Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 6

message: # In response to a question I just created Aerodromo Nacional de Aviacao. Obviously that isn't the English name but I wan't sure if is should be "National Aerodrome of Aviacao" or "Aviacao National Aerodrome". Can somebody move it to the correst place? Thanks.
# How are Brazilian airports listed? It says they are FAA codes. Is that the Brazilian FAA or the US one? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  Just stumbled upon Aerodromo Nacional de Aviacao and moved it to Aeródromo Nacional de Aviação.  Updating the links got me here.  Regarding your question, brazilian airports have ICAO and IATA codes (List of airports in Brazil).  While both codings are approved by the FAA and it's brazilian counterpart, ANAC, neither are maintained by them. Ben Stone 09:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airports in Brazil, two questions

message: I recently added an article for the Alabama International Airport Authority which was responsible for the development of a plan for a never built facility within the state of Alabama. Does this article fall within the scope of this project since it deals with a never-built facility? Patriarca12 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that it probably does. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alabama International Airport Authority 

message: Question: Should we disambiguate Detroit's two airports? I realize that Detroit City airport is served by only one carrier (that offer commercial service), but Detroit still has two airports and that may cause confusion for those who don't know the difference between Detroit-City and Detroit-Metro. Detroit City Airport has been served by commercial service in the past. Before moving their operations to Detroit-Metro, Southwest Airlines once served the airport.
Example:
*American Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco)
**American Eagle (Baltimore, Boston)
*Northwest Airlines (Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul)
Should we change it to the format below?:
*American Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare, Detroit-Metro, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco)
**American Eagle (Baltimore, Boston)
*Northwest Airlines (Detroit-Metro, Minneapolis/St. Paul)
:A similar question came up elsewhere. The disambig is really only necessary if the airports have the slightest chance of being confused. No one is going to think the article is referring to Detroit City Airport. Most people from outside of Detroit haven't heard of it, and those from Detroit know the difference. The disambiguation really shouldn't be used if there is one airport that completely dominates service to the city and is the first (and probably only) airport that comes to mind when one mentions the city. There's no disambig for Singapore, although Seletar Airport has some commercial service. If an airline flies to Detroit City, put Detroit-City in the list, but for other carriers, just leave it as Detroit. DB (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example would be Vancouver (Int'l vs Coal Harbour Seaplane Base) DB (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright Sox23 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detroit Airports 

message: Would there be an interest for an Airport Portal? I can get that started up, it seems like a logical idea to complement the Project. Rob110178 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an aviation portal. Or...? --210physicq (c) 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential for Airport Portal 

message: I would like to add a Aviation Weather Link for about 60 selected airports in Canada from this site:
* AC Network Weather - Canadian Airports
For example the CYYZ (Toronto Pearson) Weather link would look like this:
* Current CYYZ Aviation Weather
The link contains current Terminal Aerodrome Forecast and METAR aviation weather as well as some other relevant weather links. If you have any comments let me know here. DSatYVR 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose: I do not know what others think, but personally, I have a problem with it linking to a commercial site. If we can link it to information provided by Environment Canada or some other official source, I wouldnt have a problem. Rob110178 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I don't think you can link to the METAR/TAF directly. You can get the public forcast/weather but this is the best that you can get for aviation weather. At one time the raw data was available but that was as observed in the old format and not in METAR. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Seems like in lots of countries you can't get anything but 'commercial weather', and they've tried to do that in the US, too (prohibit the NWS from providing to the public any services that commerical vendors could provide! Yech.). - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Aviation Weather Link for Selected Canadian Airports 

message: Would there be an interest in setting up an image task force so that we can identify airports that require images? We could modify the AirportProject header to provide an option for this and create a subsequent category so that we can give some members another focus on our Airport Pages. Many pages that I have seen could use (more/any) images. Rob110178 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Task Force and Category 

message: I have modified the userbox to include a category for members of WP:Airport... Please let me know what you think... Rob110178 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page.
In essence I feel it is redundant to  which lists and UK airports with scheduled or chartered service. This template duplicates the many Scottish airports on that template, plus adds many GA and RAF fields. Aviation in the UK is governed by the CAA, which is a UK-wide body. Thanks/wangi 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports in Scotland template 

message: Sorry. Long forgotten, having some expansion and now quite frequently included not by me. Going back on what i said recently, there is a template on UK airport stations created by me. Do you think it will be okay or is, say, innovative or something? Here it is.
It is not to be like a travel brochure like the other one. What do you think? Simply south 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport stations again 

