Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 3

message: Hi, I'm new to Wikiprojects and thought I'd like to participate in the airport project. I have already created Valencia Airport, and I was wondering whether accents should be used in destination lists, for example, is it Zurich or Zürich? Callumm 20:17, 04 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents in airport names 

message: Under the heading 'creation of a new airport' on the main project page, should the fourth dot point be changed to read: Create redirect articles or disambiguation pages for the ICAO and IATA Codes instead of Create redirect articles for the ICAO and IATA Codes as it currently reads? I thought I'd best put a note up here first before diving in and changing it. -- Adz 11:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even better! -- Adz|talk 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating redirect pages 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I miss Pavement Classification Number - could somebody please initiate this article? Scriberius 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Now you have to create Aircraft Classification Number. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PCN

message: I need some suggestions as to what to do with this airport. As of the new CFS (Feb 16) the airport is listed as abandoned, so do I
#Delete the stub and the ICAO code link.
#Turn it into something like Killaloe/Bonnechere Airport and create a new category :Category:Historical airports in Saskatchewan.
#Some other idea
Right now I am leaning towards 2 but I'm open to ideas. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Redvers Airport]]

message: This category just appeared.  Any opinions on it?  Vegaswikian 08:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems a little odd I would have thought List of airports in the Mojave Desert would have been a better idea. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go with the list. Dbinder 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Airports in the Mojave Desert]] 

message: This policy seems a little odd to me - it's usual Wikipedia policy to Wikilink any mention of a city in other articles, and the destinations served by an airport are not necessarily mentioned elsewhere in the article. What's the rationale behind not Wikilinking them? — SteveRwanda 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the policy as is. The number of links would be excessive and clutter up the page. Also, it would make editing more cumbersome, since every single link would have to be in the form City. Dbinder 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but looking at airport articles that do wikilink, it becomes confusing at times, especially where there are two airlines that have many destinations listed right next to each other.  You can't tell where one begins and the other ends. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Wikilink the destinations? 

message: KABQ is also an Albuquerque radio station call sign.  I don't know how to set up a disambiguation page.
:Select the name on the redirected from line.  Then edit the redirect article to a dab.  I did this for KABQ.  Note that the radio station article needs to be disambiguated as KABQ (AM).  Vegaswikian 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Airport Disambiguation 

message: Hello all. What seems to be the consensus on this? I tried to search around but found nothing. Personally, I prefer Aruba over Oranjestad, Mauritius over Mahebourg, basically, island over city-within-island, simply because the island is more identifiable than the city. Any thoughts on this? Elektrik Blue 82 00:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aruba or Oranjestad? 

message: While  browsing Wikipedia with Google Earth, I noticed that the coordinates of Newcastle Airport are very far off. I don't know the correct ones, so I haven't fixed it. AxelBoldt 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I didn't use the .kmz file from the web site you linked, but I'm looking at the article in one window and Google Earth in another, and the coordinates appear correct to me. MCB 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the coordinate link in the article, then on "mapquest". You'll get a beautiful red star in the middle of the North Sea. AxelBoldt 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the coordinates said East when it should be West. Try it now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, works beautifully. Thanks! AxelBoldt 05:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! I very carefully checked the digits in each field against each other, but must have missed the E/W part! Sorry about that. MCB 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newcastle airport coordinates wrong 

message: Should the destinations of charter airlines be listed in the airport articles? Take Manchester International Airport for example. There are separate listings for the terminals, and there are notations whether the destinations are scheduled or charter. I personally think this is just plain messy. Besides, charters do not have permanent routes, that's why they aren't scheduled. Then if that is the case, then why list their destinations? Would it be preferrable if we just list the charter airlines that operate out of a certain airport on a separate subheading, without the cities listed, regardless on (in MAN's case) whether they operate from T1 or T2? Elektrik Blue 82 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charters 

message: Could you look at that article. I don't think that it is improved by having all those images down the side. I could see having the St. John's logo but all the airline logos distract. What does anyone else feel? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look terrible, and there's no reason for them to be there. Dbinder 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also an inappropriate use of fair-use images - the logos. We cannot argue fair use, so they should go... /wangi 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[St. John's International Airport]]

