the USA. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that adding flags of the all "states" is rediculous, but adding the flags to each "country" isn't necessarily bad because it gives a better distinction amongst countries. Sox23 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like them; it looks odd having both the flag and the bullet there, as a flag can basically serve the same purpose as a bullet point.  I don't think they help much. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: User:RobNS has reverted my change and put back the flags on Zoom Airlines he has commented on my talk page re Why remove the flagicons from ZOOM Airlines? Are we going to change ALL destination lists (Delta Airlines, etc?). It doesn't hurt, and many different pages of diverse categories have them. I say, if it adds some colour and, more importantly, clarifies information, then they are fine.. It needs to be reverted again - but just checking that the concesnus from the above discussion was no flags on destination list (or even infoboxes)? MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this discussion first took place about 18 months ago - and the consensus then was that the flags are not needed as they add no value. As then and discussion above, they should be removed. SempreVolando (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with a consensus on the subject. I was merely adding the flagicons to Canadian airlines since I live here, and I noticed other carriers around the world had them. Not sure why adding flags to Canadian airline destinations has somehow 'stirred things up.' I happen to think that the flagicons are attractive, and don't hurt. I would only ask then that people go through ALL airlines (like Delta, etc), and remove the flagicons there as well.--RobNS 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a bunch of these changes.  I guess we need an effort to remove all of these since the inclusion logic appears to be, they are on one article so that should be on all. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, let's see the reaction you get when you start removing the flagicons from KLM, Delta and a host of other airlines. I really don't see why this is necessary. I mean who is this hurting? And why have this waited until my small and few changes to some Canadian airlines? Where was this group for the 'bigger fish' so to speak.--RobNS 20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, it isn't a result of anything you have or haven't done, but it is something which has obviously been going on with this project for a long time now. Whilst it isn't 'hurting' anyone per se, it can affect download times of pages for those people on slow connections. I am on a 8mb connection so it doesn't bother me all that much, but as WP is a resource for people from around the world, we have to remember that 56k connections (and sometimes WORSE) can be the norm for some people, and the flags only serve to increase download times for those people, whilst not adding anything but aesthetic value.--Russavia (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I'm saying this, but at the end of the day it's Canadian airlines that have been reverted to have no flagicons. This is crazy! Why not change Air France, KLM, Delta Airlines, etc? I am the last person on Wiki to ever be confrontational, but this is to much. It's all or nothing people. Either somebody here has the courage to remove flagicons from 'the big boys' and countless other smaller airlines, or leave the Canadian ones alone until the issue has been universally decided (or implemented).--RobNS 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refer to KLM destinations, Delta Air Lines destinations, Tiger Airways destinations, etc and you will see that those articles have now been amended as well. This is not an anti-Canuck exercise, but does apply to all articles covered by this project. --Russavia (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well Delta has been done.  Remember that not every article is watched by every editor so that no every editor is aware of changes to every article.  So please do not assume that there is some hidden agenda.  Doing this by hand takes a while.  So maybe someone can program AWB to quickly clean this up. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Madness! Oh well, keep going with it then, I guess the next victom for the artistically chalenged would be Lufthansa destinations, but you will have to go through almost all airline pages now. Have fun mate!--RobNS 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See my flag vote that I have just added to this page. Cheers.--RobNS 21:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, consensus was first reached on this issue in May 2006, then as above, and as below! So "long standing" is an apt description. SempreVolando (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. So a mysterious number of users adding those flags for almost two years versus three people believing they should be removed way back in May 2006 is considered "long-standing concensus"?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags again 

message: OK people, let's have a vote on weather their should be flagicons on the airline destination pages. As a professional art director and magazine publisher, I think it adds to the lists, both in accuracy and aesthetics. DK Publishing from the UK has taught us that encyclopedias need not be dull, or simply lists. The flagicons are appearing all over the Wiki, and they seem to be more and more accepted as a colourful and informative graphic item, that quickly downloads too. I would agree on one stipulation though, and that is that they should be for COUNTRIES only, and not states or provinces (what is next, city flags?  ;-)).
YES.  - Anyhow, my vote is, of course to keep them. I also want to join this group, as it seems to be a fun place.  ;-). See count my vote as a YES. --RobNS 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag vote - Super Tuesday edition! 

