Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 7

message: Question: Should direct flights involving plane changes be included in the destination list? the WP:AIRPORTS page only states that
:List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing most domestic United States direct flights, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two. 
However nothing is said about direct flights from the US to other countries which have a stop in the US such as UA895/6 SIN-HKG-ORD-PHL and vv.(change of plane at ORD) or UA890/1 HKG-NRT-LAX-JFK (plane changes at LAX and NRT),UA958/949 SEA-ORD-LHR vv (Plane Change at ORD), UA938/923/959/919 DEN-IAD/ORD-LHR vv (Plane change at ORD/IAD). These aren't domestic flights as they all continue to an international destination so should the final destination be listed on the respective airport pages? Blahx100 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Flights Involving Plane Changes 

message: What is the consensus on what to do with sections within other articles that reference a given airport. For example, in an article on Mobile, Alabama there is a transportation section that mentions the two airports. Should we develop this with an infobox and more detail or should we create a separate article for each airport?JBEvans 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The airports should have their own articles. I wouldn't put a box in the Mobile article or you could end up with several conflicting boxes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several editors who seem to be very willing to cleanup basic airport stub articles.  So as long as you can provide the basic material for the airport, it will get some attention, like having the infobox added.  The result may still be a stub, but it will look like a good article from the way it is formatted.  Vegaswikian 22:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Sections in Non-Airport Articles 

message: For anyone that is interested/cares: User:Cburnett/airport diagrams.  My airport diagram HOWTO to convert the PDFs the FAA serves into SVGs.  I welcome input on the process and expansion ideas on the HOWTO.  I'm not a member of this project so please comment on my talk page or the talk page for the link above if you see fit to do so.  Cburnett 04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport diagrams 

message: User:PikDig is trying to imply that PR can fly to Sydney from Melbourne, however Australian pax cannot book this leg, while on the PR website, you can book the leg.  However, as far as I am aware, Australian government regulations prohibit international carriers from carrying domestic pax on domestic legs they may fly (eg JL flying BNE-SYD). There it should not be listed, am I correct? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you are correct. Bucs2004 02:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philippine Airlines]] & [[Melbourne Airport]] 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sox23 - Just thought everyone should know. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sox23 adminship 

message: Since Don Mueang is now open for domestic flights only, should Bangkok be disambiguated? Bucs2004 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangkok's Airports 

message: Some airport articles include the number of gates that an airline uses.  I believe that in the past we had decided to not list specific gate numbers since that was considered directory like information that was not encyclopedic.  The problem with including the number of gates by airline is that it can be subjective and can change without any reliable sources for citing.  And what number do you use? Is it the number of gates the airline pays for?  Is it the number of gates that they use?  Does it include any overflow gates that the airport may assign on a regular basis?  How do you count gates that are shared with another airline (do we add it to both or give each 50% credit)?  I think it is better to not list this by airline in the airport articles.  We don't really gain anything by including them other then more reasons to update articles.  Vegaswikian 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also doesn't work very well at airports with low gate ownership, like most European Airports. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates in articles 

message: I have put the Port Columbus International Airport article up for good article review, but have yet to receive any response.  As the GA page is extremely backlogged, I figure that notifying people here might help get it reviewed.  Feel free to review it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates.  Thanks. Polypmaster 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Columbus International Airport: GA Nominee 

message: Abraham Lincoln National Airport and South Suburban Airport articles seem to cover the same concept of a third regional airport south of Chicago in the Peotone, Illinois vicinity. I'd like to get these merged, but I need assistance with the appropriate name for the article. It is clear that they are both proposed plans in nearly the same location, SSA seems like the more generic name and the one that the FAA seems to prefer SSA to describe the concept, but using a world view most every major city could have a south suburban airport, so maybe Chicago South Suburban Airport would be better than just SSA. It's an Illinois political football, and a new user seems offended by the current main article's name of Abraham Lincoln National Airport creating the newer, unsourced, SSA article. Any advice or input is appreciated. --Dual Freq 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about merging them into Proposed Chicago suburban airport?  This leaves you with an article name that does not match any specific proposal.  Then have the various proposed names redirect there.  The article can discuss the details of each proposed name.  If and when an official name is chosen, then the article would be moved to that name. Vegaswikian 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying, I combined them to Proposed Chicago south suburban airport. I've posted notes at various places and no one else seems interested. If someone else has a problem with the name, I'll be watching here for comments. --Dual Freq 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago South Suburban Airport 

message: I have put forward airports in Israel in general as the COTW for WP:Israel reason being that much of the information is in the hebrew wikipedia and just needs translating. I will be sure to post here if it is successful though. Flymeoutofhere 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports in Israel COTW in [[WP:Israel]] 

message: Recently an unregistered user added a list of aircraft served at Port Columbus International Airport.  I feel that this irrelevant and should be removed, but I wanted a consensus before I removed it.  I cleaned it up in the meantime.  It is also unreferenced, so this may be a moot point.  Thanks for the feedback. Polypmaster 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, looks good.  Just trying to keep it a GA class at least. Polypmaster 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aircraft list 

message: Just a question. I recently created an article about Grand Case Airport on the French side of Saint Martin. It seems to have two IATA codes; both SFG and CCE are used (you can check that here). How come? Has is something to do with different activities on the airport? Maartenvdbent 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grand Case Airport]] 

message: Good day all, I have started a List of private-use airports in Oregon.  In addtion, I will be updating the  List of Airports in Oregon soon as I get it completed. (I have not segregated them into types or added IATA/ICAO data).  Feel free to take a look and pitch in all you like.  Any advice or input would be appreciated -Trashbag 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon Airports 

message: Please see the discussion at the talk page on a possible rename for the article.  Vegaswikian 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankfurt International Airport 

message: Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montréal-Mirabel International Airport FAR 

message: List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports is an article I recently stumbled upon, and by looking at the article, it obviously looks like a replica of the destination section of all the airports listed on the said article. I suggest that the said article be deleted. -chris^_^ 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AFD comes into mind. —210physicq (c) 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a prod. If it gets removed, I would suggest afd; I believe an afd nomination would be quite successful. DB (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination of Thailand Airports 

message: Hi Airport Fans,
I am a member of WP Israel, and I am working on passing Ben Gurion Airport as a FA.  Please support us at the FAC, and please help fix any issues that are brought up. --יהושועEric 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ben Gurion Airport]] FA Candidate 

message: User:Ariel c nunag keeps on editing Dipolog Airport which I keep on revising. He updates the airport with information that he claims from concerned government officials, for he said he works with the government. I really don't believe him. Can somebody please explain to him the rules of Wikipedia?! -chris^_^ 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dipolog Airport 

message: All airlines destination articles has been renominated by another user (every single one of them) at the above link.  You may wish to comment there.  The previous nomination is archived here. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations]] 

message: User User:Simply south has added a new template (Template:London Airports) to the Heathrow and Gatwick articles, I have deleted it from the Gatwick page as I believe it does not add any value when it is placed above Template:UKAirports which includes the same information. Just asking for opinions as I suspect it may get added back soon.MilborneOne 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that  seems to be designed to be used whenever  airports is used, it would appear to be an unnecessary duplicate.  Unless there is something I'm missing, I'd suggest taking this to Tfd and listing the smaller duplicate one for deletion.  Vegaswikian 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought it was seful as there are so many airports serving London. It is easy navigation (and also there are some airports not mentioned in UK Airports). Simply south 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was interesting is that they both list 7, albeit different, airports.  This is exactly the reason why you should not use two templates.  The information gets to be inaccurate and confusing.  Vegaswikian 21:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just go for a voluntary merge. Simply south 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Airports 

message: After looking at various airport articles, one anon user suddenly disambiguated Montreal as Montréal-Trudeau on most airport articles. Trudeau is the only airport in Montreal that has passenger service and Mirabel has no passenger service but only serves cargo flights. Should we disambiguate Montreal as Montréal-Trudeau or should we just leave it as Montréal? Bucs2004 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montreal Airports 

message: I've been keeping a watch on various airport articles, and it seems to me that a huge list of destinations for each airline at an airport is completely unnecessary.  It is an unmaintainable list full of useless information.  No one is coming to Wikipedia to see whether Air France really has a flight from New York JFK to Paris.  And tons of edits are required to maintain it, as the information becomes wrong once an airline no longer flies a certain route. I think that we should remove the list of destinations from all airport articles. —METS501 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the "reach" information the destinations show for airports, showing which far flung airports you can get to from one airport. Even if you know what airline you want to check out, it's often hard to find what destinations you can get to from a given airport. So I think yeah, it's hard to maintain the destinations, but I think it's definitely useful. I also really like maps like San Diego International Airport, that visualize destinations. --Matt 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, no problem.  If you guys don't mind maintaining the lists, go right ahead! :-) —METS501 (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desinations 

message: Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination for improved productivity 