message: What's your opinion on full airfield details within an article? For example as is the case with Humberside Airport? Thanks/wangi 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included, for several reasons: (1) it's not really encyclopedic information, which is summary in nature, rather than an attempt to be a primary source, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; (2) the information can be obtained from sites like AirNav, FlightAware, Skyvector, AirportsA-Z, etc., which can be presented in the External links section as direct links; and (3) unlike things like runway headings, which don't change often, the other technical info does change, it is a burden to keep up to date, and pilots should not be relying on Wikipedia for critical technical information such as frequencies, magnetic deviation, etc. MCB 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This is information that is not of general interest.  For those that have an interest, there are better sources that they should be using and probably know about.  If it is a concern that the links need to be available, then maybe they can be added to the information templates that are used to generate the links.  Vegaswikian 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over the top tech info 

message: The Greater Binghamton Airport article refers to the "Tri-Cities Airport" but unwittingly refers to the Tri-Cities Airport KPSC in Pasco, Washington State as opposed to the "correct" Tri-Cities Airport KCZG in Endicott, New York State. What is the procedure for creating a new page for the Tri-Cities Airport in Endicott? Besides the GBA page having an incorrect link, so does the List_of_airports_by_ICAO_code:_K
*OK, I think this is cleared up now.  If you look at Tri-Cities Airport, it is now a dab that should clear this up.  For the record, I found three airports using that name.  I cleaned up several articles, and I think things are straight now.  To create the article, just click on the red link.  Vegaswikian 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tri-Cities Airport vs. Tri-Cities Airport 

message: I was starting to add a reference to essential air service to those airports covered by this program but stopped when I thought a category might be better for this.  Comments?  Vegaswikian 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential air service 

message: Can someone look at this. I have changed it back and asked the editor what the problem with it was. Am I wrong in thinking that the Canada Flight Supplement is a source rather than a see also? I really don't feel like changing 1300+ airports. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. The user hase a good point as to why he changed them, see User talk:Jayvdb. If I change the reference to read "Canada Flight Supplement effective day/month/year" for all of them every 56 days will ensure that they are all up to date. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always use a template for adding the reference.  That way one change and you have updated 1,300 articles. Vegaswikian 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's the way to go. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grandes-Bergeronnes Airport]]

message: User:82.41.21.236 has been adding flags to destination lists, which is a "real bad idea" in my opinion, and goes against the existing format. I've left a commonet on their talk page, but can others help revert the additions please? Thanks/wangi 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are are reverted now. Including the ones that were edited after the anon added the flags. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't all reverted. A lot of pages now have them. Dbinder 09:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to address this on the project page? While not a policy, most everyone usually respects the guidelines on project pages and following them keeps editors out of trouble. My concern is the number of hits this can add to the image server. Vegaswikian 16:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I got all the ones that 82.41.21.236 did. Which did I miss? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at Adria Airways destinations and it has flags, that was the first one I checked.  LukaP appaears to be the editor that added those.  Contrib history shows a lot of destinations were edited.  Vegaswikian 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are done. When I go back to work I'll run through the the airports by category and see what else I can find. Early Saturday morning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through 3500+ articles from "Category:Airports in country" and not one has "Flagicon" in it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User adding flags to destination lists 

message: Do you think it would be a good idea to add small size logos next to airlines at airports to represent which alliance they belong to, to show how they are aligned at the airport? Flymeoutofhere 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a good idea for the same reason as the flags. They clutter up the page, and more importantly, put quite a strain on the server. Dbinder 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliances 