message: I've checked trough the archive, and haven't been able to find anything on how lists of airlines should be formated, so I'd like to start a discussion on this. List of airlines is being divided up into smaller, more manageable, lists and a number of varieties has appeared. 
# The most basic would be List of airlines in Angola which has as headers: AIRLINE, IATA, ICAO, CALLSIGN, and REMARKS.
#List of airlines in Singapore has the previous 4 plus CALLSIGN
#List of airlines in Iran has the 4 from the 1st option, plus AIRLINE (in [native language]), CALLSIGN , and BASE(S)
#List of airlines in Russia has the AIRLINE (in [native language]) in the AIRLINE column, and adds DOM. CODE (I don't know what that means).
#List of airlines in Serbia has Airline, ICAO, IATA, and Hub airport(s) but is also divided up by type of airline (Flag carrier, Air taxi, Charter, Cargo, Other)
#List of airlines in the United Kingdom has the same format as the previous, but replaces Hub airport(s) with Call sign.
There may be more.... Are all these columns necessary? Should that all be used in every list? My personal choice is AIRLINE, IATA, ICAO, CALLSIGN, plus AIRLINE (in [native language]) in the AIRLINE column and the divisions by type (Flag carrier, Air taxi, Charter, Cargo, Other). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to List of airlines in Russia, "DOMESTIC CODE" is the airline code as per the All-Russian standards, or GOST standards. You may notice from the list that ChukotAVIA does not have an IATA code, ICAO code or callsign, however, it does have a domestic code of АД. The domestic codes are an integral part of the Russian airline industry, as even airlines which have an IATA code, will often use their domestic code for ticketing, scheduling, etc, particularly for flights to other CIS countries. --Russavia (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, is this a one-off or will many different countries require country specific columns such as this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only airlines which come from one of the ex-Soviet states (with exception of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) use these codes. Airlines from say Arab speaking nations use only the Latin codes, and I know of no others that have specialised codes such as those in the CIS --Russavia (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Are domestic codes notable enough to be included in this list, for their sole purpose seems to be nothing more than assisting travellers?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely they are, as they are not solely to assist travellers (that is a side effect), but are assigned by state authorities as part of standards --Russavia (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: State authority usage as a direct reflection of international notability? Is this a matter of personal opinion of in accordance to WP:N? I remain completely unconvinced. All domestic codes, along with the "native language codes" should be removed for nothing more than listcruft and a result of fanboish behaviors gone overboard.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to get concensus on whether domestic codes on List of airlines of Russia and some of the other CIS airline List of airlines of articles which I've created over the last few days then please go ahead and gather that concensus. Being the fanboy that I am, I am willing to abide by any concensus which this group may come to. In fact, to head you off at the pass, I will instigate it myself. Thanks for your comments. --Russavia (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First and most importantly, you gain concensus to include something in wikipedia based on Wikipedia:Notability, and not the other way round. I am a tad surprised that you need to be reminded on such fundementals especially when one reviews your editing (or shall I say deleting) history. As long as you fail to tell us just why those domestic codes are notable, they will be removed. Opinions of fanboys don't exactly count in concensus building, I recon?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the codes are assigned by Russian/ex-CIS authorities and are locally widely used as flight identifiers (shouldn't be too hard to get a snapshot of a departures monitor/boarding pass to prove this?), then they're certainly notable. However, I'm a little surprised to see that the codes don't appear to be mentioned in Russian airline articles, even the Русский versions? Jpatokal (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Domodedovo Airport, Tolmachevo Airport, Vnukovo Airport and others can be checked for actual usage of these codes outside of a governmental setting. --Russavia (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And why should we assume that just because local authorities implement a set of codes, it has to be notable worldwide to an extent that they are included in wikipedia? These codes are meaningless outside Russia or ex-CIS countries, make little sense to non-Russians, and their only purpose in that list is clearly to act as a travel guide. Has anyone tried to ascertain their global notability other than from local airport websites (in Russian)?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't need to show global notability, they are either notable or they are not. If global notability, as you are seeming to suggest, is the basis upon which information can be presented in articles, then I would question the existence of "Other offices" in this article, or even the existence of the article itself! One of the official languages of the ICAO is Russian, and as such, any organisation responsible for overseeing civil aviation in any country in the world has the right to create, and use, designations in any one of the official languages of the ICAO. The civil aviation authorities of the former Soviet Union, and the now independent countries of the CIS, have chosen to enact that right, and they are actively used. However, you will not find the All-Russian classifications being used outside of these countries, as each country has the right to use their own classification systems; that the majority of countries use 'Latin' does not exclude that these codes are at least notable to people in those countries, and should be included. --Russavia (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What would be a better statement? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the usual legalese is airlines currently domiciled in Singapore. Jpatokal (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed to This is a list of airlines which have an Air Operator Certificate issued by the Civil Aviation Authority (insert link to relevant CAA from the aforementioned CAA article - another list I have been working on). Changes were made to the Australian and Bulgarian article yesterday, and have done some more changes today. Hopefully others can make changes where possible, the priority for myself is to get these lists made up asap, as I only have access to the ICAO database for a very short time. --Russavia (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either the above clutter, or a simple statement of "This is a list of airlines registered in XXXX" would have solved the problem as well. Your proposal is going to cause problems in the PRC list, for obvious reasons.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "This is a list of airlines registered in XXXX" is even more problematic. What exactly does 'registered' mean? Registered as a company? In this case, British Airways could be listed as an airline of Australia, as it is registered in Australia as a company. It could also mean that Volga-Dnepr can be listed as an airline of the PRC, due to it being registered in the PRC. I have mentioned the PRC article in particular here, as concensus within this project is now needed due to what is going to be another content dispute. This section will be presented below. --Russavia (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of airlines in.... / List formats 

message: Since the opinion here is to remove the beastly little flags, I will start working on a list of airlines that people here can go to, to remove flagicons. As a trained professional in visual communications and corporate identity, I can't in good conscience do this myself. However I do believe we should be consistent, and I know it means a lot to the members here, so here you will find a list of airline destinations with those evil little flags to be removed (it's a work in progress, so please be patient). We'll try and start with the 'A's first. Once you have 'fixed' the pages, please remove them from this list. Cheers! --RobNS 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Keep 'em coming. SempreVolando (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagicons to be removed 

message: Does LeisureJet airline exist? It was planned in 2004, but a quick google search comes up with nothing. Same with RMA Gold Airways.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in the case of LeisureJet all the info is more than three years old it can be proded or deleted.MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that thay should be removed as they serve no purpose.Bthebest (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Lacking reliable sources they can be deleted. Probably under CSD A7.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start-ups a no-go? 

