Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18

Indian Airports naming issues
Most airport articles in India are named per their official name. But to due the Government rapidly declaring airports as International, users keep moving and/or change the name of the airport in the infobox and lead to a title by including the word International in the title, for eg, Vijaywada Airport was granted international status in early 2017, people moved it to Vijaywada International Airport, this despite there is no source that there is a change in the name of the airport. Newspaper articles in India refer to airports by multiple names, for eg, BLR is referred to as Bangalore Airport, Bangalore International Airport, Kempegowda Airport, Kempegowda International Airport.

Per this discussion, my understanding is that while using a non-official name, the 'a' in airport has to be lower case. Per WP:AVIMOS, the suggestion is to use a more smaller name than the official name in cases where the official name is too long which holds good for Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, etc where probably WP:COMMONNAME can be applied.

Another problem is with the Airports Authority of India's official page for each airport, for eg: IXE's official page where in the title it says Mangalore International Airport and below at the map location, it says, Mangalore Airport. I have seen the name being displayed as Mangalore International Airport, Mnagalore Aiport, Mangaluru Aiport and finally to both Mangalore International Aiport and Mangalore Aiport. This has happened even with HBX, the name being displayed as Hubli Airport, then Hubballi Aiport and then back to Hubli Aiport which just indicates that probably for the airport titles, AAI's page is unreliable. My concern is what title each of the Indian Aiports' page need to be and what source to refer? IMO, I believe, it's best we stick to the name displayed in IATA's official page. Please give your suggestions. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 15:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen the official webpage of the Indian airports authority and I agree with the opinion above in that it cannot be considered reliable. This leaves the IATA webpage as virtually the only reliable source to name airports in India (and elsewhere too). I am not in favour of moving pages without a reference backing the new name, but India has such a number of contributors that this is not an easy-to-handle issue. Let's just wait for more opinions.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would go with the official aerodrome list at http://dgca.nic.in/aerodrome/aero-ind.htm (you need to use the "licensed aerodromes" link), it has the name the aerodrome is licensed as. MilborneOne (talk)
 * Allow me to point out that there is nothing "official" about IATA. IATA is a private organisation of airlines, most private, a few state-owned and/or state-controlled. I am afraid the only official source is the local Civil Aviation Administration. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @MilborneOne: It makes sense to some extent, but the page hasn't been updated since November 2015. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 16:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer AAI (if its page is updated) otherwise I'd just stick to WP:COMMONNAME for lesser known airports like GAU,IXE etc.  Bingo bro   (Chat)  08:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @Bingobro: As per my opening comment, AAI website is not reliable in this case. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 02:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jan olieslagers: Does ICAO publish a database of airports anywhere (if you are aware of it)? The problem is, at present, we can rely only on the IATA database as mentioned above. But if ICAO database can be accessed, it would be more reliable. The move to keep changing teh title to add International to the name goes on and on, with recently Surat Airport moved to Surat International Airport.
 * Not to my knowledge, at the contrary ICAO have a bad reputation for making it difficult if not impossible to retrieve their data via the www. Then again, the IATA database is anything but reliable either, for instance it still gives IATA codes for aerodromes that closed up completely, or became modest recreational fields (like Kitzingen that was demilitarised). Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Something needs to be done for this issue. We might have to add more to WP:AVIMOS? &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 03:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

HUB and operational bases
@@@ Sorry guys just tagging you along to see what is your opinion about airline hubs. There are some certain arguments going on regarding airline having hub or not. I am aware that airline has hub at certain airport as soon as it's connecting flights within that airport to final destination. For example Blue Air connecting Athens & Thessaloníki flights via Larnaca to Bucharest or connecting flights form Larnaca via Buchurest to Cologne/Bonn and many other cities. In both cases Larnaca & Bucharest are hubs for the airline as far i am aware. Wappy2008 (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A hub operation is when you can arrive on one flight and then depart on another and different flight by the same airline. Flights that just come in from "A" and then depart to "B" are not using the airport as a hub. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It states very clearly on the airline website that it is an operational base. "Blue Air will have six operational bases in 2016, namely Bucharest, Bacau, Iasi, Larnaca, Turin and Cluj-Napoca, with the latter becoming active as of October 2016." Maybe a litle out of date but still states they are operational bases more than once, does not state anywhere on their website they operate hubs. Also the references this user provided for their point are insufficient to their point as the title says 'hub' but then goes on to call it an operational base more than once. CBG17 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Operational base is airport where airline base their aircraft. My point of creating this discussion is that according WIKI guidelines Airline hub content: Blue air connecting via Larnaca the same way as it is connecting flights via Bucharest, therefore airline has hub in Larnaca the same way as in Bucharest and any other cities that airline might connect through. Wappy2008 (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Airline hubs or hub airports are used by one or more airlines to concentrate passenger traffic and flight operations at a given airport. They serve as transfer (or stop-over) points to get passengers to their final destination. It is part of the hub-and-spoke system". See Southwest Airlines, the airline operates many bases, and flights that connect through many cities, but does not have any "hub" operations; because we can't find any sources that call their bases/focus cities as hubs. Garretka (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be down to what the airlines official sources say. You saying it is a hub is your own opinion on the matter if the airline states on its website it is an operational base then that’s what it is. Blue air is a low cost carrier just the same as the likes of Ryanair and Southwest. Ryanair also offers tickets like that where you can connect but they do not operate any hubs just bases which is what low cost carriers do. The airline operates a point to point method not hub and spoke but the airline does facilitate connections as it says on the Point-to-point transit page some airlines do not facilitate connections whereas blue air does. CBG17 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is nothing "official" about what any company or organisation says, on the www or wherever. "Official" is what has been stated by an independent and reliable authority and, when challenged, confirmed by court. Companies and organisations can say whatever they want to say as long as not challenged. Doesn't mean a thing. For me, all those "bases" and "hubs" are only commercial crap talk, with a possible exception for a "hub airport" that serves more transfer passengers than "departure and origin" aka "point to point". Most of all, this kind of info does not really belong on this encyclopedia, especially not since it has a better place on wikivoyage . Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not matter of my own opinion. I am going according to Airline hub content and sources that states airline has hub not only in Larnaca or Bucharest but any other city specified. Airline could have operational base back in 2016 (as per your outdated ref.). To understand Airline has to base aircraft first to create operational base what Blue air did in 2016, before it started to connect flights and use it as hub. Wappy2008 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Refs aren't outdated if a replacement reference doesn't exist. WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary references for statement of fact. Unless a reliable source can be found, move them to focus cities. Garretka (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How can you honestly say the references you’ve provided prove your point the first sentence in one of them literally says “Blue Air has launched its new base of operations in Cyprus” in that scentence it doesn’t say hub so that reference can not be used to support it as it clearly says 2 different things which support both arguments. There is far more evidence to prove it is a base over the evidence it is a hub another example: It even states in the airlines in flight magazine from THIS MONTH the airline operates 9 bases If the airline operates it as a hub they would state it was a hub it simple they don’t state it as a hub so it’s not a hub. And it is your own opinion as you’re going against the reliable references supporting the fact that they’re bases and not hubs. I can provide far more references to prove that they are bases and not hubs. CBG17 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Modulo for airline destinations
The original purpose of this modulo was adress the naming issues across airport articles, it had nothing to do with the actual links to articles. A good chunk of the current edits in destination tables have to do with syntax/fixing city names to follow the content guidelines.

We have also had many city naming disputes that have left airport articles inconsistent. Exmaples include Orlando vs Orlando–International, Columbus (OH) vs Columbus–Glenn, Dubai–International, etc, or (begins March 1, 2019), (Begins March 1, 2019), (begins March 2019) etc. On numerous occasions, users have decided that they will correct the names without consensus, making it difficult to change back one-by-one. This also helps inexperienced users, who may not know/understand all of the naming guidelines, and reduces the work for other users going back and correcting the syntax. It is much easier to look up the IATA/ICAO code of the airport than find the link on another page (which might still have the city name formatted incorrectly) or go through all of the style guidelines and manually figure out the correct city name to use.

It also helps with sorting the city names alphabetically, which is a very big problem on non-US airport pages, as not all of the users are as familiar with English and alphabetical order. The modulo also removes the begins/ends tags when they expire, eliminating the need to manually monitor each page for expired tags. This can be a big problem on non-US pages/small airports, which are not monitored 24/7.

Also, as User:Bouzinac mentioned above, this will make the continued implementation of the airport articles across languages much easier.

While this is far from a perfect solution, I do think it could help eliminate the constant syntax edit cluttering up the destination tables. There are still some issue with the implementation and a lot of improvements will be made, but I think the modulo has the potential to solve many issues. Stinger 20 ( talk ) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports) as far as I can see you didnt have a consensus to make this change. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IATA and ICAO
Just wondering has there been a consensus for this as I have noticed a user replacing links on airport pages with these? CBG17 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the discussion on the modulo above, as far as I can see there hasn't been consensus yet. Garretka (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which user has been replacing which links with what on which airport page? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

the user is Bouzinac and has been replacing links to multiple airports on multiple pages eg: Nouakchott–Oumtounsy International Airport, Conakry International Airport, Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport, O. R. Tambo International Airport and some more i have reverted the edits on most of the pages so it is back to normal until anything is decided. It seems like this user has discussed it with 2 other editors and started to make changes without a consensus. CBG17 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, there is no consensus yet. It does not mean the template is unuseful and the result of the template was the same with/without the template. Again, keeping this template helps copy paste into other wikilanguages. Now, if the English wiki wish to go-it alone with full text mess and liberty to write either  or , then fine.--Bouzinac (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

policy clarification - future routes with 3rd party reference
There is an RfC at Talk:Sofia Airport which is within the field of WikiProject Airports. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed time to get rid of all the Airline & Destination tables
Adding to the above conversation. I've had it with these editing wars going on about references and citing these airline & destination tables. The fact of the matter is, if we are going to take a super hypertechnical interpretation of WP:V and WP:BURDEN, then 95% of the information is not referenceable. Since we apparently cannot have any flexibility here, I favor stopping these editing wars by getting rid of the info. NBA2030 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Like the previous discussion ended, an RfC really is required to decide the fate of these tables. I have raised the issue before that using timetables for citing new routes is textbook original research, and now we have ip's claiming references should be deleted. An RfC really is needed, and this forum is not the correct place to get the wider audience that requires that. What should this RfC entail? In my opinion; should the tables be allowed at all? Should the tables be replaced by a list of airlines? Should the tables be replaced by a map? Status quo? All of those are valid choices, but the RfC needs to be worded properly and placed in the correct forum. Note I have added this discussion to the third opinion page in hopes we can get some uninvolved editors in here. Garretka (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I say just get rid of the tables and only list the airlines. A lot of editors and ips are getting really nasty about it. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't this just Village pump (policy)/Archive 140 all over again, except for the word "airport" replacing the word "airline"? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. The issue as it is stated should be how do we find the way to add sources to the tables, not to curtail them.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These tables are really useful, even if they do have some errors.24.108.52.84 (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the tables are very useful.A Common Porpoise (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it WP:OR if reliable published sources exist? They're simply not secondary sources, but it's not as if we have an articles on routes. SportingFlyer  talk  00:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SportingFlyer my issue is secondary sources keep getting removed for the primary reason they are "not tidy" or other destinations don't have them (WP:OSE in my opinion). In the case of routes without secondary sources, primary sources are perfectly acceptable as they are stating facts. The issue with timetable, or more specifically, booking engine references are that they don't necessarily indicate a direct destination; and using these to derive both start dates and seasonality fall under original research for start/end dates and WP:SYNTH for seasonality. I'm not arguing to get rid of them. I'm advocating to improve their standing within the Wikipedia community. Garretka (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - I was thinking you were referring to published timetables, which I agree is very different than checking a booking engine. SportingFlyer  talk  11:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My position always has been, and always will be, that when secondary sources exist, they should be referenced inline. If new routes are added without a suitable reference, it can and likely will be removed. I really don't understand why some users have such an issue with keeping secondary sources inline; this is an encyclopedia. Not a travel guide. Garretka (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a recent example of this? SportingFlyer  talk  11:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can check the edit history of General Mitchell International Airport for a recent example. Many European pages are also absolute disasters. Garretka (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Definitely unacceptable behaviour on that user's part. Will monitor. SportingFlyer  talk  23:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep lists of destinations and try to improve sourcing where necessary. The VP discussion was not advertised sufficiently to make it authoritative. — JFG talk 07:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep where are the edit wars occurring? The destinations are easily WP:V. (Also, I found out about this from here:, so canvassing may occur/may have occured) SportingFlyer  talk  00:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The lists are for the most part kept up to date. I don't see any reason to remove such a major part and a part that has had a long run on such pages. They also serves as an indicator of an airports significance and reach and are very useful for many people. I have not seen any editing wars regarding this. Mortyman (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Why take them down? They're a nice quick reference for airports and, if somebody's not sure if it sounds right, check the airline's website. The Wiki pages are sometimes more accurate than the AIRPORT's website! Jsprague24 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep They are important and relevant part of the airport articles, and a primary source for this information on the entire internet. Otherwise, it becomes a slippery slope: We may as well have just have a very brief article stating when the airport was built and how big it is and nothing more. If there is factual information that is incorrect, it should be handled the same way as procedure. Removing the entire table because some people choose to squabble is not the way to go --Mezaco (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is certainly room for improvement as it is the case for any articles. But this lists are informative and that's what Wikipedia is all about. The idea that information on these list are not referenceable is based on a false premise. Where that 95 % comes from? Personally, I have not seen any editorial wars with respect to these lists. On the contrary, everyone seeks continually to make it as precise as possible.--Maxxies (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Amazingly useful resource of information that exists nowhere else and somehow is kept with a high level of accuracy for free by volunteers. Destroying this to help a few egos feel powerful is a really bad idea Pmbma (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing positive that would come from removing the airline and destination tables. They are an important, relevant, useful, and informative part of all airport articles and are a great reference for the public. I think everyone here should take a step back and remember that Wikipedia is a community-run collaborative project, and people volunteer their time to keep it as up to date as possible. In the case of the airline and destination lists I find that they are usually very accurate and update quickly and frequently. There is absolutely no need to destroy something that works well as a means to solve a dispute or appease anyone’s false entitlement.  CdnFlyer (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing negative in removing them as well. And this is not the place for the public to check for flight information, this is not a travel guide per WP:NOTRAVEL.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Snow keep Perfectly verifiable information, and laughable to claim a list of destinations makes it a travel guide - that would be if timetables were included too. Reywas92Talk 21:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Watch adjustment instructions
There's some boilerplate on each of the airport list articles such as List of airports by IATA code: H. The first paragraph of this makes sense in order to help read the table that follows (although maybe it would be better to include just once in the parent article?), but the second paragraph should definitely be removed. My reasoning is 1) it has an inappropriate tone (MOS:YOU), 2) Wikipedia is not meant to give how-to instructions (WP:NOTHOWTO), and 3) even if we did want such instructions, they would go in a single article about time zones or watches or something, very much not in airport list articles. I would just remove it, but I'm coming here so that I don't change 26 articles and then have them all reverted. And to that end, I also want to ping and, who I think were primarily responsible for adding the text in the first place, so they have an opportunity to defend it if they wish.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

