Talk:Selaparang Airport

Airline and destination table
Despite my attempts to review and update both the operator and destinations for this airport another editor insists on undoing my edits. I see no guidelines on WP:Airports pertaining to not listing aircraft types. I cannot see what issue there should be with providing the aircraft types operated into the airport by the individual operators. This is of interest to some people and although the aircraft types operated by individual airlines is (in theory) available on their respective airline articles those articles do not describe which aircraft operate into a particular airport and this is what is being done here. As some of the aircraft operating into AMI are of seriously advanced age this is of considerable interest to some and this article would no doubt be the only readily accessible resource on that.

I recognise I was in error (unknowingly) in listing code shares and destinations via another port. Difficult with AMI as routes such as Merpati are marketed as an international flight AMI-KUL, but do touch down on SUB on route. Hence I was listing Garuda's flight the market as AMI-KUL and also Merpati's flight they market as AMI-KUL. Also I was describing the Silk Air/Singapore airlines flight as a code share with GA, which of course it is, and the GA AMI-KUL flight code shared with Malaysian airlines.

Wings operates for Lion on AMI-DPS. Not hard to work that out. Wings are the operator and yes Wings is 100% owned by Lion. Lion market Wings flights and do the ticketing for Wings. They will issue both Wings tickets and Lion tickets for the same flight and the same aircraft, different flight numbers same aircraft (a code share). Wings may be best described as a Lion air feeder airline or a 'regional' operator, whereas Lion operate the trunk routes. Wings cannot be accessed online and Wings online booking is per Lion AIr. They both have the same registered address in Jakarta. Hence the cross referencing. However if it is a Wings registered aircraft, in Wings colours, with wings crew and a wings call sign, chances are it is a Wings flight, not Lion Air as 124x247x221x146] apparently wants to insist. The Wings Air AMI-DPS service is decribed as such both by the airline and the respective airports of departure and arrival. However both airport and flight stats will call it both Lion and Wings. Presumably not as a code share but a joint operation. However just deleting the Wings entry from the list for AMI-DPS is disingenuous. That has been repeated several times now on the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and it is not helpful and is a totally inappropriate edit.

Likewise with the Wings and Lion Air listings for AMI-SUB. They both code share on all flights. However some are operated by Lion, some by Wings, therefore they both fly AMI-SUB. So I have listed Wings operating AMI-SUB and I have listed Lion operating AMI-SUB. Originally I listed them as both code sharing, I now understand this is not WP:Airports policy. OK I am happy to deprive the reader of this information to conform to editing policy. However again in regard to the detail of this article; if the route is operated with different aircraft/crews/separate aviation directorate aircraft registration lists and have a different company name. So as a different airline, it should have a separate listing. When I have done this on this article and the Ngurah Rai International Airport article [124x247x221x146] has deleted it.

The AMI SUB information being deleted is accurate, informing and correctly reflects the operational situation. Indeed the Wings AMI-SUB flights operate MD 82 and DC9 -82. Most of the Lion Air AMI-SUB flights operate a 737-300 or a 737-400 but sometimes they use a MD-90 or a MD83. These MD's are more than a curiosity, they are dangerous and for that reason it is of interest what aircraft and who operate. Some people are scared witless of the aircraft operating out of Selaparang, others get a thrill out of flying on an antique including the occasional 737-200 that Merpati offers up and several operators use vintage F27's. Part of the reason for the Wings/Lion issues is that Lion may be playing a game with their fleet registrations trying to clean up their act for EU certification. Hence, aside from them still listing some MD90's and a single MD82 on their register they have moved all their really doubtful aircraft across to Wings and re-painted them in Wings colours. This makes the remaining fleet especially their large number of new 737-900ER's look pretty good. It is not helpful deleting my edits and restoring erroneous information such as Lion fly AMI DPS, when it is actually Wings, that Wings operate AMI-CGK, they do not, and deleting the information that Wings operate AMI SUB when in fact BOTH Wings and Lion operate that route. I cannot understand why [124x247x221x146] wants to keep on fooling about with the Wings listings both here and on the Ngurah Rai International Airport article. I wish he would stop it. Maybe following some the refs he likes to delete would be useful. With the other operators like TranNusa, IAT and Trigana it is not helpful to be deleting destinations. TransNusa fly AMI- fly Bima, Sumbawa, not just Denpasar. Also they do not generally put "Services" or "Service" after their names in their common self description. TransNusa Air Services normally call themselves just plain TransNusa, Trigana is the same where as Indonesia Air Transport call themselves IAT. Fine on their WP main articles but surely this is too much detail in the table when even the airlines themselves do not use these descriptions on the aircraft, their ticketing or on the front pages of their websites. To get their names including Service or Services you need to dig down into the About or Company profile pages..