message: Should the project page take a position on the name to be used for airport articles?  This comes up over a discussion on renaming the Midway Airport article.  While common name is a guideline, for major facilities like an airport, it would make sense to list the article under the formal name.  
On one FAA page the airport with abbreviations is Chicago Midway International, it is also know as Chicago Midway Airport and Chicago Midway International Airport with an additional suggestion to rename to Midway International Airport.  The article currently uses Chicago-Midway International Airport in the introduction.
Comments please.
Vegaswikian 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP standard is for common names. I've been pushing for name changes on some other articles. I think Midway is the most appropriate name. Some other airports that need reviewing are Dakar, Port Louis, Calcutta/Kolkata, several airports in South America, several in Mexico, etc. The titles are way too long and I seriously doubt that's how most people refer to them. DB (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what redirects are for. Sox23 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, redirects are for variants on the title. For example, Boston Airport (which no one calls it) redirects to Logan International Airport. They are not intended to allow the primary page violate naming policy. DB (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but Boston Airport is supposidly one of the titles that most people refer to the airport as while the actual title, Logan International Airport is the title of the article. Sox23 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you don't know that most people don't refer to BOS as "Boston Airport" Sox23 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since I'm from outside of Boston and I've used the airport countless times and I've never heard anyone refer to it as "Boston Airport" and since the majority of users of the airport are of course from the Boston area, I can say that most people don't refer to it as such. The commonly used title is "Logan Airport" or "Logan International". DB (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names 