message: As this is presently bubbling into an edit war over at Changi Airport, I'd like to suggest adding a point to make this explicit:
# Only airlines/destinations that have been announced by the airline/airport with a specific starting date should be added as future airlines/destinations.
Yea or nay? Jpatokal 12:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there are two parts to the statement: one is that only airline/airport releases should be valid, and two is that only services with a specific starting date should be listed. These can be considered separately. Jpatokal 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nay. Kindly read WP:CRYSTAL and ensure this wikiproject complies with general wikipolicies. Verifiable speculation are permitted for inclusion, irrespective of whether they are from the airline, the airport, or from valid third-party sources. It is also worth pointing out that Wikipedia:Reliable sources actually prefers third-party sources over first-party ones. Is there are excruciating why this wikiproject should set rules by the whips and fancies of certain members?--Huaiwei 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea.  There are plenty of news outlets that will publish complete BS about possible airline service.  Unless there is something from the airline or the airport about the new service, I wouldn't accept it as a possibility.  There have been past instances where speculation from Airliners.net has crept its way into otherwise respectable news outlets, and has then been mangled by the reporters to  where news that a charter is making a stopover becomes a report of new service.  While I'm not disputing news outlets as a verifiable source, I have found in the last years that when it comes to airline service, the only source you can trust for up to date news is the airlines themselves...     --KPWM_Spotter 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is a basic fundamental of this website, so if you problems with wikipedia citing verifiable sources which sprout bull about anything you deem impossible, then this site is probably not for you. I certainly agree that speculations by Anet members are not appriopriate from this site. Speculations by reliable sources, no matter how impossible, are still verifiable, and are appriopriate. Could you show that all information which you deleted were crafted purely by unknown speculators, and not by any publication or other acceptable medium as listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources?--Huaiwei 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you mean by turning it into a prose paragraph? Jpatokal 13:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prospective/speculative users 

message: Should charter flights/operators be listed a) in the main Airlines section mixed in with scheduled services, b) in a separate subsection or c) not at all? Jpatokal 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate sub-section under "Airlines and destinations". And my experience is prose is much better than an exhaustive list of these rapidly changing, seasonal and ad-hoc services. Thanks/wangi 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter flights 

message: I don't know if this has already been discussed, but should we label SNA as: Orange County or Santa Ana/Orange County? Sox23 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone... Sox23 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the old name was Orange County, and our article show it serves Orange County and is located in Orange County, and the web site says it serves Orange County, then Orange County seems to be a logical choice.  Vegaswikian 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks Sox23 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not go with what is on the FAA Airport Master Record? --Trashbag 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings up a good point. The article states that SNA serves Santa Ana. I think it should be Santa Ana/Orange County. What do you all think? Sox23 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wayne Airport (SNA) 

message: I seemed to have started a mini edit war between two separate but equally intent anon users who keep trying to add a new begin date for IAH-LHR British Airways flights.  For those of you who don't know BA announced that it would start non-stop flights between the two airports replacing the previous direct flight via DFW but will also begin nonstop flights to DFW.  My issue is with the IAH flights, because the previous flight was still a direct flight but not nonstop IAH was listed on the LHR page and LHR was listed on the IAH page per our guidelines.  These users are now adding brackets that say "[non-stop flights begin March 30, 2007]" next to IAH and LHR, respectfully, but I find this addition redundant and incorrect.  Since the lists are used only for destinations and there is no change in the final destination, why are brackets needed?  I'd like some people to weigh in on this so that this situation doesn't get any worse.  NcSchu 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Airways route through IAH 

message: Could we get a few more eyes on this. The government of the Republic of Macedonia has renamed it "Skopje Alexander the Great Airport" which has caused a fuss with the government of Greece. The airport authority is using the new name and some people feel that it should not be included (history) in the article as it's just propaganda (which may well be true). My feeling is that the the name should be included and an explanation of the fuss caused. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Skopje Airport]] 

message: A bunch of IPs has recently decided to remove legit info + started introducing information that is not reflected by official schedules into the article.  Keep an eye out. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kingsford Smith International Airport]] 

message: I'm confused on how to state Long Island MacArthur Airport because technically in the masterlist it is stated as Islip but in most airport articles it is stated as Long Island/Islip. So how should it be stated Islip or Long Island/Islip? -chris^_^ 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say Islip. I believe most airlines refer to it as that, and listing it first as Long Island is misleading: LGA and JFK are also on Long Island. DB (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LGA and JFK are in New York City, while "Long Island" usually refers to only Nassau and Suffolk counties, and ISP is in Suffolk County. Dhaluza 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Island/Islip or Islip 

message: I have some real issues with this section of your article formatting guidelines as it really seems to go against WP:NOT#DIR. Specially, the issue relates to point two, dealing the listing of airlines and destinations and recommended formatting where the airport is serviced by airline X but the services are operated by/codeshare of airline Y. Providing such information really goes against the intended spirit of WP:NOT#DIR, and this is not withstanding the airlines and destinations sections of many airport articles are already difficult to maintain due to their length. Further to this, the provision of some of this information may require original research, which is something we obviously want to try and avoid. I would like to open up discussion on this formatting recommendation to see if we might adjust it and come to something a little more sensable that's more harmonious with wikipolicy. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are agreed guidelines not to list codeshares on the list at all.  But personally I think it's fine as it is now, although I agree to an extent on subsidiaries, considering there has been the subsidiary listing issues over time, and secondly there are many editors which has stated in the past on this project, which are prepared to maintain those lists as such, and to provide sources to new services where possible, reference the destination lists where possible. Ben_Gurion_International_Airport is a example of a FA on a Airport article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#DIR]] issues with [[WP:AIRPORTS#Airport_article_structure]] 

message: Are we still using the New Articles tab? It hasn't been updated since January. --Pilotboi | talk 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles Tab 

message: For a few monthes now, there have been two different infoboxes for airports. One using a system of sub templates (Template:Airport infobox), and the other using a single template (Template:Infobox Airport). The template currently recommended to use is the first one, as described in the Airport article structure. But on the talk page of the documentation for this template, there have been several discussions on using the new infobox. I just think that we need to make a single decision on which one to use, properly indicate and documentate which one to use, update articles not using the correct template, then get rid of the unused one. Who agrees? --Pilotboi | talk 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick look, I estimate that about 4000 articles use the older template, and about 2000 articles use the newer template. Just thought it was worth noting. --Pilotboi | talk 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the newer template gives more to the article and I like it better than the old one. Sox23 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template has been changed. Topic closed. --Pilotboi | talk 19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There may have been some discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport. It makes sense to use the new template when adding an infobox for the first time or creating a new article. However, a massive conversion of all the multi-template infoboxes isn't really needed, since the new infobox has the same look as the old one. I think it's better to convert them on an individual basis so that the new parameters can be incorporated if needed, such as using "location" instead of (or in addition to) "city-served" and using "owner" instead of "operator" (or both). If the articles are edited via a bot or AWB for some other reason, then that edit could include an infobox conversion (similar to what User:CambridgeBayWeather did when updating the airline code templates for the Canadian airports).  -- Zyxw 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Infoboxes - Needs Attention 

message: If anyone of you has been to JFK's Terminal 4, you'll notice it's separated into Concourse A & B. Shouldn't we re-sort the airlines in the JFK page and divide Terminal 4 into Concourse A & B? -chris^_^ 10:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the listing by terminal is just to get a guide to the size and scope of the terminal. MilborneOne 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, the two article's I'm most familiar with break it down past terminals and into concourses/boarding areas. (PIT, SFO). I don't think that breaking it down further is inappropriate. --Matt 16:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just looked at PIT and SFO - looks just like a travel guide! - should not really be in Wikipedia, what gates the airline uses is not really notable.MilborneOne 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JFK Terminal 4 

message: People are adding all of the applied for US-China routes (2008-09) to various airports' and airlines' articles.  As I understand it, bids are many but granted routes are few.  I think they all should be kept out until they are approved or appear on the airline's schedule. HkCaGu 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USDOT China Route Bids 

message: Is there a clear consensus to list Los Cabos International Airport (MMSD) in airport articles? I've seen Cabo San Lucas, Los Cabos, and San Jose del Cabo. What one should we use? Sox23 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Cabos International Airport 

message: If the service of the airline will start within the year should we state it in airport articles as [MONTH DAY, YEAR] or just [MONTH DAY]? -chris^_^ 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [begins Month Day] (ex: [begins July 31]), but in the case of the future China routes (which are to begin in 2009) then we should probably put [Month Day, Year] because for example if the service begins March 31, 2009, if we put [Pending Gov't Approval; begins March 31], that gives info that it begins March 31, 2008, and not March 31, 2009. Sox23 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest always adding the year -- otherwise it will soon be unclear which year was in question. Jpatokal 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually on part of WP:Airports policy to list only month and date Sox23 03:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In context, the year should always be clear.  If you add the year, then you need to link the entire date so that it displays properly for anyone who has turned on date formatting for their id.  There is no need to link these dates since this is temporary data and frequently only short term.  Vegaswikian 05:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Dates 

message: Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page?  Vegaswikian 07:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto archiving 

message: When listing Arizona's Williams Gateway Airport in airport articles, should we use (Mesa) or (Mesa/Phoenix). The airport is more closely located near Mesa but advertises such as being "Phoenix's second airport." What would be better used? Sox23 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Mesa a problem.  Newark Liberty International Airport has been listed in the IATA NYC code for years and it is shown as servicing Newark and not NYC.  Vegaswikian 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use Mesa, per Vegaswikian's cited precedent that we don't call EWR "New York/Newark," even though they'd like to market it that way. FCYTravis 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks Sox23 23:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams Gateway Airport 

message: Does the project have an opinion on tour operators being listed. Their is a continual problem of an IP user adding Travel City Direct to Manchester Airport and Gatwick. Just removed BritishJET from Manchester Airport as it is a tour operator with flight operated by Hello. User:V-train keeps reverting the change with the latest comment that BritishJET markets and sell the flight. Still not an airline! and this is not Wikitravel but I dont want to delete it again without concensus. MilborneOne 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you suggest it should be listed?  It shouldn't be listed under Hello, since they don't sell or market the flight.  But it should be listed in some way.  I thought the way that made the most sense was the way WP:AIRPORTS says to list flights sold and marketed by one airline but operated by another.  V-train 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand list flights sold and marketed by one airline but operated by another but BritishJET is not an airline! it is a tour operator. MilborneOne 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that it's not an airline, I didn't mean that section applied directly.  I meant that paralleling it seemed to be the best way to do it.  V-train 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does it have to be all one way or the other? I mean, couldn't it be something like BritishJET operated by Hello? That way, people know who would be selling the ticket and who would be operating the flight. --Matt 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I had done.  V-train 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes a lot of sense to do it like that - I mean, I've never been on a flight like this, does the passenger even know what airline is operating the flight, except looking at the livery? Like when they check in at the airport, they probably just check in with BritishJET right? I'm inclined to think of it like an express carrier. --Matt 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour Operators 

