Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 2

message: I'm away to go offline, but have just noticed  making changes to many airline articles to change the fleet size in the infobox. Can somebody just eyeball these to make sure the changes are valid, i've got a feeling that might not be since they're a fair bit off the existing numbers. Thanks/wangi 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I am very concerned about these changes, which are on-going (see ). Especially with respect to WP:V. This is an important matter, we need to ensure fleet numbers in airline articles are properly referenced. Thanks/wangi 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US one I looked at had number for US and HP that when added together did not equal the total provided.  I guess we need to start putting warnings on the talk page and then blocking that IP. I have not done a block on an anon IP, so I'm not sure of the process.  The IP traces back to BellSouth.net with the comment 'For Abuse Issues, email abuse@bellsouth.net. NO ATTACHMENTS. Include IP address, time/date, message header, and attack logs. Vegaswikian 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass changing of fleet size 

message: I´m an expert in Aviation and Airlines!!! I always read Aero International and I´m looking for new information about Airlines. I´m highly intersted in the project and want to join it, but I don´t know how to do this! Dagadt
:Just edit the members list and add your name to it and start improving/expanding the articles. That's all there is to it. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to join this project 

message: Someone has renominated airline destinations for afd after it was kept in a decision two weeks ago. If you are interested in this, please join in the discussion. DB (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations afd (again) 

message: While the afd discussion for the Marco Polo Club article resulted in a merge/redirect, there was little discussion on the deletion page, so I decided to redo this and put up a merge request. I am proposing that the Marco Polo Club (Cathay Pacific's FFP) article be merged into the Cathay article. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. DB (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: Marco Polo Club to Cathay Pacific 

message: Should we start assessing articles? DB (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Hello folks! I have begun a WikiProject on bettering the articles on defunct airlines, most notably regional airlines which got swallowed up by the larger airlines following the Airline Deregulation Act. Also within the scope of this project are airports which were served by these defunct airlines that no longer have scheduled air service such as Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport in Glens Falls, New York, or have limited EAS service such as Massena International Airport in Massena.
The project is in the very beginning stages and I need all the help I can get. Basically, all articles in the end need to have former destinations, and I would like them to have past fleet, logos, and a brief history up to their collapse if possible.
Check out the Defunct Airlines WikiProject. It is in its very early stages. Thanks so much, hope to see you there! -Jondude11 07:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject Concerning Defunct Airlines 

message: After making a minor edit on the British Airways page, I noticed that an editor had deleted the Aviation Template ({Aviation lists}) without explanation, so I reverted it. It appears the user has removed the template from many other airline pages as well, though I have not reverted them as yet. I don't want to get into a revert war, especially on an article from another project. Is there a policy on the inclusion of the {Aviation lists} template on Airline pages? I know it is standard on WP:AIR pages, but I could not find a mention of required or excluded templates on this project page. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what value is added by the  template over the category system.  I agree that the  template is rather large for what it offers. I have no objection to seeomg it vanish or if it came up in compressed form. Vegaswikian 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation template 

message: There wasn't much of a response when I last brought this up, so I'll mention it again. The guideline that "large or well-known" FFPs should have their own articles is vague. People have interpreted this to mean just about every frequent flyer program there is. I think that line should be changed to say that the program is particularly unique or notable, such as AAdvantage (the first), Miles & More (an 8-airline program), etc. DB (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines like large and big are entirely subjective and will frequently cause problems since what one editor thinks it means is not what another sees.  On the other hand fixed numbers don't work since they are usually used to exclude something since it does not meet an arbitrary number.  I know this does not help, so maybe we need to ignore the large and only go with unique, historic or something like that.  Vegaswikian 06:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm I think questions on notability are universal throughout wikipedia, and it goes without saying that just about every case for notability is subjective, including size. Hence, I fail to understand why size should be ignored in favour of other supposedly less subjective factors.--Huaiwei 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent Flyer Programs (revisited) 

message: Ryanair has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Sandy (Talk) 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanair FAR 

message: I want to hear your oppinion about the tables created for in destination page, such as Malaysia Airlines destinations. Does it look better and more informative (with codes, fleet type)? I know as the rule said that we should list down lists only, but would the table like this be acceptable? why or why not? Someone please sheds some light on the matter. Thank you. Zack2007 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In simple terms, this is an encylopedia and not travelwiki.  While it is appropiate to include some information on where the airline flys, providing that much detail starts crossing the line with WP:NOT.  While a taveler might want to know what aircraft files a specific route, that material is not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not 100% enthusiastic about the table, but may I just ask in what way would this information be deemed unecycylopedic to a non-travelling air transport expert?--Huaiwei 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A newbie has created a similar table for Singapore Airlines destinations, not too keen on the format really. It just looks plain ugly. Violates WP:NOT, I believe people can go to the website to find all these trivial information. Terence Ong 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not inclined to support the table format, per the reasons stated above. There is too much information. Having a list of up to which type of aircraft is flown given a specific route is too much for an encyclopedia. The article would start to look like a page in an almanac if we list all information in the table format. Elektrik Blue 82 19:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the arguments above, the info can go out of date very quickly. Some airlines are constantly changing the planes they use on each route. Furthermore, how would an airline with multiple hubs be handled? Would every plane that flies to every airport be listed? With some airlines, that would create a huge mess. DB (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A table for destination page 

message: Seems that Frontier Airlines has editors that wish to add new routes with details like days of service, aircraft and other information.  I believe there was consensus to limit destination information to only points serviced to avoid non encylopedic material issues.  So before we get into 3RR teritory or an edit war, I'd like some feedback here. The last changes before my edit also started to add routes that were being dropped.  Vegaswikian 06:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontier Airlines routes 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: There is a CfD on Category:Braniff Flights that may be of interest.  I should note that we also have a :Category:National Airlines Flights and possibally a few others.  Vegaswikian 07:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Braniff Flights 

message: Can someone help a poor unenlightened soul out? Why does Wikipedia:Airline destination lists exist?  Also, this (referring to the contents, not the category itself). Wikipedia is not Wikitravel and I see no particular reason why it should simply repeat this information here (see WP:NOT#IINFO) when it can be easily found on the company's website. It also looks a little like advertising for the airline companies... Axem Titanium 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the Airline destination lists page advertising? It doesn't mention any specific airlines. It's a list of all airports with commercial service. I don't know of a website that lists all airports in the world that are served by at least one airline. DB (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the pages in this category seem to do just that. Why does Wikipedia have to be that one website to list every single piece of airline information? After all, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Axem Titanium 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page functions as a master list for the correct name to use for these airports.  Think of if more in terms of a guideline or policy. Vegaswikian 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what policy/guideline are you referring to? Axem Titanium 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say it was a policy or guideline.  I said think of the list in those terms.  Normally a naming convention can be created.  However since airport names are not, by their nature, something that can easily be stated in a guideline, a list was created instead. Vegaswikian 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't the main article for each airline speak for itself? Axem Titanium 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting discussion. One might one to bring it up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livingston Airline Destinations. As it seems Livingston Airline Destinations is to be deleted, you might want to salvage some information from there. Or something. I don't know. Now you know of the AfD's existence at least... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, seeing that AfD was what prompted me to come here and investigate. When I first saw it, I was going to say "delete" on sight, but seeing as there are so many other pages like it, I decided to come here first, before making any further decision about it. Axem Titanium 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused 

message: User:Huaiwei is reluctant to abiding by the terms on how to correctly layout a page and its contents.  I have justified why we make these changes and I have reverted his incorrect edits various times.  I am getting tired of doing this.  What can I do?  Is this considered vandalism?--Golich17 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. Vegaswikian 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Problem with Listening to Rules 

message: Livingston Airline Destinations is proposed for deletion, and the consensus at the moment seems to be delete. Please see the AfD for this article, as other destinations by airline would also be proposed for deletion. Tinlinkin 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livingston Airline Destinations 

message: Every single airline destination list has been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive. DB (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding a comment just because i'm so surprised at this.  Airlines are transportation systems.  I would argue that the most important part of a transporation system is where it goes.  What points it connects.  That connection, between points, is the very idea of transportation.  And someone nominated that information for deletion.  It's nearly absurd. I use those pages all the time, for interest's sake, because where an airline flies is critical finding a path between cities.  Anyhow, thank god they were kept.  The only valid reason for removal, in my mind, would have been an overwhelming staleness of the information, which is not the case. This information appears to get updated extremely often, and is the most maintained part of airline articles. — Fudoreaper 15:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations AFD (all of them) 

