Talk:Lynx Air

Speedy Deletion?
I would like to nominate the adoption of a common set of criteria for the speedy deletion of pages on Wikipedia. Since this page is being nominated apply a common approach would involved deleting most of the pages on airlines in Wikipedia.

For example, we should be deleting most of the airlines listed under Template:Airlines of Canada then move on to most of the US and European airlines. After all the process of deleting articles is a good way of helping discourage contributions to Wikipedia and encourage people to contribute to organizations other than Wikipedia. --M@sk (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have added if notability is the concern you have, do a search on "NEWAIR" (the name they used until they were ready to launch the airline) and you will see there have been a fair number of articles in the globe and mail and other major papers. --M@sk (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most airlines with articles in Wikipedia have more than one plane, no? And if there are other non-notable airlines with article on Wikipedia, then the proper conclusion is that they can be deleted too, not that it justifies the addition of more. People should be discouraged from contributing articles to Wikipedia that don't conform with Wikipedia's and guidelines; I hope that people don't lose interest in participating in group efforts just because there are rules. Hopefully, many of them will be lead to WP:Welcome and WP:First article so that they understand what Wikipedia is about and will feel encouraged to contribute useful material.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Give Enerjet a chance
I think this topic should be given a chance as Enerjet has a great chance in the canadian marketplace. Although it's starting off small, so did many of the other Canadian airlines, such as WestJet. Ksnaden (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Giving airlines a chance isn't Wikipedia's purpose. Under Wikipedia's guidelines, articles are not to be written for the purpose of benefiting their topic or to help them achieve notability. A topic is required to be notable when the article is written. Predictions of future notability don't apply. See WP:Notability and WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 737-700 question
Hi guys, On CH-Aviation it states that both 737 aircraft are stored at ATL, but on another site I had found, you can see the aircraft has been parked at Calgary? Is this the case or have the aircraft been flown back to ATL? Joey Boeing 777 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

as of dec 20th, 1 of the jets is in calgary, while the other is still in ATL. 70.66.209.122 (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even close
I'm sleepy, but does somebody want to go ahead and make this article reflect what the airline actually IS now? Hubs in Calgary and Vancouver? All their scheduled flights are from Toronto to the Caribbean, except for a couple from Winnipeg. Greg Salter (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can look in to it. But I don't have much information regarding the airline as I live in the United Kingdom. Zaps93 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enerjet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022121151/http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=893438 to http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=893438

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversions
My previous edits to correct information or use existing editing guidelines seem to be reverted, so instead of continuing to write long edit summaries that may be overlooked, I'll write everything here.

The current infobox figure claims the airline has 19 destinations, citing a Simple Flying article specifying the airline has 19 routes. I'd correct this and yet it'd be reverted. Destinations (counted by the infobox entry) are dots on a map, while routes are the lines connecting the dots. If the airline was serving 19 destinations, there would be 19 cities/airports listed as "Present" under the destination table, and yet as of writing, there are 10, with 4 additional to be launched in the coming months. There are 19 planned routes between what will become 14 destinations (as Lynx Air's network consists of point-to-point routes between destinations, rather than a hub-and-spoke network of all destinations served nonstop from Calgary only), of which 4 are yet to be launched, therefore the number in the infobox should be 10, not 19 as it seems to be reverted to.

Which brings me to the destination table: I noticed WP:ALD was modified last month under a "MoS and current usage" reasoning, but no MoS guideline is cited, and the vast majority of destination list articles, or airline articles where destinations are not listed separately (e.g. List of Air Canada or WestJet destinations, where subdivisions are not listed, or List of American Airlines or JetBlue destinations, where subdivisions are listed), regardless of whether subdivisions are included or not, utilize a single column for countries/territories and applicable subdivisions, with this article being the only one that I've personally seen.

Additionally, there did not appear to be any discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines) about making actual guideline changes (the closest would possibly be on my own talk page), and part of the modified bullet point still reads "Not every country has subdivisions so do not create a separate column for these as it may be blank in many cases." which would be contradictory.

Therefore, I have changed the destination count to 10 (in the interest of a citation, frustratingly, Lynx Air does not have a standalone page to cite for current destinations beyond the main homepage hidden underneath a menu, though said menu still lists the 14 destinations consisting of 10 current and 4 planned), and removed the subdivision column, which would need to be removed anyway in the event of the airline serving a destination that does not have an applicable subdivision (apparently, it is at least less work to add or remove subdivisions and re-order them within the same column). Though if we evaluate a destination count purely by the destinations listed, their citations, and launch dates in context to the date of editing, it would still add up to 10.

If over-linking (which should not be an issue when it comes to tables or lists going by MOS:DL) or writing the country/subdivision over and over is an issue, or reason to add an extra column for subdivisions, cells can be combined, or it can simply be written as "Canada" and "United States" with no subdivisions listed, not unlike the Air Canada and WestJet destination lists:

Since following guidelines is not obligatory, and it should be easier to read, I've used this format which solves both of these issues. I invite any inputs through this topic rather than back-and-forths in edit summaries as it seemed to play out as. ChainChomp2 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't link directly to the MOS section because I included it in the updated wording "As per Manual of Style/Linking countries should not be linked. Although the MoS also says that major cities should not be linked most airline articles will link them." By the was List of WestJet destinations does list the subdivisions. On the other hand List of Braathens destinations has a gold star but looks terrible. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)