message: Recently, I keep seeing User:Jacklewis99 and many anon IPs making edits to Manchester Airport by adding "Chicago-O'Hare" and "New York-JFK" as destinations to Pakistan International Airlines and I have been deleting them. The next day later, those destinations have been readded again. I was just wondering should Chicago and New York be listed as destinations even though that they are international. If not, why are they not dsetinations? Why can't PIA sell tickets for those routes? Thanks! Bucs2004 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to do with Freedoms of the air and in particular the Fifth Freedom (The right to carry passengers from one's own country to a second country, and from that country to a third country.). Normally airlines could not, without the fifth freedom approval, in this example pick up passengers from Manchester to Chicago although those that do not disambark can carry on what would be a Pakistan to USA flight. Just need to find out if PIA have fifth freedom rights on these routes ! MilborneOne 06:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do we list them as destinations? Bucs2004 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if someone can buy a ticket from MAN to JFK, or MAN to ORD. /wangi 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I guess, more importantly, if it's sourced. → AA (talk) — 09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Airport 

message: As the Airports of Russia category was getting to be a long list, I have gone ahead and re-categorised Russian airports by way of which Federal subject they are located in. This will also allow for further expansion of these categories on a regional level if articles warranting a category "Transport in ......" is needed. There are still a few airports which aren't yet categorised, and will work these out in due course, but if anyone knows which subjects the as yet uncategorised belong to, feel free to put them in the right spot. --Russavia 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-categorised [[:Category:Airports in Russia]] 

message: as an anon user who reads LOTS of the various airport pages, I have noticed something that maybe everyone else has missed. There is an extremely large number of claims concerning Space Shuttle emergency landing airports. Seemingly half of all airport pages I read (pages about an individual airport like KORD or KLHR) has some statement to the effect of "this airport is on standby as an emergency field for the Space Shuttle, because it has a very long runway."
Fair enough, but MANY of the pages that claim this do not have what are generally considered an exceptionally long runway. Numerous fields in the 9000-11000 ft range make this statement, as do some longer ones (and some absurdly shorter ones). This would not be such an issue except MULTIPLE people in my town have told me, not on the internet, the same thing concerning the local 7000 ft runways (KRDM), which is patently impossible! So I am getting a little worried that this is some sort of urban legend. Does anyone know if there is a list of these places or a runway length cutoff? Right now it seems like half the airport and airbase pages with 10000 ft runways think this, and usually use language like "one of the few", "one of the only". So I am happy to try and sort this out but I figure you people should know first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.152 (talk) 22:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
--------
this is what "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes" says after listing a massive number of current and former emergency fields: "In the event of an emergency deorbit that would bring the Orbiter down in an area not within range of a designated emergency landing site, the Orbiter is theoretically capable of landing on any paved runway that is at least 10,000 feet long, which includes the majority of large commercial airports. (In practice, a US military airfield would probably be preferred for reasons of security arrangements and minimizing the disruption of commercial air traffic.)"
So should I start deleting these, especially for stuff under 10000 feet? Or do we leave it all in? I vote for removal because its doesn't seem any different than saying a 747 could land there, so it doesn't seem notable to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.152 (talk) 23:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:At the start of the program, SWF was listed as an emergency landing site.  At the time, I recall the paved runway was about 14,000 feet with about 2,000 feet not maintained but usable.  I just looked at the article and it appears that the airport is still 'listed' based on the reference.  So it would appear that there may be some kind of a list.  I think there is a difference between an airport capable of being used and one that would be considered.  I know this does not answer your question but maybe the reference there helps.  Or maybe that is the answer.  If there is a WP:RS to support the statement it stays.  If not it gets dropped.  Vegaswikian 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Shuttle Alternate Landing sites 

message: This user has been editing several airports' Airlines and destinations sections into a table. After reverting them to the standard format, this user has reverted them back. Should we just let these articles stay the way they are or should we revert them? 24.17.229.120 17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be reverted per the Airport article structure specified by the WikiProject Airports. Major changes to the structure should first be discussed there. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Copenhagen Airport]] 

message: Can an Admin keep an close eye on this article, even having to protect the article if necessary?  Two known editors are warring over ownership issues of the airline and the direction of the article. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Singapore Airlines]] and editing dispute on ownership issues 

message: All airport articles with an infobox will require the coordinates line to use "display=inline,title" so the are picked up by Google Earth and appear in the box. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Coord]] 

message: There has to be a better title for this but I really can't think of one right now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to List of Airbus A380 capable airports, hope that's ok.  V-train 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. It's all that fresh snow on the ground it must have frozen my brain. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of airports able to handle landing and takeoff of the Airbus A380]] 

message: Any ideas on what to do with Airports with glider operations?  I'm thinking delete but maybe there is something unique that we need here. Vegaswikian 07:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports with glider operations 

message: I visited the Erie International Airport article today intending to adjust its contents because Delta Airlines recently stopped its service there. I found that this had already been done, but the only evidence of Delta's former presence was a review of the article's Wiki history. I was then surprised to find that airport articles routinely maintain only current airline and flight route information and remove information as it becomes obsolete. Using this approach, Wikipedia consistently loses historical information that could be interpreted in the history section of airport articles. The current status of airlines and flights can be derived from most airport web pages, but the evidence of increasing or decreasing numbers of flights or airlines, which could be retained somehow in airport articles, would seem to be a value Wikipedia could and should offer. I offer this as a consideration as you write your guidelines. --Pat 21:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pat, this has been discussed a number of times and the consensus is that historical information is, on the whole, not possible to verify and therefore are removed. I agree it useful information to have in an article and notable events do tend to be added to the history section where they can be sourced, but it becomes cumbersome and unencyclopedic to maintain a list of historical destinations or fleet airlines and destinations. → AA (talk) — 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I'm an inclusionist. To me, encyclopedic means broad in scope or knowledge, but I won't rehash old discussions this group may have had earlier. Thanks for the explanation and have a nice day. --Pat 08:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, former flight routes and defunct airlines 

message: I usually come across airports with their gates listed. Shouldn't we remove these gates as these gates change from time to time? -chris^_^ 05:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates at airport articles 

message: Having had a look at Frankfurt Airport and Munich Airport, I find that the larger part of the article is taken up by a senseless long list of airlines, even with even longer lists of destinations, but hardly any information on the airport itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel agency. At most, let us create separate articles like "List of airlines serving airport xyz". But in the main article those lists should get out. They make the article completely unreadable. cheers, --L.Willms 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you this is standard format for all Airports offering commercial service. Marcusmax 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to tell me that a list of airlines is everything which you are interesting in? Nothing about the history of the airport, nothing about the architecture of the terminal(s), nothing about the achievements of its builders? Why don't go to a travel agency, if you do not want to learn something new, but want nothing but a list of airlines by terminal and concourse of your next departure? Please don't confuse a telephone book with an biographical encyclopedia. Cheers, --L.Willms 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The appearance of this article is affected by the large number of destinations and the lack of material about the airport itself.  If there was more about the airport this 'problem' would not be as apparent.  Vegaswikian 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem: as long as those nonsensical lists of airlines hide the airports themselves, like the trees hiding the forest, nothing about the airport itself will be forwarded. I certainly am disgusted from contributing a single word to any of those Airport articles in the english language Wikipedia, as long as my contributions are drowned in a storm of an senseless list of airlines landing there sometimes. I would have quite some more material about e.g. Frankfurt Airport (I happen to live in Frankfurt), and thought I would like to contribute more, both information and photos, but as long as this goes under in a senseless list of airlines, I just don't want to waste my time and talent. Those who want such list should turn toward a travel agency, and not an encyclopedia. You wold not look into, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica to find a current telephone listing of each and every person in London, would you? And not in the phone book to find biographical information about the peoples listed, right? --L.Willms 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you will decide to contribute to these articles to improve the encyclopedia.  As I said, the lack of information about the airport is part of the problem with these airports.  Frankfurt Airport is one of a few that that has an extensive list of airlines and destinations.  This is not the case for most airports.  A guideline for content should not be based on a few exceptions.  If the article is large and the number of airlines and destinations is also large, then this information could be split out to another article and linked so that it is available.  However given the small amount of data in the article at this time, that does not appear to be a reason option at this time. Vegaswikian 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, if someone doesn't want to look at the destinations and airlines, then he can skip over it. San Francisco International Airport is a good article, and it has the airlines and destinations. --Matt 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reformated the lists so that they use 50% less vertical space.  Vegaswikian 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These useless lists of airlines make the articles unreadable, and preclude any positive contribution to improving the article. Everything goes under compared to that unreadable mass of letters. How do you want to skip over that mass of junk, or continue to read in the first place? It is like reading a telephone book. Does anybody find that entertaining? Worse still, such lists are grouped by concourse, so it is not even a useful source for finding which airline is using that airport. That mass of letters tells every reader that nothing interesting and useful is to be found in that "article". That has to get out, and those who think they should and could rely on such lists, should better see a travel agent or look up some flight planner on the Web. Anybody who would ever want such would not not consult Wikipedia which is known to be an unreliable source. --L.Willms 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of airlines do not belong in an encyclopedic article - get them out 