message: You guys should really be commended for your uniquely non-annoying project tag logos.  Those things are just incredibly overdone about 95% of the time.--Pharos 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I think we should come up with a general guideline for airport articles, rather than looking at them one-by-one. I've already provided my opinion on the Midway Airport case, but there are a number of airports with excessively long names that clearly violate WP:NAME (requiring commonly used names). Maybe there should be a WP:NAME guideline specific to airports, but as it stands now, several need to be changed. I'd say the worst is Dakar (Dakar-Yoff-Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport), but there are several others that are pretty bad. DB (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicago/Rockford International Airport seems amusing to me especially since it's 90 miles from Chicago. I'm not a big fan of using the slash (/) in the article name, but I assume that they named it that based on airnav and FAA docs. Is there any guideline on using the slash? --Dual Freq 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Airports should be at one of the official names. Either the one the airport authority uses or the one the governing agency uses. To use the common name, would I suspect, end up with multiple airports being at articles without the word "airport" in the title or at an article called the airport. Some examples, London Heathrow Airport is probably more commonly called plain Heathrow (it's a redirect to London Heathrow Airport). Toronto Pearson International Airport (airport authority) is also known as Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (governing agency) but is more probably called Pearson or Toronto Pearson. The Canadian Region of Waterloo International Airport (airport authority) is also known as Kitchener/Waterloo Regional Airport (governing agency) but is likely called Waterloo but then the Waterloo Regional Airport (in the US) is also probably called Waterloo. Where there is only one airport in the area then it's probably known as the airport. That's where I work, not as you would have thought at Cambridge Bay Airport, and "the airport" is the common name in Cambridge Bay. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said before, this is an encyclopedic website and the titles of any article should be their correct name! We should make a section in WP:NAME to include this because it is assanine to list the wrong title of something. A.K.A.: Midway Airport is not the correct name of Chicago Midway International Airport! Sox23 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this in researching another naming issue today.  This may already be covered at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).  Vegaswikian 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is accompanied by this. DB (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, what qualifies as "correct"? Naming conventions are a policy, not a guideline, which means they have to be followed. The policy pretty clearly states that common names should be used. Midway is a minor issue - the alternate title only adds the word "International". Others, such as Dakar, are totally unacceptable. Many article titles use the "official" name, which is never used by anyone, including the airport's website. If you want to use names found on airport websites, then be consistent about it. In this case, Midway would be Midway International Airport (without the Chicago), Buenos Aires EZE would be Ezeiza International Airport, Cordoba would be Cordoba International Airport, Santiago would be Santiago Airport. I could go on, but you get the point. DB (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was that there has been an argument that the article names should be taken from the airport websites. If that is going to be the convention, then those would be the names. To be honest, I don't care that much about Midway. At least people can still understand what the article is talking about. However, a title such as Comodoro Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport needs to be shortened to a workable title. DB (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do people really say London Heathrow Airport? I would think that Heathrow or London Heathrow would be more common. By the way the company calls it Heathrow Airport and the UK AIP calls it London Heathrow Airport. I have flown into or out of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, but never the London versions and then usually onto Manchester. What is Manchester-Boston Regional Airport commonly called? I know people who say the only way to fly into the UK is to miss London altogether and fly into Amsterdam. The point is that common names are not precise enough to be used in Wikipedia. Booking systems will probably use some variation on one of the official names. As to the press, well if the airport is advertising in the press then they will probably use something official. If the press is located near the airport probably "Heathrow" or if located in another area/country then "London Heathrow". I don't think that we have the capability to properly survey around the world to find out what people call any particular airport. And as I pointed out before (semi-jokingly) that unless there are more than one airport in an area it would appear that the common name for most airports is the airport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if people often don't add "airport" when referring to an airport, it's fine for the title to have it as clarification. Most people around here say Manchester Airport, so the article title could be Manchester Airport (US). I've heard LHR called both Heathrow and London Heathrow, so keeping it as is would be fine (as I mentioned, the "Airport" in the title is appropriate for clarification). However, these examples are relatively minor. I'm more concerned about the cumbersome titles given to several airports in South America and Mexico. If there's going to be a convention for airport naming, what is it? The name used by the airport authority? Common use? Very few people would recognize the full, official names of many airports around the world. DB (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then have the "common names" as redirects to the actual airport title and reference that in the article.....so it would be: a redirect (common name) leading to the formally titled article...and then the opening sentence would read...[formal title] commonly called [common name] is ......... For example: a redirect to Midway would be: "Midway Airport", and then in the article we could say...[Chicago Midway International Airport] commonly called "Midway Airport" or something like that. (I believe that is how it is in the article presently anyway) Sox23 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the opposite of the norm on Wikipedia. Simply consider United States and United Kingdom or any other country - do you see the official name used as the article title? We really should use WP:NAME here, like everywhere else. /wangi 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just have it the other way around: [official title] redirects to [common name]. That way it would be compliant with WP:NAME and anyone searching for the official title could still find it. Furthermore, the official title could be used in the opening paragraph and the infobox. DB (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Going back to Midway for a bit.  When I drove to LAS today, I read the Southwest billboards for their Chicago flights.  They used two names for the destination airport, the first was 'Chicago Midway' and the second was 'Chicago (Midway)'.  Vegaswikian 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought up Logan before. I should also add that technically, that article title isn't the "official" name. The full name of the airport is "General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport". So, should that page be moved as well? DB (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, no, the official name is Gen. Edward Lawrence Logan Int'l Airport (as listed with the FAA). You used the airport authority's reference to BOS as justification for calling it Logan Int'l. So, should the airport's self-reference be used as the standard? I'm fine with that, but as I said before, that would mean the renaming of several aforementioned airports. For disambiguation, the article can be titled Santiago Airport (Chile), a form that is used for several other airports that share names. I mentioned South America since it seems to have the greatest concentration of verbosely named airports. There are plenty in North America as well. DB (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said was "Airports should be at one of the official names. Either the one the airport authority uses or the one the governing agency uses." And I have been quite happy with that for some time now. I don't want to repeat myself but look back up to the Toronto Pearson Airport. It's at the operators official name and not the government official name. The article says "The full name of the airport, according to the GTAA, is now "Toronto Pearson International Airport", but it is also sometimes simply called "Pearson." News media and travel agents typically refer to the airport as "Lester B. Pearson International Airport." ". A look around shows that we have some airports at the common name, some at the operators name and some at the government name. You can find examples all within the same country. The Santiago Airport disambiguation page now has 13 airports listed (there are probably more but I need a break), 4 have Santiago as part of the airport name and 9 are at places that include Santiago as part of the community name. As to the Comodoro Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport, well it appears the official site calls it Aeropuerto de Santiago, so there is no reason that it couldn't be at Santiago Airport (Chile) or Santiago Airport, Chile, except that if the other name is an official name why bother. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to think that when there is a designated name that does not require the use of a dab, then using a dab should be avoided.  I think there would be agreement on that point.  I may create a sub page on airport article naming.  At some point we could start using it within the project.  We can start building it as various issues gather consensus. Vegaswikian 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. There are probably more but I needed to take an airport break. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport article names revisited

message: What happens when you don't check an article for a while: Aberdeen Airport!! /wangi 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations gone wild 