message: I posted this question on the  talk page of BWI and the folks there suggested I ask it here: what is the appropriate way to cite through service?  I had added a note about upcoming through service from BWI to Accra, via Banjul -- and that's just how I listed it, with the word "via."  Someone removed the "via" and made it look like BWI will soon have non-stop service to both destinations--but the reality is it will be service to Accra, with a stop-over in Banjul.  Now, the reason I listed it this way is because that is how it is being promoted, with the expectation that people will buy their tickets primarily for Accra.  This is exactly like, say, SAA's flight from IAD to Johanneburg, which stops in Dakar for refueling and a crew change--and while you can buy a ticket for Dakar, most people know it as the flight to Jo'burg.  
So should we only list the stop-over point; should we list it as "via," or should we list both destinations separatly (which I find confusing).
I vote for "via," but with the caveat that this should really only be for long-haul International routes.  I think the odd domestic flight that has through-service from a hub to another spoke shouldn't be listed.  I think it's just the extraordinary nature of these long-haul flights that makes this valuable info.
Thoughts?
Free-world 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The format right now is to list direct, non-plane-changing, international destinations (without the "via" designation). I think that's been working pretty well. Dbinder (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree adding that you only list destinations where passengers can board or leave the flight.  Fuel only stops and the like should not be listed.  This does not appear to be that type of exception.  Also, the flight number should be the same to all stops.  Vegaswikian 21:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To extend this, routes on which a carrier cannot legally carry domestic passengers also shouldn't be listed. e.g. United flies LAX-SYD-MEL, but passengers cannot board at Sydney, so in the Sydney Airport article, only LAX (and SFO) should be listed as a destination. Likewise, at Melbourne Airport, LAX should be listed, but not Sydney. The same goes for Qantas between LAX and JFK. Dbinder (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is intended to show cities which the airlines serve, NOT the route info. Thus, having a simple comma between Accra and Banjul DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT imply that there are two different non-stop flights. If that were the implication then what would happen to the numerous European airlines that fly the Hub-BKK-SIN route? Their listings do not imply that they have separate non-stop flights for their hubs and for the other Asian city. What the format right now is perfect as is. Elektrik Blue 82 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but this doesn't seem clear at all--and for the simple fact that the heading of the section is "Airlines and nonstop destinations."  That implies that what we read is, in fact, a list of all non-stop flights each airline serves from that airport.  (A recent letter to the editor of the Washington Post travel section even suggested using Wikipedia to find out JUST THAT INFORMATION, since it's often not readily available on airport websites.)  Further, if this is true, then there is a lot of missing information.  To wit: a quick check of the current OAG schedule for BWI shows at least three different airlines serving BWI - SEA with direct flights (ie, exactly ONE stop somewhere, but the flight number and equipment are the same, and they clearly have cabotage), yet I don't see Seattle listed as a destination, with or without a comma. If it takes a conversation on the project page to understand that that's what's being communicated (even the talk page of the airport in question didn't know this answer) then how can we claim "the format right now is perfect as is."  I think we need to rethink this. Free-world 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the structure section on the project page says the heading should be Airlines and destinations if only one terminal or terminal(s) not identified otherwise Terminals and destinations.  So nonstop should not be in the heading.  I guess your confusion is one reason why it should not be included in the heading. Vegaswikian 02:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on a one-stop direct flight with a plane change, the OAG schedule will only list the first plane used. In order to check if there is indeed a change, you need to check the two individual segments and ensure they are the same. Even then, there is no guarantee; since the 737 and 320 are the most popular domestic planes, it is quite possible for a direct flight to use one 737 from BWI to, say, ORD, and then another one to SEA, all with the same flight #. Dbinder (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then, despite the slight disambuigation of the heading (which could be 100% disambugated by saying, "Airlines and their non-stop and direct destinations") I would argue that we should list only non-stop destinations, period, with the exception of long-haul routes, and then marked with a "via."  I think spending the time to determine if a one-stop domestic route between a spoke and another spoke through a hub is indeed the same flight# and equipment is a lot of work, and nowhere near as useful as listing just non-stops--as this information is not always easy to find online, but gives a very good measure of an airport's reach.  The one flight a day that just happens to take you without a plane change through a hub is probably more a scheduling fluke, than an idea of either O&D traffic or hub traffic.  As I said, the exception I'd propose would be very long-haul international (or maybe even very-long domestic, if it involved, say, flying from Regan National to Anchorage via SEA or somesuch), but then marking it as "via." I think that's an exception worth noting.  Deciding which is worth noting this way and which isn't doesn't have to be concrete; it could be left to the contributor to decide, in a "I'll know it when I see it" fashion.  Thoughts? Free-world 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptions make it difficult to keep things clear.  It is simple to see and verify the direct flights since they are clearly listed on most (all?) airline schedules and route maps.  The term 'direct flight' have been used by the travel industry and flighers for service to from point a to point b, so using that as the standard makes sense.  Speaking as a past travel agent, the only issue with some customers was that they basically wanted non stop flights.  So if you had to offer a direct flight with a stop or two, you had to be up front with that info.  Vegaswikian 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should continue to list non-stop flights and ignore the "direct" flights that simply happen to be an accident of scheduling an aircraft that passes through a hub. Such "direct" flights are not scheduled on any particular rhyme or reason, and change monthly, weekly and even by the day. They also would radically complicate destination listings - for instance, US Airways had or has a direct flight from Kansas City to Oakland via Phoenix, but no direct service from Oakland to Kansas City! If we were to list spoke-hub-spoke direct destinations, we might as well abandon all hope of ever keeping destination lists up to date because it'll be well-nigh impossible to keep up with the changes. This does not apply to flights such as AQ's LAS-OAK-HNL service, which are scheduled and sold as one-stop direct flights rather than simply being a plane passing through a hub. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Through Service 