message: For airline fleet info in the infobox should I add the number of plane orders the airline will recieve for instance 100(+50)
--Marcusmax 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet info 

message: I am doing some stub sorting and sieving through categories associated with aviation.  I came across this article, Open-jaw ticket and was wondering is this real or a neologism? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Open-jaw ticket]] 

message: I've put up a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Airline accident naming conventions to codify the long-standing practice of naming articles on crashes as <<airline>><<flight number>>. Comments from the group to help establish consensus would be appreciated. Akradecki 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash naming proposal 

message: I just nominated the Open Travel Alliance template for deletion. Comment here if interested. DB (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTA tfd 

message: Does the project have a view on photographs in airline articles? I can see the value of different aircraft types being illustrated. But sometimes we have more than one of each aircraft, do the extras need to be moved to commons and referenced out?? or should we have a gallery instead of random pictures inserted in the article.  MilborneOne 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always felt that images in Wikipedia should be there to further the text message, not just for looks. Images that show a history of livery, or a particularly significant aircraft type, are what I look for. Pretty pictures that are there simply to fill space are, to me, a waste. I know there are photographers whose toes this view will step on, but if the image doesn't serve a legitimate encyclopedic function, I believe it should be removed. Akradecki 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, we can always justify one image as illustrating the airline, much like we do with the company logos, on the basis that showing the airline's livery is illustrating the airline.  Under this reasoning, these photographs should be current, in other words no red/orange/blue on white for United.  I don't think its necessary to illustrate every type flown by an airline, though showing major variations of the livery flown by the airline through the years can be relevant; images should be placed adjacent to text describing that era in the company's history when possible. -- Hawaiian717 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in  articles 

message: *Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines#Request for Comment: Reasons For/Against Request for comment on topic with wider impact on the Airline Project.04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Hello! Several editors at WP:AIRCRAFT, a project related to this one, have proposed that a new wikiproject be created.  This new proposed project would be wikiproject aviation, and while the details regarding this are Here, the basic proposal would make WP:AIRCRAFT, WP:AIRLINES and WP:AIRPORTS listed as projects under the new WP:AVIATION.  Input from mebers of this project would be much appreciated at the main thread located at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Major_proposal:_WP_Aviation.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new wikiproject - Wikiproject Aviation 

message: bsd.  i came across quite a few air navboxes, that don't use the template "navigation" (example: SkyWest end of page).  while it wouldn't be a problem for boxes appearing mid-article, and probably would be even better this way, it's not the same for those that appear on the end of page.  they are not of modular standard, create huge white spaces around them, thus not visually pleasing, among other problems.  in short:  i thought of moving them to template "navigation" format, any thoughts?  side issue: many of these use different colors for the header bar, the template has a standard one, which one should be used? Ben Stone 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxes formatting 

message: I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project (). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at :Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective :Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#A_Single_Project_Banner_for_use_by_all_aviation_related_projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects 

message: While there has been a lot of discussion regarding fleet information latyout there has been little (as far as I can see) mention of retired fleets, i.e. should the information be included? I am all for including this information as I believe it is a) an important part of an airlines history (no fleet, no airline!) and b) it is interesting to see the way in which the airline's fleet has developed. If a decision relating to this has already been made, please forgive me, but could someone please enlighten me? RaseaC 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired Fleets? 

message: A certain User:Lukla keeps on inserting images in the Cebu Pacific article! And I think that these images does not have proper copyright! For he said that he is the creator of this work, but from the aircraft images below the image their it states JetPhotos.Net! Below are the images he uploaded.
*Image:Gfh.gif
*Image:Tropical Plane Fun.jpg
*Image:City of Manila.jpg
*Image:Vfdf.jpg
*Image:City of Cebu.jpg
*Image:Philippine Centennial.jpg
*Image:Adult Eagle.jpg
*Image:Young Eagle.jpg
*Image:Cebu Paci.jpg
For now I'll revert all his edits. -chris^_^ 05:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the images have different photographers listed in the copyright bar.  I've seen this before (every now and then I'll do a search for airliners.net, jetphotos, myaviation, and so forth in the Image: and Image_talk: namespaces) and the same person uploading photos with different names in the copyright bar, and claiming ownership, is to me a clear sign that they're all just taken without permission.  I'm tagging them all for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. -- Hawaiian717 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cebu Pacific 

message: Does anyone see a need for the :Category:Airports by continent series of categories?  If not, they need to be nominated at CfD. Vegaswikian 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see categories for airports by state/territory or country as being useful, but not so much for continents.  On the other hand, having the additional level of continent probably doesn't hurt to much, since there is virtually no maintenance (countries don't change what continent they're in). On the other hand, a country can be in two continents (e.g. Russia), while a particular airport within Russia would only be in one. -- Hawaiian717 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do away with the categories, the destination lists for the commercial airports would still be listed by continent. Vegaswikian 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're talking about the destination lists in the airline articles?  I was thinking more along the lines that it could be useful to have categories like :Category:Airports in Hawaii, much like other categories that divide things up geographically, such as :Category:Companies based in Hawaii.  Though perhaps the lists, such as List of airports in Hawaii can serve the same purpose, though I tend to bias towards Categories over Lists as easier to maintain, although lists do have the advantage of being able to include things that don't have articles.  I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about whether these categories are kept, or how deep they're kept. -- Hawaiian717 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just suggesting that the :Category:Airports by continent and the immediate children like :Category:Airports in Africa be eliminated. All other categories, including the grand children would remain.  There are about 5 articles that do not easily fit into the by country scheme and would have to be manually moved.  But that is a minor issue.  I'm not suggesting the elimination of categories like :Category:Airports in Hawaii. Vegaswikian 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I don't have any objection to what you're proposing.  I just wasn't sure how deep you were wanting to go.  -- Hawaiian717 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Airports by continent 

message: While conducting RC patrol a few days ago, I noticed a user making a number of changes to the fleet statistics of multiple airlines.  User:71.112.102.126 made a total 129 changes on March 14 and 15.  I don't know whether the changes are accurate (that's why I didn't revert them), but thought I should let editors at this project know (see the user's contribution history for a list of all the changes).  I also noticed that there was a similar issue (raised above on this talk page) with another IP user in November 2006.  -- Black Falcon 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass change of airline fleet size and orders statistics 

message: There's a new Collaboration of the month, Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, that may be of interest to editors here; any help there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the month 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sox23 - Just thought everyone should know. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sox23 Adminship 

message: I've noticed that some editors, when providing a citation to an article in Flight International, just give the publication name and date.  Would it be possible for them to give more information (page and/or url, article title, etc) when doing so, such as by using the  or similar template? -- Hawaiian717 17:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight International citations 

message: I'm noticing a large number of updates being made on a very regular basis to many articles for minor data updates.  An encyclopedia should be somewhat static as encyclopedic information is generally not dynamic.  I see this in frequent, or monthly, updates to information like the fleet age, or the tail numbers of the aircraft in the fleet.
I think as a project we need to question the value of updating this level of information so often.  Maybe the real question is how much of this information really needs to be kept?  With something like the fleet, should we have a guideline that says that we show a status at month end and then update as required the next month?  Some of the updates have been solely to update the 'as of date with' no information changing!  As a part of this, we might want to review the need for some of the trivial information being kept in articles about things like this.
Some of this is driven by articles that want to announce every route change.  So we get one update to add a new route, not a new destination, an update when the flight schedule is announced, and update when the information changes and then an update when the route starts and maybe a final update to remove all of the announcement information.  All of this for information that belongs in a travel directory and not an encyclopedia. Vegaswikian 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought up the Fleet Age update edits with Sox23 on his talk page a while ago.  He responded that "... every 1st of the month I look at [www.airfleets.net] and check on the fleet age of various airlines that I contribute to on wikipedia. I make changes to the fleet age whenever the website (airfleets.net) updates the fleet age-"  Since every month the fleet gets 0.0833 of a year older, with our current 0.x resolution there won't be a age update every month.  —Cliffb 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even using that one case, I believe that he is still updating the 'as of date'.  So we have unnecessary updates.  I still believe that the project needs to consider if fleet age is encyclopedic.  I don't see how it can be.  Is there some RSs that show something encyclopedic happens at a certain age?  What value is there to a number that changes based on when you add and subtract aircraft from your fleet?  Does the number included aircraft in storage?  If not why not?  Bottom line this information probably should be removed. Vegaswikian 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily updates for changing information 

