Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 5

message: In the list of destinations in airport articles, shouldn't we seperate the Toronto destinations? (sorry don't know how to explain it I'll give an example instead).
Example:
*American Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco)
**American Eagle (Baltimore, Toronto, Boston)
*Delta Air Lines (Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco)
**Delta Connection operated by Comair (Atlanta, Cincinnati, Boston, Toronto)
Shouldn't we change it to the format below?:
*American Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco)
**American Eagle (Baltimore, Toronto-Pearson, Boston)
*Delta Air Lines (Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco)
**Delta Connection operated by Comair (Atlanta, Cincinnati, Boston, Toronto-Pearson)
My reason is that another airport in Toronto, which is the Toronto City Centre Airport is already operational and maybe the people who'll look at the airport destinations will be confused which airport will the airline be flying to. Maybe they'll be wondering if it will fly to Toronto City Centre Airport or to Toronto Pearson International Airport. So this is my reason. -chris 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. There are 5 airports with the word Toronto in the name (List of airports in the Greater Toronto Area) and Flyglobespan call Hamilton/John C. Munro International Airport Toronto Hamilton International Airport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should disambiguate Toronto since Toronto has two airports that are operating. So it should be like
*Air Canada
**Air Canada Jazz (Montreal, Toronto-Pearson, Toronto-City Centre, Victoria, Vancouver) Bucs2004 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Airports 

message: Some extra eyes on this would be usefull. I have been reverting this based on the fact that when you follow the esenboga.com link it quite clearly states that it's not associated with TAV. If you go to http://www.tav.aero/ and follow the link provided to Esenboga you get back to the http://www.esenbogaairport.com/esben/index.php site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also reverted Turkish page, that link added recently on tr: article too. I also, fount this link. At least it doesn't say not associated with TAV --Ugur Basak 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the link that looks like the proper site. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Esenboga International Airport]]

message: While I was editing some airport articles I suddenly came accross this airport and the destination list does not follow the format laid out by WikiProject Airports. So what should we do with this article should we keep it as it is? Or revise it to the correct format? Just inquiring about this, an anonymous user changed the format. -chris 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Amsterdam Schiphol Airport]]

message: I just wanted to remind everybody that the project banner was upgraded to meet WP:1.0 specifications earlier this week, as there were no objections to the change itself. I have left the unrated articles showing that they are unrated and I'll let Mets make the aforementioned changes to the template if he still feels that it is important. I'd do it myself, but I'm not all that trusting of my skills with m:ParserFunctions just yet.
There is one thing that I strongly feel is important to let everybody know here: this project only has 1 Featured Article (Montréal-Mirabel International Airport) and one Good Article (San Francisco International Airport). Considering we have over 4,500  banners (at this writing) on airport articles, this number seems quite low, espcially for a WikiProject. On average, something around 1 in 1,200 should be FA and 1 in 900 should be GA. That would put us, if average, with roughly 4 FA- and 5 GA-class articles. (Note that some projects, like WP:MILHIST, have extremely disproportionately high numbers of FA- and GA-class articles!)
I have requested a peer review on Singapore Changi Airport and am in the process of copyediting and doing some cleanup that was noted by an automated bot. I will be adding this article as the first for this project's Peer Review department. Once finished with the peer reviews, I will be proposing the article as a Good Article candidate. When it passes (it already meets all GA criteria), I'll be promoting it to our first  article for the project. After a little more cleanup, I hope to get it passed as a Featured Article.
The good news is that now we have access to statistics on the rating of our articles through the Assessment page. We also have an importance scale on the same page, which I have tried my best to customize for this project. If anybody disagrees with the criteria or the examples, feel free to state them so we can work towards a consensus.
So, what does it look like our top priorities should be at the moment? I'd think that they would include:
#Expansion and/or improvement of Top and High importance airport articles until more have achieve at least Good Article status.
#Creation of stubs for the remaining redlinks regarding public-use airports on our lists. See List of airports in California for one example.
#Rating the class and importance of a substanial amount of our articles. This should be fairly easy, as a large portion of them are simply Stub class, Low importance airports (ex, Amargosa Airport).
I'd love to get some feedback on this, guys. :) thadius856talk 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Department 