message: Anyone else see a problem with information like Pilot information in Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport? Vegaswikian 05:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed similar information from airport articles. We really don't want Wikipedia to try to be a source of instructional material for pilots; it's almost guaranteed to be out of date after a while, and things like approach procedures are not of interest to a general encyclopedia audience. I'd keep the diagram and runway descriptions, though. MCB 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilot information 

message: Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Anyone fancy giving Belfast International Airport a once over... I'm of the opinon that someone within the airport's been editing the article... Thanks/wangi 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Copyright#If you find a copyright infringement says "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored." So you can remove the offending part without putting up a tag or blanking the whole article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll help on this article. --Sunholm(talk)  13:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I think Vigas has fixed up the major problems, but it could still do with a look. Not got much time myself, but i'll keep a watch on the article's talk page if you're needing anything. Thanks/L/wangi 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belfast International Airport 

message: This AFD for Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities might be of interest. Thanks/wangi 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD - Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities 

message: Anyone want to check over the article I've created at Uncontrolled airport?  Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Uncontrolled airport]] 

message: Can someone look at this article.  I just ran into it and it looks US centric.  Probably needs a stonger mention of IATA and ICAO. Vegaswikian 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Location identifier]] 

message: What exactly is the convention behind the "Serves..." column in the airport infobox? Is it supposed to be the largest city or metropolitan area it is serving? Or is it the city or town where the airport is physically located? Someone is putting Vantaa instead of Helsinki for the case of HEL. And I have seen inconsistencies with other airports, NRT serves Narita (physical location), while KIX serves Osaka (metro area, KIX is located outside Osaka City). ATH serves Athens, FCO serves Rome, but TPE serves Taoyuan City, instead of Taipei. Thoughts? Elektrik Blue 82 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was led to believe it's the closest major city; that makes the most sense. So, whatever city is listed on destination lists should be the same (i.e. HEL is listed as Helsinki (Helsinki-Vantaa Int'l), so the airport should be listed as serving Helsinki. Dbinder (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're now talking about the closest major city, aren't you? Well, did you know that Vantaa is actually bigger than Helsinki? That would then mean that the closest major city IS Vantaa, hence the Helsinki-Vantaa airport serves Vantaa. 88.112.101.221 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the population, not just the size. Helsinki beats Vantaa by more than around 400,000 people. I'd had enough of this lack of logic. I'd revert it continually. Elektrik Blue 82 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO in addition to cities you can take in account that there are Helsinki Metropolitan Area also exists - so Helsinki is good name. IMHO, the best Wiki rule here will be "No original research". --TAG 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: May I remind you that this is the English Wikipedia. Have you ever wondered why the airport is named Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport? If the closest major city it serves is Vantaa, then why append the "Helsinki" in the first place? I find your enthusiasm to remove "Helsinki" appalling, you even removed it in the list of airports by ICAO codes. Elektrik Blue 82 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case I need help or else I'll be violating the 3RR rule for the Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. Elektrik Blue 82 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few edits. Can I suggest engaging the user in discussion on the article talk page rather than the edit history, thanks/wangi 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serves XXX

message: Grand Central Airport (California). This historic airport, closed in 1959, had the first paved runway in the western U.S., was the starting or ending point of many record-breaking aviation feats, and was the principal airport of Los Angeles for several decades. Some of its history is in Glendale, California#History, but it deserves an article of its own. Anyone interested? -Will Beback 07:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Central Airport 

message: :reference
Joshbaumgartner wikilinked a few references to Belfast City Airport in some other airport articles, along with full-on wikilinking with a few airport articles. I left a comment on their talk page (ref above) pointing to the standard format we use.
Following this Josh has reverted the changes on the articles, but has instead created two new articles (Belfast International Airport connections for Belfast International Airport; George Best Belfast City Airport connections for George Best Belfast City Airport). What's everyones opinion on this?
Thanks/wangi 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow the guideline in the project.  This guideline is generally enough to avoid issues at AfD.  Likewise, deletion on AfD is likely if you stray from those guidelines.  There are still some editors who are not happy with the destination artcicles so creating a new class of articles could be drawing unwanted attention to these articles.  Vegaswikian 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my feeling too... Although i'm not keen on AFDing them just yet. Thanks/wangi 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional articles listing airlines and destinations 