message: Which data should we use for aircraft movement stats? Should we use only commercial aircraft movements, or total aircraft movement (which includes private planes, etc)? kawaputratorque 07:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say (and have been using) total movements. That way one airport can be compared to another. Also if you list only commerical then the majority of movements may not be included. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'll use the total figure then. But i think in most major airports, majority of movements are commercial planes. Eg: Kuala Lumpure IA, less than 1% are non-commercial movements. Not so sure about other major aiports though. kawaputratorque 07:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that you are probably right. A quick look at the stats for London Heathrow Airport shows 477,048 of which 476,189 are commercial. Toronto Pearson International Airport shows 417,183 of which 400,303 are commercial. On the other hand Boundary Bay Airport has 185,832 of which only 56,579 are commercial. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft movements 

message: After skimming through many airport articles (especially KIX, HKG articles), many users have been putting flags for airlines serving that particular airport. Do WikiProjects: Airports have a rule about adding flags to airlines and the airports theat they serve. Do flags really need to be included in the articles? What are your suggestions? Bucs2004 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reading through all the archived talk pages I am sure it was decided that flags were not a good idea (for various reasons) and I believe they were all removed from airport articles not that long ago. MilborneOne 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that flags should be used in the airport articles, however, I do think they make a nice addition the airline destination lists. Sox23 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 3#User adding flags to destination lists and I just remvoed them from the above two. If I find more I'll remove them as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Vegaswikian 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also found flag icons added in the IAH article and I have removed them as well. Bucs2004 05:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a few more, including one that was in the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in airport articles and airline destinations lists 

message: WikiProject Aviation is in need of Coordinators. Coordinators will be responsible for for taking charge of a particular duty. It is not an election so you can just sign up. The only real requirement is that you are a member of WikiProject Aviation. We are currently in need of at least 1 Collaboration Coordinator, 3 Review Department Coordinators and 1 Outreach Department Coordinator. Sign up here. Marcusmax 22:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Call for Leadership Position at WikiProject Aviation 

message: I note that on the project page, it is stated:
For future destinations and destinations with announced termination dates (except seasonal flights), add [begins <month, day>] or [ends <month, day>], respectively. Do not link the dates. ex: [begins April 23] or [ends April 23].
But the purpose of WikiLinking dates is so that they are displayed to the reader in their preferred style: i.e. North America v. Rest of the World. To have dates in the American format in articles about non-American airports is contrary to the WP:MOS, which states that national variations should concur with articles which have a particular national affiliation. For example, dates in Heathrow Airport should most definitely use the international format (day, month, year) and NOT the American format (month, day, year). I intend to amend the text on the project page to reflect this. Any comments? EuroSong talk 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to change the date format. The MoS states that 'Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) can be ambiguous. Include the year if the meaning is unclear.'  In these lists the meaning is clear and the link does not need to be included.  Likewise, the Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context would suggest that these dates do not need to be linked.  Vegaswikian 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite correct. Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates clearly states that dates in the form of DD MMMM are to be linked for date preference formatting reasons.--Huaiwei 10:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats 

message: On the Incheon International Airport article, an anon user has been adding Busan as a destination for Lufthansa from Incheon. I told them that foreign carriers have no rights to transport passengers from Busan-Seoul and therefore I reverted his edits once again. So, are my edits right or not that Busan should not be listed as a destination? Bucs2004 00:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can not board, it is not a destination.  Vegaswikian 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So just what is meant by "boarding"? I supposed everyone from Australia must get off the plane at LAX and reboard to JFK, or maybe people get off JFK-LAX to reboard if QF is flying from LAX to more than 1 city in Australia (I personally don't know if that happens). Countless foreign flights operate between NGO and NRT--not as a domestic flight for immigration purposes, and for NW, the NGO-NRT flight let people connect at both ends. Things aren't that simple so we need a concensus somehow, like the direct-but-not-through-a-hub issue. HkCaGu 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dont think it is as complicated as that. If you cant get on an aircraft and go to place "X" then X is not a destination. MilborneOne 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUS-ICN on LH 

message: Is NW 1 and NW 2 which flies LAX-NRT-HKG-NRT-LAX and it operates 747-400s on all the routes, is this direct or not? -chris^_^ 05:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if this was just a one-time thing due to the problems, but it wasn't one plane yesterday.  It was delayed leaving LAX, and arrived Narita at 6:32 PM at Gate 22, while the NRT-HKG leg left on time 3 minutes later from Gate 14.  V-train 07:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the complete stats, but that can be researched on FlightStats.com by comparing gate numbers at NRT. Whenever I or my family members fly NW 1/2 I track the planes and found that at the NRT hub it's pretty much a random shuffle between the 4 B744s (x2 rounds daily) so more often than not it's not the same plane for a certain flight number. And for sure all passengers have to get off the plane for security check at NRT. (Today's gate numbers: http://www.narita-airport.jp/en/flight/today.html) Unlike the B744s, the A330s have a better chance of following the same flight numbers so I never bothered to remove those "direct" flights. However I think the same never-beyond-a-hub rule should apply to non-US hubs. HkCaGu 11:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NW 1/2 

message: There's been some debate previously about whether flights without fifth-freedom rights (= for an A-B-C flight, the right to pick up pax at B and carry them to C) should be included.  My understanding that the consensus was no, because it's misleading to list C as a "destination" for B if it's not actually possibly to board a flight  from B to C, but this is not explicitly listed.  Air Tahiti Nui and Air New Zealands's KIX-NRT flights have just been added to KIX, should they stay? Jpatokal 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they shouldn't be included. You're right, it's misleading to list them as destinations. --Matt 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if allowing "via" in these cases would end the controversy. For example, for PR at SFO or LAX, "Manila (via Guam)", implying that they literally fly SFO/LAX-GUM-MNL but you cannot get off at GUM. The new rule would say something like "use 'via' only for non-traffic right sectors". HkCaGu 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, via implies that passengers can board.  Vegaswikian 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that wouldn't help anyway for listing of the flight from B to C, which is not "via" anything. Jpatokal 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Lufthansa's PUS-ICN flights have just been added also on their respective pages. Should they remain or be removed. If so, please remove them from the respective pages. Thanks! Bucs2004 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations without fifth-freedom rights 

message: After going through the list of barnstars, I couldn't find one for WP:AIRPORT, only WP:AVIATION. Is there one that I missed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaanaaq (talk • contribs) 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnstar? 

message: Should we bold the airline names in the destinations sections of the airline articles? It looks better. -chris^_^ 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: anybody? -chris^_^ 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I suspect this would be against the WP:MOS.  Bold should generally not be used. Vegaswikian 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold airline names 

message: [cross posted to the village pump] Anyone want to take a hack at Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure? The person who wrote the article's native language isn't English, and it clearly shows. The article is unsourced and needs major clean up. The clean up is too overwhelming for me, so I am here asking for volunteers to check it out. Seeing as there are not any other articles about the infrastructure of other airports, the topic of this article seems too narrow, and it may be a good candidate for merger or deletion. But before I do anything too rash, I wanted to get some other opinions and see if anyone thought it was worth attempting to clean up the article. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cibao Intl Airport Infraestructure]] 

message: There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Maintenance 

message: Wasn't this issue already brought up and turned down? Sox23 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'm pretty sure.  I noticed yesterday after cleaning up after some anon user that a lot of British airports have both charters and former airlines listed, both of which I thought were not recommended. NcSchu(Talk) 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this needs to be added to the structure section. Vegaswikian 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Sox23 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former airlines in airport articles 

message: Just for information I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft for AfD. MilborneOne 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft]] 

message: Should thru flights be listed as destinations? "International" destinations have been listed for Northwest Airlines on many airport articles. Has it been discussed not to list them? Thanks! Bucs2004 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should include them. Ex: Calgary has been listed as a destination of Northwest Airlines from New York-JFK; the flight goes through a NWA hub, so really YYC is a destination from whatever hub its coming from, and not JFK. Sox23 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! All edits at airports that have Calgary listed have been reverted.....please be aware that I wasn't the one who added Calgary as a destination. It was a IP. Bucs2004 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I know Sox23 21:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Through flights destinations on Northwest Airlines 

message: A user has moved the destinations on the Manchester Airport page into three subpages, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 etc. When challenged on the talk page the user was addressing one comment in a peer review that said that the list could not be converted to prose so was moved to a sub-page. Anybody remind me of what the project view is on this, thanks. MilborneOne 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I recall seeing something like this, the suggestion was to put the destinations into a template so that it could be included.  However the reason for the action was to reduce the number of changes to the main article.  Many editors are bothered by the number of destination changes which are not of interest to them.  I would think that the template would work here.  Also, the lists as created would, in my opinion, not survive at AfD. Vegaswikian 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that if we do anything like this, the destinations should be contained in one place and not several. And the article/template name should be spelled correctly. Vegaswikian 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting (and perhaps uncivil) reply from User:And-Rew which basically says he does need to discuss the changes if they make sense as it is a priority task for their project! Any help appreciated on how we can deal with this.  MilborneOne 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just noticed that somebody has speedy deleted the destinaton lists! MilborneOne 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a conflict of interests of projects. Your policy seems to be outdated and allows for long lists of destinations to be on articles. Manchester Airport is one of the UK's largest and serves the most destinations of any. At Greater Manchester WikiProject we would rather have relevant information on the main page and anything that is not totally important can be added to sub-articles. At my project we are BOLD with our edits and want to improve our articles without discussing every change made. Your policy of filling up the airport's main page with long lists of destinations and airliners may work for the smaller airports but it seems totally unnecessary to add all this information when there is plenty more to write about. The fact that you are asking for help to "deal with this" shows that you are not open to changes and are stuck with poor looking articles. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF? Vegaswikian 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Airport 