no argument -- HankW512 (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Get rid of it. Not an instruction manual and even if we were, these are not the articles to have it on. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed it. Turns out only the first half of the alphabet has that intro section. I guess someone started and gave up halfway through.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Navigation aids: noteworthy?
On Kasane Airport, a (very polite!) editor insists on mentioning the electronic navigation aids VOR and NDB at the aerodrome. I wanted to remove them, finding the information too specialised and non-encyclopedical, but my action was reverted. Revert-warring is useless, so please offer your 0,02 of whatever currency :) . Opinions (and perhaps even actions) welcome! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a guide for aviators so navigation aids are not really that noteworthy to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's precisely what I thought, thanks. Is there any [ WP: xx ] to support this point? Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the VOR/DME identifier of an airport would be a useful addition to Wikidata. There does not seem to be such a property there yet, although identifiers for all kinds of things are included. — JFG talk 21:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not that much help unless you are a pilot (and you would not use wikidata if you were), some airports have more than one, a lot exist away from airports and some airport dont have any. MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to mention the existence of navigational aids, but not the details or specifications of them. As mentioned above we're not a nav aid and those specifics are only of interest for actual navigation purposes and if any pilot is using Wikipedia for such info, I'm walking. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Could someone give me some help please, both in Mfuwe Airport and Kasane Airport - the same editor keeps on reverting my modifications. Also see discussion on my talk page, where no further reaction came. Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the editor who updated Kasane Airport. I similarly updated Mfuwe Airport, even graciously leaving some reference to the navaids, as suggested above, but I still saw the action reverted by the same stubborn. Could someone please take a hand? I refuse to go into edit-warring on my own. TIA, Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a very quick reaction! Many thanks, once more! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted the user adding a "where" tag (they also added a "cn" tag despite the previous version having a citation, so it's obvious they're trying to be disruptive). I see this as an attempt to have their preferred version reinstated. If anyone here disagrees, please feel free to discuss. Garretka (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At the contrary, I share your analysis and support your action. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment just wanted to note in case this argument continues to flare up I agree with the above: the existence of the navaids is notable and can be mentioned, but the details/specifications is too specialised/likely to change and is better served in an airport directory. SportingFlyer  talk  22:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of future routes in tables
Does anybody know if there is a consensus reached regarding the removal of future routes or destination table? I know there is a discussion at the talk page at Sofia Airport but I do not know if consensus was reached. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can remember "future" destinations can be added as long as they have a reliably sourced start date. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * really only one user is starting this issue and is refusing to discuss. See their response on their talk page when I asked they participate in a discussion rather than edit warring:
 * "I do not need local consensus to remove material that is clearly against Wikipedia policy per WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)".
 * This has obviously not been an issue in the past, and I can see the users position regarding WP:NOT, but clearly we will continue having issues unless this is resolved. Garretka (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have left User:Charlesdrakew a note about being being blocked if they continue to be disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Airports in Kazakhstan
Could someone have a look at Transport in Kazakhstan? I see a few "suspect" points: Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * more aerodromes with paved runways than with unpaved ones? Unlikely.
 * 5 aerodromes with unpaved runways of over 3047m? Even less likely.
 * Most incredible of all: only 3 heliports in a country with a long tradition of (Soviet) helicopters? Defies belief. In fact I counted no less than 171 of them at https://maps.aopa.ru which I found to be a rather reliable source of information.
 * Additionally, I have removed the list of destinations from that article. They had absolutely nothing to do there.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to theairdb website
This site appears dead. Please help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to figure out what to do with the links to it. DMacks (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

ICAO airport codes in Ukraine
Please take a look at my recent addition to Talk:List of airports by ICAO code: U but be aware the matter is politically delicate. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Charter flights?
Recently, users has been adding a charter service such as Miami Air International and World Atlantic Airlines to Miami International Airport, but both appear to be private charters (from what I can find). Should they be included? Arnoboro (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, they are rarely noteworthy if at all. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So what should be done about Miami Air International and World Atlantic Airlines? Shouldn't they be delisted since they don't operate regular flights? Arnoboro (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * yes - there is virtually no encyclopedic value here. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There seems to be a fair amount of charter carriers on the Miami International Airport article. Someone should clean it up. Arnoboro (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit War at Tiruchirappalli International Airport
and myself are currently involved in an edit war about whether Air India 611, which received fairly major coverage in international news media for destroying the ILS receiver and airport containing wall on takeoff on October 12, should be included in the Incidents and accidents section of Tiruchirappalli_International_Airport. I strongly believe this is a notable instance, but LeoFrank cites the essay WP:AIRCRASH as a reason not to include this information. I think this is badly mistaken, as not only does the incident pass WP:GNG, but WP:AIRCRASH is not policy. Even if it holds true here, the accident passes "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport" due to the damage the airport received. I'm pushing up against three reverts and would like someone to restore the edits I made to the article. Thank you! SportingFlyer  talk  10:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N is only about whether a topic merits a standalone article or not. It has no bearing on a topic being mentioned in a another article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that even if an incident meets WP:N, that doesn't warrant inclusion. Without WP:AIRCRASH, these incident sections would be huge. There are countless incidents that receive coverage, but are considered minor in nature and not worthy of inclusion.
 * In this case, did the aircraft sustain major damage or hull loss? No it flew to a diversion airport. Did the airport sustain major damage? No, a perimeter fence is easily reparable. Garretka (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the other incidents or accidents on the airport page at this time pass WP:AIRCRASH either, though ("the airplanes almost came close?") - and an airport receiving any damage is rare. SportingFlyer  talk  12:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Aviation Herald (typically a reliable source) has classified it as an "accident" (one short of a crash) and discusses neither the 2010 nor the 2011 incident currently on the page: SportingFlyer  talk  12:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there aren't other incidents on the page that don't warrant inclusion because, frankly, there probably are, but that's like using WP:OSE as an arguement. I don't think this incident is notable, and WP:AIRCRASH (even though an essay) does a good job of setting the standard to keep this lists in check. Garretka (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you think this was a notable event? Of the events currently on the airport page, this was the one which sustained the most significant damage to both the plane and the airport - and per WP:SSEFAR, Wikipedia does strive for consistency. SportingFlyer  talk  12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will this incident be remembered in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? I don't think so. No major aviation policy changes are expected of it, the aircraft will be repaired, and the perimeter wall at the airport will be repaired. I'm not here to argue the merits of what exists on the page, I'm giving my 2 cents on the discussion at hand. Garretka (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue it will be remembered at least locally 10 years from now, which would be enough for a mention on the airport's page, and may still end up being similar to Emirates Flight 407 (which, while I think is true, may be a bit overdramatic and probably a good time to pause per WP:RECENT). SportingFlyer  talk  13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH represents long term consensus and should be respected you really need to make a good argument, way better than you have made, if the current incidents are to remain. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS.Andrewgprout (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a few days. I have a feeling this one'll be back around in the news cycle. It's not every day a plane hits something on takeoff. SportingFlyer  talk  06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually bird strikes are very common. YSSYguy used to quote some statistic for them in Australia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A 1.5m high retaining wall 150m past the runway threshold looks very different than a goose... SportingFlyer  talk  13:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with a looming edit war
There is an anonymous user that keeps reverting my removal of Miami Air International, World Atlantic Airways and Swift Air on Miami International Airport. As I discussed above, I do not believe they should be included because I cannot find any evidence that supports the fact they are a regularly scheduled flights. However, this user is persistently reverting for no reason. Can the page be protected until further notice? Arnoboro (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The right place to deal with this is WP:RPP. I have requested protection. Nevertheless, starting a discussion at the article's talk will help. According to WP:VERIFY, sources must be provided if the verifiability of any material is challenged.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 20:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Defunct airports categorisation
Hello, I've fallen into this Palmyra (Cooper) Airport and wonder if an airport that still have airstrip and where plane can still land on it ==> can it still be categorised as defunct ? Other ambiguous case : a former civilian airport become only military airports ==> it is not defunct, isn't it? --Bouzinac (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit War at Istanbul Airport
There is a discussion at Talk:Istanbul Airport regarding an edit war over the formatting of the articles "Airlines and destinations" section. It appears that edit war involves interpretation and application of this WikiProject's content guidelines, hence I would like to invite members of this project to contribute to the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. —Madrenergictalk 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Double IATA codes
Hello, is it normal that both military and civilian airports share same IATA code ? Exemple : AAL for both Aalborg_Air_Base and Aalborg Airport --Bouzinac (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * IATA codes are a mess anyway. Some are attributed to railway stations not aerodromes. Some are attributed to aerodromes long closed. More generally, their 3-letter codes refer to "destinations", not to any one particular aerodrome (or whatever else) so there needn't be a problem - as long as one realises they're a mess anyway. It must be said however that, for the last couple of months or so - late 2018 - the mess is clearing, slowly but yet. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The IATA database shows AAL as Aalborg Airport it is unlikely that a military airfield would have or need a code unless it has civil passenger of cargo flights. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I include into this topic. My comprehension is that IATA is civilian group of civil airlines so IATA codes should apply only to civilian airports (geographically speaking), and not military. But there is so many military airports with iata information on them so I am in doubt. --Bouzinac (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Military airfields that have civilian flights (BZZ - RAF Brize Norton in England for example) have an IATA code particularly if they need to use charter airlines or airline type ticketing for passengers or the movement of freight by contractors. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here in BE, the NATO-reserve field of Zoersel (EBZR) still has the IATA code OBL, though it only serves a bit of recreational flying in the weekends. On the other hand the active military bases of Beauvechain (EBBE), Kleine Brogel (EBBL) and Florennes (EBFS) have none, though they do get occasional transport flights, some even by civilian planes. Do not seek for any logic in IATA codes, there is none. Not even to mention Euro-Airport Basel-Mulhouse which has no less than 3 IATA codes for one and the same aerodrome. It doesn't keep the planes from flying .... :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks to bring me into the conversation! I fully agree with MilborneOne (talk) and Jan olieslagers (talk). And EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg is an excellent example of the messy way IATA manage those codes, as the EAP code is counter-intuitively assigned to the metropolitan area though it is obviously the abbreviation of "EuroAirport", and the airport itself is assigned both MLH and BSL codes, which are obviously the abbreviations of Mulhouse and Basel respectively. They obviously mixed everything up, and though the error is obvious, they have not fixed it so far. -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the topic has diverted to the EAP-MLH-BSL stuff. As Bâle/Mulhouse/Freibourg is a multinational airport (with even a road directly connected to Switzerland without customs), it is clear to me that a French airline doing a Paris/Mulhouse would use MLH on bagage tags and a Swiss airline doing Zurich/Bâle would use BSL on bagage tags, so that the bag would be treated as domestic bag, and their passengers as domestic traffic. However, that logic does not apply to EAP, considered as neutral code, so if anyone has references on this EAP-MLH-BSL stuff, which one do airlines use in practice, it would be welcome. This logic looks less relevant, since France and Switzerland are inside Schengen area.
 * Anyway, the topic was at first aimed at how to manage the doubled-IATA code for both military and civilian airports: when double IATA code, shall we leave alone only for civilian airports ? Bouzinac (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In Aalborg I do not see any problem, for once. There is one aerodrome and one IATA code - what more could you wish? It is however misleading that we have two articles about one and the same aerodrome, one article about the military part and another about the civilian. It is however clearly stated Aalborg Air Base shares its runway system as well as some services (Air Traffic Control etc.) with Aalborg Lufthavn. Similar situations can be seen at Eindhoven EHEH and Brussels-Zaventem EBBR, which even has a separate ICAO code EBMB for its military terminal - now THAT is confusing. The one improvement I see possible is to join the two Aalborg articles into one. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see… All the more messy that I discover some very curious IATA code shown on their website for instance

Perhaps, a qualifier that would state if the IATA code is "noticeable" with real air traffic ? It would help clean data and keep this up to date, and ditch the other pointless codes ? --Bouzinac (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RKU, (no airstrip can even be seen in Kairuku/Yule island, Papua on satellite photo)
 * RKY, Australia (very tiny airstrip, not even noticed in English wikipedia, I doubt there have been any flight booked to RKY...)

Sarandë Airport
Looking at the Sarandë Airport article, and checking satellite imagery, I doubt if it still exists as an aerodrome. Shouldn't the article be suggested for deletion? Or at least updated? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion, I can't find any independent links about the (current) airport, just links stating they want to build a tourist airport. SportingFlyer  talk  09:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

List of busiest airports by passenger traffic
Currently I am working on an expansion of that list, attempting to trace data back to 1919. Quite astonishing, that is rather easy for 1926 to 1939 and from 1975 on, as complete data is readily available. But the time between, for which the "List of busiest airports by passenger traffic" (worldwide) is more or less the same as a "List of busiest airports by passenger traffic" in the United States, the situation is different. The FAA statiscal publications for that time contain full passenger data either only a handful of, I guess rather arbitrarily chosen US airports, or a complete set of data of passenger departures only. Anyone here wo is more familiar with US air transport statistics? Or are there privately published data on that topic? Or could a FoIAR be helpful?--Antemister (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I cannot really be bothered, but this sounds like one more example of US-centrism. What are the sources for the "readily available" data? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also ich bin Deutscher;-) For that period of time, civil aviation was actually very US-centered and is not a bias here. The ready-made data comes from the ICAO, its annual Civil aviation statistics of the world contains the data from 1975 on, and the Airport traffic annual from 1962 on has data for airports with significant international importance which excludes of course many US airports. For 1939-1960, only few non-US airports achieve similar passengers numbers, besides London and Paris probably only Stockholm and Zürich for the immediate post-war period and later maybe Frankfurt, Rome and Tokio, see for 1966. The FAA statistical handbook of aviation includes, as mentioned only scattered data for some large US airports, and the Airport activity statistics of certificated route air carriers has only dat on departures. That's why I ask here.--Antemister (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ercan airport or North Nicosia city
Turks seem adamant on calling the city of North Nicosia as Ercan which is the airport's name, the city's Turk name is Lefkosa, it seems they dont like using it and are dragging the airport name into Wikipedia airport articles, for some odd reason even their airlines prefer to refer to it by airport name than Lefkosa if not North Nicosia. Nicosia on the Greek Cyprus side does not have an active airport so Turks should have no problem using Lefkosa or North Nicosia name for the city, if Greek Cyprus' Nicosia had an active airport than the Turks could have used Ercan or Nicosia-Ercan to differntiate it as is the case with cities having more than one airport. Please look into this issue.202.163.108.183 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources call the airport ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MilborneOne, the airport name is Ercan the city's name is North Nicosia, editors are listing the city as Ercan in airport articles, that is the issue here, was Istanbul ever referred to as Ataturk when it had only one airport? 202.163.108.183 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia calls it Ercan International Airport :) Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the city it serves? whats that called? problem is not the airports name but the city it serves being called that, there isnt an airport in Greek Cyprus so there is no need to use Ercan name for city, the city it serves is North Cyprus202.163.108.183 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "there isn't an airport in Greek Cyprus" that is sheer utter nonsense - enough said, for me. Go raving elsewhere. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How can you accuse Turkish people of doing this when you don't even know the people editing it are Turkish? CBG17 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it seems only they call it Ercan in their political culture.202.163.108.183 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly not as wikipedia calls it Ercan International Airport, if you dont like it then make your case on the talk page of that article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which part are you not understanding?? yes the airport name is Ercan but the city's name it serves is called North Nicosia which it should be listed as in destination lists and airport articles not as Ercan. South Nicosia does not even have an airport that north Nicosia needs to be identified by its airport name, its not a case of Istanbul-Ataturk and Istanbul-Sabiha its just one airport serving the divided part of one city, so the listing should be