message: I propose adding the Template:Airport_weather template to airports.  The objective would be to create a template that contains pilot and general aviation weather resources for every airport.  Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TexasSpaniard (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed you adding this to LCY, and was going to say something about it there... I think this is a bad idea. Wikipedia is not a technical resource for aviation (or anything else) and these links offer absolutely nothing for 99.9% of our readers. We should be very careful of presenting information which has safety implications - this is an encylopedia, not a guidebook. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often difficult to locate, consistently, the proper weather resources for an airport.  Providing links to relevant airport/aviation weather in a consistent format across the airports would enhance the value of each page and inform users about where they can get additional information relevant to that particular airport.  I noticed that other airport templates include all sorts of information that is relevant to pilots or general aviation - weather, flight status, runway diagrams (which only pilots use), sectional chart links, etc.  Thought doing something similar and consistently would add value.--TexasSpaniard 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Weather Template 

message: Miami International Airport is currently on hold to become a good article.--Jorfer 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami International Airport 

message: Hi. I have been engaged in a discussion on my talk page regarding the appropriateness of this link. I have been arguing based on WP:EL that it is not. But User:DSatYVR thinks otherwise. I'd like to shift the discussion here and not on my talk page. Any thoughts on this? /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External weather link on [[Air Canada destinations]] 

message: Does anyone happen to have a photograph of a surface friction tester? They resemble normal cars, but with a small fifth wheel mounted to the rear. They are normally used in snowy or icy conditions to determine the amount of grit and deicer to be used. I could do with a picture for the Winter service vehicle article. Thanks! Laïka 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I'm on holiday right now. If you don't get one by the 24 February remind me again on my talk page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested photo - Airport surface friction tester 

message: I've been in a discussion at Talk:East Midlands Airport#Nottingham East Midlands/East Midlands about the use of "official" names in the first sentence and also in the infobox. It has become obvious that there is a need to have some way of explaining why there are different names used in a single airport. Also after seeing this there needs to be some agreement as to the structure of the first sentence. Should it be all the official names or just the airport authority name or the the most common name? My feeling is that the first line should contain the most common or airport authority name and the infobox have the other names. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most airport articles have the full name in the first sentence and then any alternate names. My edit didn't actually add or remove anything; I just switched the order (it was previously common name, full name). DB (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the infobox should definitely have the full official name. The first sentence should have the common name. Currently, most airport articles also have the full name, but to clean up the lead it might make sense to remove that. DB (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry didn't mean to suggest that you removed anything. Just wanted to see about cleaning up/standardise the first sentence. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of airports

message: Should we disambiguate Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (serves Angeles City) and Ninoy Aquino International Airport (serves Manila)?
Example:
*Singapore Airlines (London-Heathrow, Los Angeles, Malé, Manchester (UK), Manila)
*Tiger Airways (Angeles City, Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Danang)
Should we change it to the format below?:
*Singapore Airlines (London-Heathrow, Los Angeles, Malé, Manchester (UK), Manila-Ninoy Aquino)
*Tiger Airways (Manila-Clark, Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Danang)
Because one user insists that Angeles City should be stated as Manila-Clark or Clark-Manila. -chris^_^ 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think there is a hard and fast rule on main markets being the sole determinant in this debate. Senai International Airport serves Singapore to quite an extent, in fact probably more so than Johor Bahru, so are we going to call it Singapore-Senai?--Huaiwei 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree to Jpatokal in saying that CRK serves Manila than Angeles City, I oppose it being listed as under Manila. Manila has one airport, it just happens that another not-so-close airport serves it. Manila is not the same as Berlin (which has three airports, Tegel, Schoenefeld, and Tempelhof) or Moscow (which has Sheremetyevo and Domodedovo). Manila is more like Frankfurt (which has FRA and HHN) or Barcelona (which has BCN and REU). Both Frankfurt and Barcelona have main airports, but is also served by rather distant airports by LCCs. In fact, what is much strange should I say with regard to Manila's case is that there is a flight from MNL to CRK and vice versa, by Asian Spirit. If Manila had two airports, then it would be weird for one to fly from one to the other, if it serves just one city. So with this in mind, I'd say we call CRK as Manila-Clark but still call MNL as Manila, in parallel to Frankfurt-Hahn and Frankfurt. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that we should state CRK as Clark in the masterlist not Manila-Clark, because most of the airlines serving CRK  refer to it as Clark not as Manila, because only two airlines refer to it as Manila-Clark/Clark-Manila  , while only one airline refers to it as Clark-Angeles City. -chris^_^ 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the masterlist, I have hesitation to list CRK as Clark due to the fact that "Clark" is not even the name for a city or a town in the Philippines, unless you're considering the Clark Special Economic Zone to be one. I don't have problems listing CRK in the masterlist using the nearest town (if I am correct, Angeles City). This airport just happens to serve Manila metropolitan area as well. No need to include it in the Manila entry. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the destination lists are by city.  So Clark can not be used as the destination. It can be used to dab the location, but not listed as the location. Vegaswikian 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what should we name it then, Manila-Clark, Angeles City or Angeles City/Clark -chris^_^ 08:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MNL is Manila in the destinations, and Manila in the masterlist, while CRK is Manila-Clark in the destinations, and Angeles City in the masterlist. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if an airline flies to CRK from MNL we should state CRK as Manila-Clark? -chris^_^ 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpatokal has a point. CRK serves as an alternate airport for Metro Manila, not primarily Angeles City. Weird as it may seem, there is indeed a flight that flies MNL-CRK. However, this is just a minority. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manila airports