message: Looks like a large number of articles no longer follow the recommended structure.  It would be nice to get the material in each article into the same order.  Also someone has apparently decided that it is better to have history, livery, accident and other project recommended information in a trivia section and add non encyclopedic information in there as well.  These articles need a concerted effort to get them back under control. Vegaswikian 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure cleanup 

message: With sortable tables is it time to replace IATA airline designator, ICAO airline designator and List of airline call signs with a single sortable table?  This would put all information into a single place meaning only one update and probably resulting in more accurate information.  The only downside I see, besides the time to implement, is that the sorting maybe slow.  If this is done, I think the default order should be the airline name.  Vegaswikian 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree as far as the lists go, but I still think there should be separate articles describing each of the concepts. Perhaps keep the existing IATA and ICAO designator articles while combining the lists into something like "List of airline designators"?  I agree with the default order being airline name. -- Hawaiian717 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only considering moving the data and not the articles describing the IATA and ICAO information.  However the intro from IATA airline designator, as an example,  may need to be moved into the IATA article. Vegaswikian 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just like to mention it has taken a lot of time and effort to create (and keep up to date) all the ICAO code pages (which also include a full list of callsigns). The idea was to have lists to enable users to look up in whatever order they liked. A combined page would have hundreds of lines. All the information is listed in each airline article so a sorted list by airline would probably not add any value when you could go straight to the airline article. I would think a better project would be to create all the red linked airlines in the ICAO list that dont have articles ! MilborneOne 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Airline codes is still in the process of having the data migrated in.  When it is completed it will replace the three lists and it is sortable in whatever way the user wants.  You can see that capability in what is there right now.  I'll probably wait until everything is converted into the article before doing a sort by airline for the final default display when loaded. Vegaswikian 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to help I have uploaded all the ICAO Codes and Callsigns to Airline codes just to save somebody a lot of typing.MilborneOne 19:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That forced a change in the format to minimize moving stuff around. I think the new layout is better with the codes first.  I split the table in two since it would not sort at all.  Still need to move the entries into alphabetical order and add in the IATA codes/airlines from that list.  Vegaswikian 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes into one table 

message: Would it be possible to get some more eyes on this. Based on this and this it would appear that there is an employee of Zoom editing the article. They are adding unsourced information to the article as can be seen in the history. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I protected the article for 24 hours to only allow edits by established editors. That may be enough time to allow experienced editors to sort this out and make logical changes.  Vegaswikian 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If we really have two airlines, there should probably be two articles.  Vegaswikian 00:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was trying to suggest that we have two articles on the talk page to get concensus, but it became an uphill battle with the company employee he was pleasant enough to add this to my talkpage Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Zoom Airlines, you will be blocked from editing. Main problem is there is little citable information on the new airline other than the company website. MilborneOne 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google News has some hits for Zoom Airlines UK including some that should suffice as a reliable source, such as USA Today.  The question is, what information there would be all that useful and how much of the information that is being added can be attributed to a reliable source.  I would also suggest that the employee carefully read WP:A. -- Hawaiian717 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zoom Airlines]] 

message: It is now getting impossible to edit anything to do with Singapore Airlines, as User:Huaiwei insists on reverting ALL edits. The edits done by myself are to FACTUAL edits, yet he seems to want to revert everything to reflect pure marketing hogwash.
Examples of this are:
Singapore Airlines Cargo
Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations
It is now getting beyond a joke that edits are being reverted, and not only that but various "fact" tags are also being removed. I see that this issue of SIA articles has gone to 'mediation' in the past without no outcome.
I had planned to do a wholesale edit of Singapore Airlines over the weekend, but what is the point when Huaiwei insists on reverting every edit done which does not agree with the marketing line he obviously wants to pursue?
Any pointers on what can be done appreciated.  --Russavia 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 30 seconds since posting this, Huaiwei has reverted Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations claiming "remove unsourced claims". As you can see from the edit which he reverted  my edit is not factual, but it is quite clearly sourced. HELP my head is sore from banging it against a brick wall :)))  --Russavia 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 4 reverts in the last few hours. The 3RR rule has been broken which is an automatic ban. If you're so inclined, report it on the 3RR noticeboard. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you've breached the 3RR rule yourself now Russavia. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please direct me to the 3RR noticeboard please. I didn't know of such a rule, but will raise this issue there. Cheers --Russavia 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:3RR - is a Wikipedia policy which states anyone reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period can be blocked from editing for upto 24 hours (more for repeat offences). Reports can be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Note, if someone realises they've breached the rule they can self-revert their changes. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As both of you have breached the 3RR rule, may I suggest you both take a breather for 24 hours voluntarily and discuss your changes on the talk page, as engaging in edit wars is not fruitful. Any claims of dispute can be tagged with  and it is upto the editor adding the content to prove it is factually correct and cite reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources are cited, then the onus would be on the person wanting to remove it to gain consensus on why it should not be in the article. Good luck. → AA (talk • contribs) — 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks loads for the suggestion. My voluntary break begins now.--Huaiwei 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to edit anything to do with Singapore Airlines 

message: Digging into Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo and their flights raises some questions.
# If an airline uses the IATA code as their flight prefix, should this code be listed in the infobox?  I think the answer is yes since that is the flight identifier for the flights. We many need to update our guideline no matter what we decide here.
# Should these flights be included in another airline's article if the range of flight numbers are listed?  If SQC actually flies the plane should it be listed on the SIA page giving the impression that it is operated by SIA based on the flight number table?
#What does an entry like '96 (cargo hold only)' in the fleet section of the info box mean?  If it means leased space on aircraft from another airline it should be mentioned in the article but not included in the airline's fleet since they don't own the aircraft.
I'm sure there are more but I'd like to hear what others think about these issues. Vegaswikian 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The airline infobox always has the IATA and ICAO code as standard practice, the only time they are missing is if they are not known or not allocated - are we talking about another infobox?. I think listing flight numbers is not the place for wikipedia - thay are not particularly notable and can be easily found on the airlines websites if required. The 96 is just to bloat the size of the fleet by including all the Singapore Airlines aircraft that it can use - it is not something we list for other cargo airlines. The whole singapore/singapore cargo article appears to be full of non-notable and non airline related junk - although I appreciate that you are trying to sort that out! MilborneOne 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, listing SQ as the Singapore Airlines Cargo IATA code would be acceptable then since they actually use this code.  Just needed to double check given the problems editing those articles.  I'll also do the update to remove the 96 extra aircraft.  Vegaswikian 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a plain fact that Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo uses the same IATA Code. I hope users here arent assuming this makes them codesharing partners!--Huaiwei 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes and flights and destinations 

message: An issue has arisen at Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations that I'd like to bring back here to discuss.  I believe that it is the long standing guidance of the project that only airports where the aircraft owned by the airline, or affiliates that can be listed as d/b/a, fly to should be included in destinations lists.  This means that destinations with service via a code share, partner airline, leased space on an aircraft of an another airline, or service provide by another carrier not operating under your call sign is not considered a destination.  Is this correct?  What seems to be at the heart of the problem is the difference in providing service vs. flying to an airport. Vegaswikian 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support your view on destinations, the Singapore Airlines Cargo article is about the airline not the product, if the other editor wants an article about the product then he should be encouraged to start another article. It also appears to have the whole Singapore Airline fleet listed despite a link to the main article and ignores the fact that it only operates 747 freighters. MilborneOne 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again reverted both Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations, and have added additional information to differentiate between airline and cargo product services. If Huaiwei reverts back to incorrect info, yet again, it might be best to put all Singapore Airlines related articles up for community review, because these reversions are getting beyond a joke. As to this issue in general, destinations are only those destinations which actually see the aircraft of the airline mentioned. Air New Zealand flies AKL-PER; these flights also have Air Canada and United flight numbers attached, due to codesharing, but PER does not, and should not, appear in any Air Canada or United destination list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be greatly interested to know how one may write an article on an airline without making mention on the product. Since an airline's primary purpose is transportation, this would be its product. Could you show us an example of an airline article which conforms to your standard, and if this standard is reflected in this wikiproject?--Huaiwei 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any good reason why they should not?--Huaiwei 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was the burden of proof on the person questioning an article's usefulness? Anyway, Vegaswikian has already answered my question. —Kyриx 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations what are they and what are they not. 