and in airport articles table as
 * North Nicosia - Northern Cyprus - Ercan International Airport per Wikipedia destination lists
 * XYZ Airlines - city BCD, city DEF, city EFG, North Nicosia, city GHI, city HIJ. 202.163.108.183 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It would seem reasonable according to the project destination listing guideline to use North Nicosia in destination lists rather than the name of the airport, anybody have a view why we shouldnt change Ercan to North Nicosia in destination lists, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are people ignoring this? should North Nicosia article be deleted from wikipedia if a city name is not worthy of use or should cities be listed as Heathrow, Narita, La Guardia i.e airport names? 45.116.233.28 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody has to comment, if after a while nobody has objected after a reasonable time frame then per WP:SILENCE it can be assumed it is not an issue to follow the guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have change some of them to North Nicosia per the wikpedia article, but they may be more. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm doing the remainder but keep a look out for editor CBG17 he is adamant on controlling the Istanbul Airport article airlines and destinations section plus calling the city Ercan. 45.116.232.28 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Referring to Istanbul Airport in destination lists of other airports
I see that the new Istanbul airport is listed as Istanbul–Havalimanı on many airport articles. That won't work because "Havalimanı" apparently just means "airport", but there needs to be a way to distinguish it from Istanbul Atatürk Airport, especially for airports where there are flights to both. What should it be replaced with? Some ideas in my head: Istanbul–Grand (as it is referred to as while under construction), Istanbul–New (another commonly used name), Istanbul–Arnavutköy (naming after the district it is located in), what else? Note that the airport will continue to need disambiguation even after Atatürk closes (RIP), because Sabiha Gökçen International Airport will continue to operate. feminist (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with just referring to it as Istanbul Airport since that's it's English name? Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because of the confusion with Gökçen (and Atatürk before it's closed). feminist (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Istanbul Airport, Istanbul-Ataturk, Istanbul-Sabiha Gokcen, dont see any problems.45.116.232.28 (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I cant see using Istanbul Airport as a problem, it is linked to the airport article if anybody is that confused. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see the O/P's point, and will admit there is something to it; but imho nothing really serious. We all seem to agree Atatürk is to close before long, no issue there; and as I understand Gökçen is and has always been and was always meant to be a secondary airport to this big city. So Istanbul Airport primarily refers to Atatürk today, and to the new airport tomorrow. As long as Atatürk remains active, the new airport can be disambiguated as "new" ("Yeni"), as is the case on openstreetmap, for one example. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it needs still disambiguation, for instance Paris has one very big airport, CDG, and one relatively smaller, ORY. It is still needed to say either Paris-CDG or Paris-Orly. I suspect it is the same case here for Istanbul. --Bouzinac (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need to say "begins" and "ends" in every destination table with Istanbul service. Service is not ending to Istanbul. I would prefer to see "Istanbul Airport" with a footnote stating service is currently to Ataturk but will move to the new airport on XX date. Garretka (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What about airports currently with service to both Atatürk and the new airport, or even to all three Istanbul airports (as with the case of Ankara)? Plus this is for destination lists, these links don't normally include "Airport". feminist (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternatively could just leave it as Ataturk with a footnote. Such a change is hardly worth mentioning as I explained previously. Garretka (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Istanbul–New for me sounds good.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "hardly worth mentioning" when there are currently flights to the new airport. Istanbul New Airport is already operating, albeit with only a few destinations. There needs to be a way to mention both airports without confusion at least in these few airports. So... should I change all instances of Istanbul–Havalimanı to Istanbul–New? feminist (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a tendency to overthink solutions to problems such as this. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and not a directory.  The encyclopaedic need provided by the destination tables is to indicate the sphere of influence connections to and from and from an airport have.  It is not necessary to be 100% accurate or clear that is what a directory does.  Airport articles (except the one or two specific ones) are not really concerned with the situation with changing airports in Turkey and any solution must balance this situation.  Personally I would use the age old idea that needless disambiguation confuses more than it clarifies and just leave it simple. Instanbul - Ataturk  and simply Instanbul (for the new airport) Andrewgprout (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone object to changing instances of Istanbul–Havalimanı to Istanbul–New? Istanbul–Havalimanı is problematic as it is ambiguous. feminist (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While I do not absolutely oppose such a solution this is not a long term solution - The intention if I am reading it right is that the "new" airport is deliberately being called by the Turkish authorities Instanbul Airport. Us simply saying simply Instanbul serves the encyclopaedic need and is likely to be well understood in the long term by those who care and ignored by the vast majority who don't, as said above Wikipedia is not a directory or guide. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At the contrary, it seems to me to be the "least unfortunate" way to go. Still it is not a long-term answer, as pointed out above. But nothing keeps us from modifying again, if/when the situation changes. As we will have to, in my view: I cannot help expecting the new airport to get some fancy name at its inauguration, instead of the bland and very un-Turkish "Istanbul Airport"; which will necessitate updating our articles anyway. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be simply per article title Istanbul Airport now that New has been dropped from name, Havaliman means airport so its weird to list it as Istanbul-Havaliman. 45.116.232.28 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

User removing future routes
This user (User:Charlesdrakew) seems to have decided for themselves that future routes shouldn't be included and is removing them at various airport pages including Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. Anyone care to intervene? VG31 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, not the first time this editor causes annoyance..? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Requested full protection on Sofia Airport (was protected before) and the user refuses to discuss at said talk pages. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They also warned on their talk page for 'advertising' when all they did was add a new route. VG31  14:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much for me to say as everything appears to have been reverted but there's nothing wrong with adding future routes as long as they're sourced properly. SportingFlyer  talk  23:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

They're removing future routes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bordeaux%E2%80%93M%C3%A9rignac_Airport&type=revision&diff=862296974&oldid=862291654 VG31 13:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to intervene, this user is removing future routes again at Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport. <span style="font-family:'Comic Sans MS',serif;color:green">VG31 18:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, based my discussion with him on his talk page, I think he's intractable in his beliefs future routes should not be allowed, in spite of the fact we all think they're fine. SportingFlyer  talk  22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually SportingFlyer - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a directory nor is it news or a crystal ball and lots of other things - You may "think the future routes are fine" but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that such detail as is being described here is of very very questionable encyclopaedic value. The only reason you are mostly left alone by the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who edit outside this specific area is that mostly they do not care about such unencyclopaedic trivia and those that do see this as an expedient way to ensure some level of rigor over the "wildwest" task of mirroring airline timetables here. Please consider the likely situation that User:Charlesdrakew might be correct in his view. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you - there's no reason not to include a future route if it is properly referenced, as it makes it easier to maintain the tables generally, and announced routes have encyclopedic value, especially from new airlines. We should probably have an RfC about this. SportingFlyer  talk  03:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's already been enough RfCs relating to destination tables. There's no need for another one. <span style="font-family:'Comic Sans MS',serif;color:green">VG31 11:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have always taken the not travel view and that these lists of destinations are here to show the range of services from the airport. To achieve that we could just have a simpler list of domestic and international destinations served over the years. Something like saying "London Heathrow served 1947-2018" would be sufficient in my opinion. With that in mind it may difficult to argue that adding future destinations is encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Preferred formatting for destination table references?
I recently added a reference column to an Airlines and Destinations table which has turned into an edit war with another user claiming it's not on the project's "airport content" page listed, though many of our good articles include the reference column. Is there a preferred version of the A&D table now? SportingFlyer  talk  02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For an example, see McCarran International Airport (with reference column) compared to Melbourne Airport (without). (I'll add one to Melbourne if we think there should be one.) SportingFlyer  talk  02:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is not a good idea - all adding a seperate reference column does is attract bad usually useless generic references (which are already implied anyway) to airline websites which do not fulfill the requirements of WP:V - while such references could be considered better than nothing these references if present often are used as an excuse by many to delete valid specific detailed secondary references, which is a bad thing.  If you think a general reference is warrented for an airline in the table the correct place to put such would be after the airline name in column one. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer: Same thing happened with me at Indira Gandhi International Airport. @Andrewgprout: Could you point out where it mentioned in the project guidelines not to use a 3rd column for refs or to avoid them? It's an obvious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Most destinations of an airline have a generic source, which is their schedules unless a new route is published as an article by routesonline or any other news article and even in the airline dest list articles (list List of Emirates destinations), many destinations have a separate column for refs and most of the destinations are sourced with the airline's schedule page. As such, per this RfC, a searchable flight schedules' link is also allowed. Going by what you say, we need to probably do away with the destinations table itself. IMO, the 3rd column is a good placeholder for refs related to destinations and it does not make sense to add them in the 1st column. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 04:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the RfC results, all general references do (booking engines or dynamic links to the airline home page in particular, explicit timetables are fine in my opinion) is encourage original research. References supporting specific destinations should remain inline by the detail that ref is supporting to make it easier for the user to verify. There are a few comments at Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport which raise additional concerns with a general ref column. Garretka (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is more about core policies rather than project guidelines - of course the project guidelines don't say not to have a third column they also don't say make them all purple or write them all in Russian either - the guidelines not saying something is not a good idea does not make it a good idea.  Verifiability means each fact added to Wikipedia must be verifiable this is nearly always done by an inline reference, if needed, directly after the detailed fact - that is what inline means.  Can you please explain why you maintain it is not a good idea to place a generic reference in the first column this is the obvious inline place to put a generic general reference when following the norms of Wikipedia as a whole.  And yes the genericness of sources is one of the things that makes the tables' encyclopaedicness questionable to some people. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Garretka: I am not saying that once there is a 3rd column, we should include only general references. Route specific refs should be sourced if available. But the question here is, what about the routes served which do not have a specific reference? This was argued in the RfC and hence the outcome was to allow even searchable schedules. Agree that to some extent, it would encourage WP:OR, but how do you tackle this? Perhaps by completely removing the dest table or to just list the airlines operating out of an airport? &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. There are many users out there who do not get that, however (the availability of a general reference means they can remove specific). I'm not sure how to tackle the OR issue except for strict removal of unsourced or sourced with booking engine route starts and stops. Explicit references for routes beginning/ending is already a project requirement, I believe. Removing the tables is probably the best solution, but that's going to be treated like a live grenade and I'm not going to be the one to throw it. Garretka (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a recent discussion regarding general referencing of these tables, or am I losing my mind? SportingFlyer  talk  06:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17 is the discussion you're thinking about? Garretka (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be better to replace these tables with a summary in text with inline citations, further avoiding the problem of the tables purporting to be current when I doubt that even three quarters are up to date and there is no need for a current guide. Another approach would be to replace them by an external link.SovalValtos (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata text dumps
Huge amounts of data from wikidata are being dumped on List of airports in foo talk pages not sure it helps anybody at the project, has this been sanctioned anywhere? MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what the info is meant for and can't really see a need for it. Garretka (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor is wikipedia a reliable source. Cheers. --Bouzinac (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The data I believe comes from wikidata not wikipedia so I am not sure why that is relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed the bot spam and this (only on the Canada page) which causes the bot to spam the pages. if you want that information then keep it in your user space. Don't have a bot spamming and bloating talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of Nautical Miles in lead section
I looked at Leeds Bradford Airport, noticing what I felt was an inappropriate convert template, showing nautical miles first (then kilometres, with miles last), seen thus: "...6 NM northwest of Leeds..."( 6 NM northwest of Leeds.. ). I then looked at [[Luton Airport, as a control, finding the same: "...located 1.5 NM east..." ( located 1.5 NM east... ). As a further control/comparison, I looked at Heathrow Airport, finding that it was the same, up until this edit by dated 16 September 2016. *It had previously been raised at Talk:Heathrow Airport, dated 6 December 2014. The same sentence however continues to give the area as kilometres-first and needs to be uniform. *Has there been any discussion regarding standardisation of formatting? *Is there a presumption that international pilots would look at the intrinsically-unreliable Wikipedia, and that there is a convention that NM used in avaiation should dictate what is a general encyclopedia? I could just change things, but my anticipation is that a 'regular' would knee-jerk press the 'undo' button. Thanks.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a general encyclopedic not a pilot or travel guide so would not expect general distances to lead with nautical miles (or in fact use nautical miles at all!). You mention British airports you have to remember that there has been many disuputes about using metric first or imperial first despite the fact that the general reader is capable of working it out for themselves if you give both figures. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see that nautical miles might be relevant for aircraft wanting to fly between airports. For most other people wanting to know how far they are e.g. to drive by car, or just generally as geographical features, I would assume miles are more relevant. That's why I changed nautical miles to miles. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have amended Luton to be uniform.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Naming
Hi

I think there is some work to ensure consistency between airport article title. For example, Heathrow Airport and Gatwick Airport omit "London" in the article title, whereas London Southend Airport does not. Similarly, Istanbul Atatürk Airport and Istanbul Airport include "Istanbul", whereas Sabiha Gökçen International Airport does not. Could someone please clarify?

Thanks ElshadK (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * They're based on the actual names of the airports and what they call themselves. Heathrow and Gatwick don't actually have the word London in their names, it's not what they're called, whereas London Southend Airport is the actual name of that airport. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * But Sabiha Gökçen calls itself Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen International Airport (look at their logo) ElshadK (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from their website they only refer to themselves as Sabiha Gökçen, never with Istanbul in it which they would if it was the name. The self same website always refers to Istanbul Atatürk and not just Atatürk, but never Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

move of Larnaca International Airport page to Larnaca International Airport - Glafcos Clerides against WP:COMMONNAME
Recently this page was moved twice to Larnaca International Airport – Glafcos Clerides including a move directly against BRD being reverted while discussion was ongoing along with a refusal to revert. This move appears to be specifically against WP:COMMONNAME and the advice given at [] and WP:CRYSTAL. The waring user  appears not to want to understand that the change does not fit Wikipedia norms -  A quick google tests get only 29 mentions for larnaca airport +glafcos which is hardly an endorsement for the move that has been made. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Counting hits on Google has little encyclopedical value. OTOH the line of text supporting the naming is unreferenced; I came close to removing it, but perhaps we better wait for further discussion. And if someone could consult the AIP, which is IMHO the ultimate authority? I tried to but could not locate it at 1-2-3. I am puzzled however by the "Larnica" above, though: is it a typo? twice? or was the name changed to Larnica at some point in time, too? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Jan Thanks - Larnica (sic) was me making a typo twice - sorry for that - I have fixed it in the title. While I acknowledge there are real dangers in using Google as a test for Common Name it is not unusual in Wikipedia in my experience for people to do this as an aid to decisions WP:GOOGLETEST - in this case the result is particularly onesided.  I'm sure the official name does include Glafcos Clerides the question however is what is the airport currently commonly known as in English Language reliable sources. Andrewgprout (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for correcting the typo. As for the name being official, I am not even sure, in fact not at all: I could not yet locate the AIP, but I did find a pdf of an AIP amendment, and while it repeatedly mentions LCLK Larnaka (with a "k"!) it never adds this famous person's name. Neither could I find that name anywhere in the web pages of the operator Hermes Airports. By the way and between us, I will not question published WP policy, but myself am not in favour of "common name", I hold that, as an encyclopedia not a tabloid, we should go by official names. But that is another discussion, of course, and not relevant here, as the name change under discussion seems to satisfy neither. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As more evidence in Andrewgprout's favor, the owner-operator's website calls it "Larnaka International Airport" in two different languages. Most English-language news articles just call it Larnaca Airport. No evidence for COMMONNAME in the move. SportingFlyer  talk  23:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comments above. No evidence that this article should've been moved per WP:COMMONNAME. I would support moving it back and requesting the other party to start a move discussion on the article talk page. Garretka (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I quite agree. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Template:Airports in France" major vs minor international
Hello. I'm coming here to ask something related to this revert. While in a previous edit I said that I added the airports to major international because of the passenger number, the IP address account that reverted my edit said that what I did is a "guideline violation", because "its not the passenger number, its the importance for the country" that matters. I would like to be pointed to that guideline article that specifies this and be proven in a short, but clear way how those airports are minor and not major international. I see a prevalence of international routes on their (Nantes and Basel/Mulhouse airports to be precise) articles and, as I said, they are too in the top 10 most frequented airports in France in 2017, similar to how Bordeaux is, and no one has withdrawn that from major international category. As that IP is not a registered user account, I'm asking someone here. Thanks. BaboneCar (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would ask the question what is the purpose of making the split between major and minor with all the controversy that goes along with this. It seems to me that this distinction serves very little purpose and the two categories should be merged into one "international" grouping.  Andrewgprout (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andrewgprout just use international. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is an international airport? I often see airports calling themselves "International airport of city XXX" and having almost no patrons at all. I would prefer a ranking like "Airports with total passenger>1M" // "Airports less than 1M passagers yearly" etc … --Bouzinac (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * An International airport is one that has scheduled flights outside of the country as opposed to domestic flights for inside the country. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. You only need a single scheduled flight leaving or coming from outside the country to qualify as an international airport. Also generally if they have customs and immigration. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would term an airport as "international" if it offers the facilities to support international flights. Customs (for cargo) or immigration (for passengers) are the prime concern. I think an airport can be styled "international" if it has the possibility to handle international flights, even if none are scheduled at one or another moment in time. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And BTW, as so often, I suspect this discussion is "shadowed" - not to say "obscured" - by the difference between the US and - for example - most European countries. In Europe, almost any civilian aerodrome with a runway long enough for a B737 or so will be an international airport. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, let me show you this example : Daugavpils_International_Airport : it is called itself international albeit having absolutely no commercial flights? --Bouzinac (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [puzzled] What is the relation with Template:Airports in France about which this discussion started? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No direct link, I simply wanted to point out that having "international" in any airport's name does not automatically mean it is actually an international airport...--Bouzinac (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which still does not answer the question 'when can an airport be called "international"'. I still do think the least unfortunate criterion is the availability of border crossing facilities, i.e. customs and/or immigration. Whether either is currently available at Daugavpils seems questionable, yes indeed... Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an interesting and relevant counter-example could be LFAC Calais-Dunkerque: it is quite popular as a point of entry for private pilots entering the Continent from the UK (or vice versa, of course) having all services that they need for entering/leaving the Schengen area. So is this an international airport? I would say yes, even if there are no scheduled flights today, not international and not even intra-national. At most, one could argue its being called an airport at all, but that is another matter. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would use "airports with scheduled international passenger service" as the guideline, I assume it's what most users will be looking for when they look at the template. Using a point of entry for private pilots is notable on one level but harder to verify and of less general use. SportingFlyer  talk  22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hub statistics
I believe it is relevant information to list basic statistics about an airline's largest hubs, such as at. It is useful and interesting to see quantitatively the relative sizes of their presence at these airports to go along with market share, but another user has repeatedly removed this sourced content from several articles, claiming that because the data changes frequently it may not be included. Sure this is not always up-to-the-minute but it's perfectly acceptable to include the 'as of' date to provide context. Thoughts? Reywas92Talk 06:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice that some of the "sources" that are linked (particularly the Delta one) do not explicitly state the number of flights. Arnoboro (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Recently, as part of a restructuring of the major US airline (Delta, American, United, Southwest) articles, I removed the table containing the number of daily flights by hub because the information was outdated (in some cases, more than a year old). Because the information can fluctuate from month to month, I figured we do not need to list it in the airline articles unless we can find a reliable source that provides up to date information. However, this user (User:Reywas92), has been reverting my edits and keeps insisting they need to be included even with outdated info. I do not believe we need to include these for the reasons I stated above.