message: The following appeared undiscussed in the wikiproject recently: "For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins MMMM DD, YYYY] or [ends MMMM DD, YYYY], respectively, in the local date format. Do not link the dates." Could someone please explain why the date should not be linked?--Huaiwei 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive 5 had a brief discussion on it, and through edit histories, it's clear others agree. Furthermore, as my edit summary said, the changes reflect actual practice. DB (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, the said "community" is disregarding the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and is insisting that the entire world must write their dates as according to American standards?--Huaiwei 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy, so it can be overridden by consensus. Second, would you re-read what you just quoted: "add [begins MMMM DD, YYYY]... in the local format. I'm confused as to how that is "insisting that the entire world must write their dates as according to American standards". DB (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the "guideline" vs "policy" thingy is being raised again. I certainly hope the above is also applied in subsequent debates. This being a "guideline" which can be "overridden by concensus", the said discussion hardly brings up any convincing reason why an existing guideline should be overridden other then "I think it should not be linked because it looks funny". And you must be assuming readers will only look at their local airport pages, since looking at anything outside their locality will probably present them with annoying date formats. Shall we add a disclaimer for our users not to venture beyond their local articles for fear of offending anyone? And yes, the fact that I actually failed to sight the line "in the local format" simply demonstrates the inherent bias in that guideline, and a possibility for people to misread and misunderstand it. If the dates must remain unlinked for some strange reason, would you consider the possibility of showing any possible local date format for the sake of NPOV?--Huaiwei 05:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it says "...in the local date format." I don't think that anybody is paying too much attention. In London Heathrow Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Birmingham International Airport (UK) there are both "dd mmm" and "mmm dd". In the Birmingham one the dates are linked. THe few US airports that I looked at all seem to be consistently "mmm dd". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a long time, only the month and day were included.  Since these changes are only announced a few months before the change, the year is implied and the data is transient which means that linking to the future date is not adding any information to the article.  I think we should go back to the simple format using only the month and day. As I read the date conventions, including the year only seems to be mandated when the date is going to remain in the article and in a year or two no one would know what year this was about.  That is clearly not the case here. Vegaswikian 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking dates

message: There are 700+ links to farecompare.com most of which lead to things like www.farecompare.com / flights / Jinka-BCO / city.html. So I assume that nobody minds if I remove them all as spam? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The current format for destinations is:
*Major Carrier (ABC, DEF)
**Major Carrier Express operated by Contractor (GHI)
I'm fine with that, but many pages also have
**Major Carrier operated by Subsidiary (JKL)
I think it should just say the subsidiary name:
*Major Carrier (ABC, DEF)
**Subsidiary (JKL)
**Major Carrier Express operated by Contractor (GHI)
The reasoning is that it's already listed under the major carrier, so mentioning that the subsidiary is operating as the major is redundant.
I've made this change on Zurich Airport for Swiss European, if anyone wants an example of what I'm talking about.
Note: this applies to dependent subsidiaries (Swiss European, Lufthansa CityLine, American Eagle, etc.). It's a separate issue from how to deal with independent subsidiaries, since it doesn't appear that anyone objects to dependent ones being listed under the parent. DB (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DB. 190.41.187.14 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any change would be required to American Eagle destinations, as they don't operate as American Airlines. I would say that Ted flights should remain "Ted operated by United" because unlike CityLine, et al, Ted isn't actually its own airline - just a different paint job. I think the rest is a very good idea, make it so. FCYTravis 23:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Same should apply to US and DL shuttles. Does anyone object to the change? DB (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got the issues of express carriers operating their own flights under their own IATA code, while at the same time operate flights for the major carriers under a major carrier's code (eg the UA affiliates).  What if they operated both their own flights, and the contracted flights for their major affiliate at the same airport. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the LAN destinations from Jorge Chavez International Airport. LAN Peru, a subsidiary of LAN, flies LAN aircraft painted in LAN colours (so does LAN Argentina and other subsidiaries) with Peruvian registrations with LAN Peru flight numbers but marketed by LAN. I think that in this case it is reduntant to mention that LAN twice, particularly since it's indented to state that LAN Peru is a subsidiary operating flights for LAN. It should be:
*LAN Airlines
**LAN Peru or operated by Lan Peru
190.41.187.14 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiary destinations

