Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations archive

message: Should these be listed in destinations?  They are not really destinations that the airline flies to.  With code shares, not all flights are available on the airline you are code sharing with so listing provides some level of information.  I guess the answer is based on what purpose is served by these lists, if it is a travel guide then they probably should be kept, if it is to document were an airline flies then they should be dropped. Vegaswikian 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they must be listed, add them in a seperate section. In the meantime, may I remind, that :Category:Airline destinations is not a travel guide, and should not be limited as such.--Huaiwei 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Code shares

message: Most airline destination lists have continents listed in alphabetical order, and a few have them in geographical order from west to east (although I like the idea of starting with the airline's home continent). I think the second makes more sense; does anyone have any comments on this? Dbinder 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of continents

message: In looking at several lists, I like the ones that list Hubs, and by extension focus cities, in bold.  I think we could also list Seasonal for seasonal services in italics.  Avoids the format issues as these can then be simply added after the airport.  How does this sound?  Vegaswikian 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested standard for listing hubs and season service

message: I have been creating destination maps, namely for easyJet destinations and Germanwings destinations. Before this, the article that had such a map was Ryanair destinations. Does anyone think this is a good/bad idea to produce more? Callumm 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone say update nightmare?  Destinations are changing all of the time.  How many editors are inclined, or even know how, to update these maps?  While a nice idea, I don't see them as being practical.  Also, don't add sizes to thumbnails since they override use settings for the display size.  Vegaswikian 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I am able to do updates as and when they're needed, and Kelisi is also able to do it (he created the Ryanair map). I keep up to date on aviation news, so I generally know when a new route is announced and can update the maps. There has been a Ryanair destination map for a long time now on Wikipedia, and as far as I could see was the only one of its kind on Wikipedia. Would it make sense to maybe just have them for the major airlines? I certainly feel that it adds to the articles. Callumm 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the larger airlines already have these on their sites.  So why do we need to duplicate their work?  Also many of these are interactive so you can also see where they fly to from each city.  This is not a travel guide. Vegaswikian 08:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: We should add frequencies after the destination Airport, what do you mean? Dagadt (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequencies

message: Is it correct to put the flags icons of the countries in the list?? e.g.Mexicana destinationsJibco (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: After a number of near edit wars on the format to be used for destination lists, I have invited those involved to bring their ideas here. The only current standard is similar to British Airways destinations for stand alone article. It has been pointed out that may not be suitable for main articles. Perhaps a table based format like used on Airports may be suitable. But appreciate if anybody has any ideas that can be discussed. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard format layout for destinations in a main article destinations section, ruins the article layout and presentation. For main article based destinations list there should only be these formats:
*Domestic and Internationalwith cities and airports onlyorContinentswith cities and airports onlyorRegions (like North Africa and Central Asia etc.)with cities and airports only.
116.71.54.240 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose a destination list for airline pages where there is only 1-20 destinations (see Air Southwest), then if there is 20+ destinations (including terminated) a seperate destinations page (see Delta Air Lines destinations, Iraqi Airways destinations, etc). This is a neat and tidy ways of presenting the data, and as for a list in a seperate article a I believe presenting it these ways would be best...
*Country
**City (airport)
or
*Country
**City - Airport
Also as this is a discussion for how to present destinations, I believe flags should be discussed as they tend to be an issue regarding flags. My view on flags are for flags, mainly because it helps a person scan a country in large lists and it also lightens up a page, I see no harm in flags. That is my view on destinations. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Flags create confusion and clutter, I will agree though that flags look good in table format lists only.116.71.60.227 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Country with City - Airport would be fine with me. By the way why are country names going bold in standard format airline destinations article lists, an editor Dravid.Raul is going about doing this and Miliborne you did too for Air Arabia, I thought this wanst part of Wiki.116.71.34.12 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copied the BA format - agree it does look peculiar - perhaps we need to look at that. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Destinations format

message: ===Southwest Asia===
;United Arab Emirates
*Dubai - Dubai International Airport Hub [begins 1 June]
Any comments on these. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree along sense of some parts, but the whole 'no continents' things seems very stupid, no offense! Of course British Airways destinations is very good example of a destinations page, why? because it has a large variety of destinations across the globe and they are listed by continents they're in which is good because country after country is not really helpful, they need subsections. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Milborne regions do look better than continents, so yes.116.71.32.219 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I suggested no continents is because with only ten entries it would enlarge the entry, but I am open to others suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadnt noticed you added continent as well which is not appropraite for the article, personally I still prefer Regions' with City - Airport layout, if  a country has more than five cities served by the airline or is the home base, then it should be listed by country name see Oman Air, this makes it concise and gives a nice look to layout of article.116.71.50.203 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a bit daft without the country name which is far more important than the regions which can be confusing for some readers, south west asia for example is not normal english usage to most readers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt label it daft, infact people who cant make out where south west asia is are daft, region could be added as  Southwest Asia so people can click and find out where its located isnt that the idea behind wiki? besides the region wise layout looks more pleasing or smarter appearence wise, lets not forget originally destinations at wiki were only listed as domestic and international with just city names e.g International scheduled destinations: Dubai, Mumbai, Sydney, Washington etc.115.42.65.139 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Asia]]