message: I'm currently in a discussion about a link to a page about the Heathrow Visitor Centre. The site is not the official site, does not have any encyclopedic content and has photos which are defaced with a big copyright logo. I cannot see the use in such a link, especially when the parent site is one trying to flog hotel rooms and airport transfers... So, 3rd opinion needed: Talk:London Heathrow Airport#External link to Heathrow airport centre. Thanks/wangi 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else got an opinion on this? Thanks/wangi 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Vegas, the disputed original link is this, while the official one is this. You might want to read the discussion in the talk page and in the edit summaries. Elektrik Blue 82 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did look but was having a hard time finding that.  In any case, the URL is a commerical site selling travel services.  So I consider that spam.  I did read parts of the rather long discusion on the talk page and it's clear that this is an issue that is raising tempers.  I don't consider the fact that they have an information only page a factor here.  And even that page is spam by virtue of the copyright notice.  Maybe we need to add a small comment in the external links topic to cover this.  It was done for the airline project to help with similar problems. Vegaswikian 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links on [[London Heathrow Airport]] 

message: I was wondering, is there an official policy on listing cargo airlines and destinations currently?
Looking at the formating section here, I only saw the format for pax carriers, nothing about freight or regular charters.  On all of the airport articles I have edited, I have simply put a sub heading below the pax airlines for the strictly cargo carriers, and then on airports such as BGR, where regular charters and tech stops are common, I have put annother sub heading below that.  Also, when looking at the page for CVG, I noticed that many normal Pax carriers were double listed, also appearing under cargo carriers.  I have always belived that cargo carriers should only include airlines such as FedEx, UPS, DHL, and their equivilants.  It would be a help to have an official policy dictating the listing of cargo carriers here.  Thanks for any input.  --KPWM_Spotter 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What additions or changes to the article structure would you suggest?  Vegaswikian 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the Cargo Airlines should be set up just as the passenger airlines currently are.  The only diference that I see would be that it would be offset as a subheading of the airline section, rather than an entire section to itself. I don't think many real changes need to be made, we just need to agree on the styling and wording, and put it up on the main page.    I have annother question though; should cargo carriers use the same style of the major airline, with the carrier below it?  There are regional carriers like Wiggins Airways that fly under the fedex and UPS banner, but aren't officially FedEx mainline.  Should we classify those the same as Comair and GoJet are? --KPWM_Spotter 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the indent level on your reply.  The format and rules for listing the airlines should be the same for pax and cargo and anything else.  There should be a basic standard that applies and unless what we have does not work, we should continue to use it.  I think that cargo needs to be a section since it is really very different from what many people think about when you say airline.  I'm not sure what your quetion about Comair and GoJet is?  Are you asking about the categories they are placed in?  If so, then the answer is to add all that apply.  I have added a few for Wiggins.  Vegaswikian 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably could have been more clear on the Comair comment.  I was asking whether small feeder lines operating under the FedEx baner should be placed below FedEx and indented, as comercial feeders are.  I have been adding Wiggins as a seperate airline...but I now see I probably shouldn't.      I agree that what we have now works...but what we have isn't official.  I'm going to add a note on the WP:Airports style section simply stating what is now in place.  --KPWM_Spotter 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'll wait before making that change.  Most major airports don't list cargo operators as of now.  I want to hear more opinions before changing the oficial policy. --KPWM_Spotter 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cargo Airlines

message: There's been a bit of reverting recently on the UK airport articles, in particular for Manchester and Birmingham entries. There seems to be a disagreement on if disambiguation is required, if it should always be done, or...
Personally I feel that that entries should be "bare" and without disambiguation if it's plainly clear the airport intended - for example from a regional UK airport it's clear these refer to the UK airports, not the US ones. Additionally for the likes of LHR where there could maybe be a service to the US cities (but there's not) the UK ones should be left bare and dismbiguation tagged onto the US entries. Reverse this for US artport destination lists...
What does everyone else think? /wangi 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab in destination lists