message: Just an FYI, Transatlantic International Airlines is up for deletion. I have no dog in this race, although I voted delete on account of non-existent sources, but thought some of you might want the heads up in the event there is any information and/or salvageable content. Travellingcari (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Transatlantic International Airlines]] 

message: Newish article looks like a hoax or virtual airline anybody have any info. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3.  I consider this an obvious hoax as this supposed airline doesn't fly to any of the major US airports the article claims it does. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cochalas airlines]] 

message: I searched but didn't find evidence of consensus. I may have missed it. I'm currently working on Independence Air to clean it up and fix the citation issues. My question is whether we need the destinations for a now-defunct airline and if we do, should they be on a separate page as appears to be consensus for running airlines.
Go Fly doesn't have destinations (it didn't when I began work on it and I never added them in), nor do Ansett Australia or Allegheny Airlines. However, Command Airways and Empire Airlines (1976-1985) do. By no means is this an exhaustive sample, it's the first couple I saw in each. Thoughts?
Travellingcari (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations and Defunct Airlines 

message: I don't know if this is indicitive of what the project wants on it's pages, that up to y'all. I don't see the ICAOIATA codes as being necessary, but this guy has a bias agaisnt Delta behind his additions, as his summary makes obvious. I'm not warring with him over it, as I really don't know what the norm is here. Thanks from a WP:AIR guy. - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need IATA codes there.  It adds absolutely nothing.  Listing the carriers that operate as Delta Connection is sufficient. This particular anonymous editor (who shows up with a few similar dynamic IPs) is obsessed with this stuff. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The discussion that has exploded from this between me and Mr. Anonymous on Talk:Delta Connection has gone all over the place, but leads to some rather "interesting" insights on his thought process. This guy definitely has an agenda. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta Connection POV pushing? 

message: Just stumbled across this:  USALatin Sky.  A once sentence article on what appears to be a travel agency or something.  I think fails WP:CSD#A7 currently, but I figured I'd let the project members take a look before tagging it.  Maybe merge and redirect into ATA Airlines? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say merge into ATA Airlines. Sox23 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a section in the TZ article for USALatin Sky. I have also redirected "USALatin Sky" to that section of the ATA Article. Sox23 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USALatin Sky 

message: We have an editor adding airlines to the transportation category for many of the cities where the airline operates.  The same editor also was doing this for the economy categories.  While the airports themselves probably belong in the transportation category, I don't see how individual airlines would belong even if the have a hub in a location.  See US Airways for an example.  I think all of these should be removed from the airline categories.  Any reasons that these adds make sense?  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt make sense and I agree - transportation cats should be for airports not very airline that visits them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to agree.  Airlines that serve a couple hundred destinations would end up being in a couple hundred categories.  If we had to, I could see keeping airlines in hub city categories (i.e. US Airways in :Category:Transportation in Phoenix) but since those categories seem more useful for getting *around* the city, I would still argue against it. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hubs on the surface might appear to be a factor.  However a hub tends to move people through the airport and as a result doesn't really contribute to the local transportation picture.  But then, having a hub may increase the number of flights and destinations. But does that need a mention in a city transportation category?  I think it best to not even consider hubs for inclusion in categories like this. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive categories? 

message: There are now separate articles for Hainan Airlines (IATA:HN), Grand China Air (no code?) and Grand China Airlines (IATA:GS).  As far as I can work this out, GS ("Grand China Express Air") is a feeder carrier for Hainan, which in turn is a part of a new merged company called Grand China Air, which isn't actually flying anywhere under its own name yet and their website just redirects to Hainan for time being.  Did I get this right, and how to best represent it? Jpatokal (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, confusing.  I wonder if Grand China Air is more of a holding company or brand or marketing name?  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand China Air 

message: Looks like this article needs protection.  Every few hours, someone changes "is" to "was" when this airline is still supposedly operating as a cargo carrier.HkCaGu (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New and anon accounts can not edit it for a while.  Let's see if that helps.  Vegaswikian (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aloha Airlines]] 

message: Anyone bored? This was apparently created by a merge and it's basically a dump of one source. There appear to be a number of available sources, but I don't honestly know where to start. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British Caledonian in the 1970s]] 

message: appears in many airline articles.  It is an aviation navigation box and does not aid in navigation within airline articles.  Many countries are creating country specific navigation boxes.  I think that we should remove this extra navbox when editing articles and insert an airline specific one if available. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The aviation navigation box is a WikiProject Aviation nav box to allow users to access any part of the Aviation project. It is added to all Aviation articles. I see that users have started to remove this navbox from airline articles despite no consensus on this page to remove them! MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wikipedia:Navigational templates is only an essay, it states 'A navigational template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles for the purposes of facilitating navigation between those articles.'  Since the navbox in question is clearly not used for that purpose, then I think we can discuss how it is being used.  I may just move this discussion over the aviation also, but this project can make a decision on it's own. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - You could argue that all aviation articles are related! - Probably do no harm to have a wider discussion - I agree that it is not that useful in airlines but just wanted to make the point that it has been removed from airline articles in the last few days without any form of project consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In most non-aviation articles I have come across, navboxes usually are added to an artitle with the article itself being an entry within that navbox, for example, Star Alliance navboxes for all Star Alliance members, Airlines of the US Naxboxes for all US-registered airlines, etc. Boxes to aid general navigation are typically infobox-styled. See Elections in Malaysia for an example of how each navigation box is used.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation navigation box 

message: I have just removed (twice) three incidents on the Pinnacle Airlines that are not notable, an IP user has reverted each time. Any help or opinions welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should comment on the editor's talk page and provide a link to the Pinnacle Airlines talk page. Probably a new editor who doesn't know where to talk to you about the issue. --Matt (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I have left a message on the IP users talk page although I suspect he has morphed into User:Awseft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a bad idea to contact that editor too. FYI - I agree about the incidents added being relatively non notable. --Matt (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinnacle Airlines 

message: Can anyone figure out why articles with this template now have a ton of white space at the beginning of the article?  Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the cause, see my comments at Template talk:Infobox Airline#Recent edits causing white space above template. I see you also reverted the changes made by User:Jamcib, but then undid your edit. If your revert did not appear to work, it was probably because the template needed to be purged to replace the older cached copy. -- Zyxw (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Airline]] 