message: The Weston airport was on RTÉ News today. Shouldn't it be mentioned at List_of_airports_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland? http://www.westonairport.com/ I ask because I am not sure if it has been overlooked, or if there is a policy about private airports or something. -- Evertype·✆ 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weston Airport in Ireland 

message: Hello! Several editors at WP:AIRCRAFT, a project closley 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) 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new wiki project - Wikiproject Aviation 

message: What is it, and how do we define it, other than "know it when you see it" (DL@CVG, NW@MSP, et al.) Discuss. FCYTravis 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortress hub 

message: I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues. 
#Some articles are already tagged to one or more child projects. I suggest that if a page falls into more than one child project, it should be re-tagged for the parent aviation project. So pages that were tagged to Aircraft and Airports would be re-tagged to Aviation (with the same assessment). 
#Articles that deal specifically with one project should be tagged to that project. So aircraft and parts of aircraft should be tagged to the Aircraft project (e.g. airframe). But terms relating to operation of the aircraft should be tagged to aviation (e.g. airway). 
--Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project tags 

message: The wiki page referring to Lanseria Airport should be changed to reflect its current, name, the Lanseria International Airport. http://www.lanseria.co.za/ -- leuce 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could move the page yourself, that does not require any help. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lanseria International Airport 

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: One user on the Kuala Lumpur International Airport and Bayan Lepas International Airport articles added Kuala Lumpur for Cathay Pacific on the Bayan Lepas Airport article and Penang for Cathay Pacific on the Kuala Lumpur Airport article. I have reverted their edits to the page that Cathay Pacific cannot transport domestic passengers but they reverted my edits again. If you see any domestic destinations added to foreign airlines, please revert them. Thanks! Bucs2004 19:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabotage flights 

message: User:Pinoy78 created a page named Manila - Clark International Airport, which does not exist, it is a copy of Diosdado Macapagal International Airport which is being referred to as Manila-Clark, for it is a secondary airport for Manila, I suggest the said page (Manila-Clark International Airport) to be deleted. -chris^_^ 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport name confusion 

message: Since it seems that this is the only aviation related project to have set up a peer review and collaboration section, and neither seem to be receiving enough attention to be effective, would the Airport project members be against moving these pages to WP:AVIATION and expanding them to include reviews and collaboration of all aviation related articles? This would allow a bigger base of uses to see and help. Template:WPAVIATION Announcements could also be used to promote these types of projects.   already includes to code  |peer-review=, |collaboration-candidate=,etc. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and collaboration 

message: Hi
Can you please clarify with me: regarding Mango Airlines - why are you wanting to put it below South African Airways? This makes no sense - their operations are entirely seperate - its just that SAA is the owner. That being said, it has its own CEO, etc. There is nothing similar between the two - no shared FF program, or anything of the like. The relationship between them is similar to Virgin vs Singapore, BA vs Qantas, etc. Please help! -- Chris Lester talk 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. The list is not dependent on whether operations are together or not. According to WP:AIRPORTS, one lists subsidiaries underneath the main airline, regardless of whether the operations are together or not. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, the two want to act as two totally seperate airlines. It's not the Delta Shuttle - Delta relationship; nor is it the Qantas-Jetstar. There is nothing common between the two, except the owner. Is WP:AIRPORTS a policy or simply a guideline or where does it fit into the picture? -- Chris Lester talk 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIRPORTS is a collection of guidelines in standardizing airport articles and other articles pertaining to aviation. Regardless of the status of those two airlines, if one is a subsidiary of the other, then it would be listed that way. According to Mango (airline), the parent company is South African Airways, which means that it is a subsidiary of SAA. On the other hand, the examples you cited above (SQ and VS, QF and BA) only are examples of companies which have a rather large but still less-than-50% foreign ownership (SQ owning 49% of VS, BA owning 45% of QF). Thus, we still cannot say that VS is a subsidiary of SQ. If you want to argue more about this, I suggest you move it on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject if you are not in agreement with the current standardization protocol. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[OR Tambo International Airport]]