Additionally, this user insists that an outdated destination map on the Delta article that I removed should stay, despite it containing outdated information such as Tokyo-Narita being a hub for Delta.

Admittingly, this user and I got in a bit of an edit war and I would like some help resolving this. Thanks. Arnoboro (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft movements
Do you think the number of annual aircraft movements is a relevant statistic for an airport, or is it only for "hardcore avgeeks"? Even so I'd guess half the wikiproject would have to be deleted if we couldn't include information of interest to avgeeks. Reywas92Talk 06:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For major hubs, sure, but for smaller airports, other than the information listed in the infobox, why list historical aircraft movements? Arnoboro (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Straubing Wallmühle Airport edit war
An edit war seems to be going on at Straubing Wallmühle Airport, and I seem to remember the exact same happened before. I cannot check it out now for lack of time (and motivation :) ) but isn't it all about someone wanting to add to this article (about the newly created airfield) historical data of a quite different earlier airfield? Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

List of the busiest airports in the British Isles
Just come across this page which contains data from 2008, my question is whether it is worth updating this page to the 2018 statistics or whether this page is not needed any more as it is essentially a combined version of the busiest airports in the UK and the busiest airports in Ireland page but with old data. Thameslinkrail (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete it. Not only is it a well-outdated duplicative article, its title violates the guidelines on Ireland related topics, which can lead to sanctions. Just best to torpedo the whole thing. oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to delete an article, please can you delete it. Thameslinkrail (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I have put a deletion tag on the page, if no-one objects within 7 days then an admin will check and possibly delete the page Thameslinkrail (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Airport article within city article
Shouldn't this Huslia,_Alaska be split into two distinct wikiarticles? There are seldom other examples like this one : Castaway_Cay --Bouzinac (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * An airport should be noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huslia Airport should have a standalone page. Nothing wrong with Castaway Cay Airport not having a page until there are demonstrated sources IMO. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of "noteworthy enough" ? They both have an genuine IATA/ICAO code, they might be very small but do have an IATA/ICAO code. --Bouzinac (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IATA/ICAO code passes WP:V, it would still need to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some indication that is my be notable is https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/hsl which shows scheduled flight (albiet not very large aircraft). MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, i'll split Huslia into a genuine airport article when spare time. Cheers --Bouzinac (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In most small, road-inaccessible places in rural Alaska, the airport and the community it serves are inseparable. Far too often, we have two sets of articles which act as islands unto themselves, merely to prove a point about notability versus non-notability, and which serve little purpose other than to act as venues for data sets and MOSes favored by particular groups of editors. Far too often, it defies reality to keep them separate. I mentioned this very thing in a Signpost interview years ago. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with RadioKAOS here; I don't think this should be presumed notable. It's hardly an airport, rather a long strip of gravel. There is no reason to cover this in a separate article when it can be done in one. Reywas92Talk 04:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The worst part is the slavish devotion to a MOS. There have been a bunch of articles created which contain the statement "located xxx nautical miles (# mi, # km) west of the central business district of" and refer to places which are so tiny, there is no central business district.  A lot of times, they're so tiny that there's no businesses or even full-time residents.  All that does is make the editors who create such content appear foolish and out of touch. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so no splitting articles. I removed the redirection on the wikidata item . --Bouzinac (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Louisville Intl Airport (SDF) land area discrepancy.
There is a discrepancy in the land area of SDF. If you go to Form 5010 in references, it says 1,200 acres, but the airport website says 1,500 acres, a 300 acre discrepancy. Airport websites sometimes present wrong data. Also if you google SDF Airport skyvector, it says 1,200 acres. I tried changing it back to 1,200 acres about 1-2 years ago, but was reverted back to 1,500 acres. That figure (1,500 acres) appears in the first paragraph of the article and in the facilities section. Just wonder what the correct figure is, Airport IQ 5010 and Skyvector are accurate and up to date. Thanks and have a good week.2601:581:8000:21B0:6C90:423A:95EE:F66A (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd consider the secondary, non airport refs, to be correct. The airport may include any office parks/offsite warehouses that they own but do not constitute a part of the airfield. Garretka (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Eppley Airport (Omaha) July 11,1961 UAL Flight 859 in accidents and incidents
Good day. The crash of United Airlines Flight 859 occurred at Stapleton International Airport on landing. DEN is over 480 miles away from Omaha, so should this first incident be deleted? It is on the Stapleton Airport page, where it should be. Thanks and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:3C17:F16A:192D:9C8E (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed Flight 859 and another accident since both of them didn't happen at the airport or on approach or just after takeoff. The Southwest one, well planes run off the runway all the time. It is a minor incident and I'm inclined to remove that one too. Anyone else have some thoughts?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My addition today (December 6, 1978 incident) will be sourced with the Aviation Safety Network report. I don't how to source my additions, I have someone to do that for me so leave it there. It will be sourced. Thank you.2601:581:8000:21B0:3C17:F16A:192D:9C8E (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to support User:WilliamJE removal previous consensus is how he describes it. Not sure the Southwest is noteworthy aircraft do slide about in bad weather and it looks like they just need to tow it off the grass and all is well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

CVG airport, Eppley Airfield (OMH) Accidents and incidents deletions.
Hello and good day. In Accidents and Incidents CVG Airport: 1/13/2019 Delta Air Lines Flight 1708 and Eppley Airfield Accidents and Incidents: 1/18/2019 Southwest Airlines Flight 1643 were not major, noteworthy incidents and were just minor common, sliding off the runway/taxiway incidents after landing and is common in the winter months in airports that experience snow and frigid cold. These two incidents should be deleted from CVG and Eppley Accidents and Incidents. Anyone agree? Have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we passed an opinion on the SWA in the section above. As it dont where CVG is I suspect it is more of the same and both could be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * They have been removed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Louisville Intl Airport (SDF) unlock page.
Hello and good day. Can someone unlock the Standiford Field page please? I want to change the acreage of the airport, it is 1,200 acres, not 1,500 acres as on the page.I have proof, Airport Master Plan for SDF. Been incorrect for years. Thank you.2601:581:8000:21B0:DC7F:E952:7BF:180A (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Corrected per FAA data. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all for their attention, and their sense for detail. On a sidenote, may I question the encyclopedic nature of this "area" aka (in a few areas) "acreage" information? There is a growing concensus that even the "destinations" information about airports has no place on these pages - for me, the same applies much more to the "surface" information. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * One could argue that it is not in the infobox so the area is not that relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for mediation on cleaning up airport articles
I have an issue that I would like some feedback on.

A while back, I cleaned up and streamlined sections of the Dallas/Fort Worth page (particularly the terminal section) to remove excessive information, some of which violated policies such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOR, etc. I have been noticing as of late that airport pages (in the history, terminal, infrastructure sections, etc) are often cluttered with excessive information put in by super aviation enthusiasts, and a lot of it either does not belong or could be condensed and summarized. However, a month after making the edits, this user came back and reverted it to its previous state because he claims I did not have “consensus” to make the changes. When I changed it back and tried explaining the reasoning, he simply reverted back and kept retorting I have no "consensus" and that the status quo should be left until a consensus can be reached. However, in this particular article, no one but this user has been objecting to the edits, and I have noticed users rarely comment on the talk page so "consensus" would be hard to reach. I have made similar edits to other airport articles (see Denver for example) and have had little to no pushback.

However, this user has been relentless, but they have yet to demonstrate the edits I made violate anything. It has escalated to the point where I reported him for edit warring and he retaliated, so the page has been locked until February 1st. Meanwhile, the user has posted a long-winded response on the talk page of the DFW Airport article breaking down my edits and why he disagrees with them, but most of it is red herrings and tired old rehashed arguments. Basically, he says because it has always been the way it was, it should stay that way. I don't feel like going through and responding to his points piece by piece, so I'd rather bring the discussion here.

I would like to request the users of this project review the situation here and make suggestions. Particularly, I would like to know...


 * A. If and/or how my edits violated any Wikipedia policies or community guidelines
 * B. If I removed anything useful that could have been kept or perhaps condensed
 * C. How airport articles can be cleaned up going forward, as I do believe we have an issue with some airport articles having excessive information (see St. Louis for example)

At the end of the day, this isn't Wikivoyage, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we do not need every single little detail about a particular airport in its article, a summary is more than adequate. Arnoboro (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you tried talking about these issues with the other editor, not through edit summaries but actual discussion? It really helps to speak directly to other people. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dayton Intl Airport PAX 2018 sourcing (Passenger enplanement #s at Dayton Airport section)
Hello and good day. Can someone source the 2018 passenger totals for DAY that I added today. Go to their website, access Passenger Enplanement and Air Cargo Trends December 2018 (thru airport statistics) and source with that page (pdf) please. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:5564:B1C:BCD2:7D5D (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Future Destinations
I am seeking an official policy on the publication of future destinations under the Airlines and Destinations section of the airport pages. There is a certain editor who insists on deleting future routes (even though they are properly referenced) citing that it constitutes Spam/Promotion, quoting WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. He chooses only to apply this misguided policy to a handful of airport pages rendering them inconsistent with all other airport pages. This has resulted in edit warring and blocking of the defending editors. I would appreciate a definitive opinion on this. Thanks Bonner16 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This has gone on for too long. There should be an RfC on the village pump or somewhere there's a bit of visibility. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO, I don't think WP:VP is the right place for such discussion, especially after a handful of editors decided to wipe out all airline destination articles, bypassing other instances of discussion. This ended up in a deletion review. For your reference, it can be consulted here.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember that! So bizarre. Perhaps you're right. There's still a problem here, though, since this is an edit war which has spilled over into many different airport articles and my thought would be to get some eyes on it from people not necessarily associated with the project. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I guess the only route to resolving this is to post on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bonner16 (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dayton Int'l Airport Reference section change
Hello and good day. Go to reference section of article, go to reference#50, DAY 2017 Pax Stats. Please change 2017 to 2018. That is that year's data indicated in that reference, not 2017. Also two punctuation marks, need one. Should be "DAY 2017 Pax Stats". Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good day and hello. Unless there's something I misunderstood, you can please yourself and do all that for yourself; rather than ordering other people around. Thank you for your effort. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you edit the reference section? When I select edit, no list shows up.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There must be a manual page to help you with this, but I cannot locate it right now. Basically, one does not edit the reference section as such; rather, one includes pointers to references in the text. There are more complex mechanisms, but I do not master those myself so you'll need to get help about them elsewhere; the basic mechanism that I do use occasionally is "PIGS CAN FLY http . reference . pigs . can . fly < / r e f > Inserting blanks to avoid expansion, and hoping this helps. If not, look around further! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, consider using your own sand-box for trying things out - that is what you got it for. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Washington Dulles Intl Airport (IAD) 2018 final passenger and operations data.
Hello and good day. Go to IAD airport page, Annual traffic:Traffic by calendar year, 2018 data.I see no final, set data for IAD airport on their website, it only goes up to November 2018, so I wonder where those numbers came from? Should 2018 data line be deleted till we get final data? Should be any day now. Thanks for your help.2601:581:8000:21B0:BDC5:CFC7:73A7:5B79 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Please disregard. The editor did get a PDF from IAD disclosing final passenger and operations totals for 2018. I contacted the editor on how he got the data, and all is correct. All have a good day. Thank you.2601:581:8000:21B0:BDC5:CFC7:73A7:5B79 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways
A lot of work must have gone into List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways; still I suggest nominating it for deletion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) it is not up to date
 * 2) a list like this is nearly impossible to keep up to date
 * 3) I do not think the information can be considered encyclopedical, people seeking this kind of info should rather consult specialised websites, like the excellent dlapilota.pl
 * I don't think it's a requirement that the info be up to date but that said, the list is largely unreferenced and unencyclopedic. I would support taking it to AfD.Garretka (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also has a friend in List of airports in Poland with paved runways, perhaps these should be merged and simplified although looking at Category:Lists of airports by country we dont seem to have a consistent layout for these. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to diagree for this once ;) but adding misery to misery will not reduce misery, I'm afraid. Finding out the right way to nominate the twain for deletion. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We list all the airfields for other countries any reason to treat Poland differently? MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a List of aerodromes in Bechuanaland? We do have lists of ICAO-coded aerodromes, sure, but Poland, like many countries, has many more aerodromes than ICAO-codes. For another example, List of airports in France only shows aerodromes with an ICAO code, with the fewest exceptions. So I can live with a List of ICAO-coded aerodromes in Poland, which must already exist under some title, because the ICAO codes are referenceable, but IMHO our efforts should not go beyond that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Take it to AfD. I will when I have the time. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unsure of the proper way to do it, I will be glad to wait for your time. Please also look at the related lists mentioned above; thanks! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AfD is live: Articles for deletion/List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

San Diego Intl Airport (SAN) Annual traffic 2018 pax table alignment
Hello and good day. Today I entered 2018 pax info for SAN in Annual traffic, however I can not align my entry with rest of table after many attempts, 2018 entry is out of line. Please put under 2017 so it all in line. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:3DCD:8B39:8FFE:CFF (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Was corrected. Please disregard. Thank you all and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:44C3:911B:7B50:6537 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

LPMI Mirandela: Airport or Airfield or what?
I am in argument about the title of our article about the aerodrome at Mirandela in Northern Portugal. It was created as Mirandela Airport which I understand to be common parlance in American English. Yet I hold that it should be called "Mirandela Airfield" rather, seeing that it does not meet our definition of an Airport, lacking the facilities to support commercial air transport. (The runway is hard, but shortish, and there is nothing like a terminal.) Much of the point is in the difference between American English and English (language), of course. I renamed the article but my action was promptly reverted.