message: I don't see anything on either this wikiproject page nor WP:AIRPORTS about destinations that are pending government approval.  Do we have any thoughts on whether it is appropriate to list them on airline and airport destination lists?  What is bringing this up is the inclusion of Philippine Airlines proposed service to San Diego International Airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one can predict the future no matter what expertise one claims to have, so I don't think the probability of government approval being granted should ever be considered. If there is a source stating that such a route will exist, but must go through government approval first, then it can be added. NcSchu(Talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are basically in agreement.  It is a matter of clear wording so that there is no confusion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations - Pending Government Approval 

message: In many airline articles, there is a section about service changes.  While it might be OK to list changes that add a new destination or drop an existing one, I think that listing frequency changes is not encyclopedic.  The agreement that I think exists, is that listing the locations served is encyclopedic. No one has ever made the case the frequency of service is encyclopedic.  I think we should drop all mention of changes in the frequency of service. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New and dropped service can point to the direction the airline is flying to (ex: business or leisure markets). There is no reason they should be removed from the articles. There is, however, no reason that added/reduced frequency should be mentioned in the respective airline articles. Sox23 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with what was stated above. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In terms of static, I mean that not every single event needs to be covered. This means that seasonal changes to frequency of flights have no need to be covered. The frequency changes are to allow for adjustments in capacity, come October 2008 (or possibly sooner), those frequencies will be removed, and a new set of frequency changes (should not) will be added. And what about equipment changes on routes? Or how about re-timing of routes? It would really all that much easier if we created Singapore Airlines 2008 northern summer timetable and dump an entire timetable in there; at least by doing that, those flight numbers lists will be finally be useful (for the purpose for which they are intended for publich consumption). It is in that regard that 1) wikipedia is not the airline press office to advise of frequency changes 2) wikipedia is not a newswire 3) wikipedia is not a travel guide 4) wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate, meaningless information. WP:RECENTISM deals with the argument that I have quite nicely - we should not be writing articles with the view of replacing information every other month (or whenever the airline deems fit to pump out a press release to advise of obviously important information for the day-to-day running of their business, but which is totally out of place in an encyclopaedic context). As to my suggestion that all project members who want to see a common feel amongst articles work together on a single article for a week or two, see what ground can be made on article development any comments from any project members on that? Россавиа Диалог 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly fully agree that seasonal changes to frequency of flights should not be listed, something I have not recommended to add. All other comments above are a blatant attempt of overblowing the issue in a bid to shoot it down. Just who is suggesting to add schedule changes based on flight times and aircraft types? No one but yourself. And since the Singapore Airlines phrase has to be mentioned again, perhaps you may wish to list just which entry in that offending section falls within the problems you cite? Your skewed application of various policies continue to be a source of entertainment, Russavia. If Wikipedia cannot be an airline press office, could you kindly remove all information in all airline articles which has ever existed in their press releases? Ditto to all information ever reported in the press? How would a list of new routes be less of a travel guide or an "indiscriminate, meaningless information" compared to a list of permanant flight frequency changes? I do realise you simply could not care less about many aspects of aviation, but do the rest of the world's aviation enthusiats have to have their research clipped by your indifference?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedule changes for frequency of service 

message: I am going to put US Airways livery up at Afd. Is there any reason this article exists, apart from that it was split out of US Airways due to essentially being a gallery and taking up too much room in the main article? Even though it may be a 'sub article' it is stil in the mainspace, and it is lacking references from reliable sources (airliners.net is NOT a reliable source for anything) which discuss US Airways livery in any detail. The one sentence from an Afd discussion which always sits on my mind is 'The solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it'. If one must use photos on US Airways, the solution is:
* Expand the history section, and remove both (TWO) photos of the A330 in that current section
* Reduce the year by year timeline section from 2004 onwards
* Insert images from commons in applicable sections and utilise the commons template which advises readers that there are files/media on commons related to this article.
Wikipedia is not a list of various links to airliners.net nor a fansite. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I fail to see why any airline article would need to have all of these sub-pages (fleets, airport lounges, flight numbers, flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people), non notable subsidiaries, frequent flyer programs (Aeroplan excepted due to it being listed on a stock exchange), articles relating to cabins for one airline,  etc, etc) when Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines don't. Those are the featured articles relating to WP:AIRLINES, if that means anything. --Россавиа Диалог 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to "flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people)", now that was actually quite funny. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I really hate Afd discussions so I rarely get involved with them, but the article fails to explain why the topic is notable. NcSchu(Talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airways livery 