Similarly I do not understand why [User:124x247x221x146]] (talk) wishes to delete the (International and Domestic) Terminal column in the table. I cannot see how this can assist the article nor any better understanding of the subject. If the airport has International and domestic flights at different terminals why delete the information when it is provided in the table.

Accordingly I am again going to attempt to reinstate the table as the current information is jumbled in fact and in erroneous in detail. I have removed the original aircraft distributions for discussion on this page and have placed a copy of the earlier contentious table containing the aircraft types below this comment so it can be understood clearly what was upsetting [User:124x247x221x146]] (talk).

Felix505 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

====This is the most recent version of the table that user User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk) deleted from the article, maybe someone just likes deleting things:====

This table is inserted retrospectively from the article history for clarity of the editing history being discussed here Felix505 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing it again
I am changing that again, for the following reasons:
 * The table used is incorrect (airport-dest-list table should be used)
 * The airlines are not in alphabetical order
 * The destinations are not in alphabetical order
 * Flightstats is not an approved Wikipedia source (because it is frequently incorrect)
 * The operated by listing does not follow the guideline
 * Duplications 124x247x221x146 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

=
Response to "I am changing that again, for the following reasons" by User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked  User:124.247.221.146 (talk) and other previous identities of that use=====


 * The table used is incorrect (airport-dest-list table should be used)
 * You have not just been changing a table formula on these articles you have been ripping out factual and sourced material here and more so at Ngurah Rai International Airport and replacing it with information that is either out of date or just plain wrong. In any case the table worked fine so what was the problem, are you correcting markup when you remove an operating airline or pull out the the entire Terminals column, maybe not
 * The airlines are not in alphabetical order
 * Really...content is the of the 1st order of priority and the table columns have a sort by function in any case so that hardly mattters a great deal. Moving IAT is all that was needed to fix that anyhow. In any case you have not been arranging things in alphabetical order here or at Ngurah Rai International Airport instead you have been doing reverts and block deletes and returning highly questionable content in it's place. Additionally I assume your deleting of the Terminal column fits to your view of a standard table, why do this, again looks like vandalism, smells like vandalism, most likely is.
 * The destinations are not in alphabetical order
 * As per above, they are column sortable, look at the markup. Also you cannot have both the Destinations AND the Airlines in alphabetical order at the same time, maybe this is how you have managed to create the chaos on the Ngurah Rai International Airport article.
 * Flightstats is not an approved Wikipedia source (because it is frequently incorrect)
 * Well I guess the airlines don't know and the Indonesian airport operators don't know but you do. Remember all those links you deleted, yes they went straight to the airline sources.  How do you explain the Wings tailed aircraft with a Wings callsign,  Wings crew and WINGS written all over the fuselage that are coming and going from AMI and DPS. Maybe the people in the control towers and the airport offices know something that you don't, no one is relying on Flightstats here especially in regard to the mess you have been perpetrating with DPS or AMI. So where is it that your information is coming from exactly, are you going to offer up some sources soon?''
 * The operated by listing does not follow the guideline
 * Neither does removing an operating airline, the Terminals list and listing destinations that have either long since been dropped or never even existed. Airlines that are not longer or maybe never were operating the services, do they fit the guideline?
 * Duplications
 * off what? maybe facts with verifiable sources


 * Edit warring has no place here it would be a good Idea if you stopped it I think. You have managed to make a mess of DPS by insisting on reinstating dead information without checking sources, I have made it easy for you, just follow the links and see if the airlines agree with your ideas before you do any more editing. I do not believe you are working in good faith here maybe you should pull back from the articles and do a little research, you might get some surprises. I will not be baited further so don't bother.'' Felix505 (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with this first. It will save you a lot of effort and energy writing out long drawn accusations and theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content 124x247x221x146 (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * User:124x247x221x146 (talk) /blocked User:124.247.221.146 (talk), please see my (talk) page for my response to your "go look at WP:Airports suggestion" as well as a response to your latest snide and condescending comments left there. Is this your effort at discussion to comply with your ip block warning, I find it is rather token and contemptuous effort especially considering the mess you have made of Ngurah Rai International Airport's Destination table content.  Felix505 (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)