message: ;United Arab Emirates
*Dubai - Dubai International Airport Hub [begins 1 June]
Any comments on these. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree along sense of some parts, but the whole 'no continents' things seems very stupid, no offense! Of course British Airways destinations is very good example of a destinations page, why? because it has a large variety of destinations across the globe and they are listed by continents they're in which is good because country after country is not really helpful, they need subsections. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Milborne regions do look better than continents, so yes.116.71.32.219 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I suggested no continents is because with only ten entries it would enlarge the entry, but I am open to others suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadnt noticed you added continent as well which is not appropraite for the article, personally I still prefer Regions' with City - Airport layout, if  a country has more than five cities served by the airline or is the home base, then it should be listed by country name see Oman Air, this makes it concise and gives a nice look to layout of article.116.71.50.203 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a bit daft without the country name which is far more important than the regions which can be confusing for some readers, south west asia for example is not normal english usage to most readers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt label it daft, infact people who cant make out where south west asia is are daft, region could be added as  Southwest Asia so people can click and find out where its located isnt that the idea behind wiki? besides the region wise layout looks more pleasing or smarter appearence wise, lets not forget originally destinations at wiki were only listed as domestic and international with just city names e.g International scheduled destinations: Dubai, Mumbai, Sydney, Washington etc.115.42.65.139 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Southwest Asia]]

message: Are they European or Asian, most are listed in Southwest Asia, which part of Russia is Asian which is European? where does Europe stop and Asia begin? 
Should Egypt be listed in Asia if an airline only serves sharm el sheikh, should Turkey and Russia be listed in Asia if an airline serves destinations only on their Asian side? where should countries be listed if an airline serves all of their African, Asian and European cities, should they be listed in that continent on which side they serve the most cities.116.71.48.145 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyprus, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia where do they go?

message: The following was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines): (Some of it may be irrelevant as it is fairly old)
===This page needs to be reconsidered===
It appears that only three editors have contributed to this page in its entire history and no one before me has bothered to discuss this page. Yet, MilborneOne is attempting to use this page as a content restriction for any Wikipedia airline page.  Before the page can be viewed as representing consensus, it needs much more involvement from other editors.  ShondaLear (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Did you look at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines which is the main discussion page for the project? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've actually posted there!  There's obviously a difference between the project discussion page, where consensus may or may not have been reached, and this page, which purportedly is a synthesis maintained by only three editors.  I would not be concerned at all with this page if MilborneOne weren't attempting to use it to prevent and regulate edits of airline pages.  ShondaLear (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall at one time this information was on the main page but it was split out when the tabbed format was implemented.  I suspect that the comment at creation did not reflect that the content was moved.  This is required by the GFDL.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider this page to generally be the result of consensus at the main WikiProject talk page.  More people give their input there, but only a few editors end up taking the time to come over here and update. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Not sure about the wider community only a small number of editors made comment at the AfD and the guideline says could be listed, it is not a mandatory requirement just a guide to project editors. But if anybody has any suggestions then that could be discussed.  MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put in a statement referring list guidelines to appropriate Wiki guidelines for lists.  ʘ alaney2k •  talkʘ  16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Dont have a big problem but you would need it to be split as domestic and international. See what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Could you explain? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at  Don't you remember reverting it? "Domestic" is a main heading - separate from "Regional". Roger (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi.  No one has responded here in several months(!), but using the alliance colors seems to be too obscure/not relevant for most readers, and probably more difficult to 'police'. The color you name isn't even used on the Oneworld article tables... Since you recorded your comments, the practice of using the airline colors seems to have been adopted  - see Monarch Airlines and easyJet - for all tables.  I support this, as it makes the article seem more authoritative, and if needed the 'right' color can usually be established from the company website. Well done for raising the issue. Carbonix (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed that based on the article that got deleted with more than 10 destinations. That tells me, yes, Wikipedia consensus says we should change this page.. Wikipedia consensus overrules WikiProject consensus. Mlm42 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont disagree with the sentiment in the AfD but it still has to be agreed by the project. I would argue that the result of one AfD discussion should be discussed by the project but cant really overule it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess.. but the wording I changed it to, simply replaced "10" with "enough", to allow more flexibility. Was there a consensus on 10 destinations anyway? It seems a bit arbitrary; it struck me as the number on which one editor decided one day. But yes, if you like, we could discuss it at a project wide level. In my opinion, there are a lot of items in this guideline which could do with some discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have a problem with any or all of them being raised for discussion, but perhaps not all on the same day! MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations made Featured List status using the list format.  After some discussions over time (which is likely in the archives), and there wasn't a clear consensus on sticking to one format, it was agreed upon that either the table or list formats can be used. Sb617  (Talk) 12:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And clearly the list format works for those pages, they look visually appealing. But can you say the same for the Air Canada one? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)|style guide talk page]] moved here 