message: After a peer review of Manchester Airport, it was suggested that the terminal destination lists be split into specific terminal articles.  That was done - List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 were created and links to them are in the Manchester Airport article.   Since then, all the terminal articles went to AfD.  It seems a mess.  
See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination).  --Oakshade 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester Airport destination list up for deletion 

message: When I created the Quebec airports I used the name from the Canada Flight Supplement, which use the abbreviation St or Ste, but I just noticed that the communities tend to use the full form. Examples are St-Hyacinthe Airport and Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec or Ste-Anne-des-Monts Airport and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Quebec. The question is should the airports stay where they are or be moved to match the community name. I think they should be moved with the abbreviation left as a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I should have thought of that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  St or Saint 

message: What is the policy on listing charters mixed in with the scheduled flights? I thought that this is to be avoided, and that charters like cargo flighs, belong in separate subsections.  Could this be clarified? I am having an issue over this in WAW (Warsaw Chopin Airport), where someone is arguing that Amadeus listing is sufficient to list flights, which in reality are charter operations, b/c that is the permit they got from ULC (Civil Aviation Office), i.e. "nonregular flights" - (TACV, operated by SATA; Royal Wings; Eurocypria). --Mareklug talk 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixing charter flights with scheduled ones in the Airlines and destinations (Terminals and destinations) sections 

message: There has been some issues on whether or not Detroit-Beijing is truely a direct flight. Is this flight really direct? User:Xixidoubao‎ have added it twice and I been removing it from the PEK article and an anon user added it to the DTW article. The first leg of DTW-PEK is flown with a Boeing 747-400 and the fianl leg to PEK is flown with an Airbus 330-200. Therefore it should not be listed on the respective pages if it involves with such an aircraft change. Right? Bucs2004 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the aircraft type changes, it definitely should not be listed. Rule #5: "List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports." In this case it's not the same airport.HkCaGu (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest DTW-PEK 

message: Over time, there have been several issues raised with the length and impact of these lists.  There have also been objections to the impact on the article when changes have been made only to the destinations section.  If the destination data was moved into a template that had a default to open collapsed, the visual impact on the article would be lessened and could address several objections.  If that template was included in an airport specific template that was included in the airport article from a subpage, it could also address the second problem.  Something that we should consider? Vegaswikian 23:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the system does not work in my opinion. It may not pose a huge problem for smaller airports but for the larger ones it just acts as filler for the article and diverts attention away from the airport itself and onto the destination list as it dominates many of the articles. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, i wonder if somebody could create an example for us to review and discuss. MilborneOne 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've always liked the idea of a collapsable list, I think it would solve a lot of problems. NcSchu(Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw something simple together using Bermuda International Airport's information (didn't have a lot so it was pretty easy ;) ).  I don't know how it will work with a lot of information, though. NcSchu(Talk) 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad at all, it may be a bit big with some airports though. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's collapsable and it's set as collapsed on default so unless you want to see it you won't, and those who do want to see it won't care about the size, will they? NcSchu(Talk) 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case it should default to not collapse. Most people do not need to know all the destinations an airport goes to really. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While it takes up more space, it does work.  The title should be Airlines and destinations.  I'm not sure that we need to include the airport name since it is already in that article, but if this defaults to using the page name, that may be a non issue.  What remains is, do we include the template so that destination changes don't force a change to the article itself which some users have asked for.  The default should be collapsed so that all pages behave the same.  Otherwise we have the question of how many entries we need to change to the collapsed format.  Keep it simple and collapse them all. Vegaswikian 03:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the fool which took the lists from Manchester Airport to AFD needs to withdraw them if this is what will be agreed upon as I will simply move the content into new templates and nom for speedy delete instead of doing what which ever fool did by taking them to AFD without even bothering to ask why they were created. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again WP:AGF.  The problem is the person who created these articles violating WP:POINT. Vegaswikian 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is that the person who created these article was Being Bold and otherwise this project would still be stuck in its old ways of not recognising that all airports are different, some are large, some are small. The policy outlined on this project is not official and therefore I did no wrong, just seemed to have offended some people which caused them to kick up a stink about it as they seem to be scared of change. I hope this matter is settled now and you will allow Manchester Airport to develop as an article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like NcSchu's template, although I agree it should be Airlines and destinations. How would we cope with multiple terminals; add more than one template or try to accomodate it in the template? MilborneOne 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a separate table for each terminal.  Otherwise for the larger airports, the table will completely dominate the article when it is open.  V-train 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be to use sub templates for each terminal.  Is there any need to sort by airline?  Right now we break this apart by terminal.  If we used a single table, the default order could be terminal and users would be free to sort by airline.  Vegaswikian 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I added a new version to the same page as before.  I'm not quite sure how well it came out.  I used Newark Liberty International Airport's data for this one.  Even with the text at 85% it still takes up quite a lot of room when it's fully extended so we might want to just stick to separate ones for each terminal.  Also, if anybody wants to play around with the stuff I've done, feel free to do so on either the current page or some other one. Oh, also, I wasn't quite sure what do with subsidiaries/franchise partner airlines, so I just made them a separate row. NcSchu(Talk) 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think The second option is much better.  One issue I have is airlines that operate out of multiple terminals. I think the simple solution is to just add all terminals in the last column.  Another question is how do we list destinations from places like McCarran International Airport where there is basically 1 terminal with concourses and the airlines are listed by concourse except for the few that use terminal 2.  Vegaswikian 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, how do we deal with charter and cargo operators when destinations are listed? Vegaswikian 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just reviewing this page. Why not just use

Airlines and destinations

and

at the bottom? See User:NcSchu/Sandbox for an example of how it would work with Manchester Airport. The advantage is that there is no need to convert all the airports. You just add it to the top and bottom of the existing lists. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Very nice, I didn't realize that was possible, but that makes it very easy to convert existing formats.  The only downside is that you're unable to sort by columns, but I don't know if that's really a necessary part. NcSchu(Talk) 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I did that to :Manchester Airport where the issue of the lists began.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it on WP:ANI earlier and that's where I got the idea. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did have to add a 'br clear all' since the pictures were overlaying the show switch on some browsers with some screen sizes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination lists and displaying 

message: I've noticed this happening in a couple of airport pages recently.  It seems a blog (new or old, I'm not sure), http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/, is being frequently cited as "proof" that a new route will begin.  I'm not saying this blog is full of fictitious information, however it does not list any sources for its information and the blog itself, per WP:SPS, is not considered reliable.  I just thought I would bring this to everybody's attention.  NcSchu(Talk) 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worrying use of Blog website to add new destinations 

message: I'm not a regular aiport editor, but I've been working a bit on Illinois Valley Airport and would like to add some images to it.  I'd love to add something like :Image:KSLEDiag.png, but I can't find anything on faa.gov.  Anybody know about this?  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment regarding the flight planning image, they are renewed fairly regularly and become out of date very quickly so we could get into a cycle of people replacing them every other week! The authorities also dont like them being used in case somebody is daft enougth to actually use one in an aircraft that is out of date (the example image time expired in September 2005!). Official diagrams for the rest of the world (not US) are probably copyrighted. MilborneOne 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport images 

message: There seems to be an effort here to include more external links. Possible spamming and sockpuppets. More comments would be good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:US-airport]] 

message: I wanted to know why foreign carriers does not have passenger transportation rights between Manila and China? Bucs2004 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MNL-China passenger transportation rights 

message: Hello members of WikiProject Airports,
I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.
Please let me know if you;re interested!
Bluegoblin7 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wiki specially for Planes... 

message: How would we state PTI? In most articles it's stated as Greensboro, but in the masterlist, it's stated as Greensboro/High Point/Winston-Salem. -chris^_^ (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In most articles I've seen, it's listed as "Greensboro". Sox23 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greensboro 

message: I just noticed not too long ago on the United Airlines and HKG articles that Hong Kong was added as a UA focus city. Is this correct? Bucs2004 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK UA's international Hubs (Focus Cities) are LHR and NRT MEBpilot (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong as a UA focus city 

message: I've just created a category, :Category:Airport articles using Airport Infobox template which lists almost 800 articles still using the old infobox. All of these should be changed over to the new (and in my opinion superior) . As people work on these articles, the updated count will be available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is an automatable edit, and could be done with a bot, no?  What is the procedure to refer tasks to bots? I think this would take care of it painlessly and quickly. --Mareklug talk 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to see if there is bot for this or is there someone who can write an AWB script to do this?  Also the one I just looked at and converted had a lot more wrong with it, so this may not be the only cleanup these articles need.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't tried it myself, but there is an existing AWB plugin for this at User:Reedy Boy/Airport Infobox Migration Plugin. There are things it has a problem converting, so be sure to check your edits if you use it. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just added this category to several Australian airport articles for someone to follow-up with AWB or similar for conversion. Completed Codes YAxx to YKxx, YLxx to YZxx when I get a chance will be categorised as well if required. MEBpilot (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old infobox still being used 

message: User:Vitrox92 and an IP or two have created a hoax on the airport in Ende, Indonesia by greatly exaggerating its importance. This user has added "Ende" to many airports and airlines. Everyone please help contain this and administrators may want to monitor and impose blocks as necessary. HkCaGu 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make things easier, the links are H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport, Ende International Airport, User Vitrox 92's contribs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same hoaxer/vandal continues to strike twice a day from dynamic IPs beginning with 125.164. Everyone please help watch this person closely. Those with admin privilege who happen to be online during the strike please block such IP immediately without warning. After the Ende Airport saga, he/she has been performing a dozen or so vandal edits within 30-60 minutes to various airlines and airports from an 125.164 IP, then leave. HkCaGu (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Vitrox92 has been banned, probably the same anonymous user with IPs beginning with 125.164 continues to vandalize mainly Indonesian/Asian airport and airline pages. Between 04:38 and 05:22 UTC Sunday 9 December, these edits appeared from 125.164.163.84:. If he/she is to return, administrators please block him/her immediately (pick your number of hours), otherwise by the time all the usual canned warnings are given, he/she will have gone home for the day. HkCaGu (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Arkanov92 appears to be the same guy.  He's now started linking Pondok Cabe Airport (a tiny GA airfield) into airlines and other airports everywhere. Jpatokal (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He/she is now reincarnated as User:Arkanov15. HkCaGu (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He/she just struck again. Why hasn't User:Arkanov15 been blocked? HkCaGu (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting tired of reversing his edits.  Is there any admin around? HkCaGu (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: He's back! See Special:Contributions/Rockyroad92. HkCaGu (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-12-04 HOAX ALERT! 