On a secondary point, we currently have a redirect from Airfield to Aerodrome, which I would also like to question - but it is opening a can of worms, I am afraid. For me, aerodrome is the most generic term possible for any terrain where aeroplanes operate, including heliports, seaplane bases, perhaps even spaceports. Such is ICAO usage, at least, as I understand; and ICAO should have normative authority.

Opinions, please? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like "Airport" is the English WP:COMMONNAME, not a lot of good sources but some directories call it Airport:  SportingFlyer  T · C  21:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me to disagree: "airport" may be the US common name, it is not the English common name for a smallish field like this. Again, my point is that US parlance should not be blindly applied in all the world. Also, the sources mentioned seem to be US'an, too, so it is natural that they apply US parlance. Natural, but it brings little authority. For a counter-example, consult http://206.71.179.167/airports/LPMI/ - that is from Canada :) and I must admit I created this little example myself. Still, nobody has objected. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You may have a good point Jan as we have tended to follow the American example of calling everything an Airport (particularly in the cats) including sometimes grass strips, outside of the USA it is more nuanced when as you say terms like aerodrome or airfield are more common for places that nobody but the Americans would call an Airport. Although a quick look at for example Category:Airports in England does show a bit of common sense has been used. In the UK the official term for all licenced landing grounds is "Aerodrome". MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In my observation, aerodrome is the generic term for any kind of terrain where aeroplanes operate, including seaplane bases, heliports, and what not. ISTR from ground class that aerodrome is the usual term in ICAO documents, for example; unfortunately, ICAO documents are not easily found online. It would be good to discuss a concensus, which would of course need to deal with regional differences. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by the commonname above but it's called "Aerodromo Municipal de Mirandela" in Portuguese, and an English translation as such would be "Municipal Aerodrome of Mirandela." "Mirandela Municipal Aerodrome" would be a better translation. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I could quite agree with "Mirandela Municipal Aerodrome", it comes as close as possible to the original name. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the Mirandela Airport page. I have also created seven other redlinked Portuguese airport wiki pages, and created over 700 redlinked airport pages, mostly in Africa and Latin America. I have edited and verified data on more than 2000 different airports. Mirandela Airport was redlinked on the "List of airports in Portugal" page. I checked the sources that had it, and saw no reason to change the name. Great Circle Mapper calls it "Mirandela Airport." SkyVector calls it "Mirandela Airport." World Airport Codes calls it "Mirandela Airport.'" Aviation Safety Network calls it "Mirandela Airport." Airline service does not determine whether something is an airport. There are short grass and dirt strips that have commercial service. Nor do ground facilities determine whether an airline can go somewhere. Air Panama goes in and out of places with only a runway. Caravan and Twin Otter aircraft are in airline service, and could easily go to Mirandela. Renaming is not a trivial thing like an article edit. I have renamed only a handful of airports, and it's always been for serious problems like wrong town or two airports serving the same destination. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to attach much weight to your personal importance and merit. With all respect, that is not what wikipedia is about. It is not relevant how many articles you have created or "improved". Neither is it relevant that the Mirandela airfield could receive Twin Otters and the like. Also irrelevant is what other sites call it, especially those from the US, or under US cultural influence. What mattters is to correctly name this airfield, and I keep up that "airport" is not the correct term for it, and our own definition of airport confirms that. You will also excuse me to think it a bit funny that, while you did perhaps check a lot of other websites to check the name, you apparently never verified what the locals call it. If you had, at least the "municipal" bit would have shown. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do however agree that, if we agree to rename the article, we will be bound to rename a good deal more, in consequence. It is indeed not a small matter. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of reaction for two weeks now, I intend to rename the article as discussed. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Same debate in french wikipedia with use of either aérodrome (tends to be smaller airfield) or aéroport (tends to be bigger aérodromes with tower and commercial flights), even lesser used piste aérienne...--Bouzinac (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Moneygall Aerodrome
There have long been questions about the veracity of Moneygall Aerodrome. Isn't it about time to mark this article for deletion? It seems obvious there is no airfield at the given location, nor has been for several years. At least, there is no reliable reference - the one reference given ( great circle mapper ) seems a one-person initiative, and little kept up. In fact, we might discuss one day what sources of aerodrome information we consider reliable, apart from the AIP. And even the AIP tends to lag behind reality, by a long way in some countries. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a RS, but is certainly interesting. There's no sign of it on aerial photos. I'd just AfD it, ping me when you do as I'd !vote delete. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is meant by RS? Anyway, I did the nomination, to the best of my ability. But as this was a first for me, I would be glad for someone to review it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Only two comments thus far, or rather one comment and one vote. Please visit and comment and/or vote. Articles for deletion/Moneygall Aerodrome Thanks in advance! Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RS - Reliable Source. Two votes in two days isn't bad at all for AfD. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A few more votes came in, meanwhile, and all point in the same direction. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And just when I was wondering what step I needed to take next, the matter was concluded without any further action at all from my side. Thanks to all. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ref columns
What is the decision with these are we using them or not? some pages have them and others don't. Personally, I disagree with them as they lead to less route specific references being used which means the tables become less reliable and more generalised which doesn't help as the tables and meant to be referenced better. It also goes against MOS:PUNCTREF where the references should follow the text, in this case the destination. Aviation999 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen the official website of the airline being use to reference a whole list of destinations specific to that airline. This usually just links to a search engine and doesn't differentiate between direct and non-direct flights. These kind of sources are unsuitable. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * References need to be kept close to the fact that they support. The wasteland of a reference (3rd) column does not encourage this in anyway.  General references can and should be included in column one if they are considered necessary.  The concept of implied timetable references for these tables as described by WP:AIRPORTS is a sound concept as mostly there is very little benefit in detailing broad general references - particularly if only going to a timetable homepage.  And the general references hinder the application of sensible secondary references which Wikipedia policies require.


 * Personally I would delete all reference columns on Airport destination tables. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind the reference column but I also don't have strong opinions about it either way. Per consensus active destinations don't need specific references as long as one reference covers all of them. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using a "ref column", if these General and often implied references are required, they should be beside the airline name, not in their own column. My reasoning can be found at the previous discussion here Garretka (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Matsieng Air Strip
I regret I must ask for some support again, in this case regarding the Matsieng Air Strip article. I added a recent (and somewhat bizarre) accident, and while I was at it I removed the details of the navaids, as dicussed before. My modification was bluntly reverted without any explanation. Kindly take a look and consider appropriate action. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What drives me up the wall is this user hasn't made any effort to discuss their additions. See the previous discussion here. Consensus seemed to be if the navaid is on the field, it's noteworthy to mention, but the technical details about said navaid are going too far. Garretka (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After you guys have gained a little experience flying airplanes, you'll appreciate the value of navaids in places that don't have traffic controllers telling you what to do. That's the case in most of the world. And Jan, go to Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance>"Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" and you won't have disambiguation links. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I do have quite a bit more than "a little" experience flying. Just because it's "useful" to you doesn't make it encyclopedic. I know for a fact when I fly I'm not checking Wikipedia for navigational aid. Garretka (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As Garretka has said this has already been discussed and consensus is that they should not be mentioned in the subject article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Future destinations again
We're having another edit war on Sofia Airport over properly referenced future destinations. Considering these destinations co-exist peacefully on pretty much every other airport article, and this has been ongoing for a long time, I thought I'd post here to see to confirm the consensus that future routes are okay before trying dispute resolution. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is sourced, and the source provided has an exact date of commencement (without having to trawl through a search engine), then I don't have an issue. Ajf773 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, sorry I didn't mention this in the original post - that's exactly what's being reverted. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to support what Ajf773 has said is the current practice of the project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with AJF's statement. I've said this many times before: adding ref columns encourages this kind of WP:OR, an explicit source is required. Garretka (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have just seen this in the Village Pump setup by Sportingflyer: Village pump (policy). Ajf773 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted that awhile back now. I probably erred by not posting a link here, but I also expected at least one response. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List of airports in West Virginia
In List of airports in West Virginia, the same airport, North Central West Virginia Airport (CKB), is listed twice in the "Commercial service" section, with two different cities served, two different roles (P-N vs. P-S), and two different numbers of enplanements. I don't know which is the correct information so I can't correct it myself. Can someone fix this? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

IPs changing destination to Beijing-Daxing on numerous Chinese airport articles
A couple of IPs started to jump the gun and went ahead and changed Beijing-Capital/Beijing-Nanyuan on China Southern, China Eastern, and China United Airlines to Beijing-Daxing' on the destinations table. One, it made it look like that those airline currently serve Daxing Airport. I had to revert a couple of those because the airport does not officially begin operations until 30 September 2019 but there are a few airports that still had the change made. Can someone have a look at it please? Thanks. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Airports for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Airports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Airports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Destinations: United Express or United and similar
In the majority of airport articles, there is a destination table sorted by airline. In most of them, regional partners of major airlines are listed separately but in a few cases, this convention is not followed. In most airport articles, United Express or Delta Connection or Air Lingus Regional flights will be separated from United, Delta, or Aer Lingus respectively.

Airlines seem to stress that regional partner name when there's a crash. "No, not Continental but Colgan, they say".

Looking back in history, in early 2018, there was either one editor or a few editors who began to change many articles to eliminate regional partners of major airlines. This created a discussion and it was changed back. There was at least one editor who said "sorry" for making sudden changes to so many articles and agreed to let it go back to the way it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

Question for discussion: 1) Should it be standard practice to continue separate the regional partners of major airlines as is currently the case? Or is it ok to do it any sort of way, sometimes one way, sometimes another way within the same article/destination table? Aerostar3 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A RFC is being started by me. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Charter/nonstop flights
I am going to make two suggestions for the airline and destination tables.

1. We need to remove all charter flights from the airline and destination tables, including ones operated by major airlines. Often times, these cannot be properly sourced and such, are useless.

2. We should change the policy to only allow nonstop flights to be listed on airline and destination tables (flights that have at least have one leg that is nonstop) going forward to avoid confusion about "direct" flights. I am noticing far too often destinations are being listed on tables that contain a stop in a hub, such as secondary airports in India and China being listed on major US airport tables despite containing a stop in Delhi, Beijing, etc.

Just my two cents for today. Arnoboro (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree on both -- Whats new?(talk) 09:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * agreeAerostar3 (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on first point, but raising the point at WT:AIRPORT will have an effect on airports only. As to the second point, direct flights are perfectly valid to be included, airports do not operate direct flights only. Finally, we do not establish policies but guidelines.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree on the first point. Disagree on the second point. Direct flights can have one or more stops. As long as passengers do not have to disembark and board another aircraft for the remaining sectors, it is perfectly valid to include direct flights with one or more stops. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 03:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree on first point. Also agree on the second point to an extent. If a direct (not non-stop) flight can be reliably referenced (not using flight trackers or booking engines but a WP:RS), I see no reason not to include. Garretka (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Garretka: Agree that a RS is required for second point. But as always, there are exceptions. In the case of AI 127 (Hyderabad–Delhi–Chicago), Chicago was always listed as destination in the Hyderabad Airport article and Hyderabad in the Chicago airport article because the flight was listed being operated on a 777 on both sectors in the airline website. It was the flight tracking website which showed different 777s being operated on each sector. When an airline itself designates all sectors as direct flight in such a case, what I know is that we reply on the aircraft type operated on each sector to determine if they are merely through hub flights or actually direct. What do we do in situations like AI127? Tricky. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 18:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 0: we should relegate ALL such info to specialised services such as wikitravel, wikivoyage, ... and get rid of this eternal source of discontent for once and for all. (since @garretka declined to throw the hot grenade, here's me instead :) ) Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support migrating these tables to wikivoyage, and I would leave an external link on the Wikipedia pages as to where the tables can be found. All that should be left is a historical summary and a list of airlines, ideally. Garretka (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Garretka: I'd be glad to support this change and also two more: correct page names for airport articles (perhaps an RfC is required, esp given that this discussion died down) and how to designate an airport as international or customs in their respective articles. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 18:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what the correct answer would be, there are quite a few scenarios that you have described that do exist. I know Southwest operates the same flight numbers that make 3, 4 or even 5 stops which would qualify as a "direct" flight, but only the first stop gets listed in the table.
 * As far as airport naming goes, I will admit I'm not familiar with Indian airports, I see the common name and whatever reliable sources say is what we should be following. Garretka (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Garretka: Agree. That is yet another example of why "direct" flights shouldn't be listed, it is simply too confusing for the average reader. I support the removal of the tables from here as well. While I admit I like the tables, they are difficult to keep up with and practically impossible to reference. Arnoboro (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should include charter services, because at least for smaller airports, they are noteworthy. The airport might have a few scheduled destinations of around an hour flight length, and some far away tourist charter services a number of flight hours. But they should have a proper reference, otherwise they could be removed.BIL (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The Luton Airport page claims that seasonal charter flights go to Chambery and Salzburg operated by TUI but the TUI website says that these flights don't exist, the page also claims that Freebird Airlines will start seasonal charter flights to Antalya in May but I can't find a reliable source for this (although the TUI website claims that they operate a flight there). Should these claims be removed? Thameslinkrail (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC) I agree we need to be getting rid of all charter flights, they are not regularly scheduled and so why are they listed? Why is it enforced on some pages and not others? Blissfield101 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Get rid of all charter flights on airport destinations lists. These services are sporadic and not even worth the effort, we are not a directory. Most of them have references are to holiday booking sites and just another way to promote spam. Ajf773 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Broken link in US-airport-ga template
Apologies if this is not the right spot to post this. The FAA airport information link is broken in the US-airport-ga template. This issue was identified and a solution was provided back in November 2017 on the template's talk page, but the change has not been made. When I went to make the change I noticed the warning that said: "Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed.". So I am looking for some other editors to review and discuss to see if there is consensus to make the indicated change. &mdash; Archer1234 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is time to nominate it and related templates for deletion again. The template adds external links to articles about airports in the United States. The links do not add any value to the articles but provide indiscrimate information which is not encyclopedic including, current weather, live flight tracker, current airport delay information. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or flight planning resource. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MilborneOne on this. Ajf773 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Airline destinations maps
IP address user 173.68.125.114 is adding dozens of destination maps to airport articles (particularly in the US) separating into domestic and international destinations. Another user has reverted some of them, and I have followed the lead in doing the same on a few, however before I commit to a mass undo, can anyone point to a particular guideline in this WikiProject that deals with destination maps on articles? Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The last discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17 and before that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_14 with links to more, though a consensus has not clearly been reached. Honestly I kind of like them, though for bigger airports the code to make the map would be too unwieldy, and the red and green markers are not accessible. I don't think it violates nottravel to visualize the information in the table but these aren't necessarily needed since they lack airlines and are another thing to update. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're terrible, and I don't think they violate WP:NOTTRAVEL either. They're a good way to visualise the information, but can easily fall out of date. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikidata could have been used to help maintain these maps up to date (plus the fact Wikidata is multilingual). Bouzinac (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/50.100.243.102 is currently performing a mass removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that particular user has reused an edit summary of mine. Ajf773 (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Parallel discussion about user conduct had been started at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The idea is to show the range of scope of flights from an airport and a map can do that, the problem is you either have a map or a destination table and I understand the current guideline encourages the use of the table not a map. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually find the map less not travelly than the tables, since airlines aren't listed. But the introduces another problem in that you can't judge an airlines presence and thus "global influence", if you will. I personally don't see this as a one over the other; both can co-exist. My preference would be a map, with a table showing airline daily departures and do away with the A&D table. Garretka (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable idea - have you any thoughts what the table would look like. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't much, no. I vaguely remember some airport articles as having a "weekly departures" table but after a brief search I cannot recall which articles had (or have?) them.
 * It need not be overly complicated, just a simple table with a heading of "Airline weekly departures" with the airline listed and the number of weekly departures. I'm sure this information is readily available to be sourced. Garretka (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed a few of the maps from US airport articles recently after one popped up on my watchlist. A map was added to an article about an airport that has service by just one airline to just one city. I prefer the table format, as one can at least get a sense about the importance of a route by the number of airlines operating to that destination. Having a bunch of dots on a map doesn't really convey any useful information in my opinion, whereas a table does. YSSYguy (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I'm new to this WikiProject and before coming across this discussion, I wrote a python script that automatically generates a destination map from A&D tables. I really like these maps and wanted to make more of them (I had no idea that this topic was so controversial.) If the consensus of this project ends up being in favor of the maps, I'd be happy to share this tool for creating/managing them. Rfts (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the maps could be at least semi-automatically generated, that eases at least my concerns with maintenance and referencing, as we're generating the maps off of (hopefully referenced) Wikipedia content. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