message: User:Tobibln is adding flags to all the airline infoboxes (in the Headquarters field), I have reverted a few but just thought I would check what the project position was. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw and reverted at SkyEurope, can put it back if consensus has changed, but I don't think it has. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a note on his/her talk page to see if it was discussed anywhere else and asked him/her to come here. Looks like they are adding flags at great speed through the airline articles to notice! MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As always with these unnecessary flags, my view is that they are not needed. There has certainly been no consensus on adding them to infoboxes, nor an attempt to seek such consensus here on the project page or as far as I can see on any of the discussion pages for the airlines User:Tobibln has already changed. Suggest a reversion of the changes until a discussion can be concluded here. SempreVolando (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  yeah I went to do that when I saw yours. Saw messages in another language -- could also be something carrier over from another language wiki as well TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The user also appears to be linking stand alone years in the infobox which the MOS says should not be linked. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  saw but didn't revert that because I can't ever remember when years should and shouldn't be linked. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understand is that a year by itself should not be linked.  Likewise for month and year.  By linking a full date (month, day, year), you allow it to be displayed in the format of the users defined preference. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Not really, I question what you refer to as "a lot" and "a few".  "A lot" of users vandalize pages in many different ways, but this doesn't mean their actions are correct because it is frequent. It is both a WP:AIRLINES and WP policy to not overdo the use of flags. NcSchu(Talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. WP:AIRLINES is in no position to establish "policy". The issue of "overdoing" flags is highly subjective. There are plenty of good quality articles which will have far mroe flags than any of these destination lists can show, and no one is citing "WP:Airlines" or any other policy against this practise. If there is indeed a notable number of users out there who think these flags are useful, should that not be considered when this WP decides on their fate? Even in the most recent "voting exercise", it was just five no votes (and one of my conditional no vote) against an unknown number of folks out there who keep re-adding those flags. Are the silent "flag-adders" invited to participate in these discussions at all?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No body is stopping them. In fact, a message was left on the aforementioned user's talk page referring him/her to this section. NcSchu(Talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reminder that the subject was only one user (who was asked to comment) adding flags to the infobox nothing to do with destinations or hoards of other users adding flags. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Another of Huaiweis silent flag adders User:EZ1234 has been invited to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that I am in any way related to the editor called User:EZ1234?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Lets get rid of these flags, they seem to annoy alot of people. User:EZ1234 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Should we get rid of the flags in the destinations in Estonian Air? User:EZ1234 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags (again) 

message: I notice that Frequent Flier Programs are included with the respective Airline article.  Are there any exceptions? --Novelty (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus has been that this is the way things should be, but they're regularly recreated anyway. Jpatokal (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you mean whether any FF program has its own article?  I don't think so.  I'm not sure whether any one would be notable enough to have its own article, except perhaps AAdvantage, though don't quote me on that.  NcSchu(Talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, unless notable on its own, no article, just a section in the airline article.  A redirect is optional. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Novelty (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent Flier Program 

message: In early April, I removed a large section of 'accidents and incidents' on the Northwest Airlines article. By following the guidelines of this project, it was my opinion that those incidents were not notable. The removal of these incidents was disputed by User:Golich17, as seen in this diff, which was in turn reverted by MilborneOne (he appeared to be in agreeance with the removal which I performed). Northwest Airlines is not the only airline I have done this with, I have done it with, from memory, Qantas, Aeroflot, Singapore Airlines, and a whole host of other articles. I think it is time that this guideline be discussed so that the entire project can read off the same page, so that we all know what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Seeing as we have a diff available for the Northwest Airlines article, I will explain why these incidents were removed, and it will apply as to why I have removed other incidents on other articles without prejudice. I hope that project members can discuss this, and perhaps tweak that guideline accordingly. I will place the guidelines which are on WP:AIRLINES here, so that one needn't go from page to page. The guidelines are:
*Incidents and accidents
**Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
*** The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
*** The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
*** The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
And here are my reasons for the removal of those and other incidents:
# The incidents did not involve fatalities
# The incidents did not involve hull loss (it is my opinion that hull loss needn't necessarily be reason for inclusion either)
# The incidents did not involve changes to procedures, regulations or processes which affect either the airport, airlines or aircraft industries as a whole
# The policy WP:NOT is forever in the forefront of my mind, and in relation to these incidents WP:NOT#NEWS is ever relevant. Whilst this policy is obviously more relevant to whether an article should exist on Wikipedia, it should also be used for content of articles of obviously notable entities. Whilst WP:NOT#NEWS discusses more on individuals, in relation to airlines we should be using it in regards to a) is the inclusion of incidents routine news coverage? and b) is the incident significant historically for the airline? It is my opinion that the incidents which I removed were included as a 'news coverage', and that they are not historically significant for Northwest Airlines. In the overall scheme of things they are insignificant.
# Whilst not a policy, the incidents and accidents on airline articles are a perfect case of WP:RECENTISM. In the history of an airline such as Northwest Airlines which goes back to 1926 (according to the article), or Qantas, or KLM, etc, etc each airline would have had dozens upon dozens of bomb threats, emergency landings (for whatever reason), and other mishaps, yet these are not included. A big part for that is what is covered in WP:RECENTISM, but of course to include EVERY incident that has ever seen Northwest Airlines involved is pure overkill.
These is my opinion on why I removed these incidents. And for further opinions, I will say this. I am in no pointing the finger at any fellow wikipedian with what I say, rather I am squarely pointing the finger at the media. The media these days is evermore sensationalistic, and we as participants in building an encyclopaedia need to cut through the media bullshit and present articles which are concise, well laid out, and more important, informational and relevant to what a reader who is vanilla on any given article subject would need to know in order to have a well-informed, (hopefully more than basic) understanding of that subject. Inclusion of what I (and others, I will let those people speak for themselves though) believe to be irrelevant incidents in the overall picture of any given airline is not helping that vanilla reader to gain an above basic understanding of our airlines. And this is where we need to stop playing 'media'; by this I mean, it appears to me these days a passenger on a flight farts, the passenger sitting next to them doesn't like the smell, they go to a news outlet to complain, and the so-called news outlet runs with the story, making it the most sensational story one has ever seen. And when all is said and done, this incident is added to the wikipedia article for that airline. It is my opinion that if an incident can not be mentioned in an airline article with a link to an article on that incident, it shouldn't be included. If it isn't notable to hold up on its own as an incident, then it likely is not all that significant. Of course, this doesn't preclude obviously notable incidents which fulfill the guidelines from being mentioned, but where an editor has not yet created an article for that incident. I would even so far as to say that the guidelines should be expanded to include other factors. The guidelines in my opinion would be along the lines of:
*Incidents and accidents
**Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
*** The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
*** The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
*** The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
*** The event resulted in the loss of the AOC of the airline and/or the airline going out of business/being completely grounded (obviously an incident which fulfills that is notable in the history of the airline)
*** The event whilst not fulfilling the above criteria was so controversial as to change perception of that airline, or had other major ramifications, or was historically unique in another aspect. The wording is not quite right, it does need to be tweaked - but the perfect example of what I mean by this is Qantas Flight 1 - there were no fatalities, hull loss did not occur, and industry procedures didn't change dramatically afterwards - however, it was notable considering the expense that Qantas went to in order to preserve their no hull loss record in the jet era, whilst at the same time the accident was held up as the perfect case of what can happen when airlines contract out maintenance to foreign entities [not to mention the bad press received in regards to having the Chinese repair the aircraft] - they are not necessarily my own opinions on that accident, although what I have written was widely written about in direct relation to that accident - that is the general gist of this inclusion factor. By historically unique in another aspect, I guess the perfect example is JetBlue Airways Flight 292 (although I will say it is my opinion that this article as it stands wouldn't fulfill this, due to the DirecTV aspect that is what is historical significant hardly rating a mention; of course that aspect is what make this incident in the least bit significant.
So that is my reasoning on why incidents have and will be removed, and my opinions as to how I think these particular guidelines should be worked upon; nothing I have done has been done maliciously, but rather in good faith and because of the way I have interpreted policies and guidelines has lead me to act in good faith in removal and/or addition of information in individual articles, or on wikipedia as a whole. I am hoping we as a project can discuss this particular guideline, tweak it as needed (if concensus as a project on a whole warrants it), and start implementing any concensus without prejudice across the board, with changes on individual articles outside of guidelines to take place not only on the article talk page, but on this talk page also, as it is better to discuss at a project level as it gets the project involved (I am taking a good stab here, but I don't think most project members know what is happening from one article to another), whilst at the same time changes outside of the guidelines could actually be a good thing that the entire project could benefit from - well that's my opinion anyway. I will turn it over to others for their input, and hopefully critique - as opposed to criticism - on what I have written above. Россавиа Диалог 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I supported your removal of the accidents and incidents as they fell outside the guideline. I dont think the guideline should be changed it is simple and clear as it has only just been agreed and unusually the same criteria is also used at WP:AIRCRAFT and WP:AIRPORTS. But note that just because an accident or incident meets the criteria this does not mean that is has to be included as it also as you say have to pass notability and other criteria not just in todays newspaper. I dont think that we have to cater for every eventually incidents like QF1 although not meeting the guidelines can be accepted on an individual basis. If an article like QF1 stands on its own without being taken to an AfD it is probably notable in its own right and pro rata can be included in the airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with MilborneOne.  The guideline as it stands works pretty well.  I am concerned that we are perhaps getting prone to running together the definitions of Aviation accident and Aviation incident.  If aviation operations kill someone or cause major damage to an aircraft, that's an accident per both the NTSB and the ICAO definitions.  If insufficient safety margins are maintained or there is only minor damage not affecting airworthiness, that's an incident.  By WP:ADL, I believe that ALL accidents are notable if the aircraft is of an eligible type (by size and capacity).  A few incidents may also be, but not very many actually get entries.  I'm not sure why we maintain the incidents in the same list at all.  It is rather confusing to new editors.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents and incidents guidelines 