message: I don't know if this has ever been brought up before, but perhaps we should start to include information about airline lounges in WikiPedia Airport pages.  This information seems to be a bit left out of Wikipedia even though they are a fairly major part of the Airports.  I see that there is an incomplete list on the Airport lounge page, but I think by listing them on individual airport pages, they will be more accessible.  I'm just interested what others think of this.  Thanks.  NcSchu 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lounges 

message: On the destination list on Suvarnabhumi Airport an anoynymous I revised an edit made by User:VAIO HK due to incorrect format and today I just found out that an anonymous user reverted my edits. I'll revert it today and here's the format they imputed to the article:
Airlines                  	Airlines	Destination
Name                      	Code    	Destination
Bangkok Airways           	(PG)    	(Chiang Mai, Koh Samui, Krabi, Phuket, Sukhothai, Trat, Utapao-Rayong)
Nok Air                   	(DD)    	(Chaing Mai, Hat Yai, Loei, Mae Hong Son, Nakhon Si Thanarat, Phuket, Trang, Udon Thani)
One-Two-Go                	(OG)    	(Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Hat Yai, Khon Kaen, Krabi, Phitsanulok, Phuket, Surat Thani)
PB Air                    	(9Q)    	(Buriram, Lampang, Mae Hong Son, Nakhon Phanom, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Nan, Roi Et, Sakon Nakhon)
Phuket Air                	(9R)    	(Ranong)
Thai AirAsia              	(FD)    	(Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Hat Yai, Krabi, Naratiwat, Phuket, Surat Thani, Ubon Ratchathani, Udon Thani)
Thai Airways International	(TG)    	(Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, HatYai, Khon Kaen, Krabi,  Mae Hong Son, Nakhon Si Thamarat, Phitsanulok, Phuket, Surat Thani, Trang, Ubon Ratchatani, Udon Thani)
It's wrong isn't it? So I'll revert the changes today. And if it get's reverted once again I'll place it here on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikDig (talk • contribs) 
*That's not the accepted format.  While having a table might be nice, it would need to be discussed before using it.  Including the code is not necessary and this table does not provide an obvious way to indicate DBAs. Vegaswikian 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suvarnabhumi Airport

message: Airline destinations is proposed for deletion.  If interested, drop in on the discussion.   This is the master list used to list destinations in airline and airport articles. Vegaswikian 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline destinations AfD  

message: On the Ninoy Aquino International Airport destination page, anonymous users keep on inserting NRT and NGO as JAL destinations, but JAL suspended their MNL-NGO-MNL sector as of 29 October 2006, I saw the press article on the Philippine website of JAL. Now, JAL's flights to NRT are operated by JALways, check timetables. So JAL clearly does not fly to NGO or NRT from MNL. -chris^_^ 13:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JAL service to MNL

message: Hello folks! I have begun a WikiProject on bettering the articles on defunct airlines, most notably regional airlines which got swallowed up by the larger airlines following the Airline Deregulation Act. Also within the scope of this project are airports which were served by these defunct airlines that no longer have scheduled air service such as Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport in Glens Falls, New York, or have limited EAS service such as Massena International Airport in Massena.
The project is in the very beginning stages and I need all the help I can get. Basically, all articles in the end need to have former destinations, and I would like them to have past fleet, logos, and a brief history up to their collapse if possible. 
Check out the Defunct Airlines WikiProject. It is in its very early stages. I was also wondering if this could be added to similar to related WikiProjects on here? Thanks so much, hope to see you there! -Jondude11 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject Concerning Defunct Airlines 

message: 
I know, it doesn't look that good, yet, though that can be solved. I tried Photoshopping up a better barnstar logo, but I'm a little short on ideas at the moment. Do you guys think its too early to have such an award? thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - The Airport Star 

message: Here's why I support and pursue the removal of the "serves" category on the USAF bases airport infoboxes:  AF bases do not "serve" their nearest towns in the way municipal or large airports do.  Apart from the fact that there is no scheduled passenger service into/out of AF bases (Space-A/rotators do not count for many reasons), the denizens of towns nearest to bases are not able to walk on to base and use the services of the airfield.  AF bases are not there to serve the nearest town the way civilian airfields are.  For this reason I believe there should be a separate infobox template for AF bases, or simply remove the "serves" line from the current template. Conn, Kit 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info boxes on USAF bases 