message: Should we include a section of discontinued service in airport articles or not? This section is inconsistent through different airport articles and this question has come up before through various talk pages and there has never really been a clear consensus...any comments? Sox23 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure whether we should include this. The main reason is because there may not be good resources for verifying the information. I am guessing that most of the edits here would just be supported by personal evidence, which is not encyclopedic. If there is a good source for an airport article, then possibly, but if there isn't, then the article can do without. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it would be needed in any case.  It doesn't contribute much to the article and for some airports (DFW, PIT, BNA, RDU, STL) could take up a lot of space due to cuts, mergers, etc. over the years. NW036 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While this is interesting information, is it encyclopedic?  I think that for most service, the mere fact that it was once offered is not a reason to include it.  If the few cases where the service might be encyclopedic that information could be added.  But as a general rule, it is probably not needed and should not be included.  Vegaswikian 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued Service 

message: Just to let everyone know, I started an article on STOLports. It's only a stub and I could really use some help on getting it to become a good article. Mrld 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOLports 

message: As of now, most trans-border and domestic flights of Air Canada is operated by Air Georgian, so how should we state it?
Should it be:
*Air Canada
**Air Canada Jazz
**Air Canada Jazz operated by Air Georgian
or:
*Air Canada
**Air Canada operated by Air Georgian
**Air Canada Jazz
I'll be updating the destinations of Air Canada and I'll be using the 2nd format for the mean time. Because at the Air Canada website they sell the Air Georgian operated flights as Air Canada operated by Air Georgian. Not Air Canada Jazz operated by Air Georgian. -chris^_^ 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Canada flights 