BTS passenger section dispute
Hello all, currently I'm in an argument with Peter1170 about the listing of certain seasonal destinations served from Bratislava Airport. This is what the destination template looks like now, the version supported by Peter1170:

The problem is the destinations served by Air Cairo, Corendon Europe, and Cyprus Airways. Peter1170 claims that the sources state that the destinations will end operating after the respective dates and, since there's no source claiming that they're going to be served the next year as well, they need to be marked as to end until the new source claims that they'll be operated the next year too. In my opinion, this is not the correct way of listing destinations, because for now, there are no timetables of scheduled services published for the next seasons, not even for WS 19/20, so following this logic, we'd have to mark ALL destinations as to end, including the destinations served by Ryanair, Wizz Air, flydubai, Pobeda etc. In my opinion, until there's a source confirming that these routes will not be operated in the future (Peter's sources say nothing about the future seasons, they only talk about the 2019 summer season - and to conclude from this information that the destinations are going to be terminated is quite a stretch in my opinion), we must keep status quo - and current status quo is that the destinations are served seasonally, with no proof of their upcoming termination. Another problem is Heraklion served by Corendon - based on his source, Peter concludes that it's a scheduled destination (not a chartered service), the problem is, that Corendon doesn't offer the tickets for this route on their webpage, nor is the route listed in the summer 2019 schedule published by BTS ( - the only Heraklion route listed is served by Smartwings), therefore I dare to say the service operated by Corendon is chartered only and should be marked so. The next issue doesn't have to do anything with Peter this time. I Initially listed London-Luton as a separate destination served by Wizz Air UK, not by Wizz Air, since all the flights are operated with Wizz Air UK IATA code (W9), not Wizz Air IATA code (W6). Even at Bratislava Airports, flights to London-Luton are always announced as "operated by Wizz Air UK", not "operated by Wizz Air". Anonymous user 88.217.117.57 keeps reversing this edit. I personally don't understand what's wrong with my way, especially when you look as articles about airports served by easyJet (Geneva, Basel etc.), the destinations served by easyJet Switzerland are always separated from the destinations served by easyJet, in an article about Alicante, there's even a separate line for destinations served by easyJet Europe. Though all these routes are operated with easyJet IATA code (U2), not easyJet Switzerland IATA code (DS), or easyJet Europe code (EC). They're nonetheless listed as destinations served by various separate airlines. Meanwhile flights connecting Bratislava Airport and London-Luton are clearly operated as "W9" flights, Flightradar could be a good source. So I don't see why it shouldn't be listed separately, as the destination served by Wizz Air UK, not Wizz Air. The last issue I want to discuss is usage of a destination map. Back in December I added three destination maps, for European destinations, Asian destinations, and African destinations. Later it would be removed as violation of wiki rules. Though you can easily find articles actually using destination maps, such as Providence or Guangzhou. So now I'm confused and don't know whether the maps are allowed or these articles also violate the rules. Despite what my user page suggests, I'm not entirely new user, I've been familiar with Wikipedia and wiki culture for years (but I'm not really among the most experienced users either), and also I don't really intend to wage any edit wars, but Peter and I aren't really able to settle this dispute down, and also I'm confused by the latter examples I included. I don't know where else to go, hopefully I'm not asking on the wrong place, if so, please correct me and navigate me where to go, if this is the right place to ask, someone please give the final judgment so this dispute could end. Thank You all in advance, Ondrusj (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Start and end dates all need clear referencing with a source that provides a firm date that the service is starting or ending. A press release from a reliable source (including the airport or airline) is usually acceptable. Links to timetables don't give a firm date. For that reason we avoid adding dates in. We are under no obligation to provide destination lists for airports at all, given that Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, it's an encyclopedia, and the best course of action when dealing with disputes is to withhold content until it can be clearly verified. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also we dont normally do "destination maps" if we have a table then the maps are just not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did this ever get resolved? The Corendon source supports seasonality, the Cyprus source supports seasonality, and Air Cairo doesn't appear to be a valid source at all. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC Destinations: United Express and United, like it currently is, or no standard way is ok
While all or almost all airport articles have a destination table that lists destinations the airline and destination city, making a distinction of the major airline's name, such as United Airlines, Delta Airlines, or Aer Lingus, as well as the affiliated regional airline's name, such as United Express, Delta Connection, or Aer Lingus Regional, is it unacceptable to treat airlines differently within the same article, for example, listing the United Express and United Airlines destinations under United Airlines but listing Delta Connection destinations separately from Delta Airlines within the same airport article.Aerostar3 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion in early 2018 about not lumping the affiliated regional airline with the main airline. This is a little different from this RFC, which asks about uniformity within an article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

This is an example of a destination table Aerostar3 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It boils down to who is operating the flight, if Foo Regional are operating a service for Big Foo Airlines using Big Foos flight number it will be listed under Big Foo. If they are operating as Foo Regional with a Foo Regional callsign then they will be listed as Foo Regional. You have to remember wikipedia is not a travel guide, most of this is really not relevant as the purpose of the destination list is to provide a measure of the scope and number of destinations from the airport. We could simply say "four airlines operate services between this airport and another far away" would be enough for an encyclopedia we dont actually need to name them but the consensus is to list them, we dont need to go into the fine details of interline arrangements and such like in an airport article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia may not be a travel guide but Foo Regional is usually a different product than Big Foos. They tend to be cancelled more. They tend to take your cabin luggage more often. They are staffed with cheaper labor. They almost always fly smaller planes, sometimes propeller planes. The public does want to know. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally would prefer to always err on the side of merging such cases, I believe this better represents how those reading the article perceive airlines. It may surprise some of us here to know that most people do not make, do not need to know, and quite simply do not care about such distinctions and even if they did a table is the worst way of presenting this information understandably. As said above by MilborneOne such fine detail is not really encyclopaedic. There is a line where it is or isn’t appropriate to make these distinctions, my line is somewhere around would the normal traveller notice and understand the difference, branding and to some degree ownership would be considerations. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Splitting the mainline and regional carriers feels like an overly complex solution with very little benefit to the casual readers of Wikipedia that we are writing for. Take the above example, service to Minneapolis/St. Paul on Delta Connection is listed as ending June 8, 2019. That, to a casual reader feels like a loss of service, when in fact, those flights will continue to be offered by Delta. Also, looking at this chart, you get the impression that a lot of services are operating, when in fact, the service between the parent and the regional carriers is largely redundant. It boils down to sometimes the airline offers service on a big jet and sometimes they offer service on a small jet. Either way, you book the ticket with the same airline. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This RFC is the result of an ongoing content dispute at Paine Field, regarding the use of Alaska Airlines flights that are operated by their in-house regional subsidiary brand (Horizon); Alaska is unique in that it has phased out Horizon branding. It may be helpful for users to look through part of that discussion.  Sounder Bruce  20:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It is not about a content dispute because nobody is debating to include or exclude the airline chart. The purpose of the RFC is to clarify and get uniformity. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of the RfC was to label the brand. Alaska was the extraordinary circumstance where flights operated by Skywest and Horizon are branded as Alaska Airlines, not a regional affiliate. As a result, Alaska Airlines and the latter two were merged on all tables, as a result of the consensus in this discussion. Hopefully this clears up what's going on at Paine Field's article. Garretka (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. As I read it, I do not see a consensus to treat Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air differently. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then unfortunately I can't help you, because that's what the consensus currently is, as you've been told several times. As for merging of regionals and mainlines, I have no preference. Garretka (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I favor uniformity above most anything. If we treat United Express separately from United Airlines, then all regional airlines, like Delta Connection, should be treated separately from the main brand, Delta Airlines. End of discussion. No favoritism to American by hiding American Eagle flights and combining them with American Airlines. The next decision is whether to lump or split. I favor split because of the differences in the smaller brand. For example, Air Canada Rouge is very different from Air Canada. So is AlaskaHorizon different from Alaska. With AlaskaHorizon, you may be on a propeller plane with lots of vibration. Aerostar3 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment We probably should just go ahead and remove separate mainline and regional carriers (i.e, Delta Air Lines and Delta Connection, United Airlines and United Express, etc) and mark it all as one carrier (i.e, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, etc). Mainline and regional is extremely fickle and it constantly shifts back and forth, as such, a lot of the information on these articles is probably inaccurate. I also agree the general public isn't really going to care or notice, they know that even if it's on a regional jet, it still carries the main brand. Merge all mainline and regional. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Lump em. The rationale for splitting doesn't fly (pardon the pun) for an encyclopedia that is distinctively not a travel guide. If somoeone wants to know if a given flight is being operated by a contracted regional operator, there are other far more appropriate places to find that information, as it's impossible for us to always keep up with the shifts of routes between mainline and partner airlines, and that some routes are served by both depending on the specific flight number. That level of detail, and that motivation for knowing it, it purely travel guide material, and doesn't belong here. oknazevad (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we please start merging the sections? I am finding an increasing amount of inaccurate information in the mainline and regional sections. It is impossible to keep up. Blissfield101 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The regionals and mainlines should be merged. There are many routes where it is next to impossible to keep up with their shifts back and forth from regional to mainline service. Above all, I think it is very difficult to find reliable, up to date sources to support classifying a route as regional and not mainline. Most airports do not note whether a route is mainline or regional on their website's destination map. Editor10293813 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aerostar3's point of view. I vote we split regionals and mainline as the experiences, expectations, and levels of service are different from their mainline counterparts. I also suggest that we don't go ahead and combine mainline/regionals together until we can receive more input. Rafale9312 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

While the shifts from regional to mainline and back maybe much, but surely there's a better solution than just combining everything and call it a day. Maybe only routes that switch back and forth between mainline and regional should just be listed under mainline, then destinations that are definitely 100% regional service only should be noted as such. Rafale9312 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It may matter to the folks on airliners.net, but to the average person, it's all Delta, American, United, etc. It is booked via their website, you check in at their counters at the airport and they carry the same brand. Often they'll even name their hard products the same as the "mainline" planes. We already lump other airlines regional/mainline together, such as European airlines, why should North American airlines be different? As said, it is impossible to source mainline/regional, and because it fluctuates way too often, the tables become an unorganized mess. I have found a lot of inaccurate information regarding mainline/regional as of late, and I'm tired of trying to keep up with it. Your idea about keeping routes that switch back and forth won't work because those are too numerous to keep up with. Merge them. Blissfield101 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have a problem with combining regional/mainline flights but I think there should be some kind of footnote on the table to make it clear that some flights are operated by regional carriers. Otherwise, to the average Joe it appears all flights are mainline. If at least part of the point of the information contained in the destinations table is to indicate the level of service at each airport, the difference between a 757 and an E175 is material to painting a picture of those levels of service and it's misleading to lump it all together without clarification. --Resplendent (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment But why? This isn't a travel guide, and already as it is the tables are very close to WP:OR. A lot of the European carriers have service on regional jets (like KLM Cityhopper for example), but it is not listed separately there. People only need to know what airline flies to a particular destination, they don't need to know whether or not it was on a regular or express carrier. Often times, the airport itself doesn't even make a distinguishment when listing the destinations. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw edits on a few airport articles I'm watching showing that Blissfield101 is merging regional destinations with mainline (Example). I was curious about what prompted this across so many airport articles so after some looking around I found this discussion. I'm bringing this up here not because I'm opposed to this action (in fact, the lists should be merged in my opinion), but rather to keep everyone at this discussion informed. Titan  Andromeda  19:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going ahead and merging them because the majority here are in favor and it just makes sense on multiple levels. However, no one was starting the process and since it takes a while, I'd figure I'd start. Blissfield101 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Just popping in again to point out that some of Blissfield101's consolidations are being reverted (example at JFK). While Blissfield is at no fault in my opinion for being bold, I think there needs to be some conclusion here on what the consensus is regarding merging mainline and regional destinations. That will avoid edit warring and give justification for maintaining a standard across all airport articles. My personal opinion is that they should be merged in destination tables and most commenters here seem to agree, but it's not necessarily for me to decide whether we have consensus. Titan  Andromeda  02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Please don't go around changing stuff without consensus. It comes across as sneaky and dishonest, even that is not the intent. Someone else tried this last year and it was reverted because they went out ahead without consensus and it bothered a lot of folks. In this case, there are literally different brands and companies behind regional flights compared to mainline ones. Look at Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge, different products, operating certificates, employee groups, etc. Same for Westjet and Swoop, Delta Connection and Delta Air Lines. Build consensus first, then make changes User:Zackrules90 12:15, 29 May 2019 (EST)
 * How is it dishonest? The majority here are in favor of merging. Just because the airliners.net folks think they should be separate doesn't mean they should. Again, it is getting to be IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with the changes between mainline and regional. To the end user, it is all Delta, American, United, Air Canada, etc, so for purposes here, it is much simpler to keep it all in the same. And by the way, most of the products on regionals are branded the same. You need to stop reverting. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From an encyclopedic standpoint, there's no difference between regionals and mainlines; to the community of Airliner.net maybe, but the average reader no. The fact there are "substantial differences in the quality of the product" means these tables are being used as a guide. Leisure carriers such as Swoop, Rouge etc. may be a different story, however. Garretka (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of Rogue, it is still Air Canada. Swoop might be a different story. Nevertheless, people need to stop reverting these changes. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Separate I noticed that Blissfield101, boldly, has started making these revisions (like to BWI), though consensus doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly in favor of doing so. In my opinion, from a factual standpoint, regional airlines are separate companies, licensed/contracted to operate for the main brand, but under a distinguishing name (American Eagle, Delta Connection, etc). When you book these flights, it's made clear to you that it's a regional airline. Different company, planes, pilots, and experiences. Booking from the mainline shouldn't matter. Whether the customer cares about the difference or not is irrelevant, and we can only make assumptions on that anyways. I don't see it any differently than National Rail and Train operating companies being separate, though you can book directly from the National Rail website. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but when the routes change, I would assume that the split is also clear there as well. Yes, this is not a travel guide, but I would still expect the information shown to not be misleading. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, regional airlines are separate companies, but it still has the Delta, American, United, etc brand on it and carries their code. Again, the average person isn't going to care about the whole mainline/regional. We don't do this for European airlines (like HOP! for Air France or KLM Cityhopper for KLM), so why are North American airlines exempt? And like I have said ad nauseam, it is getting impossible to keep up with the changes. I can't tell you how much inaccurate information I found when merging the airline sections, from destinations that were on there that weren't served at all, to destinations that were listed as being served on mainline but were only on regional in reality (and vice-versa), etc. Consolidating them reduces the chances for inaccurate information and it is much easier to keep up with so one does not have to keep track of all the mainline/regional changes. As far as consensus goes, not a whole lot of people chime in on these things typically, and since most were saying merge, I went ahead and did so, and I'm glad I did. Already as it is, the A&D tables border on being a travel guide and this change makes it slightly less so. I don't understand why some people are all up in arms over this, it's not a big deal. The information is still listed, just in a different form. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that there is no consensus or any decision made? Until then, please stop making unconstructive changes. It is a big deal and the regional/mainline schedules do not change as often as claimed. Sorry, the likes of Lynchburg or Peoria will probably never see mainline service. Many people are still confused over the difference between regional service and mainline service so it is useful to provide that information, if not here, then where? unsigned comment added by Zackrules90 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, but its useful isn't a valid "keep" reason. This information is readily available directly from the horses mouth, the airline websites themselves. Please remember this is not a vote. Arguments like these only make me lean further towards merging. Garretka (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much what their argument boils down to, "it's useful information and we've always had it like it". There is no logical reason from a purely encyclopedic standpoint to keep them separate, and most reasonable minded people will see so. The issue is, we have airline enthusiasts, some of whom have ties to airliners.net, coming on here and objecting for the reason listed above. They can't argue reasonably and so they are throwing a tantrum and resorting to tactics like accusing me of sockpuppetry (like User:Chidino did). We do it for European airlines, we do it for Alaska Airlines and countless other airlines, why are American, Delta, United, Air Canada, etc, different? Furthermore, this user User:Vmzp85, who has a history of being disruptive, continues to be disruptive and revert the edits. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Separate Stop making revisions without a clear consensus.190.128.219.22 (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An observation... User:Blissfield101 seems to have subtlety cast his "merge" vote twice in this RfC 12. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 03:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The second comment was simply a reply to the above statement and does not count as a vote. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)over
 * COMMENT I have reverted sevearal major edits made by Blissfield101, as that user has gone ahead and revisions to over 20 Canadian airport articles while ignoring the discussion happening here and ignoring that there has not been a clear consensus reached. Blissfield101 is now continuing to make the same changes to the same articles. This needs to stop. There has been no consensus reached here so please stop plowing through with edits until one is reached. What are the next steps to take here other than opening a dispute resolution? 190.128.219.22 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
The discussion up to this point has been somewhat disorganized and not conducive to determining whether there is consensus on a way forward here. This section is my attempt to formalize our discussion so that we can see where the community stands on this issue.