message: The ELFAA keeps being added to airline articles in the infobox as an Alliance and a navbox - the navbox has been added as a copy and paste (adding the airlines all the categories the navbox has!) - the ELFAA is just a trade association and should not be in the infobox but just getting a sanity check from other project members. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ELFAA is not an alliance.  I don't have a problem with the ELFAA navbox being used on member company articles, though it should be transcluded and not substituted or copy/paste the entire template content.-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I have removed entries from infoboxes, added ELFAA cat and checked the navboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Low Fares Airline Association 

message: I know that the airline ceased operations on April 27, 2008. Are they still doing charter flights or did they ceased only scheduled passenger service and retained only charter? Cause Eos Airlines has been added to Punta Cana International Airport as a charter airline there. I reverted it saying "airline went bankrupt" and an IP reverted it saying "still doing charter flights". I just wante to know if this is correct or not? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article on CNN.com says "winding down operations".  I take this to mean that there may be a few last flights to cleanup (the outbound to Punta Cana operated before the shutdown was announced) but that's it.  There's no reason to be adding them to airport articles now. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eos has been added again to Punta Cana International Airport. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eos Airlines 

message: Hi! Just thought I'd bring your attention to this sub-page we've set up at Wikipedia:Templates with red links. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-Airline codes]] 

message: An editor added state flags (for the state the airline is headquartered in) to .  It was pretty ugly
 and rather pointless.  I've reverted the change. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in navboxes 

message: What should be done about these? The VS and VX pages are just registration pages (an AfD have been placed on them, though, and the general consensus leans towards deletion). However, the AA and SQ pages go into historic fleet detail; I'm not sure if it's noteworthy enough to be kept. I think a consensus needs to be made in regards to historic fleet data, as it's not consistent; some airlines have that information, others don't, and I personally don't see how it's relevant. I've merged the EK fleet page, though, because, in all honesty, there wasn't anything in that page that the main EK page's Fleet section was missing. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that fleet lists should be removed, whether they are in a standalone article or in some other article.  The rest of the articles in :Category:Airline fleets should probably have whatever is left merged back into the main airline article.  I have no issue with keeping historic fleet data (not detailed tail numbers, but lists that say e.g. from 19xx to 19yy, Hawaiian Airlines operated # L-1011 aircraft.  -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I went through and merged tables into the main articles; those main articles didn't have any vital information at any rate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet pages 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet CariMeSpeak! 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Virgin America fleet]] and [[Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet]] at AfD