message: It seems that the dispute in regards to cargo airlines is now spreading to Emirates SkyCargo and Lufthansa Cargo. All of my edits are completely sourced and, when necessary, explained. But these edits are called "POV pushing" by User:Huaiwei. We need to get some outside opinion, and arbitration if needed, as it is not going to be possible to negotiate as full scale reverts are being done to these edits, even when additional information has been provided. How do we go about getting this? --Russavia 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple reason why this dispute is "spreading", is because you are attempting to impose your opinions on the above matter on other cargo airlines, many of which, unfortunately, happen to reflect my viewpoint. This is blatant POV pushing ahead of a consideration to go for formal dispute resolution. Meanwhile, please get yourself aquainted with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes before assuming you can bring this direct to arbitration. There are plenty of steps along the way to resolve disagreements and avoid nonsensical disputes like this reaching the ArbCom and wasting their precious time.--Huaiwei 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emirates Cargo and Lufthansa Cargo 

message: I take particular issue with Russavia's tendency of calling content disputes acts of vandalism, such as in , where a revert justified by "Stop vandalising the article Huaiwei. My edits are factually correct, your's are just plaing WRONG. Stop vandalising." appears grossly inappriopriate (and further aggrevated when an involved administrator proceeds to block the page moments after Russavia's revert. Very disappointing, indeed.--Huaiwei 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vandalism" 

message: Please indicate your view by taking part in the straw poll below.
Should destinations/fleets of subsidiary/sister airlines be included in articles of cargo operators where they also exclusively manage those fleets' cargo space?
Yes:
No:
:::*
*Russavia
::Wikipedia is not a democracy. Explain your vote.--Huaiwei 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a vote on a policy issue (so WP:NOT isn't really relevant) but rather to gather consensus on what the guideline should be, but it will help us in achieving this if everyone does state their opinions rather than simply saying yay or nay :) → AA (talk • contribs) — 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood. WP:NOT certainly does cover content disputes (and actually every instance of disagreement in wikipedia), which is clearly the root of the problem here. The voting result must not be taken as binding, and must not preclude the need for a full-blown factual discussion on the issues at hand.--Huaiwei 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant to say was that both approaches could be valid so it's just a matter of consensus on which one to adopt. → AA (talk • contribs) — 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I have created :Template:Airlines_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China as it was not yet implemented. I think we need to gather some group consensus as to what should and shouldn't be included in it. My train of thought is that only airlines which are given certification to fly by the CAAC should be included. This means that airlines which are based in Hong Kong and Macau are not included as Hong Kong and Macau have their own civil aviation authorities with oversight for licencing, safety, international agreement, etc. Some think that Hong Kong and Macau airlines should be included in the template. Hong Kong already has its own template. Thoughts/comments? --Russavia 04:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines of the People's Republic of China 

message: Following on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Airlines_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China it doesn't seem there is a standard in the drop-down Airlines of *** templates which are placed in articles. Perhaps there should be a standard? What should and should not be included? How to present it? There seems to be different ways of doing this.
*Most templates tend to be like :Template:Airlines_of_Singapore in that all airlines are put there.
*:Template:Airlines_of_the_United_Kingdom also has a list of all airline, with the additional link "See also Defunct airlines of the United Kingdom"
*:Template:Airlines_of_the_United_States has several categories used in its template.
*Before I changed it the Indian template used to this --> :Template:Airlines_of_India&oldid=117462679. Why I changed it is here
*Perhaps the best looking template is :Template:Airlines_of_New_Zealand. It has categorised the various types of airlines
So should there be a standard, and what would be the best way of presenting this? --Russavia 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more complicated the templates then I would suggest that they are not likely to be used. You suggest New Zealand as a good looking template, if you did the same for the United States (which is already to complicated) and added former airlines, then it would be huge and unreadable. I dont think we need all the related subjects (cargo, charter former airlines etc) as we have to remember that the templates are there to help the user quickly find related content and should not duplicate all the categories. Singapore and India are OK as it is clear on what is being listed for the user, who  may not know that sub category the airline they are interested in belongs. MilborneOne 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The irresistable desire for standardising everything may be counter-productive in some instances, such as this one. Consider having at least a few styles to accomodate those with less than ten airlines, for instance, while not limiting longer lists to adopt classification styles. Also condsider the fact that :Template:Airlines_of_the_United_States utilises a common means of airline classification, but which is only applicable in that country. Other countries may have their own unique classification systems too, so are we attempting to deny all of them the liberty to present their templates accordingly?--Huaiwei 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps standardising these templates is a bad idea, as per the US templates, and others, but it really has more to do with making navigation much easier. Take :Category:Airlines_of_the_United_States, would it be a good idea in categories such as that, where there are masses of listings, to split these categories into sub-categories such as "Cargo Airlines of the United States", "Charter airlines of the United States", "Scheduled passenger airlines of the United States", etc. It would make it so much easier for browsers to find like companies? --Russavia 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there is a corresponding template which does the same classification, then replicating this in the categories may be more plausible. One main negative effect of extensive classification is that it may be difficult for individuals to find articles when they arent sure about the classification of the airline they are trying to find. Templates which presents all these articles in one place can resolve this issue somewhat.--Huaiwei 12:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines of **** templates 

message: Going thru a heap of the airlines in the last week or so, it has astounded me how many start-ups there really are. With start-ups the fact is that prob 90% of them will never get past the planning stage, let alone actually have a single flights. In terms of an encyclopaedia, how do we treat these companies? Start-ups such as Virgin America will very likely get off the ground. Same as Tiger Airways Australia. But what about such start-ups as Blackstar Airlines, Air Gumbo, etc? Just how encyclopaedic are they? What about Family Airlines? This is a company which never got off the ground on two occasions, yet they have their own entry. Should the entry for Family Airlines even exist in an encyclopaedia? I would say probably not. Many of these start-ups work purely on PR put out by press releases which are put out in the hope that some news organisation will pick up on them. So where do we draw the line? As an example, I have put Ansett Regional Airlines up for afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansett Regional Airlines
Also, I have split up the US start-ups into :Category:Start-up_airlines_of_the_United_States. These aren't true airlines yet, but merely companies with some PR and intentions (some real, some not). Once they have taken flights, they should be moved to their respective category. Thoughts/comments on that? --Russavia 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to treat start-up airlines? 

message: I have nominated El Al for a FA status following its recent awarding of GA Status. Please feel free to leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Al. -- Flymeoutofhere 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Al FA Nomination 

message: There are hundreds if not thousands of listings by country managed by this WikiProject. But many of them present an anomaly from what is common beyond this WikiProject and in printed publications outside Wikipedia. Take the lists of airline destinations for example, some countries that are not sovereign states are not listed as countries, but as divisions of countries. These include countries such as the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Hong Kong, etc. As this project deals with airlines, I would consider the ICAO and IATA country code lists good bases for reference. Michael G. Davis 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The airline project is about airlines and is not about politics or sovereign states. The lists are there to help readers find information. In the destination lists the destination is linked to the related article where readers can read any political/sovereignity issues. Also the ICAO Documents for example completely ignore the Republic of China/Taiwan. MilborneOne 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Michael G. Davis is known to be symphathic to User:Instantnood, the later of which is currently banned after three WP:RFARs and repeated sockpuppetry.--Huaiwei 12:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listings by country 