message: I've started looking into the information listed for various Australian airports on wikipedia. However the existing types listed as 'Public' or 'Private' are no longer in use by CASA, they are now listed as 'Registered' and 'Certified' and others.... should we start to convert these to the new format as listed in the AIP ERSA document? MEBpilot (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with Australia but the UK CAA uses the terms Public Licence or Ordinary Licence. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at aerodrome you can see that the registered/certified also applies to Canadian airports as well. The use of public/private/military in Wikipedia just refers to the usage of the airport and makes it standard throughout and is more useful to the reader. What should be done is either move the "registered aerodromes" to "Name Aerodrome" (Stirling Airport to Stirling Aerodrome or Prince Rupert/Seal Cove Water Aerodrome to Prince Rupert/Seal Cove Water Airport) or, if not possible, because the operating authority use the word airport, then you could make note of it right in the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Airport Type in Infobox 

message: A section on baggage handlers has just been removed (and reverted) on Belfast International Airport. Apart from the fact that it should be Ground Service providers or something like that I dont believe it is notable. Any comment please? MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baggage Handlers 

message: The "guideline" proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Airport names remains unclear and not agreed on, and in the meantime, ridiculous article names like Rivière Rouge/Mont-Tremblant International Inc Airport continue to proliferate.  Could we try to achieve some sort of concensus on this?  Comments over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Airport names, please. Jpatokal (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport naming, once again 

message: OK I am new to the airport scene, but have just run into trouble by inadvertantly wikilinking destinations on Lae Nadzab Airport and being hastily reverted without explanation. So instead I have gone and wikilinked to the the correct airports serviced not the town/city. But now after checking the guidelines I see that it is not policy to wikilink at all. It seems to me that wikilinking is what wikipedia is all about - ease of naviagation. And with there now being, I guess, hundreds of articles for airports shouldn't perhaps the policy state to wikilink to the correct airport and not to the city/town? Nomadtales 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Destinations aren't wikilinked per WP:Airports policy. I don't know the exact reason but it's just how it is. Sox23 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw the policy and I can understand reasons for not wikilinking to Cities (most probably because there would be more than one airport), but why not wikilink to airport destinations? This is the beauty of Wikipedia - wikilinks. In the train world at WP:RDT they state to wikilink to stations in preference to the town/city. So what's going on here? Nomadtales 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the "official" answer, but I have a feeling doing such wikilinking, especially on larger destination lists, would serious blow up the coding.  I know I wouldn't fancy sorting through that.  NcSchu(Talk) 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certainly not suggesting every article needs changing now, but certainly for new articles why shouldn't the policy be amended to state - do not wikilink to destination cities, only wikilink to destination airports.  Nomadtales 00:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context for more information.  Basically having links for all of this would not be not relevant to the article.  Also the style guideline to only link once would be a major headache for these lists.  Vegaswikian 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is a link to an airport you can fly to from a specific airport not relevant? Nomadtales 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  It actually states on the page mentioned above that "Geographic place names ..." are something that should be linked to. And the one link headache is no more than would be on any other list - it would actually make it easier because it would mean less work. Nomadtales 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that if one has all that information in the article, it should be wikilinked, so that one can follow to the article on the destination and find the next hop of the flight. And than one also wants to know the departure times, days of week being served, and the price. One should not stop half way. But then that is better done by a real database based journey planner, and Wikipedia isn't one. That's why those lists of airports, even grouped by concourse, have to removed from the airport articles. Let's leave that to the travel agencies! --L.Willms 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep our own arguments in our sections.  This is a different matter.  NcSchu(Talk) 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not answered the question: do you want to use the full linking possibility of Wikipedia, i.e. wikilinking the destination airports, too, so that one can use the airport articles primarily for hopping by virtual air flights over the globe, or not? If the stuff is in there, it should be linked, shouldn't it? --L.Willms 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After spending a couple of years on airport article upkeep on both the English and Polish Wikipedias, I have come to a conclusion that we should be wikilinking destinations, both the cities and the airports if present, and that the arguments against it (the wikiproject policy statement, increased bloat, too much work) are not germane or lack merit. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (primarily), but hypertext, and quick navigation from a given airport page to an article about the destination city or airport is appropriate and worthy of resources. For one thing, the reader needs a way to tell where the destination is and may not recognize it.  Perhaps we should have a discussion about it? -Mareklug talk 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just fallen over exactly the same unexpected rule as Nomadtales (original post above) and been reverted, I absolutely agree. Destination airports are in my opinion relevant to the context of the article, and should be linked. I could reluctently buy the argument that they are not relevent to the context of the article, but that would indicate that they should be dropped altogether, not simply not linked. I would submit the current guideline in the project is contrary to the spirit, if not the policy, of WP and needs amending. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations wikilink 

message: Having just fallen over this rather unexpected project specific rule (destination should be listed but not linked) and been reverted, I'd like to propose the rule be deleted. As far as I can see, there are two possible views to be taken here. Either:
* Destination airports are relevant to the context of the article, and therefore should be listed and linked. 
* Destination airports are not relevant to the context of the article, and therefore should be neither listed nor linked. 
I cannot think of a rational argument for listing destinations but not linking them, that is not contrary to the spirit, if not the policy, of WP. I'd appreciate it if anybody can provide an argument as to why this guideline should not be changed. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this rule exists (apart from as discussed above - 'clogging' the code and the time and work it would take to bring existing artciles into line with a new policy). Certainly for some large airports with hundreds of destinations it would seriously increase the length of code and be quite a time consuming exercise, neverthless I am inclined to agree with you that these reasons seem a little indolent. Perhaps we can now discuss this further here and come to a final decision. In the meantime I have left your edits to the London City Airport page as they stand as this may also serve as a useful example for discussion. SempreVolando (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think they should be linked, but I think it would be a huge effort to go through and link them all.  However redundancy should be considered and duplicate cities need not be linked, cutting down on the amount of the work. NcSchu(Talk) 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On a more pragmatic note, I feel that linking destinations does resolve some practical difficulties with the unlinked list. For example, without the link, individual readers are going to have to find out for themselves that the destination referred to as Nice is actually Côte d'Azur International Airport. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the example above is not too bad, I think that Grantley Adams International Airport is not the way to go. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the Grantley Adams article being an example of how not to present the list. I think we also need to agree on what we are linking to here. WikiProject Airports states list city names, therefore in my view any wikilink would need to link to the city, not the airport. (For example Manchester not Manchester). Am I interpreting this correctly or are we suggesting we link to the airport pages. In that case would the article become in danger of contradicting the policy that Wikipedia is not a travel guide? SempreVolando (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the WP is not a travel guide issue, let me clarify that I am not proposing any change to the current text of articles, just to whether certain words are linked or not. I don't see how that change can have any bearing on whether the article is seen as a travel guide or not. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well the airline isn't flying to the city, it's flying to the airport represented by the city name.  Linking the city wouldn't actually help anyone as they'd still have to navigate to the airport, and when there's more than one airport in the city's area that can get difficult.  It doesn't solve anything. NcSchu(Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Whilst the guideline does say 'list city' it is not clear from the context whether this is indicating a deliberate intent to list cities as opposed to airports, or simply a piece of lax language in distinguishing between listing and linking. In practice, most editors seem to  actually list airports rather than cities where there is any ambiguity (eg. the listing of 'Milan-Linate' or 'Paris-Orly' on London City Airport, which predate my changes). -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's say there are ten airlines flying to the same city. Airlines A drop the route. Then somebody needs to find the next alphabetical airline to wikilink the city/airport. It could be a lot of work. The repetitive nature of destination cities is likely the reason wikilinks were not recommended, beside the length issue (for major airports). Airlines and their destination lists, however, don't have this repetitive problem. HkCaGu (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that maintaining repetitive linked entries in lists is a generic pain in WP, but we must always remember that the important users of WP are non-editing readers, not editors. I confess that I personally handle this one by quietly ignoring the 'don't overlink' stricture when editing lists, as you can see from London City Airport. I think this issue needs to be resolved at a bigger scale than Wikiproject Airports. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says list cities because it's not possible to assume that the reader knows that a particular airport, Malpensa International Airport or Linate Airport for example, are in Milan. On the other hand it's usually clear to which city the aircraft is flying from the context of the article, for example a plane from London is not usually going to be flying to Faro Airport (Yukon). If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports#Airport article structure #3 it states to disambiguate which airport in the city is being flown to. I agree with NcSchu, that if they are to be linked then it would need to be Paris-Orly. Linking only the cities would be of no help. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination airports not linked 