Proposal: Airport articles on Wikipedia will not differentiate between mainline and regional destinations of airlines in their destination tables.
 * Support for many of the reasons listed above, primarily that separating out regionals causes clutter and gives no encyclopedic information. Titan  Andromeda  17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read some of the "Oppose" points made below, and finding them to be compelling points, I am withdrawing my support and am now Neutral on the issue. Titan  Andromeda  20:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for my reasons stated above. Too much fluctuation and redundancy between regional and mainline destinations to keep up with. We have merged the sections for airlines in other parts of the world, we have merged the sections for airlines such as Alaska Airlines, why is Delta, American, United, Air Canada, Aeromexico so special where it needs to list the regional brand separate? Those who oppose this are mostly airline enthusiasts who do not understand the nature of an encyclopedia and use tired arguments like "it's useful" and "we have always done it this way." Already as it is, the tables border on being a travel guide, so simplifying them would make them a bit less so. Merge em and move on. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we went through the same path a year ago. There is nothing wrong with status quo (mainline separate from regional). The blanket change was actually a violation to Verifiability policy. Take Toronto Pearson International Airport as example. Air Canada Rouge's destinations are merged into Air Canada even though media release clearly distinguish flights between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge flights. So merging the destinations together is actually a deliberate attempt to introduce errors into articles. Other editors in that poll I linked have raised very good points about the difference in service quality, aircraft and operator license are vastly different between regional and mainline. And Wikipedia has no deadline. We know that we can never correct all errors in every article. But that doesn't give a carte blanche to actually add wrong info just because consensus (if any) seemed to sway that way. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 03:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read the statements above. At the end of the day, it carries the Air Canada logo. It does NOT matter whether it is Express, Rouge, etc, for purposes here, all that matters is Air Canada flies to so and so airport, they all carry the same flight code. To say that merging the destinations together is actually a deliberate attempt to introduce errors into articles is a baseless statement. On the contrary, the opposite is true; I found a ton of errors in destinations that were listed as mainline and/or regional that should not have been. Also, there are policies such as WP:NOTEVERYTHING that state not all exhaustive details need to be listed in an article. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive travel guide, the tables already border on WP:OR, they need to be simplified. We already do this with carriers around the world, it's time to do the same with North American airlines. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because wikipedia is not a travel guide; this means that the airline information stated should be as accurate as possible, not needlessly lumped together for asthetics. It is completely false to claim that sections for mainline and regional airlines in parts of the world outside of North America have already been merged, and I point to Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport, O.R. Tambo International Airport, Frankfurt Airport, and Delhi Airport as just a few examples. In addition, airlines with regional operational distinction such as LATAM, Avianca and Copa Airlines have not been merged under a single umbrella section but instead are universally listed separately, as can been seen at John F. Kennedy International Airport, São Paulo–Guarulhos International Airport, El Dorado International Airport, Jorge Chávez International Airport, and Miami International Airport. The status quo is factually accurate, and the proposed changes would accomplish nothing but the unnecessary removal of relevant and fact-based information. CdnFlyer (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's nothing wrong with the way this currently works and as someone who uses this information in a non-travel-centric way, we would stand to lose a lot of information. Furthermore, the initial re-proposer of this has long since been banned as a sock. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no reason not to present the information in the most accurate way possible, as the line that determines when a page becomes a travel guide is imaginary anyway. This is identical to the endless debate we had a year ago. -- Acefitt 20:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Airport articles are not travel guides. This discussion is far from reaching a consensus. I second Sporting Flyer's comment that we are losing vital information by lumping in separate companies together. Standby, non-revenue passengers of mainline carriers (such as crew and their families) maintain lesser priority to those who are affiliated with the regional carrier or mainline carrier. This is because the relationships are contracted and only contracted. The airlines themselves always list these flights on their media according to their appropriate regional carrier. Pilots and crew on regional carriers are subject to separate company policies because they are separate companies. We should not be in the business of consolidating these flights because we are assuming passengers do not differentiate between them. They do. (E.g., A local Fox news station is not Fox News, even though they use their branding and air their shows.) This information is relevant and should undoubtedly be included in these templates. G EORGIAN  Go Dawgs  21:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: I would like to add that it is not difficult to keep track of these changes. From what I have seen on airport pages, service changes are quickly reflected in the articles. It's the responsibility of editors to make these changes. We do it on city articles when population information changes, on sports articles regularly as the season progresses, etc. We are wholly able to keep these tables current as we do for information on other articles. G EORGIAN  Go Dawgs  21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is a learning resource. By combining regional and mainline routings, we defeat this purpose. The general population will not be confused, as, for one example, the “Delta” name is in both titles “Delta Air Lines” and “Delta Connection.” Either way, people see that the route is operated by Delta. The distinction between the two only adds to further increase intellectual clarity and learning. Aboard commercial aircraft, this difference is distinguished by cabin crew through their announcements. When new routes are announced by airlines and other media sources, they are often differentiated as mainline or regional in the publication(s). Even when you book a flight, the airlines themselves make it very clear during the booking process as to whether you are flying with the airline itself or a regional affiliate. Keeping the separate sections updated and accurate is also quite simple, as the information is easily and readily available through timetables and other various resources. Combining these routes adds no value, but instead reduces perspicuity, leaving room for confusion. Rrw536 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons listed by fellow users above. I also believe there have been no problems for editors determining whether a route is operated by regional and/or mainline. Basically every single source whether it be in the media or a release from the airline clearly states if a flight will be mainline or regional. -- KDTW Flyer  ( talk ) 02:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Alright, I give up. Even though nobody has given an actual compelling reason supported by Wikipedia policy to separate, I'm tired of fighting a losing battle. I'm done, I will begin reverting back to the old method. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per many of the users as stated above and because it seems to be starting to snow. – Nurmsook!  <i style="color: darkblue;">talk...</i> 16:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Was a power-trip of an idea to even start with. And when applied to very regional airports across the world, it made it look even worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.164.21 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the nearly universal opposition to this proposal and ample time (4 days) to solicit opinions, I am marking this discussion closed as consensus against it has, in my opinion, been clearly established. Titan  Andromeda  03:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
In an attempt to have the policies clearly explained and to find a solution going forward, I have started a dispute resolution. I will suspend all further revisions pending the outcome of this. You can view the dispute resolution report here. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you taking this to dispute resolution when there's an open RfC? SportingFlyer  T · C  22:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the dispute resolution pathway because it's forum shopping. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the people who are opposing this are failing to cite which policies support their arguments, in other words, why regional carriers should be listed separate from a purely encyclopedic standpoint. I am trying to see what the proper way to formant and cite these tables is based on Wikipedia policies so we can put this to bed once and for all. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not the way it works. A RfC has been proposed, and the RfC is currently deciding the nature of the content dispute, though it does not appear the proposal will be adopted. Per the rules of dispute resolution, clearly at the top of the page, disputes cannot be accepted if they are already part of the RfC process. Noting full well you currently are the only user supporting the proposal, dispute resolution is not an "appeals court" for when a RfC isn't breaking your way. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what it was about, it was about clearing up what the policies are and how to format going forward. It was not intended as a binding resolution. In any rate, I have given up this fight and have begun reverting back. Blissfield101 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Delta focus cities
Question.

Should we really be listing Austin, Nashville and San Jose as Delta focus cities? There is only one source stating as such and it is only mentioned in passing. There is nothing from Delta directly stating as such. I also think the way they are using the term "focus city" here does not match the definition of focus city we have on here. Blissfield101 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Request
A request to long-standing editors with experience in this project: I've searched the archives, but not had any success - has there been (I'm guessing there must have been) any discussion on the format of the airlines and destinations tables and why listing by airline, rather than destination, was chosen as the sorting category? Would greatly appreciate an editor pointing me to those discussions, thank you.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also be curious to know if this has been discussed. It seems to me that listing by destination (probably split by domestic and international) would give a better picture of an airport's connectivity. Conceivably, we could even list destinations only and not mention airlines at all in the tables, thereby better respecting WP:NOTTRAVEL. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As you probably saw from the archives, the format of the airlines and destinations table has been debated a lot over the years, from deciding whether to have a uniform table at all, to listing whether to link to destinations, including airline concourse and gate information (believe it or not), etc. I had to dig, but these discussions touch on grouped formatting: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Before the template became uniform, some airports had both an airline-grouped table and destinations, and some had domestic and international route maps. I do know there was some discussion specifically about switching the grouping from airlines to destinations here along with an example table, but it did not gain traction since it would lengthen the tables and make them repetitive. That's also my hesitation: for hub airports, rather than have an airline listed once with destinations that follow, we would have a situation where, in the case of Hartsfield-Jackson airport, "Delta" would be repeated 206 times (that is the number of cities served by that airline alone). Having it grouped by airline saves that redundancy; the information is communicated regardless since the cities listed are alphabetical and IMO fairly easy to locate. G EORGIAN  Go Dawgs  01:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - thank you! I assumed it was a complicated discussion...and not planning on getting involved! :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Louisville Int'l Airport protect edit request
Hello and good day. On January 28, in the facilities section, SDF size was changed from 1,500 acres to 1,200 acres, which is correct through FAA data (Reference#1,form 5010). This figure was reverted to 1,500 on 8 June at 5:12, reverted to 1,200 by me on 13 June at 13:31 then back to 1,500 acres on 14 June at 5:08 (check revision history). These editors are using the airport website as their source and in several cases (i.e. BWI, JFK, BOS to name a few) the websites doesn't match the FAA data, which I believe is 100% accurate. The lead paragraph says 1,200 acres, which was not reverted in either case. I can simply change it again, but will be reverted back. Is there any way the figure in the facilities section (as well as being protected in lead paragraph) be changed to 1,200 acres and be protected? Don't want to get into edit wars here. Thank you all for your help and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:2CD2:1DE5:9108:A6B5 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Statistics on airports pages
Hello, has there been a guideline set for statistics on airports ? I've put a graph on a [|page] and it has been reverted by an IP user "because one shouldn't put too much statistics as per WP:airports". There is however a general bug with the template so I won't insist for Linate. But in the future, I'd like to know whether graphs would be allowed or not. Thx. --Bouzinac (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see either of those two edits, and I don't know why a graph wouldn't be allowed - anyone have any ideas? SportingFlyer  T · C  06:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of content about VOR/DME beacons from airfield articles
Could I request that interested editors comment on the inclusion or deletion of apparently well-cited content about VOR/DME beacons in airfield articles, please?

I have asked an IP editor (User:51.7.34.168) to cease deleting content from numerous airfield stub articles for a while, and to first discuss the matter at one sample article (see discussion at Talk:Rio Turbio Airport). As I know nothing about this topic (having simply arrived via 'Recent Changes'), it would be great to gain a consensus there on whether repeated deletion of this content from numerous articles is OK. Is it "trivial and pointless" as the IP editor suggests, or is it relevant to the articles?

Courtesy ping to who appears to have made many of these additions in the first place. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem including the information as written. It's encyclopaedic and not so specific that it can be used as a guide by pilots. There's a problem with specific VOR/DME/NDB information, for instance adding in the frequency, as that would fail WP:NOT, but simply stating that it exists shouldn't be a problem. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue has been discussed before indeed; check the history of Kasane Airport for one example. There has been discussion here, too, but I cannot find it back in the archive right now. Concensus was that the mere presence of navaids can be mentioned but that the details (code, frequency, location) are not encyclopedic. I have occasionally updated aerodrome articles accordingly, when coming across, but not systematically. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nick Moyes and Sporting Flyer. I don't put in radial or frequency, so someone appropriately has to go to official sources for that info, but knowing the type and distance lets the user judge the navaid's usefulness in finding the airport. A VOR at 60 miles is useful, where an NDB at that distance would be marginal.
 * The main source for our airport lists is info from other airport lists. Three of the main lists are World Aero Data, SkyVector, and Our Airports. All include navaid data on their airport pages. Great Circle Mapper includes it in map form if it's near the airport. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Jan olieslagers's "consensus" on Kasane was three pilots who didn't otherwise appear very interested in the subject. Kasane in fact has a VOR on the field, and is a major navigation point for that region. I let it remain deleted because I had moved on to verifying data on other African airport wiki pages and it wasn't worth the annoyance.


 * The current dustup concerns Special:Contributions/51.7.34.168 who has mass deleted navaid and map info on 200+ of my recently edited pages. In 71 minutes. I suspect this is a reincarnation of User talk:51.7.229.224, often wrong but never in doubt. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "apparently well-cited content" - verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. The set of things that are verifiable is vastly greater than the set of things that are encyclopaedic. So even if a citation to a reliable source were given, it would not mandate inclusion. But, the citations are to ourairports.com, which is a collaboratively created website. Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable.
 * "As I know nothing about this topic" - you don't need to. In fact, this makes you well placed to comment. What exactly did you think when you read about the "VOR-DME" beacons 50 miles away from obscure airfields in Argentina? What about when you read about the number of parking spaces they have, or the surface area of the terminal buildings? Did you think "Gosh, that's interesting and useful"?
 * "knowing the type and distance lets the user judge the navaid's usefulness in finding the airport. A VOR at 60 miles is useful, where an NDB at that distance would be marginal." - what you've said there is meaningless to anybody without specialist aviation knowledge. This encyclopaedia is for general readers, not for anyone with specialist knowledge on a topic. I've just checked the articles on the ten busiest airports in the world; only one of them even mentions navigational aids at all. It does so in an encyclopaedically useful context. That context is totally lacking in every case that I've removed.
 * I also removed links to openstreetmap.com. They are not useful. See Links normally to be avoided:
 * Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
 * The articles all have their geographical coordinates specified, giving a link to numerous curated map sources. The widespread adding of a link to one single map source is simply spamming. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18. 51.7.34.168 (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Several days have passed and no further arguments have emerged. Thus, I think the consensus indicated by this discussion and the two previous ones is that the text about "VOR-DME" beacons and their locations is not encyclopaedic. Also supporting this view is the fact that in the articles about the 20 busiest airports in the world, only one even mentions "VOR". If they are not important in articles about the biggest airports, they certainly aren't important in articles about obscure airfields in Argentina. Therefore, I will continue to remove this trivia where I find it.