message: The last discussion on this didn't really reach any conclusions, but I think the guideline on frequent flyer programs needs to be changed. Even large and notable programs such as AAdvantage (the first in existence) have been marged back in. However, I got opposition - citing this project - when I put a merge request on LANPASS. If AAdvantage and Executive Club are not notable enough for their own articles, then this one certainly isn't. How about just changing the guideline to only include multi-airline programs (Miles & More, etc.) and programs not actually run by a carrier (Aeroplan and the like)? DB (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Airlines article deals PERFECTLY with AAdvantage, except for it not being referenced. It gives a brief history of the program (which most others don't), and it gives a brief description of the benefits available, and on which other airlines benefits are accruable. Frequent flyer programs are intricate programs and are subject to frequent and wholesale change, restrictions, blackouts, embargoes, etc, and as such, does an encyclopaedia really need a cut and paste job from the airline FFP website as to the complete benefits available? Take for example KrisFlyer, the FFP of one of my <I>favourite</i> encyclopaedic airlines; it may as well have an application form attached to it, as it is nothing more than an advertisement. The same goes for Skywards, Asia Miles, EuroBonus, Enrich Loyalty Programme, Flying_Blue and Miles & More. I will leave LANPASS off that list as it has a long way to go to get it up to advertisement standard. Multi-airline programs, such as Miles & More should have text in the airline article with specifics as to that airlines involvement in the Miles & More program, with main details in Lufthansa. Aeroplan I would say keep separate as it is a separate company, listed on the stock exchange, and would have notability as being the first FFP to list on a stock exchange (insert fact tag here???). Which brings me to this question. Template:Frequent flyer programs, why is Air Miles listed, when it is not a FFP, but a shopping loyalty program? (I have removed it, as well as AAdvantage and Smiles & More as they don't have their own pages). And back on topic, it is interesting to note that those articles which these FFP pages are rated very low on the quality scale. More time should be put in to improving the main airline article, particularly HISTORY, and then add small parts of marketing later into the main airline article. --Russavia 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The inclusion of any article in wikipedia is governed by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and that includes articles on frequent flyer programmes. If a programme is proven notable, than it has every right to stay, and not by some arbitruary decision to only include multi-airline ones etc, and to exclude articles just because they sound like adverts. Clearly, some folks here just can't resist poking in a certain direction.--Huaiwei 13:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is one area where all of these frequent flyer programs are lacking in that few, if not NONE, provide third-party sources for their information. KrisFlyer is one with only primary sources. Enrich_Loyalty_Programme is another. Flying Blue is another. The rest are totally unreferenced. --Russavia 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent flyer 

message: The terms hub and focus city are in my mind very American and possibly Euro-centric terms and don't quite work in entries for smaller airlines and airlines from many other parts of the world.
As an example, Northwest Airlines has hubs in MSP, DTW, MEM, NRT and AMS and has IND and HNL as focus cities. The operations of the airline directly correlate to the definitions of the hub and focus city (hub and spoke) airline operation.
Then we have Aeroflot, which has SVO as its hub; it is a hub in the definitive sense in that passengers will fly Aeroflot from other cities and transfer at SVO to the rest of the airlines' network.
Then we have Polar Airlines, it is based in Yakutsk, and utilising templates of this project, its hubs are: Yakutsk, Batagai, Belaya Gora, Magan, Moma, Nyubra, Olekminsk, Srednekolymsk and Tiksi. However, this is not accurate, not even for Yakutsk. Not all airlines operate on the hub and spoke model. Using Polar Airlines as the example, a passenger in Ust-Maya will fly Polar Airlines to Yakutsk for one of two reasons; either their intended destination is Yakutsk, or somewhere further afield (such as say Moscow) where Polar does not fly to. Traffic between Ust-Maya and Cherskiy via Yakutsk would be minimal if not non-existent, and even if there was traffic between these two points, the schedules of the airline do not fit in with it being a hub as a 3 or 4 days layover in Yakutsk would be necessary, so this doesn't quite fulfill the 'transfer' operation of a hub and spoke airline. Then we have the other 'hubs' of the airline, for example, Batagai. Operations from Batagai are limited, but the airline does base aircraft there, as it does in the other 'hubs', but the operations don't fulfill the definition of a focus city. They are more correctly defined as bases for the airline.
Kyrgyzstan Airlines is another example, Manas is more of a base for the airline, rather than a hub as most traffic originates from or going to Bishkek. There are limited destinations (well Moscow only actually) serviced from Osh, and Karakol is used in the summer season for direct point-to-point flights. Manas is a base, Osh is a secondary base, Karakol is a base on a limited basis.
Now transplant this to a larger airline, and an example is El Al. The airline is based in Tel Aviv, but does it actually hub there? According to Yoah Levy, the vice president for commercial and industry affairs, it does not. El Al is purely a point to point airline. Quote: “In North America, we are the dominant airline. We operate up to six flights a day to the six destinations of New York JFK, Newark, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles and Toronto. In the summer we deploy the 747-400 and the 777. We also dominate the Asian routes. We are the only airline to fly non-stop from BGN to Bangkok, Peking, Bombay and Hong Kong. However, we are not able to exploit this advantage to the full, as international passengers do not use Tel Aviv as a hub for Asia. On the other hand, we are able to offer Israelis non-stop flights with full service." Endquote Ben Gurion is a base for El Al, not a hub.
We really should be taking the various types of airline operations into account in the articles, particularly within infoboxes and the like, as not all airlines operate the same way as many American and European airlines. --Russavia 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term hub/focus city 

message: Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination for improved productivity 

message: Could fellow members please comment on the following issue on the above two airlines?
*Background: Both airlines are new startups launching services in the next couple of months.
*Problem: Royal Bengal Airline has registered the trademark name "AirSylhet" along with the company logo of Air Sylhet. They are separate airlines competing in the same space so this is a very unusual situation. I have tried to present this information in a NPOV manner in both articles:
*Air Sylhet: For reasons as yet unknown, the Air Sylhet logo and name is registered as a trademark of Royal Bengal Airline, another recent startup airline competing in the same space as Air Sylhet.
*Royal Bengal Airline: For reasons as yet unknown, among the trademarks registered to Royal Bengal Airline, is the name and logo of Air Sylhet, another recent startup airline competing in the same space as Royal Bengal Airline.
However, as soon as I had done this some anon editors started removing it. The discussion page of Royal Bengal Airline was also virtually blanked where discussion of this info had occurred. I had to request page protection to prevent the disruption by anons who were not engaging in dialogue.
The latest development is a "psuedo" legal warning not to include this information (See this talk page discussion).
My opinion is that both companies are actively advertising for investment from the general public and information on this trademark dispute is valuable information to people intending to invest so it should be presented and I have kept it succinct and factual with no allegations or inferences drawn for either airline.
What is the opinion of others here? I have said that I will go with the consensus from the WP:AIRLINE community.
→ AA (talk • contribs) — 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the trademark registration is in the United Kingdom and not Bangladesh it could be that Royal Bengal may be acting as a sales agent in the UK for Air Sylhet - although I can not find anything citable. Most of these "airlines" appear to be investment vehicles, they might just dissapear if they dont raise enough money. But I agree it should be mentioned until somebody can prove what is going on, the UK trademark information is in the public domain so the legal threat by the editor is a little unjust. MilborneOne 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: Royal Bengal Airline is the trading name of R B Airline Ltd, a UK registered company. It is also the trading name of Aviana Airways (Bangladesh) Ltd, a Bangladesh registered company. Air Sylhet is a UK registered PLC and there is no information to suggest there is any collaboration between the two companies - although this would be news to investors if it were true. → AA (talk • contribs) — 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Royal Bengal Airline]] and [[Air Sylhet]] 

message: Now that it seems clear that articles on aircraft by tail number are generally not going to be notable, N135CR at AfD, I'd like to ask if any use of extensive or inclusive lists of tail numbers in articles have sufficient notability to be kept.  I'm thinking that these are non encyclopedic listcruft.  One obvious possible exception would be for Frontier Airlines where there is unique art associated with each tail number. Should the project be updated to address this? Vegaswikian 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I think they should go.  Lists of tail numbers should only be to describe moderately notable aircraft.  In addition to the Frontier tails you mention, I'd include special livery aircraft such as the US Airways heritage, state, and sports team planes and the Southwest Airlines special liveries.  The  inclusion of tail numbers on the fleet table on Singapore Airlines, for example, should go.  There are plenty of sites for tracking fleet info, such as airlinerlist.com.  I think this falls outside our scope of interest -- it is difficult to track, even harder to verify from a reliable source, and hurts article stability. -- Hawaiian717 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tail numbers 