message: Proposed Chicago south suburban airport has been edited recently and now includes strike out notation and other non-standard wiki issues. The same edits included some references and the prior version was not well referenced to start with. I initially reverted, but that would have removed cited information (though not online verifiable ones). The editor is apparently a single purpose account who used self as a reference and apparently has strong POV against the proposed airport. If anyone in the Airports / Aviation realm wants to clean it up or otherwise deal with it be my guest, I'm not going to mess with it. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Chicago south suburban airport 

message: I have keep removing flags icons from this airport and Cdeujm keeps adding it back saying that flags make the artcle look better. Should we include flags? I am just afraid that he will add them back to the article. Bucs2004 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we decided not to include flags.  I can't see how they would provide any actual benefit to the article, the argument that they "make the article look better" is irrelevant and relative.  NcSchu(Talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we did but I keep removing the flags from that airport many times but it was added back in seconds. Bucs2004 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No flags. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly support and suggest we use flags; maybe the premise "make the article look better" is not compelling enough, but i do not think looking better is a bad thing. I believe it would make the article contain more information and look more organized. Are there other reasons, other than extra editing, for not using flags? How are they irrelevant and relative?--Juliofdiaz (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry no flags - they are just fluff users can just click on link if they dont know which country the airline comes from. MilborneOne (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think it improves the organization of the article, and just saying "it does nothing but to make it look pretty" is not a good argument against it. It adds to the page. Templates help organize articles, it also makes them look pretty, so imagine somebody saying "let's not use templates because they just make the article look pretty."--Juliofdiaz (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Flags add nothing other then making an article look pretty.  We need articles that have good content and don't simply look pretty. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think flags take away the good content of articles. If flags had a bad impact on the article, I would be with you guys; but I dont see how it makes the article bad. --Juliofdiaz (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That is an actual answer; it makes sense after you explanation. thanks --Juliofdiaz (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ministro Pistarini International Airport]] 

message: Just came accross San Diego International Airport, and noticed it has such a long list of former airlines serving the airport. Isn't this agains this project's policy? -chris^_^ (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the same thing, but former airline destination articles were deleted. I'd say go for it - that much detail, difficult to verify, in list form not specifying about how these were important to the airport, seems unencyclopediadic. --Matt (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego International Airport 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esterhazy Airport. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are all airports notable 

message: Several templates I've been working on have been added to WikiProject Aviation. Should I add Template:Future airport expansion and Template:Future airport to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Templates?
--Ng.j (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Articles about Ledenair and inclusion in airport articles appeared in August last year and Ledenair was was deleted as a hoax. an IP user has started adding Ledenair to airport articles again so it may be another hoax. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ledenair 

message: HPN has apparently been  nominated for deletion. I'm not canvassing, but I'm not familiar enough with the deletion process here really. I know my grounds aren't that strong, and maybe the article should go, but I disagree with the reasons the nominator stated. I've read enough to know that 'just because article x exists doesn't mean article y should' is not a valid keep, but I'm not sure at all about this. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westchester County/White Plains Airport 

message: Any comments about :Category:Future airport expansion?  I'm considering proposing for deletion as ambiguous.  What defines notable expansion?  Is a larger hanger sufficient for inclusion in this category? Expanded holding areas?  A new control tower?  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that's so vague as to be meaningless.  Future airport, sure, but expansion? No. Jpatokal (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Also just because an expression of intention to expaned is stated does not mean that it will ever happen. It's a speculative category. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too much of a problem. We can always specify worthy entries for inclusion and weed out all speculative ones from the category. With only 24 articles in it at present, its not an impossible task to finish.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There are indeed some airport expansions which are noteworthy, so much so that they are almost akin to being an entirely new airport. Beijing's Capital Airport immediately comes to mind. Dubai International Airport is another notable example, as is London Heathrow Airport. In each of these cases, it is the building of at least one passenger terminal building which makes it significant.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories that require maintenance to keep them on topic tend to be considered as ambiguous when they get nominated for deletion. If you want to try and clarify the introduction to make it clear what belongs in this category and then weed it out, I'll wait a while before I nominate it.  However, it might be easier to simply delete what is there and then recreate the new category.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  future expansion 

message: Good day all, it’s seems I've started up a bit of conversation at the WikiProject Oregon Page.  I'm relatively new here so I wanted to run my intentions by everyone.  As you have seen above I have recently started an article for every airport in Oregon.  My next objective is to knock off California.  I have got my format down a little better to give the articles a little more meat then the airports I started in Oregon.  Personally, I feel that every landing facility deserves an article as there is no way to say one is better then another.  However, I wanted to get a consensus of our project to find out if I have your support to continue otherwise my work ahead is mud.  Thanks for your time, --Trashbag (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I did all the Canadian ones I didn't bother with the heliports. Mainly because I wasn't sure that a landing pad on top of a hospital needed a seperate article. But every aerodrome and airport listed in the Canada Flight Supplement is there and the heliports are in a list of heliports in Canada. On the other hand, if you look at List of airports in the United Kingdom you can see that articles for heliports have been created but they do appear to have some notability. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for every airport? 

message: Should the airport guides ( http://www.jal.co.jp/en/dom/airport/ ) listed here be linked from ALL Japanese airports, or only those with limited or no English language sites? JAL's guides are a must for small rural airports and Okinawa airports, but what about Haneda, Narita, etc.? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The airport-specific links ( such as http://www.jal.co.jp/en/dom/airport/japan/oka/oka_00.html ) are useful and I see no reason why they should not be added to each airport which has a guide available. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport guides by JAL for Japanese airports 

message: I am getting a little worried about these routes listed here . I am not sure if any of these "proposed" routes are happening cause many IPs keeping removing CA's TXL-PEK and DUS-PEK routes (from Dusseldorf International Airport and Berlin-Tegel International Airport pages) and i have been readding them since the webite listed above is a reliable source. Also, a editor started a discussion on the Dusseldorf Airport talk page about the Air China edit conflicts. Should we keep these routes listed on the respective pages or should we remove them since these "dream" routes probably won't happen. Audude08 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008/09 "Proposed" routes to China 