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (3nd nomination) Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Singapore Airlines fleet]]

message: I think that there has been a mistake for listing Beijing Capital International Airport and Suvarnabhumi Airport as focus cities for PIA. I have removed them from the list of focus cities in the infobox since they only fly to 1 non-hub destinations (NRT is listed as a destination for PIA on the PEK page and HKG is listed on the BKK page) and to their hubs. Dubai would be a reasonable PIA focus city but Beijing and Bangkok??? I don't think so. Any comments. 125.34.65.92 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pakistan International Airlines]] 

message: See the discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass airline navbox renaming request on [[WP:RM]] 

message: Hello, everyone. The article on Aero Mongolia says that it is now defunct due to a flight restriction. But it did get its license back, because one of my friends went to the country by Aero Mongolia not long ago. Can anyone find some sources though? --Chinneebmy talk 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aero Mongolia 

message: Can some others keep a watch on the Jetstar Asia Airways fleet section?  We have an editor who wants to include the registration numbers.  I have removed this twice so far.  Not having the registration numbers in this article seems to be supported by the consensus discussions here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jetstar Asia Airways 

message: recently created, among others, Independence Air decline and road to bankruptcy, which appears quite redundant to Independence Air#Decline except for the format. Is there general consensus that we need these break-out sections. I don't think Independence Air is so big that the decline information can't be in the main article, although I think the destinations should definitely stay out. Thoughts? I'll be notifying Inetpup of the discussion in a moment. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that since the airline is defunct, the information would be useful in the existing Independence Air article instead of having a new article. By the way, there may be users who don't watch this page but do watch Talk:Independence Air, so we might want to either move the conversation there or just give a heads up. --Matt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, no reason to have a separate article on this topic. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'll link it there, there's been minimal activity on anything related to Independence Air and even when I posted here back in Feb, there was nothing. I thought odds might be that might get more eyes here. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  I agree that it's better to put it in the main article.  I'm quite busy today, so I won't have a chance to work on it!  Will someone merge the contents in?  Thanks!  --Inetpup (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will do! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Independence Air]] and redundancy 

message: Sorry to bring this up again but the last attempt to discuss this did not come to a conclusion. A number of editors have started to add flags to the Headquarters field of the airline infobox. Not a great fan of flags as I have said before but does the project have a recommendation either way. Only concern is that some articles have flags and some dont, so that if we use flags in just this context then all of them need to have flags, or if we dont like flags at all then recommend that they be removed. Any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that putting the flags here fails the first point in the summary section of WP:FLAG: Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a redundant flag next to a place name in the infobox is useful to the reader. NcSchu(Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: HOORAY!!! a conclusion has been struckEZ1234 (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags again (infobox) 

message: As the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. The previous request for mediation was not succesful as not all parties would participate, however, I am trying again with this request. I have added a number of 'involved parties', however, if you believe you are involved in the disputes raised in the request, please add yourself to the 'involved parties' list and add yourself to the 'Parties' agreement to mediate' section. Perhaps we can now have these issues resolved in a timely manner. --Россавиа Диалог 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore Airlines formal request for mediation (2nd filing) 

message: Over at Qantas and List of largest airlines in Oceania there seems to be disagreement as to what figures should be used for the fleet of Qantas. The source which I have referenced is published by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is the official government record of the civil aircraft register. The source which User:Sparrowman980 uses to reference these figures is Qantas public relations in which they include subsidiary airlines. I have a problem with the use of PR sources at the best of times, and this is one of those times in which the failings of using PR sources are ever evident. First and foremost because we have a source from the ultimate authority of civil aviation in Australia with up-to-date and the most accurate records possible; if only because the accuracy of these records are mandated in Federal law. Secondly, the Qantas PR is just that, PR. They could claim they are Jesus Christ in the name of PR, it doesn't mean that Jesus Christ needs to be redirected to Qantas; in effect, what I am saying, is that they can make all sorts of claims in their PR, it doesn't mean that they necessarily hold true, or verifiable, which in this case, it isn't. The verifiability of their PR claims are easy to debunk due to the existence of the CASA aircraft register. When searching for Qantas Airways Limited as the operator, we receive 135 results (the link I provided above). Searching for QantasLink, returns 0 results; this is because QantasLink is not an airline, but a brand used to group together the operations of Eastern Australia Airlines, Sunstate Airlines and some operations of National Jet Systems. These subsidiary airlines should not be included in Qantas figures as the CASA aircraft register clearly shows that these aircraft are not operated by Qantas Airways Limited. Jetstar Airways should not be included in any Qantas figures as its flights are operated under its own name, its own air operator's certificate, it's own codes, it's own callsign; the mere fact that it is a subsidiary of Qantas should not be used to inflate figures of Qantas. This issue was discussed very briefly six+ months ago at Talk:Qantas/archive1#Fleet_size, and Sparrowman980 has used User:Fnlayson's why not comments as apparent concensus to use the inflated figures. Can we please get other opinions on this, as it is clearly my understanding that previous concensus on such issues is that subsidiaries and other entities should not be included in such figures. --Россавиа Диалог 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An airline is an airline, a group is a group. It seems pretty obvious to me. Air France/KLM is a group that operate two seprate airlines, AF and KLM. Therefore, their numbers should be listed separately when we are talking about airlines. They have not merged their operations. Delta and Northwest are two separate airlines, but they are planning on merging. Once they do, the numbers for both should be included under Delta. Unless the QANTAS Group airlines merge under one AOC, they should be counted separately for fleet numbers. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I basically agree with your position.  Qantas should contain only aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited, and exclude JetStar aircraft as it is a separately certificated airline.  A good precedent for this would be US Airways, which does not contain the aircraft operated by US Airways Group wholly owned subsidiaries PSA Airlines and Piedmont Airlines and operated as US Airways Express.  QantasLink can contain details about all the aircraft operated by various airlines under that brand, in addition to the operating carrier's individual articles.  You'll see the same at US Airways Express.  That said, at least the QantasLink aircraft are listed as being operated by a partner carrier, though I would prefer that they not be there at all.  -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Russavia we should not bolster the fleet tables for legally separate airlines. British Airways for example does not include the subsidary BA CityFlyer which operates as a separate entity. I also  have a problem with these larger fleet figures then being used to justify being on top of the various my fleet is bigger than yours tables!! MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation of Qantas fleet numbers 