message: While patrolling new pages recently, I noticed Air Ivoire destinations and another new destinations article lacked verifiable reliable sources. I pointed this out by placing the "sources" template on the articles.
A user I think may be a part of this project asked me about the template I applied, pointing out that these articles routinely lack sources. He also removed the templates, and I haven't replaced them because it became apparent to me that the issue is one with what appears to be the whole class of destinations articles.
I think we all accept that there are official policies of this project we must abide by like WP:V and WP:OR. I'm concerned that these pages do not live by that standard. I have noticed that they have been to AfD on at least two occasions and have survived, so my intention here is not to march them back to that possible status. Instead, I thought I'd raise the issue here to see if there is a project consensus as to what to do. It just seemed a better course of action than a Request for Comment, but that may be the next necessary step.
The biggest question appears to be whether these pages are actually a part of your project. I haven't noticed any destinations articles carrying this project template on their talk pages, but they do appear to clearly be related. Erechtheus 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that sources should be indicated in the destinations article. Links to routemaps of the airlines can be inserted, provided that they are official, and not from third-party sources. However, not all airlines have routemaps in their websites, let alone a functioning website, for some carriers. Thus, the usual source would be official published schedules such as data from Amadeus.net or OAG.com. The problem with this is that you cannot link to these sources, due to the fact that they usually are in a format in which one can search for specific routes and times, but that's all there is to it. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are always press releases.  However for major airlines, remember that these references will get added a few at a time.  Since that reference remains the source of the information, it should not be replaced with a newer reference since the original reference date would be lost.  As a result, some articles would have hundreds of references.  Vegaswikian 18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations articles 

message: I've been using AutoWikiBrowser to add fair use rationales to the images in :Category:Airline logos (yes, I know not all of them are there, but its a start), and some of the images there are really big.  Some were over 6000 pixels wide.  I think those don't pass the requirement that fair use logos be low resolution.  Unless anyone objects I'm going to start scaling them down to a lower resolution in the next few days.  -- Hawaiian717 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are doing a good job - no objection.MilborneOne 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I can see what you mean - some are far bigger than they need to be. No objection from me. Camaron1 | Chris 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really big logos 

message: The Puerto Rican airline Air Culebra is up for deletion.   Here is the AfD. (Note: I did not initiate this Afd.  It is listed here becuase it falls into the scope of this project.) --Oakshade 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline article up for deletion 

message: Just deleted an incident added to the Shuttle America article, I removed it as non-notable as it was about an aircraft being delayed for seven hours. User:PaulinSaudi has reverted the deletion on the grounds that a seven hour delay is a notable incident. Can anybody have look and provide a second/third opinion please. Thanks . MilborneOne 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuttle America incidents 

message: I'm gonna make destination list of airlines, and I'll update the current lists. I was wondering... should we state our references in the article because I notice that most destination lists has no references stated. -chris^_^ 08:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This probably isn't proper format by any means, but what I usually try to do is add the source in my edit summary whenever I add a destination. Sometimes I forget but I look at this as being the best way without cluttering up the page. NcSchu 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New airline destinations list 

message: I noticed that all destinations of AirAsia and their subsidiaries (except FlyAsianXpress) is in one destination list, shouldn't we separate these per airline? -chris^_^ 10:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AirAsia destinations 

message: I have removed some images sourced from Airliners.net in the Eastern Airways article, User:Rawky123 keeps putting the images back including declaring on the images pages that The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose... Despite this the images themselves clearly show they are copyrighted by individuals. I have removed them twice now and not wanting to break 3RR rules can anybody help. Can we challenge the images themselves? MilborneOne 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Airliners.net images get uploaded on a regular basis.  I've listed these three on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, and it looks like this user has other uploads that should go too.  I thought I'd go the IFD route on these, but often I just use WP:CSD#G12 for a speedy deletion as a copyright violation for photos from Airliners.net and the other photo sites (MyAviation, JetPhotos, etc). -- Hawaiian717 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Airways images 

message: Hi, can I have some input over at the above article regarding notability please? See also the relevant discusion at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it could be a real airline. Does it have an IATA or ICAO code?  Vegaswikian 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing under that name in the ICAO code and callsign list. MilborneOne 11:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air South Charter]] notability 

message: Can somone take a look at Retrojet?  Is this a dictdef, nonsense or something that needs expansion? Vegaswikian 05:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we keep and expand it.  It seems like it happens frequently enough that it's worth having, especially if we can build up a useful history section (Who was first? What airlines have done them?).  The only other generic term I can recall hearing for this type of livery is "Heritage Aircraft" (or something like that), used by US Airways.  Oftentimes, airlines will use a term that refers specifically to the livery shown, such as American's "Astrojet" and Aloha's "Funbird".  Retrojet seems as good of a generic term as any, and if we find something better we can always move the article. -- Hawaiian717 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may go with "Heritage Aircraft" on a rename.  While it gets fewer hits, Retojet gets some false positives so there are other, albeit minor, uses. Heritage Aircraft is also less ambiguous.  It also appears to be the more common term for museums for older aircraft.  So the article could be expanded to those as well.  Vegaswikian 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to moving the article to "Heritage Aircraft". -- Hawaiian717 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrojet 

message: Dear fellow Wikiproject Airliners, I made an image for your airline stub at the commons. Please replace the PNG asap. Thanks! --JackLau 09:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind me asking, but what exactly is it? Shouldn't we have a more descriptive picture? NcSchu 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's supposed to be a generic airline tail, replacing :Image:Airlineicon.png.  However, isn't the point of using SVG to display information more efficiently?  In this case, the SVG version, at 908 bytes, is actually larger than the 192 byte PNG.  While at full size the PNG doesn't look too good, at the 20px size used in , I don't see a difference. Perhaps :Image:Takeoff.png or :Image:PlaneClipart-small.png would be better graphics to use for the stub icon? -- Hawaiian717 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG image avaliable for airline stub 

message: Heads up, folks... has been nominated at TfD (here) for what seems to be a fairly flimsy reason...consider visiting the TfD page and speaking your piece, whichever side you're on. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project template up for deletion 

message: With some of the cleanup in :Category:Airlines it has exposed an interesting missing cat.  We have categories for Air ambulance services, Cargo airlines, Defunct airlines, Helicopter airlines, and Low-cost airlines but not for charter airlines or passenger airlines.  Should these be added?  Vegaswikian 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Charter airlines should definitely be a category, and I will start to add these as I go thru the rest of the categories as part of the cleanup of all of these categories. Now the question, do we simply just do them as :Category:Charter airlines, or :Category:Charter airlines of...? Unlike the Planned airlines of... category, I think that :Category:Charter airlines is suffice? --Russavia 08:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about one major cat since they are already listed in an airline by company category. Vegaswikian 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I have nominated the following for Afd
Airlines of Pakistan
List of airlines in Ukraine
List of airlines in Serbia
Last week List of airlines based in Nepal was put up for afd, and was deleted, as it should be
As these are squarely within this project scope, others should make known their opinions on such lists at the relevant Afds. --Russavia 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With community concensus helping to keep all three articles above, I have initiated an exercise to review the deletion of List of airlines based in Nepal, first via a notice at the administrator's talkpage.--Huaiwei 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some lists up for deletion need attention 

message: Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page?  Vegaswikian 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto archiving 

message: Several months ago, the financial performance of British Airways was put up. Is it useful to include it on other airlines? The reports are quite easy to find - they should all be available to the public. At a minimum, the passengers flown is a useful piece of data, along with maybe turnover. I personally used the data in the BA article for a school coursework and it can be useful to readers. American airlines' report can be found here , simply by searching "airline annual report". --TheTallOne 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it on principle. But since many airlines are private companies, they don't release financial performances very often, so it might be difficult to include it on a majority of airline pages. NcSchu(Talk) 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we consider major airlines around the world, I doubt this will be as big a problem as suggested. Even unlisted companies and state-owned airlines do occasionally release ridership and fiancial figures even thou they are not obliged to, especially if they are major companies. Including financial information for some airlines need not require the same to appear in every single airline article.--Huaiwei 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add the financial performance 