message: NWA's decision to half-reshuffle flight numbers through its NRT hub is causing a lot of confusion. I haven't checked every pair of flight numbers, but one example is that NW 27 will go SFO-NRT-CAN (different planes) but NW 28 will go BKK-NRT-SFO (same plane type). How do we decide whether to include and what a direct "destination" is? I can think of two solutions:
*1. Count outbound only. Let BKK have SFO but SFO would not have BKK.
*2. Scrub all direct NW Asia flights' destinations because NRT is a hub, and all directs going through a hub should be excluded. HkCaGu (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. PikDig have undid all my edits to PDX, MSP, MNL, and SIN articles because they change flight numbers for those flights too. I agree with you. But one exception is NWA DTW-NRT-PVG since that is a direct flight but it doesn't matter since Northwest will fly tetroit-Shanghai on March 25, 2009. Audude08 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the above bullet points are supposed to be one or the other. I favor (2) at least for NW because too often the aircraft can be swapped around, turned around, or mixed with Hawaii flights. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to check their timetables, and this is what I found out.
 Current Flights
Flight#	Route      	Aircraft
NW 1   	LAX-NRT-HKG	Boeing 747-400
NW 2   	HKG-NRT-LAX	Boeing 747-400
NW 3   	MSP-NRT    	Boeing 747-400
NW 5   	PDX-NRT-SIN	Airbus A330-200
NW 6   	SIN-NRT-PDX	Airbus A330-200
NW 7   	SEA-NRT-ICN	Airbus A330-200
NW 8   	ICN-NRT-SEA	Airbus A330-200
NW 9   	HNL-NRT    	Boeing 747-400
NW 9   	NRT-CAN    	Boeing 757-200
NW 10  	CAN-NRT    	Boeing 757-200
NW 10  	NRT-HNL    	Boeing 747-400
NW 11  	DTW-NRT    	Boeing 747-400
NW 11  	NRT-PEK    	Airbus A330-200
NW 12  	PEK-NRT    	Airbus A330-200
NW 12  	NRT-DTW    	Boeing 747-400
NW 14  	NRT-MSP    	Boeing 747-400
NW 15  	HNL-KIX    	Airbus A330-300
NW 16  	KIX-HNL    	Airbus A330-300
NW 19  	MSP-NRT-MNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 20  	MNL-NRT-MSP	Boeing 747-400
NW 21  	HNL-NRT    	Airbus A330-300
NW 22  	NRT-HNL    	Airbus A330-300
NW 23  	GUM-NGO    	Boeing 757-200
NW 24  	NGO-GUM    	Boeing 757-200
NW 25  	DTW-NRT-PVG	Boeing 747-400
NW 26  	PVG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 27  	SFO-NRT-BKK	Airbus A330-200
NW 28  	BKK-NRT-SFO	Airbus A330-200
NW 29  	NRT-PUS    	Boeing 757-200
NW 30  	PUS-NRT    	Boeing 757-200
NW 69  	DTW-KIX-TPE	Boeing 747-400
NW 70  	TPE-KIX-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 71  	DTW-NGO-MNL	Boeing 747-400
NW 72  	MNL-NGO-DTW	Boeing 747-400
NW 73  	GUM-NRT    	Airbus A330-300
NW 74  	NRT-GUM    	Airbus A330-300
NW 75  	SPN-NRT    	Airbus A330-300
NW 76  	NRT-SPN    	Airbus A330-300
NW 77  	NRT-NGO-SPN	Boeing 757-200
NW 78  	SPN-NGO-NRT	Boeing 757-200
NW 79  	GUM-KIX    	Boeing 757-200
NW 80  	KIX-GUM    	Boeing 757-200
NW 81  	GUM-NRT    	Boeing 757-200
NW 82  	NRT-GUM    	Boeing 757-200
NW 83  	SPN-KIX    	Boeing 757-200
NW 84  	KIX-SPN    	Boeing 757-200
 Updated
Flight#	Route      	Aircraft       	Begins
NW 1   	LAX-NRT-MNL	Boeing 747-400 	June 1, 2008
NW 2   	MNL-NRT-LAX	Boeing 747-400 	June 2, 2008
NW 3   	MSP-NRT    	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 5   	PDX-NRT    	Airbus A330-200	May 31, 2008
NW 5   	NRT-PUS    	Boeing 757-200 	June 1, 2008
NW 6   	PUS-NRT    	Boeing 757-200 	June 2, 2008
NW 6   	NRT-PDX    	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
NW 7   	SEA-NRT-ICN	Airbus A330-200	does not change
NW 8   	ICN-NRT-SEA	Airbus A330-200	does not change
NW 9   	HNL-NRT    	Boeing 747-400 	June 1, 2008
NW 9   	NRT-PEK    	Airbus A330-200	June 1, 2008
NW 10  	PEK-NRT    	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
NW 10  	NRT-HNL    	Boeing 747-400 	June 1, 2008
NW 11  	DTW-NRT-HKG	Boeing 747-400 	June 1, 2008
NW 12  	HKG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400 	June 2, 2008
NW 14  	NRT-MSP    	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 15  	HNL-KIX    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 16  	KIX-HNL    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 19  	MSP-NRT    	Boeing 747-400 	May 31, 2008
NW 19  	NRT-SIN    	Airbus A330-200	June 1, 2008
NW 20  	SIN-NRT    	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
NW 20  	NRT-MSP    	Boeing 747-400 	June 2, 2008
NW 21  	HNL-NRT-BKK	Airbus A330-300	May 31, 2008
NW 22  	BKK-NRT-HNL	Airbus A330-300	June 1, 2008 (NRT-HNL)June 2, 2008 (BKK-NRT-HNL)
NW 23  	GUM-NGO    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 24  	NGO-GUM    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 25  	DTW-NRT-PVG	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 26  	PVG-NRT-DTW	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 27  	SFO-NRT    	Airbus A330-200	May 31, 2008
NW 27  	NRT-CAN    	Boeing 757-200 	June 1, 2008
NW 28  	CAN-NRT    	Boeing 757-200 	June 2, 2008
NW 28  	NRT-SFO    	Airbus A330-200	June 2, 2008
NW 69  	DTW-KIX-TPE	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 70  	TPE-KIX-DTW	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 71  	DTW-NGO-MNL	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 72  	MNL-NGO-DTW	Boeing 747-400 	does not change
NW 73  	GUM-NRT    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 74  	NRT-GUM    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 75  	SPN-NRT    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 76  	NRT-SPN    	Airbus A330-300	does not change
NW 77  	NRT-NGO-SPN	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 78  	SPN-NGO-NRT	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 79  	GUM-KIX    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 80  	KIX-GUM    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 81  	GUM-NRT    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 82  	NRT-GUM    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 83  	SPN-KIX    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 84  	KIX-SPN    	Boeing 757-200 	does not change
NW 85  	SEA-NRT    	Airbus A330-300	March 31, 2008
NW 86  	NRT-SEA    	Airbus A330-300	March 31, 2008
So should we update the NWA destinations with the flights above? pikdig (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the hard work. I'd still favor not "allowing" through-NRT NW flights to be considered "direct". As it is already the case, NW1/2 LAX-NRT-HKG are not the same aircraft most of the time despite the same plane type (B744). The A330 routes, however, seem to have more "flight number loyalty" (aircraft actually continue with flight numbers). If agreed to, maybe we can start the new "standard" (that I'm suggesting) on May 31. HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd agree to list down these direct destinations, since usually the same planes are used for the direct flight once in a while. The same aircraft was used for the LAX-NRT-HKG-NRT-LAX (NW1/2) flight yesterday (Oct. 22). pikdig (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that many IPs keep getting into edit wars with the NWA Asia Flights especially with the Portland International Airport seeing that Busan was continuosly added as a direct flight from Singapore eventhough that there is a plane change at NRT which violates the WP:AIRPORTS rule of a direct flight. So, here's my suggestion: Either remove all the direct flights because NRT is a hub OR Add all the direct flights that run under the same flight number. It is the only way that will make everyone happy and stop the edit wars.Audude08 (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK let me make a motion: Delete the word "domestic" before the word "hub in "Airport article structure", "Airlines and destinations", Point number "5". In this case, NRT is a NWA hub. All "direct" flights gone. NRT is a UAL focus city, "direct" destinations stay. HkCaGu (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I go with HkCaGu. pikdig (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! Most IPs also delete direct destinations for UAL going thru NRT and NRT is not a hub. Audude08 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but just let me try to understand this. Three wikipedians are now trying to tell the world that a destination's status as a "hub" or a "focus city" directly dictates whether flights through them are "direct" or not?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the way I read it. The way I read it is that's what we list on the destinations lists, not that we're changing the definition of "direct". --Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think folks here have to be alot more honest to themselves. It is blatantly clear that the definition of a "direct flight" is being used as a listing criterion, except that these folks arent using the term as they do so in the industry. Are we now condoning misinforming our users through the omission of flights which would have been considred direct outside wikipedia?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest Asia Flight Number Reshuffle (May 2008) 

message: When listing events under an airport article's "Incidents/Accidents" section (or another comparable section), how notable should an event be to warrant a listing? Is widespread media attention sufficient, or should major effects be required for listing? "Major effects" could include significant damage to a plane or airport facilities (eg. from a collision, hard landing, or a fire), injuries to those on board or on the ground, and loss of life (though the involvement of the latter would obviously be grounds for inclusion).
I am asking this because many users add events that are basically routine procedures (like diversions/emergency landings due to a minor problem on board the plane). Some of these events may receive a large amount of attention from the media due to either slow news days (when there is nothing else to report on) or "sweeps-week" type events (which could cause sensationalism in some media outlets), making the "incident" seem more major than it really is.
So, what should be grounds for including events in an airport articles "Incidents/Accidents" section? What makes some events more "notable" than others? MRasco 07:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many incidents added are minor, non-notable events which happen regularly at all airports (diversions, minor "emergencies", etc..). They are often wildly reported in the media as you have correctly noted, especially on slow news days. When adding incidents / accidents to airport and airline articles, I have always based the criteria for inclusion on the basis that either injuries or fatalaties were sustained by passengers, crew or those on the ground, or the aircraft suffered substantial damage or was written off, or both. The Leeds Bradford Airport Incidents / Accidents section is I feel a good example, not full of dozens of minor non-notable events (which have no doubt occured during the history of the airport) but instead three serious incidents / accidents, adequatey referenced. Would be interested to hear what other editors think as the WikiProject guidelines are weak on this topic (only brief mention is made at WP:AIRLINE relating to the loose criteria for inclusion). SempreVolando (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with most of SempreVolando comments, although I would say in my opinion that accidents/incidents with just injuries are probably not notable. Problem if you just say injuries you could include persons who trip down the aircraft stairs and sprain a leg! (Not sure the LTE A320 incident linked above is particularly notable). MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with MilborneOne, having posted my comment above I re-read the LTE incident on the LBA Incidents / Accidents page and considered that it probably doesn't warrant inclusion (though no doubt some minor damage to the aircraft was sustained). Perhaps we could construct (or in the case of WP:AIRLINE improve) a form of words which could be used in the project guidelines? SempreVolando (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: These criteria seem good to me. I agree with both SempreVolando and MilborneOne on this issue and feel that some guidelines for this ought to be posted on the main project page so that there may consistency among the airport articles here. I also concur with SempreVolando in that this issue should be addressed in WP:AIRLINE as well. MRasco 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody objects than we should update the project page but with 160 odd people in the project we should leave it open for a week for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me–those are more or less the same guidelines I've used to dictate the relevance of an incident or accident previously. I think what it comes down to is whether or not the incident/accident will be memorable after the initial media blitz has passed. NcSchu(Talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me on the proposed wording. SempreVolando (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents/Accidents 

message: User:Stevvvv4444 has added a navbox Busiest Airports in Europe to most of the european airport articles, i had reverted it at the London Heathrow Airport article on the grounds it added no value. It has been added in again by an IP user comment what is the harm in keeping it. I have reverted it again as one day later it still does not add any value. The navbox is a list of the 50 Busiest Airport in Europe two years ago. If you really wanted to go to a different airport you can use the category system. Perhaps we should have the 50 busiest airports in the World two years ago - we can not just keep adding nav boxes. Just looking for other opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it to be a really pointless navbox, seeing as though a navbox is supposed to be an improvement to the article whereas this just adds a messy and jumbled list of airports to it. NcSchu(Talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Delete It's a pointless repetition of the article which can be more effectively dealt with by a See also to the article. How ever did this get clearance to enter the template mainspace ? -- John (Daytona2 ·  Talk ·  Contribs) 10:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox:Busiest Airports in Europe 

message: Many people are removeing direct destinations from this page for Northwest Airlines. WP:AIRPORTS guidelines say to include nonstop and direct flights only. But nooooooooooooo they won't listen and want to list nonsotp flights only!!!! HELP! Audude08 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the guidelines as I recall provide some wiggle room at hubs.  However, many people do not know about the difference between the two.  Many equate direct with non stop and that is completely inaccurate.  I don't know how we educate everyone.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seattle-Tacoma International Airport]]