message: ...is the Wikipedia:WikiProject India collaboration of the week. Let's lend them a hand in getting this to FA! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air India]] 

message: Hi, I have made a new feed for the New Article bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected Airlines-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/AirlinesSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.
The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Airlines, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/AirlinesLog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log  is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules
That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:AlexNewArtBot]] - New Article Bot 

message: Over at TAROM I have made a note of its logo (adopted in 1954, author unknown) as resembling that of LOT Polish Airlines created in 1929 by Tadeusz Gronowski and winning a competition held for this purpose by the airline. Gronowski is a famous poster artist, Grand Prix winner at World Expos and a historically important designer, but I was unable to find any information about the TAROM's logo's creators, even after writing to TAROM about it.
I mean the logo symbol proper, as used on aircraft tails, not the complete graphic symbol with text that is updated regularly. However, this information is being removed. I am not aware of any other logo that so closely parallels LOT's and observes the same graphical convention of a stylized bird in flight seen from below, circumscribed. Gronowski's bird is a crane, while TAROM's is a swallow, but the graphic design is the same, down to weight of lines and variation in angle of wings, with the lower being shorter (for the seen from below effect). Is mentioning this resemblance not ency? --Mareklug talk 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a slight resemblance (they aren't exactly the same), but it sounds like original research, as you don't seem to have any sources that prove these two logos have a relevant relationship. The reference you added to the trivia was only a source for the history of the LOT logo, but it doesn't mention TAROM. Per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability the information doesn't belong. NcSchu(Talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TAROM]] and [[LOT Polish Airlines]] logo resemblance 

message: I am wondering whether destinations served by an airline, but operated by another should be included on the destinations article. For example Air Canada Jazz has many of its routes operated by Air Georgian, so should these particular routes be included on Air Canada Jazz destinations? Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operated by... 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#New C-class rating and another update to the project banner for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: In the airline's infobox, should the hubs be listed alphabetically or by size. American Airlines has its hubs listed alphabetically and airlines like DL, NW, UA, and CO have their hubs listed by size. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline infobox hub listing 

message: I am bothered by the use of ratings of airlines in various articles. These are usually derived from an outside source so they are readily available from elsewhere.  Once included in an article, they tend to remain and may or may not be updated.  Also there are so many sources for the ratings.  Some that are published regularly that use objective criteria, and others that are are published infrequently or on a random basis, say Consumers Reports.  
I think including the sources in the airline article would better serve everyone and then point to that if someone wants to look these up.  Then I would like to remove all of what really is wikinews comments about what an airlines ratting was this month from the individual airline articles.  Not sure how to deal with an airline like SQ where their recent history of top ratings is significant. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating inclusion ctiteria 

message: Just a heads up that Naming of Qantas aircraft has been taken to AfD by myself, and the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naming_of_Qantas_aircraft. --Россавиа Диалог 02:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Qantas aircraft at AfD 

message: Why is this not considered a notable incident?  It's had major worldwide press coverage (front page, BBC and CNN) while BBC News reports that it's a "major incident"; furthermore, a 2.5 x 3m hole caused by explosive decompression in flight appears as noteworthy as the last Quantas incident that's currently listed under the Quantas article (runway overrun).  Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus on the Qantas talk page is that it is not notable probably not worth repeating all the arguments again, but it currently does not meet the notability guideline but that might change depending on the cause. Also note that the Qantas flight 30 is also nominated for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As I've stated on both the Nomination of Deletion of the article and on the Qantas talk page, I do not see how this incident has notability beyond the initial media hype. NcSchu(Talk) 13:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The focus of that discussion has switched to the AfD page, which isn't looking like a consensus by any means. -- Rob.au (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Airlines needs to review this case and reconsider its approach & guidlines.  The herd has stormed over the guidlines on this page as they are exactly that - guidlines, not Wikipedia policy. Indeed notability has apparently ruled here, as this incident now has a substantial article and links in various other articles too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is not measured by the size of the article or the number of links. I dont think this case is any different to many others that have a rush of media interest and unsupported comments, in the initial few hours it is very difficult to find these types of accident notable particular when all the sources are media stories mostly made up from a few eye witnesses. The project doesnt need to rush this is an encyclopedia and has no time limit. In time when the herd have moved on others will use reliable sources and accident reports and clean and tidy up the articles and references. No hurry no panic no need to change. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A few users jumped over me for mentioning WP:AIRLINES in the Afd, despite completely ignoring why I was mentioning it, which was to see how it stood up to our guidelines, being the only ones on Wikipedia, on airline incidents and accidents. I think that the arguments for WP:NOTE are completely based on this sensationalist media drama that always blows up (no pun intended) events like this beyond normal proportions. While I'm much less hesitant on including this incident on the Qantas article now, I'm still 100% against having a whole article on it until it can be decided how much this incident will stand out in Qantas's history: whether it results in significant changes to 747s, Qantas, or aviation in general; if it brings to light a serious safety issue in aviation; etc. That would be true notability, and saying that there are a lot of news stories about it in the first 48 hours after it happens is completely irrelevant except in saying that WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. [Rant off]. NcSchu(Talk) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I should also note, for User:Socrates2008' sake, that WP:NOTE is only a 'guideline', as you say. NcSchu(Talk) 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  QF30 Incident