message: Per the above discussion of dual use facilities, I propose that Scott Air Force Base and MidAmerica St. Louis Airport be merged. This is a dual use airport, both articles refer to the same airfield, the infoboxes are basically identical, and the FAA refers to them both as BLV. I'm not sure which name should be used, but Scott AFB came first and makes up most of the flights from the facility. Both articles are very stubby, and MidAmerica has very little commercial traffic, one airline flying to Vegas and Orlando, I think. Both runways are dual use, and connected by a long taxiway which passes by the USAF ATCT. CFB Bagotville is an example of a dual use airport article as noted above. If anyone has any comments, please add it to Talk:Scott Air Force Base. Thanks. --Dual Freq 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinions on a Merger 

message: I put up the framework for the Collaboration of the Fortnight. You can find the link in all project navigation boxes at the top right of every project page. I also added my own nomination to get the discussion started. I'd appreciate it if everybody could head over and leave some feedback. Please nominate an article if you don't agree with my choice. It would be awesome if we had a run-off for our first collaboration!
There's also two new templates, which you can see on that page. One is for the top of the Collaboration page, which states the current article for collaboration. The second is for the top of the article's talk page, so visitors can see why the article is getting so many edits. Lastly, I updated the  template to add our project. Lastly, there's a parameter for the project banner which expands it a bit. So, what do you guys think so far?
Also, I'm trying to see if Oleg (see above) can have Mathbot update us one of those cool progress bars for the Creation Drive department. It should hopefully keep track of all redlinks in List of airports by IATA code and List of airports by ICAO code, as well as the US airports (for those with only FAA LIDs). I figure anything not listed between all of those isn't particularly noteworthy enough for inclusion, but I may be wrong. Wish us luck! thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More collaboration! 

message: I am slowing starting a list of articles and categories at :Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Articles which I hope when finished will help facilitate use of the recent changes function. If the members of this project find such a list either irrelevant or a duplication, please let me know. Thank you. Badbilltucker 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give you a complete list of every article in :Category:Airports and all sub-categories, if you so please. It's not sorted by category, but it was last updated 12-07-06. I can always rebuild the list using AWB if you would like. Doesn't take long. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article list 

message: Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Infobox#Google earth and comment on the idea. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google earth

message: I've noticed that only two participants have actively contributed to nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Fortnight. It would be nice if there were more feedback or support on the nominations, as this nomination session will close at 00:01 UTC on 2006-12-18, with the winner being the collaboration article for the next two weeks. Thanks! thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration redux 

message: Hi, I'm curious why these reversions were made by CambridgeBayWeather. I found this information interesting and not available anywhere else within the article. Besides current METAR and TAF information there was also a link to a google earth map and other technical information on the airport.
I've reverted the links back pending an answer.
:My error. I rechecked and the links are not spam. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CYYT, CYHZ, CYYR external link reversions of Current Aviation Weather 

message: I was reading the earlier discussion started by Beachlife.  It seems to me that it might be useful to list the number of domestic, international, intercontinental, etc. destinations per airline and/or per airport article.  Another idea would be to organize by destination instead of by airline, alphabetical order, then list the airlines that fly to that particular destination.  Even better, if it's possible, would be to have both destination orders.  I believe implementing these ideas would not violate NPOV and may be more useful than the current format to some readers.  However, I don't know of a way to do that without dramatically increasing the page sizes, particularly for major airports.  I think it kind of sucks you can't easily pull all the destinations from a central database, but given the competitiveness of the airline business, this probably can't be fixed.  --BetaCentauri 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By way of contrast, I'd urge the opposite, that is, less emphasis on precise listings of airlines and destinations. I see Wikipedia airport articles as primarily intended to discuss the importance, history, geography, physical plant and infrastructure, economics/statistics, etc., of airports, rather than trying to be a guide to passenger service. There are many, many sources of data on flights from point A to point B; the constantly changing nature of the airline business makes it hard to keep up to date, and consequently editors have to spend a lot of time with something that, to my mind, belongs more in a travel guide or aviation/airline web site, not an encyclopedia. --MCB 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in principle.  I think the fact that WP's airport articles list destinations is actually an attempt to make up for the fact that there is no other central, free database for such listings.  As you say, it's probably best implemented in a dedicated travel site that would presumably have the ability to update such listings dynamically.  So, what are the odds that we can convince enough people to stop trying to track destinations?  --BetaCentauri 02:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination statistics & organization 