message: Hi all. I don't know if this was discussed before, but is it really needed to put (CR) for Liberia, Costa Rica, in airline destination lists? I am arguing at this point (in the Los Angeles International Airport article) that it is unnecessary, since supporters of the addition mainly argues that it is needed to disambiguate Liberia the city from Liberia the country. On the other hand, I say that the lists are lists of cities, not countries. It would imply therefore that the Liberia in the list refers to a city, not a country. It is not the same case as for Portland, where both Portlands are cities. In the case of Liberia, if one finds a Liberia in a list of cities, then I assume that this Liberia would be a city as well. I don't know, maybe others just don't see the implication. Any thoughts? /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither absurd nor illogical for a reader to experience confusion upon seeing "Liberia" in a list of cities. In fact, it is quite reasonable for a reader to assume the country is what's being referred to, as a) Liberia is by far the most common usage of the word, and b) Wikipedia is replete with mixed lists. I had no idea there was even such a place as Liberia, Costa Rica until this discussion came up.--chris.lawson 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that they will not experience confusion. Of course, the most popular usage of that term pertains to the country. However, what I am saying is that if they see that term in a list of cities, then I would assume that they would resolve their confusion and have a garden path, revising their interpretation of the term from a country, to a city, with just deducing from the type of list it is in. With this in mind, I say that the disambiguation is unnecessary. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For lists of destinations, in cases where a country and city share a name, or two cities share a name, it would be preferable to write the name so that no ambiguity exists, period. A wikilink would be a simple way of doing this, or in a case where wikilinks are not desirable, an intelligible abbreviation for the country would be useful. Note that San José, Costa Rica, is disambiguated on that same page by the use of "(CR)" after the name of the city; I don't see why the inclusion of two letters is such a horrible thing for something that adds so much clarity to the list.--chris.lawson 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, Chris.  Thank you.  And I'll also add that because Delta has expanded so aggressively to Africa, that it makes this point even more salient.  The average (non-expert) reader of Wikipedia will automatically assume that Delta has yet added another Africa destination! --Inetpup 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt that most people, when looking at a list of cities, will assume that Liberia is referring to the country. Look at the following list: (Apple, Peach, Pear, Raspberry); would anyone assume that "Apple" is referring to the computer company? Based on context, people can reasonably deduce the meaning of a word (or in this case, a place). DB (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with regard to San Jose, there is SJC in California and SJO in Costa Rica. Those are both cities. I agree that there is a need to disambiguate there. But with a city name and a country name, how many more times will I need to repeat my argumentation? Also, read DB's reasoning above. I wonder why you cannot see the common logic in the list. The argument by chris. that a country and a city shares a name therefore it must be disambiguated falls apart because again, for the umpteenth time, the list is only composed of cities, and it is way too obvious that the list contains cities and cities alone. I suggest you read this. All members of the list are cities. Liberia is a member of the list. Therefore, Liberia is a city. Simple as that. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I forgot, the average (non-expert) reader of Wikipedia I believe do not even have a clue where Delta flies, so the thought that Delta has added another African destination is not present at all! /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding DB's statement, look at the following list: (Apple, Peach, Pear, Raspberry); would anyone assume that "Apple" is referring to the computer company? ... it's a disingenuous statement and a nonsequitur.  The correct analogy would be the following list of names: (Miller, Adams, Davis, Axel); most people would assume this is a list of last names, but I would have significant doubts when I stumble upon the last one, 'Axel'; it looks like it could be either.  I might be tempted to assume that it's a last name, but then again I would be afraid to assume anything about that name, because it isn't familiar to me!!! This leads the reader to think the list is in error!!! Thanks. Feel free to applaud me for my convincing arguments. --Inetpup 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's consider that the lists in all articles have been for cities for a while and no one has seen a problem with this.  So now that we happen to have a country and a city with the same name, what problem is created?  The list still contains only cities.  How many people would confuse the city with the country?  How many would be confused after looking at an encyclopedic list of destination cities?  Most editors feel that the number who are confused would be rather small, but not zero.  So given the success of the current system, there would have to be a demonstrated problem with the current system not handling your problem for the majority of readers.  If you can show this to be a fact, then you might get consensus to change.  Without that, consensus will remain where it is. Vegaswikian 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, you only prove my point.  Liberia is a NEW and UNUSUAL destination with an UNUSUAL name.  Why haven't people had a problem with this???  It obvious isn't it?  It's because Liberia wasn't even on the map (with a major airport) until recently.  For these reasons, it's critical to list [CR] as the country.  Got it?  Thanks! --Inetpup 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have not shown that our current style is causing a problem.  Contrary to what you just said, most editors seem to be saying there is no obvious problem. So, if there is a problem it is not obvious to other editors.  Consensus seems to be against your proposal so unless you have something new to add that clearly shows there is a problem, this discussion is stalled. Vegaswikian 07:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ehem, let me just straighten up the math. Those in favor of the disambiguation are Inetpup and chris.lawson, while those against are Vegaswikian, DB, and me. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberia, Costa Rica 

message: I fly my glider from an airfield called Lasham Airfield.  The airfield is owned by the gliding club and is PPR for visiting powered aircraft. However for some reason it has been classed by Wikipedia as 'public'. To me 'public' when applied to an airport implies that commercial aviation occurs there. We do welcome visitors as prospective members who want air experience flights, but 'public' doesn't seem to be the right classification. In the opinion of another user (Cambridge Bay Weather), "The current Wikipedia system (Military/Public/Private) is a bit simplistic and at the same time a bit confusing."  Is there an opportunity for devising a better classification? User:Jmcc150 16:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in the case of Lasham it is a privately owned airport that requires prior permission (PPR). It's unclear from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airport Infobox as to what "private" or "public" means. I assumed that "private" was used for airports listed as "PPR" (prior permission required). In other words if the airport is not open to the public as such then it's a private one no matter the owner, such as Tanquary Fiord Airport which is Government owned. And that airports such as London Gatwick Airport are public even though they are owned by a private company. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport classification

message: The new multi-project banner, , does not use the importance scale. Reading over the comments here, I think that this project is having the same problems that other projects are, in that the ratings applied by users are too subjective, and based upon their personal opinions as to the importance of an article/subject. Is it alright with the Airports project members if the importance scale is dropped when the airport articles are retagged with ? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object to me redirecting  to ? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WPAVIATION banner, and the importance scale 

message: When editing an airport, could I list Charter airlines like Champion Air or World Airways or Allegiant Air.
*In my opinion, only if they have scheduled service or public scheduled charters.  Otherwise every airport could have them since they could be chartered anywhere. NW036 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charter Airlines

message: Could people please come and view the discussion that I started in the Air Wisconsin talk page?  While trying to avoid an editing war I started this conversation to remove what I feel is rather biased commentary on Air Wisconsin's management techniques.  Thank you.  NW036 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Wisconsin Issue