message: Looks like we need to better define this.  Apparently AirTran Airways is now considering any city they serve from 5 destinations to be a focus city.  This makes for a very long infobox.  It is also causing some reverts.  Can we arrive at a better definition?  Starting with 5 would mean that many airports become focus cities. This is apparently based on something in here, but I just don't see it.  For now I'm going to revert these out again.  Vegaswikian 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to have this "focus city" designation at all? —Kurykh 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my sentiment too. However, because WP is not a paper encyclopaedia we don't have pressing limitations of space and consequently tend to be a bit of an inclusionist - I can see the difficulties with the Infobox, etc, though...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk  • 08:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with inclusionism or deletionism, it's more like the inability to define this ambiguous term (ignore the redundancy). —Kurykh 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus city definition 

message: In going thru the categories which relate to this project, and having a look at literally hundreds of articles, I think that an improvement to the current infobox might be a good idea.
The current infobox currently has the following options:
* airline        =
* logo           =
* logo_size      =
* fleet_size     =
* destinations   =
* IATA           =
* ICAO           =
* callsign       =
* parent         =
* company_slogan =
* founded        =
* headquarters   =
* key_people     =
* hubs           =
* secondary_hubs =
* focus_cities   =
* frequent_flyer =
* lounge         =
* alliance       =
* subsidiaries   =
* website        =
This infobox is placed on all airline articles, and I don't feel it fits in with all airline operations. Refer to The term hub/focus city as one example of why this is, and specifically why these infoboxes are too American and Euro centric, but moreso American-centric.
My suggestion would be that we have one infobox for current airlines and one infobox for defunct airlines (and possibly even one infobox for planned/start-up airlines), with additional options in the infobox, which could include the following:
* airline        = in this field the legal name of the airline is placed, as well the legal name in the language of the country from which the airline hails. An example of this can be seen at Chukotavia or Domodedovo Airlines. On other articles, example of how this field would be are "Qantas Airways Limited" at Qantas; "Singapore Airlines Limited" at Singapore Airlines; "South African Airways (Pty) Ltd" at South African Airways, along with any names in local languages. This follows the same type of formatting that country infoboxes follow, for example.
* logo           = obviously this is where the logo goes
* logo_size      = obviously this is the size of the logo
* fleet_size     = obviously this is the number of aircraft in the fleet
* destinations   = obviously this is the number of destinations served
* IATA           = the IATA code
* ICAO           = the ICAO code
* callsign       = the airline call sign
* parent         = this field has a lot of confusion as to what actually belongs. Many articles have the legal name of the airline placed there, but this isn't actually correct. For example, Qantas has Qantas Airways Limited there, but in actual fact, Qantas is "Qantas Airways Limited trading as Qantas"; Singapore Airlines is "Singapore Airlines Limited trading as Singapore Airlines". What belongs here is the company which owns the actual airline. For example, the parent of Korean Air is the Hanjin Group.
* shareholders = this field could be used in instances where there is no parent company as such, particularly if there are multiple major shareholders. El Al is an example of this.
* company_slogan = Slogan of the airline
* founded        = Year founded
* headquarters   = City where airline HQ are located
* key_people     = 3 top people within the airline
* hubs           = IF the airline hubs, the main hubs of the airline
* secondary_hubs = IF the airline hubs, the secondary hubs of the airline
* focus_cities   = IF the airline hubs, the focus cities of the airline
* main base = This would be used in the instances that an airline does not hub. A perfect example of this is Polar Airlines. It is not a hub-and-spoke operation (as per many many airlines. Another example is El Al which does not hub (as per above link)
* secondary bases = This follows on from the main base. From Polar Airlines all of the non-Yakutsk 'hubs' are actually secondary bases.
* frequent_flyer = frequent flyer program name
* lounge         = name of airport lounge
* alliance       = alliance the airline is a member of
* subsidiaries   = subsidiaries of the airline
* website        = website URL of the airline
Additionally, for Russian/CIS airlines, there needs to be an additional field which is unique to these airlines, that being the internal codes. If you look at Polar Airlines and Chukotavia you will see they have no IATA or ICAO or even callsigns. But they do have internal codes, e.g. ЯП is Polar Airlines, АД is Chukotavia. Even major airlines have these codes, e.g. СУ is Aerflot, УН is Transaero, С7 is S7 Airlines. These codes are not used for international flights, but rather domestic flights and inter-CIS flights. They should be included as they are major identifiers for these airlines, and I would make a stand-alone infobox for these airlines to add this option in, but am not sure how to do this.
Throwing this open for comment, additional options, etc, etc. --Russavia 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another field which I feel would useful is AOC, whereby the airline AOC number can be placed, with the option of the person providing a link to the AOC on the relevant CAA website. --Russavia 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other field which I meant to put down here but I forgot about, was which organisations an airline is a member of. At the moment, we have the 'Arab' airline articles putting in AACO in the alliance field, but the AACO is not an alliance but a trade organisation. Other organisations which can be put in such field are IATA, ATA, ATXA, AEA, HAI, European Regions Airline Association, Regional Aviation Association of Australia, Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, Association of South Pacific Airlines, African Airlines Association, Air Transport Association of Canada. This would also solve the problem of when the ATA template went up for Afd, it was mentioned that membership by an airline in the ATA should be mentioned in the article, this would take care of it, instead of having to prose it within the article. --Russavia 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the addition of reference to main and secondary base would make a valuable addition, in most instances the hubs field has been used to show the airlines main base even if it is not a hub, so this would clear this up. Cant agree with the airline field having the full legal name - this is the title of the infobox and should be the same as the article name I would suggest that the legal name should be a separate field. I think it is right to clear up the use of the parent field but if it is to be used for for the company that actually owns the airline (as opposed to the airlines legal name which is used in most instances at the moment) this should be restricted to private companies. This would lead on as in the list above to needing a shareholders field for public companies - could be a problem area as shareholders could change on a daily basis and I suspect the term majority shareholder would need to be clarified on the infobox page as this could be contentious. Perhaps this discussion should be at Template talk:Infobox Airline. MilborneOne 05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox needed? 

message: Can some others take a look at List of Airline Holding Companies I'm not sure what to do about the article, but deletion is at the top of my list.  I'm not sure that the amount of work needed to clean this up is worth the effort.  Vegaswikian 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As most of the companies have their own articles I would suggest deleting List of Airline Holding Companies and possibly creating a cat for Airline Holding Companies - although we would have to be sure that the cat gave wiki some value. MilborneOne 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we already have :Category:Airline holding companies of the United States which is for the most part holding companies.  Not sure I would want to rename that to holding companies.  Vegaswikian 18:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Airline Holding Companies AfD material? 

message: There is an IP user who keeps changing the callsign from the official ICAO AIRFRANS to AIR FRANCE, despite comments to discuss on the talk page and cite the change he/she is changing it every few minutes. We can only revert so many time an hour! can anybody help. MilborneOne 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP user has now used the talk page, he is still not convinced that the official document is correct and that amateur websites are a better source of info! MilborneOne 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air France callsign 

message: * 23 September 2007 - expires 28 September
** AirAsia awards (PROD by User:Riphamilton; PROD nominator states: "This article is spam and does not in itself meet the requirements of notability. If necessary, it can easily be merged into the main Air Asia article.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Airline Marketing Sub-Brands is nominated here. Vegaswikian 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: * Previous United Airlines destinations (Expired PROD) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical reference