message: Currently on airport articles, they state Dallas Love Field as Dallas-Love, shouldn't it be Dallas-Love Field? Just curious... -chris^_^ 08:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of the name serves as a disambiguation. It short be as short as possible while still getting the point across. There's no other airport in Dallas or Fort Worth with "Love" in the name, so it's fine. DB (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dallas Love Field

message: Since the Sanford airport is being enumerated as Orlando-Sanford, How would we enumerate Orlando International Airport? I propose the one below:
1. Orlando-McCoy, McCoy since it stands for the first two letters in MCO.
2. Orlando-Jetport, Jetport since the civilian airport at McCoy Base was called Orlando Jetport at McCoy
Do you guys have any suggestions? If not choose which do you prefer from the above. 141.155.118.39 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say leave it as it is. In cities where one airport has the vast majority of traffic and a reference to the city is assumed to refer to that airport, there doesn't need to be a disambiguation. Same goes with Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Tel Aviv, Vancouver, and others. Except for Icelandair, flights to Sanford are charters; MCO has virtually all scheduled traffic to the city and is one of the 30 busiest airports in the world. DB (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orlando International Airport

message: Is this sort of thing a good idea? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO.  Vegaswikian 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?--Huaiwei 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question would be why should that be done?  What encylopedic material do we need to convey to the average reader? Would they know what the bold cities mean?  Would it be more informative or more confusing?  Why is it important to know what hubs are destinations for a particular airport?  For a good number of airports, their only service is to hubs.  If they want to know the hubs for an airline, they just click on the airline link and it is in the infobox on the first screen, so why do we need to maintain this information in hundreds of articles?  Who is going to maintain this level of detail in the articles for every airport?  Vegaswikian 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retaining this would open it up to also bolding focus cities, which would cause a lot more problems, since there's already enough argument over what constitutes a focus city. DB (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with what has been said above. Furthermore, if it is a significant fact that an airline hubs at a given airport then in should be mentioned in the text of the article, not implied through bolding. Also, by bolding some airlines or destinations, we might lead the average reader to think that those airlines or airports might be larger or more important that others listed, which may not be the case, so doing so may mislead the average reader, even though it may make sense to wikipedians involved in the airports project. -- Adz|talk 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I hadn't thought of the controversy over what constitutes a "hub" or "focus city", but I suppose it does make sense. Unless,  of course, we could all agree on an all-inclusive source which spells out each in a reasonable manner for every airport in the world, though that seems unlikely. I do like the diagram in the article, though. I'd create as many as possible, if only I knew how the creator did it. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are aware of a source for focus cities, please let us know.  We have not found one or even a definition. This is a concern for the accuracy of information that we include in this area.  As for that destination diagram, I would not care to see those included since they would be difficult to update and maintain?  Who has the tools to do that?  How many charts would you need for an airport with around the world service?  What would that chart liok like for any of the 5 airports with the most destinations?  Remember that there should be consistent information across all articles so that they appear to be similar in the way they read and appear.  Vegaswikian 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Major airline hubs in bold"

message: First off, articles pertaining to Air Algérie are constantly being vandalized by Velentine, Amine2, and 200.122.86.50. These users (or simply, user?) constantly puts unsourced edits, not only on the above article, but also on Air Algérie destinations and Houari Boumedienne Airport. If somebody else puts these on their watchlist then that would be great. Elektrik Blue 82 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and "they" have added about 6 pics with no copyright statement to Air Algerie. I constantly remove them and Velentine constantly puts them back. There a bit about it on my Talk Page here - Adrian Pingstone 22:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The talk page only discusses the image issues.  If they are vandalizing articles, then put an appropiate warning on the talk page.  If that happens then the ids can be blocked.  Without a proper series of warnings, we can not block the accounts.  Vegaswikian 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, wait...never mind. I blocked the IP because of vandalism. I don't know about the others. --210physicq (c) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algerian Aviation articles 

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