 * It seems also necessary to reemphasise some guidelines which the problematic material also violated:
 * MOS:ACRO - acronyms must be defined when used. It is useless to mention "VOR-DME" without doing so.
 * MOS:CONTRACT - don't use contractions. "Ident" is not even really a contraction, it's just an unbelievably lazy failure to write out a whole word.
 * MOS:BOLD - the article title and its synonyms go in bold in the first sentence of the article. No other text does.


 * Separately, I will also remove map sources from external links sections: WP:ELNO states that sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools shouldn't be re-linked. An external link to open street map is redundant.


 * 51.7.229.207 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't think consensus for removal exists - you're the only one here pushing for it. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussions that I linked to, I saw people saying things like "too specialised and non-encyclopedical", "Wikipedia is not a guide for aviators so navigation aids are not really that noteworthy to mention", "Probably not that much help unless you are a pilot (and you would not use wikidata if you were)", "this has already been discussed and consensus is that they should not be mentioned in the subject article". I'm not the only one who has argued to remove this information; on the contrary, I see only one person arguing to retain it, and the person who started this discussion claiming to know nothing and expressing no real view either way. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove beacons - It is hard to imagine that navigation beacons are ever encyclopedic either on or off the airport, they are thousands of them and I cant think of any of note. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The concensus from previous discussion was that the presence of navaids can be mentioned, but that details like frequencies or ID's are too specialised. Removing the mention altogether is taking things a bit too far for me. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your comment surprising because you previously removed such details and complained about the person who keeps adding them . What is the value that you now perceive in mentioning navigational beacons? 51.7.229.207 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. I SAY AGAIN: mentioning the presence of navaids is, as such, acceptable, even if not really relevant. What I do consider unacceptable is to give the full details, such as ID, frequency, distance from the field. My cited edit does precisely that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If you seriously want a consensus on VOR and NDB inclusion, visit Our Airports. It comprises hundreds or thousands of registered accounts of people who know airplanes and airports. It is one of my prime references, and every airport I've visited there has its nearest navaids listed, and with more detail than I have used. The only consensus we generate here is from a handful of editors who've noticed we're having this discussion. The navaid data on these airports is is valid, verified, and pertinent to the airport. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're saying that a consensus to include information here can be inferred from an entirely unrelated website? No, that's not how it works at all. If you seriously believe that, I'm very concerned about your competence to edit Wikipedia at all. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I cannot share your faith in OurAirports navaid information. Contrary to its aerodrome data, the navaid data cannot be edited by the modal user, at least not by me. Some updates have been done after I mailed the site operator personally, but it seems certain to me that the data is never perfectly up to date. Especially in Europe, where NDB's are being decommissioned quite rapidly, and even some VOR's have been; with more to follow, as I understand. Neither can one state "every airport has its navaids listed": OurAirports keeps a separate table of navaids. When consulting an aerodrome there is an option for also consulting "nearest navaids": a perfect setup. It never makes a fixed association between an aerodrome and "its" navaids. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Above all: there is no comparison between a specialised aviators' database like OurAirports and a general purpose encyclopedia like WP. They have different goals and different target audiences. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the beacons that are being added to airport articles are not actually at the airport and in a lot of cases the information overwhelms the article so we may have WP:WEIGHT issues in that a small non-directional beacon on the grass is sometimes given more coverage then other more important features. Interesting that most large airports dont feel the need for this sort of trivia. Also not convinced ourairport is a reliable source, if indeed these things are notable they should be mentioned in more general sources. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
In previous discussions about navigational aids, the consensus was not to include details of them, but User:Cptmrmcmillan just ignored that and put them in anyway. This user has just done exactly the same thing again with about 50 articles that I had edited recently:. They have put back
 * trivia
 * original research
 * undefined acronyms
 * non-English words
 * incorrect bold face
 * guideline-violating external links

In several cases, they have also removed additional text that I had added to the article, such as at where I had added details of a crash previously only hinted at.

I think that their repeated addition of trivia and complete disregard for consensus is highly disruptive. Perhaps someone else might revert their disruptive series of edits. If not, I will do so later today. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The current consensus is that navigation beacons at the airport can be mentioned but not the details such as frequency and such like. Although some of the beacons added by User:Cptmrmcmillan are not actually at the airport just close by. MilborneOne (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is the consensus. You yourself argued against that view. Even if it were, the information would have to formatted properly and written in correct English. But the user has yet again committed all the violations of guidelines and policies that I have described, and removed encyclopaedic material that I added. 51.7.229.207 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I dont agree with it but that was the conclusion of the last discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 18. I still think we give far to much prominance to it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, such was certainly the concensus at the time. Not unexpectedly, it is denied or minimalised by those who don't like it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we find a simple way to add the airports primary navigation aids to the article, perhaps in the infobox ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We could, perhaps; modifying the "Infobox" template could be one way. But I do not consider this a good idea: navaids are basically separate from aerodromes; even if some may have their primary use there. Also, navaids are a very technical matter, relevant only to aviators; I see little use in making them a basic mention. As argued before, they may be casually mentioned, at most. Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as a sock of the community-banned Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That may have been the right thing to do, I'm not sure and it is not for me to judge. Still I think some of her/his actions were correct, for example removing links to openstreetmap when the place's coordinates are already given. Comments/ideas? Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I cant see the point of duplicating wikipedia coordinate linking system which provides all the sources you should need. I may have been better to remove openairport as well as some of the other guff that is added to the external links. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a "reference" to OpenStreetMap has again been added to Kasane Airport - should I revert or report Disruptive Editing? It has been repeatedly explained and agreed that this is inappropriate, the coordinates already pointing to (among others) the same information. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OSM was not added, it was simply restored when I reverted the edit of the WP:NOTHERE ip-hopper. Neither is it a reference. It is an external link, and it goes to a map that I, as editor, judge to best represent the surroundings of the airport. The coords link up at the top goes to around 20 maps/images, some or many of which are not current. Since I check dates and verify other properties, I think directing the user to a correct map is important. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Better leave it to the reader to judge the reliability of maps. Our job is to offer information, and links to the same; not to judge the quality/reliability of sources. OSM does tend to be good, though, indeed! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Need to remove OpenStreetMap as it is clear that there is no reason to add OpenStreetMap as the article already uses co-ordinates, it may be worth adding "display=inline,title" to the cordinates field in the infobox as it repeats the coordinates at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, it was duly applied. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You were all dragged into this discussion by a professional troll, WP:BKFIP, and now we have a consensus of maybe half a dozen editors who wish to set editing policy for 15,000 airport pages. And excuse me for changing the discussion title. Click on the WP link and read all the way to the bottom. Arrrgh. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of your actions/policies had been questioned long before the (now once again blocked) IP-user showed up. You know that well enough. No use to talk of "dragged into this discussion". Your change to the discussion title is quite welcome, it seems to indicate a certain degree of shame on your side, not wanting to be named. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Delta focus cities (Austin, Nashville and San Jose)
I'm going to open this discussion again because it was overlooked last time.

Should we be listing Austin, Nashville and San Jose as Delta focus cities (in the same matter we do for Cincinnati and Raleigh/Durham) even though they have little to no point to point service, or should we wait? They do not currently meet the definition of a focus city as we have traditionally defined it here, but another user and I have been discussing the matter and we'd like some expert advice. I personally think we should hold off listing them until some actual point to point flying materializes, but I would like to hear some longtime contributors opinions on the subject. Blissfield101 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think what is trying to say is ~ can we nail down what wiki considers a focus city ~ thanks you'all ~mitch~ (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This too. Additionally, I'd like to know should we even continue to list focus cities due to the vague definition, or should we just list hubs? Blissfield101 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I lean toward leaving them off, because of the vague definition. That said, discount airlines do not really use hubs, so do we continue to list focus cities for them? oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * here are some prior discussions on the issue ~ all the way back to 2012 2009 ~ from what I read there was no resolve ~ one, two, three, four, five. ~mitch~ (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * nice to meet you ~ a focus city should have nothing to do with a 'hub' ~ a focus city is an airline focusing on a city to enhance their presence ~ they look toward a forward looking statement as if ~ this city can increase our revenue over a period of time ~ it does not matter how many flights ~ or ~ where those flight go but ~ can we be successful in that city ~ take for example the Austin branch ~ Delta is willing to put up some hard cash ~ in providing a first class lounge to attract a customer that is willing to pay more for the 'extras' nice lounge ~ also if an airline calls a destination a 'focus city' that airline named a 'focus city' and thru RS ~ it's notable ~ otherwise we are cutting ourselves out (wiki) of truly being encyclopedic ~mitch~ (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

An airline defining its "Focus Cities" is the last rationale we should be using to add such detail which isn't really encyclopaedic content anyway. What we absolutely need is strong sensible secondary references as per WP:SECONDARY to support each and every detail added to Wikipedia and this includes when adding Focus Cities - what ever they really are!. The biggest weakness in many airport articles is that such references are too difficult or too ephemeral to be really useful or sensibly used. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We have a secondary source https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-what-makes-a-focus-city-for-delta-458775/ about Delta focus cities which mention Austin, Raleigh/Durham and San Jose. I dont see why this cant be mentioned in the airline and airport articles. The article says that Delta sees these as opportunities for growth in what are "larger than average" spokes. A presentation by the airline calls focus cities "Increased prescence in focus cities with healthy economic outlook". MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Expect the problem is, it is not how we have traditionally defined focus cities here. If we use Delta's definition, the list could explode with cities that really shouldn't be on there. Using the traditional definition, do you really think stations such as Austin and San Jose belong on a focus city list right now when they have little to no point to point flying and less than 40 flights a day (and in San Jose's case, no Sky Club)? Delta has used the term loosely in the past as well, even going as far as defining cities such as Orlando, Indianapolis, etc, as focus cities. I simply suggest we hold off until we see just what Delta does at Austin, Nashville and San Jose before listing them as focus cities, but I would be open to just dropping listing focus cities period and just listing hubs/operating bases. Blissfield101 (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should be our job to figure out what the definition of a focus city is. I think either we go with what each airline says their focus cities are, or we don't mention the term at all as you suggested. --Resplendent (talk)
 * I count ten point to point flights for Delta from Austin here, nice to meet you ~ I agree it should not be our job to define a focus city~ if a RS calls a city a 'Focus city' ~ somewhere I read ~ "does not matter if it is true or not just as long as it is properly sourced " ~ Hmm wonder where I got that from ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * this is good reading also ~ https://blueswandaily.com/2018-was-a-banner-year-for-austin-bergstrom-will-delta-now-declare-it-a-focus-city/ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use standard English punctuation and capitalization. It is difficult to read your comments with the unusual formatting. Tildes are not used between sentences. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry ~ punctuation and capitalization is not a strong subject for ~ I grew up in a field type environment ~ in other words, I work in construction ~ and probably wired 40 thousand homes in central texas in the past five years, I only use the tildes, so I can properly express my views on a talk page, I do not use the tildes in articles. there is that better? ~mitch~ (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If it is not our job to define it or it cannot be defined, then it is probably not encyclopedic content. Therefore, we should only go with hubs/operating bases. Blissfield101 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is notable ~ a lot of Wikipedia:Reliable sources write about them ~mitch~ (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Only list hubs and call it a day. --Resplendent (talk)
 * (If you remove)~ still note in the article somewhere w/ a RS that they are a focus city and also w/ a RS list what the airline has done with improvements to the airport, if we are going to remove focus city from the info box and leave just hubs, then at the same time the editor removes it from all the articles where focus cities are listed in the info box, the next edit (or in the same edit) from that same editor needs to update the article. So there is no Just removing the term 'Focus city' and any airlines associated with that "focus city' label to leave it for another editor to finish up the work properly because one editor just wants to remove 'Focus city' from the info box. (personally) I think it is encyclopedic and we should leave it in the info boxes ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also this conversation started here. Just to keep the views of Blissfield included. ~mitch~ (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Deficiencies caused by one seriously misguided user - an opportunity to fix them
A while ago I noticed that one problematic user had made caused serial damage to articles about airports, by not being at all familiar with basic guidelines, and much worse than that, being unable to comprehend the guidelines when they were explained. They ignored consensus established here; indeed they explicitly stated that they thought consensus to change Wikipedia articles could be derived from external websites. The user does not speak English natively nor even competently, and their problematic editing has been commented upon by me and several others. They added the following to hundreds of articles:
 * trivia
 * original research
 * undefined acronyms
 * non-English words
 * incorrect bold face
 * guideline-violating external links

A classic example of their incompetent editing can be found in this edit, which covered all these failings except for adding a guideline-violating external link; they had done that in an earlier edit.

I took the time to fix hundreds of articles in which their shoddy work was present. Those articles were substantially better thanks to my efforts. In a remarkable turn of events, though, an administrator decided to reject all of those improvements in spite of the unambiguous guidelines and policies supporting them, and even went so far as to block me for reinstating them. The incompetent editor and the administrator who inexplicably supported him have caused hundreds of articles to look amateurish at best and simply embarrassing to Wikipedia at worst.

Now, the user whose shoddy work is the issue appears to have left Wikipedia, at least temporarily; their last edit was more than a month ago. So, I would like to encourage any editors who care about article quality to go through the user's contributions and restore the fixes to the above issues. You can see their spree of reverts before they left here:. There are about 170 of them. If three or four users do this, it could be done in perhaps half an hour, and articles which have been embarrassingly bad for months will not stain the reputation of Wikipedia any longer. 51.7.17.134 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This sounds all too much like the settling of a personal dispute or conflict. That is not what Wikipedia was meant for. Whatever may have happened in the past, I for one am not going to systematically revert well-meant efforts, even if they may be considered incorrect at some points. When I happen to come across an opportunity for correction or improvement I will take it, but without considering the author. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree w/ Jan olieslagers ~mitch~ (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no personal dispute or conflict. There are standards that encyclopaedia articles should follow, and I want the articles to follow them. You don't want that, then? You prefer non-English words to be used? You prefer that your articles violate the manual of style? "Well-meant" is not sufficient for any edit to remain in the encyclopaedia. 51.7.17.134 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) infobox cleanup
Hello and good day. In the infobox of DCA there is no runway information (was there previously) along with some punctuation errors at bottom of infobox about the terminal building. Needs to be revamped to previous style and information given. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:7848:A7F5:CA49:C374 (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

ATL Photograph Requests
I am currently working an engineering position at a major US airline. As a result I have up close access to numerous (B777-200, B767-300/400, B757-200/300, B737-700/800, B717, A350-900, A330-200/300/900, A319/20/21, MD88, MD90, A220) aircraft including flight decks, interiors, engines, and flight systems. I also have access to a significant repair facility and behind the scenes access to ATL itself. My question is are there any specific pictures of the above aircraft/aircraft systems or ATL itself that are needed/could enhance articles or could greatly improve on existing article images? I have already uploaded some images myself and continue to take pictures as I see fit, but I want to make sure I don't miss out on anything and use this position to help out with image gathering as much as I can.

I know this isn't Commons, but this has a much greater visibility for input. Feel free to redirect me or repost this somewhere else if you think it would be more beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blervis (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Future destinations
Is there a valid reason why 2 users keep removing future destinations and only do it on certain pages and only delete certain routes? Air7777 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, just personal preference against consensus - this is an ongoing problem, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_18 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_18. Be careful with WP:3RR. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)