message: :Category:Airline Marketing Sub-Brands is nominated here. Vegaswikian 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I just found  and it seems like this adds a ton of nav boxes when used.  Not so sure that it is a good idea.  Also some of these take up huge amounts of vertical space making the contents useless as a navigation box.
One suggestion would be to make this one only be a nav box for the other templates.
Comments?  Vegaswikian 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it works properly.  On pages that include it, such as Alaska Airlines, only the first box appears.  There seem to be random <noinclude> tags presumably making a mess of things.  I'm tempted to send it to WP:TFD; it just seems to big to be useful. -- Hawaiian717 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could support that if nothing changes, but would fixing as I suggested be a better way to go?  Also note that some of the secondary templates appear inline in some airline articles.  Vegaswikian 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This also brings into question some of the breakouts in the templates like :Category:Airline Marketing Sub-Brands.  What exactly is that and is this a common term?  I have never seen anything like this used before.  Vegaswikian 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that.  Some anonymous editor recently took upon himself to better distinguish between airlines and what he calls "marketing sub-brands", i.e. things like United Express and go! that aren't actual airlines, but brands used by other carriers.  I've done my best to try and keep the mess under control.  As far as the template goes, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. -- Hawaiian717 22:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the template, I'd like to change it to only list any sub templates and be a short navigation aid to the material rather then including it all in the article.  But as I look at this, I see deleting 'Commercial Aviation in the United States', 'Airline Related Sub-Brands in the United States', 'Regional and Mainline Airline Holding Companies of the United States' where the categories are sufficient, 'Non-Mainland Aviation and Airlines Services in the states of Alaska and Hawaii in the United States' and 'Dependent regional Airlines of the United States'.  Maybe the last needs to be kept as a section on the main template.  Maybe I'll try gutting and cleaning up the template tonight.  Based on previous dealings with the IP user, I expect an edit war to follow.  Vegaswikian 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I reduced it and cleaned it up some.  We may still need to add more groups and move airlines into different groups and do some sorting.  I wanted to get the basic layout cleaned up before cleaning up the details. Vegaswikian 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like something useful.  I was wondering though if we might want to break Regionals down into one more level ("Commuter" maybe?) for the tiny (Part 121?) carriers. -- Hawaiian717 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add the code for a part 121 section.  However someone else will need to populate it. Vegaswikian 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it backwards; part 121 is the big airlines, 135 are the little ones.  However, since I'm not up to checking to see how the airlines are certified right now, I just renamed the section "Commuter" and took a stab at populating it. -- Hawaiian717 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines of the United States 

message: Check out Proposed Cathay Pacific destinations. I do believe it is a possible candidate for an AFD?--Huaiwei 13:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I doubt we really need to debate this, the page is entirely speculative and the statement at the top by the author of the page is enough warrant for a speedy deletion. NcSchu(Talk) 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appriopriate? 

message: There is an anon editor adding terms like 'advertising sub-brands', 'marketing sub brands' and simply sub brands.  These appear to be nothing but brands that are used by airlines.  To avoid confusion I suggest that we only use the term 'brand' to describe these cases.  One could argue that the every airline is an advertising or marketing brand so adding those terms is redundant.  Vegaswikian 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-brands etc are names that the marketing people use and would I suspect does not mean anything to most people. I agree we should just stick to 'brand'. MilborneOne 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we call brands? 

message: As much as I don't want to do this, I have put List of largest airlines in Oceania up for AfD, because it miserably fails WP:V and WP:OR. The other articles in this series are also clearly in breach of these policies, and depending on the outcome of this AfD (I was almost inclined to put them all up as a group) will pursue those too. It is better to have no information than non-verifiable information. --Russavia 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a number of world largest airlines articles, including the List of largest airlines in ... series, another one at List of world's largest airlines by fleet and the original World's largest airlines. Far to many for anybody to understand. Perhaps if we have enough lists like List of largest airline in my backyard then we can get everybodies favourite airlines on one list or another. We have already had examples of fleets being bloated by including fleets of every subsidary or associates to get them higher on one list or another! I support Russavia nomination and we should have one article like World's largest airlines with properly verified contents. MilborneOne 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to make your opinion known on the Afd. You raise a valid point, but will leave it to you if you want to make it on Afd or not. --Russavia 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Russavia clearly needs to check up on the editing history before jumping straight into pulling up wikipolicies as excuses for deletion, especially when I sense this is a calculated move which is linked to other content disputes. See my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania for more details. This entire series of articles by continent was born out of pass suggestions to trim down the original World's largest airlines to a more manageable size, and simply involved porting over existing information to individual article lists. It certainly does not constitute a delibrate attempt to create microscopic lists just to get "everybodies favourite airlines on one list or another", as MilborneOne claims. As for the problems associated with aircraft fleets, please see what I have already begun doing over at List of world's largest airlines by fleet. I am in the process of converting the list into one which is directly sourced, and has clear definitions and parametres in place for a fair comparison. Also, kindly look at List of largest airlines in Asia, which I believe is a positive demonstration of the potentials of these articles. If Russavia claims that "other articles in this series are also clearly in breach of these policies", I will certainly like to question the accuracy of his statements and claims. Meanwhile, I would think this project would benefit far more if some individuals here could perhaps spend time in improving those articles to acceptable standards and assist me in this exercise, then to spend their precious time scouting for content to delete.--Huaiwei 15:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course free to question the accuracy of my claims that these lists are original research. Of course, I am also able to ask exactly how are these lists compiled? From what sources are the rankings taken? In the past some of these articles have used the respective airline WP articles as a source - this is a no-no. There is no problem in having statistics and the like, but these, particularly any rankings, need to be referenced to a reliable source. Let's take this article as an example. I don't see CHC Helicopter on that list (with 320 helicopters). If a reputable source was responsible for this list, CHC would be on that list. Or where is Air Astana on this list? Or S7 Airlines and Transaero on this list? This is how it is clearly evident that these lists are original research, and they need to be referenced to reputable sources, not compiled simply by going thru a rudimentary list of airlines and checking websites for passenger/fleet/etc numbers. --Russavia 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now that you have major issues over the entire list of statistics, it still leaves the burning question of why you nominated just one article, nominated other similar articles only after seeing numerous comments on your nominating strategies, and yet keeping them as individual nominations without basically calling up World's largest airlines for debate, for that's where the root of the problem came from in the first place. Take World's largest airlines up for AFD (and that will be its third, btw), and we shall discuss your problems with the contents over there in a single consolidated location, instead of crop spraying all over the place (and this isnt the first time you are doing this. Your recent exercise in mass deleting hotels came immediately to mind).--Huaiwei 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to Afd World's largest airlines as for the most part it is externally referenced, but I have added OR tags to relevant sections which need to be rectified, or removed completely. --Russavia 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have tagged a grand total of ONE section in that article for OR, all the while when you have plenty of time to revert war with others in that same article (and in the same section you tagged OR, I must add). That was a fantastic track record you have there.--Huaiwei 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of largest airlines in Oceania up for AfD 

message: Singapore Airlines fleet, Malaysia Airlines Fleet and Thai Airways International fleet have been placed for Afd, project members may want to weigh in with their opinions against or for deletion. --Russavia 12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline fleet articles up for Afd 

message: Over at Singapore Airlines, I have been attempting to clean up this article for the last 6 months due to the advertisement like state it is in, in addition to it containing too much unencyclopaedic information. Unfortunately, Huaiwei reverts such edits on sight claiming that concensus has been found to include them; this concensus including himself and one other editor, without taking into account the results of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07_Singapore_Airlines (a mediation in which he made clear he had no intention of paying any notice to) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines guidelines. The guidelines states:
Code share destinations should not be listed for the secondary carrier.
Do we as a project stand by these guidelines and can they be used as concensus to remove codeshare destinations from articles such as Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways International (and others no doubt)? In other words, do we remove codeshare destinations from articles and only list their codeshare partners?
Please indicate below if you support or oppose the guidelines, so that concensus can be gathered for once and for all.
*Support Firstly there is the project guideline which should apply. Secondly, the argument has been made by Huaiwei that these lists of codeshare destinations are required due to the special status of Singapore being an island state and the airline requires these agreements in order to expand their reach - this is not a valid argument as all airlines require these agreements whereever possible, and I do not see lists of destinations being listed on Cathay Pacific, an airline from Hong Kong which is in a similar position of Singapore. Thirdly, it seems odd that a big list of codeshare destinations are able to be found in the main article, yet actual destinations of Singapore Airlines have to split off into a separate article - a separate article which can be Afd'ed at any time, which if successful would leave the article with no actual destinations but a list of destinations to which it doesn't even fly. --Russavia 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply This isn't an attempt to remove codeshare information, but an exercise to build concensus to reinforce a current project guideline to limit codeshare information only to the airlines which an airline codeshares with. And it would apply to all articles, whether they be the main airline article, a destination article, or even a stand-alone AirlineABC codeshare destination article. Codeshares as noted previously are a marketing tool used by hundreds of airlines around the world, and an encyclopaedia is not the place for doing an airlines marketing for them. Others can provide their opinion, but that is my 2кп. --Russavia 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Kindly answer my question. To which particular codeshare information or section is this vote exercise on, and in which article is it refering to?--Huaiwei 18:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus needed for inclusion of codeshare destinations in articles