message: It appears that only three editors have contributed to this page in its entire history and no one before me has bothered to discuss this page. Yet, MilborneOne is attempting to use this page as a content restriction for any Wikipedia airline page.  Before the page can be viewed as representing consensus, it needs much more involvement from other editors.  ShondaLear (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Did you look at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines which is the main discussion page for the project? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've actually posted there!  There's obviously a difference between the project discussion page, where consensus may or may not have been reached, and this page, which purportedly is a synthesis maintained by only three editors.  I would not be concerned at all with this page if MilborneOne weren't attempting to use it to prevent and regulate edits of airline pages.  ShondaLear (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall at one time this information was on the main page but it was split out when the tabbed format was implemented.  I suspect that the comment at creation did not reflect that the content was moved.  This is required by the GFDL.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider this page to generally be the result of consensus at the main WikiProject talk page.  More people give their input there, but only a few editors end up taking the time to come over here and update. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs to be reconsidered

message: Prices should be listed as something not to do. Wikipedia is not a price guide Irunongamesplay 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prices

message: The project guideline states: "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article". The consensus reached by the wider community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro Airlines destinations is that this is not always appropriate. In light of that AfD, this section should be reconsidered. I42 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the wider community only a small number of editors made comment at the AfD and the guideline says could be listed, it is not a mandatory requirement just a guide to project editors. But if anybody has any suggestions then that could be discussed.  MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put in a statement referring list guidelines to appropriate Wiki guidelines for lists.  ʘ alaney2k •  talkʘ  16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Dont have a big problem but you would need it to be split as domestic and international. See what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Could you explain? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at  Don't you remember reverting it? "Domestic" is a main heading - separate from "Regional". Roger (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination articles 

message: I would like to propose that in destination articles the domestic destinations of an airline be separated from its regional destinations (other countries in same continent).
The exception is if its domestic destinations are only the start/end points for international flights and it does not operate purely domestic routes - Singapore Airlines destinations and Emirates destinations are good examples of such exclusively international airlines. Roger (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont have a big problem but you would need it to be split as domestic and international. See what others think. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Could you explain? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at  Don't you remember reverting it? "Domestic" is a main heading - separate from "Regional". Roger (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Hello all. I like to edit fleet tables to bring them up to expectations but recently there has been problems regarding table colours. I have a proposition that is already in place for just one airline alliance.
*Specific colours for each airline alliance: (#9592C6 - already in use for Oneworld) e.g. a lightblue type colour for SkyTeam, dark colours for Star Alliance to resemble the alliance colours.
*Colurs that match the airline identity as long as they are readable.
Your opinions? Zaps93 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  No one has responded here in several months(!), but using the alliance colors seems to be too obscure/not relevant for most readers, and probably more difficult to 'police'. The color you name isn't even used on the Oneworld article tables... Since you recorded your comments, the practice of using the airline colors seems to have been adopted  - see Monarch Airlines and easyJet - for all tables.  I support this, as it makes the article seem more authoritative, and if needed the 'right' color can usually be established from the company website. Well done for raising the issue. Carbonix (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet Table Colours 

message: I think maybe this talk page should be redirected to the main project's talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines. Such a redirect will garner more comments on guideline-related issues, which can't be a bad thing. Mlm42 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be redirected? 

message: Did we have a project consensus to change the once an airline has 10 destinations bit? MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that based on the article that got deleted with more than 10 destinations. That tells me, yes, Wikipedia consensus says we should change this page.. Wikipedia consensus overrules WikiProject consensus. Mlm42 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont disagree with the sentiment in the AfD but it still has to be agreed by the project. I would argue that the result of one AfD discussion should be discussed by the project but cant really overule it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess.. but the wording I changed it to, simply replaced "10" with "enough", to allow more flexibility. Was there a consensus on 10 destinations anyway? It seems a bit arbitrary; it struck me as the number on which one editor decided one day. But yes, if you like, we could discuss it at a project wide level. In my opinion, there are a lot of items in this guideline which could do with some discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have a problem with any or all of them being raised for discussion, but perhaps not all on the same day! MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Destination list

message: Why does the policy allow two different types of lists (world-based vs. table format) for airline destinations? Airlines and destinations can only be listed in one format on the airport pages, so why can destinations be listed in two ways on the destination pages? I find the table formats to be messy (look at Air Canada destinations), half the list is terminated destinations, and one column (provinces) is basically blank. I think it should be policy to have one format. Thankyoubaby (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Braathens destinations and List of Dragonair destinations made Featured List status using the list format.  After some discussions over time (which is likely in the archives), and there wasn't a clear consensus on sticking to one format, it was agreed upon that either the table or list formats can be used. Sb617  (Talk) 12:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And clearly the list format works for those pages, they look visually appealing. But can you say the same for the Air Canada one? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination Page